Jump to content

Talk:Kyiv/naming

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Kyiv

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 199.101.62.225 (talk) at 15:53, 15 June 2019 (→‎an explanation: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2019

If you want the article to be renamed, the ONLY way to accomplish this is to start a WP:RM. Please note however that this has been done at least 10 times in the past 11 years, and the result has always been the same. The last RM was only eight months ago; I suggest waiting until about a year from now, since nothing has substantially changed externally since the last RM. Softlavender (talk) 01:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

https://mfa.gov.ua/en/page/open/id/5418 Slavawild (talk) 07:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Talk:Kiev/Naming--Ymblanter (talk) 07:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Does the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs not realize that telling other people that their language is "wrong" is as offensive to us as telling them that "Ukrainian is simply incorrect Russian"? Seriously, you'd think that a nation that endured attempts to have its language eliminated would better understand that it is not their place to tell others how to speak their own languages. --Khajidha (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Such announcements are standard diplomatic procedure. China and India sent similar postings around the English-speaking world informing all that the English-language names of their cities are no longer Peking, Bombay and Calcutta, but Beijing, Mumbai and Kolkata, and those requests were, for the most part, respectfully accepted and followed without complaint that China and India were "offensive" in instructing English speakers "how to speak their own language". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
India is an English speaking country and China took years and years for the name changes to be accepted. --Khajidha (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And people did find the Chinese insistence on "Beijing" offensive.--Khajidha (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kyiv is used by embassies: USA, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. So do you think these English speaking countries do not know how to spell in English properly? Pixov (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they use the preferred spelling of the host government for their embassy in that country. That's called being polite and diplomatic. However, Wikipedia works on common name, and the common name of the city outside Ukraine remains Kiev. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a diplomatic mission. How many times does this point need to be hammered home? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia, it's an encyclopedia. Correct spelling is even written in its logo. How many times does this point need to be hammered home? </sarcasm>
Before showing someone that you know what is a rhetorical question, please patiently read the whole conversation. I was answering to the "ask to switch to Ukrainian transliteration = calling language wrong" point. Obviously, it's not, because there is no "right" and "wrong" spelling in English since there is no "International Bureau of English Spelling". Pixov (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that different organizations can adopt different spelling standards in most (if not all) English-speaking countries. Therefore, the English Wikipedia uses the principle of "most common usage" in determining article titles and spelling usage within itself. "Kiev" is overwhelmingly the usage in English for the name of Ukraine's capital. It's not even close when you analyze the data. It doesn't matter one bit what our governments use to maintain diplomatic courtesy from government to government. It doesn't matter what Ukrainian nationalists want. It doesn't matter what the Rada dictates. All that matters is that the majority of English language usage around the English-speaking world has "Kiev". --Taivo (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, an irrelevant 2+2=4. There is no need to tell me what does common name mean or how Wikipedia works. Better try to tell me why is it considered offensive for Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to ask other nations to switch to transliteration that better reflects the actual pronunciation of a name in original language? Because it was the point I doubted in the first place. Pixov (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not considered offensive for the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to ask, it's just ignored as having no weight on the English language. Spelling and pronunciation changes tend to happen slowly if at all. But you never know... look at the recent move away from chairman. It has moved to a title that has little actual sourcing and is rarely used in the real world. Wikipedia can be a strange place. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider it offensive at all. They can have their opinion in a free society. But it's also our right to ignore their opinion when it doesn't align with common English usage. --Taivo (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bingo! And I do respect the right of each individual to choose the word he thinks is right. But playing "it's offensive" card by Khajidha was mean. Pixov (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When the Ministry of Foreign Affairs says that the commonly used English spelling is "incorrect" and a "mistake", yes that is offensive. It is just as offensive as it would be for English speakers to tell Spanish speakers that "teléfono" and "televisión"are incorrect, as those words originated in English and "should" be spelled "telephone" and "television". There is no problem with them saying that the correct transliteration of the city's name is "Kyiv", they just don't seem to realize that general English usage does not see "Kiev"as a transliteration at all but as an English exonym.--Khajidha (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So in this context saying "Kiev is incorrect" is offensive, but "Kyiv is correct" is not? What kind of (il)logic is that? Are you familiar with the concept of negation? Pixov (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's sort of like "Eskimo". The vast majority of English speakers use it to refer to the indigenous inhabitants of the coastal regions of Alaska, Canada, and Greenland. English speakers simply don't use and wouldn't recognize the preferred Native terms. But when talking to a member of one of those communities, they find it offensive to use in reference to them. One of my PhD students is an Iñupiaq. While I can use "Eskimo" among other Anglos for understanding (as I would "Comanche" or "Navajo" or "Ojibwa"), and common English usage is still overwhelmingly "Eskimo" (see Wikipedia Eskimo), it is still somewhat offensive to the Alutiiq, Yupik, Iñupiaq, and Inuit, so I never use it with my student or other members of that group for courtesy. Thus, while the governments of the US and UK use "Kyiv" for courtesy, the common name among English speakers is "Kiev". It's not offensive or rude for the Ukrainian government to ask that English speakers dealing with them use "Kyiv", but it would definitely be rude for English-speaking governments to use "Kiev" in official documents related to Ukraine. --Taivo (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is completely natural and even expected for Ukrainian governmental entities to distribute requests of this nature or of this nature to governmental and private entities, such as educational institutions or media outlets throughout the English-speaking world so that everyone knows how Ukraine transliterates the names of its cities into English. Without such official requests, it could be argued that the revised transliterations are simply the handiwork of expatriate Ukrainian nationalist fringe and are not used by as well as have no support from the Ukrainian government. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually both are offensive, because they both still miss the point. "Kyiv" is the correct transliteration, "Kiev" is the correct English word. Such decrees from the Ukrainian government go beyond the valid point of explaining transliteration to the invalid point of attempting to control usage in another language. Again, when an English speaker uses "Kiev" he or she is not transliterating anything, only using an established term. --Khajidha (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But the point is that it's no longer an established term. As examples, when the governments of Russia, Poland or Denmark use English, whether for diplomatic or tourist purposes, they do not refer to their capitals by their native names, Moskva, Warszawa and København, but by their English exonyms Moscow, Warsaw and Copenhagen, a practice that is followed by the English-language media in those countries, as well as by the United Nations and the governments, media and all other entities throughout the English-speaking world, including Google, Yahoo, Bing and Encarta maps, Lonely Planet, etc, etc.
None of those examples are analogous to Ukraine. Almost all nations accept their English exonyms and use those exonyms themselves. Ukraine, on the other hand, does not accept that "Kiev" and "Odessa" are the English exonyms for its cities and, in a unique step for any nation, the English-language output emanating from Ukraine uses the forms "Kyiv" (Kyiv Post) and "Odesa".
"Kyiv" has already been widely accepted and used in the English-speaking world, although the majority of English-language media outlets still use "Kiev". Ultimately, those English speakers who have had occasion to pronounce the name of the Ukrainian capital, or of the chicken dish that includes its name, may continue to pronounce it in the same manner, but its written form in English will be inevitably "Kyiv". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1) "no longer an established term" All the maps I see and news I hear disagree with your assertion. You even contradict yourself later on ("the majority of English-language media outlets still use Kiev") 2) "Ukraine, on the other hand, does not accept that "Kiev" and "Odessa" are the English exonyms for its cities" That is exactly the rudeness I mentioned. "We don't accept the idea that you can choose the words of your own language, you have to do things our way." 3) "English-language output emanating from Ukraine uses Kyiv" Usage of English as a secondary language is secondary. It does not and cannot set norms. This also applies to your mention of other languages and cities. 3) "its written form in English will be inevitably" So you can see the future now? --Khajidha (talk) 09:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't find Ukraine's request offensive, I agree with Khajidha's remarks that Ukraine is not attempting to change "the transliteration" of a Ukrainian name, but is attempting to change an English exonym. The fact that style guides like that of the New York Times explicitly says "Use Kiev and not Kyiv", shows that English exonyms aren't subject to the whims of non-native speakers. And whether or not those non-native speakers in Ukraine choose to use "Kyiv" in English language documents is immaterial to the usage of hundreds of millions of native speakers. --Taivo (talk) 09:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not offensive. I understand why they've said it. Given their history, I understand why Ukrainians don't like what they see as a Russian version of the city's name. But it can never be any more than a request; making it a demand would be unacceptable. The English language is based on usage, not on rules laid down by any national or international body. And as long as common usage in English is Kiev then Ukrainians have no right to get arsey with native English-speakers using that name, which we've used for centuries. English Wikipedia works in exactly the same way. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pixov: "Wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia, it's an encyclopedia". Since I'm British, I use the British spelling, which is entirely correct. See WP:ENGVAR. Are you trying to claim that Kiev vs Kyiv is an ENGVAR issue? I think not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vitaliyf261 (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)The US Council on Geographical Names unanimously decided to replace the official name of the capital of Ukraine from "Kiev" to "Kyiv" in an international base. Appropriate changes to the US Geographic Names Council's official bases will be made on June 17.[reply]

