Talk:Kiev

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Kiev was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Cities (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Ukraine (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Former countries (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 

This article has comments here.

Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
 
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
This article has an assessment summary page.

New principles for editing this talkpage. All read, please.[edit]

This page has become less than useful for discussing the article itself, as it is flooded with discussion of the name of the article, an issue for which there is no consensus.[2] If you nevertheless feel further arguing for a name change to be useful, please take it to the new subpage Talk:Kiev/naming. It is hoped that this division will be beneficial for the naming discussion, as well as make it easier to deal with other kinds of issues here. Until further notice, I'm afraid any further discussion of naming on this page will be reverted, until the point has sunk in. I'm serious.

Furthermore, there must be no more editing of the functional archive links at the top of this page into non-functional redlinks by changing "Kiev" to "Kyiv" in them. That is plain vandalism and violation of Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and any more of it will lead to blocks. I hope these new principles will improve the useability of this page. Good luck and happy editing. Bishonen | talk 19:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC).

P. S. Please do not archive this post, it needs to stay up. I have moved all sections from "Changes by User:hkdd" and later, which includes the "Requested move" naming poll, to the new page, and archived older sections, from Feb 2006 to June 2007, in the new Archive 7. At least that's what I tried to do... the chronology of this page was frankly a bit of a mess. I left the "Summary of older discussions over names in the articles" near the top of the page. I see people are already using the new Talk:Kiev/naming page, thank you ! Bishonen | talk 20:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC).

As per above, the Kyivization discussion that still was added to this page is moved to Talk:Kiev/naming and responded there. Please use this page to discuss other aspects of the article's content. Any takers to improve the city economy or transportation section? Thanks. --Irpen 02:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
But please note - the inevitable future surveys re proposals to rename the article must be notified here not just conducted on the subpage. Johnbod 02:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Further please note, that due to a change in the procedures at WP:RM any actual move requests need to be on this page, but should be moved to /naming after they have closed (normally in 7 days). 18:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Kıyı?[edit]

This article says: "The name Kiev is said to derive from the name of Kyi, one of four legendary founders of the city." / but in Turkish "kıyı" means: river shore! coincidence? Böri (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes --Divega (talk) 12:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Interesting. Does this 'yes' come from someone with linguistic credentials? --Garik 11 (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Kyi is mentioned as Kuar (in Armenian), Kug (Latin), but not Kiy. So it is coincidence --Divega (talk) 09:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The name Kij is purest Slavic word and means "Scepter" (royal bat). It was a symbol of god Svetovid (=Vedic Shiva). Turkish "river shore" (Kiy) derives from Slavic term Kov or Kop (Kopno). Kopat means "to bath" and to "dig".

File:Kiev city evening.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Kiev city evening.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 12 January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Winter weather[edit]

Just to let everyone know that your friends and family in Kiev are in our thoughts as Eastern Europe goes through what may be its coldest winter ever. Hope all keep warm and safe. PЄTЄRS J V TALK 16:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

rename to Kyiv[edit]

A perennial proposal.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think we need to rename this page from russian name Kiev to ukrainian Kyiv. Russian Name "Kiev" from Soviet Union? where de-facto offisial language was russian and now Ukraine is independent country with official Ukrainian language.--Prokop94 (talk) 09:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

See link on top of page--"If you are here to discuss Kiev vs. Kyiv please click here". Then click there. --Taivo (talk) 10:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It is necessary to finish this discussion due to the new Ukrainian Law about languages in the country:

″According to the article #27 (2nd part) it is necessary to translate Ukrainian place names into other languages ​​using only Ukrainian transcription (the transcription of the state language).″

Be honest and rename it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.210.146.137 (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Please note that this is English Wikipedia and we are not bound by Ukrainian law! -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC).

Add both names as consensus. Kyiv / Kiev in the title for English version. It is unfair and non legit to title it as sole Kiev. Stanislav (talk)

We are bound by common English language usage. This has nothing to do with Russian versus Ukrainian, yet again. 01:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
So why 'Beijing' in the Wikipedia, not 'Peking' common for English few years ago? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanislav87 (talkcontribs) 02:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you - English language sources should not kowtow to communists in the PRC by using "Beijing" for Peking. However, Wikipedia has a policy of following the usage of other sources. Unfortunately news media in English-speaking countries are easily bullied by communist regimes.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Beijing was always the correct name of that city; it was never a case of anyone being bullied by Communists. Peking was a version created by bad postal romanization of Chinese more than 150 years ago. No one who lives there has ever called it anything but Beijing. The case of Kiev/Kyiv is not so clear-cut. More than half of the people who live in that city speak Russian as their first language. That means they call it Kiev. If we call it Kyiv just because Ukraine's government insists we do, then we're kowtowing to them. Jsc1973 (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Most people who speak English say Kiev. Kyiv has never been used in English, while Kiev ist around for a long time. "Kiev" is still the most widely used name for the city. While Peking has fallen out of use. And most people who live in Kiev speak Russian, and not Ukrainian. Period. --Maturion (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Ukraine is independent sovereign country whose official language is Ukrainian (Article 10 of the Constitution of Ukraine). We're not talking at Salt Lake City "Місто солоного озера" (ukrainian). Speak Russian in the capital - is not an indicator 212.2.129.253 (talk) 10:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Kyiv - etimologies found in Djagfar Tarihi[edit]

Djagfar Tarihi Bulgar annales gives two possible solutions to the etimology of the name Kiev. First one is the following: "Here he was hospitably met by the people and with hostility by Chirmysh, the leader of the Bashkorts, who considered the Swan (Türk. Kyi - Translator’s Note) to be his ancestor, and wanted Bashkorts to worship Swan." [1] Djagfar Tarihi says the city was named Kyiv and the fort (citadel) was named Shambat. Djagfar Tarihi says Shambat was Notice that Kyi is 'swan' in turk language. Bashkort and hungarians are closely related. Also notice that according to the legend of Kiev, the three founders (possibliy also hungarian-turkic origin: Keve (or Keow), Csák and Geréb) had a sister: 'Libid', the name (according to wikipedia) also means 'swan'. Too much swans around the name of Kiev to consider this a coincidence.

The second explanation from Djagfar Tarihi:

"Soon, the boundaries of the new state expanded: they embraced the northern Black Sea region with the Middle Dnieper, and North Caucasus, inhabited by Bulgars, Alans, and the Anchians (Ants), the ancestors of the modern Ukrainians. Within Idel remained the Suvar beylik, which included territory of the Itil area, Southern Urals and Western Siberia. Altyn Oba ca 600 AD Great Bulgaria In 558, the Bulgar beylik suffered a disaster. The Bulgars were unable to withstand the onslaught of the nomadic Avars, who were expelled from the Asia by the Turkuts (Ashina Türks). The Avars with Ugrians fought their way across Bulgaria, obliging her to pay tribute and, creating the Avar Kaganate, settled in the Middle Danube (territory of the modern Hungary). The Türkic Kaganate was going through a struggle for power by various factions. The Oguzes seized the power, and a considerable part of the Türkic Kaganate Bulgars, led by a biy (Prince) Askal (Askil) in 563 left from Turkestan to the Great Bulgaria (Bulgar beylik). The prince of the Bulgar beylik Tamya-Tarhan adopted his tribesmen and settled them in the HonBalyn province (area of modern Kyiv), after which that settlement was renamed Askal. Askal married a daughter of Tamya-Tarhan, their son Alvar inherited power in the Bulgar beylik (Great Bulgaria, as the Greeks called it later). Alvar entered into an alliance with Byzantine Empire, which was also supported by his successors. After a death of Alvar from the hands of his brother, who was in Avar service, his younger brother Bu-Ürgan (Organa) ascended the throne. In 619, to strengthen his alliance with Byzantium, BuÜrgan with part of the Bulgars adopted Orthodox Christianity in the Greek city of Chersonese (Korsun), which Bulgars called Kryashen. Bulgars were Tengrians, and Bu Ürgan's baptism caused their discontent, which ended with him being forced to cede power in the Great Bulgaria to his nephew Kubrat (Kurbat), a son of Alvar. In 620 Kubrat instructed his younger brother Shambat to construct in Askal a fortress, which was named Bashtu (later Kyiv). In Bashtu lived Bulgars, Anchians (Slavs), Greeks and others, as reflected in the later Arabo-Persian historical and geographical compositions. Shambat went on a successful campaign against Avars, annexed to his possessions a vast territory that belonged to the Avars, and announced a creation of his own state called Duloba (oba = habitat, habitat of the clan Dulo), which Slavs called Duleba. Kubrat demanded from his brother to return to the bosom of the Great Bulgaria, but Shambat refused his demand, for which he earned a nickname Kyi, i.e. “Separated”. As a separate state, Duloba existed from 623 to 658 (In the West European historiography, it goes under a name Samo state, and is billed as a first Slavic state in history. In contrast, in Slavic histories it is completely ignored, and even the Slavic term "Duloba" passes without any explanations and with somewhat negative connotations.'

