Talk:Kyiv/naming/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

War between Ukraine and Russia 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The truth is the common name in English is Kiev. [1] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bluntly speaking, you are making that up. National Geographic, one of the most culturally sensitive organizations in the world, uses Kiev on its English language maps. [2] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do I care that readers looking for a reason to take offense will take offense? Nope. And [3] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Since you have nothing more to say but a personal attack, we are done here. If you want to know the resolution to Mumbai or Beijing or any of a hundred other false or irrelevant arguments that you might raise, please do your homework and read the archives. It's all been discussed before. --Taivo (talk) 03:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Taivo Where have you seen any personal attacks? You just personally prefer to offend me. What can I do about it? I don't know. And yes I don't want to continue any conversations with ignorant mazapukers. Poor those people who discussed that with you and similar to you. I understand them very well. Are you so unintellegent mazapuker? Have you ever thought if there won't be any problem you would never see me here Ukrainian a citizen of Ukraine and a resident of Kyiv telling you that? Like African American that trying to make someone to stop calling him N. Very sad you are not liberal enough to understand that. It is inevitable but your conservative mind wants to stop it. Everything changes. After your death (if Wikipedia will exist) it for sure will be Kyiv and you won't exist by that time and couldn't change it. Why are you trying to stop things which you cannot change? What kind of perversion is it? 94.244.129.207 (talk) 04:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll tell you what, zaspanets', stop attacking good faith editors who know a lot more than you do about how Wikipedia works. You're not here to do anything than push your own POV as to righting great wrongs. As was succinctly noted by another editor somewhere in the archives, if you think that you're going to make any form of impact on English Wikipedia and the world by focussing on the Anglophone world's spelling of 'Kiev' rather than 'Kyiv', you are so far off-track that it truly is sad. There's no more to be said on the matter, full stop. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy Why are you sitting somewhere very far from that poor city Kyiv and with your good faith mazapukers teach me how my native city should be called in your offensive anglofon world?! Guys and girls you are deeply ignorant. Please stop puking offend me. Why cannot you so clever guys and girls understand that? Just stop. I don't ask you to do something for me. I ask you to stop your offence. You are doing bad thing trying to protect your wrong and bad habits. I said: very long time a lot of people called African Americans N. - it's not true anymore. Why is it so hard to you? Are you all 100 years old and your mind just physically cannot change anymore? Why I had to ask you not to offend me?! Why Mumbai(also known Bombay) but not Bombay(also known Mumbai)?! Do you have mind at all? Your mind is closed to incoming information. Bye. Hope you will go to your ancestors as soon as possible and your habits will go under the ground and you will stop offend me. 94.244.129.207 (talk) 05:08, 1 April 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) 12:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

What is you to decide what is offensive to Ukrainians and residents of Kyiv or not? Who has put in your mind so powerful charge of ignorance that you tenderly bear throughout all your life and share with normal people on Wikipedia? Khajidha SlavaUkrainiGeroyamSlava (talk) 10:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Who are you to dictate to speakers of a different language how they must speak? What other words is the English language no longer to be allowed to use? --Khajidha (talk) 10:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Well said, Khajidha. Frankly, I consider it to be highly offensive that this user should even suggest that the use of "nigger" and the use of "Kiev" - a centuries old Anglophone COMMONNAME - as being analogous. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. And the wishing you (and me, before it was removed) dead simply destroys any credibility or good faith he/she may have been given. --Khajidha (talk) 12:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

In all my years of editing Wikipedia, I've never seen one editor wishing another dead before. It definitely gives a new spin to "battlefield" mentality. --Taivo (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

It certainly puts a new spin on the concept of being 'on the offensive'. I wouldn't want to have a 'discussion' with this user face-to-face! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

(Redacted) SlavaUkrainiGeroyamSlava (talk) 10:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Slava, there is nothing offensive about using a standard English term when speaking English. Your taking offense to it is as nonsensical as taking offense to the use of the words "blue", "mountain", "happy", or "circle" in English. If there is any ignorance at play in this conversation, it is yours. --Khajidha (talk) 10:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

