Talk:Kyiv/naming

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

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

Chișinău and Beijing as examples

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

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

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

User:Taivo can you PLEASE just don't OFFEND us Ukrainians and residents of Kyiv? It's very good that you have such a good common name for our capital but since it's offensive for us who live here could you be so kind to change you habits? Mumbai is not Bombay anymore. And not british colonists forced that. Not white people of USA forced African American but African American had to do that. Man don't be uncivilized. XXI century is here. Not XIX. Wake up plase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.244.129.207 (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

however,

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

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

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

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

Request of change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

KYIV, not Kiev

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*CBC: [Kiev] vs. [Kyiv]

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

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

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

Er, my word? Where?

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

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

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

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

RENAME and rename now. Just have "Kiev" redirect to Kyiv. So simple! See: Mumbai/Bombay. Do a lot of people in the west still refer to it was "Bombay"? Yes. Does it matter? No. They're wrong. The CIA World Factbook lists the capital as "Kyiv." In 2006, the United States Board on Geographic Names adopted Kyiv over Kiev. Even Google Maps show it as Kyiv! Wikipedia should strive for accuracy first and foremost; ignorance should not be used as an excuse to defend staying ignorant. wikipedia 04:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not ignorance and it's not wrong. Kiev is the English name, just as Moscow is the English name (and not Moskva). And I would argue that we should move Mumbai back to Bombay on the same grounds. I STILL fail to see why this seems to make some people so angry. How can what language A calls something be of any concern to speakers of language B? Saying that English cannot/should not/must not use Kiev is just as ridiculous as saying the same thing about the words "circle", "blue", "happy" or anything else. Just as those words take on different forms in another language, so does the name of the Ukrainian capital city. It's that simple.--Khajidha (talk) 15:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It is incorrect and wrong - city names "in English" are not set in stone. Bombay is now Mumbai because "Bombay" was an incorrect name related to the British (the "English" version as your argument goes). Peking is now Beijing. Chimkent is now Shymkent now that is now longer part of the USSR - exactly the same as Kyiv. This name update (Kiev --> Kyiv) is not even very drastic, it's simply changing it to reflect the correct pronunciation. (Just like Shymkent.) As I said before, many significant sources are already spelling Kyiv; this is a more accurate. The reason why this argument is not going to go away is because Wikipedia having it as "Kiev" is incorrect. 13:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

And the reason why you are not going to get your way is that per WP:COMMONNAME you must demonstrate that "Kyiv" is the more common usage in English. The arguments based on other city names are irrelevant per WP:OTHERSTUFF. The only relevant facts are common English usage. That usage is easiest to demonstrate by usage in media. And it takes about one minute for you to look at news articles on the current war with Russia to see that the vast majority of English language usage is "Kiev". It's not even close. Go ahead, check it out, I'll wait. See? 9 out of 10 news reports in English about Ukraine today list "Kiev" as their point of origin. Official geographic names lists don't matter. All that matters is what English speakers actually use. And that usage is overwhelmingly "Kiev". --Taivo (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Never said they were set in stone, I said it was up to the native English speakers to decide whether to change them. And English usage hasn't changed. --Khajidha (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

It's also incorrect in English to call London Londres or Londra or Londýn, but do we British people whine about it to the French or Spanish or Italians or Czechs when they call it that? No we don't. Why? Because that's what the city, despite being in England, is called in those languages and we don't feel the need to continually insist that our capital city should be referred to by the name we call it all over the world and get all upset over it if it isn't. And incidentally, Bombay is not an "incorrect" name, which is why many Indians still refer to the city as Bombay and opposed the renaming. Please try to learn some history before you pontificate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

When the BGN database eliminates "KIEV" as common English language usage and reduces it to just another historical variant, I will be the first to propose renaming. Unfortunately, the title is determined by common English language usage, not by personal preference. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Kiev will become Kyiv on the day the last person stops saying "the Ukraine" :) --Taivo (talk) 06:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Alas, I still find myself adjusting having grown up in an earlier era. I think I've pretty much cured "the" Ukraine, though. :-) VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

And I STILL don't understand the problem with using "the Ukraine". Just like this Kiev/Kyiv "controversy" it seems to me to be the inappropriate projection of Ukranian language sensibilities onto English. I don't care what the Ukranian language calls my country (as long as it is not directly insulting in Ukranian), why do they care what English calls theirs? It seems as silly as arguing over what word we use to mean Canis lupus familiaris. --Khajidha (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

For the name 'Kyiv'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Taivo it offends us Ukrainians. Please just don't do it. Please don't call African Americans with the word starting with the letter N. It's the same. Things change. Be up to date. US authorities are. Why don't you want? Are you russian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlavaUkrainiGeroyamSlava (talk • contribs) 00:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Khajidha It's offensive to Ukrainians. Can you understand that? Can you PLEASE update your commonness for not to offense Ukrainians and population of Kyiv? We would be very appreciated for that. At least I could be easly solved by adding Kiev as optional. Things change. Be up to date please. Or at least just don't offense us if you prefer to be ignorant(it's your right and nobody can dispute it).

