Jump to content

Talk:Kyiv

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 72.90.211.249 (talk) at 15:56, 1 August 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:V0.5

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

DO READ ARCHIVES ABOVE BEFORE PLAYING WITH Kyiv/KYIV/KIJOW/etc THINGS

Summary of older discussions over names in the articles

For those who are too lazy to read older discussions here is a quick summary. Polish names probably exist for every city of Ukraine. There are three ways how they can apply.

  1. For some cities, their Polish name is so important that it may be found in English texts even nowadays (Lviv/Lwow/Lvov/Lemberg). For such cities it needs to be placed in the very first line of the article, except perhaps when the article has a name etymology piece close to the top where similar names are listed and explained (current solution at Kamianets-Podilskyi). In such articles all names except native are given within etymology discussion.
  2. For some cities, while much of the Polish history still applies to them, they are never, or almost never, called nowadays by their Polish names in English language texts. Examples are Kyiv/Kyiv/Kijow, Chernihiv/Chernigov/Czernihow, Kaniv/Kanev/Kaniow, etc. Polish name should be used for such cities in the history sections (like Voivodship name) but not in the first line, because otherwise (like for Kyiv) any name of any country that ever conquered it (Lithuanian, German, Crimean Tatarian, Swedish, whatever was the Khazar language, Cuman, etc.) deserves the place in the first line. Similarly, Варшава, Белосток, Краков, at times conquered and controlled by Russia, by this token would need to be mentioned in the first lines of the respective articles (and I know some of our Polish friends will not take it lightly). This would be clutter and/or bad blood. We have a separate list article called Names of European cities in different languages for this information.
  3. Finally, for some cities in Ukraine (Sevastopol, Kramatorsk) Polish name is totally irrelevant.

The same rule of thumb applies to Russian names. However unfortunate it may seem for some, many Ukrainian cities are mentioned in English by their Russian names occasionally even today (Kharkiv/Battle of Kharkov, Chornobyl/Chernobyl accident), etc. So, there are more Russian names than Polish ones in the first lines. I hope I captured everything. Do read archives, if interested. --Irpen 17:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good as long as we're all clear on this. -Iopq 23:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This was an implied consensus. However, it was never voted or formally approved, unlike Gdansk/Danzig dispute. If most agree on this, I could set up a page for up and down vote on this proposal so that edits in violation of consensus (if reached) could be reverted on sight similar to Gdansk/Danzig vote results. Any objections to trying to run such a survey? --Irpen 03:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and of course we need to establish in advance the criteria of establishing sufficient English usage. I propose the following:
  1. check other respected encyclopedia such as Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Americana, Microsoft Encarta. What names they mention early on?
    The only issue I'd like to raise about using other encyclopedias is if we do so extensively (and as I've seen, many articles source other encyclopedias as source), it almost becomes pointless to write the article in the first place. Why not just say "Read Brtiannica"? And further, doesn't it become a copyright issue, also? -- mno 01:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Check the current media usage. Search engines are LexisNexis, Google News, maybe others...
  3. An good old google test but only among English language web-pages.
Does the list seem objective and unbiased? --Irpen 03:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I can see how this would apply to article titles, but can we extend it to include the secondary names too?
I would add that the default titles for Ukrainian place names on Wikipedia have generally been spelt using the simplified National transliteration system (see Romanization of Ukrainian). Notable exceptions are the well-known names Kyiv, Odessa, Dnieper, but not Kharkiv, Lviv. —Michael Z. 2005-10-11 15:52 Z
PS: let's not create any templates of domination. —Michael Z. 2005-10-11 21:04 Z

I am also against domination templates. To Michael's question on how this would apply not only to article's titles but also the secondary names, my view is the following. First of all, primary names (titles) are more or less settled now. Except of Kyiv, Odessa, some cities of Crimea (as well as the name Crimea itself), Dnieper, Southern Bug (maybe there are a couple of more examples but I can't think of any off hand) the Ukrainian name is primary and the article is entitled by its transliterated version. This is already determined via the criteria listed above by looking for the most common English usage and finding that for the places of UA, except those listed above, the most common usage name coinsides with the transliterated Ukrainian name. In a similar way, we can determine an existence of the usage for the secondary name. EB article for Kharkiv is called Kharkiv, but introduces Kharkov in the first line. EB article on Lviv introduces Russian, Polish and German names, EB's Chernivtsi introduces Romanian, Russian and German. I am not saying we should just copy Britannica. If we find via methodes 2 and 3 that other names (Czernihów) are used in modern English we will also add them to the first line.

Let me repeat that the issue here is not the usage of the names in the article in appropriate context Czernihów Voivodship but what names should be mentioned in the first line. I want to settle the issue not because I want to remove some particular names, but because settling this would help consistency, reduce clutter (explained in the beginning of this section) and put an end to a very popular type of edit wars over this. So, any objections to putting this proposal up for a vote? I will then set a separate page for this. Thanks! --Irpen 04:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one more related question. Which name should be used in the text. Should it be the title of the article, excluding probably some historial names like Kijow Voivodship?--AndriyK 11:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that here are three issues: what name to use for the article's title (settled earlier practically for all Ukrainian places), the name(s) to mention in the first line and the name to use within the articles. We are not deciding the latter issue right now, but a rule of thumb is to use the name that is used in modern English L. history books that write about that particular period. This tradition is broader than WP. Check for instance WW2 books terminology. However, this discussion for now is only about the names to be listed in the first line as alternative names. --Irpen 02:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reading old discussions and it seems the trend is to beginning to emerge to write it as Kyiv. More new webpages on google write it as Kyiv. But since so many old webpages remain, it will take a long time before Kyiv becomes the most popular google spelling. Compared to 2003, the ratio between Kyiv and Kyiv has shrunk considerably. Even in a few months that I spend looking it seems Kyiv gained on Kyiv. We should begin thinking about when we plan to rename the article to Kyiv. -Iopq 10:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What we are discussiong right now are the rules of the game not the particular name. When Kyiv prevails in English L usage, we will move the article. What matters much more than google test, is the major media test as well as other online reference sources, like Britannica and Oxford. I proposed Kharkov->Kharkiv and Lugansk->Luhansk myself as you can see if you read the earlier discussions. Let's just all agree on the general rules first and discuss the applications for particular cities separately. --Irpen 16:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Remember: Wikipedia:Use English. What about use inside article? Let me add a comment based on personal experience: there are new Polish names waiting for English/Russian/Ukrainian versions in the Dymitriads article. I find it useful to keep Polish names in the article (after first instance of use, following English of course), since they are useful when one wants to research some stuff in Polish (many of my articles are based on transltion from Polish and I find it mighty useful to have Polish name mentioned in the articles). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about the use inside of the articles as I said above. This is only about the first line. Besides, we have a great list of Names of European cities in different languages. Use inside the articles is a separate issue. --Irpen 04:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At the present time, Kyiv is the name the Beeb uses, for whatever that's worth [1]. Shimmin 17:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even More Kyiv Kyiv

Hi! Do we realy need writing and pronounciation of Kyiv in Russian at the begining of the article - "Russian: Ки́ев, Kiyev"? It's not official language neither in Ukraine nor in Kyiv city. --Oleksandr, 22 July 2006

We do this for many Ukrainian cities. Some even list the city's name in Polish, German, Hungarian, or Hebrew. That way people can scan the header to see if the article is about the city they are thinking about, no matter what the current name is.--tufkaa 14:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. government changes spelling of capital to Kyiv instead of Kyiv --Gutsul 11:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to take photos

Hello. I am living in Kyiv now and I am willing to take photos (Metros, streets, buildings, statues... whatever) but would like to know what is most needed. Is there a list that I missed and if not can we come up with one? Thanks. Greg.ory 16:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Publish them on Commons, Metro is desperately needed. Please register so that you have a talk page and I tell you details of what is required.--Kuban kazak 16:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've registered (as Greg.ory) what do I need to do for you to be able to post on my talk page? Greg.ory 16:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing, just wait for me to post now...:)-Kuban kazak 17:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Kyiv sound-bite

The Ukrainian one, not the Russian one. It's barely intelligible, at least to my ears. It seems truncated and somewhat muffled. Maybe someone would like to re-record it and upload a better and improved version. Peter1968 14:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please, its difficult to make sense of the Kyiv/Kyiv issue without knowing how the latter ought to sound. People tend to forget that simple convenience of pronunciation in the "host" language is an important issue in toponymy. Sumergocognito 07:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kyiv appear on the internet

Recently surfing inernet i was surprised of numerous sites to use Kyiv. Here are some examples

Ilya K 10:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw this post, I started surfing, and got thousands of hits for Kiyev. And that doesn't have the Ukrainian government and other Ukrainian nationalist institutions badgering English-speaking news organizations to adopt it! - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you proving that Kiyev is not an official spelling? I believe that the ongoing situation is that there was an official name change several years ago that Wikipedia refuses to recognize, contrary to other official name changes (Bombay, Ivory Coast, Siam, etc...). Not recognizing the name that a sovereign person/place/people call themselves is not only incredibly disrespectful, but will also result in a neverending string of inquiries and edits from those who know better. For instance, Serhiy's post a little higher up.--tufkaa 15:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The right of non-English speaking governments to prescribe the forms and vocabulary of the English language is doubtful, even more doubtful when the city of Kyiv itself has two native names, a Russian and Ukrainian form. It would be POV to choose one over the other, especially as the actual English name is so dominant. I notice Ukrainian nationalists don't seem to care so much about Kyiv's name on the wikipedias of other languages. Why is that? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only factor or at least the major factor is prevailing Modern English usage. The latter is simplest to derive from surveying the MAJOR media, thus exlcuding small news outlets that don't have a consistent editiorial policy or editorial staff to proofread and enforce it and check other major encyclopedia. As per prevailing English usage I pushed moving Kharkov to Kharkiv, Lugansk to Luhansk, etc. For the very same reason, Kyiv should not be moved, at least for now. Encyclopedia don't set the trends in English, they simply reflect them. If anyone is interested in the Major media survey, I can provide you with the data. I have access to restricted news search engines, like Lexis Nexis, that unlike Google news, that checks on everything, allows to search exclusively through the international major papers. Also, check Britannica.

To remind, this superfactor (prevailing media usage) is only relevant for choosing the article title! In context usage inside article is a different matter. If the context for non-prevailing modern usage in the literature is established differently from the modern name, by all means use it. For instance, Kijow Voivodship, Battle of Kharkov or Lwow University. However, there is no historical context in the Western English language media where Kyiv is traditionally used, while even Kijow is used on rare occasion. This may be sad to some, but Wikipedia is the wrong place to address it, if you see it a problem. Encyclopedias reflect the usage rather than establish or promotes it.

I summarized the difference between the choice of the article title and the context usage here. Now, Serhiy, please help us write articles rather than fight over terms. You work in adding content to Wikipedia would be very much appreciated. Please check the Ukraine portal for things you can do. --Irpen 16:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the fact that the internet is full of nationalistic Ukrainian websites, as well as those few news organizations who slavishly and ignorantly caved into the demands and arguments of the Ukrainian government, Kyiv crushes Kyiv by a larger margin (4 times in fact) than Kyiv beats Kiyev. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no question that the internet spells Kyiv in a variety of ways. However, this does not change the name of the city. The city was renamed Kyiv by the sovereign government, much the name changes of Bombay, Ivory Coast, Siam, Leningrad, etc... While it may be referred to personally in a variety of ways, the largest web-based encyclopedic resource at the moment treats Kyiv in a manner inconsistent with other name changes, barring the day that an internet search comes up with more hits for Kyiv. Needless to say, such a policy will continuously bring about users such as Serhiy (you noticed I spelled his name as he spells it, not as most people on the internet would spell it).--tufkaa 18:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tufkaa, unlike Leningrad and Ivory Coast, the city was NOT renamed. It has always been Київ in Ukrainian, Киев in Russian, Kijow in Polish, Kiew in German. It has been called differently at various times in English and the oldest recorded English spelling of this name (Kiovia) was probably Polish based. Ukrainian gov in 1991 did not rename the city but simply required the Ukrainian governmental organization to use Kyiv in the English documents they issue. In fact, this is the only issue over which it has any authority, except actually they could, perhaps, rename the city to, say, Kravchukiv (kidding). They can order the governmental organizations to use Kyiv but they have no authority over the English language in general, in fact no one has. There is no unique answer to the question of which of Kiev/Kyiv/Kijow is "correct". In fact they all are. The question is which name of the three (or more) correct names should we use for the article's title. Our naming convention WP:UE is clear on that:

If you are talking about a person, country, town, movie or book, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works.

