Talk:Kyiv

Talk Archives

DO READ ARCHIVES BELOW BEFORE PLAYING WITH KIEV/KYIV/KIJÓW/etc THINGS

• Talk:Kiev/Naming issue Archive01 (2003-2004)
• Talk:Kiev/Naming issue Archive02 (January-August 2005)
• Archive03 (non-naming discussions finished by mid-2005)
• Talk:Kiev/Naming issue Archive04 (August-December 2005)
• Archive05 (non-naming discussions mostly finished by mid-2006)
• Talk:Kiev/Naming issue Archive06 (mostly finished by mid-2006)
• Archive07 (non-naming discussions Feb 2006—June 2007)
• Talk:Kiev/Naming issue Archive08 (April 2006 to January 2007)
• Talk:Kiev/naming/archive 001 Naming issue mostly July 2007
• Talk:Kiev/naming/archive 002 Naming issue mostly August 2007
• Talk:Kiev/naming/archive 003 Naming issue mostly September 2007
• Talk:Kiev/naming/archive 004 Naming issue mostly September 2007 to February 2008
• Talk:Kiev/naming/archive 005 Naming issue
• Talk:Kiev/naming/archive 006 Naming issue

New principles for editing this talkpage. All read, please.

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.[1] 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)

English or Latin maps?

In the middle ages the city was mentioned in published sources as Kiou, Kiow, Kiew, Kiovia. On one of the oldest English maps of the region Russiae, Moscoviae et Tartariae published by Ortelius (London, 1570) the city is spelled as Kiou. On the map by Guillaume de Beauplan (1650) the name of the city was given as Kiiow, and the region was named as Kÿowia. In English traveller Joseph Marshall's book Travels (London, 1772) the city is referred as Kiovia.

The pictured map and its title appear to be in Latin, not English. In what language were the other mentioned maps written? This should be clarified. Obviously, these would have been used as sources in the English-speaking world, but the current text implies that they were written in English, and that doesn't appear to be completely true. —Michael Z. 2007-08-05 21:07 Z

Those are English maps, yes. Please look at their source at the image page. --Irpen 21:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, on the detail of Russiae, Moscoviae et Tartariae Descriptio it says "Publisher: Abraham Ortelius (London, 1570)", but on the full map page I see "Auctore Antonio Jenkensono Anglo edita Londini anno 1562... Publisher: Abraham Ortelius, Antwerp, (1570) 1592", so something's mixed up. On the actual scan, I see something like "Auctore Antonio Ienkensono Anglo, edita Londini anno 1562 & dedicata istriss: D. Henrico Sÿdneo Wallis presidi."

But regardless, the map must have been aimed at an international market, because its titles and legends are exclusively in the Latin language: Lituania, Borysthenes fl., Mare Caspium, Crimea. Obviously this could have influenced the English language, but it is not in English.

I wonder what language was used for Beauplan's and the other maps mentioned. —Michael Z. 2007-08-05 21:31 Z

Well, there is no doubt about the second (1804) map that it is English. As for the earlier times, were there other than Latin maps common at all? If not, the Latin maps were the only ones used by the Anglophone travellers similar to any others. --Irpen 21:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

No, nothing is really mixed up here: as our article on Abraham Ortelius expressly says, his atlas also gives sources. The version you have there is obviously in Latin. There were later versions in Dutch, French and German. These versions were slightly different. E.g. the French version was the first atlas to give the correct shape of Southern America. Kiovia may be an Ortelian translation of English (and primarily Polish) Kiov. Kÿowia looks like a Dutch spelling. FWIW, that Dutch diphthong, now usually spelled "ij" (both letters being capitalized at the beginning of a sentence or a place name, so Iceland is IJsland and not Ijsland) is pronounced like English "ay". BTW, I am sure that Ortelius's atlas was more influential in shaping British geography mores than the English source he was using. --Pan Gerwazy 10:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Culture section

This section is in such a pity shape. I started on expansion. Please join. --Irpen 17:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

While the Culture section, as well as some other sections could benefit from expanded content, I would not say that it is in pitiful shape. However, I would be happy to take a look at your suggestions in time, and if I don't have too many problems navigating the rather arcane editing protocols of WP, offer my suggestions. How will consensus be determined with regards to your hoped for edits? - --Volodia Tatlin 16:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Unprotecting?

Can the page be completely unprotected as long as the page move privileges are kept fully protected, so to avoid any gung-ho renaming? The article has been protected for quite some time, I think. --Asterion^talk 23:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The page is not protected from editing. Join in. --Irpen 23:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It is though semiprotected and has been for almost two months. --Asterion^talk 00:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Horlo has sort of promised not to make any edits related to changing Kiev to Kyiv. Actually he promised not to make any edits at all until the name was changed, and it does not look that is going to happen anytime soon. The current RM will be open until September 21, 2007, and it has been requested not to revisit for six months after that. 199.125.109.35 04:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Good article candidate

OK, dear friends, now it's time to get back to the article's improvement. This is a very good article and the WP:FA status is within a reasonable reach. So, I nominated it for WP:GA. Please help improving it when reviewers leave constructive suggestions. --Irpen 03:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a nice article, but can use more inline citations. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is nice, but it should contain more inline references (preferably to secondary rather than tertiary sources) and should be checked for peacock terms. Besides, it is not comprehensive. The economy section doesn't make much sense and is effectively about industry. Economy is not based exclusively on industry. The section leaves many important questions unanswered (How much taxes are collected in Kiev? Where are they allocated?). The government section should ideally provide references to legislation (as the article Legal status and local government of Kiev does). The article lacks sections on crime, media, utilities (Where tap water is taken from?). As the article is likely to be expanded further, it is worth creating separate more specific articles for some large subsections (e.g. on transportation). Good luck. BTW, is the Eurovision succesion box really that important and necessary? Colchicum 15:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Mention in OED

By 1883, the Oxford English Dictionary included Kiev in a quotation.

That doesn't seem quite right, because the very first 352-page OED fascicle (A to Ant) was published in 1884. Does this actually mean "The Oxford English Dictionary cited Kiev in a quotation dated 1883"? Can someone quote the quotation? —Michael Z. 2007-09-16 05:38 Z

The OED 2nd has an entry for "Kievan, a. Also Kievian" but not Kiev. The first cited mention is in 1927 ("Kievian political power"), 1957 ("Kievan Russia"), 1959 ("Kievan State"), and 1965 ("Kievan period").

I may be able to check the additions and the online OED. —Michael Z. 2007-10-12 16:08 Z

I had a look a the three OED Additions (1993 and 1997), and the up-to-date full OED Online. The main entry for "Kievan" has not been revised yet (Third Edition has been working on letters M–P), and there is no addition of "Kiev".

However, Oxford's Concise Dictionary of World Place-Names has an entry for Kiev, but unfortunately it only briefly outlines the Slavic etymology, and not usage in English. The headword is in typical British form, with English and BGN/PCGN transliteration of the Ukrainian name: "Kiev (Kyyiv)".

• "Kiev" Concise Dictionary of World Place-Names. John Everett-Heath. Oxford University Press 2005. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Database accessed 12 October 2007. (access code required: http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t209.e3628)

The Canadian Oxford Dictionary does appear to have more toponyms, including a headword for "Kiev /'ki:ef/ (Ukrainian Kyiv /'ki:ɪf/)", but unfortunately no quotations. —Michael Z. 2007-10-15 23:09 Z

Kiev in American Encyclopaedia, 1874

Re, OED, we need to dig out the long history who and when added this or hit the library. Despite a PD, this dictionary does not seem to be online.

I just found another old source: The American Cyclopædia, Appleton, NY, 1874 LCCN 07-0 Google books link has an entry on Kiev. Perhaps worthy to add a citation. Also, the article is interesting both as a source on the city and of the time. I take a liberty to paste it in full here:

KIEV, II. A city, capital of the government, on the right bank of the Dnieper, 270 m. N. of Odessa; pop. in 1867, 70,591. It consists of four parts, the old town, the Petcherskoi or new fort, both on steep hills, the Podol or low town, between the hills and the river, and the Vladimir town, which was added to the former by the empress Catharine II.

