Jump to content

Talk:Kyiv

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dotoner (talk | contribs) at 17:55, 6 October 2016 (→Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2016). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Former good article nomineeKyiv was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 21, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
May 23, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 25, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2016

Kyiv is the only legal way to call Ukrainian capital. Please obey the law. Remove the russian version or put it separate. Bodukmbm (talk) 08:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Kiev/naming--Ymblanter (talk) 08:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion depicts few blind followers of the wrong spelling being in power on Wikipedia and not accepting opinion of millions of Ukrainians, that are trying to protect their language and dignity. If the article is renamed, then more and more people in the world will start using the correct version - Kyiv. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodukmbm (talk • contribs) 09:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will wait for another blind Wikipedia follower to reclose this request. It is unlikely that you can find anyone but Wikipedia followers here.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This was discussed at length here and it was agreed that "while "Kyiv" may be the officially recognized transliteration, "Kiev" is the most commonly recognizable name in the English language"
We are not bound by any "legal way" and are not "breaking the law" - we use the common name in English - Kiev it is and Kiev it will stay. - Arjayay (talk) 09:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is Kyiv, and Kyiv it will stay. You'll get used to it. I just wonder what threshold you are going to use that the most commonly recognizable name is now KYIV. I bet you've got used that there no longer is Bombay --Ajvanari (talk) 09:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"we use the common name in English" - that's where you're mistaken, you're using the commonly misspelled version of the word. I'll give you an example. If 1 billion of Indian people start calling Russia let's say "Pussia", will you change the name in Wiki from Russia to Pussia just because google received 1 billion hits on Pussia?!?! Of course no, because you know the correct spelling of it. Same here. Don't follow, even worse don't support and spread the wrong information on Wikipedia. Millions of people are viewing its articles, it has a huge impact on their mind. If you change the name to the correct one - Kyiv, you'll see that this word will be most commonly used as the only right one. - Bodukmbm (talk) 09:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop discussing it here, go to the page you were pointed at. If you unclose the request one more time, your account will be blocked for disruptive editing.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What a stupidity. It is officially Kyiv, what do you mean under "common"? Common by who? By you maybe? Is it you who decides what is common and what is not? First search on google gives proper answer on quora pointing to US Board of Geographic Names that makes decision on proper use of geographical names, here's the official site of organization. All documents in the whole world uses that name, is this not common for you? Facebook and googlemaps too? If you want to leave as you say "common" name, than you can refer to it in article, but name should be the official name and than - (also known as Kiev) for example. What an absurd. This is either stupidity either some kind of chauvinism which is crazy actually. The person who closed article editing and denying to hear common sense arguments has to be removed from moderating position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandric (talk • contribs) 21:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been great if you actually have read our policies before posting here your valuable opinion.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The CIA World Fact Book, Lonely Planet and others use uses Kyiv. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.136.146.152 (talk) 04:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2016

Please correct phrase "Most major English-language news sources like the BBC[27] continue to use Kiev." in the Name section to something like "Most major English-language news sources like the BBC are using both Kyiv[1] and Kiev[2] spellings."

Examples: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03vgz9t (Kyiv) http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-37319139 (Kiev) http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29686752 (both in same sentence)