Also notice the possibility that the name Ukrajna may come from Ugria or Ugriana, because ugric people occupied the majority of the lands today called Ukraina for centuries before the X. century. 81.183.245.214 (talk) 12:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Panoramic view of the street from St. Sophia's to St. Micheal's[edit]

This is a wonderful photo, but it certainly masks the fact that the street from St. Sophia's (on the left) to St. Michael's (on the right) is straight, not curved. You can stand at the entrance to St. Sophia's and see the entrance to St. Michael's and vice versa. --Taivo (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Wrong information - make deletion[edit]

Delete this:

"It is believed that Kiev was founded in the late 9th century (some historians have wrongly referred to as 482 CE)[5]

5. Rabinovich GA From the history of urban settlements in the eastern Slavs. In the book.: History, culture, folklore and ethnography of the Slavic peoples. M. 1968. 134."

Anybody really read, or though saw this [5] book?

1. Rabinovich GA - fail. Rabinovich M.(Mikhail) G.(Grigorievich) - true.

2. His write, some city (Polock, Smolensk, Kiev, ...) early IX c. than Tihomirov expected. And general. After this talking about formation settlement in the city, and what is the "city" in those days, not about Kyiv founded.

This book - Reports of the Soviet delegation`s on VI International Congress of Slavic (Prague, 1968), printed in Moscow (1968), Publishing house "Science".

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki №G (talkcontribs) 15:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Infobox[edit]

It is helpful to have both the Russian and Ukrainian spelling of the city's name in the infobox.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, and it is standard practice in Wikipedia to offer both the Russian and Ukrainian spellings for all cities in central and eastern Ukraine. --Taivo (talk) 19:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It is helpful for who? This is English Wikipedia and 99.99% of the users of this Wikipedia has no basic knowledge of any Cyrillic alphabet... We are editing for people in the English speaking world. Not for any diaspora ethnic group. On second though... and after some looking round on Wikipedia it seems common practice to put them Cyrillic names in the infobox of cities in countries that use Cyrillic alphabets.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the way we format the infobox should be uniform across Ukraine. Unless you have a truly compelling reason why Kiev's infobox should look different than Kharkiv's, then I'll have to change it back to match the other cities in Ukraine. --Taivo (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I though it was more NPOV not to place so much emphasis on from what language the English name of K(y)(i)(e)(i)v comes from (in the infobox). So knowing that Brussels has a somewhat same linguistic situation/battleground then K(y)(i)(e)(i)v. I went to that Wikipedia page and saw how that infobox looked and copied that. I have not edited an article of a Ukrainian city in a long time so I did not take in mind your above concerns.... It would probably also be better too in the Khark(i)(o)v article have the English de-linked from the Ukr. & Rus. names. Since the English names do not say anything about the native name(s). Per example: no German calls it country Germany.

PS We seem not to have a uniform format for Ukrainian cities as it is (now)... For example: Chyhyryn+Baturyn Animalien-smiley.gifYulia Romero • Talk to me! 01:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Many of the smaller towns/cities of Ukraine that are rarely, if ever, mentioned in English aren't formatted as such. But when you look at the major cities that have different forms in Russian and Ukrainian (Kharkiv, Dnipropetrovsk, Odessa, Lugansk, Donetsk, Mykolaiv, Zaporizhia, etc.), we've tried to make the forms in the infobox consistent. In most cases, the Ukrainian name is the name of the article and it is on top followed by the Russian name, but the opposite is true of Odessa since this is the most common spelling found in English (including on the Odessa city English language web site). I think that consistency within Ukraine is important, especially when dealing with Kiev and Odessa because the Wikipedia articles bear the Russian versions of the names and consistency of formatting gives the edit warriors one less reason to object. --Taivo (talk) 03:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The Manual of Style on Infoboxes recommends: Infoboxes for geographical items should generally be headed with the article title, although the formal version of a name (e.g. Republic of Montenegro at Montenegro) can be substituted. Alternate or native names can appear beneath this. Extensive historic names are often better in a second infobox

Hence it recommends to keep the infobox in this article in its current form and other articles about Ukrainian cities to follow this pattern. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Whom does it help to have a russian name in the infobox[edit]