The old town, which in the times preceding the conversion of the Russians to Christianity, under Vladimir the Great, was the principal seat of Sarmatian and Russian heathen worship, now contains, besides several other churches, the cathedral of St. Sophia, a magnificent structure of the llth century, and the palace of the Greek metropolitan. The fort contains the great Petcherskoi monastery from which it received its name, and which, together with the bastions and walls of the place, and the glittering gilt and colored cupolas of the churches on the neighboring eminences, makes a strong impression upon the traveller who approaches the city from the other side of the Dnieper.. This division embraces the barracks of the garrison, the arsenals and magazines, the houses of the officers, the palace of the governor, numerous churches, and the renowned catacombs of St. Anthony, consisting of exc avations in a precipitous cliff on the banks of the river, which attract numberless pilgrims from all parts of Russia through veneration for the saints whose bodies are there preserved. Adjoining are the catacombs of St. Theodosius, which contain a smaller number of saints. The Podol, which is the commercial part of the city, is regularly laid out, and embellished with gardens.

Kiev has a large university, founded in 1834, to which are attached a library and cabinets of medals, zoology, mineralogy, and botany. There are also various other institutions of learning, of which the Greek theological academy in the Petcherskoi monastery is the best endowed and most frequented.

The manufactures and trade of the city are not important. Railways connect it with Moscow and St. Petersburg, Odessa, and Lemberg. A magnificent bridge, recently constructed, spans the Dnieper.

The earliest history of Kiev is traced by some to the time of the Greek colonies near the N. coast of the Black sea ; others place its foundation in the 5th century. In the last quarter of the 9th century it became the residence of the princes of Novgorod. As the cap ital of Christianized Russia, it was adorned in the llth century with a great number of churches. After the middle of the 12th, however, it was deprived of its rank, and subsequently suffered by the devastations of the Tartars, the Lithuanian and Polish wars, the plague, and fires. After having been for about three centuries in the hands of the Poles, it was reannexed to Russia by the peace of 1667.

I hope this longish quote of PD text pasted to a talk page is not too annoying. Feel free to remove if it is. Just save the diff then. Cheers, --Irpen 09:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I found this Verkhovna Rada web-site.

UKRAINIAN-ENGLISH TRANSLITERATION TABLE

---

On 19 April 1996, an official Ukrainian-English transliteration system was adopted by the Ukrainian Legal Terminology Commission (Decision N 9).

---

• Use of the approved system is not mandatory for the transliteration of foreign names into Ukrainian.
• Transliteration should be made directly between Ukrainian and English without the use of any intermediary languages.
• Decision 9 9, in accordance with the Legal Terminology Commission s express authority, is binding only for the transliteration of Ukrainian names in English in legislative and official acts.
• For brevity's sake, the system routinely allows for names such as the city of 'Zaporizhzhia' to be given as 'Zaporizhia,' 'L'viv' as 'Lviv,' etc. Also included is a short list of official spellings for miscellaneous terms: 'Ukraine' (no use of the article 'the'), 'Crimea' (as opposed to 'Krym'), 'Black Sea,' and 'Sea of Azov'. *In certain cases, 'traditional' forms may be shown in parentheses after the official form: 'Dnipro (Dnieper).'
• In addition, apostrophe marks and softening marks may be omitted upon transliteration into English.

---

Ukrainian letter English letter Note Example

• А А - Алушта - Alushta
• Б B - Борщагівка - Borschahivka
• В V - Вишгород - Vyshhorod
• Г H, gh Н-in most cases, gh - when recreating the combination “зг” Гадяч - Hadiach;Згорани - Zghorany
• Ґ G - Ґалаґан - Galagan
• Д D - Дон - Don
• Е E - Рівне - Rivne
• Є Ye, ie Ye - at the beginning of words, іе - in other positions Єнакієве - Yenakiieve;Наєнко - Naienko
• Ж Zh - Житомир - Zhytomyr
• З Z - Закарпаття - Zakarpattia
• И Y - Медвин - Medvyn
• I I - Iршава - Irshava
• Ї I Yi - at the beginning of words, і - in other positions Їжакевич - Yizhakevych;Кадіївка - Kadiivka
• Й Y, i Y - at the beginning of words, і - in other positions Йосипівка - Yosypivka;Стрий - Stryi
• К K - Київ - Kyiv
• Л L - Лебедин - Lebedyn
• М M - Миколаїв - Mykolaiv
• Н N - Ніжин - Nizhin
• О O - Одеса - Odesa
• П P - Полтава - Poltava
• Р R - Ромни - Romny
• С S - Суми - Sumy
• Т T - Тетерів - Teteriv
• У U - Ужгород - Uzhhorod
• Ф F - Фастів - Fastiv
• Х Kh - Харків - Kharkiv
• Ц Ts - Біла Церква - Bila Tserkva
• Ч Ch - Чернівці - Chernivtsi
• Ш Sh - Шостка - Shostka
• Щ Sch - Гоща -Hoscha
• Ь ‘ (see commentary) Русь - Rus’; Львів - L’viv
• Ю Yu, iu Yu - at the beginning of words, iu - in other positions Юрій - Yurii;Крюківка - Krukivka
• Я Ya, ia Ya - at the beginning of words, іа - in other positions Яготин - Yahotyn;Iчня - Ichnia
• ‘ (apostrophe) “ (see commentary) Знам’янка - Znamianka

Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 07:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There is another quote from the Constitution of Ukraine [2]. In Chapter I, Article 20 clearly states what the capital of Ukraine is. Are we going to diregard that?

Article 20

• The state symbols of Ukraine are the State Flag of Ukraine, the State Coat of Arms of Ukraine and the State Anthem of Ukraine.
• The State Flag of Ukraine is a banner of two equally-sized horizontal bands of blue and yellow.
• The Great State Coat of Arms of Ukraine shall be established with the consideration of the Small State Coat of Arms of Ukraine and the Coat of Arms of the Zaporozhian Host, by the law adopted by no less than two-thirds of the constitutional compositio n of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.
• The main element of the Great State Coat of Arms of Ukraine is the Emblem of the Royal State of Volodymyr the Great (the Small State Coat of Arms of Ukraine).
• The State Anthem of Ukraine is the national anthem set to the music of M. Verbytskyi, with words that are confirmed by the law adopted by no less than two-thirds of the constitutional composition of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.
• The description of the state symbols of Ukraine and the procedure for their use shall be established by the law adopted by no less than two-thirds of the constitutional composition of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.
• The capital of Ukraine is the City of Kyiv.

Here is the official postal address at the US embassy [3]. Please, pay attention to name of the link and the postal address. Here is the British embassy web-site in Ukraine [4]. Here is resolution of the Ukrainian commission for legal terminology No. 5, protocol no.1 of October 14, 1995 [5].