SlavaUkrainiGeroyamSlava, be grateful to NeilN for WP:RPAing that comment (although it still exists in the edit history). You've now very close to overtly overstepping no personal attacks and are moving into the territory of serious personal attacks. Please familiarise yourself with WP:CIVIL. Any more such personal attacks will not be overlooked. I've tolerated your behaviour thus far as you're apparently a new user. I've now guided you to a cornerstone policy regarding the project (that is, civility). My suggestion is that, since you feel such personal animosity towards me, you cease communications with me, as this will be my final communication with you. Thank you for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

User:SlavaUkrainiGeroyamSlava has been indef blocked for his death wishes and his disruptive comments here. --Taivo (talk) 01:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Cheers, Taivo. I only just noticed that after posting here and was going to self-rv the last comment I made. Under the circumstances, I think it may as well stand as is. Considering the large number of very aggressive POV editors coming to this page, either with or without a fundamental understanding of Wikipedia's policies, and pushing the envelope when it comes to assuming bad faith to becoming downright abusive, it will (hopefully) serve to inform new users who are genuinely good faith to read through the archives, and to comprehend that it's unacceptable to attack other editors. Personalising policy-based decisions and making assumptions about experienced, good faith editors is truly bad form. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Official Ukrainian Document that states, that correct translation is "Kyiv"

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

---

Here is a scan of an official Ukrainian document (date Octover 14, 1995) that states, that the correct translation is Kyiv. https://scontent-fra3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtp1/t31.0-8/11888580_1480893452235201_2746295501062537072_o.jpg OlegGerdiy (talk) 10:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

"Kiev" isn't a "translation", it's the name of Ukraine's capital in English as evidenced by multiple sources. The "transliteration" of the city's name from Ukrainian into the Roman alphabet is "Kyiv", but English speakers don't use that except in official government documents. That's just the way it is. "Moscow", "Warsaw", "Prague", "Copenhagen", etc. aren't "transliterations" from the native languages of those cities either--they are the names of those cities in English. The government of Ukraine has no more control over what the name of its capital city is in English than it has at the moment over Sevastopol. --Taivo (talk) 12:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Aside from all the points Taivo makes, I just have to ask: Why do you even care what name English uses for the city? What could it possibly matter to you? Do you wish to complain that English uses its own words for other things? Should all English speakers convert to using Ukrainian instead? I neither know, nor care, nor even consider myself to have the right to care what word the Ukrainian language uses to name any city in my country with the sole proviso that such names not be offensive within the Ukrainian language itself. As an illustration, if the English name of this city were "Shithole" THEN there would be valid reason to change it. --Khajidha (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Yet another point: why all these 'Kyiv-fihters' are so concerned with English spelling of the city name, while spellings in Zulu, Icelandic and Japanese are completly irrelevant for them? (Francois (talk) 08:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC) - A former Kievan, who is not offended by THE English name of my city)

1) It seems to me Taivo has antiUkrainian mood - see the last sentense about Sevastopol ("The government of Ukraine has no more control over what the name of its capital city is in English than it has at the moment over Sevastopol.") - it sounds like he praises the occupation of Crimea by Russia. So again, it's an important political matter. 2) For me it's obvious that word "Kiev" is also not English word, but a transliteration from Russian language.

[User:OlegGerdiy|OlegGerdiy]] (talk) 09:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Let native English-speakers decide what is native English word and what is not. If you don't like English and its words - just use another language. BTW, nobody occupied us, Crimeans. Francois (talk) 11:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Does Ukraine have physical control over Sevastopol right now? Yes? No? Your comment that my statement of simple fact implies an anti-Ukrainian bias is stupid. All that matters here is the simple fact that "Kiev" is the common English name of Ukraine's capital. It doesn't matter whether the original source of the name was Russian or Polish or Swahili. All that matters is that "Kiev" is the name of the city in English, just as "Warsaw" is the name of Poland's capital in English and "Prague" is the name of the Czech Republic's capital in English, even though these names are neither Polish nor Czech. It's not about politics (I have lived and worked in western Ukraine and am married to a Ukrainian), it's about simple facts of the English language. --Taivo (talk) 11:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

