Talk:Kyiv/naming/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 → Archive 15

Untitled

It is spelled as Kyiv in English language because: 1) Ukrainian government insists on Kyiv spelling 2) The State Department of the U.S. issued a directive to write Kyiv 3) The Prime Minister of the U.K. calls the city Kyiv 4) United Nations Multilingual Terminology Database (the ultimate body on geographical names) approved it as Kyiv 5) Major English speaking governments worldwide switched to Kyiv spelling 6) CIA refers to the city as Kyiv 7) The name of the famous football club is Dynamo Kyiv 8) Many papers, e.g., British The Guardian, are already writing Kyiv 9) All major Canadian media already use the spelling of Kyiv 10) and many more reasons http://kyiv.of-cour.se/

Are you for Ukraine as the democratic independent state VS for the Ukraine as a Russia's colonial province

One more reason (rather political than linguistic).

Are you for Ukraine as the democratic independent European state VS for the Ukraine as an Russia's collonial province?

Do you want to see Ukrainians as citizens with the European mentality VS you want to see Ukrainians as soldiers in the Russian Army?

Are you for Kyiv VS for Kiev?

Naming the Kyiv as the Kyiv will support Ukraine on its struggle for democracy, independence and European values.

Naming the Kyiv as the Kiev will help to return Ukraine into the Russia's colony.

--Perohanych (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The only relevant issue in Wikipedia is common English usage. It has nothing to do with our feelings about Ukraine. Only common English usage is relevant. (Taivo (talk) 07:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC))
Wikipedia is not in the business of being correct. Common English usage is the policy, whether or not it is based upon correct data. It is not a political "diss" at Ukraine or Kyiv/Kiev.Srilm (talk) 08:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Any arguments based on "common usage" in a situation where a name has been changed are ipso facto irrelevant. If the names of other cities are changed at the requests of those governments, this rule should apply across the board and across the world. Any other argument is pretty pointless. Consistency is what should matter, whether in Wikipedia or in other media. Is there some rational reason why Ukraine is an exception to the rule? Rascalndear2 (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The name hasn't changed--only the language of transliteration has changed (from Russian to Ukrainian). But even in cases where the name has changed, common English usage still prevails, thus Burma instead of Myanmar. It's all about policy. Wikipedia's policy is to use common English usage. If that policy were different, then Wikipedia might use Kyiv instead of Kiev. But as long as Wikipedia's policy is to use common English usage, then the data presented above are conclusive--"Kiev" is still the most common spelling of Kyiv. Someday that might change, but for now that is the fact of the matter. Ukraine is no exception either (see Bangkok, Warsaw, Prague, Moscow, Copenhagen, etc. for plenty of other examples where common English usage does not match the local name). Government request doesn't change common English usage. Only the millions of English speakers can change that. And which government are we supposed to listen to? The Ukrainian Rada says that the English spelling of Odessa is "Odesa", but the city itself spells its name "Odessa" in English. Who's right? The people who live there or the distant government in Kyiv? The people of Dnipropetrovsk want to spell their city's name "Dnepropetrovsk" since nearly all of them speak Russian. But the Rada wants to spell it Dnipropetrovsk. Who's right? In the end, governmental decrees are meaningless since governments can change overnight. What if Yanukovych gets elected? He could change all the names of eastern Ukraine back to Russian spellings. No, we don't listen to governments here, they are all short-lived. We only respond to common English usage for names that are commonly used. (Taivo (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC))
Kyiv vs Kiev and Dnipropetrovsk vs Dnepropetrovsk are just two nice examples of how Wikipedia is inconsistent in its policies. Most of the names are already in the modern spelling. The official and widely accepted, even if not 100% overwhelmingly used, Kyiv spelling should be used from now on. --- (Wikipidyst (talk) 08:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC))
If you are arguing for preferred local usage rather than common English usage (which is the Wikipedia standard), then it should be "Dnepropetrovsk" as that is the preferred usage (the "modern spelling") in Dnipropetrovsk itself--it's a Russian-speaking city. So if you want Wikipedia to be "consistent" and use the locally-preferred spelling, then both articles should have different titles. (Taivo (talk) 10:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC))
Guys, I wouldn't bother convincing them to change the article to Kyiv. It's already a big step for them not to have a definite article before the name of the country. Given what I see it would not have surprised me to see 'the Ukraine' written all over. --Andriy155 (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Reminder when adding new text

Just a reminder if you are adding or editing text here. No matter what your personal practice or preference for the spelling of Ukraine's capital, the spelling used in Wikipedia is "Kiev". Please make your additions conform to this or your addition will be reverted. (Taivo (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

Let's avoid absolutes

Hello,

Let's remember that Wikipedia is nobody's property - therefore, statements like "your addition will be reverted" are not welcome. Everybody's input is important, and every edit will be judged according to its merit.

Please be aware that people who make statements like that may be reported.

Help us improve Wikipedia, not alientate editors.

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 10:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It is important that you remember that the "Official name" will be the name used by the people of the place, and the "Name" is the one most commonly used by others.
As such, Kyiv is the "official name"
Results 1 - 10 of about 3,760,000 for Kyiv
and Kiev is the "Name"
Results 1 - 10 of about 32,200,000 for Kiev
The editor is correct in telling you that any other use is wrong unless you can persuade the rest of the world to adopt using Kyiv
Chaosdruid (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Just because I still call Mumbai Bombay, doesn't mean its still proper to call it Bombay.--Львівське (talk) 01:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Two things made the switch from Bombay to Mumbai easier in common English. First, we talk about Bombay/Mumbai much more often than we talk about Kyiv. It's a larger and more important city in English culture and history with films, music, finance, etc., not to mention the fact that it was part of the British colonial system. Second, the pronunciation of "Mumbai" is noticeably different from the pronunciation of "Bombay" so there is a phonetic component to realizing that there is a difference. We know that there is a new name not just because of spelling, but because we hear the new name as well. This is not true of the difference between "Kiev" and "Kyiv"--to the average untrained non-Slavic English speaker, these two words are pronounced identically. So when a person only hears a news report about Ukraine, he/she doesn't hear any difference between the two words and doesn't realize that there is a "new" name for the capital city. "Kiev" will remain the most common English usage for a long time to come because it doesn't meet either of the two criteria listed above that promoted the change from Bombay to Mumbai. It's not about "correctness", but only about common English usage. (Taivo (talk) 03:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC))
A little remainder in addition to Taivo's explanation, if I may. :-) Third, when choosing the title for our entry on Bombay, the fact that India itself is an English-speaking country where English is an official language played a pivotal role (consider our guidance on national varieties of English). Of course, that's not the case of Ukraine. - Best, Ev (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


