Talk:Kyiv/naming

This is a subpage of Talk:Kiev for discussing the name of the article Kiev. Please take all discussion of the name here, reserving the regular talkpage for other matters. I hope that this division will benefit both the regular talkpage and the name discussion itself. Happy editing. Bishonen | talk.

Please note that due to technical reasons any actual move requests need to be made on Talk:Kiev, but should be moved here after they have closed. 199.125.109.99 (talk)

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))

Chișinău and Beijing as examples

I won't repeat what was written many times with prove-links - official name of out capital in English is Kyiv. I just have a question - why Chișinău is names here even with usage of non-English letter, but in the way that Moldavian want, and you don't want to name OUR capital as WE want? Same for Beijing. So why Kyiv is so special? 37.229.172.101 (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Because the vast majority of English speakers don't know that Kishinev even exists so there is no common English form for the name of the town. Kiev is mentioned in English language sources a 1000 times more often than Kishinev, so there is, indeed, a common English usage. --Taivo (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Second, Beijing is the most common name for the city in English now. But you simply don't know the meaning of WP:COMMONNAME obviously. The most common name for Kiev in English is still Kiev. There is no getting around that very simple fact. Until that fact changes, then Wikipedia's name for Kiev will continue to be Kiev. Assuming you are a Ukrainian, I'm sorry, but you don't get to decide what the most common name for your capital is in English. You can have an official name, you can use the official name in English language documents, but you don't get to tell the several hundred million English speakers what to call your capital city. They will call it what they always have until they change. And they aren't even close to changing yet. --Taivo (talk) 02:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Your [User:Taivo|Taivo]] argument is that all news media in the world are using common name Kiev, 

but first - who and how is decided what is commonmost common name (in this case Kiev)do you have any scientific data? and second - it is because they all are using as the source of knowledge the Wikipedia. So this is a catch 22 situation. And why Ukrainians or any other nations should care what is common in the whole world if they named their own capital, then it is the NAME that supposed to be used everywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panslavco (talk • contribs) 18:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

While your reluctance to read kilobytes upon kilobytes posted on this discussion page is understandable, it is nevertheless not an excuse to post questions which have been asked (and answered) many times before. If you can't be bothered to familiarize yourself with the background of the discussion, don't expect someone to bother responding to your inquiries. A knee-jerk reaction to a comment at the very bottom of the thread is hardly a productive way to start a discussion.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 25, 2013; 18:44 (UTC)

Basically, Panslavco, it doesn't matter what Ukrainians want to call their capital when they are speaking Ukrainian. All that matters to the English Wikipedia is what the majority of English speakers call it in English, and that's "Kiev". And news organizations don't use Wikipedia as a source for placenames. --Taivo (talk) 04:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but your claim that non-Ukrainians call the city Kiev because they're using Wikipedia as their source of knowledge is laughable. We call it Kiev because we've always called it Kiev. It's a very well-known city, you know. In any case, the Wikipedia article quite clearly states what it's called in Ukrainian. But until it's also commonly called Kyiv by most of the rest of the world then it won't change the common name and thus the article title. By your logic, we should also retitle our article on Moscow to Moskva because that's what the locals call it. And every other city to what the locals call it. Clearly we don't because that's not what anyone else calls it. We appreciate this is a bit of a nationalist issue in Ukraine and that Ukrainians are upset that a Russian name is still being used for their capital, but that doesn't change our basic policy of using common name in English-language sources. We can't make an exception for one article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

If we're going to follow this line of reasoning that Kiev is the common English language usage for Ukraine's capital and therefore the article should not be renamed to Kyiv, then by that same reasoning, the Kolkata article on Wikipedia should should have never been changed from the historical name of Calcutta. After all, Calcutta was the English consensus word used for that city for a very long time. That was until government authorities changed the spelling of the name in 2001 to more closely match the Bengali pronunciation, as is cited in the Kolkata article, directly in the Etymology section. It being 2013, surely the English language has not changed so drastically in 12 years that Calcutta has suddenly become Kolkata, while Kyiv remains Kiev, despite the name change in 1991? This strikes me as a double-standard. And the precedent set in the Kolkata article is an excellent reason to make the likewise change in this article.Ispeakwithcommas (talk) 07:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

You don't understand, Ispeakwithcommas. Read WP:OTHERSTUFF. There you will find that just because one article does X, does not mean that another article must do the same. The definitive argument in all cases of naming is WP:COMMONNAME. Look at newspapers and other news media in the English speaking world--nearly all of them use Kiev consistently. Kiev's name in English didn't change in 1991. The Rada wanted English speakers to use the transliteration of the Ukrainian form rather than the Russian form, and Ukrainian official documents written in English changed the spelling, but the city's name in English did not magically change because the Rada wished it so. In English, the name of Ukraine's capital is still overwhelmingly Kiev. Just because you want it to change doesn't mean that it will change. And just because some articles in Wikipedia have changed names, doesn't mean that others must because of WP:OTHERSTUFF. Each article must achieve its own separate consensus of editors on whether to change the name of the article or not based on the evidence in each of those cases. The evidence of Kiev over Kyiv in English usage is overwhelming. --Taivo (talk) 10:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

To mirror your point, Taivo, and highlight the inconsistency I see in the argument, in 2001, Calcutta didn't magically become Kolkata in English because the Indian government wished it so. And yet they did. That's exactly what happened. Somehow, the Indian government dictated to the rest of the English-speaking world how one particular city should be called/spelled in English. This discussion on Kyiv vs Kiev seems to be the same issue. Languages are malleable--and English is no different. Moreover, contemporary usage plays a significant role in how English speakers talk about places. WP:MODERNPLACENAME Kyiv is the contemporary usage of an old European city for many speakers/writers/institutions. Same goes for Mumbai, Kolkata, Beijing, Lviv, Kharkiv, Zhytomyr, etc. As you've pointed out many newspapers and news media use Kiev, but not all. The press is just one piece of the "consensus" pie--it's not the whole thing. Though, fair enough. If we look elsewhere we will see that Kyiv usage has grown, especially in contemporary professional English-language scholarship, both in articles and monographs, and that trend in scholarship will very likely continue as more and more research is made. Also, English-speaking government agencies changed their spelling practices from Kiev to Kyiv. Here is another point: Besides being confusing from the lack in consistency, it seems unusual for a website to have articles titled "Taras Shevchenko Nation University of Kyiv," "FC Dynamo Kyiv," "Kyivstar," and many more favoring the contemporary Kyiv spelling, while other articles favor the old Kiev spelling. Yet that is the nature of Wikipedia, right? Someone can come along, make an article, and ultimately title it how they want. Though that doesn't guarantee the article will stay the same over time. Debates shape articles. The prevalence of these high profiled Kyiv-named Wikipedia articles, in tandem with their sources, suggests to me a growing consensus--outside of the articles, and in people's mouths--about how to talk about the contemporary capital of Ukraine in English and about how to spell the name. Wikipedia, being the 6th most visited site on the Internet, where millions of people come to debate these very issues, contributes to common usage. So when I see not one or two, but myriad articles with the Kyiv, that leads me to believe there is a competing consensus about modern usage. Before you dismiss the point I'm raising through my appeal to Wikipedia articles, the following is taken from the guidelines on Other Stuff Exists: "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this." If you pigeonhole yourself to one aspect of English common-usage by appealing to the press then, yes, Kiev is the common spelling of the capital of Ukraine. But if you take a step back and examine the panorama, it looks entirely different. There are government institutions, scholars, and many layman who have adjusted their spelling of Ukraine's capital to the modern usage.Ispeakwithcommas (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I never said that some English usage has changed, but the overwhelming usage in English is still "Kiev". That's just the fact that you have to live with. WP:COMMONNAME is definitive--we use the most common name in English. And unless you have actual statistics for usage, your homily to places that now use "Kyiv" is just wishful thinking. Perhaps someday, the most common name in English will be "Kyiv". When that happens, then Wikipedia can adjust. But until it happens, your pipe dreams based on India are just pipe dreams. India could change English usage very quickly because India is an English-speaking country. Ukraine is not and no matter how loudly the Rada complains, English usage will not change just because they want it to. --Taivo (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Kyiv usage is undeniably growing, Taivo. There is already good reason to change the title of this article to reflect modern usage (as was similarly done with Kolkata), primarily thanks to professional scholarship done in English, and from the changes done by English-speaking government institutions, and the general growing recognition of the name Kyiv in English (exemplified by the many Wikipedia articles that use that spelling). Moreover, the undercurrent of animosity in the tone of your response is suspicious. I don't see the purpose of the hostility, nor do I think it is beneficial to this discussion. You've created a straw man by bringing up the Ukrainian Rada. I have never mentioned the Ukrainian Rada in any of my arguments, nor have I appealed to it, so I see no reason to bring it up, just to easily knock it down as a distraction. Instead, I've put forward at least three other arguments in favor of making the change from Kiev to Kyiv, that I think are valid reasons. Ispeakwithcommas (talk) 02:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