And "Cologne" is a direct borrowing from French, but that is still the English name of the German city and not the German form "Köln". The source of the name is irrelevant, it is English usage that matters. --Khajidha (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Arguing with those silly people, who cannot understand simple thing about how languages "work", is just waisting time. Imagine that they are also fighting with Russians in terms of Russian language. There are two different prepositions in Russian to say "in <country>" and for Ukraine Russians use a less common preposition. These silly people come to Russians and say how they must speak in their language forcing them to change the preposition. The same happens with similar silly people from Belarus - they come to Russians and say that their country is called Belarus' (Беларусь) and not Belorussia (Белоруссия). The last one is more traditional and more commonly used in Russian, but those idiots come and argue, again, and again, and again. It's a deficiency complex of a newly born nation in such people. 2A00:1028:8384:FDA:6028:8B4A:6E20:1F55 (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Insulting citizens of new countries is certainly not appropriate. It is certainly acceptable for people who have thrown off the yoke of Russian servitude to want to rid themselves of the memories of that yoke and the stain of Russian imperialism. That's why most articles about places and cities in Ukraine are titled in Ukrainian--there are no common English forms for the vast majority of these cities because their names almost never appear in English speakers' mouths. But for the two cities which have demonstrably common English names--Kiev/Kyiv and Odessa/Odesa--then the national aspirations of newly-freed people must be balanced against common English usage. Belarus is most commonly "Belarus" in modern English usage and "Belorussia" is quickly fading into the obscurity of Soviet history. "Kiev" and "Odessa", however, are not fading. It has nothing to do with "silly people" or "idiots" from Belarus and Ukraine. Your own Russian attitude is the very reason why these people want nothing more to do with you and your kind. --Taivo (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear Taivo. While I fully support your criticism of quite unbalanced message of the previous anonymous speaker, I would like to point out that political cliches such as "yoke of Russian servitude" are out of place here. As an ethnically Russian, living better time of my life in the Ukraine, I can assure you that all these "servitudes" are nothing, but instruments of propaganda. The Ukraine is in way worse position now than it was under "servitude". Francois (talk) 08:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Francois ???. Perhaps you could qualify what "worse" and "better" means in the context of individual freedom vs servitude. Such questions are WP:PPOV. I could respond to that with, "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." These are not, however, questions for us to tackle on talk pages. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Iryna, you are right. All these criteria needs definitions that are quite tough to give. What is wrong? What is right? What is "servitude", what is "freedom"? Some may argue that the Ukraine now is in the state of THE worst servitude after Nazi occupation... I bet, majority of Ukrainians would prefer to live, not to die following some commies proverbs. But, again, we discuss English words here, not politics, right? Francois (talk) 09:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The fact that you used "the Ukraine" says pretty much everything we need to know. --Taivo (talk) 09:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes. This is how I was taught in school. I don't think English grammar should follow Ukrainian politics. Or should it? Francois (talk) 09:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not even going to start to go into how many things are off about your comments... but enough WP:SOAP, Francois. Stop trying to turn this thread into a general discussion. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, Iryna. Australians are more informed about the Ukraine than her citizens and residents, right? BTW, it was not me who started off-topic discussion with pathetic unrelated quotes and emotional discussion of pure abstractions. Let's discuss English-language toponimics here. Peace? Francois (talk) 06:41, 10 October 2015 (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.

RfC: The common name in the English-language of the capital of Ukraine is "Kiev"

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing early per WP:SNOW. The consensus strongly favors Kiev on the basis that while "Kyiv" may be the officially recognized transliteration, "Kiev" is the most commonly recognizable name in the English language, and therefore should be preferred as the title of the article. Mz7 (talk) 01:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC) To clarify: the most important finding of this discussion is that "Kiev" is the most commonly recognizable name in English. Mz7 (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

---

Even though it is not the officially-accepted direct transliteration of the name of the city from Ukrainian, the historically accurate common English-language name for the capital of Ukraine is "Kiev".

