Talk:Kyiv

Note: A special subpage has been created for discussing the proposed renaming of the article to "Kyiv", Talk:Kiev/naming. Please take all naming discussion there!

Talk Archives

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

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

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

This page has become less than useful for discussing the article itself, as it is flooded with discussion of the name of the article, an issue for which there is no consensus.[1] If you nevertheless feel further arguing for a name change to be useful, please take it to the new subpage Talk:Kiev/naming. It is hoped that this division will be beneficial for the naming discussion, as well as make it easier to deal with other kinds of issues here. Until further notice, I'm afraid any further discussion of naming on this page will be reverted, until the point has sunk in. I'm serious.

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

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

As per above, the Kyivization discussion that still was added to this page is moved to Talk:Kiev/naming and responded there. Please use this page to discuss other aspects of the article's content. Any takers to improve the city economy or transportation section? Thanks. --Irpen 02:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

But please note - the inevitable future surveys re proposals to rename the article must be notified here not just conducted on the subpage. Johnbod 02:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

English or Latin maps?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Culture section

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

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

Unprotecting?

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

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

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

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

Good article candidate

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

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

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

Mention in OED

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kiev in American Encyclopaedia, 1874

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

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

5. It is stable.

   

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

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

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spelling error

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Kyjevъ reference has been changed[2] (other than just having the spelling fixed), on the grounds of the relative similarity between spelling being dubious. I was wondering if Къıєвъ was being compared to Київ and Киев, or if the transliterations (Kyiev, Kyiv and Kiev) were being compared. Could Alex Kov, Reginmund, Ceriy or anybody else explain this please?

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

Image galleries

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

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

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

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

Russian name

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

— Wikipedia:NCGN

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

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

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

Possible OR in "Power production" section

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

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

Economy

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

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

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

Architectural monuments

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

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

-The St. Andrew's Church

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: {{subst:#ifeq:|y| ~~~~}} no consensus. -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Kiev → Kyiv — I have followed the procedure layed out at WP:RM. If this is incorrect, then someone should ammend that procedure, or explain how we can get an actual move request for this page to progress. We have discussed it at length at the other page, and now some are of the opinion that a move is realistic. Why not discuss it here? Ostap 01:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose like the previous times this was suggested. We use the names actually used in English, which our readers will recognize, not the "correct" ones. See WP:NCGN, especially WP:NCGN#Examples. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

  Are you saying Kyiv isn't used in English? Ostap 01:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

  No, that it is less commonly used in English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

  Just curious - how do you judge that? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

  Six methods are suggested at Wikipedia:NCGN#Widely_accepted_name; of those Google Scholar and Google Books are (together) only one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

  Thank you. In order to avoid lengthy discussion here, can I ask you to look to the discussion section? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose as Kiev is the well established English form; Kyiv is still overwhelmingly an import produced by misguided political correctness, political manipulation and Ukrainian nationalism. Wikipedia is and should not be a vehicle for such sentiment. Don't care that much about WP:UE when it comes to things like this either, but main language of Kiev is Russian, not Ukrainian, so if a new "native" name were to be used, Kiyev would be preferable to Kyiv. Besides even that, Wikipedia does not use the name Bern instead of the far less popular and archaic Berne; until absurdities like Berne get dealt with, we're a million miles from Kyiv. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you are biased against Ukrainian issues, and probably Ukrainian users. This can be seen not only in your comment, but also in your participation in Russian history projects (there isn't much Ukraine-friendly people there). Sad... Ukrained (talk) 13:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

So I'm a Russian imperialist then? That kind of paranoia is typical of idealogical radicalization distorting a person's perspective. A Scottish anti-Ukranian? How do you suppose such a person could ever come into existence? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr.Deacon, I hope you're not provoking my comments on the brightness and learning abilities of Scots:) They may be anti-Ukrainians as well as any other humans. Not to mention the fact that you've been awarded by Irpen. I can't recall any occasion when Mr.Irpen awarded an editor opposive to his pro-Moscow political views, or the other way around:) Happy edits, Ukrained (talk) 06:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not to comment of most of this nonsense, but I would give one diff which is very interesting together with the post above. --Irpen 06:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr.Deacon, I hope you're not provoking my comments on the brightness and learning abilities of Scots

If you are going to attack Scots Ukrained, I am not in the least sensitive, and it will only make you look bad.

Not to mention the fact that you've been awarded by Irpen. I can't recall any occasion when Mr.Irpen awarded an editor opposive to his pro-Moscow political views, or the other way around

Irpen didn't contradict you here, but I have no recollection of being awarded anything by Irpen.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If we are giving unsourced evidence:

• Regardless of what one thinks they say in other languages, when Ukrainians are taught English in school they are taught to write Kyiv.
• Whatever language one thinks they use normally, Kyivans use Kyiv to identify themselves in written/typeset English.
• When English-speakers outside of Ukraine watch the football, read government travel advice, look up an atlas to see where this place is or correspond with businesses/government in Ukraine, they'll most commonly see Kyiv.

Please consult Talk:Kiev/naming for sourced evidence.60.242.0.245 (talk) 13:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

when Ukrainians are taught English in school they are taught to write Kyiv

Given the Ukrainian government's proactive policies on the Ukrainian language (which some users he are keen to replicate and reinforce), that's hardly a surprise!

When English-speakers outside of Ukraine watch the football, read government travel advice, look up an atlas to see where this place is or correspond with businesses/government in Ukraine, they'll most commonly see Kyiv.

How do you know? I still see Dynamo Kiev more than Dynamo Kyiv. Some of the google obsessed non-Anglophones here who wish to prove to English speakers what word they use for the city should learn to distinguish between textual replication and propagation and actual use in the English language. Kiev is the English name. Even those PC enough to write Kyiv will (as with US government spokesmen) still almost always pronounce it the evil Russian evil imperialist way. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think that Dynamo Kyiv is more commonly used, even though Dynamo Kiev has wide usage - see the talk page. Though it's a good point - it's not as if either the Kiev or Kyiv spelling isn't used widely. One is more common however.

I still see Dynamo Kiev more than Dynamo Kyiv. The only places I ever see Dynamo Kyiv are the same places I see Crvena Zvezda and FC Bayern München. The number of times the text "Dynamo Kyiv" is replicated on the internet does not necessarily reflect usage. Moreover, everyone I've ever heard pronounces it "kee-ef". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please be careful about entering Original Research into this discussion. Just because you think it is doesn't mean it is. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Horlo, my experience as an English speaker (as opposed to all the Ukrainians here with little experience of the language) is no more "original research" that than playing around with google searches.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, your experience as an English speaker is not questioned here. Statements like "everybody I've ever heard pronounces it kee-ef" are. That's original research, and while it may be true, it has no merit in this discussion.