I do not understand one simple thing. Why after renaming of the city you are using old name. Kiev is old name while Kyiv is new name. Let me give you an example. Leningrad is not the name that is used to name Saint Petersburg because that city changed its name. In our case city also changed its name(government changed name spelling = change the name), but the change is not dramatic. Guys you should understand that wikipedia is a primary source of information for many people and the fact that you do not update information is not cool. Let me say it in different words. Wikipedia defines common English usage so there is no chance that Kyiv become more used then Kiev until you change spelling here. Guys do not play politics here, just update an information. 128.112.85.36 (talk) 02:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)senalba 2:56, 26 November 2014

You are under a false assumption... Wikipedia does NOT define common English usage. We check English sources and use the common English name and spelling for places (but not for people). And other language wikipedia's spell English place names differently to match common usage in their own countries. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

No, the "one simple thing" that you do not seem to understand is that this is the ENGLISH language, not Ukrainian and not Russian. The English name of this city is Kiev. The Ukrainian government has no power to change that. --Khajidha (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Then why don't you use leningrad as a name for the "north capital" of Russia? 192.16.204.210 (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)senalba

As to why English uses St Petersburg instead of Petrograd or Leningrad...I'm not sure St Petersburg ever fell completely out of favor. But those aren't just spelling changes, they are complete word changes. Actually the Russian spelling is "Sankt Peterburg" so your example is a good one...in English we spell it "Saint Petersburg", just like we spell it Kiev not Kyiv. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Because we don't. It's that simple. The English language is highly inconsistent, and is not likely to change that nature any time soon. Quit trying to force the English language to be what you want it to be and simply learn what it is. --Khajidha (talk) 12:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Khajidha! The white people in USA didn't want to stop to call African Americans with the word that starting with the letter N. It was a problem of Black people to make white people stop it. Kyiv is our capital and if we Ukrainians find it offensive to us that English speakers will call us offensively we can and must change it. Who you are to decide it? You are not even Ukrainian even don't live in Kyiv. Maybe here in Kyiv we know much better how should it be called? If you are still feel yourself not ignorant English speaking authorities like USA government already changed it. Why don't you want to be up to time? Why don't you want not to offense Ukrainians? Are you russian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlavaUkrainiGeroyamSlava (talk • contribs) 00:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. The name of Ukraine's capital in English is most commonly "Kiev". That's the name that virtually all media outlets also use. Talk to anyone on the street in America and that's the name they'll use. That just the fact. We also put two s's in Odessa. Live with it. --Taivo (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Taivo Please don't offend us Ukrainians (and population of Kyiv particularly). Could you be so kind? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlavaUkrainiGeroyamSlava (talk • contribs) 00:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

War between Ukraine and Russia 2014

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

Please read this talk page and archives carefully before posting WP:POV, emotional arguments. In a nutshell, WP:COMMONNAME applies: Kiev is neither the Russian nor Martian variant of the city, but is the long established English language naming convention in the Anglosphere. This convention has been markedly reinforced as being the established standard as evidenced by the continued use of 'Kiev' in the Anglophone media. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Seems like somebody here considers deaths of people unimportant and speaking about that to be to emotional. Then consider only political correctness. When one group of people traditionally uses some name that seems to be offensive to the other group. While it's easy to move to another name. For example, consider terminolgy "African American". -- OlegGerdiy (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy is correct, "Kiev" isn't the Russian name (that's Киев), it's the most commonly used name for Ukraine's capital in English. Just look at the majority of English language news media from this weekend and you will be hard-pressed to find a single example of "Kyiv" in use--even in articles that are unequivocally pro-Ukrainian. No emotion involved, it's just the fact. (And Iryna is clearly Ukrainian by the spelling of her name--"Iryna" rather than "Irina".) --Taivo (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Deaths are not unimportant, but they are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The commonly used name for this city in English is "Kiev", and there is nothing inherently offensive about that. If the commonly used name was something like "City of Worthless Shitheaded Assholes" a protest would be valid and should be complied with, but you are extending Ukrainian sensitivities onto another language where they do not exist and are not appropriate for consideration. You have no more standing to protest the English usage of "Kiev" than you do the English usage of "blue", "happy", "circle", "mountain" or any other English word. --Khajidha (talk) 13:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

SlavaUkrainiGeroyamSlava (talk) 01:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Iryna Harpy Once in Anglospere was very common to name African American with the word starting with the letter N. Now it's not common. Things change. It's time for changes. Why don't you want not to offense Ukrainians? Why do you put the common name over offense?