You know guys that's why everybody keeps complaining. I'm livid. Ostap1010 (talk) 12:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're livid? Perhaps you need to get a real life. Your examples don't really prove what you say they do. The second and third examples clearly show that the BBC uses "Kiev" fairly consistently. Even when the quoted material uses "Kyiv", they correct it in brackets to "Kiev" for clarification. That's not a case of using both. It's exactly the same as quoting someone saying "I think that German Chancellor Mackerel [Merkel] is a good person." That does not mean that they accept "Mackerel" as an alternate spelling of "Merkel". It only means that their source used "Mackerel" and they must be accurate in using their source material. There's simply no evidence that they accept either "Kiev" or "Kyiv". It's evidence that they consistently use "Kiev". The BBC style guide is clear and unambiguous. --Taivo (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First of all why didn't you mention my first example? Please give me your real-life, old-school explanation of that phenomena. Why BBC with clear and unambiguous style guide explicitly uses Kyiv without any brackets or other punctuation symbols intended to adduce your version?
There is a plausible version I could give you. In real life BBC style guide means as much as Ukraine government decree. It seems the very same BBC journalists supposed to follow 'clear and unambiguous' rules are breaking them. Just type "Kyiv" and "Kiev" in BBC search field. You'll get a bunch of results from both queries. That's the evidence, isn't it?
I'm not arguing "Kyiv" or "Kiev" spelling. What I'm arguing is "Most major English-language news sources like the BBC[27] continue to use Kiev." Verification of that statement failed in the paragraph above. "Continue to use" statement is false while there are multiple systematic evidences that both spellings are in use. You should use "both spellings are in use" instead. If and only if you have statistics you could emphasize "predominantly "Kiev". That's basic scientific verification (Do not confuse with Wikipedia verification. Please consult [3] if you lack expertise in that field). That's why my case is completely relevant. That's not linguistics. That's sheer logic.
And that's why I am livid. Moreover shaking.93.73.62.38 (talk) 01:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If they use both, then (by definition) they "continue to use Kiev".--Khajidha (talk) 01:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and your first example doesn't mention the city itself, only an airport. The name of the airport is consistently given with the Kyiv spelling, but that has no bearing on usage of the simple city name. --Khajidha (talk) 01:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More BBC 'Kyiv' only examples[4][5][6][7][8][9]. BBC 'Kyiv' press-release[10]. BBC comments from real-life people with Anglo-Saxon names and surnames signed from 'Kyiv'[11][12]. CNN examples[13][14][15][16][17][18][19].
Cream of the crop:
"No, this is the eco-conscious face of British diplomacy, where our ambassador to Ukraine blogs that he has been helping to pick up litter in a park in Kiev (now spelled Kyiv) as part of Earth Day."[20]
"It was a great honour for us and we were met at Kyiv (formerly Kiev) airport by television and film crews and a choir who sang for us in national dress in the arrival lounge!"[21]
How does that goes with Merkel [Mackerel] and airport?
Current article edition states "BBC continue to use Kiev". That's false. BBC uses both spelling on case-per-case basis. Which depends on willingness of discrete journalist to conduct with BBC style guide, tradition or whatever.
I'm sure that fact should be reflected in article since current edition implies that literally everyone but government spells 'Kiev'. That's wrong. Both spellings are in use.
What is really outrageous that article specifically mentioned BBC as an example of 'Kiev'-only use. Simple verification attempt (typing 'Kyiv' in BBC search field) fails. Shame.
Since article is protected I'm asking members with editing permission to carry on.93.73.62.38 (talk) 11:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if they are using both then it is still true that they "continue to use Kiev". The statement does not say that they "use only Kiev". Also there are several problems with your list of sources.
Your source number 4 does not refer to the city of Kiev, but to the Kyiv Oblast. These are different things, and the Oblast (those few times it is mentioned in English) is often spelled that way.
Your source 7 is not a "Kyiv only" source as you state, the map clearly uses Kiev.
Your source 8 uses Kyiv in the body, but is given the byline of "Reporting by Mukul Devichand, Ravin Sampat, Tse Yin Lee and BBC Monitoring Kiev."
Similarly, your source 9 is filed " By Lucy Ash BBC News, Kiev"
Seems to me that BBC generally uses Kiev, but some individuals do not. And that's leaving aside cases of Kyiv in larger names (such as the oblast or the airport) as they are separate terms from the city name itself. --Khajidha (talk) 13:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, "continue to use Kiev" point taken. It would be still valid while single "Kiev" statement could be found on BBC.