A little rebuttal, if I may. :) First, how often you use Mumbai is not really important. Sorry to say that, but it's true. I'm glad that you pay attention to Indian films, music, finance, etc. But that's neither here nor there.
Second, the pronunciation of Kyiv is also very different from Kiev. Say it, and you will "hear" it as well.
Now, getting back to the 'let's avoid absolutes' motif, please don't say things like "to the average untrained non-Slavic English speaker, these two words are pronounced identically". Saying that shows that you just don't understand the IPA.
Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I understand the IPA quite well, on an expert level, in fact, but it's irrelevant to the issue at hand. The issue at hand is how these two words sound to the untrained non-Slavic American ear that hears them pronounced, especially pronounced by the non-native speakers who would be reading the news on television (and I never said that it was my ear I was talking about). In other words, they sound virtually identical to the average English speaker in the very context where s/he is most likely to hear them. The issue's only relevance here is that it explains why "Kyiv" may never supplant "Kiev" in English usage. (Taivo (talk) 13:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC))
Your job, Horlo, is to respect the consensus that has been built here. (Taivo (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC))
Your job, Taivo, is to improve this article. No Consensus has been built here, as the thousands of lines about the spelling of the name will attest. So please improve the article. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Horlo, consensus has been built as the decisions are listed at Talk:Kiev/naming. "Consensus" doesn't mean 100% agreement, but that a great majority agree. If you look at the results of the last poll taken, you'll see that the great majority agree that this article should remain at "Kiev" and not move to "Kyiv". (Taivo (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC))
Oh dear - I didn't see all that - lets just say that Mumbai is, as Ev says, much more used. I hear it several times a week on the radio and on TV. I have not heard Kyiv mentioned once in over a year. It is true that Mumbai has become as equally well-known if not more so than Bombay. The people who used to call it Bombay are mostly dead now as it was only really used by people from the Raj and they are all over 60 yrs old.
Text books and other dosuments have called it Mumbai for many years as have I since 1997 and my first dealings with an international company making educational CDs and DVDs which were made, printed and packaged in Mumbai.
Kyiv is the official name, and Kiev is what most of the english speakers call it. You have to blame Russia and the US for that. Until it is shown that Google and similar searches return 50% for Kyiv and 50% for Kiev it will probably stay as Kiev. I for one would be glad to have it as Kyiv when the time is correct for that to happen :¬)
Chaosdruid (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, don't you think that name Kyiv should be put before Kiev on top of the page. Now it's 'Kiev or Kyiv' why not change the order to 'Kyiv or Kiev' ? There were several discussions on the web why Kyiv not Kiev e.g. http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=6013004059&topic=6698 Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.75.109.66 (talk) 10:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The short answer is no. The Kiev/Kyiv/Kiou issue has been discussed so many times on the talk page; another round of these discussions is not welcome. However, if you like you could start discussions on other pages on the lines of "Don't you think that this article should start: Danzig or Gdańsk".--Toddy1 (talk) 11:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The capital of Ukraine is the City of Kyiv - Article 20 of Ukrainian Constitution

Article 20 - The capital of Ukraine is the City of Kyiv - http://www.rada.gov.ua/const/conengl.htm#r1

Saying that google finds more for Kiev that Kyiv and it's the main reason to igore change to Wikipedia articles conserning Kyiv - makes no sense. In your logic we should next change ukrainian constitution due to google search result. Of course in USSR Kyiv in every foreign press was spelled as Kiev. As a result it caused a habit to spell name of the capital of Ukraine in wrong way even up to day, but we are not living in USSR anymore. We are living in independent Ukraine and the capital of this country is Kyiv.—Preceding unsigned comment added by SWC (talk • contribs) 15:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand your position, SWC. However, the names used in the articles of the English-language Wikipedia are not based on the text of any constitution, or on the decisions & desires of the government and/or people of any country. Instead, the names used in our articles are based on our policy on article titles and our naming conventions for geographic names. - Best, Ev (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

And I uderstand the policy of Wikipedia. A name can be considered as widely accepted if a neutral and reliable source states: "X is the name most often used for this entity". Without such an assertion, the following methods (not listed in any particular order) may be helpful in establishing a widely accepted name This makes sense , but stil I just can't acept it. Kiev (Russian: Киев) or official Kyiv (Ukrainian: About this sound Київ (help·info) IPA: [ˈkɪjiw] - non-sense. Why should russian way of pronunciation be the official name if the country is Ukraine and the only one officail language is ukrainian? I am not asking just to wipe out Kiev from the list, but Kyiv should be the main one and the Kiev - alternate.--SWC (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I not sure if I understand. Where does the article say that "Kiev" or the Russian pronunciation are the official name ? On the contrary, the article clearly states that for various institutions Kyiv is the official name of the city.
If by "official name" you mean "the name used as title of this article and then consistently in other articles of the English-language Wikipedia", then the answer is: because our policy on article titles and our naming conventions for geographic names ask us to reflect common English usage, not the official name in the country where a city is located, or the name in the official language of said country. — Of course, you can propose changes to these Wikipedia policies at Wikipedia talk:Article titles & Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). But, honestly, I don't think that a switch from "common English usage" to "official names" or "names in the official language of the country in question" will gain much support. - Best, Ev (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The main idea of changing this article was to make Kyiv more common in use. Ok, a change will be proposed. --SWC (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

In the English Wikipedia, we use the common English names for places. That means that we use Moscow instead of Moskva, Copenhagen instead of København, Warsaw instead of Warszawa, Kiev instead of Kyiv, etc. Common English usage prevails since this is the English language Wikipedia. The article does not say that Kiev is the "official" name. We use "Kiev" in Wikipedia because that has been proven to be the most common form used in English. (Taivo (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC))
Wikipedia is not a vehicule to promote certain words, names or spellings. Our aim is to passively reflect the usages of the current English language, not to actively promote changes in it. - Ev (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe simply do the following

Just change the order of words Kyiv and Kiev. First is the official, second -- is widely used. And is it correct the idea of using of "to be the most common form used in English" if the official name is Kyiv. Most of mentioned in all archives troubles with Kiev/Kyiv were removed on the side of Kyiv. For example US embassy also answer on http://kyiv.usembassy.gov/. Most of answers on search engines of Goggle gives links on companies with the mistakes on the native (Russian or Ukrainian) not saying about English. 78.25.20.154 (talk) 10:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The name of the article is the first form in the first sentence. US government usage is irrelevant. Google hits are not used. You should actually examine the evidence that is compiled above and you will see that Google hits aren't even used as a piece of evidence. We use Moscow, not Moskva; Warsaw, not Warszawa; Prague, not Praha; Kiev, not Kyiv. Toddy1 said it elsewhere: "Ukrainian transliteration into English will not give us a better English word than the English word." The English Wikipedia isn't here to play nice with Ukrainian speakers. The English Wikipedia is here for English speakers, so we use the forms that English speakers use. (Taivo (talk) 12:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC))
Thank you for answer. Maybe this answer should be added to the top or to the discussion page on Kyiv. It gives all answers. 78.25.20.154 (talk) 12:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
It don't gives all answers. There are more and more questions on each answer. I don't think that smbd should play nice with Ukrainian speakers, but enwiki should respect right of the Ukrainians to have own name. Today Russia and Ukraine are independent states who recognise each other and don't have any teritorial claims to each other. As You understand, according to all ukrainian official sources the right name is Kyiv, not Kiev. And finally, Ukrainians are majority in Kyiv. Regards --Ліонкінг (talk) 10:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
You don't understand. Ukrainians can have whatever name they want for their capital city. They can politely ask other countries to use a particular name. Other governments can respectfully choose to use that new name. But Wikipedia doesn't care about official positions. Common English usage is all that matters. The vast majority of English speakers use "Kiev" and have no knowledge of the "new" name. Wikipedia simply reflects common English usage. If common English usage changes, then Wikipedia will change. You should be thankful that English usage has changed enough to use "Ukraine" instead of "the Ukraine". The change from "Kiev" to "Kyiv" will probably take much longer for English speakers (assuming it happens at all). After all, Moscow is not "Moskva", Warsaw is not "Warszawa", Prague is not "Praha", etc. --Taivo (talk) 12:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but I disagree with You. Kyiv isn't the new name. More than that during the soviet period was used both (Ukrainian: Київ) and (Russian: Киев). I can't understand why we use double standarts. For example comparing with Dnipropetrovsk where Russian name "Dnepropetrovsk" is more commonly used we have in enwiki Ukrainian variant while for Kyiv we have Kiev. Also I think that example about cities aren't lucky, because Moscow, Warsaw and Prague are English eqivalents for the local names while Kiev is just English translation from Russian. --Ліонкінг (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
"Kiev" is the English equivalent based on simple usage. You can't get around the issue of usage in English. The difference between Dnipropetrovsk and Dnepropetrovsk is that there are only four placenames in Ukraine that are used with any level of frequency in English outside Ukraine--Kiev, Odessa, Crimea, and Chernobyl. For the placenames like Kharkiv, Dnipropetrovsk, Rivne, Uzhhorod, etc. Wikipedia can use the Ukrainian variant as the article title because these names are so rarely used outside Ukraine that there really is no "common" English spelling for them. Do a search of the New York Times over the last decade and you'll find hundreds of references to Kiev. You'll find dozens of references to "Odessa", whether in reference to the Ukrainian city or to an American city that shares that name. You'll find dozens of references to the Crimea and Chernobyl as well, so we use the English variants of those names. But you probably won't find more than one or two references to Dnipropetrovsk or Rivne or Kharkiv. So for Kiev, Odessa, Crimea, and Chernobyl we use the common English spelling of those names. That's the standard. Ukrainian or Russian doesn't matter one whit. The only thing that matters is common English usage. That's the Wikipedia standard. (Taivo (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC))

I was in contact with several encyclopedias and even the UN to try and point out that their dependence on the US translations needs to be updated as they translated from the USSR definitions which were from the Russian. It is going to take a long time for people to begin to use the correct names and, until then, we have to follow the policy in place. Taivo et all are indeed correct - It will remain "Kiev" as per Wiki policy until such time as the common usage reflects the official name.