We go check the usage using the media and we go check other encyclopedia.[2] That gives the answer: Kyiv. Not because it is Russian based but because it is the most commonly used English name as of today. --Irpen 05:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, interestingly Mumbai was not mentioned in your response. :)
Also, the parallel with Côte d'Ivoire is striking. In that particular case, since it passed a law in 1985, the sovereign government requests that the name not be translated from French, and Wikipedia complies. I therefore see a discriminatory naming policy, and I am relatively sure that I'm not the only one who sees this.
Frankly, the only reason that we refer to Saint Petersburg or Thailand by their current names is because of international recognition of their respective naming conventions. Why can't we do the same with the capital of Ukraine?--tufkaa 18:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is not the most commonly used English name. International recognition is an important step towards the name gaining usage. If and when it gains usage and beats Kiev, we will rename an article. Côte d'Ivoire prevails the Ivory Coast in the modern media usage. Kyiv doesn't. The reason, perhaps, is that the major European city is simply more a widely used term than the name of the small African country (that is discriminatory but it is so). As such, the name of the city got so widely known that the Anglophones are reluctant to switch and the media reflects that.

This whole issue puts us, the Ukrainians, in an unfavorable light and making us a laughing stock. Munichers don't scream to rename a WP article to München. Neither do Muscovites, about the renaming the article to Moskva. Note also, the many in Russia perceive the term Muscovy and Muscovite as Russophobic, still no mess. The Polish capital's article is Warsaw and not Warszawa, Prague and not Praha, etc. The article titles are based by prevailing English usage. How and why this usage became prevailing is a secondary issue and may be worth an article on its own. I, for a long time, proposed an article Name of the capital of Ukraine, whose talk page will, hopefully, be a single place for all these debates rather than a multitude of pages now.

Kiev is a single most widely used name of the city in English as of now and is used in other encyclopedias. No matter why, this settles the issue. As for why, by all means write an article on that. --Irpen 19:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is there are more documents published in the last 100 years than in the last 10 years. -Iopq 23:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the reason is, it is the most widely used name in currently published texts in English as well. Check the media. In any case, wait for it to change before arguing and, in the meanwhile, help improve the article if there are other aspects in Kiev of interest to you rather than the obsession with de-Russification. --Irpen 17:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Popular ignorance is not a valid factor to determine usage. The fact remains that the Ukrainian government has changed the name of the city. Wikipedia can either accurate reflect this change - as it has for other place names like Bombay or it can give in to popular ignorance and remain a laughing-stock. --SpinyNorman 04:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Laughing stock are the countries who try to influence the English language as opposed to dealing with their internal problems (which in case of Ukraine, there are a few). Take Fifa world cup, and the football side on networks such as BBC is Ivory Coast, in yesterday's match against Saudi Arabia, all of the commentators reffered to the Ukrainian capital as Ki-jev. Which version is used? Judge it for yourself. --Kuban Cossack 11:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you calling Ukraine a laughing stock? That doesn't make sense, since the Ukrainian government is not the one arguing what Kiev/Kyiv should be called, but the people of the English Wikipedia are. By the way, the infobox says "Kyiv" while the article's name is "Kiev". — Alex (T|C|E) 04:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it will be possible to rename article the next day Kyiv.ua DNS zone will be established in place of current kiev.ua --TAG 10:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian Journal. Kiev, Kyiv or simple thoughts on Ukrainian affairs by nonpartisan

I've' just learned new Ukrainian word 'екшн', thought for a second and then realized, because it referred to a movie, must be borrowed from english action. Apparently russians got ahead on this one by loan word 'акшн'. Ukrainian version didn't want to be sound anywhere close like it was reborroewd from russian. Good for them. I think it should be more ukrainian words in english language. Words which doesn't sound anything like russian, something like cherevichky would be a perfect example or may be Nimechina instead of Germany. Sounds much better then Kyiv. Imprevu 19:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's 'экшн' in Russia, which is pronounced in precisely the same way as Ukrainian 'екшн'. Both are the closest you can get to the phonetic transcription of 'action' using Cyrillic alphabet. int19h 22:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rearrange pix

could someone please rearrange the galleries into logical groupings? (example: Cathedrals and churches gallery, Buildings gallery, Monumentsallery) or something similar? WoodElf 06:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

Correct me if I am mistaken, but shouldn't we include Kiev into the Category:Holy cities as Kiev is listed here? —dima /sb.tk/ 00:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but under Eastern Orthodox, not Ethiopian holy cities.--Riurik 21:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics Table

Historical population
YearPop.±%
19792,144,000—    
N/A1989—    
2,595,000+21.0%—    
20012,611,327—    
+0.6%2005—    
2,660,401+1.8%—    
data source: [1]

I made up the table of demographics, but could not figure out a way to cite within the table. So instead, I inserted a temporary sentence in the section's 1st paragraph. If you can fix it please do.--Riurik 21:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried also, and could not do it in a reasonable way: It'll work if we place the <ref></ref> on the pop. numbers like so.
The histpop template doesn't allow for a citation. I think the table has to be remade from scratch (not too hard, using the template as a prototype), or the template must be modified to allow this. I can do this, but I won't have time for two or three days. —Michael Z. 2006-07-29 06:48 Z
The Histpop template will work with citations, using either <ref></ref> or <ref>{{cite}}. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest putting the reference in the footnote section. Change the above table to reflect that. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Climate table

I made a new table based on the found here. It took some time recalculating mm > inches, etc, and changing the color codes, but in the end it looks good. Numbers/calculations were double checked, and the table seems to be accurate and ready for everyone's scrutiny.--Riurik 18:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holy city?

Could someone explain this one being categorized as a holy city (Category:Holy cities) and being added to the List of holy cities as "Origin of Slavic Christianity"? Kiev has nothing to do with the "origin of Slavic Christianity", which emerged in Great Moravia and the First Bulgarian Empire in the middle of the 9th century, whereas Kievan Rus' wasn't Christianized until as late as 988. That said, I've reworded the thing as "Origin of East Slavic Christianity" and I'd like to see some evidence as to whether Kiev is really considered a "holy city" by the Orthodox Christians and why. No offence, but I wouldn't categorize a city that is not of universal Orthodox ecclesiastical importance as a holy city. If no convincing evidence is provided, I shall remove it from the category it doesn't belong to and remove it from the list of holy cities. Todor→Bozhinov 16:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing it. Todor→Bozhinov 10:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Restoring as an origin of East Slavic Christianity. "The supreme centre and for all time is Jerusalem. But there are other lesser historic centres - Rome, Constantinople, Kiev, Moscow." [3] --KPbIC 06:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All things considered

The U.S. government (State Department) now spells it Kyiv and pronounces it accordingly. (according to the 17th Oct. 2006 "All Things Copnsidered" program.211.225.32.57 08:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To quote the statement:

One last diplomatic note now, one which has nothing to do with things nuclear, the U.S. government, specifically the Board on Geographic Names, is changing the spelling of the capital of Ukraine. It has been Kiev, "K"-"I"-"E"-"V". It will now be spelled "K"-"Y"-"I"-"V", on maps and documents, and all other things governmental. And the pronunciation, we're told by the State Department, is kyiiv. The decision was made on October 3rd, and has already been adopted across Washington. Word from the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington is that the U.S.has finally gotten it right.

This clip can be heard here, beggining at the 5:25 mark.--tufkaa 15:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2006.10.19
U.S. Board of Geographic Names Decision to Change Official Spelling of Kyiv

This decision was made to change the spelling of the capital of Ukraine to what is now currently spelled K-y-i-v. The reasons for this as I understand the board's decision making was that this is more in keeping with how the Ukrainians themselves pronounce the name of their capital. It is also now in keeping with how a number of international organizations, including NATO and the UN, are now spelling it. So basically it was a change designed to be more consistent both with local pronunciation standards as well as to ensure some consistency with what other international organizations as well as the Ukrainians themselves are doing.

Mr. Tom Casey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.160.234.1 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Came here to post the same message, thanks guys for already having done this!! And so, why don't we finally get rid of that "Kiev" here on WP as well. Respectfully await your comments for a day or two by way of discussion, before going ahead and changing all mentionings of "Kiev" to "Kyiv". Serhiy 06:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serhiy, please note that Kiev remains the prevailing English usage by the media no matter how the US gov spells it in official documents. Unlike Ukrainian or Russian, for which the official regulating bodies exist (respective Academies of Sciences), there are no such bodies for the English language, neither among the academies nor in the US or British gov. The encyclopedic choice is governemd by the prevailing anglophone usage and this is the basic rule. How to determine it is more difficult and many proposal to write firm rules that would help us determine prevailing usage were discussed. As a rule of thumb, the modern usage is best determined by the major anglophone media. I assure you that when the media will switch the usage , encyclopedias, including this one, would follow. Of course if you feel that WP is already ripe for this change, the right way to proceed is not 'changing all mentionings of "Kiev" to "Kyiv"' but move the article first and then change inside it. Nothing can prevent you from proposing the move at WP:RM but since it would be against the current prevailing usage in English (see WP:NC(UE)) the move will not win many votes. So, if you feel like wasting yours and others' time, go ahead and propose it. But better, please help adding more content to the article.
Finally, note that the very AP report that reported about the change of the US gov spelling ends with "The Associated Press continues to spell the name of the capital Kiev." Much more people read AP and CNN than US gov web-sites. --Irpen 06:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Considering that it was decided by the Ukrainian commission for legal nomenclature in 1995 that the English spelling should by Kyiv as it is a much more phonetically accurate translation of the Ukrainian word for the city, and that in October the US State Department changed the spelling from Kiev to Kyiv (see http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/10/19/america/NA_GEN_US_Ukraine_Capital.php), I suggest that 'Kiev' is changed to 'Kyiv' here. --Bred 17:08, 10 December 2006 (GMT)

Please, read Irpen's comment above (which also describes the proper procedure to do the change through WP:RM). - Regards, Evv 17:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Киев still Russian name

On the point about those who "take exception", could it be stated that English speakers' continued use of the spelling "Kiev" is not considered politically motivated?

Might also be relevant to mention that unlike English speakers, Russian speakers around the world are not being urged to Ukrainianize the way they write the city's name in their native language (→ "Кыйив" or "Кыив" "Кийв"). On the contrary the Ukrainian government continues to use the spelling "Киев" in its own Russian-language publications, without Ukrainianization.

-- Abut 18:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC). Correction by Abut 15:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry but what do you mean by that, you want Russians to use the spelling Кыйив? A fat chance that is going to happen...Not only is Ukraine trying to mutilate the English langauge, but now you want have it do the same to Russian?--Kuban Cossack 21:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An encyclopedia is not about wanting or not wanting, it's about presenting the facts - in this case that English speakers are actively being urged to Ukrainianize their spelling and pronunciation while Russian speakers, AFAIK, are not. -- Abut 15:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see reasons to debate this. All you need is to travel over Odessa -> Kyiv autobahn and see how many different spelling of Kyiv in English language are used on road signs (installed officially). --TAG 15:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Russia is NEVER going to change the spelling of Kiev. Neither is Poland (Kijow). And, Kuban Cossack, what's up with the attacks on Ukraine about mutilating other languages? What's the basis for that statement? — Alex (T|C|E) 05:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If only more of those who endlessly debate the issue were interested in contributing anything else to the article but the endless naming wars. --Irpen 17:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The spelling of Kyiv needs to be changed today, I don't know how to do whatever you said earlier about the correct way to get it changed, but it needs to be done now rather than later. It is the correct transliteration and if only more people knew that this is not just about a name being spelled correctly, but rather Ukrainians being respected for being Ukrainians, we are no longer under moskali rule, and the only reason it is spelled the moskali way is because we were slaves for them for 400 years. They had total control over our language and everything else about us. This is 1 step in changing us being considered "russians" by people all over the world. We are Ukrainians, and we have our own language! Stop the persecution of our language! Spell our capital city in our tounge, not in the tounge of the invaders!--Nroscha 09:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

++++++++++++++++++++++

КИЇВ lets get this right once and for always.

For any Ukrainian who speaks and reads Ukrainian the only way to write the equivalent word of the Ukrainian capital in English is Кyiv. There is no doubt that in the russian language kyiv is "КИЭВ" However it would be correct to put the correct phonetic English pronunciation of the Ukrainian word as the heading to the article of the Ukrainian capital - not the phonetic english pronunciation of the Russian word. I would not have agreed with this even 50 years ago as the name for Ukrainians was always Kyiv. It was only changed to Kiev by the Muscovian communist regime, which may I add departed Ukraine in 1991. (well this may also be debated, but not in this forum.) What I am trying to say is KYIV is the CORRECT Ukrainian phonetic transliteration and KIEV is the Russian pronunciation.

I would like to request that this article be moved to its redirect site KYIV and the article name be changed to KYIV to reflect the true identity.