• Support as nom. The policy WP:COMMONNAME says:

  Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, such as Greek, Chinese, or Russian names, must be transliterated. Established systematic transliterations, such as Hanyu Pinyin, are preferred. However, if there is a common English-language form of the name, then use it, even if it is unsystematic (as with Tchaikovsky and Chiang Kai-shek). (WP:COMMONNAME#Foreign names and anglicization)

  If another transliteration is to be used, then evidence must be presented that that transliteration is the common name in English - not that it's used in some places, not that it's the "official" Ukrainian transliteration, not that we must not "dis" another countty. The only acceptable criteria is that it is the common name in the English language. BMK (talk) 23:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
• A neutral pointer to this discussion has been posted on the talk page of WikiProject Ukraine. BMK (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
• This RfC has been listed on Centralized discussion. BMK (talk) 00:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. I'm wondering why this RfC is even here right now. Wikipedia has used "Kiev" for years for exactly this reason--it's the city's name in English. --Taivo (talk) 01:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

It's here because the the editor User:Dƶoxar and the editor below, Wikimandia, who signs "Мандичка", are edit-warring in favor of "Kyiv" on Ahatanhel Krymsky. Wikimandia, who I expect better of, doesn't seem to understand the difference between a name being acceptable in English, and it being the common name in English. My attempts to point him to the controlling policy on his talk page have been unsuccessful, and he argued the point on this AN/I thread concerning Dƶoxar's editing. BMK (talk) 02:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I just realized that I just broke 3RR in restore "Kiev" on Ahatanhel Krymsky. As I'm going to have to revert myself, would another editor please make the fix? BMK (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Done, BMK. It was only technically breaking 3RR as, in this case, it is reverting vandalism due to the 'Kiev' convention being the well established consensus version. I don't think Wikimandia was necessarily aware that this talk page existed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