The day I see a "Chicken Kyiv" here in England will be the day that we can probably at last change it - it is imperative that people do not say things like "wikipedia doesn't care what the official name is" as there is clearly an "Official name" in the info box. Chaosdruid (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Really? Do you call the famous Chinese dish Beijing duck?Mykyta (talk) 04:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

US official spelling

The webpage cited as the source for the claim that in Oct 2006 the US officially changed the spelling they use from Kiev to Kyiv does not (surprise) exist. Moreover, this is an especially dubious claim since numerous examples of the US State Dept currently using "Kiev" can easily be found. Someone who can get around the block needs to delete this dubious and unsupported claim as well as delete the non-existent citation. 70.131.157.139 (talk) 04:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Kiev is an obsolete spelling!

The official name of Ukraine's capital is Kyiv (Ukrainian: Київ). Look here: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine — The city of Kyiv.

One more examples: The U.K. Embassy in Kyiv, The U.S. Embassy in Kyiv.

Kiev is an obsolete spelling of the city, which was used in the USSR (from Russian: Киев).

--Pavlo1 (talk) 13:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Official names don't matter in Wikipedia. Only common English usage matters. A year ago the evidence was overwhelming that English speakers still use "Kiev" the majority of the time. Government statements are immaterial. You must prove that common English usage has changed in 12 months in order to make a case for changing Wikipedia usage. --Taivo (talk) 16:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
That's not quite as true as some would have us believe, actually, with regard to place names in India. Orissa recently changed its official spelling to "Odisha", and it's already been changed in the article text and Lead. I'm sure the page will be moved soon. I'm also certain the "common name" in English is still "Orissa" (Over 7 million ghits for the old name, vs. about 215,000 for the new one), but that won't matter when the page is moved anyway, as with other name/spelling changes for WP articles on Indian places in the past. WP operates by different rules, depending on where the place is located. - BilCat (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, BilCat, it's called WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Taivo (talk) 20:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
If a guideline isn't being followed elsewhere, that's a good sign it should be ignored. - BilCat (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
India is an inappropriate example as the city/region names there are, in fact, proper names in English, as opposed to common English usage for a name in Hindi. For example, if New York reverted to New Amsterdam, that would be that. "Common English usage" applies to English names for non-English language named cities. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but the guidelines don't make that distinction. - BilCat (talk) 03:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
It is a clear distinction that is made in Wikipedia--between locales that have local English names and locales that do not have local English names. Mumbai is the name in local English as is Odisha. "Kyiv", however, has no local name in English--its local name is in Ukrainian or Russian. Therefore, just as we do with Warsaw, Moscow, Bangkok, Rome, etc. we use the common English name for that city--"Kiev". It is a very clear distinction. --Taivo (talk) 03:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
That's not a distinction made in the common names guidelines, which is being used as the justification for keeping Kiev as the article's title, and I doubt it's actually made in any guideline. Even the example you gave earlier, New York/New Amsterdam, is at New York City, its common name, but not its official name, New York, or even New York (city). (New York is the state.) - BilCat (talk) 04:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
By definition, the guidelines are regarding common English language usage for foreign exonyms--otherwise there is no need except as applies to historical (in the past) usage, that is, common English (at the time) for foreign or English language exonyms, which is not at issue here. I'll be the first to toll the bell for "Kiev" once the time comes, but that time has not yet arrived. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 04:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
No, the common names guideline is regarding any article title, as evidenced by the examples, including Bill Clintion, not William Jefferson Clinton. - BilCat (talk) 04:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
In which case Kiev still prevails. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

No, you are reading the generic title guidelines, not place name guidelines. Checking Google's "Ngram" tool we find Estonia passed Esthonia some time in the 1930's, Romania passed Roumania some time in the 1950's/1960's (a bit surprisingly to me), and projecting the current trend, Kyiv will beat out Kiev in less than two decades. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 04:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I understand you now. I still disagree in this case, but I can see how following the letter of the guidleine instead of the spirit would enforce the tyranny of the Russians in perpetuity, and that's what's most important here. :) - BilCat (talk) 04:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
To be serious, Indian place names are not "widely accepted" (from WP:PLACE) the day they are changed, yet the articles are moved almost immediately. It's still a double standard, no matter how you slice it. If Kiev was pouplated by non-white people who had been under British tyranny, the name would have been changed long ago. - BilCat (talk) 04:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't have been changed. If you look, you will see that most of the city names of Ukraine are in Ukrainian now (Rivne, Dnipropetrovsk, Kharkiv, etc.). That's because they are virtually unknown among English speakers. Only Odessa and Kiev maintain their old spelling because those two names are widely known in the English-speaking world. It's not about racism, but simply about usage. Bangkok is not called that in Thai, but that is the name of the city in English. Japan is not called that by Japanese, but that is its name in English. There may come a time in the future when "Kyiv" becomes more popular in English than "Kiev", but that time is not now. --Taivo (talk) 06:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Dura lex, sed lex!

I must insist on re-examination of Kiev/Kyiv naming issue in accordance with Rules Use modern names/Alternate names Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) as general. In my opinion, rule Common names Wikipedia:Article titles should be regarded as an auxiliary in this case.

Guided by the fact that the latest decision was made over 12 months ago (2 November, 2009) Talk:Kiev/naming/archive 005, I request official reconsideration of the issue within Arbitration Committee.

I believe that given in the past period the arguments are based on authoritative sources Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.

I ask an impartial and objective assessment of the Wikicommunity.

Merry Christmas,

--Pavlo1 (talk) 11:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

@Pavlo1, I am more than sympathetic, indeed my personal preference would be to rename the article. But that is not my editorial preference, nor should it be anyone else's based on common English language usage. Nor does this have anything to do with Russophiles attempting to keep ownership of the name of Ukraine's capital city, as BilCat, most recent among numerous, have contended. There is nothing to arbitrate, the Arbitration Committee has no authority to insist on certain content. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
(ec) @Pavlo1, this isn't an Arbitration Committee issue. The Arbitration Committee is only for very serious issues where editors cannot come to consensus. WP:Consensus is the guiding factor here unless a consensus cannot be reached. You must convince your fellow editors right here that you have the evidence to prove that "Kiev" is no longer common English usage. Indeed, you may think me conservative, but I have lived in Ukraine and actually use "Kyiv" in all my non-Wikipedia writing. But here we are bound by the Wikipedia policy of common English usage, which is still "Kiev". You cite WP:NCGN as guidance and, indeed, that is the guidance we follow, which states at the very beginning: "The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it" --Taivo (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

-- It's Kyiv. Full stop --Rkononenko (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yawn. Full stop :p --Taivo (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Kiev vs. Kyiv