More[6]:

РІШЕННЯ

УКРАЇНСЬКОЇ КОМІСІЇ З ПИТАНЬ ПРАВНИЧОЇ ТЕРМІНОЛОГІЇ
No.9
Протокол No.2 від 19 квітня 1996 р.
Комісія, розглянувши на підставі п. 6 ч,4 Положення про Українську комісію з питань правничої термінології питання щодо затвердження таблиці для відтворення українських власних назв засобами англійської мови та правил до неї, спираючись на подання Інституту української мови НАН України, УХВАЛИЛА:
1. Затвердити як нормативну таблицю для відтворення українських власних назв засобами англійської мови та правила до неї (додається).
2. На підставі п. 7 Положення про Українську комісію з питань правничої термінології встановити, що нормативна таблиця застосовується при відторенні українських власних назв засобами англійської мови у законодавчих та офіційних актах.
3. Визначити, що роз'яснення щодо особливостей застосування таблиці та висновки щодо правильності її застосування надає Інститут українсчкої мови НАН України (за його згодою), із погодженням, у раці необхідності, з Комісією.
Голова Комісії, Міністр юстиції України
С. ГОЛОВАТИЙ
Відповідальний секретар Комісії
Ю. ЗАЙЦЕВ

Додаток до рішення No.9
української комісії з питань правничої термінології
протокол No.2 від 19 квітня 1996 р.
Нормативна таблиця для відтворення українських власних назв засобами англійської мови No. Укр. Літери Лат. Літери Примітки Приклади застосування

1 А A - Алушта Alushta
2 Б B - Борщагівка Borschahivka
3 В V - Вишгород Vyshhorod
4 Г H , gh Н - у більшості випадків Гадяч, Згорани Hadiach, Zghorany
5 Ґ G - Ґалаґан Galagan
6 Д D - Дон Don
7 Е E - Рівне Rivne
8 Є Ye , ie Ye - на початку слова, ie - в інших позиціях Єнакієве, Наєнко Yenakiieve, Naienko
9 Ж Zh - Житомир Zhytomyr
10 З Z - Закарпаття Zakarpattia
11 И Y - Медвин Medvyn
12 І I - Іршава Irshava
13 Ї I Yi - на початку слова, I - в інших позиціях Їжакевич, Кадіївка Yizhakevych, Kadiivka
14 Й Y , i Y - на початку слова, i - в інших позиціях Йосипівка, Стрий Yosypivka, Stryi
15 К K - Київ Kyiv
16 Л L - Лебедин Lebedyn
17 М M - Миколаїв Mykolaiv
18 Н N - Ніжин Nizhyn
19 О O - Одеса Odesa
20 П P - Полтава Poltava
21 Р R - Ромни Romny
22 С S - Суми Sumy
23 Т T - Тетерів Teteriv
24 У U - Ужгород Uzhhorod
25 Ф F - Фастів Fastiv
26 Х Kh - Харків Kharkiv
27 Ц Ts - Біла Церква Bila Tserkva
28 Ч Ch - Чернівці Chernivtsi
29 Ш Sh - Шостка Shostka
30 Щ Sch - Гоща Hoscha
31 Ь ' - Русь, Львів Rus', L'viv
32 Ю Yu , iu Yu - на початку слова, iu - в інших позиціях Юрій, Крюківка Yurii, Kriukivka
33 Я Ya , ia Ya - на початку слова, ia - в інших позиціях Яготин, Ічня Yahotyn, Ichnia
34 ' ia - Знам'янка Znamianka

Правила відтворення українських власних назв засобами англійської мови
1. Вітворення українських власних назв засобами англійської мови відбуваєтчся з їх української форми, записаної відповідно до чинного правопису, без посередництва будь-якої іншої мови.
2. Відтоврення українських власних назв засобами англійської мови відбувається шляхом транслітерації (політерного перезапису за допомогою латинського алфавіту). Міжмовні алфавітні відповідники подано в нормативаній таблиці, коментар до якої наведено нижче.
3. Вимоги цих правл не обов'язкові для запису українських імен іноземних громадян. Коментар до нормативної таблиці: У певних сферах відтворення українських власних назв вживається спрощений варіант запису, що передбачає:
а) орфографічне спрощення громіздкого подвоення приголосних ж, х, ц, ч, ш, які відтворюються буквосполученнями zh, kh, ts, ch, sh, наприклад, Запоріжжя -- Zaporizhia,
б) апостроф і знак м'якшення (за винятком буквосполучень -ьо-, -ьї-, що завжди передаються як -'o, 'i-) у спрощеній транслітерації не відтворюються.
Приклади:
Українська форма: Спрощення транслітерація: Точна транслітерація:
Львів Lviv L'viv
Ананьїв Ananiv Anan'iv
Стеф'юк Stefiuk Stef’iuk
Koрoп’є Koropie Korop’ie
Голова Комісії, Міністр юстиції України
С. ГОЛОВАТИЙ
Відповідальний секретар комісії
Ю.ЗАЙЦЕВ

РОЗ'ЯСНЕННЯ

щодо особливостей застосування нормативної таблиці для відтворення українських власних назв засобами англійської мови
1. Звичайно застосовується спрощена транслітерація. Точна транслітерація вживається тільки в окремих випадках і за погодженням з Українською комісією з питань правничої термінології та Інститутом української мови НАН Україин.
2. Зберігають традиційне написання такі власні назви:
Ukraine (вживається без артикля the)
Crimea
Black Sea
Sea of Azov
3. В окремих випадках і за умов, коли це не суперечить правилам оформлення відповідного документа, транслітерована власна назва може дублюватися у дужках традиційним написанням, наприклад: Dnipro (Dnieper)
Голова Української Комісії з питань правничої термінології
С. ГОЛОВАТИЙ
Директор Інституту української мови НАН України
О. ТАРАНЕНКО
Запити та пропозиції щодо інших особливостей застосування нормативної таблиці направляти у письмовому вигляді до Української комісії з питань правличої термінології (252033, Київ, вул. Саксаганського, 41) та до Інституту Української мови НАН України (252001, Київ, МСН, вул. Грушевського, 4).

You know, there are laws that suggest the spelling of the words. Is that crazy? None the less, people still keep on searching for stuff that certaintly will not be there due to strict censorship in times of the Soviet government. No one calls Ukraine Ukrainian SSR any longer or some other crazy names that they have for it in 1874. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 07:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

The article is a good, solid B-class article, but does not currently meet the Good Article criteria, and will not be listed at this time.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

Most obviously, the article is largely insufficiently referenced. There are large sections of the article with zero sources, and many more with only one. **Everything** doesn't **have** to be cited for GA criteria, but at a minimum, the article should provide inline citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons.

The reference citation list is also not formatted properly. Citations should include full citation information (e.g. author, title, publisher, date of publication, and date of retrieval if a web link is available). This is so that, if a web link should become unavailable (404 not found), readers can still verify the source through other means and the reference is not totally useless. I would recommend taking a look at WP:CITE for information on how to use inline citations in articles.

The article prose can be choppy at times, and somewhat difficult to read. Minor words, like "the", or commas, are often missing. A good copyedit would be recommended. It would help to review the manual of style as well.

The lead could use some work. It's not bad, but the third paragraph seems to go on and on about the history, and isn't very short and concise. Some of this material could go into the history section, and only the major facts should be included. The lead section should contain a good, clear, and concise summary of the article, and should almost be able to stand on its own without the rest of the article, if the reader chooses to only read the lead. It would help to review WP:LEAD for tips on improving this section. Oh, and the image in the infobox is copyrighted; I believe the copyright tag is good, but it doesn't have a fair-use rationale. I don't really understand what, "Should be PD as 'news' by UA law, but fairuse for now." means? Nice image, though! ;-)

I would recommend a better organization of sections, at least for the beginning. After the lead, start with 'etymology' (move the contents of 'city name evolution' to 'etymology', since that's what it is). Then, put history, followed by geography (rename 'environment' to 'geography', and eliminate the first unnecessary subsection header there), then 'demographics', and then 'economy'. I'd put 'culture' after that, followed by 'sports' (move sports to its own main section, as it can stand on its own outside of culture), and then 'government', 'education', and 'transportation' at the end.

You might want to add some details on the cityscape (streets & neighborhoods) to the geography section.

What about talking about some of the local politics and the interactions of the mayor and city council with the citizens. BTW, who's the mayor? While it's generally unnecessary to list the entire members of the city council, if it's very large, some of the key officers are generally important. Maybe also include some information on national legislative representatives, too.

The demographics section looks good, and reasonably well referenced (although the ethnic group figures are unsourced). I also would find it interesting to have an explanation for the huge drop in population around WWII and its subsequent rise back to over a million in the decade that followed?

