Talk:Kyiv

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kiev. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203020408/http://www.ucipr.kiev.ua/publications/electronic-bulletin-your-choice-2012-issue-4-batkivshchyna/lang/en to http://www.ucipr.kiev.ua/publications/electronic-bulletin-your-choice-2012-issue-4-batkivshchyna/lang/en
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://archive.is/20120530043944/https%3A//tspace.library.utoronto.ca/citd/RussianHeritage/4.PEAS/4.L/12.III.5.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jpeopleworld.com/index.php?dir=site&page=country&subj_cs=4755
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ukma.kiev.ua/eng_site/index.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Kiev in Ukrainian SSR

This text: From 1921 onwards Kiev was a city of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, which was proclaimed by the Red Army It is not quite true. Kiev was taken by the Red Army on June 12, 1920, and from that time the city was part of Soviet Ukraine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.132.80.239 (talk) 16:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Kiev is incorrect, please change to Kyiv this is really official name city in this time Kiev does not exist Ivanpetskovych (talk) 09:56, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

It does in English. --Khajidha (talk) 10:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2018

Vladzymovin (talk) 15:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@Vladzymovin:, what change, specifically, do you want made? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Kahastok talk 17:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

WTF is "most <...> pro-democracy region"?

As opposed to what? Are other regions pro-I don't know-totalitarism or something? And even if it is something outlandish like this, how this pro-democratiness was measured and why it is "most" expressed in Kiev? This all sounds like some flowery non-NPOV language. --Rowaa[SR13] (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 12 October 2018

Kiev → Kyiv – Requested by the ministry of foreign affairs of Ukraine... (per this reference) "Kiev" is a russified, colonial name of the original 1500-year old Ukrainian toponym. "Kyiv" is approved by the United Nations. The conferences on Standartization of geographic names. The UN group of experts on Geographical names. And most english media outlets not controlled by the Kremlin. Openlydialectic (talk) 06:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Most English media outlets are not controlled by the Kremlin. The evidence is still overwhelming that common English usage is still "Kiev". --Taivo (talk) 08:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons in the 9 previous RMs at Talk:Kiev/naming. Iffy★Chat -- 08:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - This was done a year ago with a snowball keep for Kiev. I see nothing from those discussions to warrant anything different this go around. Kiev is the common English spelling and what a foreign govt wants has no bearing here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose also from me, the nominator apparently did not take the trouble to read previous discussions.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

  A pretty new editor (June 2018) so they might not have realized and read all the nominations from before. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

  To be honest, they look like a pretty old editor (I once almost blocked them already), but let us complete the RM this time.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

  Given all their involvement in various "behind the scenes" parts of Wikipedia, I find it hard to believe that they are a true new editor. They seem like someone returning under a new name. --Khajidha (talk) 13:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per everything mentioned by everyone else. --Khajidha (talk) 09:18, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, and next editor please WP:SNOW close Suggest a moratorium of 12 months till next attempt. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support. As more and more English-language publications use "Kyiv", the common transliteration in English is shifting, as it did with Peking, Bombay, and Calcutta, and various other city-name transliterations. See for instance Google Ngram: In English-language books, usage of "Kiev" has been steadily declining since 1960, and usage of "Kyiv" has been steadily increasing since 1990 [1]. Google Ngram only goes up to 2008 (an entire decade ago), and one may imagine that give these trajectories, and given the increasing desire of English-language authoritative reliable sources to conform transliterations to official and/or nationalistic standards (as with Peking and other Chinese cities, Bombay, and Calcutta), that "Kyiv" will eventually, and probably quite soon, become the English-language standard. See Google Scholar, which shows the continuation of the trend: For instance on Google Scholar, 2008-2009 Kyiv = 18,300 [2]; Kiev = 41,500: [3]. 2009-2010 Kyiv = 17,000 [4]; Kiev = 24,000 [5]. 2010-2011 Kyiv = 25,700 [6]; Kiev = 44,000 [7]. 2011-2012 Kyiv = 18,600 [8]; Kiev = 24,300 [9]. 2012-2013 Kyiv = 41,600 [10]; Kiev = 49,300 [11]. 2013-2014 Kyiv = 20,100 [12]; Kiev = 25,500 [13]. 2014-2015 Kyiv = 53,300 [14]; Kiev = 46,300 [15]. 2015-2016 Kyiv = 23,000 [16]; Kiev = 20,400 [17]. 2016-2017 Kyiv = 43,000 [18]; Kiev = 39,400 [19]. 2017-2018 Kyiv = 18,300 [20]; Kiev = 17,300 [21]. 2018-present Kyiv = 15,100 [22]; Kiev = 13,500 [23]. Therefore on Google Scholar, Kyiv has exceeded Kiev for the past 5 years. That's a very clear trajectory that matches and extends that of Google Ngram, which only goes up to 2008. It's very clear where the trajectory is headed; the fact that five years in a row Kyiv has exceeded Kiev is a clear indication that, as shown in the Google Ngram, Kyiv is soon going to overtake Kiev as the standard for reliable English-language sources. Softlavender (talk) 02:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

The only commment I'll make on this is that "shifting" is not "shifted". Wikipedia is reactive once there is clear and unambiguous evidence that common English usage has definitely changed. It is not proactive, pushing an agenda, whether that agenda is laudable or not. "Kyiv" may be becoming more common, but it has not yet supplanted "Kiev". --Taivo (talk) 02:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

It certainly has on Google Scholar. And it also has on GoogleBooks; for books published in the 21st century, "Kiev" gets 11 results (9 visible) [24], and "Kyiv" gets 14 results (13 visible) [25]. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

In most hits provided by google books, "Kyiv" is a mailing address. I am not sure that is an indication of a shift in English literture.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