A Google search for Kiev shows 53 million hits, and for Kyiv only 8 million, so Kiev is what's being used in the English language most often. However, self determination plays an important role, so if the people of Kyiv ask to be referred to in this manner and the international community responds accordingly, at what point should Wikipedia follow? At the Boryspil International Airport the sign on the wall says Kyiv. USchick (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia will follow once the majority of the English-speaking world starts writing "Kyiv" instead of "Kiev".--Ptolion (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
There is also the problem of "dated" use. Even if everyone in the world starts to use Kyiv there will be those 53 million refs to Kiev. Current usage is not taken account of during your search. It would be best to do a date related one, say from 2000 to 2011 or similar. News and books are also the best to search as a rough guideline to trends, rather than "everything".
All searches using news on google:
Kiev (-Kyiv) = A : Kyiv (-Kiev) = B
1999-2011 A [1] 139,000
1999-2011 B [2] 47,400
2.93 to 1
2005-2011 A [3] 114,000
2005-2011 B [4] 46,200
2.46 to 1
In the period 1940 to 1990 the ratio was slightly higher at 73,600 to 115 = 663.48 to 1
As you can see it is slowly dropping lol Chaosdruid (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
See the following Ngrams: 1800to2008 and 1980to2008. As you'd expect, Kyiv, unknown in English beforehand, started being used after the independence of the Ukraine. Yet Kiev is still many times more popular ... and that's considering the amount of semi-English nationalist tripe incorporated in gbooks searches. A more revealing search would be using books only written by native English speakers. That I'm sure would be even more decisive. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Wow - nice site, I learned something useful today ! Chaosdruid (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
A fair number of news matches are to kievpost.com--which carries ads still referring to "Kiev." I still stick with the U.S. Board on Geographic Names. English language usage is their specialty and they have no ideological axe to grind. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Okarpenko (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)The issue is extremely sensitive for political reasons, which looks to be the reason for the extensive discussion. As already mentioned in the main article, this is whether the city is called in a Russian or Ukrainian way. On the other hand, there is an example of a city that recently changed its name in being represented under its current name while any search under the previous name anyway leads to the updated page. The city is Mumbai: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumbai There appears to be no doubt that Ukrainian authorities established “Kyiv” as the correct spelling. Based on common sense it would be quite inappropriate to address someone by a name not appreciated by the person, therefore counting google hits does not seem of great importance. I would suggest updating the name in accordance to the country’s official preference, leaving the old one for search and historic purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.181.69 (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The "country's official preference" is irrelevant. Only common English usage is relevant. India is an English-speaking country, so when they switch names, then common English usage also changes (since there are over 100 million English speakers in India alone and other English-speaking countries quickly follow suit). But when Ukraine changes usage, it doesn't affect English usage at all since there is no English-speaking population in Ukraine of any size to make a difference. Don't get hung up on "Mumbai". Notice that Warsaw is not Warszawa, Moscow is not Moskva, Copenhagen is not København, Rome is not Roma, Prague is not Praha, etc. Get over it. --Taivo (talk) 00:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

kiev

"kiev" - wrong. This soviet-russian pronunciation.

Київ=(to sound how)Kyiv —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.146.231.240 (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Go check this out. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 1, 2011; 19:55 (UTC)
I have had enough so have added the bigish text above and below the banners at the top of the page (If you are looking...) Chaosdruid (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
We're all aware of the etymology of the transliterated "Kiev", that came long before the Soviets, it was the second capital of Russia centuries before Uncle Joe came along. Let's focus on common English language usage. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed for "Kyiv" gaining in usage

In the first paragraph of the History of Kiev's name in English section, the article currently claims that the "Ukrainianized version Kyiv is gaining usage."

I am not interesting in discussing the naming of the article, I am simply looking for a source citation to support the point that "Kyiv" is gaining in usage. I have done some Google searching and can't find any sources to back up this claim (so I've added a 'citation needed' instead).

Clearly, the usage of "Kyiv" has increased within the Ukrainian government, but the general nature of the claim makes it sound like it is implying that "Kyiv" is gaining in usage over "Kiev" globally, and I think that a citation is warranted for that claim.

I did some checking on Google Trends, and it appears that at least between 2004-2010 the term "Kyiv" does not appear to have actually become more popular, at least among worldwide internet searches using Google. The Google Trends page comparing Kiev, Kyiv, and Київ globally shows that 'Kyiv' appears to have stayed relatively flat during the period 2004-2010, while usage of the native Ukrainian-language Київ has increased almost 3-fold.

I thought perhaps that usage might have increased at least within the Ukraine, but the Google Trends page comparing Kiev, Kyiv, and Київ for searches originating from the Ukraine shows what appears to be a decline in searches for both "Kiev" and "Kyiv" during the period 2006-2010 in favor of the Ukrainian-language term, and if anything the relative frequency of searches for "Kiev" vs "Kyiv" has increased, not decreased.

None of the similarly-generated Google Trends graphs for the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada have enough search data on "Kyiv" to generate any trend information for it at all (and searches for "Kiev" appear more or less constant).

On the Google Trends page comparing Kiev, Kyiv, and Київ for searches originating from the United States, it appears that "Kyiv" was below the threshold for inclusion in Trends prior to 2007, and since then it has remained near the threshold. Since going from 0 to something is an increase, this is perhaps the most compelling source I have found so far, but I don't think it is good enough to make the claim that "Kyiv" is gaining in usage as compared to "Kiev."

One issue with using these trends results is that the searches (for all three terms) appear to be dominated by users with Ukrainian-language browsers, but I don't think you can limit Google Trends results by language (only see the summary statistics). Jrandall (talk) 04:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

After some additional searching for English-language specific sources, I found a Google Labs service that has a selection of Google Books derived corpora that you can use to compare phrases. Plotting "Kiev" vs "Kyiv" from 1940-2008 does appear to show an increase in the use of "Kyiv" in published books beginning around 1992 along with a corresponding decrease in the use of "Kiev" during the same time period (as well as before and after). However, if you zoom in on 1995-2008 it looks more like there was a rise in usage of "Kyiv" from 1995 to 1999, and then a decline from 2000-2008 (although the continual decline in usage of "Kiev" probably makes that less interesting as in that plot the relative frequency of usage of "Kyiv" to "Kiev" does still appear to be increasing). Also, if you look at the plot with smoothing turned down to 0, there seems to be a lot of noise in the data points from year to year, so its possible the difference may not be statistically significant, but at least this may be some suggestive evidence to go on.