I would eliminate the 'modern kiev' title and simply call this 'culture'. The language really should be cleaned up, and there are no sources. Watch for weasel words and flowery language in the culture section. Things like, "hip nightclubs, classy restaurants and prestigious hotels". While it's still written in prose, a lot of the information on cultural attractions is really just a list in disguise, and more information could be added to spruce this up a bit. Also, what about including some information about any annual cultural events or fairs in the city? Don't forget to include sources and references for information in this section, either.

The 'tourism' section should probably be merged partially with the culture section, and partially with economy, if tourism is a significant aspect of the economy. Remember, wikipedia is not a tourist guide, and text should focus on the encyclopedic nature of information.

There's a couple of 'see also' links in several sections that link to categories, and not individual articles. This is generally discouraged and these 'see also' links should ideally go to a separately linked article. For example, if the culture section has a lot of info, link to See also: Culture in Kiev.

There are two galleries of images (culture and tourism) that really don't seem to contribute much to the article in its position, as they're just images. I would recommend taking the best images and using them within the text of the article, to help talk about various cultural attractions. If there are a lot of images, any that aren't used in the text could be added to a 'gallery' section at the end of the article, but before the 'see also' and 'references' sections.

Since there's not really that many external links, it probably isn't necessary to separate them into subsections. Also, any links that are used as inline citations, need not be linked at the bottom under 'external links', since they'll fall under 'references' instead. Review WP:EL for tips on including external links in sections and keeping the amount of linkspam down.

Hope this review helps to improve the article up to GA status. Please renominate it once the issues are addressed. Cheers! Dr. Cash 05:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Spelling error

Can a registered user please correct the spelling of the word "similar" in the reference for the spelling Kyjevъ? Due to the semi-protected status of this article, unregistered users like myself can't make trivial edits such as this. Thanks, 60.242.0.245 12:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that whole part of the reference has been removed. Just to check - the similarity mentioned in the older reference was between the spelling in the Chronicle compared to modern Ukrainian, as opposed to Russian, wasn't it? Or was it about the Latin transliterations of each spelling? 60.242.0.245 (talk) 08:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

So make an account :). Bogdan ^що? 14:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

What, and be accused of having a Single-Purpose Account when I make my first edit? ;) Though I've noted a few other spelling errors in the article, so I may do so soon..Have you an opinion on the recently truncated reference?60.242.0.245 (talk) 06:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm...not sure I know what you're talking about. PS, is that you Horlo? Bogdan ^що? 21:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for the above larrikinism. This IP address has an editing history, from edits by myself and others under the same IP; I continue to use it for this reason. No Horlos reside here though, Bogdan. I've twice been mistaken for Horlo, but he lives in Canada.

The Kyjevъ reference has been changed[7] (other than just having the spelling fixed), on the grounds of the relative similarity between spelling being dubious. I was wondering if Къıєвъ was being compared to Київ and Киев, or if the transliterations (Kyiev, Kyiv and Kiev) were being compared. Could Alex Kov, Reginmund, Ceriy or anybody else explain this please?

Thanks,60.242.0.245 (talk) 06:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Image galleries

I would suggest removing the image galleries of the article (Kiev#Architectural monuments and Kiev#Views of Kiev) as they take up too much space and are bulky. I understand that all of these images are needed to the article, but let's not get every important image into the article.. Any comments? —dima/talk/ 19:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be better if we left the Architectural gallery and removed the "Views of Kiev" one. As architecture is it's own section while "Views of Kiev" are mere images, without much importance to the article. Regards, Bogdan ^що? 21:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I though about that option as well. —dima/talk/ 23:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I will remove the "View of Kiev" gallery right now as there were no more comments about it. —dima/talk/ 19:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Russian name

The lead: The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parentheses...Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages.

— Wikipedia:NCGN

Regards, Bogdan ^що? 16:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

First, you need to show that the Russian name in Cyrillic alphabet is relevant (either because this Cyrillic name is used by at least 10% of English sources, or that the place was used to be inhabited by Russians). Second, read the policy completely: "Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section". --Greggerr (talk) 08:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that the Russian name is relevant, as is the Polish name, given the influence from those two countries on the recent (last few hundred years) history of the city. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 06:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible OR in "Power production" section

Ladies and gentlemen, the section looks amusingly absurdous for me. Kiev, as with most settlements in Ukraine, is supplied with electricity by the national grid (like it was redundantly stated in the section). To the best of my humble knowledge, the "grid" means that no particular power station is relevant more than the others. Not to mention the "power supply in the form of natural gas, piped from..." :) Thus, the whole section is probably an original research.

On the other hand, we may want to describe the energy industry in the city. Which would lead us to a pretty different picture: in fact there are several power stations inside Kiev, owned by the city community and even foreign investors. Even that stinky trash-burning company is a minor energy producer, hence the "Energiya" name :) So we might, or might not, reflect all this in the main city article. Anyway, Economy of Kiev is the ultimate place for such information. I hope to get there some day. Thanks, Ukrained (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Economy

The whole "Economy" section of this article desperately needs expansion and updating rewriting within current size. I'm sure that significant number of "new" Kievans have never even heard of all those Soviet industrial giants :) But they must be very fond of booming construction industry, PFTS stock exchange, or at least Troyeschyna bazar :) Ukrained (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I've tagged it all across, gentlemen. Ukrained (talk) 01:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the section needs a major rewrite and revamping.. If you want, go ahead and fix it up.. —dima/talk/ 23:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Architectural monuments

I think the definite article "the" should be removed from the following captions:

-The St. Michael's Golden-Domed Cathedral, 1998 reconstruction.

-The St. Andrew's Church

-The St Volodymyr's Cathedral (and for consistency, maybe put a full stop {.} after the St)

Could a registered user look into that please? Thanks, 60.242.0.245 (talk) 10:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you for mentioning this detail. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 09:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested move to Kyiv (February 2008)

The original text of this discussion is found here. The debate took place between February 10 and February 22, 2008, and its result was no consensus.
In accordance to the talk page split of August 2007, the text has been moved to Talk:Kiev/naming (diff. diff.). - Ev (talk) 10:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

incorrect atribution

The line "In the Ukrainian language itself, the name of the city was pronounced Kiev until only about 100 years ago." does not match the source (http://www.infoukes.com/faq/kyiv-2/), where the author states "The spelling Kyiv (Kyyiv) has been used in Ukrainian for only about the last century". This is a statement about the English spelling, not pronunciation. BTW, I do not discuss it the (original) sentence makes any sense whatsoever or the author is an expert enough to be quoted about the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.254.93.99 (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a statement about the Cyrillic spelling, unless our anon is claiming that Ukrainian used the Latin alphabet in 1900. I don't see where English comes into it; we never have used Cyrillic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Septentrionalis, I think you are actually agreeing with this editor, as he or she was saying that the source was interpreted incorrectly. As you are registered (and the article is semi-protected), do you want to have a close look and see if the statement with source (http://www.infoukes.com/faq/kyiv-2/) should be modified or cut, as it has nothing to do with pronunciation?60.242.0.245 (talk) 07:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The primary name of the article is very important, as it is the first thing a reader sees. However, the rest of the article needs to be looked after too: grammatical issues that can be found at Talk:Kyiv#Architectural_monuments were raised by myself seventeen days ago, and have not been corrected by any of the registered users - neither the 'regulars', nor those who added their voices to this talk page once the rename was requested. Also, if one reads Talk:Kyiv#incorrect_atribution, they will come across another error which is yet to be corrected. Can a registered user please look into this?