What you say is perfectly reasonable, but I have, in the past, been blocked for making entirely unconnected edits on the same article, normal everyday copyediting not related in any way to the disputed material. One never knows, so I try not to give anyone an excuse for blocking me. BMK (talk) 02:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Understood. It's happened to me, too, so I can empathise with your cautious approach. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - the capital of Ukraine is spelled Kyiv in English[4], [5], [6] and this is widely used,[7], [8], [9] and respected worldwide by other governments.[10],[11][12] It is not true that "Kyiv" is Ukrainian as "Київ" is Ukrainian; Kyiv is the correct transliteration of the Ukrainian name, NOT the Russian name (Киев). Why would we use the Russian name for a Ukrainian city? Should we use the Japanese name for a Chinese city? "Historically accurate common English-language name" is meaningless as names regularly change based on clarification of the country, ie, Peking→Beijing, Bombay→Mumbai, Calcutta→Kolkata. Many other cities in Ukraine are now spelled using Ukrainian transliteration as opposed to the Russian transliteration, so Lvov→Lviv, Zaporozhye→Zaporizhia, Kharkov→Kharkiv, Dnepropetrovsk→Dnipropetrovsk. This POV-pushing that it should be Kiev is very problematic, as though the government of Ukraine does not know how to spell its own capital in English/Latin. If a company clarified its name was spelled a certain way, nobody would argue against correcting it on Wikipedia. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The concept that a specific government would have the right to dictate how a word (like the name of a city) is spelled in the language of an entirely different country is very strange to me. Names of cities in my native language follow the usage of my native language, not of whatever a given government may decide, even if it's the government ruling over the city in question. LjL (talk) 01:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: You're talking about sources translated into English, but not that which is used in Anglophone countries. Also, please read through the archived talk. The Peking, Bombay and other parallels have been addressed numerous times. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support - to me this Google Books n-gram count gives a pretty obvious clue. It's hardly even on the rise anymore! (also, 120m vs 22m Google search hits) LjL (talk) 01:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support for all the policy-based reasons I've discussed and argued on this talk page for years. It is the WP:COMMONNAME in the Anglophone world. Recent events in Ukraine have underscored the fact of it being the accepted nomenclature in the English language. We don't set precedents, we follow WP:RS. If editors new to this page care to go over the archives, they'll see how many times the theory and practice have been challenged and rebutted by facts. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Support. Kiev is not a modern transliteration, it is the established English name like Moscow (i.e. not Moskva) and Athens (i.e. not Athina). It is such a shame that this issue wastes such energy among Ukrainian patriots, no Anglophone thinks 'Kiev' is particularly symbolic of Russian dominance of Ukrainian culture, it does not particularly resemble the standard Russian form more than the standard Ukrainian form and 99.9% of Anglophones aren't aware of either (nor are they aware of the more pertinent fact that Kiev is,de facto, a Russian-speaking city anyway). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Deacon of Pndapetzim, By your Oppose !vote you are de facto endorsing the enforced use of "Kyiv" on English Wikipedia. Is that your intention? If so, your words seem contrary to that. Softlavender (talk) 02:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hah, yeah, that was pretty dumb of me, you're right. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support as WP:COMMONNAME, just like Wien → Vienna, Roma → Rome, and so on. Softlavender (talk) 02:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support both the continued general application of COMMONNAME to cities like Cologne, Milan, etc that have standard names in English different from the transliteration of their native names, and its specific application to Kiev. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:TITLECHANGES. And the fact this has been attempted five previous times without it being moved. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Though lately "Kyiv" seems to be gaining some ground as a preferred spelling for the city in some English-language sources, Kiev is the historically preferred name in English, and as far as I can tell remains the most common today. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support the continued use of Kiev. This is the common English spelling. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support per the many arguments given above, especially that of LjL. My question is "Why do some people care what another language calls a particular city?" I neither know nor care what the city I live in (or any other city in my country) is called in Ukrainian. It has absolutely no bearing on me. The only possible reason I could see for me to be upset about the name another language calls my city is if the name was inherently offensive in that language. To clarify, if the common English name for Kiev was something like "Shithole" or "Stupidville" then those arguing for a change would have a valid point. Otherwise, no. --Khajidha (talk) 10:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Kiev is still overwhelmingly the common name in the English-speaking world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support, although it's not like megabytes of previous discussions which had already established this very fact wouldn't have been sufficient! But I guess it's good to have closure and to document it in a single location.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 25, 2015; 13:24 (UTC)
• Support, per WP:COMMONNAME. -- GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
• Kiev Per wp:commonname— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamfinmo (talk • contribs) 17:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Kiev may follow Bombay and Peking into oblivion ... or not (see this Google Books n-gram count from LjL above), but until it does we should use it. IOW per wp:commonname --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support Kiev. (Why do I get a sudden feeling that I've done this before?) Thomas.W ^talk 21:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support: It's Tokyo, Rome, and Cairo, not "Tōkyō", "Roma", and "al-Qāhirah", therefore we should refer to it as "Kiev", not "Kiyv". --Carnildo (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Carnildo: Funny, you'd think that, but then we get discussions like what's going on at "Ana Ivanovic" right now and you begin to scratch your head on what is truly a common spelling. I'm guessing we'll soon be forced to spell it Roma and Tōkyō. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support: Once again, the BGN database, for geographic terms to use which are most familiar to the public, states:

• Kiev (Conventional - C)
• Kyiv (Approved - N)
• Kief (Variant - V)
• Kiew (Variant - V)
• Kijew (Variant - V)
• Kijów (Variant - V)
• Kiyev (Variant - V)
• Kiyiv (Variant - V)
• Kyyiv (Variant - V)
• Київ (Variant Non-Roman Script - VS)

"Conventional" indicates there is a specific common English place name. Once "Kiev" moves to "Variant", I'll support the name change. My personal preference is strongly "Kyiv", but that's not what's at stake here. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support: Kiev is still the common name. –P. S. Burton (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
• snowball support. Ever heard of a place called Germany? Did you know that the people who live there call it "`Bundesrepublik Deutschland"? But in English, this is what it is called, despite the fact that it bears no resemblance whatsoever to what the Germans call it. Is that fair? I don't know, but it is an easily established fact, just like the English spelling of Kiev. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Interestingly, if it weren't for early modern love for classicisms corrupting English it would probably be Dutchland. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
• Per WP:SNOW, this should be closed. Consensus is clear. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support Kiev because of WP:COMMONNAME and all above. BethNaught (talk) 13:27, 26 November 2015 (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.