What is important: truth or some commonname? Wikipedia MUST prefer truth not something somewhere "common". It was very common (as said the user previously) in the past call African Americans with the word starting with letter N. It's not common anymore. Change please it. Don't be bureaucratic. Be truthful. All the English speaking authorities already change to Kyiv. Why wikipedian users are so slow and ignorant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlavaUkrainiGeroyamSlava (talk • contribs) 00:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

No, you are quite wrong that "all English speaking authorities" have changed usage to "Kyiv". Almost all media outlets still use "Kiev". That is the common English name. Once you convince 400 billion English speakers to stop using "Kiev", then Wikipedia will change. But for now, the name of Ukraine's capital in the English language is still "Kiev". Sorry if you don't like it, but that's the fact. If it offends you so much, then you can stop reading and editing the English Wikipedia and stick with the Ukrainian Wikipedia. --Taivo (talk) 00:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The truth is the common name in English is Kiev. [3] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Taivo Yes. We are talking about governments not some media outlets. We are talking OFFICIAL point of view not of some media outlets. And of course not "ALL". Are you russian? Then tell me please it as soon as possible to stop this useless conversation. I ask one more time: just don't offend Ukrainians. Can you understand that? Let you be first of those "400" billions of trillions English speakers who will not offend us. Thanks! User:NeilN Hey man! If you don't find the truth important then ok. it's your right but I would like to ask you: can you don't offend us please? We would be very appreciated. US government already did that. Thanks a lot indeed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlavaUkrainiGeroyamSlava (talk • contribs) 00:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey SlavaUkrainiGeroyamSlava! Please don't offend Wikipedians by pushing your nationalistic view on a global encyclopedia. Thanks! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

User:NeilN Thanks a lot that stopped to offense Ukrainians! True Wikipedians don't offend any nation. You are and those man not Wikipedians. You are very likely russian agents. I need to submit complaint to Wikipedia admins. Wikipedia is a place for truth not offense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlavaUkrainiGeroyamSlava (talk • contribs) 00:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Accusing people of being Russian when they are not is probably offensive to both Russians and non-Russians. Now that we've established that you're also offending people of other nations, perhaps we can move on? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

User:BilCat As you can see I started from that I don't want to offend anyone I just ask not to offend us Ukrainians. The guys answered that it's more important to use the common name even it's offensive. And you have joined their group. Why do you all insist on that? What's reason to insist? Let's Kiev be optional name as it is and Kyiv main one. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlavaUkrainiGeroyamSlava (talk)

But you are offending people, whether you intended to or not. Including me. So stop calling people Russians when you don't where anyone on here is actually from. And I haven't taken sides in this conversation, I just asked you to stop being offensive yourself. Now, it's been explained to you that English WP does not use official names, but common names. That's why they are are insisting. - BilCat (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

User:BilCat Ok. How to be if the common name is offensive? For example like N. for African American? I don't want to offend anyone. Those guys insist on offending me. I don't know why they put the common name over the offense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlavaUkrainiGeroyamSlava (talk • contribs) 01:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Because it's not a racial epithet like N. Kiev is just the English spelling. - BilCat (talk) 01:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

User:BilCat I am Ukrainian. I live in Kyiv. I am telling you: that's offensive. Let's repeat: How to be if the common name is considered to be offensive by Ukrainians and population of Kyiv particularly? I am here not to offend anyone. I am here because I read letters: N. instead African American. Why do you insist like I am trying to change London to Лондон or Washington to Вашингтон? I just don't want to be called N. instead African American SlavaUkrainiGeroyamSlava (talk) 01:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Bluntly speaking, you are making that up. National Geographic, one of the most culturally sensitive organizations in the world, uses Kiev on its English language maps. [4] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