Hello, again, the question is - whom does it help to have a russian name in the infobox? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It explains the article title and the most common name in English to American and British readers. Remember this isn't the Ukrainian Wikipedia, it's the English Wikipedia, so everything we do is oriented toward English speakers and the forms they are going to encounter. Thus for the largest central and eastern Ukrainian cities, whose names in English are quite commonly found in English language narratives of WWII, we include the Russian form and the transliteration into English for the benefit of our readers. --Taivo (talk) 12:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello, the English speakers who use this Wikipedia already know the name: it's the title of the article, it's the first word of the article, it's used all the way through the article. There's no reason to put it in the infobox. It may come across that there's an effort on Wikipedia to avoid currently popular names (think Euro2012) and focus on classical literature. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 14:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Horlo, a long-established consensus that has been stable in central and eastern Ukrainian city articles is to include both the Russian and the Ukrainian variants in the infoboxes. Until you can actually build a new consensus, then leave the infobox alone. You obviously didn't read my comment wherein I explained why it is good user-friendly policy to include both names for these cities--the most likely form that English speakers are going to encounter is the Russian variant. You have yet to present a single cogent reason for not following the pattern of other central and eastern Ukrainian city articles and including both names in the infobox. --Taivo (talk) 15:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I actually did read your comment, please don't say things like that - it's not nice. I did present a couple of cogent arguments in my comment. I will repeat the most cogent - if the name of the article is Ukrainian, it makes sense to include the russian variant in the infobox as it may be encountered by English speakers. Kharkiv and Dnipropetrovsk are good examples - the Ukrainian name is the name of the article, but some English speakers may encounter Kharkov and Dnepropetrovsk and be confused. However, the name of this article is the russian variant, and the russian variant is used throughout the article, so there will be no confusion. Second, the way that the name is presented in the infobox is "Native name" - that is Kyiv, not Kiev. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I found Horlo's comments confusing. My understanding is as follows:
  • Kiev = normal English spelling.
  • Kyiv = transliteration from Ukrainian that some people use in English (including the Ukrainian Government).
  • Київ = Ukrainian-language name for Kiev. This is used on signs put up by the Ukrainian state.
  • Киев = Russian-language name for Kiev. This is used by normal people, and visitors to Ukraine who cannot recognise it will have problems.
For normal Western Europeans it is useful to have all four spellings, as it is not at all obvious to Western Europeans that all four refer to exactly the same place.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
By the way, I do not understand why Horlo thinks that it is not nice to say that Russian and Ukrainian versions of the name should be included in the infobox alongside the English version(s).--Toddy1 (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Avoid personal remarks please... This is used by normal people, and visitors to Ukraine who cannot recognise it will have problems; the part of that sentence by Toddy1 looks racist (people from Zakarpattia are thus considered by Toddy1 as abnormal?) and the second part is bullocks since most road sings in Ukraine use the English and Ukrainian version of the name these days.... Trying to win discussions by nonsense arguments and insulting people is not the way to do it... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies if you thought I wrote something bad. I really did not mean anything racist or any personal remarks. Maybe it is my bad English.
I said that signs put up by the state and use Ukrainian language spelling. Road signs are put up by the state in Ukraine. What is "bullocks" about saying this?
Even your beloved "Kyiv Post" admits that Kiev is "predominantly Russian-speaking" (Kyiv Post, 28 October 2012, Svoboda wins three oblasts, takes second place in Kyiv).
English-language Wikipedia is used by average people from Western Europe. (Is "average" a better word to use than "normal"? I did not think there was a big difference in meaning in this context.) Average people from Western Europe do not live in Ukraine, and are not children of Ukrainian citizens/ex-citizens, and so are not very familiar with Ukraine.
Sometimes visitors to Ukraine from other countries will wish to travel about in Ukraine. Maybe they will choose to buy a coach ticket. In the parts of Ukraine I know, coaches are run by average people, not government bureaucrats, so the coach company writes Киев for Kiev. I am sure there are many other examples where visitors to Ukraine need to know both spellings.
(By the way this problem is not unique to Ukraine. In the Belgian Région Wallonne, the train company has electronic signs at stations saying that the next train on platform 21 is to Anvers. But if you catch the train, at your destination the station signs say Antwerpen.)
I never mentioned Zakarpattia Oblast; it is not relevant.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
The Manual of Style on Infoboxes recommends: Infoboxes for geographical items should generally be headed with the article title, although the formal version of a name (e.g. Republic of Montenegro at Montenegro) can be substituted. Alternate or native names can appear beneath this. Extensive historic names are often better in a second infobox
Hence it recommends to keep the infobox in this article in its current form and other articles about Ukrainian cities to follow this pattern since the Russian names of Ukrainian cities are mutch used alternate names (also in English media). They are mutch used and readers could be confused if they where not in the infobox. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Horlo, your comment about "native name" is not actually an issue. The labels in the coding are invisible to the reader so that "native_name" in the infobox coding is meaningless. It doesn't actually mean "native name", it means "this is another line for coding other things you might want to enter here in a slightly smaller font". You could enter anything following "native_name" in the template coding and it would show up following the main name in a slightly smaller bolded font. I would write "native_name = Horlo is a genius" and "Horlo is a genius" would appear under the name "Kiev". It's a coding label, nothing more, so to make some kind of issue about "native_name" in the infobox coding is ridiculous and pointless. The names that we place under the heading name in the infobox are local names that might be useful for English speakers wanting to visit Ukraine. And Toddy is quite correct, both Київ and Киев are found there and in other places where an English speaker might encounter city names in Ukraine. Run around Dnipropetrovsk for a day and you'll see the Russian variant of Kiev written quite frequently. The exclusionary position that only Ukrainian forms should appear in Wikipedia is not helpful for the great majority of English speakers, readers, and tourists. Indeed, walk through the train station in Kyiv any day of the week and the signs that direct you to the various platforms and the trains found there will be rotating through English, Ukrainian, AND Russian. I don't recall off the top of my head whether the signs at Borispol also rotate through Russian, but I wouldn't be surprised if they do as well. --Taivo (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

This discussion should have nothing to do with how many Russian words you can find in Ukraine.... In the Metro stations in K(y)i(e)v there is nothing in Russian... does that mean that if I blow up the train station Russian will die in Kyiv and the BBC would never spell Kiev anymore? No it will not... I was in Dnipropetrovsk not so long ago and I did not noticed seeing any Russian variant of Kiev written anywhere.... Let alone the Ukrainian variant of Kyiv... That does not mean that in English media nobody names the city Dnepropetrovsk... This is a technical discussion about a template… Not about the usage of Russian in Ukraine… — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the fact that a very, very large percentage of the population in Ukraine does, indeed, speak Russian is relevant here. It means that ignoring the Russian variants of city names in the infobox is inappropriate by the sheer demographics of Ukraine itself. But is it also important because the English Wikipedia must equally serve the purposes of factual information, which includes the Russian variants for Ukrainian city names where there is a significant Russian-speaking portion of the population, and the purposes of its English-speaking users, who are very likely to encounter the Russian variants of city names (including Kiev) when visiting Ukraine and when reading books and current media reports about Ukraine. --Taivo (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree... But the last part of your above reply derails again... Most Western tourist in Ukraine now can not tell the difference between the Ukrainian and Russian alphabets… and even in Donetsk the street names are in Ukrainian and English… And road signs with Russian on them are not there anymore in Ukraine…. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 23:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Remember, Yulia, I lived in Ukraine, so you don't have to provide me with the details I know so well. But street signs are not the only thing to read in Ukraine. (And in the older sections of residential Dnipropetrovsk and other eastern cities, there are still street signs in Russian. As my father-in-law says, "We don't have time to change street signs and tear down statues of Lenin.") Store signs, signs in the train stations and airports, advertisements, etc. are all as commonly in Russian as they are in Ukrainian in central and eastern Ukraine. In the end, the English speaker, whether just reading books about Ukraine and its history in the comfort of the US, or wandering the streets of Kiev on a cold winter's night, needs to know the name of the town in both languages. And because a very large segment of the population uses Russian instead of Ukrainian, the infobox has a double reason to list both forms. --Taivo (talk) 05:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Taivo, it seems that things are getting really confused here. The first question that comes to mind is why is "native name" hidden in the infobox structure? However, it would make sense to show that, given that many native English speakers may not be familiar with what many places call themselves (outside their particular area of interest - how, for example, would Zanzibar or The Seychelles or Warsaw or Calcutta or Bombay call themselves, or Peking?). Even if it is hidden, shouldn't that be a guideline of what to put there? If it really means "things you want to put here in a smaller font", why isn't it called "secondary info" or "this is another line for coding other things you might want to enter here in a slightly smaller font" or some such name, but rather a very specific-sounding "native name"? A second issue is what kind of information is actually being presented here? Is it about (government, official) "street signs" or (whatever language you like, at least in Ukraine where you have the freedom to express yourself) store signs? If they are vastly different, perhaps that can be discussed in the article, but the infobox should still present the native name, labeled as such. Your last paragraph begs two questions - first: is this a source for scholarly information or travel advice for people stranded in a foreign country; and second: is this something about history, or the present, or both?
Toddy1, where do I start? "normal western Europeans"???? Really? To put an end to this, just remember that western Europeans will look up information about Kyiv in their native language.
Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
If you want to ignore all the English speakers who come to this site for usable information, Horlo, and focus only on the term "native name", then you are still wrong about excluding the Russian form. The native name of Ukraine depends on which half of the population you are talking about. Remember, the question you are asking isn't "official name", but "native name". Native name is the name used by the natives of the city for their own city. Since roughly one third to one half of all residents of Ukraine (and Kiev/Kyiv as well) call their capital city "Kiev" and the others call their capital city "Kyiv", then there are two widely used "native names" for the capital city of the country. That alone dictates that both names need to occur in the infobox as "native names". --Taivo (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree "native name" and "official name" are 2 different things. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I could not help to have the feeling when I was in Ukraine this year that Russian words in public are gradually getting replaced by Ukrainian ones... with the name in English written underneath them (in Donetsk street signs are in now in Ukrainian and English (maybe not in some parts of town where no tourist has ever been….)). I am writing that here to remind us that even in Ukraine thing can change… And to show that I think we should not use any personal observations (that could be clouded by a confirmation bias) in any Wikipedia discussion… (these can also be soon interpreted wrong; as I wrongly interpreted Toddy1’s arguments; for which I apologize). These Russian names are getting used plenty on (English) webpages, in (English) books, (English) TV etc. That is why they should be in the infobox. Not because of what is going on in Ukraine… or what we think is going on in Ukraine…