No hostility, Ispeakwithcommas, just facts. You've made no valid arguments whatsoever that contravene WP:COMMONNAME and presented no evidence whatsoever that "Kyiv" is more common than "Kiev" in English. You are still just spitting into the wind. English usage is English usage, not Ukrainian desire. Sorry, but you're just going to have to live with Kiev until common usage in English changes. Last winter there was considerable press coverage over the gas contracts between Ukraine and Russia. From the AP to Reuters to the New York Times, the press uniformly talked about talks between Kiev and Moscow. I started to keep a file of relevant links to count, but it quickly became obvious that none of the English language news sources I was following was using Kyiv, they were all using Kiev. That's a major measurement of English usage and it's not even close. There was no usage of Kyiv at all in those news articles. If the English speaking public is still reading Kiev, then WP:COMMONNAME is unambiguous and clear. If you sincerely think that times have changed over the last half dozen years since the last RfC, then go ahead and initiate a new one if you think you have the evidence to meet the requirements of WP:COMMONNAME. So far you have presented zero evidence to back up your hopeful assertions. But without the hard evidence, your RfC will fail again. Right now the hard evidence of usage does not favor your cause. Like it or not, those are just the cold hard facts of the matter. --Taivo (talk) 05:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the back-and-forth, Taivo. After digging into the archives of the Kiev/name talk thread, I see that much of what we've discussed here had largely been hashed out years ago, culminating in a firm stalemate. As I am relatively new here, thank you for directing me to WP's CommonName convention. It's more clear to me now what evidence ought to be presented to other editors in order to successfully accomplish a title change for this article(perhaps within some years). Searching JSTOR, I found that texts with references to the capital of Ukraine that were written, specifically in English, between 1991 and 2013 yielded a Kyiv to Kiev ratio of 1:5. If you modify the search to 2000--2013 that ratio is cut to 1:4. So, as I said before, Kyiv usage is undeniably growing--chiefly in the academic sphere. Per guidelines in WP:NCGN I take it that modern usage should be weighed more heavily than historical usage. Which is to say, the JSTOR search results are themselves a bit skewed for a discussion pertaining to common usage, namely because many entries that popped up for Kiev were historical papers or books, dealing with the city prior to 1991, whereas the Kyiv hits were generally more current. This leads me the believe that those ratios I mentioned, with respect to modern usage of both the terms Kyiv and Kiev as ways of writing about a particular city in the present, are smaller than they would otherwise seem. And they are certainly closer than the ratios one would find looking only at news media--those are heavily skewed toward Kiev usage (the exception being Canadian sources, it seems). Still, there's more work to be done if someone like me is to one day persuade you. Luckily the winds are changing, and Kyiv is gaining traction.Ispeakwithcommas (talk) 09:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

And I appreciate your civility in the matter and understanding of the realities of the situation. I am not unsympathetic to the desires of Ukrainians (I have lived there myself and am married to a Ukrainian), but am a realist when it comes to the facts of the matter in actual English usage. JSTOR is one source of data, but news media are another, perhaps more important, reflection of usage. "Kyiv" is still in the future. At least we have convinced most editors that it is "Ukraine" and not "the Ukraine". --Taivo (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Although I don't expect this to tilt many over the fence into the Kyiv camp, I think it's worth mentioning for the interest of this ongoing conversation, both on this page and elsewhere @ Wikipedia, that "Kyiv" is the English spelling found on both Google Maps and Bing Maps, not "Kiev". Odesa, meanwhile is still spelled as "Odessa" on both of those map websites, which are used by millions of English-speaking internet users--so there's that. How recent this change has been made, I certainly don't know. But if a typical internet user were to type in "Kiev" on either of those websites mentioned, the user would be directed to a map centered on the text "Kyiv", with "Kiev" nowhere to be found. Again, maybe this doesn't mean a whole lot to those following this discussion that have put a lot of weight on what news agencies, in particular, are doing, but Google and Bing Maps are used and seen by a incredibly large number (no seriously, a lot) of the English-speaking internet users. I can't think of a cartography service more popular than those two. Just some thoughts on what seems to be a growing trend.Ispeakwithcommas (talk) 02:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

My take on your argument is that it flies in the face of WP:CRYSTALBALL. Ultimately, if someone is serious about a WP:COMMON NAME change, it would have to go before an RfC. There's really no point in asking the community to discuss anything unless there's a very solid argument. You can take a look at the furore over changing Galicia (Eastern Europe) to any variant on Central and Eastern or Poland and Ukraine if you want to get an insight into conservative views held. Nothing less than a bullet-proof change is going to swing anyone, particularly in light of how antagonised the community has become over Eastern and Central European warring over politicised nomenclature. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

And since Ispeakwithcommas wants to point to internet usage, most people get their news from the Yahoo news articles at yahoo.com when they log in. Here's this morning's news from "Kiev": [1]. --Taivo (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The same can be said of all major news sources, including Al Jazeera. Living in Australia, I can vouch for the fact that even a leading commercial, free-to-air, non-Anglocentric television station (SBS One which, aside from its own news service, airs Al Jazeera news twice a day) uses 'Kiev' without qualification. Ispeakwithcommas, everyone has been extremely polite and tolerant of your input from an essentially single purpose account. Could I suggest that you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines properly before trying to resurrect this subject yet again without any qualitative proof. The best way to do this is to begin by editing articles outside of your WP:COI. I suspect that I speak for others here who, like me, have grown tired of what amounts to disruptive editing practices on your behalf. Thank you for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a talk page, right? I happened to notice that Google Maps changed their spelling practices for the capital of Ukraine, and that Bing Maps did the same. Those websites are used and viewed by many millions of internet users. That's significant evidence, which I believe hasn't been mentioned here. That's all--ThanksIspeakwithcommas (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is a WP:TALK page, not a blog or forum, nor a call to advocacy. Again, I ask that you acquaint yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Once again, I advocate for the BGN database, whose only purpose is to reflect English language usage for place names in dealing with the public at large. To the latest examples as justification:

• Beijing (Approved) = primary term, there is no common usage which takes precedence
• Chişinău (Approved) = same

however,

• Kiev (Conventional) = COMMON ENGLISH USAGE, followed by
• Kyiv (Approved) = primary term OTHER THAN common English usage
• Kief (Variant)
• Kiew (Variant)
• Kijew (Variant)
• Kijów (Variant)
• Kiyev (Variant)
• Kiyiv (Variant)
• Kyyiv (Variant)
• Київ (Variant Non-Roman Script)

I'm as pro-Ukrainian as anyone. I am also bound to support "Kiev" until it goes away in the BGN database. Instead of repeating the same discussion over and over again, perhaps we can just keep track of BGN. Once every couple of months should be sufficient. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely rational, Vecrumba. When/if a change occurs, a discussion is welcome. Until such a time, it should simply be dropped. A BGN change is actually something of substance for an RfC (not speculation). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, put another way, given that the ONLY purpose of BGN is to document English language place name usage for use with the general public, were the BGN database to change and remove the "Kiev (Conventional)" entry, there would be no reasonable basis, IMO, to oppose the rename. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Request of change

Im not sure if the name should be moved, but my opinion is that the name should at least be called "Kyiv/Kiev" or "Kyiv" in title and "Kyiv or Kiev" in the begining of the page. It think that english wikipedia should be the source of right information, and be the leading source with correct information regarding names or anything else.