However, in general I'm not sure if Google Labs Books Ngram Viewer would be a reasonable source to cite? What do others think? Jrandall (talk) 04:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi I have moved the topic to here as, if you look at the description at the top of this page, it is to do with Kiev v Kyiv.
My note above discusses the numbers, but I cannot give a cite right now. I wil look into it, as I am sure others will, over the next 24 hours. Chaosdruid (talk) 05:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Jrandall, in reading over the section in question, the comment about gaining in usage in the first paragraph really isn't appropriate in that place. The final paragraph of the section is an actual discussion of the issue with references and much more appropriate detail. I deleted the chest thumping from the first paragraph because of this. I happen to agree with you that the "increase in usage" is actually something on the lines of a change from 1% to 1.1%--hardly worth noting. (Before anyone tries to claim that it's not 1%, I just pulled those numbers out of the air to illustrate how miniscule the increase in usage of Kyiv actually is. I'm reading a novel right now that was just written last year that still says "Kiev" and "the Ukraine". English usage changes like a glacier. --Taivo (talk) 05:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, no, actually, the reason English is the most widely spoken language in the world is because of its pragmatism. It changes, adopts, and grows very well. Peking changed to Beijing just as fast as Bombay became Mumbai. How fast? Real. I'm sure that you could find a book written yesterday that says Stalin was great, but that makes it neither true nor popular nor correct. I can't believe that there are still people who say Kiev is the correct spelling. Get out of your basement, into the sunshine, have an iced tea on the patio, and enjoy reality. Cheers.Horlo (talk) 07:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Nobody is saying it is "correct": the only truly correct spelling is the one used in modern grammatical Ukrainian. What we are insisting on is that this is the "common" spelling in English, even among those (like myself) who respect the ancient heritage of Kievan Rus. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Right, the only "correct" spelling of Ukraine's capital city is Київ. The only question relevant to Wikipedia is, "What is the most common spelling of that city's name in English?" The answer to that question is still "Kiev". There is no such thing as a "correct" spelling in English since the city is not named in English. There is only the most commonly used form in English. --Taivo (talk) 23:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
@Horlo - alternatively, pull your head down out of the clouds, breathe some oxygen, and the hallucinations will stop :¬) THe name is what it is because of the American way of transliterating. Unfortunately they put the "i", whereas UK officially uses "y" the vast majority still use "i" - most will go with "Chicken Kiev", and with that amount of the public using it, it is unlikely to change to "Chicken Kyiv" soon. The problem is that many sources prior to 2000 were based on the American transliteration. I emailed two US government departments around two and a half years ago, one admitted that it was wrong and was going to convert over to the "y" spelling "soon". Until then, the majority still use "i". Chaosdruid (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
The problem is even simpler than that, Chaos. "Kiev" is based on Russian Киев while "Kyiv" is based on Ukrainian Київ. But the great majority of American sources still use "Kiev", just as they use French Cologne instead of German Köln. It takes time for sources to shift and they may never shift to "Kyiv" over "Kiev" except in diplomatic circles. That's why we still use "Copenhagen" instead of "Købnhavn" (don't know if I spelled it right), etc. And heaven forbid if we ever abandon the King James Version spellings of placenames that are found in the Bible!! --Taivo (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
There is not need to change "Chiken Kiev". Only Kyiv itself. For analogy see the change from Peking to Bejing, while the historical cultural term "Peking Duck" remains the same. Those terms are probably not going to change, ever, but place names will.--Sanya3 (talk) 08:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
As has been said a billion times before, to comply with Wikipedia's preference for the most common English usage, prove that "Kyiv" has replaced "Kiev" as the most common English spelling and it will change here. Short of that, it won't. --Taivo (talk) 11:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

For review of article's authors: No. 5, Protocol no.1 of October 14, 1995

On the basis of expert analysis by the Ukrainian Language Institute under the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine regarding the Roman-letter correspondence to the Ukrainian language geographic name of Kiev, taking into account that the spelling Kyiv is indeed in the modern practice of Ukraine’s international communication, proceeding from the urgent need to standardize the recreation of Ukrainian proper names through Roman letters tn the context of Ukraine’s integration into the world legal realm, based on point 6 part 4(b) of the Provision on the Ukrainian Commission for Legal Terminology approved by decree No 796 of the President of Ukraine on August 23, 1995 "Regarding the Provision on the Committee for Legislative Initiatives under the President of Ukraine, on the Ukrainian Codification Commission and on the Ukrainian Commission for Legal Terminology", the Commission HAS APPROVED: 

   To acknowledge that the Roman spelling of Kiev does not recreate the phonetic and scriptural features of the Ukrainian language geographical name.
   To confirm that spelling of Kyiv as standardized Roman-letter correspondence to the Ukrainian language geographical name of Київ.
   On the basis of point 7 of the Provision on the Ukrainian Commission for Legal Terminology, determine as mandatory the standardized Roman-letter spelling of Kyiv for use in legislative and official acts.
   The resolution to be effective from the moment of its approval.

Head of the Commission, Minister of Justice of Ukraine -- S. Holovaty Chief Secretary of the Commission -- Y. Zaitsev — Preceding unsigned comment added by OlekSol (talk • contribs) 08:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed for "Kyiv" gaining in usage

(moved to Talk:Kiev/naming#Citation_needed_for_.22Kyiv.22_gaining_in_usage - Although not directly talking about name usage, simply a ref, it is to do with Kiev v Kyiv in terms of that usage, there are other topics there that talk about this also.) Chaosdruid (talk) 05:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

(I made a more extensive comment at Talk:Kiev/naming.) Actually the comment at the end of the first paragraph of the section isn't needed and is just flag waving. The issue is taken up in greater detail with references in the final paragraph of the section. There is no need for the chest-pounding in the first paragraph. --Taivo (talk) 05:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

WTF?! We aren't a part of Russian empire for 20 years, why article is named Kiev? It should be Kyiv! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.19.228.130 (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This is English language Wikipedia. Київ is called Kiev in English.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Київ is called both Kyiv and Kiev in English. So much for balance and neutrality.--Sanya3 (talk) 08:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
There is a whole section of the article dealing with the history of the spelling of Київ in English. The section is not perfect - for example it implies that Kiew is no longer used in the 21st Century, even though a few people use that spelling today.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I do think it's time for the article name change. Bombay points to Mumbai, Calcutta points to Kolkata, and it's Istanbul not Constantinople anymore. --jpgordon::==( o ) 23:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Prove it. During the last debate over whether to move the article or not, the evidence I accumulated showed that "Kiev" was five to ten times more common in contemporary English than "Kyiv". You'll have to amass a similar amount of evidence to prove otherwise. I seriously doubt that two years has made any difference at all in the relative level of usage of the two forms. Here's the link to the evidence for "Kiev" over "Kyiv". --Taivo (talk) 04:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
As to the statement on "Kyiv" gaining in usage, the context is offical/goverment usage, not everyday uasage. Regarding Mumbai, etc., India is considered an English-speaking country, so the minute they change the name of a city, all the Indian English-language publications start using the new name, and no one in the "west" wants to be seen to be politically incorrect, so they use the new name too. No one in the west cares about Ukraine. The only hope for Kyiv becoming the more common spelling anytime soon is for the city to become part of India! Otherwise you might have to wait 500 years like Istanbul! - BilCat (talk) 04:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
But "official/government" usage is not relevant to Wikipedia per WP:NCGN. --Taivo (talk) 13:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
True, but that wasn't the point of the statement in question from the Kiev article - it was simply saying that the use of Kyiv by goverenments has increased. I'm not sure why the discussion was moved here though, as it's about the article itself, not WP's nameing conventions - BilCat (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
@jpgordon, India place names don't qualify as an example because English is an official language. Common English usage for foreign (i.e., non-English) place names doesn't apply as Indian place names are handled like any English language city simply opting for a new name. Although from common language usage, Calcutta and Bombay do still hold precedence. It's a murky comparison at best.
   @Bilcat, the naming discussion was moved here to keep it all together over time.
   Lastly, I don't think anyone would accuse me of having any vested interest in propagating a transliterated "Russian" pronunciation in disrespect of Ukraine. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
"No one in the west cares about Ukraine"
Except that Canada is swarming with Ukies, Ukrainian-Canadians such as myself, with family from the Lwow/Lvov/Lviv area.
Canada has had a Ukrainian Governor General. Every Canadian kid is familiar with Ukrainian Christmas. Frozen perogies in every grocery.
As a proud Ukrainian-Canadian, I feel nothing but shame and embarrassment over the independent Ukraine.
I say "Kiev" just as I say "the Ukraine", traditional English and traditional English, but there has been a political transition, which needs to be recognized by the use of the Kyiv spelling.
I don't believe anyone outside of India uses "Kolkata"; I suspect Kyiv has more currency than that one, anyway.
Varlaam (talk) 08:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC) (Toronto)
Per Wikipedia's naming policy, you have to actually prove with hard statistical evidence that "Kyiv" is the more common spelling in English. The evidence that was gathered a couple of years ago was conclusive that "Kiev" was the most common spelling in English by an order of magnitude. With the European soccer tournament happening in Ukraine, there have been a lot of news reports on the radio about the tournament. I have not heard "Kyiv" used a single time, every reporter has used "Kiev". --Taivo (talk) 08:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Kiev is incorrect, it's Kyiv.