PS I prefer The Ukrainian Week & Ukrayinska Pravda these days… your personal observation that I like Kyiv Post is outdated; I have changed my preferences like a Kiev Metro station has changed its languages. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Taivo, why on earth would you say that I want to ignore all the English speakers who come to this site for usable information?
Yes, I am saying that the majority of people in Kyiv call it Kyiv, and that is the native name. If 30% of residents called it Nueva Yorka, would you lead such a spirited campaign to have that name inserted it into the infobox of New York City?
And you still haven't answered my question - why doesn't the title "native name" appear in the infobox?
Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Why doesn't the title "native name" appear in the infobox? Horlo, if you think that the infobox template should display the words "Native name", then you need to suggest this at Template talk:Infobox settlement. Someone would need to alter the template code to make that happen.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I have changed "native name" to "other name" in the template, so we do not go down the pointless rabbit-hole of arguments about what proportion of Ukrainians speaking Russian constitutes enough allow something to be the "native name". Whether it is "native name" or "other name" is not displayed on the page. It is just template code. I do not know why people get so worked up about it.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I think it's time to stop feeding the troll paying too much attention to the user who has now resorted to outright lies ("Yes, I am saying that the majority of people in Kyiv call it Kyiv") or is just plain ignorant of the topic and Wikipedia rules. --Garik 11 (talk) 11:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
While the issue of what label the infobox labeling uses to label different font sizes is generally a silly one, I agree with Garik that we have a single troll here. I like the larger font size that "native name" gives over "other name" in the infobox. --Taivo (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Toddy1, if you think that changes need to be made to the infobox, please don't make them arbitrarily, but suggest the changes at Template talk:infobox settlement. The infobox is clearly labeled "name" and "native name". If you don't like that, suggest a change you know where.
Garik 11, hello, I don't know if you're aware of this but saying that an editor "has resorted to outright lies ... or is just plain ignorant" is just not nice.
Taivo, if you think that wikipedia should change the size of fonts in the infobox, go give them hell at template talk:Infobox settlement. I got your back.
Something that makes you say "hmmmm..." - if it's not that important, why not just leave it as "Kyiv"? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Before you get your panties in a wad, Horlo, the naming discussion that was here has been moved to where it belongs: Talk:Kiev/naming. And you still don't understand that coding language isn't real language or the meaning of consensus. You don't make edits to this article when you have utterly failed to build any consensus for your edit on the Talk Page. Continuing to push your POV in the article in the face of a clear consensus against it can lead to possible blocks or bans of your editing privileges. And clearly you haven't read the section on "Demographics" in this very article. Let me summarize for you: the majority of the people living in Kiev use Russian in the home, therefore "Kiev" has more validity as the "native name" in this article than "Kyiv". --Taivo (talk) 12:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, Taivo, dude, I was actually taking the discussion with you seriously until you went and said "before you get your panties in a wad". However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that the statement was made under duress and won't take it as silliness. So again, I will ask a simple question: why is it useful to have the russian name in the infobox? Toddy, please don't tell me what normal English is, (and then apologize for your bad English); Taivo, please don't start talking about consensus, because "that's the way we've always done it" is not really an argument. Again I repeat my arguments: the name Kyiv is the Ukrainian form of the name; Kyiv is the capital city of Ukraine; the name Kiev is not being hidden at all - in fact, the title of the article is Kiev. And please, let's keep the personal out of this discussion. No "resorted to outright lies", "ignorant", "panties in a wad". Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Horlo, you apparently aren't aware that WP:CONSENSUS is the bedrock of doing anything at Wikipedia. Read that policy again. You are editing against consensus and are engaged in a slow-motion edit war without any regard for the Wikipedia policies contained within WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BOLD, WP:NPOV, WP:USER, WP:COMMONNAME, and possibly others. Since half and possibly most of the residents of Kiev/Kyiv actually use Russian in the home, then "Kiev" is, indeed, one of the native names of the city. So your arguments against including it in the infobox as a native name are simply not based on fact. And you invite insult through your continued edit warring. Rather than accepting the consensus here on the Talk Page, you simply keep pushing your POV in the article. Your behavior is the kind of behavior that can invite blocks and bans of your editing privileges if you persist in ignoring consensus. --Taivo (talk) 09:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Taivo, please don't say that I'm not aware of things - that's neither nice nor true. And don't say things like "you invite insult". That kind of behaviour can invite blocks and ban your editing privileges. First, you keep saying that there is a consensus to include russian names in the infoboxes of Ukrainian cities, but you can't give me another reason for it being there. What you're saying is really starting to smell of "we've always done it this way". (look it up). And please don't email friends to agree with you. I've put forth many reasons for the only name here being Kyiv, and you seem to not pay any attention to them. However, I will repeat the most important ones here and now - in the case of some cities in Eastern Ukraine, an older spelling may be more common in English - for example Dnipropetrovsk may still appear in some history texts as Dnepropetrovsk. To avoid confusion, the russian translation should definitely be included. However, in this case, the name of the article is Kiev, the older spelling, throughout the article the spelling Kiev is used, and the russian form is given in the first sentence. There can be no confusion that this article is called Kiev. Second, you keep saying that a lot of people in Kyiv speak russian. How is that in any way important here? This is the English wikipedia. What is important is what English speakers expect to see and learn. The name of the city is Kyiv. According to the internet, most English speakers will see it as Kiev. The logical conclusion: the article will for now be titled "Kiev", and the name in the infobox will be "Kyiv". Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Horlo, the question we are discussing here isn't the name of the article or whether "Kiev" occurs in the text, it is only whether or not "Kiev" with its Cyrillic spelling occurs in the infobox, so don't confuse the issues. The only argument you have put forward to support your claim that the Russian variant should not occur in the infobox is that "Kyiv" is the official name. That's the only argument you have made and the only argument that you continue to make. But that's not what we put in the infobox under "native name". The native name is the name(s) used by the people who live there. Sometimes there is only one native name listed because virtually all the inhabitants of a place speak one language and thus it's an easy matter to decide what to put in the box. But in the case of Kiev, there are two native languages spoken in the city by large portions of the population. About 70% of Kiev's inhabitants speak Russian at home, the rest speak Ukrainian in the home. Thus, it's a simple argument to make to include both native names in the infobox.
As a supporting argument to include both names in the infobox, is the fact that throughout central and eastern Ukraine a Wikipedia consensus has developed that for the larger cities we include both variants of the name in the infobox (see Odessa, Dnipropetrovsk, Kharkiv, Donetsk, Lugansk, etc.). At Simferopol and Sevastopol we even include the Crimean Tatar name out of courtesy, even though the Crimean Tatar population of those cities is very small. This is the choice that editors have made in working with the cities of central and eastern Ukraine, of which Kiev is one, and has been supported over time by consensus. You denigrate the value of consensus among editors, but that is the foundation of Wikipedia's collaborative editing process. Let me quote the very first sentence from WP:CONSENSUS: "Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals." As you can see from this discussion, there is a consensus for retaining Russian variants in the infoboxes of these Ukrainian cities even though it is not based on Ukrainian law. You have not built a consensus to change that practice.
An additional supporting argument is the fact that English speakers using Wikipedia are more likely to encounter "Kiev" in their reading than they are to encounter "Kyiv". That's why the article's title is "Kiev" and an additional reason why the Russian form should occur in the infobox.
You simply have no argument for excluding the Russian variant from the infobox other than "It's not the official name", while there is one main argument and two supporting complementary arguments for why we include the Russian variant in the infobox. There is a consensus for including the Russian variant, while you have built no consensus for excluding it.
Finally, I was surprised when you made the silly accusation that I was emailing my friends. I don't need to email anyone here. If I need to contact someone to become aware about a discussion in Wikipedia, I simply post something on their Talk Page here in Wikipedia. It is bad form to "email" in most cases, especially when it comes to content disputes such as this one. The resolution of this dispute is quite simple, actually. There is a consensus to include the Russian form of Kiev in the infobox because it is the name used by the majority of inhabitants of the city and you have not built a consensus to change that practice. That blends into your behavior that may be subject to blocks or bans. You are engaging in a slow-motion edit war. Before coming here to the Talk Page to determine whether or not you have built a consensus for removing the Russian name, you start with the article and just remove the name based on nothing other than your own whim. That's the kind of behavior that some administrators see as unconstructive. If you engage in that behavior long enough, some administrator will block you. It shows your disrespect of the other editors, the consensus, and the process of editing on Wikipedia. It is anti-community. --Taivo (talk) 11:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for the explanation. A lot of effort went into it, and I appreciate it.
However, the arguments put forth don't actually discuss the topic at hand. The title on the infobox is "Native Name". The country is Ukraine. The language of Ukraine is Ukrainian. In Russia it's Russian, in England it's English, in China it's Chinese. People who live in Ukraine are blessed with the freedom of speaking whatever language they choose in their home (unlike some countries), and even on the street. Swahili, French, English, Portuguese, Japanese, whatever you want. However, the native language of Ukraine is Ukrainian. Therefore, the name listed as "native name" should be the Ukrainian name. Whatever people do on their own is their business.
How is the fact that the russian form is still temporarily more common in English in any way related to this discussion? The infobox deals with the native name.
With respect to consensus, it's important to keep in mind that consensus changes. Consensus, just like Wikipedia, continues to grow and evolve. It is the editing process where one editor makes a change, like here [[3]], and then other editors work together to improve it. Consensus, however is not "I think the way we format the infobox should be uniform across Ukraine", while any editor who disagrees is automatically disrespecting other editors and Wikipedia. Oh yes, and anti-community.
Threats, by the way, are not welcome.
So again, the native language of Ukraine being Ukrainian, the native name in the infobox is Ukrainian.
Thanks, Horlo (talk) 10:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
>Threats, by the way, are not welcome.
Nobody has threatened you.
>So again, the native language of Ukraine being Ukrainian
It depends what you mean by the term "native language" - if you mean the language imposed by the state - yes, you are right. If you mean the historic language of that place - well many parts of the present Ukrainian state have different histories. If you mean the language that people speak at home - well that varies - by that definition the most common native languages in the present Ukrainian state are (in alphabetical order): Hebrew, Russian, Tatar, and Ukrainian. (Hebrew has supplanted Yiddish. The Polish population of the provinces annexed under the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact were eradicated in a crime against humanity.) Most reasonable people who know anything about Ukraine accept that modern Ukraine has more than one native language.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Horlo, do you know what the word "native" means? Apparently not. "Native" means "of or pertaining to the inhabitants of a place". Since the inhabitants of Kiey speak both Russian and Ukrainian (most of them speak Russian), then the native languages of Kiev are Russian and Ukrainian. Since the native languages of Kiev are Russian and Ukrainian, then the native name of the city is Kiev or Kyiv depending on whom you ask. Therefore the "native name" in the Wikipedia infobox contains both names. You confuse "official name" with "native name". They can be, but in this case are not, the same thing. Your insistence that Ukraine has only one native language is highly prejudicial and pushes a single POV. Yes, consensus can change, but in this case it has not. Just because one editor continues to push a POV against existing consensus doesn't mean that the consensus has changed. How many different editors have reverted your unilateral changes to the infobox so far? There is a consensus and you have no evidence for a shift in that consensus. And there is no threat on the table, Horlo. There is the simple fact that if you continue to change the infobox in the face of unified opposition on the Talk Page, your edit warring will eventually be judged disruptive by one of the admins who watches this page and he/she will take action to bring you in line with Wikipedia editing practices. --Taivo (talk) 12:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