Also the childish behaviour of certain administrators who keep reverting the name to KIEV and block it to any with the correct intention of creating an improvement - both literally and historically should be seriously looked at as a serious threat to the democratic privilege of all who read and enjoy the content in Wikipedia. All I can say to you Alex is GROW UP Myk Mowczan 14:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Myk Mowczan[reply]

This also appears to be a sock; only edits are to this talk page and attempts to get the page protected. Also created a couple hours ago. The sock puppeteer is one to tell someone to grow up. Parsecboy 15:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the picture galleries from architectural monuments and views of kiev be merged into a single Picture Gallery at the end of the article, before the references. --WoodElf 09:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, recently I've added new link to External links, but wiki moderator removed it. This site (www.mykiev.info) doesn't advertise anything, but only gives the most full information about Kiev landmarks. There is no any analogue site in the internet both in Russian and English languages, so I think it worth adding. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zakusha (talk • contribs) 15:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia is not a repository of links. Please, also read WP:EL -- Serguei Trouchelle 17:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I understand this, however mykiev.info is the single site in External links section which presents full information about Kiev's history, landmarks, monuments, churches, famous kievans, museums, theatres, restaurants, fast-foods etc. There is no similar projects on the web.

Kiev-Kyiv: What Google has to say

Since I've seen some people use Google as a source for the Kiev-Kyiv debate, I'm going to use it again. Here's what happens when you go all the way to the end of the search: Kiev returns one less result than Kyiv. This is for those that want to use Google as a reason for this article to stay with the "Kiev" name. — Alex (T|C|E) 03:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This might also mean that there are over 1,000 results for Kyiv, and 999 results for Kiev, making previous claims false. — Alex (T|C|E) 03:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does the search count pages written by native English speakers only? -- Abut 13:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is Google you're talking about. And if you're going to go by what native English speakers have to say, then Kyiv is the official spelling in the United States. — Alex (T|C|E) 02:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as "official spelling of the United States". There is "Spelling used the US government bodies". Such spelling is used only by the government and does not necessarily indicate the spelling used by most of the language speakers. The most reliable indication of the latter, is the spelling used by the major media of the United States and UK. BBC, CNN, Associated Press, Reuters, Fox News, New York Times, The Times and others use Kiev. --Irpen 02:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does the same go for Bombay? — Alex (T|C|E) 06:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about Bombay. I know about WP:NC(UE) which says: "If you are talking about a person, country, town, movie or book, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article". Looking at the media usage is the best and most accurate way to find which name is most common. --Irpen 06:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess I should stop the debate. It is fairly pointless anyway, and the usage might change in the future. — Alex (T|C|E) 06:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to point out that Alex made a mistake with his interpretation of "all the way to the end of the search". The links he provided above show "Results 991 - 999 of about 39,900,000 for Kiev" and "Results 991 - 1000 of about 5,650,000 for Kyiv". The difference is over 34 million hits, not just one. This is not to mention that Irpen raised a valid point about the results including only native English-language sources, and that google search should not be used as the main resource to resolve this kind of problems.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I also want to point out the regrettable lack of interest of so many contributors to this talk towards any improvement of the article itself. 75% of the archives is the discussion about the name. If only some of the concerned about the renaming showed a slightest interest in improving this article's content! Of all the Ukrainian articles this is one of the better ones and could have been brought to FA if there was sufficient interest in improving it. The article on Ukrainian capital carrying a prestigious "Featured" label would raise the profile of the good coverage of Ukraine in WP incomparably greater much more than this endless whining about English speakers' reluctance to accept neologisms some are trying to impose on them. --Irpen 19:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About the article, it would be nice to have a section devoted to upcoming constructions in the city. — Alex (T|C|E) 05:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On priorities again

Having waged a blatant propaganda war on Ukrainian pages, Muscovian editors are significantly damaging non-political, but top-important, pages in the first place. Like this one.

I mean we almost live at Soviet partisans, bloody Red Army and History of Сhristianity in Ukraine conducting edit wars there for years. But just take look at city and oblast pages!!! A "Federal city"?! "The city istelf designated as its own raion"? Kyiv Oblast ODA Chief is chairing the Oblast Council? The Mayor is "traditionally appointed" as KMDA chief? While me and my friends are busy with propagandists, important pages are being gradually destroyed by good-intended amateurs!

Normal users have no other choice, but to mobilize ourselves, split our attempts and start reanimating/developing geo articles like Kiev. Of course keeping eye on existing edit wars as well.AlexPU 20:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not rant and formulate your propositions in some sort of intelligible form. --Irpen 02:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I was clearly addressing normal users, not concentrated on Muscovian propaganda and intrigues. I.e., not you Irpen.AlexPU 11:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Easy, easy... Propoganda doesn't stick around long, just don't forcefully remove it. :-) Also, be nice to other Wikipedians. I doubt anybody is here to spread propoganda, and every article is a compromise between many people's points of view, which helps make it neutral. — Alex (T|C|E) 03:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On priorities. "Transport" section has grown too large. I think it needs a separate main article (with updated info on how many new tram lines Lyonia the Cosmos is going to launch :)). AlexkHristov, thanks for your peaceful message. The other Alex is being dangerously straightforward and emotional here :(. As for propaganda, it's flourishing here just like he says :((((. Cheers, Ukrained 20:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. AlexPU, why don't you go and take care of that Kyiv Oblast mistake? As a "father" of all UA-subdivisions info here? Ukrained 20:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I don't think it is necessarily that long.. If it could be expanded some more, including like you said Kiev tram info and bridges of Kiev, then perhaps it could be spun off the main article.. Lets go ahead and try it... —dima/s-ko/ 21:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct format

  • Introduction:
  • History
  • major historical events that occurred in city
  • Law and government
  • Mayor or City Executive-- current, previous executives
  • representative body?
  • Geography
  • Physical geography (area, unique features)
  • Major Parks
  • Transportation
  • Economy
  • Major industries/products
  • taxes
  • Demographics
  • city population
  • racial/ethnic makeup
  • religious makeup
  • Sites of interest
  • Education
  • Public
    • Private
    • Colleges and universities
  • Sports teams
  • Notable natives
  • (Miscellaneous topics and similar lists)
  • External links

The above is the correct format as per WP:CITIES. Please try to follow it. --WoodElf 10:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of problems with implementing the proposed format and there is no need for all city articles to be alike. Different articles may be good each in their own way. --Irpen 22:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cuisine section

Is it just me or this section is odd? It is strange, fringe and unwikified. It also carries the tl:expand which places this not so bad article in a whole lot of uncalled for categories. --Irpen 22:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cuisine

{{Expand-section|date=April 2007}} <!-- This section is criticizing local cuisine (but strangely never directly discusses Ukrainian/Slavic food) and cites no sources; it is completely subjective in nature. It doesn't even make any real assertions for that matter... The second statement in particular sounds like it came out of an episode of "$40 a Day." The comparison made is ambiguous... I don't know anything about the local cuisine of Kiev but I do know that this wasn't writing about it.-->

Kiev is also a great place for the food lovers, and not only those who have been fond of Ukrainian cuisine. An increasing number of international travelers, as well as the interest with which the Ukrainian city dwellers approach, have spurred a steady growth of bars and diners ranging from Japanese sushi-bars to traditional Italian and Spanish restaurants.

While there is about as much contrast between these in terms of quality of food served as there is between the social classes in Ukraine, the majority of eateries tend to be overpriced, however featuring polite and thorough services.

Per lack of reaction, I am moving it here. Please comment. --Irpen 00:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure we even need a cuisine section. Other then food in Kiev being much more expensive for foreigners there's really nothing speicial about it (or at least nothing different from the food in other Ukrainian cities). Thanks, Bogdan 11:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changes by User:hkdd

User:hkdd changed all the mentioning of Kiev to Kyiv and removed sourced information about the languages spoken in the city. If you look into the archives of this talk page, you would find an intensive discussion about the proper name for the city. The result was to use Kiev per WP:UE - it has 10 times of Internet usage of Kiev and the major news outlets still use Kiev.

If you want to change it, please start a discussion here or on WP:RM. Having the article named Kiev and the internal usage Kyiv only confuse the western readers who are the main target audience of the article.

Also please do not remove sourced info Alex Bakharev 09:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hello,

I did look into the archives, and none of the arguments there hold any water. Kiev is as outdated as Kief, and is wrong. The correct spelling is Kyiv.

I have written three grammar texts about English, and may be more familiar with namings than some.

Invalid information, sourced or not, will be removed.

Regards, Hkdd


  • Hello,

Nobody else seems to be having much of a problem about it. The beauty of Wikipedia is that everybody is entitled to their opinion.

I am contributing something positive, the future!

Hkdd

By the way - just curious as to why so many Russian links are on this page. Russian history is a completely different thing, no?


Hello,

Hkdd is correct. The article and its internal references should use the accepted translation from Ukrainian: Kyiv. Language and information are power. Some, clinging onto long-dead empires do not give up easily. I can remember in Canada some Anglophone revanchists insisted on calling a certain city in Quebec “Three Rivers” rather than Trois Rivieres well into the late 1960’s. But the imperial term “Kiev” is now quite properly going the way of all calcified forms of oppression and occupation, like “Three Rivers.” Kyiv it is, as it should be.

Burlaka

You, Burlaka and Hkdd are the same person. That kind of deceitful sock puppetry is against the rules here. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deacon of Pndapetzim: I am not “Hkdd.” Delusional clinging to long-dead empires is now accompanied by paranoia, it seems. Please stick to the issue of whether the capital of Ukraine should be referred to in English by the commonly accepted transliteration of its Ukrainian pronunciation and spelling or the Russian forms, out-dated but still symbolic of almost three centuries of occupation and oppression. Again, Kyiv it is, and as it should be. - Burlaka

ATTENTION:

I now see that one individual has managed to get the Kyiv page reverted back to the anachronistic imperial Russian form of “Kiev” AND has placed a page protection on it, alleging some heated vision of “sock-puppetry.” I note that this allegation is completely false. This game of “stealing” the name of Ukraine’s capital, historic and cultural appropriation, by computer stealth on Wikipedia by Great Russian chauvinists, and then closing down any edits, is offensive and intellectually empty. Why did the Administrator succumb to the request to "protect" this page so quickly and without any substantive reason? I trust that the Administrator will not allow one or two individuals to rule these pages.

Again, the issue is simply whether the capital of Ukraine should be referred to in English by the commonly accepted transliteration of its Ukrainian pronunciation and spelling or the Russian forms. In open and free societies this is the widely and commonly accepted form of expression. Kyiv is what it is called by Ukrainians and English speakers who understand Ukrainian.

Administrator?

-Burlaka

Hello, again, to those concerned about the use of the term "Kyiv":

This is only a partial list of major organizations that now use “Kyiv,” in English from the Ukrainian transliteration, rather than “Kiev,” based on the Russian rendering. Even the US State Department, traditionally much more sympathetic to Moscow and other Great States than “little” countries like Ukraine, has switched to “Kyiv,” referring to the Ukrainian capital in the Ukrainian way (explaining the change “… as a continuing effort to standardize practice with other international organizations and in keeping with what the Ukrainian government is doing,” - http://www.kyivpost.com/nation/25373/) Members of the U.S. Board of Geographic Names voted unanimously on Oct. 3, 2006 to change the spelling to "Kyiv."

While some others are still held back by the inertia out-dated conventions, the trend clearly is to “Kyiv ” as well as it should and inevitably will be. (Sometimes, however, media publications can be slow in recognizing name changes. The New York Times, for example, took almost 10 years to stop referring to the city of Mumbai by its colonial name, Bombay.)