And one of the most common problems cited in the literature with Ngram searches is that it skews toward scientific literature, not common English sources: [26]. For example, searching the New York Times from 1 Jan to 12 Oct of this year, there are 111 results for "Kiev" and only 5 results for "Kyiv". --Taivo (talk) 04:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Even if the situation were opposite, NYT does not set the rules of English language. These rules are pretty rigid, and we cannot change it according to present days political situation. Again, the name of the country where Kiev is a capital is Oukraeena (that is more correct phonetic name, but we do not care that in English this name is "Ukraine".--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I wasn't clear. I did not choose the New York Times because it was some sacred arbiter of English usage. I simply listed the NYT as a single example of a media source where the use of "Kiev" is overwhelming. I could have listed a dozen major English language news outlets that all use "Kiev" consistently (with "Kyiv" reserved only for "Kyiv Dynamo"). Those dozen media sources probably have more readers per day than the total readership over time of most of the books on Google Scholar or Google Books combined. That's why it's critical to consider mass media as one of the data points in any discussion of a name change. In this case, it's been demonstrated over and over, almost annually, that the majority of the largest news media outlets in the English-speaking world still use "Kiev" overwhelmingly. This includes major media sources on both sides of the Atlantic, such as the Guardian and the Economist. It's not just about how many data points scholars create for the 10 people who read their books, it's about how many millions of readers actually see "Kiev" every day in their reliable sources for news and information. --Taivo (talk) 09:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

The NYT usage is even more lopsided than those numbers would seem to indicate. The 5 uses are in only 4 articles and are all references to entities other than the city itself (Kyiv FREE Couch, Kyiv Post (twice), Kyiv Security Forum, Kyiv School of Economics). --Khajidha (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

PS: Only one of those 4 articles references the city itself. And it uses "Kiev" to do so. --Khajidha (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@PaulSiebert: In terms of the 13 visible "Kyiv" GoogleBook results from the 21st C (as opposed to only 9 visible of Kiev for the 21st C), 7 are in the titles of the books, and of the remaining 6 only one is a mailing address (the World Guide to Libraries), so the results are not "a mailing address". Softlavender (talk) 07:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, mailing addresses are among these hits, which make the search results not an adequate indicator. Anyway, 13 hits is too samll number to draw any conclusion about trends.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Regarding recent scholar results, that is not an indication, because "Kiev" include the hits that refer to some prolific author whose last name is "Kiev". With regard to "Kyiv", most hits are the articles authored by people from this city: their mailing address include this name, hence the hits.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

As other editors have pointed out, the use of Scholar and Books here is misleading. It is picking up false positives such as mailing addresses and very specialist literature, not mainstream English-language sources. AusLondonder (talk) 06:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@PaulSiebert: Do you realize that "'Kiev' include the hits that refer to some prolific author whose last name is 'Kiev'" is a rationale in favor of the use of "Kyiv"? Softlavender (talk) 07:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I mean. I also note that many "Kyiv" hits are because a modern mailing address is "Kyiv", not "Kiev". That makes both figures not a good indicator.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support per nomination and per superbly detailed !vote by Softlavender. Kiev → Kyiv is not a name change in the manner of Tsaritsyn → Stalingrad → Volgograd, but rather a transliteration adjustment comparable to Calcutta → Kolkata. Governments in the English-speaking world, guidebooks, online maps — the trajectory is inexorable and inevitable.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

It may be inexorable, but it has not happened yet. User:Softlavender's numbers have been cherry-picked and, of course, do not reflect the full range of English-language usage. For example, among the major media markets in the English-speaking world, "Kiev" is still overwhelmingly the usage. And what is the average speaker of English more likely to encounter? A book on the history of St. Sophia's cathedral listed in Google Scholar, or the New York Times? And as was discussed earlier on Talk:Kiev/naming, "Kiev" is not a transliteration. It is still the common English name for Ukraine's capital city, just like "Warsaw" is the common English name for Poland's capital city. --Taivo (talk) 04:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

That is not our goal to predict a trajectory. Our goal is to reflect a current state of things.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Our goal is not to anticipate future trends, but to reflect what majority sources say. In addition, I am not sure local name convention can affect the rules of English language. Thus, in Russian, the name of Russian capital is "Moskva", but its English name is "Moscow", Germans call themselves "Deutsch", but we still are calling them "Germans"; a self-name of Sweden is Sverige, but we use "Sweden". The English name of Kobenhavn is Copenhagen, and we do not care how do Danish people call it. In addition, the old historical name of Ukrainian capital is "Kiev", not "Kyiv", hence the name "Kievan Rus" (not Kyivan Rus. In Belorussian, Kiev is also "Kieu", which means in old Russian (the language all three modern Eastern Slav languages, Russian, Belorussian and Ukrainian originated from) the name of this city was "Kiev", and it is not a "russified, colonial name", but a historical name of this city. (Actually, an old historical name of the city was "Kyjev", which is in between a modern Russian "Kijev" and modern Ukrainian "Kyiv" names).

Interestingly, München gives more hits in Google scholar than Munich, but nobody tried to rename the English article about this city. Guys, we are English Wikipedia, and we must obey the rules of English language.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose This is the latest disruptive instalment in a long-running push by special interests and a government to force global English-language usage to change. We don't act at the demand of dodgy Eastern European regimes. The rationale supporting the move is absolutely bogus. Kiev is not the "Russian" name for the city. It is the English name for the city. The Russian name is Киев, transliterated as Kiyev. Nom says that "Kyiv" is used by "most english media outlets not controlled by the Kremlin" - but failed to provide a shred of evidence for either the first assertion about usage or the second paranoid conspiracy theory that English-language media is controlled by the Kremlin. Support a 12-month moratorium on other move requests. AusLondonder (talk) 06:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

"The Russian name is Киев, transliterated as Kiyev." The Russian Киев is generally transliterated as "Kiev" (from which the traditional English spelling stems, and the pronunciation is similar), which is why Ukrainians and Ukrainian-speaking peoples do not like the use of "Kiev", which is Russian and does not look or sound like the Ukrainian-language word Київ (Kyiv [ˈkɪjiu̯] ). Softlavender (talk) 08:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