(od) The last time I checked, "native" and "majority" are two separate and unrelated concepts. You can state that a majority of the current residents of an area are Russophones, but you cannot state that the native language of that area is Russian if it's not Russian. Plain and simple. There's nothing to argue. VєсrumЬа TALK 01:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

If the majority of the inhabitants of an area speak X natively, then X is the native language of the area. Your comment that majority language and native language are separate things is ridiculous and baseless, Vecrumba. Perhaps you are simply confusing official language majority and native language. Official does not make it the native language of an area. The Rada cannot declare Ukrainian to be the native language of a village if all the people speak Russian there. --Taivo (talk) 02:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
You seem to be confusing "native" and "majority". For example, Indigenous peoples of the Americas speak native languages, while the majority of US citizens speak the majority language, English. --Nug (talk) 11:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
"Native" in that sense is not a strictly linguistic label, but is used as a synonym for indigenous languages. Distinguishing dialects of a single language as "native" or "nonnative" is neither ethnographically nor linguistically correct as would be the case with the Ukrainian dialect and the Russian dialect of Eastern Slavic. Indeed, one could be quite accurately from a historical linguistic perspective in arguing that both Russian and Ukrainian are "natively" from Kiev simply because the language of Kiev in the early Middle Ages was the undifferentiated East Slav language that only later split into Russian, Ukrainian, and Belorusan. So trying to use the "native" label in that sense in Ukraine is really, really silly. --Taivo (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
How can the East Slav language split into Russian and Ukrainian within the confines of one city, particularly when that city is situated like an island in a predominantly Ukrainian speaking region? Clearly there needs to be greater geographical separation for a language split to occur, so therefore it follows that one language is native to the city while the other is the result of subsequent settler inflow. --Nug (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Nug - have you read "Rock and Roll in the Rocket City", by Zhuk? This explains some of the reasons for people in the 1970s and 80s turning their back on the Ukrainian language and becoming Russian language speakers. Of course Kiev has a different history than Dnepropetrovsk, but the factors described by Zhuk would seem to apply to Kiev too.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see what VєсrumЬа & Nug want... Do they want the words "Киев (Kiev)" to be deleted from the infobox? Or do the want them to stay there but not labeled native_name (and instead other_name)? If you just want to have a nice chat about languages in Eastern Europe then this Talkpage is not the place to do that. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I just realized what these editors don't actually understand. They look at the coding for the infobox and see "native_name" and think that actually means something. What it means is that names for a place will appear in X size font, not that there is any official marking of native in the infobox. I changed it to "other_name" and the names appear in a smaller font. It's just chest beating on the part of nationalists. Nug and Vecrumba, it's only about font sizes, not about any kind of statement about linguistic history (which Nug still doesn't seem to understand what was said). --Taivo (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, nationalists just don't like that the infobox coding displays "Kiev" as one of the "native names." However, can we be sure that they will be pleased with "Kyiv" as "other name"? And should we go on trying to please them against consensus, common sense and accepted Wiki templates? What you Taivo wrote in length above about Kyiv and Kiev as "native" names makes perfect sense and the infobox field "native_name" should remain in there for consistency and correctness. --Garik 11 (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────If I am not wrong, the name of Russian capital is Moskwa (or Moskva). However, I am not aware of any discussion in English Wikipedia about renaming the Moscow article. Currently, the English name of Ukrainian capital is "Kiev". Encyclopaedia Britannica says:

"Kiev, Ukrainian Kyiv, also spelled Kyyiv, Russian Kiyev, chief city and capital of Ukraine."

In other words, we have an English word "Kiev", the Ukrainian word "Kyiv/Kyyiv", and the Russian word "Kiev". Note, the English and Russian words do not coincide.
One way or the another, the Ukrainians cannot set new rules for English.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

PS. If Russian name is desirable in the infobox, it should be "Kiyev", because English ['kiːef] is not Russian "Kiyev".--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Climate needs source cited[edit]

At least part of the brief summary of Kiev's climate is plagiarized, without a citation, from the Encyclopedia Britannica (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/317542/Kiev). Someone needs to insert a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CDS128 (talkcontribs) 21:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done I added the citation for it.Ssbbplayer (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 February 2013[edit]

right is Kyiv! http://www.uazone.net/Kiev_Kyiv.html Freelance-ivan (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Declined. See Talk:Kiev/naming and its archives for why.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 1, 2013; 19:21 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 March 2013[edit]

Please use correct ukrainian name for the city, which is Kyiv, NOT Kiev - that's a direct translation from russian language.