User:NeilN I repeat: I am Ukrainian. I am a citizen of Ukraine. I am a resident of Kyiv. It's offensive. Can you please not offend me? National Geographic, The Pope anyone else don't change it. It's just offesnive. Why should I ask you all guys not to offend me?! I cannot believe is this Wikipedia or a club of ignorant people? Truth VS common name. I am very sad. SlavaUkrainiGeroyamSlava (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not offensive to refer to the capital of Ukraine as Kiev, even in Ukraine. I know because I have lived in Ukraine. Ukrainians, both in East and West (I have lived in both parts), understand the simple truth that the capital is called "Kiev" in English, just as the capital of Russia is "Moscow" (not Moskva), the capital of Poland is "Warsaw" (not Warszawa), and the capital of the Czech Republic is "Prague" (not Praha). These are their English names. You are claiming "offensiveness" where none actually exists except in your own nationalist fantasy world. Wikipedia is not bound by official American or British government declarations, nor by Ukrainian politics. It is bound by common English usage. That's the Wikipedia rule. Wikipedia does not dictate usage, it follows usage. You convince 400 billion English speakers to spell the name of Ukraine's capital as "Kyiv" and Wikipedia will change. But English speakers are only halfway to talking about "Ukraine" and not "the Ukraine". You shouldn't hold your breath. --Taivo (talk) 01:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Taivo I am Ukrainian, a Ukrainian citizen and a resident of Kyiv. I am asking you the last time: please don't offend me. Who you are to decide how should it be? Are you Martin Luther King jr to decide how to call African Americans? Do you know how many millions people called African Americans N.? By your logic it was ok. Common sense and truth are more important than some common words/names and habits. SlavaUkrainiGeroyamSlava (talk) 02:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

If you actually want to learn something, read the article Nigger: 'By the 1900s, nigger had become a pejorative word. In its stead, the term colored became the mainstream alternative to negro and its derived terms. Abolitionists in Boston, Massachusetts, posted warnings to the Colored People of Boston and vicinity. Writing in 1904, journalist Clifton Johnson documented the "opprobrious" character of the word nigger, emphasizing that it was chosen in the South precisely because it was more offensive than "colored."' Got any reliable sources (not your opinion, not other nationalistic nonsense) emphasizing that Kiev is used because it's more offensive? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

User:NeilN it feels very "russian-soviet": "not other nationalistic nonsense". Take it: Google and Goole Maps find it offensive. US government and Google think it must be Kyiv. wikipedia and few guys that know everything about the local nationalists think the same as russians. Why are you killing by believe in wikipedia guys? By the way who exactly decide how will it be? Any polling or something like that? Why whould I ask here some ignorant people not to offend me and waste my time? SlavaUkrainiGeroyamSlava (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

As you have presented no sources for "offensive" and nothing to rebut WP:COMMONNAME nothing will happen. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

User:NeilN so opinion of Google, US governments, all the Ukrainian governments is not significant in your opinion? Who you are I have to show any sources? What sources at all I am able to show you if Google the US government and Ukrainian governments mean nothing to you? Who you are to tell anything about some nationalistic nonsense? smells very russian-soviet. don't disclose yourself agent KGB Vanya! SlavaUkrainiGeroyamSlava (talk) 02:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Use by those governments and organizations doesn't make it common usage. No one trying to offend you, but unless you can do what Neil asked, and present reliable sources for Kiev being offensive, and can prove that Kyiv is more common in English language sources, then you are actually wasting your time here. None of us has the authority to change Kiev to Kyiv, and even if we did change it, it would be changed back again for violating WP policy. Sorry. If you're still offended, then English WP isn't for you, as Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor a place for you to right great wrongs. - BilCat (talk) 02:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I suspect we're wasting our time with you here but one more try: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks guys! The most important to me that you stopped to offend me. Love your policies and common names. Once upon a time Jimmy invented policies and you must obey them. Truth, human rights and politeness are not needed. They are not important. Have you ever thought why so many years so many people want to change it to a not offensive form? Just to have a fun? What reason to prevent it? Why Mumbai is not Bombay? What prevents Kyiv to be also known Kiev? SlavaUkrainiGeroyamSlava (talk) 03:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Slava has a problem anyway that I just noticed. If he were really Ukrainian, then he wouldn't be writing "Geroyam", but "Heroyam". The form with the "G" is Russian, the form with the "H" is Ukrainian. Just another day in the life of Wikipedia. --Taivo (talk) 03:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Taivo both forms are ok because Ukrainian Г (sound) cannot be precisely transliterated to English G. but from the official point of view you are right: Heroyam more accurate. Why haven't you noticed that Ukraini spelled without "Y" Ukrayini? That adds accuracy as well. Another useless day in the life of the wikibureaucracy? SlavaUkrainiGeroyamSlava (talk) 03:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, you're incorrect. In literary/cultural Ukrainian 'heroyam' is the correct pronunciation. Outside of that, you are being offensive towards editors who comprehend what WP:COMMONNAME actually is in the Anglophone world. I haven't seen a single instance of 'Kyiv' being used in Anglophile sources. Please stop banging on and telling experienced, regular editors about their being 'wrong'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Iryna Harpy Who are you to tell me what is offensive to me as Ukrainian, as a Ukrainain citizen and as a resident of Kyiv?! A native English speaker? Who forced making Mumbai to be Mumbai? British colonists or residents of the city? Can you please think not about common things but about truth? True is more important than common. Common doesn't make anything sens if it's not true. I ask you again: please don't offend me as Ukrainian as a citizen of Ukraine and a resident of Kyiv. Could you be so kind? Just that. Isn't it enough? I don't care you put common over true. It's your right. But I just don't want you to offend me. But you do want to do it and insist on that. It looks like really uncivilized. 94.244.129.207 (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Mumbai is the common name in English, not Bombay. But Bangalore is still the common English name for Bengaluru. - 03:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