A decision that is only binding on the government itself. It is unlikely to affect common usage. --Khajidha (talk) 22:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

an explanation

Hello This is a note, an explanation for users as to why Kiev will be preferred on Wikipedia over Kiyv.

When the Wikipedia users refer to the "Common name, " they are referring to the name that is most recognizable to the general public. It doesn't matter what academic or governmental sources use, if the general public recognizes "Kiev" and not "Kiyv, " then Kiev has to be used. The commonly cited example of Mumbay vs. Bombay, Mumbay has become extremely common, hence why the article for the Indian city is now Mumbay. You guys are right in saying that change is possible, but unfortunately for the Ukraine nationalists, Kiev is still more recognized than Kiyv, and therefore because more people know what Kiev is as opposed to Kiyv, the article must sta yas Kiev.

As for it being a Russian transliteration, it is not. The name Jennifer has roots in the Cornish language, but is considered an English name. In the same way, the English exonym (name given to a place by another nation/group of nations/outside language), is Kiev, which may have roots in Russian but that does not mean it is Russian, no more than jennife ris a Cornish name.

It is important to understand that the common name policy is not meant to perpetuate offensive names, but rather to reflect the most recognizable names.

thank you. PS, to any who question why I wrote this, it is because for those like me who don't like reading long-ass policy pages, and want a more condensed version. thanks.

199.101.62.225 (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kyiv/naming&oldid=901972724"