@Mz7: the question wasn't merely what the title of this article should be, though (I think that's been established by several past debates), but in general, whether the common English name was Kiev, which has implications beyond this article's title: namely, it means "Kiev" should be used in most articles in most contexts, per various policies. In fact, this RfC was started due to the fact that someone was insisting on using "Kyiv" in another article. LjL (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@LjL: Yes, this is what the consensus is. I have struck the last bit to clarify. The ultimate finding of this discussion is that "Kiev" is, indeed, the most commonly recognizable name for the city in English. Mz7 (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the results of this poll (and my own vote in it), there are cases in English where the Kyiv spelling predominates and should be used/maintained. Examples include Kyiv Post and FC Dynamo Kyiv.--Khajidha (talk) 02:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed! I said "in most articles in most contexts", not in all. Those are examples of proper nouns that contain the name of the city but are not the name of the city: the rules for spelling them are independent. LjL (talk) 02:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify for the opposition, the city name itself would remain Kiev in those articles. --Khajidha (talk) 02:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Rename page to Kyiv

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

---

In Wikipedia we should use official names of regions and cities therefore consider it appropriate to rename a page on the official name specified in the official translation of the Constitution of Ukraine, which is used in all documents and the names of institutions (Kyiv).

Official translation the Constitution of Ukraine: www.kmu.gov.ua/document/110977042/Constitution_eng.doc

Use header Kiev is not approved in the official documents of the country, and was used in the Soviet Union. I believe that the use of the name Kiev possible only as an additional and historic, but not official. Tunyk (talk) 10:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@Tunyk: If you had bothered to read this page and archived previous discussions you would have found that it has been discussed multiple times, and that A) it doesn't matter what "official Ukrainian documents" say, we go by what the common name in the English language is, and B) there's a clear consensus among editors here not to move the page to Kyiv. Thomas.W ^talk 10:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@Thomas.W:In my opinion this issue is advisable to decide Ukrainian people, not foreigners with subjective opinion. Your opinion isn't correct, as if guided by it instead of Finland we can call it Suomi. This too is that instead of the official name of the country Netherlands page title is Dutch.Tunyk (talk) 10:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@Tunyk: It's not up to the Ukrainian people to decide what words/names/terms speakers of a totally different language use. And everything else in your post is wrong too: Finland is one of the two official names of that country (the native name of that country is Finland in Swedish and Suomi in Finnish, the two official languages there), Netherlands is the English language name for that country (the official name in their own language is Nederland), and Dutch, as in Dutch people and Dutch language, refers to the people and the language of the Netherlands, not the country. A large number of countries, regions, cities etc have a name in English that differs from the name used in the language that is native in that area (such as Sweden instead of Sverige, Germany instead of Deutschland, Spain instead of España, Brittany instead of Bretagne, Vienna instead of Wien, Copenhagen instead of København, Munich instead of München, Venice instead of Venezia, and so on...), names that in most cases have been used for several hundred years, and are so solidly established that neither an "offical translation" nor the opinion of the local residents is going to change it overnight. And per WP:COMMONNAME Wikipedia goes by what form of a name is most commonly used in English language media, and among native English speakers, so Kiev isn't going to be changed to Kyiv until the latter is more common than the traditional name in the English language, i.e. Kiev, is. Thomas.W ^talk 11:22, 26 June 2016 (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.