A partial list of Governments, government agencies and international organizations using “Kyiv,” in English from the Ukrainian transliteration, rather than “Kiev,” based on the Russian rendering: · The Government of Ukraine - http://www.kmu.gov.ua/control/en/publish/article%3fart_id=235995&cat_id=32672 · The Government of Ukraine, President of Ukraine - http://ww8.president.gov.ua/en/news/data/6_17438.html · The Government of Ukraine, Ministry of Foreign Affairs - http://www.mfa.gov.ua/mfa/en/publication/content/329.htm · The Municipal Government of Kyiv - http://www.kmu.gov.ua/control/en/publish/article?art_id=335366&cat_id=32596 · The United Nations - http://www.un.org.ua/?p=about_un · The European Union - http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/news/07112003_en.htm · European Parliament - http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/event_by_type_page/09-2007-09/default_en.htm · Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) - http://www.oecd.org/document/10/0,3343,en_2649_201185_31916554_1_1_1_1,00.html · Organization for Security and Co-operation In Europe (OSCE) - http://www.osce.org/item/25500.html · North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) - http://www.nato.int/structur/oip/nidc/nidc.htm · http://www.mfa.gov.ua/mfa/en/publication/content/329.htm · The Government of Canada, Embassy in Kyiv - http://www.international.gc.ca/canada-europa/ukraine/menu-en.asp · The Government of Britain, Embassy in Kyiv - http://www.britishembassy.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1087554796297 · Government of Australia, Consulate in Kyiv - http://www.dfat.gov.au/missions/countries/ua.html · Government of India, Embassy in Kyiv - http://www.indianembassy.org.ua/english/index.htm

A partial list of non-governmental organizations and international service clubs using “Kyiv,” in English from the Ukrainian transliteration, rather than “Kiev,” based on the Russian rendering: · National Geographic Society - http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0603/feature1/map.html · Lions International- http://www.kyiv-lions-club.org/ · Rotary International - http://www.kyivmultinational.org/site/ · Green Parties of Europe - http://www.europeangreens.org/cms/default/dokbin/177/177291.defending_refugees_human_rights@en.pdf · International Association of Football Federations (FIFA) - http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/clubfootball/news/newsid=104618.html · United European Football Association (UEFA) - http://h20000.www2.hp.com/bc/docs/support/UCR/SupportManual/TPM_277984e2/TPM_277984e2.pdf?jumpid=reg_R1002_USEN

A partial list of the major English-language periodicals in Kyiv, using “Kyiv,” from the Ukrainian transliteration, rather than “Kiev,” based on the Russian rendering: · Kyiv Post - http://www.kyivpost.com/ · Kyiv Weekly - http://www.kyivweekly.com/

A partial list of international, English-language periodicals, news organizations and websites using “Kyiv,” from the Ukrainian transliteration, rather than “Kiev,” based on the Russian rendering: · Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) - http://ww8.president.gov.ua/en/news/data/6_17438.html · Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) - http://ww8.president.gov.ua/en/news/data/6_17438.html · Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty - http://www.rferl.org/newsline/2007/07/250707.asp · The Guardian (UK) - http://sport.guardian.co.uk/youtube/story/0,,2075889,00.html · The National Geographic (Magazine) - http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0603/feature1/index.html

A partial list of transnational and multinational corporations using “Kyiv,” from the Ukrainian transliteration, rather than “Kiev,” based on the Russian rendering: · Adidas Ukraine - http://www.press.adidas.com/en/DesktopDefault.aspx/tabid-116/194_read-2269/ · IBM - http://www.ibm.com/contact/ua/ · Kyivstar – among Ukraine’s largest mobile phone operators - http://www.kyivstar.net/en/about/ · Dragon Capital - http://www.dragon-capital.com/

A partial list of universities and other institutes of learning in Kyiv using “Kyiv,” in English from the Ukrainian transliteration, rather than “Kiev,” based on the Russian rendering: · National Taras Shevchenko University of Kyiv - http://www.univ.kiev.ua/eng/ · National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy – http://www.ukma.kiev.ua/eng_site/index.php · Kyiv Theological Seminary - http://www.ktsonline.org/new/ · Kyiv Economics Institute - http://www.kei.org.ua/

A partial list of arts and letters organizations in Kyiv using “Kyiv,” in English from the Ukrainian transliteration, rather than “Kiev,” based on the Russian rendering: · Kyiv Chamber Choir - http://magnatune.com/artists/kyiv_chamber_choir · Victor Pinchuk Foundation - http://pinchukfund.org/en/

A partial list of lawyers and other professionals in Kyiv using “Kyiv,” in English from the Ukrainian transliteration, rather than “Kiev,” based on the Russian rendering: · Squire Sanders - http://www.ssd.com/offices/office_detail.aspx?officeid=1504 · Baker & McKenzie - http://www.bakernet.com/BakerNet/Locations/Europe+Middle+East/Offices/Kyiv/default.htm · Chadbourne & Parke - http://www.chadbourne.com/kyiv/

Again, the issue is simply whether the capital of Ukraine should be referred to in English by the commonly accepted transliteration of its Ukrainian pronunciation and spelling or the old Russian form. The examples noted above indicate that Ukrainians, through their government organizations and non-government organizations, and English speakers aware of Ukraine's preferences have switched to "Kyiv." And this trend will only continue to expand.

I hope this helps in the discussion.

-Burlaka


Gentlemen,

Good to be back. During my extended holiday, I did some research into this type of situation, where there is passionate disagreement by more than one party. I am therefore requesting a vote/poll on the question of Kyiv vs. Kiev. However, as Alex quite rightly pointed out, this page is meant for the "Western" audience. I therefore add a condition to the poll, that only native speakers of English can vote. What do you say? Horlo 17:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)Horlo 14:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)Horlo[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Kiev → Kyiv — 4 reasons provided below —Horlo 02:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey (if posting a new entry, please scroll down to post to the last SECTION as of current time)

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Strong Oppose - Kiev is not wrong. Kiev is a transliteration, mind you the most common one, and can you please explain how "Kiev" is pejorative? Or is that just original research? Reginmund 02:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello, and thank you for your comments.
    • Of course, pejorative is a point of view. Can you explain why it is wrong to use "nigger" when describing an African-American? It is something that is perceived by the listener as insulting.
    • As to Kiev being wrong, that is a question of what is right vs. what is wrong. That is a different question from what is common. First, what is right. The government of Ukraine has passed a law about the spelling of the name, and that is the internationally accepted standard: the UN, NATO, and governments of almost every country use it.
    • Second, what is common. At this point, there is a major transition going on. Many institutions did not want to change initially, perhaps (and this is conjecture on my part) to see if Ukraine would survive independence. There were indications that perhaps a split in the country, even civil war could have occurred. However, now Ukraine has established itself as a stable democracy, surviving the Orange Revolution, and the most current "political tensions" between President and Prime Minister, with no violence or bloodshed. Therefore, many organizations have made the switch. This is a process which does not happen instantly - how long before Beijing became common? However, the process is happening now, and therefore I think that Wikipedia should reflect that change.
    • Thanks Horlo 04:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • How common is "nigger" in common parlance these days when it is not meant to be offensive? Now compare that with how common "Kiev" is with intent not to be offensive. As you think that "Kyiv" is somewhat becoming more common, it still isn't, nowhere near it. Seven times more Google hits say that it isn't. This shouldn't be a question of what is correct vs. incorrect. It is a transliteration as much as "Kyiv" is. If you are so obsessive about defining the "correct" name, then why don't we just change the name to the Cyrillic form then. After all, isn't it... "correct"? Reginmund 04:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hello, and thanks for the comments.
        • The reason I brought up "nigger" is not to compare commonality, but rather to compare the depth of connotations that the word carries with it.
        • I think that the google hit counter cannot be considered a valid test because:
        • first, it does not count English sites only - many sites in English can be held in non English-speaking countries;
        • second, it does not count sites for the city only, it includes the computer language, aircraft carriers, and a particularly tasty preparation of chicken;
        • third, it does not count how many businesses open sites with very simmilar names, such as Kievbynight.com vs. Kievatnight.com, or cheapairfaretokiev.com vs. cheapflightstokiev.com, to cash in on the name. These can be all held by one person, thereby skewing numbers.
        • WP should not try to teach anybody what should be right and what should be wrong, but it does present information. People come here to find facts about just about everything. If they come here, for example, from Mapquest, to find out more information about the capital of Ukraine, they will be confused as to why Mapquest says Kyiv, but WP says Kiev.
      • Most reputable sources - online and offline - are changing to Kyiv, and I submit so should WP. Thanks,Horlo 05:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Try this on for size: A Google search that limits results from the U.K. (of course an English-speaking country) gives a shabby 137,000 hits for "Kyiv"[4] while "Kiev" gives of a majestic 930,000[5] (approximately seven times more than "Kyiv". Now you say that "Kiev" is ambiguous because it counts the computer language. Well, I doubt that the computer language takes up too much room on the counter as "Kiev" takes up more than 2,500 internal links on Wikipedia. The internal links for the other uses (irrelevant to the city) all totaled (not including project pages, talk pages, redirects, templates, and disambiguation pages) is one for the programming language, two for the restaurant, and six for the radio station, making a total of nine other internal links ambiguous to the city's transliterated name, "Kiev". I doubt that anything else can claim competitive usage.
How are we trying to say that the "Kyiv" spelling is wrong? In fact it says in the first sentence: "also spelled Kyiv" obviously stating that is is a correct alternative. From this beginning sentence, most people in their right mind will be able to determine that the city has two English spellings if they come from MapQuest confused. Problem solved. If that were a valid argument, I might as well say that more people would be confused since more people use the "Kiev" spelling in English (as determined by the less ambiguous Google test). Reginmund 05:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thank you for your comments, and your search.
We'll have to agree to disagree on the google test. There are more sites that feature Kiev than Kyiv, but: who put up those sites? Are those real sites or just sites which link you to other sites so that the owner of the site can make 2 cents every time you click on it as an advertisement? Do you see my point? The internet is a wonderful place, but there is no regulation possible. According to the google test, if I went and got 100,000,000 free websites with the word Kyiv in them for some strange reason, would that make the word more popular, and more widely used? No. This is a great example of why it's so difficult to judge a language - I am an English teacher, so I come across these kinds of situations often.
To judge how widespread a word is, widespread factors need to be considered. What types of groups use it? Cultural/Science/Religious/Sports/Economic? - all of those aspects need to be examined. I submit that if you look carefully into a representative cross-section of all of these types of groups, you will see the change taking place now. Two great examples are National Geographic, and FIFA. How many people do these two organizations influence? They both use Kyiv.
The numbers are there, but they have to be taken with a grain of salt as they can be very easily manipulated.
Thanks Horlo 06:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You make an argument that can be easily rebuttaled with the question "There are some sites that feature 'Kyiv', but who put up those sites?". If anyone wants to link sites to advertisements through keywords such as "Kiev", they might as well do the same for "Kyiv", thus if you omit all of those superfluous links on both searches, no doubt, you will still have the same ratio, that Kiev is more common than Kyiv.

Now as we have determined that "Kiev" is more prevelent in common parlance, let us look to an official guideline... the common name rule states "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." Thus "Kiev" is more common. Thus, "Kiev" goes in favour of the policies. Reginmund 07:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reginmund, Thank you for the comments. My whole point here was that the Google test should not be used as the only test for judging the commonness of a word. There are simply too many "what ifs" for both sides. It can be used as a starting point, but it should by no means be the one and only test.

On the other hand, I suggest taking three representative websites, for example, from the categories I presented above: Culture/Science/Religion, etc. Look into those websites, and determine what is commonly used now. It's tricky, because in many/most even cases you see that Kiev was used, and may even appear more, but if you check dates you will see that they have changed to Kyiv.

That's exactly my point. The change is happening now - it is not something that I predict, or want. It is real - media/banks/schools/universities/sports associations - all use Kyiv.

It's very difficult to believe something that is opposite to what one may be experiencing, for example if the people you know say Kiev. However the change is here, it's going on now, and everybody is doing it.

Therefore, so should Wikipedia.

Thanks,

Horlo 07:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the inacccuracy of the Google test, say that we gather all of those shameful "what ifs" and omit them from both searches and only include searches in reference to the city. Would the ratio change? If you think that it would, is there another "what if" obstacle? As for the usage of "Kyiv", you show that it is used by important media outlets, although, it is not Wikipedia's policy to follow them. It is Wikipedia's policy to use the most common name... which is "Kiev". If there is a change occuring, we should only embrace it when it actually becomes more prevelent than the "Kiev" spelling, but until it does, we have to stick by the most common name. Reginmund 16:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The arguments below make advocacy for implementing this change because it will put en.wikipedia "ahead of the pack", as it were, from other sources. This is not the role of the project, we are an english encyclopedia. Also, the claim that "people don't search for the popular name, they search for the correct name" is self defeating. If Kiev is the popular name, then obviously, that's the name people will search under, because far more people know THAT spelling for it, especially in english. A redirect at Kyiv serves the same function and is quite a bit more reasonable in the current climate. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello, and thank you for your comments.
    • The arguments below do not try to shove wikipedia ahead of the pack. Quite the contrary. The change is happening now - within the last year or two, ABC (US), the US Federal Government, BBC, CBC, ABC (Australia) and others have already made the change. Microsoft, National Geographic too. By making the change, Wikipedia would reflect what is currently happening in the English world, not try to start something.
    • As to the argument about searching, I did not mention that people look for the name - they look for information. People usually have some idea of what they are looking for, and then look to places like Wikipedia to fill in the gaps in their knowledge. I submit that most people don't really know what the capital of Ukraine is, and so they google those keywords, and take it from there. By stating that Kyiv is the capital, Wikipedia would reflect what all other government sources, and also many educational sources such as Rand McNally (I didn't find that on the net, but the map I have in my classroom is by them and it has Kyiv) and Mapquest are saying.
    • Thanks Horlo 04:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Kiev is still by far the most commonly used name in English. I notice all the other Roman alphabet WPs are still using Kiev or their local version of the name. Generally speaking, to have an "English version" of a city's name is a sign of distinction, I would have thought - you don't get Italians wanting to switch to Roma etc. The various other articles cited by Hillock naturally use their proper names. But most English-speakers can neither spell nor confidently or correctly pronounce Kyiv. Johnbod
    • Hello, and thank you for your comment.
    • I have to disagree that Kiev is by far the most commonly used name. It is widely used, but the change is happening now. The change is not something that will happen, it is happening now, and it is used in many schools in Canada, including the University of Toronto.
    • As to the other WPs, I don't speak any other languages besides French, Japanese, Arabic, and Ukrainian, but here, I'd like to focus on English. While I wouldn't count it as a sign of distinction, I would consider an English translation as pretty much standard for every other major city in the world. That is not the debate - the question is from which language to translate. I submit that Wikipedia should follow suit of the US, Canadian, British, Indian, and Australian governments, and translate the name of the Ukrainian capital from Ukrainian, not Russian.
In regards to pronunciation, it is pronounced similarly to the English word naive [naїv], Kyiv - [kiїv]. --Hillock65 04:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Can be done only after kyiv.ua internet domain will be created in place of kiev.ua --TAG

Thank you for your comments, Let's focus, however, on events in the English-speaking countries. Just as an aside, I think that there are more important things in running a country than changing the website. Also, I think that the Ukrainian government in the last little while has done very well , considering events taking place in other countries in that part of the world.