But regardless of how it is spelled, Kiev or Kyiv, in English it will likely always sound like Kiev when pronounced. I've seen several people spell it Kyiv but they still pronounce it as key-ev. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:31, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

No English speaker who isn't also a native speaker of Ukrainian pronounces Київ as [kɪjiu̯]. They pronounce it, at best, as [kiv] or [kiɪv] ("keev" or "kee-iv"). In other words, it's virtually identical in pronunciation to [kiɛv]. --Taivo (talk) 09:10, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

"Kolkata" is virtually identical in pronunciation to "Calcutta" and yet it is written "Kolkata". The pronunciation is immaterial as long as the Ukrainian capital's name is written in English as "Kyiv".    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 15:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd hazard a guess that very few native English speakers (at least those without a severe hearing impairment) would consider /koʊlˈkɑːtə/ and /kælˈkʌtə/ to be "virtually identical". Kahastok talk 15:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Once again, the matter of pronunciation is basically immaterial to the subject at hand. It varies widely across the entire English-speaking world with some pronouncing the city's name in the same manner that they had pronounced the familiar "Calcutta" (as in the Black Hole of Calcutta) and others aiming for "Kohl-kah-tah". The key point is the written form, "Kolkata". Some will pronounce "Mumbai" as they pronounced "Bombay" except with an "M", "Mombay" — others will aim for "Moom-bah-yee", but the English written form is "Mumbai". Some will pronounce "Kraków" the same as its outdated form, "Cracow", while others will try for "Krah-koov", but the modern written form is "Kraków" (or "Krakow"). The same with "Kyiv" — some will pronounce it in the same manner as the outdated Russian form, used in the dish Chicken Kiev (analogous to Peking duck), while others will try "Kih-yeev". The key point to emphasize is that the written form is "Kyiv".    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Nobody pronounces Kolkata as Calcutta. If they say Calcutta, they also write Calcutta. And nobody pronounces Mumbai as Mombay, either. They may say "mum-bye", but not "mombay". --Khajidha (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose the English Wikipedia uses the common spelling in English, which is the current title. If usage of a different spelling increases, we can change it then. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Usage of Kiev as recently as today by the Irish Times and the Washington Post, but I assume nom will blithely dismiss these outlets as "Kremlin controlled". Much easier than actually putting forward a credible argument. AusLondonder (talk) 06:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. The WP:COMMONNAME is still "Kiev" and the nom doesn't argue that it isn't. "Kiev" is not in this case a Russian name or a Ukrainian name, but the longstanding English name for the city. Kahastok talk 09:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Lets keep the russian name, it is more used and easier to pronounce. Linhart (talk) 10:10, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
• WP:Common name does not apply here because this is the same name. We are talking about different transliterations of the same name. Relevant guideline is this. It tells only that we must "follow English-language usage". Right now there are two different commonly used transliterations in English (4 million for Kyiv in Google news is a lot). However, only one of these common English spellings corresponds to local spelling, and that is Kyiv. Therefore, I would support the renaming. My very best wishes (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Of course WP:COMMONNAME applies here because "Kiev" and "Kyiv" are not the same name in English. Russian and Ukrainian do not count in this discussion. The only thing that counts here is English. And in English, they are different names, spelled differently. "Kiev" is, by far, the most commonly used name and the long-standing name in English (it's not a transliteration despite what some here are claiming). Ukrainians hope that "Kyiv" will replace "Kiev", but it's a very, very slow process at best and may never happen. As of right now, "Kiev" is the English name for Ukraine's capital city. --Taivo (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. "Kiev" is by far the most common English spelling. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: WP:COMMON name in the English language is "Kiev". The has not been a corresponding deprecation as what happened to "the Ukraine". The Kiev spelling is in common use in English-language sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Pronunciation is irrelevant because this discussion is only about spelling, which has nothing at all to do with pronunciation. Various accepted English spellings are pronounced different ways and we do not change spellings to conforn to ideal pronunciation. "Kiev" is by far the most common English language spelling when discussing this city. Personally, off Wikipedia, I support the Ukrainian government against the Kremlin. And if English language usage actually shifts decisively to "Kyiv, then I will support a move at that time. But that time has not yet arrived. I do not care at all what the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine had to say about this matter, and neither should any other editor. They are not the arbiters of English language usage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose We are clearly being trolled by the Ukranian Foreign affairs ministry Kyiv City State Administration. Suggest immediate close. ——SerialNumber54129 14:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:AGF. It should be noted that the letter to the Wikimedia Foundation regarding Kiev → Kyiv requests was not sent by "the Ukranian Foreign affairs ministry", but by the Kyiv City State Administration.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for the information, Roman Spinner, I've clarified my remarks as a consequence. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 07:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose "Kiev" is still far more common.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Extended discussion

WP:Common name does not apply here because this is the same name. We are talking about different transliterations of the same name. Relevant guideline is this. It tells only that we must "follow English-language usage". Right now there are two different commonly used transliterations in English (4 million for Kyiv in Google news is a lot). However, only one of these common English spellings corresponds to local spelling, and that is Kyiv. My very best wishes (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