I have a suggestion

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

---

Let's rename this article to Kyiv and see how much it will reduce the level of debates around it. 46.63.38.5 (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Cheers for the suggestion, but that would be missing the point of this talk page. It's referenced on a number of other talk pages as the forum for any queries surrounding nomenclature, and the objective is to distinguish between WP:COMMONNAME and the use of the Ukrainian transliteration of the Ukrainian name in English. As the discussion surrounds the English nomenclature, the WP:TITLE of the talk page is appropriate. The purpose isn't to fly under the radar and make executive decisions without broader community input. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I have a better suggestion. Definitively prove that "Kyiv" is more common in actual English usage than "Kiev". --Taivo (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The Embassy of the United States (http://ukraine.usembassy.gov/contact-information.html) and British Embassy (https://www.gov.uk/government/world/organisations/british-embassy-kyiv) officially uses Kyiv, so „Kiev” is just a common mistake and nothing else. Encyclopedia isn't a place for mistakes, even if they are common. 46.63.38.5 (talk) 10:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

That's not proof that the common English usage is "Kyiv". That's just government policy. Unless you've lived in a cave all your life you would know that government policy means absolutely nothing when it comes to common English usage. --Taivo (talk) 10:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Official usage in many English-speaking countries from reliable sources is not a proof for ecyclopedia? Thank you, I lol'd. 46.63.38.5 (talk) 10:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

As Taivo said, that is not proof of COMMON USAGE. That is, usage by the ordinary person, in journalism, and in literature. The English language is not government regulated. --Khajidha (talk) 11:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Then you can read this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_University_of_Kyiv-Mohyla_Academy: „The university is bilingual in Ukrainian and English. It is one of Ukraine’s few universities with internationally recognized diplomas”. Do you think that university with education in English and internationally recognized diplomas calls itself wrong? 46.63.38.5 (talk) 13:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

As a Ukrainian university it's usage is dominated by Ukrainian language norms, whatever language instruction is offered in. Usage of English as a foreign language has no bearing on standard English usage. --Khajidha (talk) 13:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

That would just cause a lot of people to demand that it be moved back to Kiev. --Khajidha (talk) 00:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

And I'm still waiting on an explanation of how it is offensive in the first place. I can understand the offensiveness of using a Russian name in Ukrainian, but this is neither using the Russian name nor written in Ukrainian. It is using the English name in English. Yes, the English name is derived from the Russian name, but that doesn't make it a Russian word any more than microscope is a Latin word just because it is derived from Latin. --Khajidha (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

For me it's not offensive, it's just wrong. Serious mass encyclopedia must not contain such mistakes. 46.63.38.5 (talk) 10:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing "wrong" about it. The English word for a place to sit at a desk is "chair". The English name of the sea south of Ukraine is "the Black Sea". The English name of the capital of Kansas is "Topeka". The English name of the capital of Ukraine is "Kiev". --Taivo (talk) 10:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The English name of the capital of Ukraine is Kyiv. Please, stop propagate mistakes. 46.63.38.5 (talk) 10:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

We aren't. We are propagating the common and correct English usage. --Khajidha (talk) 11:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

So you think that the government of your country and governments of many other English-speaking countries propagating wrong English usage? I lol'd again. It's a conspiracy, not otherwise. Or maybe really it's just you? 46.63.38.5 (talk) 12:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between the language of diplomats and the general language. Wikipedia is written in the latter, not the former. --Khajidha (talk) 12:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

This is tantamount to Germans demanding "Cologne" be dropped in favor of Koeln since the former is based on the French name of the city. It is the traditional English name. "Koeln" would be silly. The same is true of "Venice" (Venezia), "Florence" (Firenze), Munich (Muenchen), Warsaw (Warshawa) and many, many other examples. Beijing is still called "Peking" in Russian and Ukrainian....perhaps Ukrainians should be concerned with correcting their own language? I would also like to point out that the letter "y" in modern English cannot produce the sound which Ukraine's government ascribes to it in their official orthography. Sorry, but I deny the authority of the Ukrainian government to determine the rules of English orthography. The traditional spelling "Kiev" approximates the pronunciation of the name in Ukrainian and Russian. I would think that Ukrainians of all people (and these demands to change come almost exclusively from Ukrainians) would be sensitive to the the issue of having one's language controlled by someone else. The root of the matter is that in the Russophobic world view of Ukrainian extremists (who do not represent the whole country of Ukraine), Russia's tentacles extend everywhere. When in reality (from which they are sadly completely detached), the English usage has nothing at all to do with Russia or "Russian spelling" (which uses a different alphabet from English) but is the correct spelling of an *English* word which has been attested for centuries. Giordano Bruno (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