Kiev is the obsolete spelling of the capital of Ukraine, which was used during the time of the USSR, which dissolved in 1991.

Here are some reasons to change the spelling from Kiev to Kyiv. 

  First of all the Constitution of Ukraine clearly states in

Chapter 1, Article 20 that “The capital of Ukraine is the City of Kyiv” (Source: http://www.rada.gov.ua/const/conengl.htm (Constitution of Ukraine) 

  Second, in 2006 the United Nations, NATO, the U.S. Board of Geographic Names and the U.S. Department of State all officially announced the name change of the capital of Ukraine from Kiev to Kyiv.

(Source: http://www.kyivpost.com/news/nation/detail/25373/print/)

Wikipedia needs to get with the times and change the name of this page from Kiev to Kyiv. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SixersFan64 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Third, No. 5, Protocol no.1 of October 14, 1995

On the basis of expert analysis by the Ukrainian Language Institute under the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine regarding the Roman-letter correspondence to the Ukrainian language geographic name of Kiev, taking into account that the spelling Kyiv is indeed in the modern practice of Ukraine’s international communication, proceeding from the urgent need to standardize the recreation of Ukrainian proper names through Roman letters tn the context of Ukraine’s integration into the world legal realm, based on point 6 part 4(b) of the Provision on the Ukrainian Commission for Legal Terminology approved by decree No 796 of the President of Ukraine on August 23, 1995 "Regarding the Provision on the Committee for Legislative Initiatives under the President of Ukraine, on the Ukrainian Codification Commission and on the Ukrainian Commission for Legal Terminology", the Commission HAS APPROVED: 

   To acknowledge that the Roman spelling of Kiev does not recreate the phonetic and scriptural features of the Ukrainian language geographical name.
   To confirm that spelling of Kyiv as standardized Roman-letter correspondence to the Ukrainian language geographical name of Київ.
   On the basis of point 7 of the Provision on the Ukrainian Commission for Legal Terminology, determine as mandatory the standardized Roman-letter spelling of Kyiv for use in legislative and official acts.
   The resolution to be effective from the moment of its approval.

Head of the Commission, Minister of Justice of Ukraine -- S. Holovaty Chief Secretary of the Commission -- Y. Zaitsev Also: Strong arguments in favour of Kyiv spelling in English language: 

   Ukrainian government insists on Kyiv spelling
   The State Department of the U.S. issued a directive to write Kyiv
   The Prime Minister of the U.K. calls the city Kyiv and the British Ambassador to Ukraine supports Kyiv spelling too
   United Nations in its Multilingual Terminology Database (the ultimate body on geographical names) approved it as Kyiv and put it as Kyiv on their map
   Major English speaking governments worldwide switched to Kyiv spelling
   CIA refers to the city as Kyiv
   The name of the famous football club is Dynamo Kyiv
   Many papers, e.g., British The Guardian, are already writing Kyiv
   All major Canadian media already use the spelling of Kyiv
   It is Kyiv on Google and MSN  — Preceding unsigned comment added by OlekSol (talk • contribs) 10:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I was listening to NPR just the other morning about the weather in Ukraine. The news readers clearly and unmistakably said "Ki-ev". This is still overwhelmingly the most common English name for the capital of Ukraine. No evidence of usage has been presented to show otherwise. --Taivo (talk) 06:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
The most objective source I've found, including the care they take in presenting information, is still the BGN database, which still lists Kiev as common usage—which they indicate explicitly, and only when and where required. I'm sure that will change some day and as soon as it does, I will support the rename. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


Article title

This article should be named KYIV, not KIEV. The word "KIEV" is a russian transliteration which was used in soviet era and in Russia. "KYIV" is an English transliteration from the Ukrainian - the only NATIVE and OFFICIAL language in Ukraine. If you want the article pretend to be credible it should be renamed NoRad (talk) 11:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

While you are right about Ukrainian, the transliteration is intended for non-Ukrainians and would be helpful if it gave an idea of the name pronunciation in Ukrainian. The present transliteration is not very good at that; it should rather be 'Kiyiv' than 'Kyiv'. Otherwise, the Wikipedia regulation is to follow the prevailing common usage in English, which still seems to be 'Kiev'. If and when 'Kyiv' becomes dominant in English language publications, then the article's title would be duly updated. Best, Apcbg (talk) 13:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
This has absolutely nothing to do with the origins of the common English language name. It just happens to be close to Ukrainian—there are common English language place names which are much further removed from their native name. I suggest tracking the BGN database. When it demotes "Kiev" from common English usage, indicated per "(Conventional)" below—demotion would consist of "Kiev" becoming another "(Variant)":
  1. Kiev (Conventional)
  2. Kyiv (Approved)
  3. Kief (Variant)
  4. Kiew (Variant)
  5. Kijew (Variant)
  6. Kijów (Variant)
  7. Kiyev (Variant)
  8. Kiyiv (Variant)
  9. Kyyiv (Variant)
then we can rename the article. That's nice and simple. There is a whole separate sub-discussion page on naming of the article if you need to catch up. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
"When it demotes "Kiev" from common English usage ... then we can rename the article." So your proposal is premature. And mind it, BGN decision is one thing, common usage another. Finally, the place for such a discussion is the subpage you mention, not this talk page. Best, Apcbg (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
You misunderstand me, I am saying NOT to rename at this time. And BGN is specifically a scholarly indicator of common usage and far better than arguing over Google searches. Time to move this all to the subpage. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Historical name or modern Ukrainian style name?

Ukrainian nationalists in the English version of Wikipedia had translated almost all of the names of cities in Ukraine in the Ukrainian style of pronunciation. But there is no single system based on which all of the city were named in the English Wikipedia. Some times they used historical traditions, some times just they own thoughts. For example "Kharkov" - it's historical name of city, but in English Wikipedia West Ukrainian lobby is very strong and they decide to use modern Ukrainian-style (from twentieth years of XX century ) name "Khakiv". So the question is: WHY they don't change historical name "Kiev" into modern style "Kyiv"? DUKE (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It's based on the preponderance of the evidence. Kharkiv and Lviv and Luhansk, for example, are rarely mentioned in English-language sources, so there is no preference in English spelling for Kharkiv/Kharkov, Lviv/Lwow, Luhansk/Lugansk, etc. Kiev and Odessa, however, are mentioned more often in English language sources and are most commonly referred to with those spellings, not Kyiv and Odesa, so Wikipedia policy per WP:COMMONNAME dictates that those older spellings be used. It's all based on the evidence in English language sources. Neither Ukrainian usage nor Ukrainian political preferences make any difference and the "West Ukrainian lobby" has had no impact. It's based on the evidence in English. --Taivo (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
@Dmitry Yuryevich, regarding Kharkov vs. Kharkiv (I assume yours was a typo), the BGN database does not contain "Kharkov" as a specific exception for English common language usage, and so, "Kharkiv" is completely supported (per a source dedicated to the research and usage of place names for English language usage) as the correct place name to use for WP:EN. Best, VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Kiev vs. Kyiv - major British quality media

  • The BBC explicitly says in one article "Kiev (now spelled Kyiv)", though is perhaps inconsistent in usage: this uses Kiev and this uses Kyiv. Too lazy to see which one currently predominates, but perhaps worth nothing that the BBC's country profile for Ukraine still uses Kiev.
  • The Financial Times uses both, even within the same article! (Again, too lazy to see which one currently predominates).
  • The Guardian, one of the most popular sites on the web, seems largely (only? I didn't click through extra pages...) to use Kyiv when referring to Dynamo Kyiv. Other than it uses Kiev.
  • The Independent uses Kiev.
  • The Telegraph uses Kiev.
  • The Times uses Kiev.