All admins declining the earlier move requests reffered to this archive of this page. But this archive says that "no consensus" made. Which means these admins have no right to decline move-requests. It has to be made a real consensus.

On this page: Wikipedia:Romanization of Ukrainian there is an example of transliteration, "Examples: Київ = Kyiv". Which is the right form of the city name. And there are lots of examples on the web. Kyiv is an widely used transliteration form. Lifeglider (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a consensus, you're just ignoring it. The consensus was reached based on WP:COMMONNAME. The most common name in English is the name of the article and Kiev is, by a factor of ten, the most common name for Kiev in English. If you have any evidence that Kyiv is more commonly used throughout English, then present your evidence and a new request for move can be initiated and will probably succeed. But the evidence right now is that "Kiev" is still overwhelmingly the "correct" name of Ukraine's capital in the English language, just as "Moscow", "Warsaw", "Prague", "Copenhagen", etc. are all the "correct" names of those cities in English. --Taivo (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

As again, Taivo says "there is a consensus", please show me where can I find this consensus written? I'm not fighting for this thing, but of pure curiosity I'd like to read this notorious consensus, so please share a link or whatever you got regarding this "consensus" of yours. You see, even on this Talk-page it says "no consensus made", and that is a fact. Lifeglider (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The consensus on the English Wikipedia in general is that article titles should be the common English name for the subject of the article. And it seems pretty clear that "Kiev" is the most common English name for this city. The article should remain where it is. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You Reagan007 say it "seems pretty clear". But what seems can be different for many wikipedians, dependantly on the origin. Lifeglider (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Then please provide evidence that "Kyiv" is the more common English name for the city than "Kiev". Rreagan007 (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd even like to hear some other opinions, please comment this. Lifeglider (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I have an idea. Instead of using the English word "no", we could use a transliteration from the Ukrainian word. I am sure that would be much more correct than using the English language word "no". How can it be right to use the English language word "no" on English language Wikipedia. Surely a transliteration from the Ukrainian language takes precedence?--Toddy1 (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm here to hear some opinions, not childish comments, Toddy1. But I appreciate that you show your support in this question, you seem to have much in common with some other wikipedians here. And thats why I'd like to here some opinions from wikipedians insterested in history and culture, preferably of western origin. Lifeglider (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Consensus for no move. Unless you can build a consensus for a move, then the last consensus stands as long as there is no consensus to move. "No consensus" doesn't mean "disagreement", "no consensus" means "no consensus to move". --Taivo (talk) 02:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, I appreciate. Interesting though is that as I wrote this, some kind wikipedian named MiszaBot, edited this page where it was written "no consensus made", and also he is of russian origin. It takes not much to analyze what is going on here. Lifeglider (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh no! The Kremlin agents are hijacking Wikipedia in order to push their anti-Ukrainian point of view!!!1. --Maturion (talk) 11:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. All these Russian-speaking people are forcing people on English-language Wikipedia to use English-language words instead of transliterated words from a foreign language.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Lifeglider, are you new to Wikipedia? Apparently. Miszabot is an automated archiving tool. After X number of days, old material is archived. The material was not deleted, it was just placed in the most recent archive. Happens all the time to all articles, not just this one. There is no Russian plot here, just a preference for using the English language over the Ukrainian, Russian, Polish, Chinese, Kazakh, Piro, etc. languages. --Taivo (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

"Kiev" has nothing to do with pursuing some anti-Ukrainian Russian agenda. When the BGN database no longer indicates "Kiev" as common usage, I support renaming. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

While I am of Ukrainian origin and can certainly empathise with the desire to use the Ukrainian transliteration, until there is a distinct shift in the English spelling in current usage this desire to change to Kyiv is an emotive rather than practical plea. Saint Petersburg is still Saint Petersburg, not Sankt Peterburg; Moscow is still Moscow, not (Muskva); Germany is still Germany, not Deutchland; Greece is still Greece, not Ellas. Once (and if) there is a shift, I will support renaming. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, we are dealing with TRANSLITERATION not TRANSLATION here. Your given examples above involve translation, Ellas is Greece in English, but the name Kyiv does not have a proper translation, only a Russian-language transliteration and a Ukrainian-language tranliteration. I think this is a huge slap in the face to Ukrainians around the world. Just because Kiev is most commonly used does not mean it should be used. I am not saying that the retention of this transliteration is an active form of preserving Russification, but it does show the destructive Russification Ukraine had to go through under the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union. Now Ukraine is trying to move away from that, trying to establish herself as a free nation, free from the Russian influence, and here we have people that claim they have the right to decide what the rest of the world sees as the name of our capital. It hurts that people like you claim we shouldn't change it because of "tradition" or "most commonly used," because there has been a change in the world! Ukraine no longer has to be Russified, no longer has to be treated as the worthless younger brother, because we are free and we want our capital's name, the capital of UKRAINE, to be read in the UKRAINIAN transliteration. If we make this chage on Wikipedia it will allow for growth- the most commonly used term will become Kyiv, because we will make a step in that direction. Everytime I see the Russian transliteration Kiev, I am hurt. I am hurt because I am reminded of the oppression and destruction our nation had to go through- claims that our nationality did not exist and that we were just "small Russians," bans against our language and the development of our art, the murder of our people because others felt our culture did not have the right to thrive and grow. Please take the step to liberate Ukraine from the Russification we were forced to undergo; do not cling to the past because the past hurt for us. Though you might not agree because you simply cannot understand our hurt, please, please, let our language be used for the transliteration of our cities' names. Let us not cling to the past, let us progress and make small steps- may it be the change of a wiki article name, but all these small steps will add up and Ukrainians will no longer have to feel like they are worth less than their neighbors, that their language and culture is worth something, that we have the choice to be free and that the rest of the world will help us develop as a free nation, a free culture, and a free language. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.237.18 (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Surely there are more effective ways "to liberate Ukraine from the Russification" than telling other people how to spell things in their own languages? And how come it's always English that needs to be cleansed, and never Afrikaans, Belarusian, Bulgarian, German, French, Dutch, Portuguese, Swedish, Turkish or a slew of other languages which use "Kiev" or a slight variation of it? How would you feel if someone barged into Ukrainian Wikipedia and started demanding to change some traditional spelling based on the arguments similar to what you've just presented?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 9, 2013; 17:37 (UTC)

Wikipedia as the fount of all the world's ills :p (Should I remind the anon IP that borsch is spelled with a "t" on the end in Wikipedia? Perhaps he will also feel oppressed to learn that Wikipedia uses the Yiddish version of his national food.) --Taivo (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

User 72.68.237.18, I believe that I've stated my position clearly & tersely. Kiev/Kyiv has been known to the English speaking world as Kiev for centuries. The Ukrainian Government nominated to continue to use this spelling in English. If this changes & is reflected the English language, I will most certainly vote in favour of changing the spelling in the appropriate contexts. Naturally, the nomenclature in any given academic discipline (Historical Studies, for example) is addressed as a separate issue, dependent on the predominant academic usage in the relevant discipline AND consensus between Wikimedians involved in articles surrounding the disciplines. On that understanding, the use of Kievan Rus' may remain as is while the modern nation-state capital is spelled as Kyiv. It is most certainly not Wikipedia's function to set a precedent. Wikipedia is not a hobby-horse but a serious attempt at being a credible reference source. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Simply because Wikipedia's function isn't to set a precedent, doesn't mean it should be actively avoided. Yes, Wikipedia should be impartial... that means not changing a capital's actual name, in its native language, into that in a different language, because that city was under occupation. This is part of being a 'credible reference source'. As per the article itself, the United Nations, all English-speaking foreign diplomatic missions, several international organizations, Encarta encyclopedia, NATO, OSCE, World Bank - all use 'Kyiv', because that is the capital city's actual name in the country's native language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.111.52 (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

You are incorrect. The "city's actual name in the country's native language" is "Київ". Rreagan007 (talk) 20:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I am aware of that. You know exactly what I'm trying to say. 85.211.111.52 (talk) 21:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Rreagan007, please don't insult everyone's intelligence. I have no doubt that you're aware of your comment as being inappropriate to a serious discussion and certainly does you no justice as a being a credible or impartial Wikipedian. There's a time and place for being a Wikicomedian and this is neither the time nor the place. If I were to entertain your non-argument, the capital of Denmark should be presented as being København in English, while the capital of Belarus should be Мінск or Минск.