I could agree as well with with your conclusion - BBC mostly uses "Kiev". But other spelling could be found as well. That's what I'm arguing.93.73.62.38 (talk) 16:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS - as for your "Cream of the crop" the first is specifically from an AMBASSADOR IN UKRAINE, he/she is diplomatically required to use that form and the second is the personal usage of a musician, not an example of BBC usage. And the BBC comments are examples of personal usage (and, in one case, a possible joke). Or do you think that "Cambs" is BBC official usage? But the most important point is the one I made first in the last post, "continue to use Kiev" does not imply "only use Kiev". --Khajidha (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again point taken. And again but.
Non-government people are using "Kyiv" spelling in everyday life. Musicians, government-affiliated journalists, commentators, jokers. I just want to make sure that fact is admitted and properly reflected in article.93.73.62.38 (talk) 16:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those BBC selections are misleading and cherry-picked. If you check the BBC site, there are 10,800 results for Kiev [1], and only 3,230 results for Kyiv [2]. Even if you check only the past six years, there are 509 results for Kiev [3], and only 107 results for Kyiv [4]. -- Softlavender (talk) 13:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those BBC selections are evidences.
Your Google-BBC statistics is brilliant. We could build on it.
I'd like to state my position once more. I'm just arguing that 'Kyiv' is also in use. Maybe marginal. Maybe 20% to 40% of 'Kiev' according to your statistics. But it actually exists.
All I want is reflection of that fact in article.93.73.62.38 (talk) 13:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is reflected in the article. Accidentally, in the first line.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Our argument is about the validity of "BBC continue using Kiev" statement which happened to be last line in Name section. That statement is false. One could say "according to Google search results BBC are using 20% to 40% (or whatever) "Kyiv" spelling". One could say "BBC style guides recommends "Kiev" but sometimes alternative spelling is used". One could certainly say "both variants are used". But not "continue using" without any references that alternative spelling could be found as well.
Current article edition implies "Kyiv" spelling is used in government-related documents only. That position of your community is unambiguously reflected in article. From what we said during last hours one could conclude that "Kyiv" spelling is at use at real life as well. Ok, maybe not as popular. But that's real-life existence we are arguing, not popularity. Again I'm asking you to correct that position considering everything we just talked about.93.73.62.38 (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When I click on the link Softlavender gives for "Kyiv" usage, I can't see any results. If I then limit it to the past year, the first half of the page is about "Dynamo Kyiv" (a separate term) and the last half is not in English. --Khajidha (talk) 13:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the current citation for the statement in this wiki article is ten years old, I think it's worthwhile to update the statement by qualifying it with a word such as "generally" or "in most instances" or something like that. The Google search reveals approximately a 20% to 30% usage of "Kyiv" by the BBC, but no more than that, so they still certainly mostly use Kiev. Softlavender (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, nothing needs to change. We're only quibbling over the last sentence of an entire, detailed section on the Name. And the last sentence is quite true: Most media sources, such as the BBC continue to use "Kiev". It doesn't say they exclusively use "Kiev". But the BBC Style Guide is quite unambiguous. Until there is more than the anecdotal evidence offered here and a definitive statement from the BBC, then there is no need either factually or semantically to change the sentence. --Taivo (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with TaivoLinguist, with the added question of whether your Google search reveals usage by the BBC or usage on BBC sites. A large number of Ukrainian nationalists could post on comment threads and such there using "Kyiv", but that should not count towards BBC usage.--Khajidha (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've made several changes to the sentence in question to answer the Anon IP's concerns. 1) I reworded the sentence to "X prefers 'Kiev'". 2) I linked to the style guides of both the BBC and The Economist which specifically state that "Kiev" is to be used. 3) I added a search of the New York Times for the last 12 months that shows "Kiev" both as the byline and in text (a corresponding search for "Kyiv" only yields the title of a book twice). This should clarify the situation. --Taivo (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is perfectly acceptable. Thanks. P.S: it may seem quibbling for UK or US citizen but question is actually important in Ukraine. 