"Kiev" is not a transliteration any more than "Prague" or "Moscow" are. It is the name of Ukraine's capital in English. And when you start to use raw numbers for the occurrence of "Kyiv" in Google anything, you must find a way to separate "Kyiv Post" and "Kyiv Dynamo", which alone account for a disproportionately large number of hits, as well as city addresses that include "Kyiv" and other proper names that are not part of the actual usage in prose text. This is a classic example that is more common than not: The article about soccer (football) uses "Kiev" throughout dozens of times, but then lists "Kyiv" once as the proper name of a business there and once as the name of "Kyiv Post" (an English-language Ukrainian media outlet). That page should not be counted as a "Kyiv" usage. I don't believe that "4 million hits" in Google News without a corroborating link and a comparison to "Kiev" and a relevant time frame. I seriously doubt that most of that usage is in English. But this is a fundamental misunderstanding--"Kiev" is not a transliteration. That's just a simplistic notion. "Kiev" is the English name on a par with "Warsaw", "Rome", and "Moscow"--they're English, not direct forms of the native name and not transliterations anymore (all of them began as direct forms and/or transliterations, of course, but no English speaker transliterates when he/she writes "Moscow" or "Kiev"). --Taivo (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying that the difference between "Kiev" and "Kyiv" is not transliteration? Is not it the same name? I think it is. Yes, it was 4 million hits (Kyiv) versus 8 million hits (for Kiev) in Google news. A disclosure: I am not a native English speaker. My very best wishes (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

No, "Kiev" is not a transliteration from Russian. Transliteration from Russian is "Kiyev". Period. 37.151.19.210 (talk) 08:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

English "Kiev" is a transliteration of an Old Russian (or Old East Slav) "Kiev". The modern Russian word "Kiev", as well as the modern Ukrainian word "Kyiv" are different words that sound differently. The only problem that cause violent nationalistic reaction is that the English word coincides with Russian transliteration. I am pretty sure if the English word were, e.g., "Keev", Ukrainian nationalists had no problems with that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

You are confusing "transliteration" with the establishment of a name in English. Once a name is established in the English language as a name, it ceases to be a transliteration. My first name is "John". A thousand years ago it was a transliteration from Hebrew. My first name is no longer a transliteration when used in English, it is English. The same thing is true of "Moscow". It was once a transliteration from some Slavic language, but it is no longer a transliteration. Several hundred years ago (I don't know how long), the name "Kiev" was transliterated from some local eastern Slavic dialect (depending on how long ago that was it is impossible to accurately call it "Ukrainian", at least "Modern Ukrainian"). Since then the spelling has been solidified as the English name of the city, not a recurring transliteration. Transliteration happens at the moment of use. Once a spelling is solidified in a language, it's not transliteration anymore. "Israel" is not a transliteration in English even though it once was. "Baghdad" and "Cairo" are not transliterations in English even though they once were. No. "Kiev" is not a transliteration, it is the modern name of Ukraine's capital in the English language. "Kyiv" is a transliteration from Modern Ukrainian. While it is being used more often (and 4 million hits versus 8 million hits for "Kiev" is not an argument for a change of this article's name), it is still just a minority of usage versus "Kiev". --Taivo (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

That may be a little bit off topic, but I doubt "Moscow" had ever been a transliteration. One of the names of the Great Duchy of Moscow (not a self-name) was "Moscovia"/"Moscowia", but it is more a medieval Latin name than a name in any conceivable Slavic language. Anyway, the toponyms in foreign languages have a long and complicated history, and would be senseless to change it in accordance to current political needs.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Are Michael and Mikhail the "same name"? "Kiev" is the longstanding standard English name. It is derived from a transliteration from Russian. However, current writers do not have to sit down and figure out letter by letter what the Cyrillic letters in the Russian name best correspond with in the Latin alphabet every time they use the name, so it is not currently a transliteration. "Kyiv" is the standard transliteration of the Ukrainian name for the city. It has some usage in English writing, but does not seem to have displaced the more established "Kiev" as the most frequent form. --Khajidha (talk) 16:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@Khajidha. I agree with everything you say. Yes, "Kiev" is the longstanding standard English name, and it originally came from transliteration of Russian name. Yes, "Kyiv" is the standard transliteration of the Ukrainian name, and it did not displaced "Kiev" (yet) in English usage. Maybe it never will. But I only see that "Kyiv" (a name/a transliteration/whatever) is very commonly used in English and do not see any problem with using a common name that is simply more consistent with "local spelling". If I am in minority here, that's fine. My very best wishes (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

It is A common name, but not THE common name. WP:COMMONNAME is about the MOST common usage in English. Kiev is still more common than Kyiv, though Kyiv is commonly used (that is, it is not a rare occurrence).--Khajidha (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

MVBW appears to be arguing based on a rule for cases where "there are too few reliable English-language sources to constitute an established usage". It is fanciful to suggest that this applies to Kiev. Kahastok talk 16:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

No, you misunderstood. My very best wishes (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

The idea that "Kyiv" and "Kiev" is the same word is incorrect. There is a confusion here: there are three different words, "Kyiv" (a Ukrainian word), "Kiev" (an English word), and "Kijev"/"Kiyev" (a Russian word; Russian "Киев" is transliterated as "Kiev"; it is a rare case when a transliterated Russian word coincides with an English word). That is a rare coincidence that a Russian word transliterated from Cyrillic to Latin looks exactly as the English word, although they are two different words that are pronounced differently.

Another example is the word "Ukraine". It is an English word, because Ukrainian word is "Ukraina". Incidentally, the Russian word is exactly the same, "Ukraina". In this case, we also have a situation when two words in two languages (Ukrainian and Russian) coincide, but the third word (an English "Ukraine") is different. Interestingly, that causes no discomfort, and noone proposes to rename the "Ukraine" article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Even though Ukraina (or Ukrainia) would help avoid the "the Ukraine" usage that many Ukrainians also hate. --Khajidha (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

"The Ukraine", "The Gambia", "The Hague" - these are the rules of English language. I do not understand why all of that can insult anyone in clear mind.

BTW, "Ukrainia" is an imitation of a Greek name, similar to "Rossia"/"Russia" (literally, "a land of Rus'/Ros"), "Francia" (a land of Franks), "Germania" (a land of Germans), etc. The problem is that, whereas Germans was some ethnic group, no ethnic group called "Ukres" ever existed... --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:02, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Re "However, only one of these common English spellings corresponds to local spelling, and that is Kyiv." Actually, a local spelling is "Kiev", because this city is Russian speaking. More importantly, the argument that we have to stick with a local spelling works only when such a word does not exist in English. That looks odd: all names of important European cities have an old history of their usage in foreign languages. That means, their foreign names formed many centuries ago, and reflect a historical tradition. No Russian complains "Moskva" is called "Moscow" in English. Italians are quite comfortable with "Turin (they themselves call it "Torino"). I already provided other examples. In that situation, the idea to rename the article to a non-English "Kyiv" just because an English word "Kiev" coincides with a transcription of a Russian word is totally ridiculous.