Following on from 85.211.111.52's proposal, I have also noted that, according to the CIA's public "The World Factbook", the name of the capital city of Ukraine is Kyiv (Kiev). If it can be demonstrated that there has been an increase in the use of the form 'Kyiv' in common usage recently, it would suggest that there is a growing argument for presenting the name in both forms: for example, Kiev (Kyiv) (I would still advocate a more conservative approach, being to retain 'Kiev' as being currently the most recognisable form in the first instance, with the alternative form in brackets). Having tried out variants on searches which I'm not going to enumerate here, I, personally, find the evidence inconclusive... but I am open to convincing arguments for the two terms being used as per my suggested usage. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to be funny, nor was I making an argument. I was merely pointing out the factual error of the statement. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

You deem that to be a 'factual error'? All you've demonstrated here is the Ukrainian Cyrillic spelling of the name (which could actually be transcribed as being Kyyiv, Ky'iv and a variety of other convolutions dependent on what system of transcription is applied), not anything vaguely recognisable as being a 'factual error'. User 85.211.111.52 validly pointed out that 'Kyiv' is the city's name in the country's native language, not in its native script. This begs the question of what the factual error you are trying to point out actually is. If you're trying to make a salient point, I'm stumped as to what it is. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to clarify what it is that you are trying to articulate. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Hard evidence is all that matters. The last time that anyone did an actual analysis of the situation was 5 years ago and at that time the evidence was absolutely conclusive that "Kiev" is the most common term used in English for Ukraine's capital. Even last winter, when there was all the media attention due to the pipeline and other Ukrainian issues, one rarely, if ever, saw any news source referring to "Kyiv". It was always to "Kiev". Saying that embassies use "Kyiv" is worthless as evidence for what common English usage is. Where does the average American encounter the name of Ukraine's capital? In the news. What do the majority of English-language news sources call Ukraine's capital? Kiev. --Taivo (talk) 05:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Could you please qualify to whom this is being addressed, Taivo? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

To the topic in general, no one in particular. --Taivo (talk) 10:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Britannica spells the city's name Kiev and is surely a higher authority on the naming issue than CIA or other politicized bodies. There is no point in continueing this fruitless discussion. Shervinsky (talk) 11:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Cheers, Taivo. My only interest in adding another comment was in order to redress my comment on 20 July 2013 (further up in this discussion) in which I realised I'd come across as being hard-nosed about my opposition to renaming. The initial response was a reflection of my exasperation over the continuous emotive non-arguments which, to my mind, serve no valid purpose. I wanted it to go on record that I have no objection to English Wikipedia's reflecting both spellings if, at some point (in 5, 10, 20 years time), the use of 'Kyiv' becomes one of the norms, although I doubt that it will. I decided to do a quick check as a matter of courtesy and could find nothing conclusive to suggest that 'Kyiv' is being used outside of specialized bodies. 'Kiev' is undoubtedly the norm when checking all English language searches: US, Canadia, British, Australian, etc. Shervinsky, I am getting extremely annoyed with you. It seems that you turn up on every page I comment on within a matter of moments in order to deride me and would ask that you desist from this behaviour. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I think, your blocking complots and your unsuccessful REVDEL demands against me look much more like WP:HARASS. --Shervinsky (talk) 07:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Really? I suggest that you read everything you've pointed out with care and track what my actual requests were lest you end up with egg on your face. If you still feel that I have been harassing you, as a Wikipedian who has always tried to work within the parameters of Wikipedia policy and etiquette then, by all means, I encourage you to lodge a complaint against me. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a hysterical squealer and it was never my idea to complain or to intimidate other users. --Shervinsky (talk) 11:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

This needs to be taken elsewhere off this Talk Page. Thanks. --Taivo (talk) 14:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Apologies to all. Shervinsky, personal disputes should be on personal pages. Please use my talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to note that the US State Department now recommends Kyiv. [2] Alankjackson (talk) 03:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The US government has used Kyiv for a while. But as long as Al Jazeera, Fox, USA Today, the BBC, the New York Times, CNN, Reuters and many, many other media outlets use Kiev, US government usage remains irrelevant to common English usage. --Taivo (talk) 11:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

It is relevant, because it shows what spelling "should" be used. Many newspapers still use the old spelling anyway, but that will change in near future. And it is already changing. I dont see a point why wikipedia should wait for some newspaper when it'll decide to follow the norm, when wikipedia itself can be the motivating factor for a change. Lifeglider (talk) 01:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

With respect, I think you're living in cloud cuckoo land. The name of the city is not likely to change in English-speaking countries for a very long time if ever. We don't call Moscow "Moskva" or Venice "Venezia" do we? There was an attempt around the time of the 2006 Winter Olympics to get the world to say Torino instead of Turin, but it's ultimately come to very little. Wikipedia is not intended to be "the motivating factor for a change". We report fact as used in the English-speaking world; we are not a soapbox to get things changed. When we are then we will no longer be an encyclopaedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

There is an important difference between Moskva/Moscow and Kyiv/Kiev. The difference being "Moscow" is an English word. It's not a Ukrainian name for a Russian city. "Kiev" is a Russian name for the capital of Ukraine - an independent country (specifically independent from Russia) with its own official state language, which is Ukrainian. Using "Kiev" instead of "Kyiv" is perceived by many Ukrainians as offensive. For example, over time certain commonly used words become hurtful towards some groups of people - such as some ethnic slurs. At which point they get replaced by other words to identify a person's ethnicity. This is a similar situation - such that using the Russian spelling is using the spelling of the oppressor, and thus is offensive to Ukrainians. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to promote knowledge? Why then do you insist on promoting ignorance? Just because it's more common? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azzzy (talk • contribs) 05:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC) Azzzy (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Please read all of the archived discussions and discussions on this page before presenting your argument (as I asked you to do on the Ukraine talk page). You've barely had time to type this since you commented there, much less even attempted to read any of the discussions here, or to familiarise yourself with the English Wikipedia policies and guidelines we have to adhere to. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy Actually I have read the entire Talk:Kiev/naming page before commenting in both pages. When you say "all archived discussions" are there other discussions pertaining to this topic that are not on this page? Sorry, I am new to this and this format of discussion (i.e. editing the page) is somewhat confusing. Not complaining - just trying to figure it out. Thanks. Azzzy (talk) 07:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The archives are in the top, right hand side of the page: the box with the filing cabinet icon.

Yes, it can get confusing as discussions are often continued under different section headings, therefore the last entries on the page don't necessarily appear at the bottom of the page. This is a-typical for talk pages (which are usually sequential), but it does happen. When this happens, it's useful to click on the 'View history' tab at the top of the page and check the latest entries.

That said, I can bring you up to speed on where the most recent discussion has taken place, being the Chișinău and Beijing as examples section. Scroll down, and you'll see that the most recent instance of the use of 'Kiev' was universal in the English language media with the reportage on EuroMaidan. I suspect you've been lead to believe that Wikipedia consensus is based on popular opinion. It is most certainly not. Please read the comments and responses (including the policies and guidelines being referenced) and you will develop a better understanding of the criteria for all aspects of the writing of articles.