Thanks, Horlo 08:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Strong Support - I thought wikipedia is supposed to be an Encyclopedia and contain FACTUAL information and not "popular" information. If the Ukrainian government has stipulated that the CORRECT spelling of Київ using latin letters is to be Kyiv then wikipedia is obligated to make the change. As to the transliteration issue, Kiev is a transliteration of the russian version of the name and not Ukrainian transliteration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.10.210.218 (talk • contribs)

  • Anon account, besides Kiyev is a transliteration of the Russian version, whilst Kiev is a purely English term that should be used, on par with Munich, Warsaw and Moscow (as opposed to München, Warszawa and Moskva)--Kuban Cossack 18:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose First, this is the English Wikipedia, so common usage in English is the most important factor. There was a similar issue at the Manchuria article. Several editors wanted to rename the article "Northeast China", which is what the Chinese government calls it now. But in English speaking countries, Manchuria is still much more common, so it remained unchanged. The same principle applies here. It does not matter how the Ukranian government spells it; that's totally irrelevant. What matters is English usage, and as the google test above crudely demonstrates (I never like google tests anyways), the usage of Kiev is much higher than Kyiv. As for Horlo's claims that several reputable sources are changing to Kyiv, can you provide links to those sources? Parsecboy 12:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - See my earlier post for many large organizations with websites and especially the most widely read English-language publications in the city in question: Kyiv post and Kyiv Weekly. Kyiv it is and certainly should be. Thank you. - Burlaka

Survey (section break 1)

  • Oppose.
  1. The Ukrainian laws do not regulate the English language and do not define what is "right" and what is "wrong". That is defined by the dictionaries. Ukrainian laws only regulate what spelling should be used by the Ukrainian government bodies. Unlike Ukrainian and Russian, which have a formal regulatory body through the subject committees in their respective Academies of Sciences, the English language does not have such official regulatory body. Government agencies can advice what name is to be used in the government publications, true, but they do not define what usage is "correct". Therefore, there is no mention of the term "correct" vs "incorrect" name per se in our naming conventions. English encyclopedias and dictionaries choose the names for their article's entries based on the common usage. Our naming conventions, WP:NC(UE) also uses the term "most commonly used". The latest editions of Britannica uses Kiev as well as the major media, which confirms that this is the prevailing usage for now. Wikipedia should reflect that as well as prescribed by NC.
  2. The most indicative reflection of "prevailing name, currently used in English" is the major players in the anglophone media market. CNN, AP, BBC, Reuters, CBC, NYTimes, et., etc., etc. use Kiev and they are the most indicative of the prevailing current usage, not the Govermnental web-sites which are hardly read. In fact the very AP article that reported the switch by the US government says: "The Associated Press continues to spell the name of the capital Kiev."
  3. If only some of those who endlessly debate the issue were interested in contributing any content to the article but the endless naming wars.
Irpen 05:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello, and thank you for your comments.
    • 1. Of course there are correct and incorrect spellings for everything, otherwise there would be no meaningful communication. The fact that different people say and spell things differently in different areas simply reflects the fact that the world is different, and life in Southern Australia is very different from life in Northern Scotland. However, when it comes to international geography and politics and history, there are standards and conventions. When the Chinese government officially changed the name to "Beijing", that became the correct spelling and pronunciation. Did it take a while for people to get used to it? Sure, but they did. And it became correct, not just in China. So correct, in fact, that WP has a Beijing page. Same with Mumbai. When it became known that "Eskimo" was a pejorative term, people stopped using it and started using "Inuit". Why? I would submit that for most people it's not really that important. It will take people just as long to learn how to pronounce Kyiv as it did for them to learn to pronounce the name of the New York Yankee's all-star catcher, Jorge Posada. I assume good will not only on the part of the Wikipedians, but of people all over the world, and if they have a chance to stop doing something that offends others, they will.
    • 2. The most indicative reflection of "prevailing name, currently used in English" is not the media, as the media report, influence and teach the audience, rather than react and learn from their audience. However, they are changing - BBC now uses Kyiv (in press releases that it obtains from some wire services it reports the name as Kiev, but all of the BBC reporters use Kyiv), as does CBC, ABC (Australia), ABC (US), CTV (Canada), as well as print media around the world. The US is not the only English-speaking country, nor is the US media the only English media.
    • There is no one simple litmus test to determine what the prevailing name is, and many factors - education, business, cultural, religious, as well as sports aspects - need to be looked at as well. Also, please don't make sweeping generalizations, as just because you don't read government websites does not mean that they are hardly-ever read. Governments make policies and decide on such things as education policies, which DO directly influence which word is used.
    • 3. As I mentioned below, in the archives twice as many people want to change the name to Kyiv from Kiev. I submit that most of those people would have gladly contributed to the article. However, outside of the name, I don't see any problems with the article - it was even nominated for an award, no?
      • Yes, there are "incorrect" spellings as well, like Kiyv or whatever. Here you have none. Both Kiev and Kyiv are correct English spellings and if you want to argue here, you have to do it not with WP editors but with most dictionaries and respectable media since both are used there. That ua-gov changed the spelling it uses "may" affect the most common spelling in English one day. It hasn't yet. Check the media and the most current dictionaries if you have doubts. Your "offense" claim is ridiculous. Only few fringe hard-core nationalists claim that the common English spelling is offensive and they do so only to make a point. Those are in no way representative of an overall moderate Ukrainian population which firmly rejects nationalist ideology.[6]
      • Media, overall, sure is the most indicative way to determine usage with one qualification. The reliable media analysis should consider major media, the outlets that have enough reputation and resources to afford some consistent editorial policy and team of editors to ensure the compliance. Yes, some of such media do use Kyiv (CBC-Canada, for one) but most don't. When (and if) they switch, WP will follow but WP won't be in the forefront of terminological changes as it reflects the prevailing usage rather than serves a vehicle to promote a change you desire.
      • The article has much room for improvement and you can help by adding content. Something that most of the name-change pushers had any interest in doing. --Irpen 06:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, Hello, and thank you for your comments. Yes, there is a correct, and an incorrect spelling here. Is it correct to say "Peking"? Why? I find it interesting that you use words like "most" and "respectable" without actually stating any names. Again, most media outside of the US has changed, and even US media is changing - ABC. Actually, I have checked the majority of media sources, and the result was one of the final reasons for my initiating this posting. One more time - BBC (all BBC reporters use Kyiv, while reports that they run from some wire services use Kiev), ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation), CTV (in Canada), ABC in the US - all use Kyiv. With respect to print media, The Globe And Mail, the largest newspaper in Canada, The Guardian in the UK, and the Christian Science Monitor all use Kyiv. By the way, has the New York Times finished apologizing for inventing those news stories?

But media is only one part of life. There are many other aspects. Do you think more people learn about spelling from a newspaper, or from Microsoft Word? Microsoft uses Kyiv. Do you think more people will remember what a reporter said in a broadcast, or when they lost their wallet in Ukraine, and call the international operator looking for the nearest branch? Citibank uses Kyiv. I submit that these types of events are much more influential on everyday usage - especially typing in MS word - than the media.

If you have any explanations as to why media is the only way to judge a language, please let me know.

These changes have already happened. This is not the future, it is now.

I took a look at the link you provided thank you. To my surprise, that book deals with events in Ukraine. However, as this is the English WP, I am talking from a Western perspective. Here, most people are offended by that name, and it does carry all of the negative connotations that I mentioned. Apparently, you are not aware of that. I think that your perspective, along with the sudden defensive tone that you have taken in your response: "name-change pushers", "changes you desire", etc. should maybe encourage you to take some time off from this discussion.

I am trying to improve Wikipedia by pointing out changes that some editors may not have been aware of. I have opened a discussion in hopes of keeping WP in the mainstream, as a source of current events. No personal attacks, please.

Thanks, Horlo 07:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Once Kyiv becomes common, we can change, not before. That's clear enough. I find the arguments about Kiev being somehow offensive to be totally inadmissible. If we accepted them, by analogy one day soon we would have to agree with those who wanted move Prague to Praha (since the English form comes from German Prag) and Warsaw to Warszawa (since the English form comes form German Warschau). Clearly, it was not the intention of the English speaking world to slight Ukrainians when Kiev was selected as the English version of the name. That is just a simple fact, and one should simply accept it. Balcer 06:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Kiev is the English word for the city. Everyone knows what Kiev is, and even for those who recognize Kyiv, it still looks strange. Generally, I hate "cultural imperialism" and I'm inclined to support native forms where there is a moral argument, but here there is no moral argument which overrides Use English. There are worse etymologies than Kiev ... e.g. Gaelic and Welsh people and words are known throughout the world by English forms. Check the interwikis for Ynys Môn (Anglesey) - almost entirely English derived despite the fact that the island's language is not and never has been English (unlike Kiev and "Russian"). See then Máel Coluim mac Cináeda ... Malcolm II in all the interwikies, why? The guy has nothing to do with English! It's just what happens, and, whether "imperialistic" (as its called on at sevceral points on this page) or not, it is independent of wiki policy. At least Celtic languages are entirely separate from English, whereas standard Russian and standard Ukrainian are very similar varieties, or as one person once put it, recently conceived standardizations at two separate points on the "Eastern Slavic" dialect continuum (even though Russians and Ukrainians are now supposed to be coherently separate peoples, they still haven't, for instance, worked out who Rusyns are). Besides that, Kiev is a predominantly Russophone city in any case, and the rise of Kyiv as an English spelling is a response to the corrupt Ukrainian government's internal and international policy of Ukrainization in the attempt to give a semi-convincing national identity across its borders to what is in all fairness a fairly historically arbitrary SSR created recently as a concept and extended by gifts in the Soviet period. In reality it's a "bilingual", or more accurately, diglossic land with little pre-WWI historical precedent as a state much of whose southern territory was taken by "Eastern Slavs" (formerly everyone, including them, just called them "Russians") from Turkic peoples in recent centuries. There is no moral argument for the Kyiv spelling rather than the neutral, English Kiev. The whole controversy here is just emblematic of immature, eastern European ideologically separatistic fanaticism; never seen any Germans complain about the naming of Cologne, spelled after those imperialist standardized Frenchies, or Luxemburgers complain about Luxembourg rather than Lëtzebuerg or Luxemburg. No, you only get that when you cross the Oder in to Eastern Europe. Few English-speakers know that there is a one vowel difference between how some Russians say the name of the city and the way some Ukrainians say the name. They certainly don't know that "Kiev" is closer to the standardized "Russian" way than the standardized "Ukrainian" way until Ukrainian nationalists tell them. Hey, most English-speaking Glaswegians call their city Glez-ga, not Glasgow, and despite the fact that there's more difference between Glez-ga and Glasgow than Kyiv and Kiyev, I've never heard anyone complain about the spelling, let alone advocate that English adopt the standardized Gaelic spelling Glaschu. So not only is Kyiv not English, it shouldn't become English, and wikipedia should not be acting as an extension of the Ukrainian government's immoral and unhistorical nationalistic language policy. Kiev is the spelling everyone knows. Having said that, there is precedent for ignoring English use and slavishly following the discriminatory dictates of Ukrainian government on wikipedia. E.g. the Russian-speaking city of Kharkov, for instance, already has the less common (in English) and Ukrainianized spelling Kharkiv, but this was wrong and Kiev anyways is a much more famous city than Kharkov in the English-speaking world. The wiki article should therefore remain at this location until Kyiv or any other name does overwhelmingly predominate in actual use in the English language; and for what it's worth, the English-speaking organizations who have adopted the spelling Kyiv in print have not taught their staff to change their pronunciation, since you always here KEE-eff/Kee-EFF whether they've spelled it Kiev or Kyiv. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Balcer, Thank you for your comment. I would submit that Kyiv is common. Citibank, ING, Eurus Financial, CBC, BBC, ABC, CTV, ABC (Australia) - all use it. The list is quite long.