Just reiterate: Webster says: "Kiev" is a Ukrainian capital, and "Kyiv" is a Ukrainian version of the word "Kiev". It does not say "Kiev" is a Russian word, so by default it is assumed that "Kiev" is an English word, and "Kyiv" is a Ukrainian word. The Russian name of this city is not mentioned at all.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the article already puts all dots on i. It says:

"Kiev (/ˈkiːɛf, -ɛv/ KEE-ef, -⁠ev) or Kyiv (Template:Lang-uk [ˈkɪjiu̯] ; Russian: Киев, romanized: Kiyev [ˈkʲi(j)ɪf]; Template:Lang-orv) is the capital and largest city of Ukraine, located in the north central part of the country on the Dnieper.(...) The early English spelling was derived from Old East Slavic form Kyjev (Cyrillic: Къıєвъ[22])."

It other words, it clearly discriminate four different words:

1. An English word "Kiev"
2. A Ukrainian word "Kyiv"
3. A Russian word "Kiyev", which, by incidence, upon transliteration (which is not a phonetic transcription) gives English "Kiev"
4. An ancient name of the city (which, pronounced as "Kyjev", and which was the source of a modern English word).

Therefore, the rationale of the proposed RM (""Kiev" is a russified, colonial name of the original 1500-year old Ukrainian toponym.") is totally misleading: the English word "Kiev" has no more relation to the modern Russian name than to old historical name of this city. Not only the nominator apparently did not take the trouble to read previous discussions, it seems he even didn't take a trouble to read the article itself.

Incidentally, taking into account that a standard epithet of Kiyjev (but not the modern "Kyiv") in old historical sources is "a mother of all Russian cities" (which is a literal translation of the Greek term "metropolia"), to call Kyjev/Kiev "a colonial name of the old Ukrainian name" is nonsense. In addition, there were no Ukrainian names 1500 years ago, because East Slav languages were separated on northern (Pskov-Novgorod) and southern (the rest of Kievan Rus') dialects. Russian, Belorussian and Ukrainian languages formed much later, after the word "Kiev" became an English word.

I propose either to close this RM as wrongly formulated, or to re-formulate and reopen it. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Things like RM's are rarely formulated perfectly and they are often done with bias on the creator. It's no big deal. The basic premise is still do we want Kiev or Kyiv, no matter what the creator said afterwards in the opening, and I think pretty much every editor realized that from looking at the responses. Let it run its course to a likely snowball close so we don't have to see it again for another year. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

There is a difference between an imperfect formulation (which is ok) and a wrong and misleading formulation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Peh, it's not the first RM with a premise has more holes than a sieve. Are we really supposed to believe that Kyiv is "the original 1500-year old Ukrainian toponym" when it relies on a romanisation system from 1996? And has it really been adopted by "most english media outlets not controlled by the Kremlin"? Well, the BBC says very clearly in its news style guide: "Kiev is our preference for the capital of Ukraine and not Kyiv or other variations." Oh, so the BBC is Kremlin-controlled now? Really?

Reality is, it doesn't matter how you reformulate the RM, you'd expect it to reach the same result. There's a standard in WP:COMMONNAME that has to be met before we move, and it is clearly not met. Better to just let it run its course, and then let it close with yet another demonstration of the consensus against a move. Kahastok talk 21:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Funnily enough, a small archipelago in the North Atlantic has little of interest to say in how people in Ukraine refer to their settlements; nothing other than the Jupiter-sized arrogance of the British would suggest otherwise. The people of Ukraine are the ultimate authorities on this matter, not the state broadcaster of another country on the opposite side of the continent from them (one wonders, how does RTBF refer to Kyiv? Does it even matter? But of course, the post-colonial arrogance of Western Europeans, the people who enslaved and brutalised half of this planet, will take many centuries to disperse). FWIW, neither the Latin nor the Cyrillic alphabet is "owned" by either the British or the Ukrainians. Perhaps some British Luddites would like to call Istanbul "Constantinople", or refer to Harare as "Salisbury"; some would like to refer to their body weights as XIV stones VII pounds, in line with the practices of centuries gone by; these preferences are commentaries on the egocentrism and pathological backwardness of the British, and little else.

My own opinion is that a self-centred, inward-looking, increasingly isolated from the rest of human civilisation little island on which most people could not tell you what the Cyrillic alphabet is, much less spell "Київ" in it (Cyrillic or transliterated Latin, or whatever else, because most of these people realistically do not care about anything that does not feature in the pages of the Daily Mail), does not have much of interest to say on this topic. Archon 2488 (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Enough with the trolling attacks on the British. That is unhelpful and uncalled for in a discussion such as this. Goodness gracious. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Too many mistakes in a single post:

1. "a small archipelago in the North Atlantic has little of interest to say...." Actually, this article is written even not in British English, so this "small archipelago" has nothing to do with that. The English speaking world is huge, and, we are speaking on behalf of more than one billion speakers, including a whole educated Europe (continental), India, Canada, USA.

2. "The people of Ukraine are the ultimate authorities on this matter..." Not more that people of Russia are the ultimate authorities in the question of correct spelling of their own capital. "Moscow" has no relation to the real Russian name "Moskva", and poor Russians cannot do anything with that. And, incidentally, they even are not trying, probably because of their poorly developed sense of national pride :).

3. "Constantinople" is not a good example, because by no means it was a colonial name. I would say, "Istanbul" is more colonial.