Also, statements like "all the Ukrainians here with little language experience" are racist. You should be aware that such comments have no place here. Also, please note all the "Ukrainians here with little language experience" like Irpen and TAG, and also Russians with little language experience, such as Kuban Kossack and Ezhiki making statements like "Kiev is by far the most used name" without providing any support to their arguments besides media outlets. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, this is fun. In what way is the statement my experience as an English speaker (as opposed to all the Ukrainians here with little experience of the language) is no more "original research" that than playing around with google searches racist? I'm afraid to tell you Horlo no-one will regard that as "racist", and you just discredit yourself by attempting to make it out as such. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Your arguments are interesting, as at Talk:Kiev/naming, we earlier had pro-Kiev editors using Google results as proof, and pro-Kyiv editors urging consideration of non-internet usage. The new Google results were raised to try and settle something raised last year. I encourage you to look through a bit more of that talk page (I understand if not the whole thing, as it's _very_ long).
• It doesn't matter what is 'PC', when corresponding with businesses and government in Ukraine Kyiv is used. When determining an article name it doesn't matter how US politicians pronounce Kyiv, or Iraq, or Australia, though when recording a spoken article it has importance.60.242.0.245 (talk) 11:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support Kyiv is now an established and recognized spelling in the English world. Only dispute is how much weight to allocate to the preferences of various groups of users. Moving the name would be in keeping with the naming policies and good encyclopedia editing. Eduvalko (talk) 03:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Discussed endless amount of time at Talk:Kiev/naming. If person requesting move was unable to read huge red text mentioning this - how could he apply others Wikipedia rules ? Please somebody move this discussion to naming sub-page - I support this move. --05:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TAG.Odessa (talk • contribs)
• Oppose - Ohhh my that discussion is a disaster... and its even been going on since '04!!!! Yet, I see no clear change in primary usage. Kiev still appears to dominate independent media sources. (Yet, those diplomatic bureaucrats have to change the "official" spelling of the name to ease foreign relations with Ukraine.) Kiev is still predominant and it probably wont change for quite a bit. 71.106.173.211 (talk) 07:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Kyiv has become a widespread name. Encarta uses Kyiv. Governments officially use Kyiv. Even Monopoly uses Kyiv. Kyiv is the name of a self-determining entity. Therefore, the title of the article should be Kyiv. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NCGN - Kiev is still the common name. If Kyiv continues to gain more use and overtakes the usage of Kiev in the future, I will have no problem supporting then. EJF (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

How would you determine commonname? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The name that most readers and English speakers would recognise - in this case it is Kiev. Kyiv is by no means commonly used by a very large segment of the population. If you were to set the words 'Kiev' and 'Kyiv' in front of a sample of English speakers - Kiev would be recognised by far more, as it has been in common use for a considerable length of time - Kyiv is only gradually gaining popularity, so no, I cannot support this proposal. EJF (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. but how do you determine what English speakers would recognize? Horlo (talk) 07:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps being a native English-speaker himself, unlike yourself, helps him here. Additionally he is not influenced by a desire to force a Ukrainian name on the English-speaking world. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, and how exactly did you determine that I am not a native English-speaker?

Please, keep typing. Everything you add to this discussion shows people just how much weight to give to your arguments. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

And, Mr.EJF, how do you determine the moment when the Kyiv would finally "gain popularity" (given that the process is already going on like you wrote)? Why don't we make it happen, righ here, right now? Ukrained (talk) 13:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Ukrained, the fact that you say to an opposer

I think you are biased against Ukrainian issues, and probably Ukrainian users

makes me wonder about your motive on this issue. I am inclined to agree with some of Deacon of Pndapetzim's sentiments on this issue, if not entirely the way he expressed them. I think WP:UE clearly states to use English where possible, and Kiev is the most common anglicisation and it is not about using "the correct spelling". How would one decide which is the correct spelling anyway? Kyiv is just another anglicisation. If we were to use the "correct name", how would be define it, given that most people in Kiev speak Russian, although most are ethnic Ukrainians? Horlo, the fact is that the BBC and major news agencies overwhelmingly use Kiev; the only time "Kyiv" is ever seen by many anglophones is in Dynamo Kyiv. Kyiv is still a little-used variant of Kiev. Ukrained, you say "Why don't we make it happen, righ here, right now?" - no, Wikipedia's role is to describe not prescribe - it should not say which spelling is "right" or "wrong", as an encyclopedia it should use the term most used by people at large. For Wikipedia to take a pro-Ukrainian "Kyiv is the correct spelling not the Russian-derived Kiev" could strike as political advocacy and would breach the core content policy of neutral point of view. EJF (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I agree that the BBC and other media use Kyiv less than Kiev, but that surely is not the only thing that people pay attention to. For example, soccer fans would definitely be acquainted with Dynamo Kyiv, and Monopoly fans would definitely be acquainted with Kyiv from this page [3]. There are many other sources that should be considered, don't you think? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I still see Dynamo Kiev more than Dynamo Kyiv. The only places I ever see Dynamo Kyiv are the same places I see Crvena Zvezda and FC Bayern München. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should check out the Wikipedia page Dynamo Kyiv. Lots of links there. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per PMAnderson/Septentrionalis. Our naming conventions are clear:
  - Naming conventions policy: "article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize[.]"
  - The ones on using English require us to follow common English usage: "[i]f you are talking about a [...] town, [...] use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works."
  - The ones for geographic names: "When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it."
    Keep in mind that, for the specific purpose of choosing this article's title, Kiev & Ukraine's governments, local languages, ethnicities, religion and the forms under which the city was and is known in languages other than English, have no significance whatsoever. All we're asked to do is to passively refect the form with which most English-speakers are already familiar, instead of actively promote the adoption of the forms we prefer.
    For a long time "Kiev" has been the form commonly used in English, and nothing I see here or in Talk:Kiev/naming tells me that this common usage has changed. Therefore, this article is already properly named. - Ev (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, the debate on the talk page has focussed on how widely accepted each name is. For example, Encarta uses Kyiv (there's a re-direct from Kiev [4]), and governments use Kyiv when identifying themselves, for example here: [5]. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand the nature of the dabate :-) But, Horlo, instead of watching at the general picture of English usage at large you're cherry-picking examples of no special significance (we don't do diplomatic lingo :-).
Use your general perception: what form are English-speakers most likely to find when reading a book, newspaper or magazine, when watching TV, when writing to or talking with others ? It's "Kiev", and by a rather wide margin. - Regards, Ev (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, actually, I have always tried to include as many facets of life as possible. I have argued that sports, politics, religion, and every other avenue should be included. To take your example one step further, imagine somebody who is interested in the name of the capital of Ukraine. What would they do? *original research alert* They would probably access a familiar source (such as a newspaper, blog, political website, etc) and then do what everybody else does - they would follow the links. Depending on how much time they had, they would find that the name was changed from the Russian transliteration of Kiev to the Ukrainian transliteration of Kyiv, (that naming issue never seems to go away) and that is now what the people who live there call themselves (I really don't believe the editors who think that Kyiv is a Russian-speaking city: they obviously haven't been there recently). Then, they would look at a reputable source - again, I'm going out on a limb here and I'll say that more people trust the government than CNN (at least they will after Barrack is in the White House), and when they look at the government site, they will see Kyiv here [6], or here [7] or here [8]. For sports, they would likely end up here [9], or even at the UEFA here [10]. So I don't think that Kyiv is ahead by a wide margin, but I do think it is ahead, and growing. In many fields. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Once more, you're weaving these highly personal theories around the few examples of usage you cherry-picked before instead of paying due attention to actual usage in the real world. - Ev (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, excuse me? "highly personal theories"? Were it not so sad, that would be funny. Please note that the Naming page dates back to 2004, and has no mention of Horlo until 2007.