I can tell you that any argument you present for renaming has been brought up and discussed at length over and over. Another proposal will be greeted as WP:SNOW. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy That's a very arrogant statement. Sorry, but you have no way of knowing what kind of argument I may present in the future. Which leads me to believe that you have made up your mind regardless of the arguments presented. That is hardly a proper way to evaluate a request for change. Azzzy (talk) 10:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Snowball closed as not moved. Revisit this in five or ten years. It's entirely possible that the new official name will rise up to take the place of the old name. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 22:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

---

Kiev → Kyiv – According to the rules, the Ukrainian Київ transliterates into Kyiv. This has established the use of the spelling Kyiv in all official documents issued by the governmental authorities since October 1995. The spelling is used by the United Nations, all English-speaking foreign diplomatic missions (Embassies of Australia, Great Britain, Canada, United States), several international organizations (The list includes NATO, OSCE, World Bank), Encarta encyclopedia, and by media in Ukraine. In October 2006, the United States federal government changed its official spelling of the city name to Kyiv, upon the recommendation of the US Board of Geographic Names (http://geography.about.com/b/2006/10/20/us-begins-to-spell-kiev-as-kyiv.htm). The British government has also started using Kyiv (http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page20199). 91.218.75.8 (talk) 09:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• Wait until this becomes the official name in nations representing a majority of the English speaking peoples of the world. Then move it. Torquemama007 (talk) 13:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:COMMONNAME is Kiev, not Kyiv. [3] [4] [5] [6], etc. Zarcadia (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• It is official in:

the UK (63,000,000) - e.g. https://www.gov.uk/government/world/organisations/british-embassy-kyiv

the USA (314,000,000) - e.g. http://ukraine.usembassy.gov/

India (1,237,000,000) - e.g. http://mea.gov.in/Portal/ForeignRelation/Ukraine-January-2012.pdf

These countries represent majority of the English speaking peoples of the world. That's why the correct name is Kyiv. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.218.75.8 (talk) 14:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. We do not go by what name is "official", but by what name is used, and "Kiev" is still far more common than "Kyiv" in English. I understand why some Ukranians do not like the name "Kiev", but unless they convince a clear majority of English speakers to prefer the novel spelling we ought to use the name actually used in English. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• Is there a clear metric of what is "far more common"? How do you know whether Kiev is more common than Kyiv? Everybody can find thousands of articles with both names, while official name is Kyiv. So how do we count Kyiv vs Kiev? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.218.75.8 (talk) 14:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

A rough guide that's generally accepted on Wikipedia is to use search engine data; e.g. about 75,500,000 Google web search results for "Kiev"[7] vs. about 17,800,000 for "Kyiv" [8]; about 109,000 Google News results for "Kiev" [9] vs. about 8610 for "Kyiv" [10]; about 3,760,000 Google Books results for "Kiev" [11] vs. about 191,000 for "Kyiv" [12]; about 561,000 Google Scholar results for "Kiev" [13] vs. about 165,000 for "Kyiv". [14]. "Kiev" clearly predominates. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, no, not at all, those numbers are terrible and meaningless and cannot be trusted to be more than within 2 or 3 orders of magnitude of the actual number of results. Google search results are guesstimates, not actual numbers. The only way to really establish this is to establish a set of sources - say 50 top english-language media outlets, and search them individually to determine which word they use most. That will give you a better answer. Raw google searches or even raw google book searches are not worth much at all.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Normally I too warn people of over reliance on google, but the numbers are far from "meaningless". Even "2 or 3 orders of magnitude from the actual number", the difference in number between the two is extreme. It may not be perfect, but it is a good but loose indicator showing considerably wider use of Kiev.

Media outlets are similarly less perfect. I dare say many do not have a single policy over the name of places and useage varies among corespondents. Plus there would be argument about what constitutes the top 50 of the English speaking world. Though for arguments sake, the BBC use "Kiev" ([15][16]), as does NY Times [17][18] and Reuters accept it as "the commonly accepted English language spelling of the name." [19]. The instigator is also wrong to suggest that "Kyiv" is THE translation. There is no single translation, with various floating about. Discussion over which is more appropriate has been going on for over 20 years, with Kiev continuing to be used throughout. For example, the 1994 Financial Times Style Guide lists 4 such translations, again supporting the use of "Kiev". Interesting article "Kiev or Kyiv?" emphasizes how the different translations are neither right or wrong. Interestingly he suggests that the Ukrainian Government use "Kiev (Kyiv)" on English language publications for clarity. --Rushton2010 (talk) 02:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I've see cases where google estimates over 1m hits, but when you click through to the last page of the results there are under 1000. I've also seen the opposite, where the actual number if pages returned is greater than the guesstimate. In any case google only returns the first 1000 results, you can never really get more, so any numbers that are not 'click through to the end' are meaningless, especially those estimates - 2-3 orders of magnitude was a guesstimate on my part and it could be even more. The bottom line is, if your measuring stick is inaccurate then any measurements you take from it are mostly meaningless, and should not be used to determine common name. The source-specific searches are much more likely to give you result counts under 1000 and allow better comparisons.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. While raw Google numbers are not super reliable, a much better metric is the Google Ngram. In this case, an ngram from 1980-2008 shows that "Kyiv" essentially did not exist in English-language sources until around 1992, and while it has increased in usage since then, "Kiev" still outnumbers it 5-to-1 - just in books published in 2008. "Kiev" is still clearly the dominant spelling. Dohn joe (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per Dohn joe. Official names have next to no bearing on article titling when they conflict with common names. Did the nominator review the talk subpage dedicated to this issue? --BDD (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME/User:Dohn joe. Although it may eventually change, quality sources still favour the English exonym, Kiev. —  AjaxSmack  23:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. Ukrained2012 (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose - Per Wikipedia:Official names and WP:COMMONNAME, the most commonly used and recognised name is the one used. That is undoubtedly Kiev. --Rushton2010 (talk) 01:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Maybe in 30 years time. I suggest that the next editor makes an early close per WP:SNOW. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, a perennial proposal. We can not really discuss the issue every three months.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. No evidence has been presented to prove that "Kyiv" has replaced "Kiev" in common English usage. Wikipedia is not an arm of the Ukrainian government (or any other government for that matter). --Taivo (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. Anyone requesting a name change for this article in the future should prove that they have read the entire archives at Talk:Kiev/Naming before proceeding. --Taivo (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

  And this thread after closing should go there as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

KYIV, not Kiev

Please change all instances of "Kiev" to "Kyiv". THE CITIZENS OF UKRAINE WANT THIS! "Kiev" is the Russian transliteration, and is offensive to Ukrainians, who have been struggling against Russian occupation for years, and especially these last months. Give "Kyiv" back to Ukraine! If you must mention "Kiev" do so as an historical reference to the Russian occupation, which has hurt an entire nation (one among many) for at least this last obvious century, and then let it die into oblivion. SrChristine (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not uncaring regarding nationalistic arguments, but they don't count for anything here. You need to present your case in terms of Wikipedia policies and reliable sources, or else it won't be considered. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 08:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. This question had been up several times. Richwales is right. Here we make democraticaly a konsensus. On wikipedia everything is decided by users. The more users willing support the change the quicker it will take place. It's all about the numbers. Greetings, Lifeglider (talk) 23:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not what Richwales is saying at all. It is not a democratic process, but dependent on WP:RS and WP:V. We don't vote on WP:COMMONNAME: it's sources, mass media usage, etc. that we check against. The only numbers that count are the numbers for conventional English language usage. Currently, they are very much in favour of 'Kiev'. Feel free to check against all English language articles, podcasts, newscasts and anything surrounding EuroMaidan as regards 'Kiev'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

See mine on the BGN database, yet again, up at top. When "Kiev" becomes just another variant, we can rename the article. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes, the BGN database is probably the most reliable indicator. Again, though, I'd just like to remind everyone that other variations (such as Kievan Rus') would not automatically apply. Every applicable area/category is discussed on a case by case basis dependent on usage in scholarship, etc. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The current surfeit of media coverage on the popular uprising in Ukraine is instructional: I have yet to see a single, solitary non-Ukrainian news source in English that uses Kyiv. I haven't done a survey, just read a wide variety of articles because of my personal ties to the country, but I have yet to see "Kyiv" used except in sources that originate in Ukraine. That's definitive, more definitive for WP:COMMONNAME than even the BGN data base, although that is also an important data point. The weight of usage is simply overwhelming on the side of retaining "Kiev" as the most common usage in English. --Taivo (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Your POV is very Americentric. Before throwing out more red herrings, kindly consider the following:

1. PBS, the CBC , Deutsche Welle and Voice of Turkey consistently use "Kyiv" in their English-language media, with several more (e.g. Polish Radio External Service) who use both. The list would likely be longer if I had spent more than five minutes searching. I won't make strong characterizations about what that means, as has User:Taivo ("...I have yet to see "Kyiv" used...That's definitive, more definitive for WP:COMMONNAME than even the BGN data base (sic)..."), but instead offer it as a point of contention. I didn't know Wikipedians can simply pronounce their opinion as definitive based on nothing more than unseen, anecdotal "proof".