4. We do not care what Cyrillic alphabet is, and, frankly speaking, we do not care how the city's name is currently pronounced. Historically, the ancestors of modern English speakers started to call this city "Kiev", this word is a part of an English language, in the same sense as the English word "Cologne" is used for the German city of Köln. Why don't poor Germans or Russian complain about this British imperialism?

The answer is simple: if you want to insist on certain change in some language, make this language your own language. For example, German speaking states have a special council that make a coordinated decisions about German language. In contrast, Ukraine is not a part of an English speaking world. And it has no right to dictate us the rule of foreign language. These rules had formed before the Ukrainian nation formed, mostly based on Old Eastern Slavic pronunciation "Kyjev". Please, don't teach us the rules of English languages.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

No one is telling Ukrainians how to refer to their settlements. This discussion is about how WE will refer to those settlements. And I find it disgusting that Ukrainians, whose language was subject to attempts to control or eradicate it, would feel that they can control another language.--Khajidha (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

My point about the "small archipelago" was in relation to the BBC (who are, of course, an acknowledged world authority on all things Ukrainian or otherwise) having a definitive say on the appropriate transliteration of Ukrainian Cyrillic into Latin. To assert that the people of Ukraine are not entitled to decide what their country should be called is a degrading and neo-colonial attitude. Perhaps some "enlightened" Westerners could make the decision for them? Rhodesia, Bechuanaland, Nyasaland? Similar problems arise with "Ireland" (which is, absurdly, an English word), and Iran/Persia. The people of Iran requested that their country be referred to in English by that name, although the historical English usage is Persia. This had nothing to do with "dictating", merely respecting the wishes of people from another culture to have their civilisation referred to in a manner of their choice. The arrogance of the Anglophones in thinking that they "know better" than everyone else on the planet is a matter of historical record, which does not need to be described here.

>Not more that [sic!] people of Russia are the ultimate authorities in the question of correct spelling of their own capital

Who, then, is? The people of Uruguay? Do you at least grant non-English-speaking people some modicum of autonomy and respect in how their language is to be respected in our own?

>"Constantinople" is not a good example

"Constantinople" derives from the name of a (non-Greek) Emperor who made it the capital of his carbon-copy paste of the Roman Empire in Asia Minor. I do not understand how this is not colonial.

>We do not care what [sic] Cyrillic alphabet is

This statement alone indicates that you are incompetent to expound on this topic, because you ultimately do not care about cultural differences; a common flaw in Anglophone society. Someone who cannot add two numbers together does not have anything useful to contribute to a discussion on machine learning. The entire point of this discussion is how correctly to transliterate the name of a city, which is properly spelled in the Ukrainian version of the Cyrillic alphabet, into the Latin alphabet. It is beyond absurd to say that you do not care what the Cyrillic alphabet is, since it is the cornerstone of this entire thread. FWIW I do try to pronounce the names of non-Anglophone cities correctly – I don't call Dieppe "Deep", Tampere "Tahm-perr", or Ypres "Wipers", for example. Archon 2488 (talk) 01:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I. People of Russia are ultimate authority in correct spelling of the name of their own capital in Cyrillic. Symmetrically, they, and only they can decide who the worl "London" should be transcribed to Cyrillic. As far as I know, the the word "London" is transcribed in Russian as "Лондон", although a phonetically correct spelling should be "Ландон". Do British people complain? The word "Paris" is transcribed as "Париж", although the correct spelling would be either "Париc", or even "Пари". Do French complain? They would look like idiots if they do, because neither Englishmen nor Frenchmen have a right to set the rules of Ukrainian or Russian spelling. Can you please explain me what kind of logic are you using to advocate a right of non-English speakers to set the rules of English language?

II. You are writing something about "competence", however, your own competence in insufficient to understand teh difference between a transliteration of some foreign word and a spelling of an English word. The English word "Kiev" and a Ukrainian word "Kyiv", which is a transliteration of a Cyrillic "Киiв", are two different words: the former is a part of English vocabulary (in the same way as "London", "Cologne", "Moscow", "Copenhagen"), these words are English words that are English names of world capitals. The French word "Paris" is not a part of Ukrainian dictionary. However, they have a Ukrainian word "Париж" (pronounced in Ukrainian as "Paryzh"), and that is their natural right to call foreign cities as they find convenient. English speakers have absolutely the same right, and noone can deprive us of that right.

Wikipedia has many drawbacks, but it is not censored and not politecorrect place, which is very good. Those who want to play these games are advised to go somewhere else.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Btw, Constantinople was a former Greek colony Bysantium. During those time, "colony" meant "a settlement", and that had no relation to any empire. Later, this territory became a capital of a Greek state, which was later enslaved by Ottomans. In other words, Istanbul is a name given by invaders, who created a a new empire. "Constantinople" was the name given by an autochtonic nation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

BTW, "Istanbul" is just the Turkish abbreviated pronunciation of "ConSTANtonoPLE". It's not a "new name". It's just the Turkish pronunciation of the old name "Constantine's City". --Taivo (talk) 03:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

"having a definitive say on the appropriate transliteration of Ukrainian Cyrillic into Latin" Here you betray your own lack of competence to participate in this discussion, as you completely misunderstand the nature of the word "Kiev". It is NOT a transliteration, it is the established English name. This entire discussion is about ENGLISH usage. If you want to know about English usage, why would you CARE what the Ukrainians or Russians (or Chinese, or Venezuelans, or.....) say. It's not their language. No one is disputing the Ukrainians right to name their own settlements in their own language, but that right does not extend to controlling what other nations call those settlements in other languages. --Khajidha (talk) 10:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

The notion that the government of Ukraine or Ukraine's legislature has been attempting to dictate or control how the name of the country's capital should appear in the English-speaking world is a severe mischaracterization.