I prefer Kyiv to Kiev, but if current usage by widely-read quality sources is the thing to go on, British ones generally support using Kiev. Skirtsy My talkEdits 22:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

This has been a major problem over the past few years. We are mostly aware of an impending change-over to Kyiv which will probably come sometime in the next ten years in Britain and perhaps others, the difficulty will be deciding when common usage has changed.
Until now, most of our text uses Kiev, though at the start of the Kiev article it gives "Kiev or Kyiv ..." - perhaps it is time to start using that as the basis for mentions, though this would only be in the first usage? (similar to how abbreviations are used)
Ukrainian sources which are translated into English often use the American spelling. I have been in contact with the UN, US state department and British Foreign office to find their policy, I cannot report here as it would be hearsay - no, not heresy :¬) Unfortunately many adopted the Russified transliteration and are reluctant to change. Once we get "Chicken Kyiv" in our freezers, we will know for sure that the change has happened.
(Copied from another page) Chaosdruid (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
The last time there was a Request for Move, the predominance of Kiev over Kyiv in major English language sources was at least 5 to 1 and often as high as 10 to 1. That doesn't presage a move from Kiev to Kyiv any time in the foreseeable future. As you correctly note, when we see Chicken Kiev become Chicken Kyiv, we might have a different story. --Taivo (talk) 23:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately you seem to have missed my suggestion - adopting "... Kiev (or Kyiv) ..." on first usage in an article and then "Kiev" throughout the rest of that article. I was not suggesting moving the Kiev page, and you should know me better than to even be thinking about that, especially as that is re-iterated in my opening sentence :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not getting on your case, Chaosdruid, sorry if I gave that impression. Just agreeing with you more or less, but I worded it poorly. --Taivo (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, nothing was meant by that, it seems that we English English users write more formally and often a tongue-in cheek sentence meant in humour comes across as "stern" or "upset" - I meant it as a light-hearted quip :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Once again about the place names

Kyiv or Kiev? Another argument List of countries, territories and currencies. europa.eu
Especially for Taivo and other Ukrainophobes: the moon does not heed the barking of dogs Best regards, --Pavlo1 (talk) 10:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

And I remind Pavlo1 of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. --Taivo (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Oops, when your actions there is a doubt with WP:AGF. Something is not right. With respect to your contribution to Wiki, --Pavlo1 (talk) 23:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
There is no doubt, Pavlo1. My actions are not driven by blind emotion, but by the facts. The facts are incontrovertible at this time that the most common name for Ukraine's capital in English is Kiev. Thus, per WP:COMMONNAME, we call it Kiev in Wikipedia. One marginal website doesn't make a convincing case otherwise. --Taivo (talk) 23:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. But my post world destroyed by some user. Unfortunately --Pavlo1 (talk) 23:22, Have you read it? Sing rule against three? Good night. --Pavlo1 (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Google Translate apparently :p --Taivo (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I have WP:RS List of countries, territories and currencies. europa.eu. WP:NOTADVOCATE WP:NPOVЮ Have you read it? Sing rule against three? Good night. What does translate.google? You are really an expert? Very doubtful... --Pavlo1 (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I remind you of WP:CIVIL. I asked if you used Google Translate because "Sing rule against three?" makes no sense. And you have placed one site here. One site doesn't change anything at all. Have you read the past discussions? If not, then you are unaware of the history of this discussion. You have to prove that Kyiv is the most common spelling of the name in English. One web site doesn't prove that at all. It doesn't even begin to prove it. --Taivo (talk) 01:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
And here is plenty of evidence from today in newspapers from English-speaking countries, that "Kiev" is still firmly embedded in the English language: Kiev Yahoo/AP, Kiev The Star/Reuters, Kiev BBC, Kiev The Guardian, Kiev New York Times, Kiev Washington Post. --Taivo (talk) 11:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Really?

This is still called KIEV?

All the people who care more about the name KIEV than about grammar and flow?

Horlo (talk) 08:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Taivo, please don't delete this section just because you don't agree - please. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


Requested move

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

The result of the proposal was no consensus for a move. This has not been published at WP:RM and it is clear from the opinions expressed here that there is no local consensus for a move (so no point in yet another formal WP:RM). -- PBS (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Kiev → Kyiv –It was officially stated by commission in Ukraine and in Constitution that the capital of Ukraine is Kyiv, not Kiev. 89.19.112.189 (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

  • The name of this article (Kiev vs. Kyiv) has historically been heavily disputed (almost since 2003). All comments regarding this issue should really be made on Talk:Kiev/naming. The current choice of "Kiev" is based more on what is the most common name used in English-language reliable sources, not the official name used on official government documents, printed in the Ukrainian language. It is very unlikely it will be renamed back to "Kyiv" unless there is a very wide consensus by the Wikipedia community. Regards. Zzyzx11 (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • support - Hello, the fact that this discussion has been going on for almost two decades is a sign that it belongs here, not shunted away. I support the move, as KYIV is the more common spelling, not only because it is used extensively by every official organ of the Ukrainian government, but also it was used by UEFA when broadcasting the championship, the force of nature monopoly (game) lists KYIV as a valuable property. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong do not support You are dreaming or smoking wacky weed if you actually think that "Kyiv" is the more common spelling in English, Horlo. All you have to do is look at the English language news articles published during the recent voting in Ukraine. They were almost entirely filed from "Kiev" and not "Kyiv". But this is the wrong page for such a discussion, as has been said before, and I'm moving this to Talk:Kiev/naming where it belongs. --Taivo (talk) 12:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong do not support. The last time I checked the BGN database, whose purpose is to serve as a place names reference for communication with the general public, it indicates "Kiev (Conventional)", meaning there's specific common English language usage, while "Kyiv (Approved)" is secondary usage. As soon as BGN deletes this "Conventional" usage, that is, "Kiev" becomes secondary usage ("Variant" in BGN nomenclature), I support the rename. Anything else leads to contentious stalemates over whose Google search or "XYZ uses Kyiv" trumps whose. Oh, and accusations of "Ukrainophobia" do not belong in the dialog here. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Object to rename. This is English language Wikipedia. The normal spelling of the name for the city in English is Kiev, and has been for a very long time. The Ukrainian Government has no power to change the English language. They can make rules for Ukrainian officials to follow - though they do not seem to have that much success at enforcing their rules on local government officials, who often use the normal English spelling of city names as well as the central government-preferred spellings on Ukrainian local government websites. If the Ukrainian Government cannot successfully impose their will on Ukrainian officials, why should we take any notice of their preferences? In any case, the Ukrainian Governments rule is based on a lack of understanding of the English language; an English-speaking Western European seeing the word "Kiev" will pronounce it much the same as a Ukrainian-language speaker from Ukraine pronounces "Київ".--Toddy1 (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please be nice. Kyiv is possibly trending upward and may replace Kiev as most common one day (around 2030?). No harm in asking the question now and then. It is my understanding that for technical reasons an actual RM should be placed at Talk:Kiev as this one apparently was, and that all discussion should take place here, at Talk:Kiev/naming, and that after the RM is closed it should be moved here to keep all such discussions in one place. It is also my observation that should Kiev be moved to Kyiv, there will likely be far fewer editors wanting it to be moved back than are now wanting it moved (i.e. this discussion will likely go away). Apteva (talk) 06:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Moves are not done to be convenient, they are moved based upon a preponderance of the evidence that is based on Wikipedia policy. There is a preponderance of evidence showing that "Kiev" is the most common spelling used in English for Ukraine's capital. Whether, or if, the evidence ever suggests otherwise, then the move can proceed, but for the foreseeable future, "Kiev" is firmly entrenched in the English language. --Taivo (talk) 06:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. In the spring of 1989 I listened to a Soviet Field Marshal making a speech against the NATO Pact's modernisation of tactical and intermediate range nuclear missiles. We both assumed that the Warsaw Treaty Organisation and the USSR would exist for the rest of our lifetimes. For all I know, in 2030, it might be called Kijow - but I suspect the English will still persist in spelling it Kiev.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Apteva that according to Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting a single page move, the discussion should be at Talk:Kiev. Taivo, please move it there.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move to Kyiv (February 2008)