Actually, I have provided a few examples of why Kyiv is more common in the real world to save you the trouble of reading through the entire "naming" page. Now, it appears that as you have made up your mind, and instead of actually providing any real world facts which would support your incorrect sweeping generalizations, you have simply decided to call people who disagree with you names. Sad, really. Good luck, thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Due to lack of persuasive evidence that Kyiv has become the most recognizable appellation for the city in the English language. This ground has obviously been covered before...on what basis do we overturn prior consensus? Erudy (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

CommentThank you. But two quick questions - first, on what do you base the fact that Kyiv is not more recognizable? Encarta uses Kyiv, [11]. Monopoly uses Kyiv, [12].

Second, thank you for joining the discussion. Actually, contrary to the title of the secondary talk page, there has never been a consensus as to the name of the page. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I had no pleasure to work with either Horlo or Erudy before. But, as a veteran user of the project, I can list a minimum of 5 established users who never supported Kiev in either RM discussions or particular edits, me excluded. Please recheck the "Consensus" definition to make sure that we've never had one regarding this naming issue:) Let's make the rules clear:

• if a WP user hasn't participated in previous Kiev/Kyiv surveys (like me) - is one thing
• if a user has clearly stated his approval of Kiev before (like TAG I guess) - it is a totally different case.

A consensus here is something we have yet to achieve. Happy edits, Ukrained (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support As shown at Talk:Kiev/naming, Wikipedia policy has Kyiv being the correct name. There is plenty of evidence to show that the Kyiv spelling is in common usage. It is also the name for a self-identifying entity. Nobody questions that Kiev is widely used, with internet-based media and culinary names being good examples of usage; that doesn't dismiss every other argument favouring Kyiv. 60.242.0.245 (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support per Eduvalko and also per Horlo. And WP itself is an important case of English usage. If we switched to Kyiv (for obvious reasons) now, it could be the world's FINAL step towards the correct spelling. Happy edits, Ukrained (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose This is English wikipedia and English names for the cities should be used, which is Kiev for this one. --Kuban Cossack 16:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support Per Horlo and the lengthy discussion on the naming page. Ostap 16:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, especially per PētersV's thorough work at Talk:Kiev/naming#Article name. Mcmullen writes (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose common name in English is Kiev, like Chicken Kiev. Can this request be summarily speedily closed/denied for the next year, so we don't have to deal with this next month? 70.55.85.35 (talk) 05:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, please remember that this is the name of the city Kyiv, not the chicken. How would you determine what the common name is? Please don't be afraid of debate. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose for the same reasons I did the other 5 times this was proposed. Not that English usage won't change, but see Talk:Kiev/naming for evidence of current English usage. — AjaxSmack 08:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Kiev and Kyiv are both commonly used English names. In addition, Kyiv is consistent with Ukrainian pronunciation, adopted by Ukrainians, and internationally accepted by the U.N. and the U.S. --Greggerr (talk) 11:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Also Australia - DFAT only uses Kyiv in its travel advice or country profile for Ukraine - not even one Kiev in brackets somewhere. Also note the usage of Kyiv by Canada and the UK. 60.242.0.245 (talk) 12:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Wikipedia should not create its own standards. Kiev is a far more common name in the English-speaking world. Why don't we move Rome to Roma and Vienna to Wien? Voyevoda (talk) 13:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, on what do you base the statement that kiev is a "far more common" name in the English-speaking world? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose It pains me greatly to vote on the side (it's contradictory to my personal preference) that we're not quite there yet. I completely agree that we have leading indicators and policy statements (though followed in contradictory manners--a touchstone in itself) which say "Kyiv" is on its way in and "Kiev" is on its way out. But we're still not at most widespread use. My suggestion would be to table this and revisit again in 6 months. —PētersV (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. More common English form should be used as a title.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, on what do you base the statement that Kiev is more common? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

On personal observations. I do follow news related to Ukraine, and it is extremely rare that I see the "Kyiv" spelling in print here in the United States. Before you accuse me of basing my vote on original research, let me reverse the question: on what do you base the statement that "Kyiv" is more common? From what I gather based on your detailed response to Ev, your arguments are nothing more that theorizing.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, perhaps my arguments were unclear. Before restating them, however, please let me say that everybody, including myself, uses original research. That's the foundation of a justifiable opinion. When original research is used in good faith, common ground can be found and compromise can be reached.

My arguments are based on an examination of various aspects of life, for example encyclopedia (Encarta), entertainment (Monopoly), sports (Dynamo Kyiv), and politics (government usage). These are not arbitrary decisions on my part, but what I found on the WP:Naming Conflict Resolution page. Throughout the discussion here, I have suggested looking at as many aspects of language as possible and not basing a decision exclusively on one source, such as google, or news. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications, but my main problem with your arguments is that they do not assign due weights to the aspects you listed. Risking on bringing the argument to the level of original research again, I should say that despite the alternative spelling often being used in some fields (sports, Monopoly, and Encarta are all good examples), those fields still do not constitute the majority of the usage. In other words (based, once more, strictly on observations), the number of occurences of usage of "Kiev" in a limited number of areas (for example, in the news or in day-to-day talk) is significantly higher than the number of occurences of usage of "Kyiv" in a multitude of other, less prominent, fields. This observation is the principal basis for my vote, in which I opposed to renaming the article at this time.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, but how would you judge the majority of usage? You mentioned day-to-day talk. How would you measure that? I suggest that media are important, but they are only one aspect of life. The question has always been that. The problem is determining what people use and use now (that was the whole problem with Google searches - they report books published in the '30s). I think that including more fields of life provides a better picture of what is used in day-to-day conversation. Just something to think about - what connection do most people have with the city? I think that people don't really care what the name is. When they are curious, they will simply go to a source they know. Soccer fans, for example, would go to the Dynamo Kyiv website, people who want to travel there would likely go to either their government site or the city site or another Ukrainian organization site; politicians would also probably go to the UN atlas, and music fans would see the Eurovision site here [13]. All of those aspects use Kyiv.