Almost all Europe-based English exonyms, such as Moscow, Warsaw, Prague, Bucharest, Belgrade or Rome are considered stable as well as uncontroversial and therefore there is no concerted push, either in the English-speaking world or in the countries in question, for English use of the native forms Moskva, Warszawa, Praha, București, Beograd or Roma. The local English-language newspapers, such The Moscow Times, The Warsaw Voice or The Prague Post as well as governmental, media or literary translations into English use the standard English exonyms for their capitals and for any other cities which have English exonyms and there is very little if any negative feedback regarding those decisions.

Ukraine, however, has been an exception in that the English exonyms for its geographical locations (as well as the names of its people) were almost entirely transliterations of those names' Russian forms. The resulting dissatisfaction, as pointed out at Kiev#Name, "...has established the use of the spelling Kyiv in all official documents issued by the governmental authorities since October 1995". The capital's English-language paper, Kyiv Post, which was also established in October 1995, thus began publishing under the exonym that more-closely matches the Ukrainian pronunciation and is not a copy of the Russian pronunciation.

In most non-English-speaking countries, various texts (government press releases, print media, literature, etc) are rendered into English by that country's government or private translators as well as by locally based writers who are native speakers of English or are sufficiently versed in English to write directly. At no point, however, was there a command or an authoritative order issued to entities in the English-speaking world to start using the form "Kyiv". All communications from Ukrainian officials, such as the letter to the Wikimedia Foundation (reproduced at Kiev#Name) have been polite requests to use "Kyiv" and were aimed at bringing "awareness and attention to the proper spelling of various Ukrainian cities, Kyiv in particular". In fact, had such letters of support for the form "Kyiv" not been sent, it could have left the implication that the capital city as well as Ukraine itself have no particular interest whether the English-speaking world uses "Kyiv" or "Kiev".    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 12:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

To even ask for such changes to be made is an inappropriate attempt to control another language. They can phrase it as prettily as they wish, but they don't have the right to ask it in the first place. So English exonyms for Ukrainian places comes from Russian, so what? They are the English exonyms. That is ALL that matters. As for the idea that not sending these letters would "impl[y] that the capital city as well as Ukraine itself have no particular interest whether the English-speaking world uses "Kyiv" or "Kiev"", such lack of interest would be the most rational response they could have. I neither know, nor care, nor even consider myself to have the right to care what Ukrainians call my country or its capital. It is, to put it as bluntly as possible, NONE OF MY GODDAMN BUSINESS. And I would consider it a horrendous waste of my country's time to bother with such and would consider it as making my country look like fools (which my country is easily able to do to itself without worrying about other people's words). --Khajidha (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Re "Ukraine, however, has been an exception in that the English exonyms for its geographical locations (as well as the names of its people) were almost entirely transliterations of those names' Russian forms." Not exactly. Historical translitareations are based no Old Russian ("Old Eastern Slav") name "Kijov", which is intermediate between modern Russian and modern Ukrainian. There had never been "y" in earlier transliteration in the English name of this city, and no "i" in the third position. Therefore, the pretext ("return to the old historical name") is false. In general, in last few years, Ukraine government made a lot of questionable steps, starting from honoring obvious war criminals and the Holocaust perpetrators as national heroes, and ending with forcible transliteration of the names of their Russian speaking compatriots in a Ukrainian manner (one my colleague happens to be from Ukraine, and he explained me that his real name is "Dmitry", but Ukrainian officials forcefully issued him a passport where his name is "Dmytro", and he feels very uncomfortable about that. Can you imagine a situation when you come to DMV and see that your actual name "John Smith" now is written as "Jan Schmidt", and there is no legal way to change it back?). I don't think we should be quickly accommodating all these initiatives.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

See, I would expect (and actually prefer) that my name would be translated to the language of the country I live in. Why shouldn't a French speaking country register any "William West"s in it as "Guillaume Ouest"s? --Khajidha (talk) 14:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

You seem to mix two different situations. (i) When your name is John Smith, and you were born in London, and you moved to Paris to became a permanent resident in France, it might me correct to change spelling of your name if you want to do so (or it might be not; At least, in the US nobody cares about that). (ii) you are a Ukrainian who was born in a bilingual Ukraine, your mother tong is Russian, and all your ancestors speak Russian (which is a typical situation, for example, in Kiev, which is a Russophonic city). However, authorities forcefully transliterate your name in a Ukrainian way, as if you were an immigrant in your own country. Do you see a difference? --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Different situations, but I would expect the same outcome. Assuming that the documents are only available in one language. --Khajidha (talk) 16:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

No. Nobody in clear mind will claim "Jan" should be converted to "John" in English: these are two different names. Lev Tolstoy was complaining that some people write the name "Loivin" and "Levin" (in Russian, these names look like "Лёвин" and "Левин", a diacritic symbol over "e" converts is to "io", but it is frequently omitted). As a result, a main hero from the Anna Karenina novel, who was a Russian gentry, became a Jew ("Лёвин" is a Russian name, and "Левин" is Jewish).

Ukrainian alphabet has all needed symbols for a Russian name "Дмитрий", and there are absolutely no reasons for not using this name. Unless you decide to ban certain names. Which is barbarism according to modern standards. No modern state can force their citizen to change their names.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

My wife is a Russian-speaking Ukrainian. With independence, all Russian speakers had to have their names Ukrainianized in official documents: My wife Irina became Iryna, my oldest step-daughter Ekaterina became Kateryna, etc. Yes, a modern state can force their citizens to change their names. But that's irrelevant to whether English speakers have to use Kyiv just because Ukraine wants them to. (My wife changed her name back to Irina when she got her US citizenship.) --Taivo (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, your case is not a good example, because Russian "Ирина" (Irina) sounds like "Iryna" when a Ukrainian speaker is reading it, because Russian "и" ("i") corresponds to Ukrainian "i", and Ukrainian "и" sounds more like "y" (which is the root of the current dispute). It is impossible to tell if the word "Ирина" is Ukrainian or Russian: a Russian speaker will read it as "Irina", a Ukrainian - as "Iryna". If your wife wanted her name to look like Russian, she just had to keep a standard Russian orthography. However, if your wife wanted her name to sound like "Irina" in Ukrainian, she should have to change it to "Ирiна". I personally don't know which variant I would prefer. However, the main point here is that it was up to your wife to decide how should her name look like. A government (if it is a modern democratic government) cannot decide that, especially if your wife was not an immigrant, but a native Ukrainian (or Ukrainian or Russian ethnicity, no matter).