2. Google NGrams shows that while Kiev still predominates in books, it's been declining since the height of the Cold War, while Kyiv has risen steadily since Ukrainian independence in 1990. This, despite the fact that the lion's share of English lit. comes from the US, where "Kiev" predominates. In other words, the rest of the English-speaking world is clearly adopting the spelling preferred by Ukraine.

3. The list of media using "Kiev" is comprised mostly of Russian (the former occupiers) and U.S. (still stuck in Cold War; don't differentiate between Russia and former SSRs) outlets, and media in countries allied with one (Romania, Iran) or the other (Japan, Israel).

4. This is not a case of transliteration. Example: We write "Putin" in English and "Poutine" in French, yet the pronunciation is the same as the Russian "Путин". "Kiev", however, is an incorrect pronunciation propagated by Tsarist and later Communist regimes in Russia. The fact that a rich European monarchy managed to influence literature written by their royal cousins in England hardly qualifies as a sacred history to be perpetuated, especially for it's own sake.

5. English, like others, is a living language. Do we still say "Negro" when referring to Black people? Or call North America's indigenous peoples "Indians" and Chinese people "Chinamen"? We don't, and the reason is that those people find it offensive. This, despite a long literary history of the offensive words, used tens of thousands of times in books from (gasp!) the UK, the US and their imperial colonies. Put differently, the incumbency of an offensive colonial term is not a justification for its continued use. Though not first in my rant, I believe this is the most salient point. Language is there to serve us, not the other way around.

6. Further to #5, some geographical places whose English spelling has changed in the past century: Beijing (formerly Peking), Belarus (Byelorussia), Haida Gwaii (Queen Charlotte Islands), Mpumalanga (Eastern Transvaal), Bratislava (Pressburg) and hundreds of locales in India, notably Mumbai (Bombay) and Kolkata (Calcutta). These changes came about due to popular demand, mainly as a way to rid their countries of the odious remaining vestiges of colonialism. Sorry folks, language is inherently political. Frankly, so is Wikipedia, despite her protestations to the contrary.

And to be perfectly clear, I am not from Ukraine, of Ukrainian descent or know personally a single person who belongs in either of those categories. This is a matter of common sense. I implore everyone to use some before posting further flippant replies.

P.S. Sorry for the horrible formatting. No idea how else to make bullet points on WP. HuntClubJoe (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

You should know a little something about formatting by now (considering you've been editing Wikipedia since 2010). You should certainly be aware of the fact that one should read a talk page before rehashing arguments that have been addressed time and time again. Also, before you start throwing 'Americentric' around, had you checked through what currently exists on this page (much less archived discussions) you would have been aware that I am Australian... of Ukrainian descent... and not Russified or a Russophile... and I implore you to not present yourself as an advocate for what Ukrainian people (and the peoples of the world in general) want and need, as well as self-appointed ombudsman for correct line political ideologies. That is a matter of common sense.

Please read through all of the discussions on this page and familiarise yourself with the various policies and guidelines NPOV editors have to adhere to and try to understand that the decision is not based on emotive arguments. Yes, language is inherently political, but Wikipedia follows the precedents and does not make them. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you start with an attack on my Wikipedian skills is instructive. Anotyher fact for you to consider is that I wasn't even replying to you. Finally, I made no pretension to being the great defender of Ukraine or her people; in fact, quite the opposite ("I am not from Ukraine, of Ukrainian descent or know personally a single person who belongs in either of those categories.") Please re-read, absorb and, if you can muster it, apologise. HuntClubJoe (talk) 07:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

1. English language sources from countries that do not generally use English would seem to be of less import than English language sources from countries that are predominantly English speaking, as second language speakers often utilize their native language's conventions in the foreign language.

2. You haven't established that most English speaking countries use "Kyiv", so your second point is not supported.

3. You seem to have some axe to grind against both Russia and the US here. I also wonder exactly how many countries are left after you remove your two classes of countries that primarily use "Kiev".

4. You are assuming that English is trying to transliterate the Ukrainian term. To me it seems more likely that English has adopted the Russian word, that would make it a case of translation instead.

5. The United Negro College Fund still exists. "Negro" and its derivative "Negroid" are still used in anthropology and forensics. The aboriginal peoples of the United States ARE still overwhelmingly known as Indians.

6. Several of your examples of names changing in English are of places that were hardly referred to in the first place and the Indian locations are still often referred to by the older names.

The basic question is whether the name of a place is set by its inhabitants for all languages or whether such a decision is made separately by each language. --Khajidha (talk) 15:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

1. FYI: The United States and Canada are piss poor examples of countries whose primary language is NOT English.

2. I didn't claim any of the above points are PROOF of anything. If I had proof, I would be bold and change the page without consultation. I'm a jerk like that.

3. Noting that the two great superpowers of the past century have had an enormous impact on popular culture is hardly grinding an axe. Further, I don't think you can claim that because a country's media outlets are aboard a certain bandwagon is synonymous with consensus. This being the case, it doesn't matter how long your wonder-list is. Total red herring.

4. It is you making assumptions. I know well that "Kiev" is not a transliteration of "Київ", which is precisely my point. Forgive me if that has escaped you.

5. If anomalies equal broad support, Kyiv would be universally accepted. Also, are we talking about (unsupportable by refs) common street language? Or English-language literary and printed news references? You have mooted your own point in short order. Even your fellow "Kiev" people will not support you on this one.

6. So a place's name doesn't matter if it's not as popular as another place? Shee-it! Better tell those people in "Bombay" that their city's name doesn't matter because it's smaller than Beijing!

Your last point is eminently reasonable. Thus, my intervention here. I am a native English speaker, and my vote is for "Kyiv" for the above reasons. Please don't make me out to be a pawn of any other group. I speak for myself alone, and a quick look at my historical edits will quickly reveal no discernible bias with regards to Ukraine, Russia or the United States.

I am told to assume good faith as a Wikipedian. If not for that, I would instead assume you're trolling me. Try harder with your specious arguments! HuntClubJoe (talk) 07:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I am endlessly mystified as to how people continually manage to misinterpret Wikipedia's role as an encyclopaedia as some sort of political soapbox in which to promote their own views. What the "citizens of Ukraine" want is utterly irrelevant to the project. It's no more significant than a pop star wanting to change the name of his article because he's decided to rename himself for branding reasons. That's not how we decide things here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm less mystified than annoyed at the lack of courtesy shown other contributors, Necrothesp. Every one of these issues has been addressed and explained by Wikipedia policy and guidelines in spades, yet every couple of weeks the self-same 'arguments' are resurrected. This places undue demands on the time and energy of Wikipedians who have already established that the issue does not merit discussion again until certain prerequisites are met, and we'll all be aware of such changes when they occur. Soapbox remains the carte du jour day in, day out. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Just for kicks, I thought I'd check the following statement: 1. PBS, the CBC , Deutsche Welle and Voice of Turkey consistently use "Kyiv" in their English-language media (emphasis mine):

• PBS: Kiev vs. Kyiv
• CBC: Kiev vs. Kyiv
• Deutsche Welle: Kiev vs. Kyiv
• Voice of Turkey (couldn't find a search box on their website, so going with google instead): Kiev vs. Kyiv

I think one would have to be daft not to admit that "Kyiv" is indeed occasionally used, but even these examples of supposedly "exclusive" usage show neither exclusiveness nor even the prevalence of "Kyiv". So, the lesson of the day is: if you are going to rehash arguments already rehashed to death in a bazillion of previous threads to make a point, at least do your research first.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 6, 2014; 21:49 (UTC)