Therefore, I think that Kyiv has become more widespread. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

So widespread that the site you're using to promote Kyiv uses 'Kiev in its url! Think you got a bad cherry there ... no matter, the cherry orchard is big enough! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per PētersV, Kyiv is growing in usage but is not there yet. GameKeeper (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. At this time and judging by wikipedia guidelines, it is difficult to conclude that the move would be justified from Kiev --> Kyiv, if only because as pointed out by PetersV, it would be immediately challenged, and moved back. However, the usage of "Kyiv" today is much wider than in 1991 (for example: From 1991-2008, books with title "kyiv" - 124, From 1991-2008, books with title "kiev" - 470. The ratio in modern period is about 1 to 4.5; between 1850-1990, the ratio is about 1:12), and it is reasonable to expect that this pattern will continue and this "moving" issue will return. This trend is not bad for a name that was hardly known (in English) only 15 years ago. In the mean time, I request that efforts are spent on creating new Ukraine-related entries of potential interest to English readers (see portal:ukraine) and on repulsing vandals.--Riurik^(discuss) 22:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Some of the Kiev books are historical (Latin Books and the Eastern Orthodox Clerical Elite in Kiev, 1632-1780 and Dynamo: Triumph and Tragedy in Nazi-Occupied Kiev, some are fictional historic (A Perfect Mitzvah Gift Book: Time Travel with the Kagan's Kids to 10th Century Kiev), some are written by Kiev (Actions, Not Words: The Sermons of Rabbi I. Edward Kiev). The modern spelling appears to be Kyiv. 199.125.109.35 (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support Kyiv is the Latin spelling preferred by the city itself, and the spelling used by the major English-speaking nations in official diplomatic documents. Historically, popular media has been slow to recognize new geographical spellings. Peking/Beijing is a perfect analogy. It is time to move to Kyiv. Qe2 (talk) 07:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually since Ukrainian does not use a Latin script please explain used by the city itself. Moreover just because the "latin" version of the name that "the city uses itself" is say München, we still title the article as Munich. --Kuban Cossack 12:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for allowing me to clarify. The City of Kyiv uses the Latin spelling "Kyiv" when producing material, such as promotional literature and sister-city agreements, in English. Your example is actually a very good one as the city of Munich uses the spelling "Munich" for its Enlgish-language materials [14]. If one wished to weigh how a city wished to identify *itself* in English, Munich and Kyiv would both be correct. Qe2 (talk) 14:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Mild Support User:Riurik said it all. I wish Kyiv was used more often, but it's not enough yet to justify a change. On the other hand Wikipedia could help in doing that... Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

WP is not a institute for spelling reform.... Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral to both. I agree with TAG that this is nothing more than a page name. If we would have spent ¡so×10²³ much time working on the article as "discussing" the page's name, it would not be in the horrible state that it is right now... Nothing more to say here. —dima/talk/ 21:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose This is the English Wikipedia not the Ukrainian Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Septentrionalis, eV and GoodDay. Someday it may be changed, but not yet. --Aphaia (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose on two grounds. First, this is the English-language Wikipedia. In English, the name of this city has been "Kiev" in English for centuries, and by and large it remains Kiev. Second, the article on the city states that 52 percent of the population of Kiev speaks Russian at home. Presumably, that means those people call their own city Kiev, not Kyiv. I can't support a change when it's even questionable that the majority of people in the city use the "new" name in everyday speech. Jsc1973 (talk) 06:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Hello, the name was Kiev for centuries, but now it is not - even Monopoly uses Kyiv. Please keep in mind that for centuries the English name was Peking and Bombay, but those are not the names now, and Wikipedia has correctly reflected that change. Also, because this is the English Wikipedia, what people use in English should be important. Just something to think about. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 06:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:common name. Sebisthlm (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Another oppose to add, per several previous commentators here. Callmederek (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - We are English Wikipedia, thank you. See WP:V. Bearian (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Google search shows 39 million vs. 6 million for Kiev. Much more common name. Bssc81 (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Kiev is by far the most common name, and has been used in English for at least the last two centuries. john k (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support I continue to use Kyiv in all my articles and books despite often having the term changed to Kiev here on Wikipedia. I am not vehemently opposed to Kiev, however I do suport the continued use of Kyiv. Bandurist 21:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

What "other page"? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Kiev/naming. Ostap 01:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Raw google results are unreliable for several reasons; see WP:Search engines and WP:NCGN#False positives. In this case, it is all too likely that results are affected by direct transliterations from the Ukranian. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This is, what, fifth WP:RM request by Holro of this page within several months? And when it gets rejected just like the last five, do we have to deal with Horlo's next sixth request at once. Time to put an end to this crusade. --Irpen 02:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

it was me, not Horlo. Ostap 02:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

My apologies to Horlo. The rest stands, though. --Irpen 03:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware it has been requested five times before. If you look at the naming page, Horlo first proposed there to begin this here. It seems there has been new developments. The contributors at that page all said to try it. How exactly do we put an end to it? Move it? Ostap 03:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• And who ever made this edit a few days ago forgot to sign. Ostap 04:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It was obviously an anon troll who did not sign for a reason. Does not change anything though. --Irpen 04:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Irpen, please read the talk/discussion pages before trying to discredit an attempt made in good faith by an editor to bring this article in line with current usage. I initiated a discussion on the talk page, and all of the contributing editors suggested that the page be moved.

Please feel free to apologize to user:Ostap, also. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Horlo, please quit trying to harass Irpen. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Deacon, please familiarize yourself with harassment guidelines, and then refer to your personal attacks against me here [15], twice, and here [16] before trying to accuse others. Please don't try to obfuscate the discussion even more than your comments above already have. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr.Deacon, for your information, Irpen is known for systematically harassing several users for months. Given that he's never been blocked for that, shouldn't we all just follow his manner? Happy edits, Ukrained (talk) 13:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You know Horlo, nonsense like that won't distract anyone. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, Deacon, please stick to the topic at hand and avoid personal attacks - otherwise I will have to report your comments to an admin. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Er ... go for it. Good luck finding any "personal attacks" too. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

First, it's the nature of the world that as of now there are two competing spellings with Kyiv gaining popularity over Kiev. Second, the idea of Wikipedia is not to reflect the world as of yesterday, or as of 10 years ago. While the world is changing so is Wikipedia.