The original text of this discussion is found here. The debate took place between February 10 and February 22, 2008, and its result was no consensus.
In accordance to the talk page split of August 2007, the text has been moved to Talk:Kiev/naming (diff. diff.). - Ev (talk) 10:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested move to Kyiv (September 2008)

Section's original title: "Request to move to official name".
Discussion moved to the designated page per message on top. --Irpen 21:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The original text of this discussion is found here. The debate took place between September 23 and September 30, 2008, and its result was No move.
In accordance to the talk page split of August 2007, the text has been moved to Talk:Kiev/naming (diff. diff.), as Irpen mentioned above. - Ev (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
In accordance to the talk page split of August 2007, discussion on the article's name should take place at Talk:Kiev/naming. - Ev (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The name of the article should be Kyiv and not Kiev. Following independence, the official language of Ukraine is Ukrainian, and is spoken by the majority of people living there. The name in English should reflect this. Adochka (talk) 11:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Its commonname in the English language is Kiev not Kyiv - therefore per WP:COMMONNAME it should stay as Kiev.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Please see the discussion in the appropriate section as noted above. This has been debated repeatedly. Personally I support Kyiv but find I cannot do so (yet) from an editorial English common-usage standpoint. PetersV       TALK 17:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I think in this case, using the CN form is borderline revisionism, seeing as the US, EU, and UN all recognize the spelling as Kyiv now.--Lvivske (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
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.

Most Recent Move Request

The discussion and resolution for the most recent move request can be found here. (Taivo (talk) 20:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC))

Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Snowball closed as not moved. Revisit this in five or ten years. It's entirely possible that the new official name will rise up to take the place of the old name. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 22:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


Kiev → Kyiv – According to the rules, the Ukrainian Київ transliterates into Kyiv. This has established the use of the spelling Kyiv in all official documents issued by the governmental authorities since October 1995. The spelling is used by the United Nations, all English-speaking foreign diplomatic missions (Embassies of Australia, Great Britain, Canada, United States), several international organizations (The list includes NATO, OSCE, World Bank), Encarta encyclopedia, and by media in Ukraine. In October 2006, the United States federal government changed its official spelling of the city name to Kyiv, upon the recommendation of the US Board of Geographic Names (http://geography.about.com/b/2006/10/20/us-begins-to-spell-kiev-as-kyiv.htm). The British government has also started using Kyiv (http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page20199). 91.218.75.8 (talk) 09:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

  • It is official in:
the UK (63,000,000) - e.g. https://www.gov.uk/government/world/organisations/british-embassy-kyiv
the USA (314,000,000) - e.g. http://ukraine.usembassy.gov/
India (1,237,000,000) - e.g. http://mea.gov.in/Portal/ForeignRelation/Ukraine-January-2012.pdf

These countries represent majority of the English speaking peoples of the world. That's why the correct name is Kyiv. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.218.75.8 (talk) 14:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose. We do not go by what name is "official", but by what name is used, and "Kiev" is still far more common than "Kyiv" in English. I understand why some Ukranians do not like the name "Kiev", but unless they convince a clear majority of English speakers to prefer the novel spelling we ought to use the name actually used in English. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Is there a clear metric of what is "far more common"? How do you know whether Kiev is more common than Kyiv? Everybody can find thousands of articles with both names, while official name is Kyiv. So how do we count Kyiv vs Kiev? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.218.75.8 (talk) 14:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
A rough guide that's generally accepted on Wikipedia is to use search engine data; e.g. about 75,500,000 Google web search results for "Kiev"[9] vs. about 17,800,000 for "Kyiv" [10]; about 109,000 Google News results for "Kiev" [11] vs. about 8610 for "Kyiv" [12]; about 3,760,000 Google Books results for "Kiev" [13] vs. about 191,000 for "Kyiv" [14]; about 561,000 Google Scholar results for "Kiev" [15] vs. about 165,000 for "Kyiv". [16]. "Kiev" clearly predominates. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually, no, not at all, those numbers are terrible and meaningless and cannot be trusted to be more than within 2 or 3 orders of magnitude of the actual number of results. Google search results are guesstimates, not actual numbers. The only way to really establish this is to establish a set of sources - say 50 top english-language media outlets, and search them individually to determine which word they use most. That will give you a better answer. Raw google searches or even raw google book searches are not worth much at all.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Normally I too warn people of over reliance on google, but the numbers are far from "meaningless". Even "2 or 3 orders of magnitude from the actual number", the difference in number between the two is extreme. It may not be perfect, but it is a good but loose indicator showing considerably wider use of Kiev.
Media outlets are similarly less perfect. I dare say many do not have a single policy over the name of places and useage varies among corespondents. Plus there would be argument about what constitutes the top 50 of the English speaking world. Though for arguments sake, the BBC use "Kiev" ([17][18]), as does NY Times [19][20] and Reuters accept it as "the commonly accepted English language spelling of the name." [21]. The instigator is also wrong to suggest that "Kyiv" is THE translation. There is no single translation, with various floating about. Discussion over which is more appropriate has been going on for over 20 years, with Kiev continuing to be used throughout. For example, the 1994 Financial Times Style Guide lists 4 such translations, again supporting the use of "Kiev". Interesting article "Kiev or Kyiv?" emphasizes how the different translations are neither right or wrong. Interestingly he suggests that the Ukrainian Government use "Kiev (Kyiv)" on English language publications for clarity. --Rushton2010 (talk) 02:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I've see cases where google estimates over 1m hits, but when you click through to the last page of the results there are under 1000. I've also seen the opposite, where the actual number if pages returned is greater than the guesstimate. In any case google only returns the first 1000 results, you can never really get more, so any numbers that are not 'click through to the end' are meaningless, especially those estimates - 2-3 orders of magnitude was a guesstimate on my part and it could be even more. The bottom line is, if your measuring stick is inaccurate then any measurements you take from it are mostly meaningless, and should not be used to determine common name. The source-specific searches are much more likely to give you result counts under 1000 and allow better comparisons.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. While raw Google numbers are not super reliable, a much better metric is the Google Ngram. In this case, an ngram from 1980-2008 shows that "Kyiv" essentially did not exist in English-language sources until around 1992, and while it has increased in usage since then, "Kiev" still outnumbers it 5-to-1 - just in books published in 2008. "Kiev" is still clearly the dominant spelling. Dohn joe (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Dohn joe. Official names have next to no bearing on article titling when they conflict with common names. Did the nominator review the talk subpage dedicated to this issue? --BDD (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose - Per Wikipedia:Official names and WP:COMMONNAME, the most commonly used and recognised name is the one used. That is undoubtedly Kiev. --Rushton2010 (talk) 01:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Maybe in 30 years time. I suggest that the next editor makes an early close per WP:SNOW. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, a perennial proposal. We can not really discuss the issue every three months.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No evidence has been presented to prove that "Kyiv" has replaced "Kiev" in common English usage. Wikipedia is not an arm of the Ukrainian government (or any other government for that matter). --Taivo (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. Anyone requesting a name change for this article in the future should prove that they have read the entire archives at Talk:Kiev/Naming before proceeding. --Taivo (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
    And this thread after closing should go there as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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. [22] 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)

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 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": [23]. --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)

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)
The important distinction is that the English place name "Kiev" is not offensive in English, the English racial epithet "nigger" is offensive in English. How can what is done in one language be offensive to speakers of another? --Khajidha (talk) 13:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kyiv/naming/Archive_11&oldid=1136886728"