Surely not! Could it be that the contributor in question exaggerated a tad in order to get POINTy? I'm going to have to sip on a cup of tea and have a little lie down in order to get over the shock. A kitten for you for investigating the claims! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It's just another day at the office watching editors try to defend the honor of Ukrainians, especially when most of them aren't Ukrainian or have never been to Ukraine. In Ukraine, outside official documents, you're about as likely to see Russian and "Kiev" as you are to see Ukrainian and "Kyiv". That's just the way it is there. But this is the English Wikipedia and none of that matters. Obviously, User:HuntClubJoe didn't understand the point I was making. If "Kyiv" were at all common in English, then I wouldn't have to even search for examples of it. It would be obvious just by reading the news. But "Kyiv" is simply not at all common in English, so one doesn't have to work to find "Kiev", it's everywhere whether you look for it or not. And if you listen to PBS, you only hear "Key-ev", never the Ukrainian pronunciation. --Taivo (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I've never encountered anything other than 'Kiev' in Australian-English sources. Ëzhiki hit the nail right on the head with his observation regarding chowing down on something so trivial in order "to liberate Ukraine from the Russification". If one's sense of national identity is that precarious and precious, then one is probably suffering from OCD (or something worse). Pet peeves: knee-jerk reactionaries, Russophobes and Ukrainophobes editing articles dealing with the regions in question. Mind you, it goes without saying that it is sane and rational for everyone to continue loathing and fearing the Poles. My personal theory is that it is they who introduced the use of Kiev into the English language. I don't need reliable sources or any form of verification as I know this to be "The Truth". --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Should I feign surprise that you would chide User:Necrothesp for inserting useless drivel into this talk page, only to use the stigma of mental illness to tar your "opponents"? Seriously, you can fuck right off. Totally useless, and if WP wants my account as retribution for my outburst, so be it. HuntClubJoe (talk) 07:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I did not read Iryna Harpy's comment as chiding me (although maybe I'm wrong). Neither do I consider that my comments amounted to "useless drivel", but instead were a statement that Ukrainian nationalism does not decide what happens on Wikipedia, and therefore constitute a valid opinion which is clearly closer to the spirit of Wikipedia than the arguments being used by supporters of the renaming, who appear to be attempting to use Wikipedia as a platform to promote their views to the world. Which is what I said. The whole thing is a tired argument which clearly goes against Wikipedia's standard naming guidelines. Simple. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I was most certainly not chiding you, Necrothesp. Quite the antithesis: I was empathising with your position. The fact that HuntClubJoe is unable to interpret responses to comments leaves me wondering as to his(?assumption) ability to impartially judge content. The fact that Ëzhiki investigated his claims, which came up as being the stuff of citekill, proved a POV stance in having to use a stretch of the imagination (read as a bit of a porky) in order to come up with any material to reinforce his claims.

HuntClubJoe, you did not make it clear whom you were addressing. Although you wrote this immediately underneath Taivo's comment, this is a talk page and any arguments put forth are open for any interested party to respond to. Had you bothered checking comments, you may have been aware of the fact that there are representatives from various parts of the world participating, therefore 'Americentric' . Again, as a courteous Wikipedian, you should have been aware of the fact that one reads talk page material dealing with contentious issues in order to ensure that you are bringing something new to the table. That was a massive 'fail' on your behalf.

"Trolling" you? This is the first time I've encountered you, and it is standard practice to check on user contributions (AKA familiarising oneself with the contributor you are dealing with).

Read through the archives. Read through the current page. This issue has been done to death, yet the same arguments are brought up every couple of weeks... literally. Personally, I don't care if you throw every expletive under the sun at me on this talk page (note, this talk page alone). You're not going to change the obvious unless you come up with some genuine evidence. Come back when you have something that can stand up to scrutiny. --Iryna 'may contain Aspinol' Harpy (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible for User:Iryna Harpy to make a single comment on here without including ad hominem attacks? Is that the "Wikipedian courtesy" of which the user speaks? If I'm expected to magically know how to make bullet points merely because I signed up in 2010, surely you should know how to assume good faith. Tell me, Iryna, did you assume good faith?

Please re-read your very first entry before invoking ad hominem or anything else you'd care to invoke. Per Wikipedia guidelines, "The Assume Good Faith guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious contrary evidence." One look at what you presented, and how it was presented, smacked of an antagonistic attitude. Add to that the fact that all of your arguments have already been addressed on this page (just take a look at the section titles and the debates), then toss in a look at your talk page and the constant stream of arrogance, uncivil responses and antagonistic language it proudly boasts is fairly much a clincher. Ah, so few actual contributions, yet so much revealed pertaining to your 'good faith'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Further, to User:Ezhiki's attempt to equate various with EVIDENCE, the following should be noted:

1. CBC's integrated search ("powered by Google") doesn't actually yield anything like the same results as using Google to search CBC. Not surprisingly (to me, at least), instances of "Kyiv" outnumber "Kiev" by over 2:1. See for yourself...

See my response under point 2. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

*CBC: [Kiev] vs. [Kyiv]

2. CBC's massive website contains sections as widely varied as public comments (obviously not subject to editorial oversight) and written descriptions and transcripts of TV and radio programs dating back to the 1930s. In other words, you searched petabytes of data that have no bearing on the topic at hand. I would be unsurprised if the same is true of the other outlets' sites, though again, I make no definitive statements in that regard, one way or the other. Even a cursory glance at your search hits would reveal that "Kyiv" predominates in recent news headlines. This is why I don't use web search hit frequency as evidence of anything.

I did exactly the same thing as Ezhiki = using their drop-down box = Results 1 - 10 of about 878 for kiev as compared to Results 1 - 10 of about 670 for kyiv. Your petabytes are easily accounted for from 1930s onwards as being representative of the large diasporic Ukrainian community in Canada for many generations... and, yet, it still hasn't caught on as being the Canadian standard for the mass media. CBC does not represent the WP:COMMONNAME as used by 'the rest of the English-speaking world' by a long shot. Please feel free to check other major news outlets (from the BBC to the AustralianBC and back). No cigar. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

3. "Exclusive" was your word, not mine. Exaggerating will not make your point any less specious. In fact, some on this page might call that "POINTy"! HuntClubJoe (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Er, my word? Where?

Enough of this pseudo-'good faith', pseudo-'researched WP:V & WP:RS' diatribe. You've presented WP:OR that's been discussed ad infinitum over a multitude of pages archived here. The evidence against the use of 'Kyiv' is, by no means merely anecdotal, but well supported if you care to read anything other than your own opinion. Here on in, I will not indulge you again. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Iryna, "exclusive" was actually the word I used and I believe HCJ was referring to my previous comment in his remark. Perhaps I shouldn't have enclosed it in quotes, but I really don't see how using "exclusive" is such an "exaggeration" (quotes intentional) of HCJ's original statement that "PBS [et al.]... consistently use 'Kyiv' in their English-language media...". If HCJ meant "sometimes" instead of "consistently", perhaps a better choice of words was in order? At any rate, 2:1, 5:1, and even 10:1 (in any direction) are hardly indicative of a "consistent" use of anything. May I also add that switching the flow of an argument by trying to derail it with such insignificant details as the choice of a(n equally acceptable) search venue is the oldest trick in the book and really does not win any points to whoever is trying to make a point, whatever that point is. And yes, as Iryna pointed out, no one source, nor a combination of a handful of randomly (at least I hope it was a random and not a cherry-picked selection) chosen sources represent the common name. All sources which we accept as reliable need to be looked at holistically, and so far the cards do not fall to support the "Kyiv" side. When they do, I'll be among the first people to start making changes around here.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 8, 2014; 05:13 (UTC)

Everyone here has made it abundantly clear that, as soon as there is evidence enough to support the usage of 'Kyiv', we'll be on the case and hold a well argued RfC. Entering a talk page and grinding away at people as if they're holding civilisation hostage for the purposes of evil, rather than goodness and niceness, is not assuming good faith on behalf of regular contributors. Americentric; red herrings; flippant replies?