Now, let me answer Irpen's question on how do we have to deal with yet another Kyiv/Kiev request. There is nothing wrong to bring the issue, and there is no harm out of discussion.

Contrary to the above, Irpen's position seems to be the following. He says that the issue was discussed many times, he studied it himself, he found what is "right" and what is "wrong", and now what he believes to be "right" needs to be fixed once and for all. His logic begins with the statement "I’m right", therefore "everyone who disagree with me is either a troll, or a disruptor, or a confused one, or just someone who is wrong". The user shows unacceptable intolerance to alternative opinions and his desire to fix a particular spelling "once and for all" needs to be clearly rejected, especially give that this move request resulted from an extensive discussion with new evidence provided. --Greggerr (talk) 11:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

My dear friend, please stop putting things in my mouth. I said nothing like you alleged. Your obsession about my editing repeatedly pronounced in each of your Wikipedia reincarnations is ridiculous. Ukrained at least does not change his username every few months. --Irpen 18:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thats not very good-faith-assuming. Ostap 04:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ostap, there is no need to assume anything here. With editors you know for a long time, nothing is left to assumptions. --Irpen 04:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

So what exactly is Ukrained putting into your mouth? Horlo (talk) 09:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If everybody who has participated in Kiev <-> Kyiv discussion spent his time to contribute to articles instead - then we had many existing articles improved or those articles created Kiev Hydroelectric Power Station, Akademmistechko, Feofania, Koncha-Zaspa, Ivan Franko National Academic Drama Theater, Kiev Puppet Theater, Kiev Circus, Feofaniya Convent. There are are lot of things can be done instead of conflicting on page name. It's just page name - not content! --TAG (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, won't somebody think of the children? What you don't realize is how many editors are turned off by such comments. If it's "just a page name", then why don't you just vote to move it and end this debate, (which has been going on since the beginning of this article) and then everybody can just get along? Then we can have in-line citations and all of the other things that the GA review suggested! And we would even be able to make it an FA! Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Because move will sparkle new discussions on moving it back. You are failing into False dilemma - listing only two options - Kiev or Kyiv. Compromise was already reached by inclusion of both names in article lead. Compare this at Names of European cities in different languages: I-L#K --TAG (talk) 11:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

TAG, Please don't base an opinion on fear of what the truth may spark. Discussion is a good thing. A similar situation occurred on the Dynamo Kyiv page, and the name remained Dynamo Kyiv, and the world did not stop spinning, and after a discussion everybody stayed friends.

I don't understand your statement about the false dilemma. I am not saying that the name Kiev should be removed from the article, I think that it should be in the lead. However, the name of the city is Kyiv, and that should be the name of the article. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

False dilemma = "Should this page be named Kiev or Kyiv. Please decide." Nobody mention that it can be any random number like Page_1232 - it's just page name and moving should be stopped. So let's stop it right now. ----TAG (talk) 09:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm sorry, but I don't understand your argument. The old name for the city was Kiev. The current name of the city is Kyiv. The question is which should be used. That is not a false dilemma, it is a choice. The issue here is not one which has many possible outcomes, and people are not suffering from functional fixedness. The name has changed to Kyiv, not Page 1232, and therefore the name of the article should also be changed. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

On "cherry-picking" and qualified name usage

One of the gentlemen here accuses Mr.Horlo of "cherry-picking" the facts on Kyiv usage, arguing that overall usage statistic shows the Kiev dominance. Well, those may be just two extreme approaches to studying the same subject. Should we consider lay name usage by ordinary Westerner (a U.S. school teacher/student, a provincial Australian journalist and so on) as equally qualified compared to Ukrainians themselves, or to Western organizations and people that work with Ukraine every day? If this is "cherry-picking", it makes some sense. As a general rule, WP does discriminate the sources by their quality. Ukrained (talk) 06:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we should consider name usage by [an] ordinary Westerner equally with that of the Ukrainians themselves. We are intended for general readers, not for specialists. Furthermore, this English Wikipedia is intended for general readers of English, and should be intelligible to them; there is a Ukrainian wikipedia for Ukrainians. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree; general common usage must be considered along with the name chosen by self-identifying entity, as per Wikipedia policy. We have to try and look at the global English usage as well.

The evidence I've seen shows that both Kiev and Kyiv are largely used. Personally, I barely see the Kiev spelling; I see it when in some restaurants, reading older history books or using this talk page. No doubt, there will be editors here who barely see Kyiv, and find the usage of Kiev overwhelming within their circle or locality. Earlier I compared this to the Aluminium naming debate (Aluminium vs Alumina) - two widely used terms, with each one seeming rare and strange to certain people. However, like with this debate, one name must be more appropriate than the other; we should now be discussing which is more appropriate to be the primary name, and not for whatever reason try to dismiss either of the spellings as 'incorrect'.

It is very well to accuse people of cherry-picking, and not looking at the global picture. However, unless married to concrete counter-arguments or -examples, repeated accusations of cherry-picking do not hold much weight.60.242.0.245 (talk) 13:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't get this conflict. kiev.ua domain name was not created by mistake - but because it was city name. New zone kyiv.ua is only in planning stage now. --TAG (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

*********

Gentlemen, I'm terribly sorry for my inaccuracies regarding some of you in personal. This must be a result of my long absence. I also apologize for my humor, obviously missed by Mr. Deacon.

Having that said, I'm sticking to my point in our discussion. Wishes, Ukrained (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The real test for when this should be moved is when English-speakers cease to to protest, when Kyiv is less surprising to us than Kiev, It is clear that day has not yet come. It may, as with Beijing; on the other hand it may never come. The Czechs will have to put up with mad dogs and anglophones misspelling their capital for the foreseeable future.

In the meantime, there is a double standard at work here. The Ukrainians use uk:Англія, although that is certainly not the official spelling of England. I think they should; just as I think we should use Kiev. I could respect someone who disagrees on both; but supporting both uk:Англія and Kiyv is linguistic imperialism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No double standard. The two cases are different in what's involved from historical background to current positions on the issue. If England wants to be called, Inhland please send a letter to Ms. Tymoshenko.--Riurik^(discuss) 21:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, there will always be people who protest everything. On the naming talk page, there is an enlightening statement by an English-speaker about the changes of Peking-Beijing, Bombay-Mumbai, including my personal favourite "the London 'Daily Telegraph still calls Bombay, correctly, Bombay, and not Mumbles or whatever the current crop of stupid nationalists have changed it to." This is followed up by "One of the glories of our language" and "you are pushing a Ukrainian nationalist agenda".