Thanks, 60.242.0.245 (talk) 10:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Both done. Thanks for bringing this up. --Irpen 07:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that.60.242.0.245 (talk) 04:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the captions of the images still need to be fixed. Almost all of the leading articles constitute bad English grammar. I pointed this out at Talk:Kyiv#Architectural_monuments.60.242.0.245 (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you for mentioning this detail. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 09:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ev.60.242.0.245 (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Education section picture

Given Kiev National Taras Shevchenko University is the first institution mentioned, any good reason to keep Irpen's deletion/replacement with a 1911 picture versus Greggerr's picture of the University?. -PētersV (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

First, why should the section about the general education of the city be illustrated by the image of just one educational institution, especially, since we in Kiev are lucky to have a very notable historic building that connects to the city's education in general? This architectural masterpiece, constructed specifically as a Pedagogical Museum has a lot of exciting things connected with it. After being constructed as a Pedagogical Museum, the building was a stage of several hugely important political events (I will write an article on its history one day) and now it again is devoted to the education purposes being the city's Teachers' House. Additionally (but note that this is not the sole reason), the two university pics have problems. --Irpen 20:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Kyiv Shevchenko University is the leading University not only in Kyiv, but in Ukraine. Kyiv Mohyla Academy is the oldest, and in historical prospective, one of the most influential. On the other hand, the connection of the Pedagogical Museum to education is minor, and the building is the most known not as Pedagogical Museum, but due to political reasons as Tsentralna Rada building (and one day there will be an article written about that building). --Greggerr (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll?

The 1911 building of the "Pedagogical Museum", currently the Kiev Teacher's House.

The main entrance to the Kyiv Mohyla Academy, one of the oldest and most influential educational centers in Ukrainian history.

The National Taras Shevchenko University, the leading University in Ukraine.

Well, I am glad you are familiar with this building's history. Also, note, that it was built as a Pedagogical Museum and is now again a city's Teacher's House.

I propose a straw poll photo is better for the city education section as long as it is too short to accommodate more than one image.

IMO, the museum's photo is better as it is more historic and more interesting, shows an architectural masterpiece, a historical significant building to refer to in other section of the article, and a professional work. --Irpen 06:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you understand that the photo you brought in is controversial and offensive to Ukrainians? How many in the Russian Empire were getting education in their native language? What was the "prosveschenie" about? That Ukrainians are "Russian people". But we are not. We have got our language, and were close to get a country in 1917-20. I'm assuming your good fate, but I know you are smart not to notice the underlying meaning of the photo you brought in.

You know that your postcard is no way the best illustration for the 'Education' section. The building is of marginal importance for education. City articles are about city characteristics, not just history. There is a section on history, and your Podol photo is acceptable for this. But except the history section, the rest of the article covers modern characteristics. Black and white 100 year old photo is not a representation of modern education. It's an interesting photo, and it is a must in the article about the building in pair with the current photo, but pushing it into Kiev is too far.

The straw poll? Will it be "Russian people" vs. Eastern Europeans? You are here the one who is pushing a controversial photo. Probably in this particular issue you need to step back. --Greggerr (talk) 08:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Please don't pretend that you speak for all Ukrainians when you say that photo is "controversial and offensive to Ukrainians", this is outright nonsense. The narrow nationalist slice of the tolerant Ukrainian nation should not usurp the right to speak for the entire people. Ukrainians are not offended at all, except of a small part who make up this non-existing "offense" just to push the change they like to see.--Miyokan (talk) 09:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You pretend to know the general attitude of people in Kiev? Based on what? On what you are shown on your Russian TV? From year to year the tolerant Ukrainian nation becames increasingly intolerant, given the imperialistic attitude of the narrow nationalist slice which is usurping the Russian society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greggerr (talk • contribs)

Indeed, Greggerr, please cut the nonsense? Who is becoming intolerant? What offensive? To who Ukrainians? Who are "we"? You? Me? DDima? Please do not speak on behalf of "the Ukrainians". And don't do the rest of us a disservice portraying us intolerant. I don't know about Miyokan, but I do have the knowledge about the general attitude of people in Kiev. And it is not anywhere close to a fringe view your are trying to assign to Kievans. You claim that you "speak for Ukrainians" is no more valid than that of Yanukovych or even Vitrenko.

Further, this is not the article about the Ukrainian education. This is the section about the education in Kiev. "Controversial photo" is your invention. Probably in this particular issue you are best to stay on topic and don't tell me what to do. I am asking for opinions and arguments. What's wrong with asking for feedback? You are the one here trying to turn this into an ethnic match. I am interested in opinion of other editors, preferably devoid of ethnic talk of any kind. If this discussion brings in the bunch of the usual following crowd, it would be unfortunate, but it is easy to see whose opinion here is most informed and valuable. There were very few editors who made more than 20 edits to this article overall and still remain active. Those editors are DDima, Mzajac, Kuban, Bogdan, Ukrained, you (if edits from all your accounts are added up) and myself. If this discussion instead gets hijacked by outsiders, it would be less valuable. --Irpen 09:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Irpen, you seem to dislike the growing support of Tyahnybok's Svoboda. But you are bringing a photo of Red Army march in Lviv. You are bringing a photo with the monarchist statement. What do you expect in response? There is a number of photos which you find controversial and offensive.

If if I were to represent a minority, what does it really change? Are you advocating for a respect of a minority or advocating for ignoring it? There are different minorities in Ukraine. --Greggerr (talk) 10:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

For Tyahnybok, I don't even pay attention to how much support he gets. It can never become large enough to matter to me precisely because the majority of Ukrainians always rejected and I daresay will reject the ultra-nationalist rhetoric. If you want to know what political developments in Ukraine I dislike we can have this fascinating discussion elsewhere but please do not put things in my mouth.

BAck to the image, I am not sure about the monarchist statement. If you check the sources on the building in question, it was built on the charitable contributions of prominent Kievans. The museum was international and multicultural, just like Kiev was and remained through its history.

For the Red Army in Lviv pic, you could have asked in another article, but I would satisfy your curiosity. The 1939 unification of Ukraine (for the first time ever) was an event of the epochal significance in its history. Many historians agree on that and I think such an event deserves the image. What image is best, we could discuss. You chose, instead, to sneakily nominate it for deletion. From my past experience with you this was unsurprising. Now you are trying a different trick, to claim the image's being offensive out of thin air. You tried to pull that card in the discussion of the hero city template and many other times.

If this museum was indeed offensive to Kievans, I am sure it was said somewhere. This could certainly be a valid argument but not if it comes from a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor. Some find the very name of the city "offensive" and some may even consider the Latin characters "offensive". Now, please keep this discussion on topic.

Thank you for bringing in the third image. Now, let's let others provide their opinions. I am particularly interested in the opinions of editors who spend much effort to build this article but of course anyone's opinion may be helpful. --Irpen 11:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

About your statement of the 1939 "unification" and whatever historians you have mentioned. I know for the fact that people of the western part of Ukraine perceive this act in diffrent perspective. And that is not a minority. Recently on Inter (Ukrainian TV station) there was a movie about two Ukrainian that were fighting Germans, one from Kharkiv, another from Lviv. It truly reflects the opinion of the Ukrainian population in that regard. I apologize that I cannot recall the name of the movie at this time. Coincidently this "unification" happened at the start of the World War II and can also be perceived as the initiation of the last as some of the other annexations that took place at that time: Finland, Bukovina, Baltic states etc. I wonder why no one addresses that issue. And what is up with the law that Russia has passed to outlaw justification of it war crimes. Are we to believe that the Soviet Union was all that pure? Well, just a food for thought... Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 08:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Vote #3

I'm going for the "anyone's opinion" category:

When considering both the current and historic significance of the buildings, as well as the suitability and aesthetics of their pictures, the Mohyla Academy seems to win out. A possible problem is that it could be seen as non-representative, due to its relatively low number of enrollments (it's now an 'exclusive' centre of learning). The pedagogical museum is quite interesting architecturally, but lacks current significance relative to the others. Kyiv University is of course very relevant, though a scaled-down photo of that building may not be the best choice for the article (it looks quite monochromatic, especially in a small image).