Thank You,

Taras Mazur 204.153.88.2 (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Declined. See Talk:Kiev/naming and its archives for why.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 28, 2013; 19:35 (UTC)

Founded 482 A.D????[edit]

Just because Ukrainian authorities (and Historians who just copy what they say) say Kyiv was founded in 482 A.D does not make it the truth (in fact I do not trust anything any Ukrainian Ukrainian authority says...). As of 16 May 2013 the infobox says Kyiv was founded Founded482 A.D, but later in this Wiki article in Kiev#History it reads: It is believed that Kiev was founded in the late 9th century (some historians have wrongly referred to as 482 CE). So what is it? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

My small search in Google Books did not give me a good source with founding date.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Obviously there could not be any reliable sources for 482, since there were no records at the time.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Ymblanter is quite right. Since the people who founded Kiev were most likely completely illiterate, they weren't keeping diaries that said, "On Dec. 7 492 we decided to build a trading fort here and call it Kiev. We hope that one day it will be a great city." Everything concerning the exact year of founding is legend and supposition. --Taivo (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

If they would have done so I am sure that by now Oleh Tyahnybok would have traveled back in time to 482 to instruct them they to call the fort Kyiv...Smile-flag Ukraine.gifYulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed :) --Taivo (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, legend says 5th century, others say 9th... I'm sure we can cover both aspects. The Orthodox Christian church is very old, it's not inconceivable that "482" is a real number. VєсrumЬа TALK 21:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm certain it's a real number and an actual year in the progression of years, but do we have hard evidence that in that particular year, the first permanent settlers arrived at the site of Kiev and set up shop? No. And unless we build a time machine we never will have such solid evidence. The best we can do is to say that Kiev might have been founded or probably was founded in the late 5th century. We can say that legend dates the founding to 482. But to state with definity that Kiev was founded in 482 goes well beyond the actual evidence. --Taivo (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Not disagreeing. Just noting that we shouldn't assume "not 482" because we think folks couldn't keep a calendar. ;-) VєсrumЬа TALK 00:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit infobox just now so it now says (in the infobox) "Founded: 482 A.D. (officially)". I think this solved the problem. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

History-slanted lead[edit]

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to tag the article again and again until its lead reflects the Kyiv's current role as bustling rapidly developing city. For now, the lead stops in 1991( Ukrained2012 (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Instead of bitching about it, add an appropriate sentence. The lead doesn't need a complete rewrite since Wikipedia is not a business and travel brochure, but an encyclopedia. --Taivo (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I did, possibly starting dispute and revert wars. Ehh Ukrained2012 (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure the sentence:

"The growing political and economic role of the city, combined with its international relations, as well as extensive internet and social network penetration, have made Kiev the most pro-Western and pro-democracy region of Ukraine, political parties advocating tighter integration with the European Union receive most votes during elections in Kiev."

is appropriate in Wikipedia since the sources provided do not back the claim up... The only thing we can proof is that political parties advocating tighter integration with the European Union receive most votes during elections in Kiev. Why this is so remains unclear to me but I have been told by friends in Kyiv this is so because of the influx in the city of Halychyans (who traditionally have been more oriented on Europe and do not like Russia (to put it in a simplified way)).

Besides it seems unlikely that if the growing political and economic role of the city, combined with its international relations of Donetsk will increase they will follow the voting patterns of Kyiv... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

First of all, let's agree that we need a balanced, but comprehensive, lead paragraph about the modern city. Let's shape it here together and quick.
IMHO, I suggested the most generalized and established view as a heavy news-consuming Kyivan. With economy and Internet aspects being the most obvious parts of it. Frankly, I need RS to back this common knowledge) Which are hard to find for me for now exactly because this is common knowledge. However, everyone is welcome to suggest augmentations to the paragraph. As long as they don't stream too far away into political extremes or tourist fantasies.
For instance, we could drop passages on the reasons for the city's firm pro-Western/pro-democracy stand (which is a fact) and keep this referenced fact only. Until we develop an appropriate politics sec\mainart, of course.
I also suggest listing here, and referencing in the lead, all important characteristics that we agree about.
  • richest city dominating economy with significant gap between Kiev and other Ukraine cities
  • continuously growing
  • way better housing than elsewhere
  • shifting economic roles from decayed weapon industry into services, finance, politics etc.
  • pro-Western/pro-democracy
  • steady migrants influx
The most important thing here is to avoid procrastination on the lead for months and years. It's a highly-searched page we're working on. Wishes, Ukrained2012 (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Found ref for ethnic Ukrainians influx into Kiev here. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem with terms as pro-Western and pro-democracy is that there can be more semantic interpretations for them... I rather stick to terms that can be explained only one way (in this case): advocating tighter integration with the European Union and not in favour of a purely presidential regime (in the case of Ukraine you can also call pro-democracy-people National Democrats). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the ref. But I'd rather avoid textual details that may confuse foreign readers. Why "so called"? Is it an internationally-established term? Besides, "(so called) National Democratic parties" looks overdetailed for a lead. Would you agree to move your whole version to a new "Politics" sec below, and omit the above-mentioned passage in the lead?
If you're concerned with "pro-democracy", we could rephrase it somehow regarding press/assembly freedom, election rights and so on. I won't stick to the "democracy" word, it has never been of top-importance for anyone anywhere) Wishes, Ukrained2012 (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem to move my whole version to a new "Politics" sec below. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I thought we could have a lean easy-readable version in the lead, and the thorough comprehensive one in the sec. Ukrained2012 (talk) 11:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you still want to mention Kiev wants more/has more press/assembly/election freedom then the rest of Ukraine in the lead? I did try to find references to back this up on Google books and Google but found nothing. I also looked for something saying "it's most liberal city of Ukraine" but could find nothing either... Maybe Kyiv is not that much different then the rest of Ukraine? Also I would not be surprised if if was Lviv that is the most pro-Western and pro-democracy region of Ukraine... (because of its Austrian roots this city has been in contact with parliamentary democracy (because it could send people to the Austrian parliament) at a time that the Russian empire had no (equivalent) parliament). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's a plain fact... hard to ref as a common knowledge issue. Regarding press freedom - definitely. Every local issue in the city is covered and debated wa-aay thoroughly than in Lviv BTW. Lviv is, sadly, very provincial in a political and business sense. Maybe I should leave this item here until I handle its refs by myself. Ukrained2012 (talk) 11:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I implemented what we've talked through, take a look. Ukrained2012 (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Well after reading this I am not so sure about Lviv having the most political freedom of Ukraine... Still not sure if stating (in the lead) that the city has emerged as the most pro-Western and pro-democracy region of Ukraine is actually true... (NATO is more popular in Western Ukraine then elsewhere in Ukraine...); but for now I'm taking your word for it. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Resectioning needed[edit]

Ladies and gentlemen, balancing article's structure is the next big task after updating the lead. Currently, some aspects of the city life are overdescribed here (but still not enough) while others are underdeveloped. One nasty example is transport vs. education and culture( One doesn't need so many transportation comfort for such a humbly-covered educational center after all, do they?