By writing "No modern state can force their citizen to change their names" I meant "if some state consider itself modern, it cannot force its citizens to do so". That is a disrespect towards its citizens.

This question is relevant to the subject of our discussion, because it demonstrates that some initiatives of the current Ukrainian government are questionable, so we don't have to treat them all seriously.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Her name was changed in all Ukrainian documents from Ирина to Ірина and that's the way that her passport reads (and, therefore, all her immigration documents to the US). Your long explanation was wrong. And your explanation ignored our daughter's name change from Ekaterina to Kateryna (both transliterated from Cyrillic, of course). Ukraine did, indeed, change the Russian names of its citizens (she was a "charter" Ukrainian citizen) to Ukrainian names. While you may not believe it, that's precisely what they did. I did not make this point in relation to the Kiev/Kyiv discussion, but simply to correct your error in understanding about what a "modern country" can and cannot do with the names of its citizens. --Taivo (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Sure, you are right. I forgot about the first "И". With regard to "Katerina", it is also a local Russian name (remember a famous Schoatakovich's opera "Katerina Izmailova"? The events occur in a South Russian Mtsensk, and all names are Russian, not Ukrainian ones). Actually, the authorities forced you to change your daughter's name against your will. I think even a totalitarian Soviet regime didn't interfere in this aspect of people's private life. That is an additional argument in favor of resisting to any attempts of Ukrainian authorities to impose on us their vision of this subject.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Politeness when addressing the world community in general and the English-speaking world in particular, should be always noted and taken into account and not mischaracterized with terms such as "diktat" or "demand". There may well have been criticisms when China and India presented their respective preferred English transliterations for Peking, Bombay, Calcutta or Madras and those requests may well have been characterized as demands, but China's and India's requests to revise the centuries-old English exonyms were accepted.

In the same manner, Ukrainian explanatory communiques serve to inform the English-speaking world that their use of "Kyiv" is not a typo and that Ukrainian entities consider "Kyiv", and not "Kiev", to be the English transliteration of their capital's name. The distinction is important since there is a considerable amount of English-language content emanating from Ukraine, primarily articles in the Kyiv Post as well as Ukrainian government announcements and various other English-Ukrainian sources.

FC Dynamo Kyiv, FC Arsenal Kyiv or FC Lokomotyv Kyiv may be presented as other examples, except that the clubs listed in Wikipedia represent an uneven mix of English exonyms and local names — FC Dynamo Moscow, Polonia Warsaw or Red Star Belgrade, but also Okęcie Warszawa, FK Hajduk Beograd or FC Dinamo București.

As for transliterations of Ukrainian given names as well as surnames, one example of a politically-charged requested move may be found at Talk:Oleg Sentsov#Requested move 21 October 2016 in which the entire lengthy discussion was over a single letter — "Oleg" → "Oleh". A currently active discussion is at Talk:Volodymir Hustov#Requested move 29 September 2018.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Question for nom

Openlydialectic: In your rationale supporting your move request above you suggested that "most english media outlets not controlled by the Kremlin" are using Kyiv instead of Kiev. Given the overwhelming evidence that your assertion is false, and media such as the Washington Post and the Irish Times have not changed their usage, could you provide us with an approved list of media outlets not controlled by the Kremlin? AusLondonder (talk) 06:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Or proof that any of these English media outlets are controlled by the Kremlin.--Khajidha (talk) 12:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Hoc est simplicissimus: the ultimate proof that some media is controlled by Kremlin is the usage of the word "Kiev". That is a pretty obvious litmus test. :)--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I apologise. To be entirely honest I was too emotional and now I am embarrassed to even participate in the discussion. I didn't even know there were so many nominations before me. Again, if that helps, I apologise. The current status quo is probably the correct one and I am now okay with closing this nomination if other people that support changing the name to Kyiv agree on closing it too. Openlydialectic (talk) 15:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

When a person openly states their position and provides some rationale, there is absolutely no problem with that. Your rationale was wrong, and your knowledge of the subject was incomplete, however, we all are amateurs here. You gave us a excellent opportunity to read more on that subject and share our opinions. You have absolutely no reason to apologize.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Way too early a close

6–1 and opened for only 8 hours is way early for a snowball close in my opinion. Some editors wouldn't have ever seen that this rm ever happened. The closer is a non-admin, and it's supposed to be a little more obvious or run a week before they step in. I have informed the closer but there are times they don't edit for days or weeks, and it shouldn't be that long to re-open. This is for fairness as I've also been on the other side of these early closures. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I have re-opened it. The move discussion should run for a full length and only be closed by an administrator. Softlavender (talk) 02:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

You are not right. Any uninvolved user can close it. The only problem is that it was closed prematurely.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:26, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. If it runs for 3 days and is 50–2 I can totally understand a snow close. It could very well be a snow close anyway... I just want to make sure all is above board and fair. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

More about the city's name

Currently, the article says:

"The form Kiev is based on Russian orthography and pronunciation [ˈkʲijɪf], during a time when Kiev was in the Russian Empire (from 1708, a seat of a governorate)."

However, the reference provided as a source is the reference to an online dictionary, and it does not contain any information to support this statement. If a better source is not provided, I'll remove this unsourced statement.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

The statement

"The British government has also started using Kyiv. "

is a piece of original research. Actually, the document cited uses the word "Kyiv". The document says nothing about the position of the British government. This statement should be removed, or a source that supports the statement about the change of the position of the British government should be provided.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)