Personally, I see no problem in changing a word if it offends somebody. Peking became Beijing, Bombay became Mumbai, Eskimo became Inuit - no problem.

I think that as there was no intent to slight, there is no problem. However, when the slight becomes known, it is only becoming to cease.

Thanks,

Horlo 08:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Strong Oppose please don't mutilate the English language with invented terms like Kyiv. The english word for the city is Kiev. Actually that is not the Russian version for it. The Russian version based on the principle of our transliteration will be Kiyev not Kiev. --18:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose- as per years of discussion. (Kiev is more popular in use therefore it is to be used.) Please end these arguments, they're not helping anybody. Bogdan 19:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Be it resolved that a new page, Kyiv, be started, and Kiev be redirected to it.

I would like to open a poll on this question.

Here are my arguments (in no particular order) for the move:

1. Kyiv is the correct form. When people search in an encyclopaedia, they look for correct information, not popular information. The problem of confusion with Kiev can be easily overcome with a simple re-direct and explanation at the top of the page. This is just another example of how Wikipedia is much more powerful than a traditional paper encyclopaedia. I give people the benefit of the doubt that they will pretty quickly clue into what’s happening.

2. Kyiv is becoming more and more common – gaining currency as it were – while Kiev is disappearing. This argument is actually in two parts: a) Within the last two years, the United States government, National Geographic, Citibank, Microsoft, the B.B.C. news service, C.B.C. news service, A.B.C. (Australia) news service, ABC networks (U.S.), the Guardian newspaper (UK), the Globe and Mail newspaper (the largest newspaper in Canada), and many other government, NGO, and private businesses have switched to Kyiv. Many others, such as the Christian Science Monitor and ING bank are currently switching over, temporarily using both. Any surfers looking for more in-depth information about Kyiv who come to Wikipedia from any of the above-mentioned sources, and are directed to a page called Kiev, will be confused.

b) The number of individuals using Kyiv is increasing. This cannot be empirically measured, including by means of the google test, but if all of the educational atlases & maps printed by Rand Mcnally and Mapquest use Kyiv, as well as publications such as National Geographic, Kiev will become less and less widespread. This is an assumption, but it is logical, and something to think about.

This transition is happening NOW, not in the future. By changing now, Wikipedia would reflect current events as they unfold.

3. Kyiv is more popular among contributors for the Wikipedia site. I actually counted the number of people – throughout all 4 archives – in favour and against the use of Kyiv, and the number for Kyiv is 33, while the number for Kiev is 21. More than a 50% difference for Kyiv. There is a popular complaint that if only people would contribute something to the page, rather than whine over the name, Wikipedia would benefit. This is true, but I submit that people do not want to contribute to something which is mis-named.

4. Kiev is a pejorative term. I think that many native English speakers don’t realize that for Ukrainians, including people born in English-speaking countries, Kiev is as offensive as “nigger”, “coolie”, “chink”, or “nip”. This is not connected to the political situation now. It is, however, summed up beautifully in the Valuev Circular of 1863 by Russian prince Valuev: “There has never been a Ukrainian language, there is no Ukraine language, and there can never be a Ukraine language”. This is the baggage that “Kiev” carries with it. Again, I want to stress that this does not affect my relations with Russians, but it does affect my relations with Kiev.

There it is. In order to keep this discussion as focussed as possible, let’s stay away from discussions about anything else, including the aircraft carriers, chicken, and computer language, called Kiev. Also, as many people have so correctly pointed out, this is the English Wikipedia. Therefore, although input is welcome from everybody, I suggest that more weight be placed on votes by native English speakers.

I apologize for my long winded-ness, but I think that this covers most of the arguments used against the move to Kyiv in the past. If you have an opposing opinion, I’d love to discuss it with you.

So what should it be – Kyiv or Kiev? Horlo

I have banged on the same drum years ago (talk archive), but Wikipedia naming conventions don't support the change, and there are more important things to work on.
Article names are not political statements, they just reflect the most common current usage, and in English that is still "Kiev". The most general references like the OED support this view (my Canadian Oxford Dictionary says "see Kiev" under the headword Kyiv, and that's an improvement on the previous editions). Wikipedia's mandate is not to set the precedent, but to follow it. The use of the Russian transliteration "Kiev" might bug you, but it is the most-used name for the city in English, and can't be considered pejorative because that is the only name most English-speakers have ever heard.
There are much more important tasks on Wikipedia to put your energy into. The truth is the only durable propaganda, so please:
  1. Read about Wikipedia's basic criteria of citing sources, reliability, and verifiability.
  2. See what information is still missing in important articles like Ukrainian language, History of Ukraine, Ukrainian People's Republic, Ukraine after the Russian Revolution, Ukrainian SSR, etc.
  3. Don't fight over controversial issues, but work to reveal the incontrovertible facts. Goodness knows there's enough to keep us occupied for years to come.
  4. Write.
Regards. —Michael Z. 2007-07-30 05:29 Z


Hello, and thank you for your comments. I agree that the titles of articles are not made as political statements, but in some cases they automatically take them on.

I submit that there is no one easy way to judge what is common and what is not. In the last few years many governments, schools (including the U of T), businesses, and media sources have begun using Kyiv. You yourself mentioned that now the Canadian Oxford is using Kyiv. This is not something that will happen, this is something that is happening. Because of the precedents set by Beijing and Mumbai, this change need not drag out for very long. Outside of the US, most major news services - CBC, CTV, ABC, BBC, ABC (US), and various newspapers including The Globe and Mail and The Guardian - have already changed to Kyiv. Microsoft. Citibank. The list goes on. I am not advocating setting the precedent, I am advocating reflecting what is currently happening.

Ten years ago, I would agree with you that Kiev was the only name that many native English speakers had heard. However, after the World Cup, Orange Revolution, Klitschko brothers, recent political crisis, Russia cutting oil supplies through the pipeline in Ukraine, and even Eurovision and the UEFA championship, and the fact that the previous Pope was half Ukrainian, have put Ukraine on more people's maps. There, they find Kyiv, at least if its a Rand McNally or Mapquest map. Then, most people get confused by sites such as this.

I don't think that most people are using Kiev pejoratively intentionally, but that name nevertheless has those connotations, and that is one thing that I want people to realize. I have faith in the goodwill of not only Wikipedians but also people in general, and once they realize what their comments mean, they will stop. I like your statement that the truth is the only durable propaganda. I believe that the truth will always win.


I will happily contribute to Wikipedia, but I think that this must be resolved first, as this affects just about every topic that you mentioned. Also, in the archives I counted 33 people for Kyiv and 21 people for Kiev. I think that this topic turned off many other people.

Thanks, Horlo 06:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am just a little bit puzzled. You believe it is a well known fact that the previous pope was half-Ukrainian? Clearly it cannot be that well known, since neither English nor Ukrainian Wikipedia has any mention of it, as far as I can tell. Balcer 07:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment, I was listing events which are important for various types of people. People to whom Roman Catholicism is important knew that fact. I think that this is another good example of how we have to be very careful when judging what is "common" or "widespread". There are many facets of life which are not necessarily represented on-line. When making such decisions, extreme care must be taken.

Thanks, Horlo 07:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral But, as to Horlo's assertion that Kiev is a pejorative term I disagree. I know dozens of people in Kiev, both Ukrainian and Russian speakers, and the majority use Kiev (when using English). Why is this? Because Russian language is still dominant in Kiev, with most residents speaking Russian over Ukrainian. Now, if you are from Lvov, then yeah, Kiev is likely going to be offensive (as well as anything else remotely Russian), but for the vast majority of Ukrainians, particularly those in Kiev, and Odessa, Donetsk, Kharkov, the Crimea, etc (basically all of Eastern Ukraine), the use of Kiev is not insulting or pejorative. Now if we had articles at Khokhol language or Culture of Malorussia, then yeah, these would be pejorative (although I admit to using Malorussia when talking to people I know in Ukraine when discussing similarities between the two countries), but to call Kiev a pejorative term because it is "Russian", but yet Kiev (the subject in question). is basically a Russian speaking city, is a bit of a stretch. --Russavia 09:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 17:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support changing Kiev to Kyiv throughout

Argument: It seems to me that the proper approach to the issue of treating Kyiv as the proper spelling for the capital of Ukraine should be to respect Ukraine the same way that other countries are respected when they have changed their country name (Ceylon to Sri Lanka, Cambodia to Kampuchea, and so on) and when they have changed their official city spellings (Peking to Beijing, Rangoon to Mangan, Bombay to Mumbai, Calcutta to Kolkata and so on). This avoids the endless arguments over the "legitimacy," "commonness/widespreadness" of the current or past version and any issues around the "difficulty/simplicity" of the change. Bombay is surely one of the most widespread city names in this list of changes, yet the new version was readily adopted and is used everywhere now. Ukraine should be given the same respect and not "dissed" by those who happen to not like the new version. Using this same argument, these names should also hold: Odesa, Dnipro, Chornobyl and so on, even in phrases that entered common use some time ago. Chornobyl blew up only five years before Ukraine became independent, so the Ukrainian spelling should long ago have been accepted as the official spelling, given that it has been in use for three times longer!Rascalndear 14:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This guy appears to be a sockpuppet, as this is his only edit to the english Wikipedia, and was created only a couple of hours ago. C'mon guys, surely this is not so important that we've resorted to using socks to sway the vote (which doesn't matter anyways). Parsecboy 14:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thank you for your comments. You have my word that I did not create any sockpuppets for this discussion. However, as yesterday some people stated that they weren't aware that Ukrainians in the English-speaking world consider the name Kiev pejorative, I did let some people in the Ukrainian community know about this discussion.

This is a very important issue not only to me, but also to millions of people across the US, Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. If this is not an important issue to other people, why is there so much negativity in this debate? Most of the arguments have been very focussed and neutral, quite healthy intellectual curiosity which I welcome, but it appears that some editors are starting to let emotion into the discussion.

I want to stress that I want to discuss this, not try to force my opinion on anybody, but I would like this debate to continue for as long as it takes to achieve consensus on the topic.

Thanks, Horlo 16:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


His comments need some clarification, anyway.
As a rule, the naming conventions don't use the official name, but the most common name (for example, we don't have articles titled Commonwealth of Australia or Federal Republic of Germany).
Ukraine's government has mandated its own official spelling in English-language documents as Kyiv—this is a mandate of language and transliteration. Unlike the examples of Rangoon or Bombay, it is not a change of name. An analogy is the change from Peking→Beijing—although that involved only transliteration and not language—which has become accepted through most of the English-speaking world.
The city's name has long been Київ (Kyyiv, Kyjiv or Kyiv) in Ukrainian, and Киев (Kiyev, Kijev, or Kiev) in Russian, and this has not changed. In English, it is Kiev or Kyiv (according to my dictionary), sometimes Kyyiv or Kyjiv (in some atlases) with the first spelling still being the most-used, but gradually waning
Interestingly, the less well-known Kharkiv has become an accepted spelling (except in WWII histories), but the Russian-origin spellings of Odessa, the Dnieper (a river in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia), and newsworthy Chernobyl spellings remain entrenched in English. —Michael Z. 2007-07-30 15:14 Z

Deaconpndapetzim,

Hello, and thank you for your comments.

I am very happy to hear that you are against cultural imperialism. This will make you equally offended as it makes me to hear terms like "little Russians" and "great Russians" - terms that were used until the tragic experiment that was the USSR - including the gifts of the Holodomor, in which between 6 and 8 million people were systematically starved to death; Shcherbytsky's purges, in which countless were executed for speaking the "official" language of the Ukr.SSR.; and Chornobyl, but that was a gift to Byelorussia and Northern Europe, not just Ukraine. So far, we agree.

I also agree with your point that "as someone once said". It probably was just once, by somebody anonymous. Because by saying that, they would be exposing their ignorance of the history of the area. So it's probably better to ignore that. Rusyns are Rusyns. Ukraine has a policy of allowing people to speak whatever language/have whatever regional government they want - for example, the Crimea. (Please note the use of "the" and "Crimea" - that is what people there want to be called, so so be it.)Agreement again.

I am also happy to hear that you do not worry about most English speakers being concerned about a change in vowels. That's been another one of my main points throughout. To most people, seeing it once on the BBC, CBC, ABC, any government release, in MS word, Citibank (the list can go on, but here I'd rather get to the point) will be all that they need to change. To most, it's not a big deal. So people are changing it now. Most people have been accepting it as quickly as they accepted the change to Beijing. Third point, agreed.

On the topic of this becoming an extension of the Ukrainian government, you will notice that I had asked some contributors from Ukraine and other non-English speaking countries to limit their comments, as this is a thread relating to what is happening in English speaking countries. By extension, I would submit that what some people propose is happening in Ukraine not be considered here. I would like to focus on English-speaking organizations such as National Geographic, the UN, and NATO. Kyiv is not English, but neither is Kiev. Kiev used to be more widely used, but it is being deposed by Kyiv.