I started resectioning with separate Transport in Kiev. Please join condensing effort in the relevant section. Thank you, Ukrained2012 (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

"Subdivisions" is another bloated sec already having a main article. Ukrained2012 (talk) 11:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
One should not confuse condensing of a long article with challenging the content that is being condensed, like this guy did. Condensed material is usually viable to be included in respective main articles of this article (please do create them if needed) automatically . Ukrained2012 (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Jewish community[edit]

I give here the explanation of Ukrained2012 for the subject from my talk page and my response below:

Hi. I restored my condensing of the "Demographics" section, which you mistook for deletion. The article in question was long and imbalanced in it's structure. You just can't have a bloated subsec on Jews in a much smaller "Demographics" section, unless and until 10 other larger minorities get the same coverage. Moreover, the Jewish material there was redundant as the topic is already covered in the "History" sec. BTW, this was explained in talk and edit summary, contrary to your claim. Please read talk and edit summaries carefully to avoid further embarassment. However, I have no objections on the deleted material itself. Copypasting it here so you can add it anywhere relevant. Including History of Kiev or standalone article. BTW, Jewish history coverage across many Ukrainian cities' pages needs improvement. There's material everywhere, but usually without necessary context, wikilinks and off-balance with other sections. Feel free to remind that you need my help with that. Wishes, Ukrained2012 (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


I don't agree with your explanation. The purpose of Wikipedia is to add and expand knowledge. The question here is if a section about the Jewish community of Kiev is relevant to the article, and it is. If this specific section is too big and there aren't additional sections about other minorities you can add those sections you find missing or to move this particular section to other location in the article (religion, history) but not to shrink it to 5 sentences. I think that a group of people that lived in the city from it's establishment and in some points composed significant percent of the city's population should get a place in the article. Moreover, an event like the Baylis trial and other various episodes of Jewish history should be mentioned in the article, especialy since you don't have any objections on the deleted material.(ScottyNolan (talk))

This is the overview article on the 8th largest city in Europe. Still missing many important information at all (not even in condensed state), thus under imminent threat of becoming too long. It is a reasonable and established approach that extensively detailed information (like naming every each Rabi:) belongs to the dedicated "main" articles, and being abstracted ("condensed", "shrinked") in the overview articles. So that "group of people" still "got a place in the article" after my clean-up. And, like you confirmed, the uncondensed material on Baylis trial was indeed irrelevant in "Demographic" section beyond any doubt.
As a courtesy towards consensus, I suggest moving the old-version Jewish subsec into the "History". I believe it should be "condensed" there again. However, we could do that after respective sections in the History of Kiev are created.
Ladies and gentlemen, this almost-dispute, and the article's understandard state, rose out of users' immature topical selfishness and responsibility avoidness. Everyone seeks to add everywhere their personal agenda (together with names of each Rabi/company/street/tram model). Almost no-one, however, cares to balance articles' structure and scope, or even to update the leads (!) after their input. That is why we can't have nice things we have only a handful of Good Articles( Happy edits, Ukrained2012 (talk) 18:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
(I hope the following info can help U2) I always use the "footnote that includes a reference-system" to include info in articles that is not top-important but should be included. The advantage of this system is: it makes articles shorter (cause reader can choose to ignore the footnotes) and it does not loose information. See my latest edits in FEMEN for an example at work of this system. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

PS This is the first time that FEMEN is usefull!!! Smile-flag Ukraine.gifYulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it's worth considering. Ukrained2012 (talk) 18:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there is a place for personal attacks such as " immature topical selfishness and responsibility avoidness". Everyone has a personal agenda, to you mentioning an historical event may seems to be unimportant, to others it's the opposite. I didn't mention "any rabbi" but the 2 main rabbis in the city, one of them is the chief rabbi of Ukraine, there are dozen rabbis in Kiev I didn't mention. At the first edit I put the section in "Demographics" because it's the natural place to describe minorities. Of course the Baylis trial belongs more to history but it's natural place is in the section of jewish history of the city together with description of the Jewish life in the city. it won't be a good idea, in my opinion, to separate the section into parts and to put each part in different place. This section must be as one subject. I don't think that putting it in history section will do any good as the jewish community is still active and doesn't "belong to the past". I suggest that this section will appear not under demographics, maybe under religion, minorities or as a "stand alone" topic.(ScottyNolan (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC))

Too bad you were immature enough to fall for my Rabbi pun) ... and to insist on keeping your material together. Sorry, nothing personal here at all: only commenting your editing and discussion. I'm also afraid that we'll put your valued material wherever it is relevant only according to the WP:MOS, and the other way around. Let me reiterate that excessive religion and history details (like Beilis trial and "Main Rabbis names") do not belong to "Demographics" section anyway. If you came across any Wikipedia guidelines on ethnic groups in the cities, please bring them up to discuss and implement as well. As earlier, I'm willing to achieve consensus... which is only possible if you are. Wishes, Ukrained2012 (talk) 01:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Additional suggestion: please dig up a FA on a large, reasonably multi-ethnic city to research their sections experience. Ukrained2012 (talk) 01:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
If you consider making "general- by- the-way- comments" with specific references to other people's work as "being mature" who am I to interfere?! But enough talking about "immature stuff". My point is that the material itself is relevant to the article, the question is where it is the best to add it. As I said before, adding the section under demographics seemed to be the natural place considering that there is no section on minorities, therefore, despite what you may think, I do agree with you that it should be in other section. But, separating it to pieces will make no point because all together the section makes much more sense. As you suggested I locked in other articles for examples- in San Francisco there is a large section on the different neighborhoods of the city with the history of minorities living there. In LA there is a description of religious minorities with their history in the city in the "religion" part. In London there is a whole section + an article on ethnic groups in the city.

Therefore, as I suggested before, I think the best will be adding the section under religion of course with respect to other religions in Kiev.(ScottyNolan (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC))

Well, I like some "Minorities" sec better, since Jews are regarded as ethnic group, not religious, in Ukraine. This is a well-established scholar tradition here reflecting the fact that vast majority of Jews (or Ukrainians for that matter) are not religious or church/synagogue-going. And some Jews are Christians. Given that, I'm reconsidering my placement of the Muslim subsection as they're neither ethnic nor tight community either. I'll take a look at few city articles for good practices, thanks for LA hint.
Oh, and please keep in mind that we're going to have a separate article on Kiev's Jews anyway (just like you said with regard to London). So any condensing would eventually make sense. Talk later, Ukrained2012 (talk) 12:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure that we'll have enough material for separate article about Kiev's Jews, maybe as part of a larger article about all the minorities in the city.

p.s Jews by definition can't be "Christians". If a Jew was baptized he seized from being a jew according to the Jewish religion and that is a big problem with Jews from ex- USSR since soviet Jews were defined by nationality and not by religion and therefore you have people who aren't considered jews by the religious authorities but can still repatriate to Israel according to the law.(ScottyNolan (talk) 16:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC))

Well, maybe we've got to stick to the local definition in the article on local city. Because, first of all, it's reflected in historical population figures and media. Although I wouldn't stick to baptism or something. It's merely a matter of what was parents' nationality (under Soviet rule) or what did the person answer to the census question. Ukrained2012 (talk) 09:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
"Jews by definition can't be "Christians""? I think Jesus would beg to disagree with you on that. The earliest Christians still saw themselves as Jews and there are modern groups of "Messianic Jews" who accept Jesus as the Messiah while still considering themselves to be fully Jewish and subject to the Mosaic law. --Khajidha (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
According to modern Judaism Jew who converted to Christianity is not considered as part of the Jewish people. The same goes about Jews converted to Islam. Of course there are various sects of Jews (or those who name themselves Jews) who also worship Jesus but those sects aren't accepted as part of Judaism by the mainstream. The law of repatriation to Israel goes according to that definition so if a jew converted to Christianity he can't repatriate to Israel.(ScottyNolan (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC))

Киев transcription in the Etymology section[edit]

Russian transcription in the etymology section is given wrong, it's not ['kijef], it's ['kʲijɪf] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.198.212.16 (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Corrected. Thanks for catching it!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 25, 2013; 17:54 (UTC)


Problem with Composition of "Mother Motherland Statue"[edit]

The article says, "One of Kiev's widely recognized modern landmarks is the highly visible giant Mother Motherland statue made of titanium standing at …" Uh oh, another article on the statue, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Motherland,_Kiev, says it is stainless.

While I'm at it the writing of the Jewish Community section sounds like it's by a non-native speaker and they need just a little help. Thanks to all authors and collaborators (I hope I'm using the correct term) and photographers (great pics!).