93.73.62.38 (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could you try to explain WHY it is important in Ukraine? For my own part, I find the question of how another language might spell the name of my city to be of purely academic interest. Whatever the spelling might be, I would simply say "okay, nice to know" and move on. The only reason I could see being bothered by another language's name for my city is if they called it something that was derogatory in that language. --Khajidha (talk) 13:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My POV: Kiev reminds Russian spelling and pronunciation and Kyiv comes from Ukrainian spelling. Ukraine would rather use its name rather than the one from Russian, you may deduce why, considering relationship between those two countries in recent years. Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But this is English, not Russian. --Khajidha (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO again: Kiev is English transcription of Russian name of the town. They would prefer anglicized Ukrainian name of the town. They can see the Russian "heritage" or "baggage" in Kiev and it does not matter that the alphabet is different or also does not matter (if the lead is correct) there is no difference in pronunciation between Kiev and Kyiv in English. And of course English name of town is important, it is a world language. Chrzwzcz (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You don't understand. "Kiev" is not a Russian name or a Ukrainian one. It is the ENGLISH name of Ukraine's capital. Just as "Warsaw" is the English name of Poland's capital and "Copenhagen" is the English name of Denmark's capital, "Kiev" is the English name of Ukraine's capital. 300 years ago it was a transliteration. Today it is just a name, like "borscht" and "cossack" and "Chernobyl". It's not "Russian" or "Ukrainian". It's English. --Taivo (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, I DO understand that it is English name for the city! Compare Kiev-Киев[Kiev] Kyiv-Київ[Kyjiv]. English name "Kiev" is clearly more similar to current Russian name than Ukrainian, don't you agree? "just a name"... in this case it is rather matter of politics. Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Chrwzcz's right.
While carrying on useful infographic this article [22] could serve as an explanation of your community position (which I could well understand), doesn't it? Maybe it is worth considering linking it in main article?
Also that article pretty correctly explains Ukrainian-speaking people position. In Ukraine/in the Ukraine analogy and reasoning behind it in Ukrainians mind is relevant.
I'll try to add a few points to the article. First, Ukrainians supporting Russian-backed side in ongoing war (or their Russian sponsors, which is far more probable) would argue opposite spelling as fiercely as we are. Actually, I'm surprised they are not arguing 'in the Ukraine' here because accordinate Russian pejorative article ('на Украине') is widely used (Russian data on subject[23]. On graphics: red is pejorative article usage by RF legislature). Second, since 2014 Ukraine drifted from language-tolerant country into mildly intolerant towards Russian (which still dominates media in Ukraine). Those are pretty understandable consequences of politics. Which unfortunately create tensions with third parties. Third, Odessa/Odesa spelling is awaiting same argument. Since Kyiv is much more Ukrainian-speaking capital Odesa is off the table for now.
2Taiwo: 'Kiev' implies origins of Ukrainian in Russian (which is false) and corollary Ukraine as Russia subject (unfortunately true to certain extent).
93.73.62.38 (talk) 22:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, you don't understand at all. You keep talking about Ukrainian people and Russian language, etc., etc. The only things that matter in the English Wikipedia are the English-speaking people and the English language. Period. In English, the name of Ukraine's capital has been "Kiev" for hundreds of years. That's it. That's the end of the matter. It's just like red beet soup in English is "borscht", with a t on the end (from Yiddish). It's just like we spell "cossack" with a "c" at the front and a "ck" at the end. It's got nothing whatsoever to do with the Ukrainian and Russian languages. It's English. If Ukrainians want to change the name of their capital in English, they have a lot of work to do. Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. You're going to have to convince a majority of half a billion English speakers in the world to change what they call the capital of Ukraine. If that happens, then Wikipedia will happily describe English usage. But until English usage changes, "Kiev" it is here in Wikipedia. --Taivo (talk) 22:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
93...: I am glad that you (as Ukrainian I guess) wrote it openly, I was hesitating (as non-Ukrainian also non-Russian) :) Simply put - UA is trying to make English (as no.1 language) to follow and implement newly offered names/transcriptions/spellings which comes directly from (current) Ukrainian language and not via Russian in the past. Will English say "No, Kiev is my English word, not yours, I am not interested where I originally got it, or if it offends you now"? It is politics rather than linguistics. I am not taking sides, I just wanted to give Khajidha IMHO-explanation why it is important for UA, you wrote it in full scale and verified it.