With respects to other countries, although this is not the place to discuss it at length, I will add one sentence. I believe that everybody has the right to choose what they will be called, and if anybody from those countries puts up a discussion like this, I will support it 100%.

So all in all, we agree. Thanks for your support,

Horlo 19:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well how much more people will read BBC than a US gov't response. And actually my MS word has KIEV and redunderscores Kyiv. I wonder why. See that is the definition of the English term. Just like it would redunderscore Munchen, or Moskva or Warszawa. Lastly Little Russia comes from the term Lower Russia, i.e. southern Russia, when my ancestors, the Zaporozhian Cossacks united with central Russia, which was big and hence Great. And please withhold from "tragic experiment" POVs, need I tell you that Ukraine was a founding republic of the USSR, and people like Leonid Brezhnev were ethnically Ukrainian. --Kuban Cossack 19:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, and thank you for your comment.

I'm not sure what you meant by your comment on the BBC and US gov't site - both of them use Kyiv. As to MS Word, I'm not sure why yours underscores Kyiv, but mine doesn't. The reason I said that MS uses Kyiv is that on its website it gives Kyiv in its address. Here is the link: https://solutionfinder.microsoft.com/Partners/PartnerDetailsView.aspx?partnerid=c2a36c22a9ce49de8d26cfb4754f3f52 Also, in the Network Development Network section (which is used by every country in developing international networks), it uses Kyiv as the spelling to use for Microsoft partners. Here is the link: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms866171.aspx

Just as an aside about the underscoring - MS Word gives a red underline to Wikipedia.


As to your proud family heritage, congratulations. Being a descendant of the Zaporozhtsi is indeed reason to be proud. However, this is not the place to discuss that.

Again, I will ask that while your input is very welcome, I would like to focus on native English speakers, as this is the English Wiki. Let's discuss the etymology of "Little" and "Great", or even Rus' and Russia at a different time, on a different page, and keep this focussed on Kyiv.

Thanks,

Horlo 21:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the inacccuracy of the Google test, say that we gather all of those shameful "what ifs" and omit them from both searches and only include searches in reference to the city. Would the ratio change? If you think that it would, is there another "what if" obstacle? As for the usage of "Kyiv", you show that it is used by important media outlets, although, it is not Wikipedia's policy to follow them. It is Wikipedia's policy to use the most common name... which is "Kiev". If there is a change occuring, we should only embrace it when it actually becomes more prevelent than the "Kiev" spelling, but until it does, we have to stick by the most common name. Reginmund 22:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Regimund, Thank you for your comments. More importantly, I thank you for maintaining a spirit of "good faith", even though we disagree. Unfortunately, I have found it lacking with a few other editors here.

Thank you also for agreeing that CNN should not be used as an exclusive determining factor.

Again, I do not want to say that the Google test is inaccurate or wrong, but I do want to say that it should not be the only basis for the change.

Here's an example of a meeting of English Librarians: http://southernlibrarianship.icaap.org/content/v03n01/Barrett_g01.htm On the "established" form, it says Kiev, (at the top, in the letterhead), but the body of the article uses Kyiv throughout. It was written by English speakers (or as far as I can tell by the names mentioned), and uses Kyiv throughout. All of the members appear to be English. Which is more common in everyday speech? I submit Kyiv, because that's what the people in the article are using. Only the letterhead uses Kiev.


The google test is not inaccurate, but all it does is provide numbers, and unfortunately numbers can be interpreted in many ways.

How about some kind of formula - a combination of organizations/groups/businesses plus media plus google, combined with a dose of respect for traditions and international customs and common sense? Any suggestions?

Thanks, Horlo 01:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that I never objected to the use of CNN as a source (although, this shouldn't imply that I respect them). According to Wikipedia's common name policy, the most common name should be followed as opposed to names used by prominent media figures. Their opinions aren't "superior" to the most common name. I'm sure that "Kiev" is gaining prominence but until it becomes more common than "Kiev", the Russian transliteration should stick. Reginmund 05:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no needs to reinvent anything. Read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) --TAG 01:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Tag Sorry, TAG Thank you for your comments. I have read the naming conventions, but they simply state use the most common name. What is the most common name? That's what I'm driving at here. There is no rule on how to judge what is common, especially in a case like this when more and more groups are officially switching over every month. Everybody I know uses Kyiv. But that doesn't mean that everybody uses Kyiv. My question is how to judge commonality.

Thanks, Horlo 01:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You oversimplify guideline. It state that ALL names must be listed. This is how it's currently done. Also I think you have missed WP:NCGN#Examples. --TAG 02:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TAG,

Thanks for the comment. I agree - every pertinent name must be listed. However, the proposal here is to change the name of the page to Kyiv, not eliminate names from the listing. Thanks, Horlo 02:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The is the ENGLISH language, latin alphabet, version of Wikipedia and we spell it Kiev and have done for 2000 years. We spell Wien Vienna, Warszawa Warsaw, Munchen Munich, to name but a few. Just as importantly many British town names, such as London, are spelt differently on the continent just as anyone who has been in an airport will tell you. There is no justification for pandering to this overtly nationalist request. David Lauder 14:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, Thank you for your comments. I understand that this is the English Wikipedia. I am an English teacher.

I submit that one of the strengths of English, and why it has become such a dominant language around the world is the ability to change and adapt. Another one is the English idea of respect for others, as evidenced throughout the history of English dealings with other countries. A strength of the US is the willingness to do what is right - Lincoln paid for the Emancipation Proclamation with his life, for example.

I submit that most people won't really notice the change, because it is not important to most people. But just in the same way that most people say "EEraq" and not "EYE-raq", because that is the way that most people there prefer it.

Thanks, Horlo 16:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you are from USA - you probably should trust your military. Go and see that they have Kiev. Once you will be able to convict your own National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency that it's Kyiv - you are welcome return back here ;-) --TAG 17:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TAG, your condescending tone is unwelcome here. For starters, the link you provided is inaccessible. Second of all, the official spelling for all U.S. government agencies is Kyiv. So at least by your conditions, Horlo is welcome here to discuss this issue. If there are instances where Kiev is utilized as in the example which you provided (but which at least I was not able to access), then it is merely a holdover since the Kyiv spelling practice for U.S. military is a year or so old.--Riurik(discuss) 20:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for been unfriendly. This is simply not first time this issue is discussed and people not willing to read archives. As for link - try here search for Kiev or Kyiv. My point was - there are a lot of others places there Horlo can change city name and he or she is welcome to return back here once will be done with this. --TAG 20:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. This is one of those things that just keeps coming back, and probably not for the last time. I did finally see what you were referring to on the NGA site after searching for "Kiev" using the GNS search box. It was under "Kievka" with "Kiev" listed as a variant. I will note that the non-Roman language code provided is "ru". So presumably, were it "uk" the translit/variant would be Kyiv; not that it would help the issue here. Anyhow...regards.--Riurik(discuss) 04:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TAG, Thank you for the link. Alas, it did not work for me, either.

Actually, I am not from the US. There are many English-speaking countries in the world. I would submit that this is not your place to "welcome" or "unwelcome" anybody here, as obviously you are not from one of those countries.

I have read the archives, and there is nothing in the archives which contradicts the evidence I have put forth here. The name is changing, in places all over the English speaking world.

Again, let's keep this civil, stick to the facts, and stay away from name-calling.

Horlo 22:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hello,

I am from Canada and everyone I know uses Kyiv, NOT the Russian form.

In fact, most high-profile, official agencies use Kyiv. Here are some partial lists:

A partial list of Governments, government agencies and international organizations using “Kyiv,” in English from the Ukrainian transliteration: · The Government of Ukraine - http://www.kmu.gov.ua/control/en/publish/article%3fart_id=235995&cat_id=32672 · The Government of Ukraine, President of Ukraine - http://ww8.president.gov.ua/en/news/data/6_17438.html · The Government of Ukraine, Ministry of Foreign Affairs - http://www.mfa.gov.ua/mfa/en/publication/content/329.htm · The Municipal Government of Kyiv - http://www.kmu.gov.ua/control/en/publish/article?art_id=335366&cat_id=32596 · The United Nations - http://www.un.org.ua/?p=about_un · The European Union - http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/news/07112003_en.htm · European Parliament - http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/event_by_type_page/09-2007-09/default_en.htm · Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development - http://www.oecd.org/document/10/0,3343,en_2649_201185_31916554_1_1_1_1,00.html · Organization for Security and Co-operation In Europe (OSCE) - http://www.osce.org/item/25500.html · North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) - http://www.nato.int/structur/oip/nidc/nidc.htm · http://www.mfa.gov.ua/mfa/en/publication/content/329.htm · The Government of Canada, Embassy in Kyiv - http://www.international.gc.ca/canada-europa/ukraine/menu-en.asp · The Government of Britain, Embassy in Kyiv - http://www.britishembassy.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1087554796297 · Government of Australia, Consulate in Kyiv - http://www.dfat.gov.au/missions/countries/ua.html · Government of India, Embassy in Kyiv - http://www.indianembassy.org.ua/english/index.htm

A partial list of non-governmental organizations and international service clubs using “Kyiv,” in English from the Ukrainian transliteration: · National Geographic Society - http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0603/feature1/map.html · Lions International- http://www.kyiv-lions-club.org/ · Rotary International - http://www.kyivmultinational.org/site/ · Green Parties of Europe - http://www.europeangreens.org/cms/default/dokbin/177/177291.defending_refugees_human_rights@en.pdf · International Association of Football Federations (FIFA) - http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/clubfootball/news/newsid=104618.html · United European Football Association (UEFA) - http://h20000.www2.hp.com/bc/docs/support/UCR/SupportManual/TPM_277984e2/TPM_277984e2.pdf?jumpid=reg_R1002_USEN · Canada Ukraine Chamber of Commerce - http://www.cucc.ca/section.php?CBID=0c9e41d07b4fd1cedbbb1c583b45cf91

A partial list of the major English-language periodicals and media outlet in Kyiv, using “Kyiv,” from the Ukrainian transliteration: · Kyiv Post - http://www.kyivpost.com/ · Kyiv Weekly - http://www.kyivweekly.com/ · National Rdaio Company of Ukraine - http://www.nrcu.gov.ua/index.php?id=2

A partial list of international, English-language periodicals, news organizations and websites using “Kyiv,” from the Ukrainian transliteration: · Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) - http://ww8.president.gov.ua/en/news/data/6_17438.html · Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) - http://ww8.president.gov.ua/en/news/data/6_17438.html · CTV Television Network - http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20041125/ukraine_backgrounder_041124/20041125/ · Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty - http://www.rferl.org/newsline/2007/07/250707.asp · The Guardian (UK) - http://sport.guardian.co.uk/youtube/story/0,,2075889,00.html · The National Geographic (Magazine) - http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0603/feature1/index.html

A partial list of transnational and multinational corporations using “Kyiv,” from the Ukrainian transliteration: · Microsoft - http://www.microsoft.com/worldwide/phone/contact.aspx?country=Ukraine · Adidas Ukraine - http://www.press.adidas.com/en/DesktopDefault.aspx/tabid-116/194_read-2269/ · IBM - http://www.ibm.com/contact/ua/ · Kyivstar – among Ukraine’s largest mobile phone operators - http://www.kyivstar.net/en/about/ · ING Bank Ukriane - http://www.ingbankukraine.com/?tid=89&lang=en · European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) - http://www.ebrd.com/oppor/procure/opps/goods/general/070711a.htm · Citigroup - http://www.citigroup.com/citigroup/global/ukr.htm · Dragon Capital - http://www.dragon-capital.com/

A partial list of universities and other institutes of learning in Kyiv using “Kyiv,” in English from the Ukrainian transliteration: · National Taras Shevchenko University of Kyiv - http://www.univ.kiev.ua/eng/ · National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy – http://www.ukma.kiev.ua/eng_site/index.php · Kyiv National University for Construction and Architecture – http://www.knuba.edu.ua/en · Kyiv Theological Seminary - http://www.ktsonline.org/new/ · Kyiv Economics Institute - http://www.kei.org.ua/

A partial list of arts and letters organizations in Kyiv using “Kyiv,” in English from the Ukrainian transliteration: · Kyiv Ballet and Opera Theatre - http://www.wumag.kiev.ua/wumag_old/archiv/2_98/opera.htm · Kyiv Chamber Choir - http://magnatune.com/artists/kyiv_chamber_choir · Museum of History of Kyiv - http://www.ukrmuseum.org.ua/en/main/museums/show/histkieveng.html?PHPSESSID=fd8d2a25a2225945d31 · National Museum of Medicine (Ukraine) – http://www.histomed.kiev.ua/about.php.htm · Victor Pinchuk Foundation - http://pinchukfund.org/en/

A partial list of lawyers and other professionals in Kyiv using “Kyiv,” in English from the Ukrainian transliteration: · Squire Sanders - http://www.ssd.com/offices/office_detail.aspx?officeid=1504 · Baker & McKenzie - http://www.bakernet.com/BakerNet/Locations/Europe+Middle+East/Offices/Kyiv/default.htm · Chadbourne & Parke - http://www.chadbourne.com/kyiv/

While some others are still held back by the inertia out-dated conventions, the trend clearly is to “Kyiv ” as well as it should and inevitably will be. (Sometimes, however, media publications can be slow in recognizing name changes. The New York Times, for example, took almost 10 years to stop referring to the city of Mumbai by its colonial name, Bombay.)