203.255.190.49 (talk) 14:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Head of Kiev City Administration was fired today[edit]

On 14 December President Yanukovych suspended the Head of Kiev City Administration Oleksandr Popov, Deputy Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine Volodymyr Sivkovych.[2] Later the same day the General Prosecutor of Ukraine's Office handed "a notification on suspicion of abuse of power when ordering the police actions of 30 November 2013" out to Sivkovych and Popov; and to former Head of Kiev police Valeriy Koriak and his Deputy Head Petro Fedchuk.[2] According to Prosecutor General of Ukraine Viktor Pshonka "All four officials will soon be placed under home arrest".[2]

Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Etymology section contains very little etymology[edit]

Etymology is not the study of spelling or selection of variants in foreign languages (English in this case). This section needs a thorough clean-up.75.134.23.211 (talk) 14:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Etymology: Kij means (royal) "Scepter"(Bat), also a Trizub, Trident in Slavic. It was a holy symbol of god Svetovid(Sviatovid), which is Vedic Shiva. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.210.234.195 (talk) 13:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2014[edit]

Please replace *U.S. Board of Geographic Names Decision to Change Official Spelling of Kiev to Kyiv To *U.S. Board of Geographic Names Decision to Change Official Spelling of Kiev to Kyiv First link no longer works. Dxnomad (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Question: Would marking it with {{Dead link}} be good enough? We generally don't remove sources even when the link no longer works. Perhaps someone else can fin a proper WebArchive to put in there at a later time? — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 20:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I think that is fine. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dxnomad (talkcontribs) 20:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Done Using the web archive link you found, no need for {{Dead link}} since there is a new link. — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 21:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

Closed, see Talk:Kiev/naming. We can not really discuss it very few months.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

– Per the general consensus among influential publications that it's time for West to finally transliterate Ukrainian capital from it's Ukrainian name (i.e. Київ) and not it's Russian name (i.e. Киев), since Ukraine is a Ukrainian city. For more details please see the article at Business Insider http://www.businessinsider.com/kiev-or-kyiv-2014-1 BezosibnyjUA (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

More noticeably, almost every major news organization seems to too have stuck with "Kiev." The Associated Press, Reuters, the BBC, The New York Times, and many others, all use the "Russian" spelling. Why do these news organizations ignore the U.S. State Department, not to mention Ukraine itself?
Back in 2010, Reuters editor Robert Bessler responded to a reader's query about the spelling. "Kiev is not the Russian spelling. It is the commonly accepted English language spelling of the name," Bessler explained. "We are not writing in Ukrainian, we are writing in English, so we use commonly understood English names for cities – hence Munich rather than Muenchen, Cologne not Koeln, Rome not Roma, etc."
The article also carries an image of a Google Ngram like this to make the case. —  AjaxSmack  02:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The multiple lengthy discussions of this article's name have always endorsed "Kiev" as the status quo among almost all English-language sources, and that consensus requires either some entirely new, compelling argument or evidence that usage in other English-language sources has now shifted overwhelmingly to "Kyiv", in order to overturn it. The nomination provides no new argument, and no evidence that the nominator has read past discussions of the matter; and while it claims that "influential publications" have decided on "Kyiv", no evidence is provided for this assertion (and, also, I see no evidence of this myself). I would further reiterate the point made by AjaxSmack above, that "Kiev" is not a Russian spelling (they spell the name of the city "Киев") and "Kyiv" is not Ukrainian (they spell it "Київ"); rather, these are English-language terms, one of which actually is much more common than the other. We use the common English names of cities on the English Wikipedia. 172.9.22.150 (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I stopped reading the nomination once I saw the so-called "influential publication" cited was Business Insider. Hot Stop 03:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


No mention of 2014 Hrushevskoho Street riots?[edit]

Seems to me this is a notable event in the history of Kiev. See 2014 Hrushevskoho Street riots Cwobeel (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree. This is a big part of history for everyone, especially for me since I am Ukrainian. I think someone should take the time to add this piece of info. --NataliyaKlymko (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2014[edit]

The line "None of Polish-Russian treaties concerning Kiev has been never ratified.[37]" makes no sense. I am not sure what this is supposed to say so I cannot suggest what it should be changed to. Siegehalver (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 16:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
It's a double negative. "None...has been never ratified". It should probably be "None of Polish-Russian treaties concerning Kiev has ever been ratified.[37]" --Khajidha (talk) 10:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Done Changed to "None of Polish-Russian treaties concerning Kiev have ever been ratified." Sam Sailor Sing 11:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Correct spelling of Ukraine's capital is Kyiv[edit]

Does someone know what proofs are needed to correct the spelling of the Ukraine's capital to Kyiv?

All necessary links are available at the top of this page.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
It is very frustrating to see Wikipedia persist in the former spelling of the name, considering Ukraine's largest newspaper and the government of the largest English-speaking country in the world use the proper spelling of Kyiv. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
It's not the "former spelling", it's the currently used spelling in most English media. --Khajidha (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Foundation date[edit]

According to the current education program in History, it is assumed that Kyiv was founded at the end of the 5th - at the beginning of the 6th century A.D.

I think the theory of Scandinavian origin should be added as well since some believe Kiev/Kyiv could have been founded by vikings as a trading outpost.Wlad Sokolowskiy (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2014[edit]

Ivandmytrovych (talk) 09:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC) the Kiev page is wrong. Ukraine's capital city is Kyiv and 45 millions Ukrainians say it is so, so change it... else Wiki is just plain wrong.

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: See 5th word of the article "Kiev (Russian: Киев) or Kyiv". Cannolis (talk) 10:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
That may be true in Ukrainian, but this page is in ENGLISH. The English name of the city is Kiev. --Khajidha (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
There is no such thing as the English name for Kyiv as this city has never been English-speaking or a part of any English-speaking political entity. Kiev came to use in the English language just because Russian was a dominant language in the Russian Empire and Soviet Union. Kiev is simply a romanisation of the Russian name Киев. Now as Ukraine is an independent nation with Ukrainian as its only official language and the majority of the population speaking it, it is time to change it to Kyiv. Homme (talk) 02:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Preamble[edit]

We can't write Russian Киев before Ukrainian Київ even though English Kiev is a bit closer to Киев. Kiev is a capital of Ukraine and to write like this is provocative, ridiculous and offensive for Ukrainians. We can't have any precedents in Wikipedia. e.g. Prague. English Prague is much closer to German Prag than to Czech Praha but it isn't even mention in the article's preamble. MelVic (talk) 05:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)MelVic

I completely agree. Just changed it so the preamble looks pretty similar to that of the article about another Ukrainian city — Kharkiv. Ukrainian name first, then the rest. Homme (talk) 02:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Wrong. The name of this city in English is "Kiev". That's why the article is named "Kiev", because that's the name that the vast majority of English speakers use and recognize. This discussion has been had for years and there is a consensus for the use of Kiev and listing Kiev first in the first sentence. You will need to build a WP:CONSENSUS to change the status quo. --Taivo (talk) 04:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Kiev vs Luhansk[edit]

Why is it in Russian "Kiev" instead of official Ukrainian KYIV, again (for those of us with poor concentration skills or no attention span)?

Why is it Ukrainian Luhansk while Kyiv is spelled in Russian - Kiev?

Wouldn't consistency dictate that it should be also Russian "Lugansk" if Kyiv is spelled in Russian?

I don't care about your semantics, verbal gymnastics. Logic is lacking here.--24.203.108.54 (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The logic is that Kiev is quite well known to the English speaking world by that name, while Luhansk/Lugansk is a virtual unknown under either name. Kiev thus appears in most reliable English sources while what few mentions of Luhansk/Lugansk will probably be under the Ukrainian form from here on out. To reiterate: the rule is common English usage. --Khajidha (talk) 01:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Kiev versus Kyiv[edit]

See the first notice at the top of this page. Please cease and desist all discussions of naming on this page and move them to the appropriate place. If there is an administrator watching this page, please move the previous discussions that are cluttering appropriate content here. --Taivo (talk) 04:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I am watching the page. Will do the clustering later today.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. --Taivo (talk) 07:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Word "Київ" need to be logically highlighted by italic[edit]

in section "Etymology", in phrase:

According to the rules, the Ukrainian Київ transliterates into Kyiv.

Word "Київ" needs italic formatting. Tnx

Recent events?[edit]

Is there some mysterious secret reason that neither this article nor History of Kiev contains anything about the dramatic, high-profile political events and civic strife that occurred in Kiev in 2013-14? Sca (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Why not Kyiv?[edit]