User:RGloucester Can you please tell me when Mumbai started to be a common name and who forced that changes? 94.244.129.207 (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

This is nonsense. I find it very odd that this is even a problem. I'm fairly certain that most Kievans will either read or speak Russian at some point in the day on a daily basis. I certainly had no trouble finding people speaking Russian when I was in Kiev. Russia does not own the Russian language. RGloucester — ☎ 23:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

User:RGloucester Who are you to decide it? I am Ukrainian. I am a citizen of Ukraine. I am a resident of Kyiv. It offends me. Isn't it enough? How is it related that you have been in Kyiv and the local population talked with you in Russian to that Kiev is offensive form having the same roots as Mumbai-Bombay and N.-African American? 94.244.129.207 (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't propose to change it exclusively to Kyiv. It should be Kyiv(also known Kiev). Check please Mumbai. Absolutely the same situation. One to one. Thus: either Mumbai should become Bombay (also known Mumbai) or Kyiv should be change to Kyiv(also know Kiev). (But it does matter only if you don't put common over logical). 94.244.129.207 (talk) 00:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The fact that you don't understand why the article is named Mumbai shows you have little understanding of our policy or just don't care about it. Either way, I'm recommending this discussion be closed by an uninvolved editor. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

User:NeilN The fact that you offend thousand of people doesn't care you? If it will be changed to Kyiv it won't offend those who know the current English common name. And that would solve the problem. The fact that you just have written that I don't understand why Mumbai is called Mumbai doesn't mean it is true. The reason because you have not written at least few words why do you think so. The second reason: you put common over true. You could put at least one reason but you just wrote words having no sense. 94.244.129.207 (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Do I care that readers looking for a reason to take offense will take offense? Nope. And [5] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

User:NeilN Can you please answer my question not your one? The fact that you offend thousand of people doesn't care you? Is Wikipedia policy yours? I thought it belongs to Wikipedia not you or a group of such persons as you are. isn't? Because if it really belongs to you and similar to you it's a very sad news. Will you wait until we Ukrainians and residents of Kyiv would change everywhere that name to Kyiv and then Wikipedia would decide to change its common name? Isn't Wikipedia a liberal place? not a group of highly conservative bureaucrats? 94.244.129.207 (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I did answer it. Let me be more clear. I do not care of Wikipedia content offends those who cling to religious/sexist/racist/nationalistic dogma. Article content is not tailored so that these readers can feel good about their beliefs, We actually do have a policy on this - WP:NOTCENSORED. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

User:NeilN You haven't answered to MY question but said you have done. You love truth. You reject Google's point of view on the problem BUT give the link to their website. Consistency is your choice. Continue to offend us. You are not a person whose opinion does matter. Enjoy your common name as long as you want. I am tired to ask not to offend me. 94.244.129.207 (talk) 00:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you get it now. Wikipedia doesn't care about your feelings, my feelings, anyone's feelings. It cares about accuracy. "Kiev" is the English name for Ukraine's capital, used by the most English language sources for centuries. That's just the simple fact. --Taivo (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Taivo Yes I have got something and that something is sad. By the way mazapuker (I hope this word doesn't offend you and doesn't touch your feelings - it's just a set of letters) what can you say about Mumbai and Bombay? Or consistency is not your choice mazapuker? 94.244.129.207 (talk) 02:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)