Taivo: Names are important for people because they may be offended by them, your borscht is bad example. And they may be offended by English word too and want to stop it, because they sounds the same or too similar in other languages as in theirs. Will Wiki be politically correct and grant those wishes? I guess not, it follows sources, all would have to start using new word and Wiki would follow months or years after. Weak analogy may be "renaming" of Bombay-Mumbai.Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You finally seem to understand, although "borscht" is a perfect example. It was borrowed from Ukrainian, but then a "wild t" was attached to the end as it worked its way to English via Yiddish. That is precisely the history of "Kiev". It differs from the Ukrainian original because of its history in another language. But it is the form we use in English. "Mumbai" is a different case because the hundreds of millions of speakers of Indian English changed it and the rest of the English-speaking world followed suit. "Kyiv" simply doesn't have a critical mass of English speakers using it to influence and change the usage of half a billion English speakers. You want to use Wikipedia as an instrument of change. But that's not what encyclopedias do. You are out of luck. "Kiev" is the English name and will surely remain the English name for a very long time to come. If Ukrainians are offended that the English Wikipedia uses the common English name for their capital city, they can use the Ukrainian Wikipedia instead. --Taivo (talk) 00:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, that's not linguistics but politics. Nobody cares about borscht, everybody cares about Kiev/Kyiv.
Sure native speakers are major language evolution force. But since English press written by Ukrainians exists (KyivPost) it performs it's modicum influence on language as well (take apart government). Maybe there's no good but that's the world we are living in.
That's certainly not for me arguing descriptive nature of Wikipedia. Please look through my original request. I'd not asked for immediate change since I've got your position. What I'd asked is reflection of natural language evolution process. Driven by politics, nothing to be proud of, but that's it. Certainly a lot of work has to be done. Mumbai is good example. And yes, being Ukrainian I'm increasingly using alternative sources.
I could understand your irritation: Ukrainians are trying to teach English their mother tongue spelling. That's not what it was intended. I meant that while writing about third party tensions and I'm sorry for that. Your reasons are good. But since question is of importance in Ukraine and Wikipedia is important source of information my request was intended to state explicitly that "Kyiv" spelling is making it's way into ordinary life. That's descriptive (I have to refer to my original request again). I'm biased but I'm not asking for prescriptive political preference.
I could see now that problem statement itself is important because there were concerns whether "Kiev" spelling is offensive just two screens up. Please have no doubts right now it is.
93.73.62.38 (talk) 09:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's my question again, HOW can it be offensive? I can see how usage of "Киев" when speaking Ukrainian would be offensive, but not how using an English word when speaking English is offensive.--Khajidha (talk) 11:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let me try. They never perceive Kiev as an English name. They, 100% of the population, perceive it as a Russian name transliterated in English. And since they also perceive Russia as an enemy and as a former empire, they find "Kiev" offensive, because, in this big picture, Russians managed to convince British and Americans to use "their" version, and Ukrainians could not. This picture is IMO completely distorted, but it is what it is.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Details could vary but generally that's it.93.73.62.38 (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well that just sounds ridiculous. That makes about as much sense as complaining that English uses the word "dog" instead of whatever the Ukrainian word is. It's a different language, it doesn't have to match. --Khajidha (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is ridiculous, and I also do not like battleground mentality, but this is how Ukrainians see it. Some of people I know in real life, told me that they believe it is "dishonest" to use Kiev over Kyiv, because in this way I support an alleged Russian war against Ukraine.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The word "dog"? What does it have to do with Ukraine? Nothing. For the Ukrainian editors: "Dear Ukraine. You have no say how I would call your towns, your country and your people. I figured it out ages ago, I don't care if it offends you because it sounds like something you hate, and I won't accept any name change propositions. Sincerely, English language". Yes, it is matter of PC, symbolics, bad blood, unresolved issues, not linguistics [5]. Again, I don't take sides and if Dnipropetrovsk was not approved to rename on Wiki then Kiev renaming is futile2.Chrzwzcz (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See, your "for the Ukrainian editors" sounds completely normal to me. Being offended that a word in language A sounds like a word in language B makes no sense to me. --Khajidha (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