• Just a question: What does Khotyn Fortress has to do with Kiev? Why is that in the article? It is in totaly different part of Ukraine!

Absolutely no idea.. I removed it. Thanks for notifying, ddima.talk 01:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

russian name

what is the point of having the russian name if there is a link to the name in other languages article (which russian is in)? Ostap 20:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean in the introduction? The Ukrainian name is also shown, and it is also in the other languages article. I would assume it is because Russian and Ukrainian are the main languages of Kyiv/Kiev, and it is common to give the name of a city in its native/most widely-spoken languages (as well as English) in the introduction of an article. Regards, EJF (talk) 20:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, no - it is common to show what the average English speaker would find least surprising. Just do a google search for "capital of Ukraine", ignore all of the invitations to find a mate, and you will see that Kyiv is more common. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Prose needs toning down

This article reads like a travel brochure. I'd fix it myself, but I'm on the road.79.188.24.234 (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move to Kyiv (September 2008)

Section's original title: "Request to move to official name".
Discussion moved to the designated page per message on top. --Irpen 21:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The original text of this discussion is found here. The debate took place between September 23 and September 30, 2008, and its result was No move.
In accordance to the talk page split of August 2007, the text has been moved to Talk:Kiev/naming (diff. diff.), as Irpen mentioned above. - Ev (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

In accordance to the talk page split of August 2007, discussion on the article's name should take place at Talk:Kiev/naming. - Ev (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

---

The name of the article should be Kyiv and not Kiev. Following independence, the official language of Ukraine is Ukrainian, and is spoken by the majority of people living there. The name in English should reflect this. Adochka (talk) 11:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Its commonname in the English language is Kiev not Kyiv - therefore per WP:COMMONNAME it should stay as Kiev.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see the discussion in the appropriate section as noted above. This has been debated repeatedly. Personally I support Kyiv but find I cannot do so (yet) from an editorial English common-usage standpoint. PetersV       TALK 17:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I think in this case, using the CN form is borderline revisionism, seeing as the US, EU, and UN all recognize the spelling as Kyiv now.--Lvivske (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2009 (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 apartments fell in price twice

says this article. Should this be mentioned in this article or is it to detailed information? — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Picture in infobox

I see that the last hours we had 3 different pictures of Kyiv in the infobox. Somehowe I think the current picture of Besarabsky Market is not the best way to represent Kyiv... Should we have some sort of vote on this? — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 11:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Maidan Nezalezhnosti (Kiev).jpg

I would prefer this one myself, it has got Maidan (the most important square) and a part of Khreschatyk (the most important street) on it

I would agree with a photo of Maidan Nezalezhnosti. In modern Ukraine, it is the most recognizable image of modern Kyiv and, because of the Orange Revolution, calls to mind a major "national moment". The monument to Independence is especially recognizable as being "Kyiv". A distant second would be a photo of St Michael's. But both photos have rhetorical value--a photo of St Michael's is a look back at the city's past, a photo of Maidan Nezalezhnosti is a look forward at the city's present and future. (Taivo (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC))

Done! I'm a bit fed up with pictures who make Kyiv look like a German city or random post-Soviet city... — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 07:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Like this!

I see that New York City and London and other city articles use montages-pictures in the infobox. Mabey that is a good idea for this Kiev article. It could stop the neverending chances of pictures (of latley). I have no idea why the current picure is seen as more typical Kiev then a picture of Maidan. I hope it is not some anti-Orange Revolution statment, I was in favour of a Maidan picture cause it is known most in English speaking country's (I do believe).

I propose a montage including

• Maidan
• Caves monastry
• Sophie Cathedral
• The big WWII lady
• St Michael's church

What do you think? — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 12:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally, no. The photo should be Maidan, preferrably with the Independence Monument in view. That is the image of modern Kyiv that is most "Ukrainian" right now. (Taivo (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC))

The city's present is better presented throughout the modern skyline of Kyiv; or then we need simply a montage ... any objection ? FesCityRaver (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I personally don't like montages and the skyline photo, especially at night, just makes it look like every other city (not even European necessarily). I still prefer the Maidan photo because that is a very distinctive image of Kyiv. But I'm open for a discussion. --Taivo (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the typical Ukrainian square is a great representation, but the skyline shows the city as whole, this is only my opinion FesCityRaver (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

As with all big cities, unless there is a truly distinctive building that most recognize (such as the former World Trade Center towers in New York, or the Sears Tower in Chicago, etc.), every skyline is indistinguishable from every other skyline. Plazas with distinctive monuments are often much more iconographic than a skyline. For example, Paris is more recognizable from the Eiffel Tower than from its skyline, which is unremarkable. Kyiv's skyline is unremarkable--there are no skyscrapers and the church domes are generally obscured by multistory buildings in the immediate vicinity. There are really only two things that make Kyiv unique--the Maidan and its monument spire, and the Iron Maiden. The Iron Maiden, however, is so tied to the Soviet Union that it is probably an inappropriate choice. --Taivo (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Babi Yar 18.jpg

The main Babi Yar memorial

• The Maidan photo, is a nice photo and is recognisable, in the same way that Big Ben and Nelson's Column are recognisable for London. My 1st preference would be to keep the Maidan photo.
• If for some reason this is impossible - then let us have a photo of something else that is unique to Kiev - the Babi Yar memorial to to massacre of the Jews.
• I do not like montages. Using them makes no sense on something like Wikipedia, because if you want to show 5 images on a Wikipedia page, you just show the all five images. You do not need to create a montage.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)!

Sir Taivo is right (with regards) what a soviet stub have to do with Ukraine ? (we cant take this point so, because even Russia orginated from the first Ukrainian state) i think the best representation of Kiev will be shown under the Varangian brothers ... the Legendary founders of Kyiv (with respect), otherwise people, there is no other notable tall monument within the city left by Cimmerians, Sarmatians or Slavs ... discussion is going onboard ? regards

FesCityRaver (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not a question of any old monument, but a question of a recognizable monument. I have to disagree with Toddy about the Babi Yar memorial. It is a worthy memorial, but it is not a recognizable feature of Kyiv. With the Orange Revolution, Maidan and the monument to Freedom became internationally noteworthy and recognizable. --Taivo (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Then, I think about one of those famous Ukrainian cathedrals of Kyiv, which are a UNESCO World Heritage site (a skyline of the city with those will be great) Regards!

FesCityRaver (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

St Peter's Cathedral in Rome is famous; St Paul's Cathedral in London is famous. If you ask English people to name a famous cathedral in Kiev, they would have to ask Google or guess.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The Kiev Pechersk Lavra is a UNESCO world heritage site and will be a great representation of the city, as it was one of his first standing buildings FesCityRaver (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The Pechersky Lavra is not as old as St Sophia's (which is also a UNESCO site and in the heart of the city). But I think that something in the heart of the city is more appropriate than something on the outskirts. I have a hard time thinking of an image of Kiev more iconographic than Maidan. What is your objection to Maidan? --Taivo (talk) 02:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Seriously None, but i think one these following pictures will be great:

A Skyline of the city with the most recognizable monument, the St.-Sophia

The square with the statue of Bohdan Khmelnytsky

It is just something more ancient, and more venerated by the people of Ukraine. Regards 41.140.29.184 (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC) The English version of Wikipedia isn't for the people of Ukraine, it's for English speakers (there is a Ukrainian Wikipedia for the people of Ukraine). The photos are nice, and you are welcome to add them at appropriate places in the article, but the most recognizable image to the Americans and Brits (primarily) who will be the users of this encyclopedia, the image of Maidan is more iconic and recently recognizable. As Americans, we like to see photos of things that don't look like everything else. That skyline looks like any other skyline and the statue is just another statue of a guy on a horse--we have a thousand of them in our cities. But a tall spire topped by a golden statue is pretty cool. And any American looking up Kiev in the first place probably knows about the Orange Revolution. Like I said, these two photos you've offered can be placed elsewhere in the article. --Taivo (talk) 19:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

There is not only Americans who are interested in Ukraine, but also other people... and i didnt say its for Ukrainians, but i did say that those monuments are appreciated by Ukrainians, so its my supposition to say that its preferable that they represent the article, only my view, Regards. FesCityRaver (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Kiev Pechersk Lavra (General).jpg

Kiev Pechersk Lavra

I know we are not trying to hold a straw poll here, but if you ask me my vote would be for this shot of the Lavra. Although I agree it isnt as recognizable as the maidan to westerners, it certainly provides a better "summary" for Kiev as a highly religious city with much religious history. If you've ever been to Kiev the Lavra is positioned on the very picturesque hills overlooking the Dnieper and this view of the monastery dominates the left-bank of the city. Best regards, Tavrian 20:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I also wouldnt oppose the idea of a montage. --Tavrian 20:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Variags???