Also, please explain on what grounds you say that "that day has not yet come"

Yes, I agree, that those nasty Ukrainian linguistic imperialists should be reigned in. However, I have never heard [The Ukrainians] use "Англія" in their music.

By the way, how do English people want "England" to be spelled in Ukrainian? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Horlo , English people don't care how "England" is spelled in Ukrainian, we wish Ukrainians did not care how Kiev was spelled in English. GameKeeper (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, but that is the whole issue with the "linguistic imperialism" argument. If England asks that the name of their country be spelled differently, then I'm sure people in Ukraine would change it. The government of Ukraine has asked that the name of the capital be spelled Kyiv to reflect the current name of the city.

The transliteration "Kiev" carries with it very much real imperialistic (not only linguistic) baggage, and that is why many groups and other entities have changed to Kyiv. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly sorry for being a bit flippant with my previous reply. For 99% of English speakers we see no imperialistic baggage and continue to use the spelling & pronunciation Kiev, very few of us consider it a slight on Ukrainians to do this. It does seem very bizarre that a county which does not even share our alphabet is trying to tell us how to pronounce/spell a name of a city in our language! We don't even pronounce Paris in the same way as the locals and that is one of the closest capitals to the UK. I am sure you can appreciate how as a nation or even group we don't appreciate being told how to speak by a foreign power. GameKeeper (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Gamekeeper, no worries about your comment, I totally understand your position. Here is what I see: first, this issue has somehow been morphed into a foreign power TELLING English speakers how to pronounce the name of a foreign city. That's never happened - the government of Ukraine ASKED that respect the Ukrainian language and use the transliteration Kyiv. Nobody wants to force anybody to say anything.

Second, I think that the spelling Kyiv has become more common. Dynamo Kyiv, Monopoly, and Encarta are but three examples of that. Many media sources also use Kyiv.

Third, I assume that people usually don't want to slight anybody, and given the choice to say something that offends somebody and something that doesn't, they would usually choose the one that doesn't. I think that's why governments and the UN have switched to Kyiv. I think that's why people started using Beijing, also. That's probably also the wisdom behind the Wikipedia caveat on naming articles about dealing with "types of entities". Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Your assumption that Wikipedia must reflect only current state of world is false. Wikipedians did their best already by including long section with all details on history of name at Kiev#City name evolution. The whole issue of this naming conflict that Wikipedia software use some human-readable name instead of numbers and it allow only one name be primary one. But all others names can be also used as redirects. Most of editors fall into logical trap that page name (and title) mean more to people then content of it. Everybody who actually read article - can see that both names (and others alternatives) are used and their usage history. --TAG (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, could you please explain your statement that Wikipedi must reflect only the current state of world is false? That seems to be against everything Wikipedia stands for. Is it not Wikipedia's place to describe what is happening now?

Nobody is arguing that the history of the name be ignored - just like nobody is arguing that demolition of ancient historical monuments by Kaganovich should be removed. Again, if the page name is not important, you should have no problems in changing the name to Kyiv. Everybody who reads the article will see the evolution of the name, but by using the name "Kiev", (not only in this article but throughout) Wikipedia is tacitly sanctioning its use as the real name of the city. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

A narrow comment to Horlo's strange assertion about the common English name being "slighting" and "offending" to the Ukrainians. "Ukrainians offended" is an outright nonsense. The narrow nationalist slice of the tolerant Ukrainian nation should not usurp the right to speak for the entire people. Ukrainians are not offended at all, except of a small part who make up this non-existing "offense" just to push the change they like to see. --Irpen 21:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

A narrow answer to Irpen's narrow comment - your comments are an outright nonsense. You see, saying such things is just not nice. If you don't agree, great. Variety is the spice of life. But saying that an opposing point of view is "an" outright nonsense is just, well, outright nonsense. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Horlo, perhaps I was not clear and I apologize. I did not mean to imply that your case is nonsense. We are actually in agreement that the variety is indeed the spice of life. By nonsense I meant your denying this variety to the Ukrainians themselves and making a baseless claim about your knowing and, in fact representing, the spelling that is preferred by 'the Ukrainians". The term "nonsense" in my comment was narrowly directed at this aspect. The "conscious nationalists", "Great Russian patriots", the tolerant and non-committed majority of the country, the national minorities like Crimean Tatars, Ukrainian Jews, Greeks, Romanians, Lippovans and whoever else lives in Ukraine (I hope you consider them all "Ukrainians" for the matter of this debate) do not have a single POV on any issue and thanks god for that. No one should usurp the right of the Ukrainians to speak for themselves, neither you nor me. This very page demonstrates the diversity among the Ukrainians in the view on this matter. --Irpen 21:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, dear Irpen, thank you for the apology. However, there is a limited number of ways to understand statements like "utter nonsense". I would also like to draw your attention to some more of your provocative statements, such as "making a baseless claim"; "conscious nationalists" (as opposed to those nationalists who happen to be sleeping at the moment); "usurp the right of the Ukrainians to speak for themselves" (again, [The Ukrainians] have never had a problem expressing themselves, nor have Ukrainians). By the way, you forgot to mention that there is a sizable ethnic Russian minority in Ukraine. Please look through the discussion, and on all of the talk pages I have been the one who is in favour of including as many opinions, editors, and sources as possible.

Now, I understand that your English may not express exactly what you mean, and that may be the reason you feel it necessary to make so many reverts to my edits all over Wikipedia.

However, getting back to this article, I find it very amusing that somehow my arguments have become "nationalist". (User:Dumrovii's comments below are a great example - an accusatory statement, with no substantiation). All of the sources that I provided are legitimate, verifiable, and even based on those suggested on the Wikipedia naming conflict page [17]. I have never made claims like "it is most prevalent" without explaining myself, or relying on one source such as media. I have simply put forth arguments in good faith, hoping to inspire discussion and a better Wikipedia. After all, that's why we're here, aren't we? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Reading this discussion, I can't help but notice that Horlo's arguments are fueled by Ukrainian nationalism. Dumrovii (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, is there anything specific that you could point to? Thanks Horlo (talk) 07:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You must be English? That would be a classic example of the British Understatement if ever I saw one! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Deacon of Pndapetzim, can you explain that one ("[y]ou must be English") to me please? Is this a common joke, or a comment on Horlo or the naming dispute? I don't get it...