B being language whole world uses, it easily can offend. They still must introduce "I am from Kiev" and use the hated word if communicating with foreigners in English. You are saying "If you hate it so much, don't speak English" or "English Kiev and Russian-Ukrainian Kiev have nothing in common, it is merely a coincidence it sounds the same and means the same" - no, general public won't see it that way, you can't deny that English copied the name. If it was Vietnamese of Finnish language, it won't bother them so much and that I do understand. Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) "Bombay" > "Mumbai" is not a good example. India is filled with English speakers and most of the urban population speaks English near-natively. This is not true of Ukraine. So when hundreds of millions of English speakers stop using "Bombay" and start using "Mumbai", that's a big deal and Wikipedia, following media throughout the English speaking world, reflected that tectonic shift in usage. "Kiev" > "Kyiv" is nowhere near that order of magnitude. We still haven't eliminated "the Ukraine". But "Kiev" > "Kyiv" suffers from an entirely different problem for change than "Bombay" > "Mumbai": pronunciation. There is simply not enough difference between them to register to an English speaker's ear, especially since English speakers don't pronounce "Kyiv" anywhere near the way that Ukrainians pronounce it. "Kiev" as in "chicken Kiev" and "Kievan Rus" fits well within common English phonotactics. "Kyiv" does not. --Taivo (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, if you don't like the English word, don't speak English. As for the fact that it was borrowed from Russian, no one is hiding that; it is simply irrelevant as it is now an English word. --Khajidha (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I said "weak analogy" :) Just for fun - how quick "tectonic shift" was Bombay->Mumbai change in usage for Wikipedia standards? Like "if similar change happened now, article would have been renamed in days" or so? Yes, as I said, Kiev has a small chance when Dnipropetrovsk was not successful either and it is MUCH bigger change in name.
Even if the word meant "Russian colony", English would not change a thing because now it is English word with no hidden meaning. Pretty selfish approach from language which comes up with new PC word every day (hyperbole) :) Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except that is change from within, this would be change from without. Different situations.--Khajidha (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Near as I can tell, the article was created at Mumbai. But you have to remember that India has millions of native English speakers behind its name changes. And the added weight of the strong national ties criterion of the English variant rules. --Khajidha (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I get it that India can influence English, Ukraine barely. Do you remember another case of renaming of town (non-English) and how successfully it went during renaming on wiki? To "show Kyiv the way". It can be successful for unknown towns or towns without English name, right. Chrzwzcz (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of any that have happened within the Wikipedia era. Certainly not any of the size or fame of Kiev. And your comment about "show[ing] Kyiv the way" implies that English SHOULD change when such an assertion is debatable at best. --Khajidha (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So "To show Kyiv that it is achievable but what an effort it is". Not SHOULD but CAN. Some renamings happened in the past and we can analyze whether it was changed because English itself wanted and came with new name or because someone outside English language wanted to change English name and succeeded. Chrzwzcz (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But then you have to deal with what Taivo explained so well before: "But "Kiev" > "Kyiv" suffers from an entirely different problem for change than "Bombay" > "Mumbai": pronunciation. There is simply not enough difference between them to register to an English speaker's ear, especially since English speakers don't pronounce "Kyiv" anywhere near the way that Ukrainians pronounce it. "Kiev" as in "chicken Kiev" and "Kievan Rus" fits well within common English phonotactics. "Kyiv" does not."--Khajidha (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well it does not all have to be in sync. Now we already have for example FC Obolon-Brovar Kyiv on enwiki, Kievan this, Kyivan that... It IS too similar to force a foreign language into changing when it does not really seem like too much of a change. Not my fight though, for me "to deal with", originally I joined to add my IMHO comment (proven later by native Ukranian) why Ukrainians don't like the name Kiev (to sum up again: because it came to English through Russian, as confessed here, and they are trying to free themselves of everything Russian including this action). But I can tell you it would be weird to see Kyiv on all English maps, on airports, in sport, in diplomacy, but wiki would keep saying "it is not general knowledge and not enough in news sources, sorry" and according to its rules it would be right. Chrzwzcz (talk) 20:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Dear English language. As far as I'm speaking you I'm English speaker. As long as I'm making no mistake spelling Kyiv I'll continue doing that. I couldn't care less how does that looks like. Sincerely, Ukraine."93.73.62.38 (talk) 07:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1) "English speaker" in the above discussion is to be understood as "native English speaker" as they are the ones who set language norms. 