File:Founders of Kiev.jpg

Founders of Kyiv, 1982

Since when Kyi, Schek, and Khoryv became Variags??? Who claims that? That is a bad example of a theory. The name of statue in Kyiv commemorates the Founders of the City, not Variags. Why are you putting a wrong name of the statue and reflecting false impressions? That is crazy! First of all the name of the statue has no relevance to Variags and second of all only a few historians relate Kyi, Schek, and Khoryv to that ethnicity stating that it could be false. So why won't simply put the real name of the statue instead of self-conscienciously renaming it. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Project to achieve GA/FA?

A lot of energy has been spent discussing naming—I'd suggest instead that we put the proverbial stake in the ground and agree to work toward the necessary improvements in the article to achieve GA/FA. The easiest is to look around for other articles about cities which are rated GA or FA.
 

Outline of Kiev Environment Geography Climate History Government Subdivisions Formal subdivision Informal subdivision Demographics Modern Kiev Culture Sports Architecture Architectural monuments Transportation Local transportation Suburban transportation Railways Air transport Roads Sites of interest Tourism Attractions in Kiev Economy Education City name evolution International relations Twin towns — Sister cities See also References External links

Outline of London, GA History Governance Local government National government Geography Scope Status Topography Climate Districts Cityscape Demography Ethnic groups Religion Economy Architecture Parks and gardens Society and culture Accent Leisure and entertainment Literature and film Museums and Art Galleries Music Sport Transport Railways Buses Air Roads Education Twin cities See also References Further reading External links

Outline of Johannesburg, FA History Government Crime Geography and climate Demographics Cityscape Architecture Parks and gardens Residential Areas Economy Retail Communications and media Music Suburbs Tourism Sports teams and stadiums Transport Airports Freeways Taxis Mass transit Trains Buses Bus Rapid Transit Education and Culture Museums in Johannesburg AECI Dynamite Factory Museum Adler Museum of Medicine Apartheid museum Constitution Hill Hector Peterson Museum James Hall Transport Museum Madiba Freedom Museum Museum Africa Origins Centre Museum Bernberg Fashion Museum South African National Museum of Military History Zoology Museum Sister cities Notes References See also External links

Perhaps we can reorder the sections—for example, do geography and climate really belong at top?—and then work from there. Also, if we do decide to communally apply ourselves I'd suggest archiving most of the talk here and leaving only the threads that apply to the original GA review. Kiev is more than deserving of our efforts here. While there's been progress, there's also been contentiousness—and we have not had a specific goal to work toward. I think the Johannesburg outline would do us well and help organize our efforts to address areas where the current article is deficient in content. Anyway, my thoughts having viewed Kiev over quite some time now. PētersV       TALK 18:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Capitals of Ukraine

How about a Template:Capitals of Ukraine? Interesting for foreigners I presume! — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 11:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that there has been only one capital of Ukraine--Kyiv. That is, unless you count all the temporary towns where the twentieth century revolutionaries lived for a week or two. Ukraine as a country has only existed since 1991. The pre-Mongol "country" wasn't Ukraine, it was Kievan Rus, that is, the predecessor to all the East Slavic peoples, not to modern Ukraine. The Princes of Kiev merged into the Grand Dukes of Moscow. (Taivo (talk) 15:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC))

 I started. Be bold! It's very difficult for moskal. =)) -- TarzanASG (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Even if some representative of Ukrainian aristocracy migrated to Moscow back those days, most of them stayed in Kyiv or place nearby in Ukraine. The word "Ukraine" dates back to as earlier as spring 1187. It is the well-known fact and not knowing it is a great ignorance of Ukrainian history. --- Wikipidys (talk) 7:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Baturyn was a capital for a bit longer then a week and it was not in the 20th century. Again, study the history. --- Wikipidys (talk) 7:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I found the proposed template thoroughly confusing - nothing is in date order - the references are to different entities - and it misses out the Zaporozhian Sich. The template is pushing a point of view on the history of this area - and this is deeply political and unbacked by citations. Wikipedia is meant to have a neutral point of view, and to have citations given for information, especially for controversial information

I looked at some of articles on towns in the template. Some have no citations whatsoever. It would be better effort were put into adding citations to these articles on supposed 'capitals of Ukraine'.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a brilliant idea!!! Excellent!! Well worth expanding. I will get to work on it immediately! Thank you for suggesting it. Horlo (talk) 10:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Principality of Kyiv was not merged with Dukes of Moscow, now you're simply inventing.... Check your facts. How about Dukes of Trakai? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that Baturyn and especially Hlukhiv can really be classified as capitals. You might as well call Zhytomyr and Vinnytsia them as well. During the times of the Cossack Hetmanate maybe Chyhyryn can be categorized as a capital, but for most of the other times the real capital always stayed Kyiv. Kharkiv and Lviv can be put in that category. But all the other cities and towns just really cannot be considered. And Kharkiv was not a capital since 1917, but rather 1919 when the USRR was declared. In 1917 Kharkiv, technically was part of the Russian Republic according to the Intruktsiya of Kerensky, although was claimed by the Central Rada.Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Most Recent Move Request

The discussion and resolution for the most recent move request can be found here. (Taivo (talk) 20:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC))

Reminder when adding new text

Just a reminder if you are adding or editing text here. No matter what your personal practice or preference for the spelling of Ukraine's capital, the spelling used in Wikipedia is "Kiev". Please make your additions conform to this or your addition will be reverted. (Taivo (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

Let's avoid absolutes

Hello,

Let's remember that Wikipedia is nobody's property - therefore, statements like "your addition will be reverted" are not welcome. Everybody's input is important, and every edit will be judged according to its merit.

Please be aware that people who make statements like that may be reported.

Help us improve Wikipedia, not alientate editors.

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 10:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It is important that you remember that the "Official name" will be the name used by the people of the place, and the "Name" is the one most commonly used by others.

As such, Kyiv is the "official name"

Results 1 - 10 of about 3,760,000 for Kyiv

and Kiev is the "Name"

Results 1 - 10 of about 32,200,000 for Kiev

The editor is correct in telling you that any other use is wrong unless you can persuade the rest of the world to adopt using Kyiv

Chaosdruid (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Just because I still call Mumbai Bombay, doesn't mean its still proper to call it Bombay.--Львівське (talk) 01:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Two things made the switch from Bombay to Mumbai easier in common English. First, we talk about Bombay/Mumbai much more often than we talk about Kyiv. It's a larger and more important city in English culture and history with films, music, finance, etc., not to mention the fact that it was part of the British colonial system. Second, the pronunciation of "Mumbai" is noticeably different from the pronunciation of "Bombay" so there is a phonetic component to realizing that there is a difference. We know that there is a new name not just because of spelling, but because we hear the new name as well. This is not true of the difference between "Kiev" and "Kyiv"--to the average untrained non-Slavic English speaker, these two words are pronounced identically. So when a person only hears a news report about Ukraine, he/she doesn't hear any difference between the two words and doesn't realize that there is a "new" name for the capital city. "Kiev" will remain the most common English usage for a long time to come because it doesn't meet either of the two criteria listed above that promoted the change from Bombay to Mumbai. It's not about "correctness", but only about common English usage. (Taivo (talk) 03:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC))

A little remainder in addition to Taivo's explanation, if I may. :-) Third, when choosing the title for our entry on Bombay, the fact that India itself is an English-speaking country where English is an official language played a pivotal role (consider our guidance on national varieties of English). Of course, that's not the case of Ukraine. - Best, Ev (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

A little rebuttal, if I may. :) First, how often you use Mumbai is not really important. Sorry to say that, but it's true. I'm glad that you pay attention to Indian films, music, finance, etc. But that's neither here nor there.