EuroMaidan has proven itself to be a litmus test for usage. Yes, there may have been a minuscule shift, but it is minuscule. Bearing in mind that it may also merely be an indicator as to expanding search terms in order to bring in internet users (I encountered quite a few instances of articles using 'Kiev' in the body, but popping up under 'kyiv' as the search term), there is no way in which this be interpreted as having become a candidate for WP:COMMONNAME. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

For the name 'Kyiv'

According to the rules of transliteration of Ukrainian language into English which were approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, the name is referred as 'Kyiv'. As it already was mentioned, the name Kyiv is used in official documents. If to consider that the national language of Ukraine is Ukrainian (which also the most spoken language), it would be more accurate to write a Ukrainian variant. This name is also used in schools and universities, so the name should not differ from the source language.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Studmak (talk • contribs)

This is the English Wikipedia, so we use the names which are most commonly used in English. What spelling is used in Ukraine or any other non-English-speaking country is quite beyond the point. See WP:OFFICIAL for a more detailed explanation—it's an essay, but it is an accurate summary of existing guidelines and practices.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 28, 2014; 20:09 (UTC)

not only that's the usage in english to write Kiev, but also the claim about transliteration doesn't work the other around: in ukrainian many foreign cities names are not correctly transliterated. For instance the capital of France is Paris, but ukrainian (like russian), writes Париж which pronounces "Parizh" with a "zh". In french it's pronounced pa-ri, without even the 's'. A correct transliteration would be Парис (with 's') but a phonetically correct one would be rather: Пари. So there's a lot of ukrainians around these days, wanting to enforce transliterations, while at the same time nothing reciprocal happens on the ukrainophone web. AntonioB Men alt dette er ikke begyndelsen. (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

CMOS says to follow Merriam-Webster, which gives "Kiev." "Kiev" is also more common in the media. In the last two years, there were 10,755 hits for "Kiev", 4,379 for "Kyiv". The great huha (talk) 04:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Antonio, you obviously do not know the differences between Ukrainian and Russian so I doubt there is a point to have a discussion with you. You must know that while the name of Paris is spelled the same in both languages, it is pronounced differently. As for your reciprocity argument, well, then we also must change the spelling of Paris in Polish, Czech, Bulgarian and tens of other languages, and following your logic, also in English, from Paris to Pari.

Come on, guys! Stop being funny. It is Kyiv! Ukraine has been independent for nearly 23 years and, I hope, it is clear for you that today like never before the Ukrainians are committed to protect both their independence and the language. By keeping the old name you offend one of the largest European nations even if you do not mean to. Homme (talk) 02:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Have you actually understand the point here, Homme? I don't think so. The point is not what Wikipedia editors think, but common English usage. That means that hundreds of millions of English speakers as well as the vast bulk of contemporary English language media use "Kiev". That's the name in ENGLISH. It's not the name in Russian or Ukrainian or Polish or Navajo. It's the name in English. That's absolutely all that matters. Start reading the news, Homme. You'll start to see that even the media outlets most sympathetic to Ukraine have "Kiev" as their bylines. --Taivo (talk) 04:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• Just one question: when a huge chunk of Germany was handed down to Poland after the Second World War, did the English-speaking world keep on using the German names of Breslau, Posen, Stettin, etc to refer to the current events in the cities in that area or did they start using Polish names instead — Wrocław, Poznań, Szczecin, etc? Homme (talk) 18:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry: you're right off track here. Can you demonstrate that these names were used consistently as the English WP:COMMONNAME until contemporary times? No? You're confusing historical names with ongoing conventions. Kiev has been in constant use for hundreds of years. Have you noticed how, during the course of recent events, it has remained the Western English-speaking world's standard. If that isn't the ultimate litmus test, I don't know what is. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

It's sad to see how somebody who considers herself a proud descendant of the Ukrainian Cossacks so passionately defends the usage of the Russian name for Kyiv. Homme (talk) 00:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

What is really sad, Homme, is to find someone who thinks that "Kiev" is the Russian name for Ukraine's largest city. It is the English name, neither Russian nor Ukrainian. It is the the name used for centuries in the English language, just as Rome is the English name of Italy's capital, Warsaw is the English name of Poland's capital, and Copenhagen is the English name of Denmark's capital. BTW, the Russian name of Ukraine's capital is Киев, not "Kiev". --Taivo (talk) 00:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Quite so, Taivo. Homme, considering that you're from Харків, you should be well aware of the fact that the Russian transliteration would be 'Kiyev', not Kiev. You're confusing a very old, old naming convention in the English language (per WP:COMMONNAME) with Russification. Козак-мамай's philosophical stance does not necessarily tally with yours - there are greater issues to address in the interests of all humanity. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It should be Kyiv because that's the correct name. All the other ones are wrong transliterations. This is 2014, not the Middle Ages. City names are not freely translated anymore, and Wikipedia should adopt the correct names. Wikipedia should be by the literates' side, not by the ignorants' 82.51.20.245 (talk)

"Kiev" is correct. And so is "Kyiv". Just try a dictionary. But since the former variant is a lot more common in English than the latter, and since Wikipedia, to borrow your parlance, has always been on the side of the common, "Kiev" is used here. It's as simple as that, really.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 29, 2014; 19:30 (UTC)

What the masses do is not right per se, beware. I accept Kiev being the most common name, but it's also the wrong one, as was Peking. And everyone is pointing that out. --Pavlovič (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

If you care to read this talk page carefully, you'll find that the 'Peking' argument has already been dealt with. It's 'Kiev' in the English speaking world (particularly evident as Ukraine has been in the news on a daily basis for months). There's absolutely no precedent for the change as WP:COMMONNAME until it's demonstrably the English speaking world's preference. You might have to wait until Germany becomes Deutschland in English (or until Німеччина becomes Дойчланд in Ukrainian).

P.S. If it is so ignorant and 'wrong' to use Kiev instead of Kyiv, why aren't you all arguing for using Ukrayina for Ukraine? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Quite right, Iryna Harpy. "Right" and "wrong" and "transliteration" are absolutely immaterial in this discussion. The only relevant issue is what name do English speakers use most commonly. That's it. The most common name that English speakers use for the capital city of Ukraine (not "Ukrayina") when they are speaking and writing English is "Kiev". It's not "transliterated" or "right" or "wrong" any more than "Rome" or "Warsaw" or "Moscow" or "Belgrade" or "Copenhagen" or "Prague" are "transliterated" or "right" or "wrong". "Kiev" is simply the English name of Ukraine's capital. --Taivo (talk) 10:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

To me it's not an English name, it's just the wrong one. This is a politicized matter, not unlike the Londonderry/Derry debate. The only point is that this one here is deemed to be unimportant because it's not about an Anglophone country. Ahhh, l'impérialisme... --Pavlovič (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

We all could be saving so much time if only editors avoided posting arguments which can be summarized as "well, to me it seems wrong". When a majority of English-language sources (including academic sources, dictionaries, and encyclopedias) are predominantly using a particular spelling, to proclaim, in essence, that "my opinion is more correct; let's all do things my way" is an epitome of arrogance and disrespect. Why is it always, always English that needs to be "corrected" and never any other languages? Ahhh, le nationalisme...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 30, 2014; 14:48 (UTC)

Common courtesy would also dictate that those proposing their non-common English variant read previous discussions before tossing in their 2¢ worth into the arena. There are recent discussions and years of earlier discussions promoting the same old same old. There is nothing new to be explored and, however original new participants believe their take to be, it will have been brought up and rebutted. All newcomers: please take the time to read the policy-based rebuttals... and please stop wasting other contributors' time forcing them to explain the same things over and over. If there is a change to the English naming convention, we'll all be aware of it and will adjust Wikipedia entries to reflect the change. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The article for Derry acknowledges both names, why is that then? This is a politicized matter, of course. And I'm blaming English because it's one of the most conservative languages. --Pavlovič (talk) 01:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

"The article for Derry acknowledges both names". Perhaps you actually need to look at the infobox at Kiev. Haven't seen it? Oh, wow, surprise! There sits both the Ukrainian and the Russian names. But there is only one name for the capital of Ukraine in common English usage--it's "Kiev". Read the news over the last two months. Virtually every single media source uses "Kiev" exclusively as the English name of the city. You can hate English if you want. You certainly won't be alone in that. But you're fighting a losing battle. As Iryna Harpy has clearly stated, you haven't said a single thing or made a single argument that hasn't been made dozens of times before since I became involved in the discussion about 2007 (when I was living in Rivne). --Taivo (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Why should the Ukrainian government have any more power over what the English language calls this city than it does over what the English language calls anything else? We use English here, so it is "Kiev" not "Київ" and "dog" not "собака". --Khajidha (talk) 12:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

War between Ukraine and Russia 2014

Do you understand that the name of capital is a big deal for many Ukrainians? Especially now, when Russian occupants are killing our people. And Kiev is the Russian variant of name of our capital. It's a matter of moral and political correctness, not only tradition. OlegGerdiy (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)