I thought part of the purpose of Talk:Kiev/naming was so that editors could get over generalisations there, put together a case and throw the evidence offered by each side open to scrutiny. PētersV and GameKeeper both opposed the move, but were contributing to the discussion on the naming subpage. If someone believes that today, the usage of the Kiev spelling is dominant in written or typeset English, then they cannot assume that everyone else should just 'know' if they are being reasonable; on the naming subpages, editors from both schools of thought had acknowledged that the spelling they view to be less common globally can be more common within certain locales.

We should be discussing evidence, and I think the burden of proof is now on the opposers' side. Even if the evidence should be blindingly obvious, or if was stated back in 2003 and you are sure that it's still current, then please raise it anyway.60.242.0.245 (talk) 11:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think that is quite clear to see that this move is motivated by Ukrainian nationalism. I note that the vast majority of the supporters of this move are Ukrainian or of Ukrainian extraction, and while I respect and appreciate their opinions given, it is easier to judge the common name in Anglophone countries of a certain city when you live in an Anglophone country. Cherry-picking of usage by governments (which are not representative of normal usage - diplomacy is the key here: Western governments do not want to be involved with disputes in regards to petty Ukrainian nationalism), and Encarta (which is only one encyclopedia - and its reputation doesn't even get anywhere that of Encyclopædia Britannica, which has always used Kiev) is a sign of desperation. Also "Monopoly" - come on, it is laughable to suggest that a board game is related in any way to normal language use. I don't know about anyone else here, but I certainly do not use board games as a guide to proper English. With regards to Google, I note that if you do a Google News search 'Kyiv' is mostly only used by English-language sources within Ukraine itself. Sorry, but Wikipedia has no real interest in what is used in Ukraine itself - I have never came across the usage 'Kyiv' in all my years reading the press or in general interaction with people living in the UK/Ireland. Anyway, if we were to use the 'proper name' it would be Kiyev as the majority of Kiev residents speak Russian as their first language, hard as you may find it to stomach. (see sources 6 and 7 in the main article). Once the usage of the Joe Bloggs changes to Kyiv along with the media such as BBC, CNN, ITN, New York Times, Washington Post, Times of India etc., I will support and wholeheartedly. Regards, EJF (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, nobody cares about what you think this move is motivated by, nor about your perception of other user's ethnic backgrounds. Please keep your comments on how to improve the encyclopedia, not on other users. Regards, Ostap 19:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry if I have offended you, I was not saying that a Ukrainian user's opinion should be less respected or ignored, I was saying that if one lives in an anglophone country, they would be more acquainted with normal English-speaking use of the city's name. Again, apologies if you believe that I was commenting on users but I was actually referring to geographic location and I also did not call any user a 'Ukrainian nationalist'. And they were not 'perceptions' - I simply looked at userpages or previous revisions of user pages to see this. Also, it is important what a page move is motivated by, as we can not allow POV page moves per WP:NPOV. I regret any confusion caused - I hope you do not believe that I am saying that a native of one country has a lesser opinion than one of an other country. Regards, EJF (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

EJF, it seems to me that a significant proportion of people who have commented on this talk, or who have edited this article, have a background which is all or partly Ukrainian or Russian, or of another Eastern European ethnicity - even if they live in countries where English is the official language. That is possibly one reason why they took interest in this article in the first place. Of course, an editor should be twice as careful to keep an open mind this is the case, but this does not necessarily mean they have to excuse themselves. There has been at least one supporter of each spelling who I personally think is biased by their ethnicity, but I'm hopeful that the majority of us can sort this out rationally.

Everyone should be supporting what they think is the appropriate name by Wikipedia policy, so that is why nothing like 'Kyjiv' or 'Kijev' is here. However, people have different ideas of what should be correct by Wikipedia policy. I don't doubt that EJF has rarely or never seen 'Kyiv'. I've already said that in Australia, except when dealing with restaurants or older history books, I rarely see 'Kiev'. What we have to do is compare everyone's experiences, supported by sourced evidence if possible, and try to get a global picture of English usage. This is what I thought had been done already on Talk:Kiev/naming before the move was requested.60.242.0.245 (talk) 04:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, EJF, I think you are correct and there is a POV being pushed here: I have noted that the vast majority of the users who so vehemently oppose the move seem to live in the UK, or are native Russian speakers.

By the way, where do I live?

However, that aside, let's take a look at your arguments. Please see the discussion on the talk page as to why the Google test is not really a useful test. As to what you have or have not ever come across, while that is important in a survey, it is definitely not an objective measuring stick. Also, Encarta doesn't have a reputation like Britannica - it has a reputation of showing what is current in the information age. With respect to Monopoly, come on - how many people do you know who have never played Monopoly? How can it get more common than that? Now, I'm not saying that board games set usage, I'm saying that they reflect usage. With respect to "proper" name, it is what people call themselves. And that is Kyiv.

Finally, I find it very interesting that people who accuse me of "cherry picking" just outright ignore most of the arguments that I put forth (for example sports - Dynamo Kyiv, entertainment - Eurovision uses Kyiv, travel - the IATA uses Kyiv), and simply focus on the one field, such as news media.

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Personally at the moment I have no time or want to debate about 'POV pushing' - but no, I wouldn't say that there is pro-Russian/British POV-pushing (there are people opposing the move from Kiev to Kyiv who are Ukrainians) indeed, at WP:POVPUSH it is defined as the "aggressive promotion of a particular point of view, particularly when used to denote the promotion of minor or fringe views". So, while I very readily accept that in an English-speaking context in western/central Ukraine Kyiv is more common, and that Kiev would be a minor or fringe usage, in the Anglophone world at large Kiev is still holding out. Until the majority of mass media switch to Kyiv (which may happen quite soon), the use of Kyiv will not filter down to the average English speaker who reads this encyclopedia. Sincerely, EJF (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Horlo, you're free to continue the debate as long as you wish, but you should consider backing off for sometime. Regurgitating the same old arguments, like Encarta, Eurovision or Monopoly, is not making the case for the move stronger. What's amazing is that you have editors who are engaging in a dialogue with you on this issue in a constructive and reasonable manner. Like I said, give this some time off, busy yourself with other things, and return to this issue whenever you feel the case for the move has grown stronger.--Riurik^(discuss) 17:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Riurik, thank you for permitting me to continue this debate. The reason I did not repeat all of the arguments for the move is that they were discussed a lot on the naming page. I think that editors of good faith who are really interested would be able to read them there. I am not really amazed that there are editors who are willing to have a constructive discussion here - that's the entire principle of Wikipedia. Now, if you feel yourself growing tired of this debate, please feel free to busy yourself with other things, also. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Riurik, there was a time when I spoke to Horlo along the same lines, that is asking him to busy himself with other things. Now that I saw those "other things" he chose to get himself busy with, that is the "Holodomor denial" article he created, especially in his version of it, I think I am more comfortable with him spending his energy at talk:Kiev/naming. There it is at least less prominent and less harmful to both the Wikipedia and to the Ukrainian editors who, by such "articles" are collectively put in bad light.