For me at least, the most convincing example is the use of Kyiv in ERnglish by the most widelt read and prestigious English-language publications in Kyiv itself: "Kyiv Post" and "Kyiv Weekly."

Thank you for your consideration.

(Volodia Tatlin)

I agree that the Google test is questionable but as I previously pointed out, "Kiev" is not very ambiguous at all and if it received nine times more hits than "Kyiv", there is no reason to question its inaccuracy because I guarantee you, the majority of the links will refer to the city. Reginmund 21:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Decision 9 9, in accordance with the Legal Terminology Commission s express authority, is binding only for the transliteration of Ukrainian names in English in legislative and official acts .... In certain cases, "traditional" forms may be shown in parentheses after the official form: Dnipro (Dnieper). Wikipedia include BOTH versions and this entire discussion is only matter of page URL. --TAG 09:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings All,

As a native Canadian (but now long time resident of Kyiv) I find the Kyiv discussion fascinating for all the socio-political reasons that gave rise to this issue in the first place. After all the genesis of the debate is the attempt to differentiate from the Russian/Soviet imperial past.

However what I find most perplexing are the frequent references to the BBC as some sort of quality/integrity indicator of standard usage in English. Having been around now for some six decades I've had the privilege of witnessing numerous 'place name changes' in the latter half of the twentieth century, all of which curiously, involved the BBC playing a catch-up role in each case. The reasons for this are probably best left for the poli-scientists among us who are better versed in the specifics of the British imperial penchant for marching to their own drummer irrespective of what the rest of the world thinks. Laudable but foolish; see American revolution battlefield tactics. But I digress.

However the BBC's stubbornness does make for some humorous incidents. I recall several decades ago when the Chinese government insisted on changing the English version of Peking to Beijing and the refusal by the BBC to follow suit. Nobody at the time had ever heard of Beijing and the BBC felt smug in the knowledge that this little pique by the Chinese government would soon blow away. The Chinese oriental mind didn't get phased by this imperial snub but went immediately for the British jugular and started returning all mail, telegrams and trade goods addressed to Peking. Result? The BBC and the British public immediately capitulated. Sometimes a little hard fisted diplomacy is all that it takes.

More recent name changes such as Bombay to Mumbasu and Saigon to Ho-Chi-Minh city followed a similar pattern of initial BBC stubbornness followed by meek capitulation.

My point, therefore, is to not lose sight of the Ukrainian government's objective as in the final analysis that’s all that will matter in the end. As for the BBC, its a great institution that is very good for many things that it does better than most of its peers. Unfortunately climbing down in humility is not one of them. So for all of the above reasons I would caution anyone quoting this peculiar BBC practice as an indicator of anything more that historical amusement. After all its difficult to translate the uniquely English phrase 'ossified thinking' into any other language.

Zenoviy

10:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)~~

Thank you for this anti-British fantasy. In fact the BBC moves quickly enough when a name is actually changed, in the case of St Petersberg for example, but like Wikipedia, does not aim to be in the forefront of change. Nor, as has been amply demonstrated above, are they the only such organisation sticking to Kiev. Johnbod 11:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to frequent assertions, the BBC actually still uses KIEV

like here Johnbod 22:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, Thank you for your comment.

However, when mentioning the location of their head office, they use Kyiv: http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/trust/aboutthetrust/story/2005/07/050711_regionaloffices.shtml

Throughout this debate I stated that whenever a BBC reporter reports something, they use Kyiv: such as here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/world/onyourstreet/mslen2.shtml and here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/11_november/18/ethics.shtml and here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4375192.stm

Again, this is a change which is happening NOW. It is not a question of what will happen, it IS happening. And I think that Wikipedia should reflect that.

Thanks, Horlo 22:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about this report, and this report ... and this report ... and this report ... and this report ... and this report. I could go on forever. Searching for "Kiev" on the BBC's news website yields 231 pages, whereas searching for "Kyiv" on the same site yields ... wait for it ... 4 measly pages. And it certainly isn't true that they only use "Kyiv" when talking about their office in Kiev, as this page, this page and this page will show you. I know Horlo that you're not particularly interested in facts; but rather, the "facts" that you find are merely slaves to your emotional desire to change Kiev's spelling in English to accord with Ukrainian nationalist reconstruction. You and I both know that's the way it is. I doubt anyone here takes seriously your pretense to be neutral either ... I liked it particularly when you said that it "appears that some editors are starting to let emotion into the discussion", which of course was in the discussion from the beginning when you, your sockpuppets and their friends began bombarding this encyclopedia page with their nationalistic campaign. I mean, Horlo, I respect your passion and the fact that you are prepared to devote time to change the world, but let's not go insulting people's intelligence. If nothing else, that will do you and your cause no good. Although not outnumbered by "Russian imperialists", Ukrainian nationalists are still small-fry on wikipedia; Use Englishers generally rule the waves here; just wait it out for a few years and you may well have them on your side. In the mean time, you lost that vote very heavily ... so heavily that it's pretty clear that your efforts on this occasion are going to be a complete waste of time. I suggest you devote yourself now to something where you can actually make a useful contribution. I mean, I trust you are not here merely to press one issue? Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS, on my MS Word, Microsoft Office Word 2007, purchased in Seattle, WA, in April 2007, Kiev is not regarded as a mistake, though Kyiv is not underscored there as it is in Mozilla Firefox. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deacon of Pndapetzim,

Thank you for your comments. I have stated throughout the discussion that when BBC uses an outside source, it uses Kiev, but when it sends its own reporters, they use Kyiv.

Kiev is not a mistake, it is an old form which is disappearing. That's exactly my point - people are not using it anymore, just like "thou" and "hast" - neither of those is red underscored, but they are not used, either.

As for the rest of the comment, please check your opinions at the login page. We are here for productive discussion, not name-calling. Thanks, Horlo 16:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but it simply is NOT an old form which is disappearing. Everyone I know in academia uses it and every map I have ever seen has it. The comparison with thou and hast is ludicrous. we are speaking about accepted spellings and pronunciations of place-names in the ENGLISH-speaking world over two thousand years. You may not like it, but KIEV has never varied. David Lauder 18:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for your comments. You bring up an important point in academia. Many universities and university presses have maintained the Kiev spelling, and I think this is for two reasons: First, most universities have faculties which are named something along the lines of "Russian and East European Studies". It is often staffed by people who are more interested in Russia than the rest of the area. Please don't misunderstand me - this is not a slight on what they like. They can like what they want. However, that does lead to a bias in favour of Russian terminology.

Second, it is very difficult to get teachers to change. Again, this does not only apply to universities, but all other levels of teaching, also. However, this is especially common at the university level as (in my opinion) most professors are more interested in research than teaching. They set one curriculum, work out the kinks for a few years, and then focus on research and writing. Again, this is not a slight - the economic realities of academic life dictate that in order to be comfortable, professors must publish. This is quite a vicious cycle when combined with the first point, as they usually give place names no second thought.

Also, many universities are changing. The University of Toronto uses Kyiv, as do most universities in Canada, and I recently ran across an article (I don't have the link now, but I will look it up and post it here) from Columbia University in which the professor has changed to Kyiv, even though the name of the course in the University Syllabus is Kiev.

I want to mention here again that I think it is important to be careful about making changes. In 1991, the future of Ukraine was quite uncertain, and there was no need to rush headlong into major changes. However, Ukraine has now established itself as the most stable democracy in the former Soviet Union - survived the "Orange Revolution" with no violence or bloodshed, has established power-sharing in which former political rivals now work within the same administration (Yushchenko and Yanukovych), and even a recent highly tense political situation, again without violence, mass arrests, or bloodshed. The democracy has survived, and therefore governments have changed to Kyiv, most major media outlets (outside the US) have changed to Kyiv, major businesses have changed to Kyiv, so I think it is time for Wikipedia to change to Kyiv.

Even though Kyiv is over 1500 years old, I don't think that the name was common in the English world for that long. I'm not sure about this, but I think the first records were from the sixteenth or seventeenth century, and were not actually spelled Kyiv.

Maps published by Rand Mcnally and Mapquest all use Kyiv. I have a Rand Mcnally map in my class.

Map makers can make money because names and boundaries change all the time. Peking was the standard English word, until it changed to Beijing. Bombay is Mumbai. Trois Rivieres used to be Three Rivers. At the time of transition, there may be slight confusion, but then everybody just gets used to it, and life goes on.

Thank you, Horlo 19:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, it is all too clear that you are pushing a Ukrainian nationalist agenda here which is the sort of thing WP can do without. Digging about trying to locate a school or college which actually uses, wholly or otherwise, the latest spellings doesn't really help, any more than me telling you that the London 'Daily Telegraph still calls Bombay, correctly, Bombay, and not Mumbles or whatever the current crop of stupid nationalists have changed it to. Doubtless you would strongly disapprove of the fading batch of obituaries which still refer to people being born in Lemberg. One of the glories of our language is that we have not caved in to the political correctness of every silly government which comes along and changes the names of cities and towns to suit current trends. If we did that each generation would lose all idea of human geography. As I said before, we spell the names of cities and towns as we see them. Even the populace of St.Petersburg continued to call their city 'Peter' after the Bolsheviks had changed it to to Leningrad, and it is a credit to most of our cartographers that they continued to use the original name on our maps putting one or the other name in brackets while the silliness persisted. We don't need Political Correctness on Wikipedia. You ought to abandon this campaign and do more constructive work. David Lauder 20:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


David,

Thank you for clarifying your position. Very informative.

Horlo 22:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To all:

I for one admire the great flexibility of the English language to borrow, hybridize, and perhaps most of all, adapt. And I am also reminded here that the spirit of Wikipedia is certainly less about calcified norms guarded by old elites and more about open and collective collaboration. The issue here is not, as some feverishly insist one of Ukrainian nationalist agendas any more than it is of revanchist Great Russian chauvinism or even tired, old, reactionary “Great Stateism.” The issue here is how does an intellectually-conscious collective wishing to be open and fair decide on “what is the most common name?” Unfortunately, the simplicity of the question belies a vast complexity of possibilities. Is a simple Google search likely too simple-minded? Perhaps one should narrow the potential scope in terms of relevancy: should the use of one form or the other by marginal-English speakers in tiny non-English websites carry the same weight as, say very large groups of significant English language users, like universities, NGO’s, service clubs, institutions, etc? Perhaps one should focus the review of usage more on the most common forms used by English speakers in the geographical area or city in question, such as how many more times Kyiv has been consciously chosen over Kyiv by English speakers, their websites and publications in Kyiv and what is the trend? Certainly from everything I have seen everything points to Kyiv.

Again, thank you for your consideration.

Burlaka



Thank you all for these very interesting discussions that remind me of theoretical debates on the topic of "How many angels can dance on the head of a needle". As stated above we accept as common Mumbai, Beijing as the names of these cities. Was this because suddenly the whole world woke up and decided they would use transliterations from the original language? Is it because somone "googled" and discovered this is now the right way to spell them? NO. The countries decided that they wanted the correct transliteration/ translation to be used.

Well low and behold Ukraine also has made a statement to the world. Please check out this link from the official "RADA" pages.

http://www.rada.gov.ua/translit.htm

They categorically state that the capital city in English is: KYIV.

This is not a decision for the BBC to make nor for Wikipedia or Google or any other publication. The government has decided. The deccision has been made by a government not by consensus.

159.18.221.197 14:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Andy G.[reply]


I don't see how it's relevant what the BBC calls Kyiv. They're not the arbiters of these decisions, nor are they even the arbiters of the English language (witness the differences between British and American English) If they're not calling Kyiv what Ukraine and its government have designated is the correct spelling of Kyiv, they're guilty of faulty journalism, period. It's just that simple.

We don't call Ukraine "THE Ukraine" anymore, just as we don't call Africa "the Dark Continent" and so on. We still hear these errors made but it doesn't change that they are errors and no longer acceptable. So it seems time to acknowledge that the former spelling of Kyiv, "Kiev" is incorrect in the current context and should be universally changed, although links or references to that previous traditional spelling should be noted. It just seems so very clear to me, I can't imagine that it warrants this much debate.

my two cents..... Eastenne 15:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Eastenne[reply]

  1. ^ Ukraine City Populations. URL accessed July 28, 2006
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kyiv&oldid=148518190"