2) As far as most native English sources are concerned, "Kyiv" would be a mistake. --Khajidha (talk) 13:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. From now on, State Department and Foreign Office are not native English sources. Amen. Dotoner (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The State Department and Foreign Office reflect political policy, not common English usage, which is determined by half a billion native speakers. --Taivo (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Politics is an inalienable part of our lives. It's not a ground for common usage, but it certainly influences it. As well as "common English usage" doesn't have the authority to decide what is mistake in English and what isn't. Dotoner (talk) 17:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To some degree it does. "Common usage" cannot override a grammatical rule, but it can establish what a thing is called. --Khajidha (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What thing is called and "rightness" are two different terms. And the last one will always be subjective. Dotoner (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this sentence "Kiev is also based on the old Ukrainian language spelling of the city name and was used by Ukrainians and their ancestors from the time of Kievan Rus until only about the last century." in the "Name" section should be removed. Except for the statement itself, there aren't any proofs for this claim in the reference article. Dotoner (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03vgz9t
  2. ^ http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-37319139
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verificationism
  4. ^ http://www.bbc.com/sport/olympics/18523013
  5. ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02rs2sk
  6. ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03y888v
  7. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4038409.stm
  8. ^ http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-28371461
  9. ^ http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26835441
  10. ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/11_november/18/ethics.shtml
  11. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4375192.stm
  12. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/3487046.stm
  13. ^ http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/12/architecture/lenin-statues-niels-ackermann-sebastien-gobert/index.html
  14. ^ http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/12/europe/gallery/crimea-ukraine-cnn-photos/index.html
  15. ^ http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/20/europe/gallery/makeshift-kiev-hospitals/index.html
  16. ^ http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/24/world/cnnphotos-chernobyl-youth/index.html
  17. ^ http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/02/politics/us-ukraine-lethal-aid/index.html
  18. ^ http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/04/opinion/ayotte-moment-of-truth-nato-ukraine/index.html
  19. ^ http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/07/opinion/morris-ted-chernobyl/index.html
  20. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8645126.stm
  21. ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/world/onyourstreet/mslen2.shtml
  22. ^ http://www.businessinsider.com/kiev-or-kyiv-2014-1
  23. ^ http://aillarionov.livejournal.com/811987.html

Streets renamed

Yesterday some streets of Kyiv were renamed from "Russian names" to "Ukrainian names" (including one to controversial Stepan Bandera). Should this be mentioned in this Wikipedia article? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 00:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely mention the fact of renaming; I do not think we should provide a full list.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Denonym

Please, add "Kyivite" to the cell captioned "Denonym", which is more correct than Kievan. Reference: http://www.ukrainianlanguage.org.uk/read/unit15/page15-6.htm (Мафілав (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

This is for English usage demonyms, I don't think I've ever seen "Kyivite" in English text. --Khajidha (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. See Talk:Kiev/naming. The demonym in English would match the city name in English. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed citation

I'd just like to note that the citation (and the related text) removed here [6] is actually:

  • Gregorovich, Andrew. "Kiev or Kyiv?". FORUM: A Ukrainian Review. Ukrainian Fraternal Association. No. 92, Spring 1995.

It is simply reprinted there on a third-party website which contains various Ukrainian-related reprints from various sources, especially from pre-internet days.

That publication has been utilized as a citation in a number of Wikipedia articles (listed variously in these searches: [7], [8], [9]), including Name of Ukraine. -- Softlavender (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kyiv&oldid=742925921"