As for this debate, I just want to repeat one thing that I have said earlier. Among several Horlo's arguments, there is one that may seem less obvious to impartial readers than the rest. When he talks about Monopoly and FC DK, any reader, no matter how little one is familiar with the Ukrainian issues, can judge his arguments on their face value. But when Horlo speaks that his preferred spelling is preferred by the "People of Ukraine" or by "residents of the city" etc, it is important to let any uninvolved reader know that such claims have no basis. There is absolutely no evidence to claim that the people of Ukraine want the English speakers to change their language. More, there is no evidence whatsoever that the Ukrainians themselves prefer the Ukrainionized spelling in the English language. We certainly know how to write the correct name in both Russian and Ukrainian but continued repetition that we have a preferred view of what it should be in the language alien to most of the country is a mere red herring for one and totally baseless for two.

Our being one of the least nationalist nations is even exemplified by our Wikipedia editors' community, which, unlike some other communities, never votes in-synch in AfD's or RM discussions, as exemplified even in this very vote. Neither me nor Horlo have the right to say what the "Ukrainians" prefer. Whenever one side of a political debate attempts to claim they represent their nation, anyone should be wary of whoever tries to make such claim. --Irpen 21:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Can't we stop commenting on Horlo? This isn't a Criticism of Horlo article. Lets not bring up Horlo's other wikipedia editing activities, lets talk about this move. And Horlo may not represent the nation, but the government the people elected does. Ostap 22:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Irpen, there are Ukrainian students who are taught English at school, Ukrainian businessmen who correspond in English, and Ukrainian students studying in English-speaking countries - at Talk:Kiev/naming, all we have seen is evidence pointing to them using Kyiv. Of course, if the Ukrainian government is organising the teaching of English, and mail addresses must be spelt officially, then 'Kyiv' will be used. Further, English is the language for peer-review scientific journals - you could try a PubMed search for recently-published articles, and check Kyiv against Kiev (I'll try when I get a chance). Of course, I have no idea as to what the rest of the Ukrainian population would prefer.

Could we perhaps separate 'self-identifying entity' arguments from 'common usage' arguments, to make this debate easier to follow?60.242.0.245 (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Irpen, you have never spoken to me, you have simply stalked me around Wikipedia and reverted any changes I made with which you disagreed. Then, when I started an article that needed to be written, you made such a supportive comment entitled "Shame" which included such non-provocative statements as "campaigning on the bones of famine victims". I have to warn you - there are things in the world that you do not agree with. Even people with whom you may not agree. It happens. So please, get off the soap box, stop criticizing my articles, and stick with the topic at hand. That is the name of this article.

Also, Irpen, don't make statements like "Neither me nor Horlo have the right to say what the "Ukrainians" prefer" (especially because such statements are grammatically incorrect, and put Ukrainian editors into a bad light) and then follow them up with "We certainly know how to write the correct name in both Russian and Ukrainian": you don't know what Ukrainians certainly know, you only know what you know.

One more time, I would like to make this very clear, to avoid confusion. This "when Horlo speaks that his preferred spelling is preferred by the "People of Ukraine" or by "residents of the city" etc," never happened. The freely democratically elected government of Ukraine, in 1995, issued guidelines about the spelling of the name of the capital city. All governments of English-speaking countries, all major international organizations, some media organizations, and some encyclopedia have changed the spelling. That is why I think the name should change. These are the majority of the criteria outlined here [18]. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Horlo, you've contradicted yourself, telling Irpen he only knows what he knows and then proceeding to repeat your attempt to generalize on behalf of the people of Ukraine. Stop making spurious accusations against Irpen. I know moderates are the bane of every non-moderate, but on wikipedia we gotta learn to live and co-operate with each other. And it is in the interests of wikipedia and the principles of WP:NPOV to supervise the contributions of users with known agendas, though as Irpen is a Ukrainian user too you could encounter much more often before it would become be reasonable to throw out nonsense accusations of "stalking"! Irpen's English is fine btw. When one learns to speak English naturally and fluently, one will often use idiomatic English which might throw off less familiar speakers. So we can all forgive you for this mistake! All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Great - we have a FLAMEWAR in progress. How about all of us being rational and discussing the move request instead? 60.242.0.245 (talk) 17:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure it's a flame-war, but yes, anon, you are correct. Being rational is highly recommended; harassing Irpen is not! Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that arguments on both sides are now being repeated ad nauseam. Unless Horlo has any objections, I suggest that an admin closes this. EJF (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I second that arguments are being repeated continually, but instead move that we actually discuss the issue at hand. This was supposed to be a move request, not a debate on editors or nationalist tendancies. Further, all of the big debating was supposed to have taken place at Talk:Kiev/naming. Obviously I think Kyiv is the more common spelling, as I supported the move, but I also think that Kiev must have a wide usage since there are editors against the move. This means that there must be evidence for this usage. Why not present it and let the evidence speak for itself?60.242.0.245 (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. EJF, why must Horlo be the one to object? Worthy as his contributions are, he was not elected spokesman for the 'support party'. Also, Ostap R made the move request.60.242.0.245 (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(I reluctantly reply as I think there are more constructive things I could be doing within Wikipedia and off-wiki) While I entirely appreciate WP:NOTVOTE, the fact of the matter is that the time of writing this, under 30% of the commenters supported the move, and at this time there is not a chance of this move passing - the fact is that we are longer debating the merits of the move and this is clearly becoming personalised, so I don't see why an admin isn't closing this. With regards to 'evidence' of the usage of the spelling Kiev, it has been said that almost all major media organisations use 'Kiev' and not 'Kyiv', but I am afraid that we cannot have accurate statistics on what the average Anglophone uses in everyday life, although my own personal experience and that of others suggests that Kiev is far more popular, and in many cases 'Kyiv' is only known by association football fans (I am one, but that doesn't mean that most English-speakers are!)
It was said by one editor that it was up to the opposers to find evidence that most English-speakers use 'Kiev' - no, it is up to the proposer and his supporters to find the evidence; believe me, and I say this sincerely, that if the use of Kiev in my own recent experience was a deviance from most English-speakers current use, and if there had been evidence that the mass media and society as a whole now used 'Kyiv', I would have supported the move (as I have stated before). <To the IP: I asked Horlo, as it is he that I and other users have been discussing with, mainly. And I appreciate that his contribution are worthy :) I don't think there is a flame war yet, but I do think we should reassess while we are continuing to debate - it seems like flogging a dead horse. Best regards, EJF (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

incorrect atribution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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