Second, the pronunciation of Kyiv is also very different from Kiev. Say it, and you will "hear" it as well.

Now, getting back to the 'let's avoid absolutes' motif, please don't say things like "to the average untrained non-Slavic English speaker, these two words are pronounced identically". Saying that shows that you just don't understand the IPA.

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand the IPA quite well, on an expert level, in fact, but it's irrelevant to the issue at hand. The issue at hand is how these two words sound to the untrained non-Slavic American ear that hears them pronounced, especially pronounced by the non-native speakers who would be reading the news on television (and I never said that it was my ear I was talking about). In other words, they sound virtually identical to the average English speaker in the very context where s/he is most likely to hear them. The issue's only relevance here is that it explains why "Kyiv" may never supplant "Kiev" in English usage. (Taivo (talk) 13:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC))

Your job, Horlo, is to respect the consensus that has been built here. (Taivo (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC))

Your job, Taivo, is to improve this article. No Consensus has been built here, as the thousands of lines about the spelling of the name will attest. So please improve the article. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Horlo, consensus has been built as the decisions are listed at Talk:Kiev/naming. "Consensus" doesn't mean 100% agreement, but that a great majority agree. If you look at the results of the last poll taken, you'll see that the great majority agree that this article should remain at "Kiev" and not move to "Kyiv". (Taivo (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC))

Oh dear - I didn't see all that - lets just say that Mumbai is, as Ev says, much more used. I hear it several times a week on the radio and on TV. I have not heard Kyiv mentioned once in over a year. It is true that Mumbai has become as equally well-known if not more so than Bombay. The people who used to call it Bombay are mostly dead now as it was only really used by people from the Raj and they are all over 60 yrs old.

Text books and other dosuments have called it Mumbai for many years as have I since 1997 and my first dealings with an international company making educational CDs and DVDs which were made, printed and packaged in Mumbai.

Kyiv is the official name, and Kiev is what most of the english speakers call it. You have to blame Russia and the US for that. Until it is shown that Google and similar searches return 50% for Kyiv and 50% for Kiev it will probably stay as Kiev. I for one would be glad to have it as Kyiv when the time is correct for that to happen :¬)

Chaosdruid (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, don't you think that name Kyiv should be put before Kiev on top of the page. Now it's 'Kiev or Kyiv' why not change the order to 'Kyiv or Kiev' ? There were several discussions on the web why Kyiv not Kiev e.g. http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=6013004059&topic=6698 Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.75.109.66 (talk) 10:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The short answer is no. The Kiev/Kyiv/Kiou issue has been discussed so many times on the talk page; another round of these discussions is not welcome. However, if you like you could start discussions on other pages on the lines of "Don't you think that this article should start: Danzig or Gdańsk".--Toddy1 (talk) 11:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Good job!!!

Love the collage on the infobox. Excellent work! Keep it up... Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Love it too ! — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 14:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

[w] versus [u] as off-glides

Page 42-43 of the IPA Handbook clearly shows [w] and [j] as off-glides. There is no phonetic distinction between using [w] or the non-syllabic mark under a [u]. The non-syllabic mark is for use under a vowel symbol when there is no IPA symbol for the non-syllabic form, thus a non-syllabic mark is appropriate under an [e] because there is no IPA symbol for the non-syllabic version. With [u] and [i], however, there is [w] and [j], so the non-syllabic marking is not necessary. If you have an actual reference that says they are different, then please bring it forward. Otherwise, stop the edit warring. --Taivo (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Review

• Specific evidence for using [w] as the IPA symbol for the syllable-final off-glide allophone of /v/ in Ukrainian by Ukrainian linguists:

• Stefan M. Pugh & Ian Press, Ukrainian: A Comprehensive Grammar (Routledge, 1999). "At the beginning of a word before a consonant, in the middle of a word after a vowel before a consonant, and at the end of a word after a vowel the consonant [β/v] is pronounced as a sound intermediate between [v] and [u]...At the end of a word we should not have [f] for this sound, though one cannot but admit that it is heard. In other words, [w] is prescribed" (pg. 27)
• George Y. Shevelov, "Ukrainian," The Slavonic Languages (Routledge, 1993), pp. 947-998. "The consonant presented in table 17.2 as v/w is realized in syllable-final position as [w]" (pg. 951)
• Olena Bekh & James Dingley, Teach Yourself Ukrainian (Teach Yourself, 2003)
• Ilko V. Korunets', Contrastive Typology of the English and Ukrainian Languages (Nova Knyha Publishers, 2004)

• Evidence for using [u] with a non-syllabic diacritic as the IPA symbol for the syllable-final off-glide allophone of /v/ in Ukrainian by Ukrainian linguists:

• George Y. Shevelov, An Outline of Modern Literary Ukrainian (Munich, 1951)

There's no real issue here. The contemporary Ukrainian evidence is conclusive. --Taivo (talk) 12:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Pictures - gallery - problems

Hi all

The page is becoming a bit too much like a gallery - lots of pictures all over theplace making the text difficult to read.

Do not forget that some people may read this on a small screen and to keep going left and right to follow the text would probably get frustrating.

I have tidied up some of the pics and removed some from the huge Architectural monuments section - two were repeat views and one was the exact same file from higher up the page.

If anyone is picky and decides they don't like all the images they could easily decide to delete a lot quoting "not a gallery" so I thought it best to adress the issues now :¬)

Chaosdruid (talk) 18:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Ogg file for pronunciation

Is it me, my computer or the file ??

This does not say Kyiv, Kiev or anything like it when I play it...it sounds like "be-iv" - anyone speak Ukrainian and has a microphone >????

Chaosdruid (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I gotta agree. It sounds like someone clipped this little bit out of a longer recording so it's not clear at all. --Taivo (talk) 01:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

History

Who wrote the history section? It's a complete raving. Starting from the truly fantastic «Hungarian rule», including that groundless «Khazarian outpost», and finishing with those strange words about «captured by Muscovites in 1230» something. That's a real gibberish, delirium.

"At least during the 8th and 9th centuries Kiev functioned as an outpost of the Khazar empire. A hill-fortress, called Sambat (Old Turkic for "High Place") was built to defend the area." - The Khazars didn't speak Old Turic, but a dialect of Oghuric, so that would be Sambatas and not Sambat.120.22.62.21 (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Babi Yar

Babi Yar is part of the history of Kiev. The site is no longer just outside the city. Some of the ravines are now a park. There are also some memorials across the road from the park. Further on from the memorials are both communist and Christian cemeteries. I think Babi Yar should be mentioned in the article, and a photograph of the big memorial to the Jews murdered there should be in the article on Kiev.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Economy

What do you say if I prepare a table of historical economic data to complement Economy section that will look like this?

Historical Economic Data

	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010
Nominal GRP (UAH bn)
Nominal GRP (USD bn)
Nominal GRP per capita (UAH)
Nominal GRP per capita (USD)
Real GRP growth (%)
Monthly Wage (USD)
Unemployment Rate (%)
Retail Sales (UAH bn)
Retail Sales (USD bn)
Foreign Direct Investment (USD bn)

Invest in knowledge (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a good idea, except that the rows should be the columns, and the columns the rows. That would make it easier to accommodate data of different dates.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)