If those arguing for the use of 'Kyiv' actually bothered to read this talk page, including the archives, they'd find exactly the same arguments surrounding the 'native' use as opposed to the English language use being presented time and time again, GiordanoBruno683. The same can be said of the use of Greece, Turkey, Hungary, etc. as regards the names of countries alone. So why isn't 'Moscow' 'Muskva'/'Moskva' (dependent on whether we're basing this on transliteration or pronunciation)?

This talk page has become a sinkhole for editor time and energy, particularly in light of the fact that events over the last year and a half have unquestionably established that 'Kiev' is the accepted convention in the Anglophone world. I'm sorely tempted to move that it be turned into a FAQ with questions being raised again and again and the responses. The premise behind it should be that those who wish to argue for 'Kyiv' must have some new, well supported arguments for 'Kyiv'. I think we've all had enough of both the good faith arguments from those who haven't read the archives (and these are few and far between). This talk page has established itself as being an outlet for WP:GRIEFING by WP:SPAs. How much more in the way of personal attacks, incivility and energy should regulars be obliged to endure when there are no arguments outside of emotional ones? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

In nowadays the capital of Ukraine is more and more known among public in the world commonly as "Kyiv". For example in source like "Minority Languages in the Linguistic Landscape" by D. Gorter,H. F. Marten,L. Van Mensel,G. Hogan-Brun,Luk Van Mensel; page 33 on topic Russian in the centre of Kyiv. More: "Creating diversity capital: transnational migrants in Montreal, Washington, and Kyiv." A. Ruble, Woodrow Wilson Center Press. End even in "Encyclopedia of Linguistics" Philipp Strazny - page 916.

• This discussion is pointless without a WP:RM. Can we please close this discussion with a purple "archive box". Either file a WP:RM, or stop discussing this. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 03:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• The discussion lasted about a day and ended over three months ago. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Agree with 'rename this article to Kyiv and see how much it will reduce the level of debates around it'. 90% of people arguing about it are Russian trolls. The same applies to 'prepositions war' in Russian language pages. Those people just work for money for Russian terrorist government. You can see that they will aggressively answer this message. Most of them come from Olgino (so called 'agency for internet research'): please see https://www.google.ru/trends/explore#q=%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BD&geo=RU&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT-3 and select cities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.109.49.68 (talk) 08:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

  Thank you for your valuable personal opinion.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

In nowadays the capital of Ukraine is more and more known among public in the world as "Kyiv". For example in source like "Minority Languages in the Linguistic Landscape" by D. Gorter,H. F. Marten,L. Van Mensel,G. Hogan-Brun,Luk Van Mensel; page 33 on topic Russian in the centre of Kyiv. More: "Creating diversity capital: transnational migrants in Montreal, Washington, and Kyiv." A. Ruble, Woodrow Wilson Center Press. End even in "Encyclopedia of Linguistics" Philipp Strazny - page 916.

So a couple of books use "Kyiv". So what? The vast majority of uses in English are still "Kiev" because that's the English name for the city. --Taivo (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Your thesis statement "nowadays the capital of Ukraine is more and more known among public in the world as 'Kyiv'" is not only unsourced (a handful of books do not prove the thesis), it is irrelevant, as we are only concerned with its WP:COMMONNAME in English, which, as TaivoLingust said above, continues to be "Kiev". The "Kyiv" proponents need to WP:DROPTHESTICK in the face of what is obviously a widely accepted consensus. BMK (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2016 (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.

Rename page to Kyiv

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

---

In Wikipedia we should use official names of regions and cities therefore consider it appropriate to rename a page on the official name specified in the official translation of the Constitution of Ukraine, which is used in all documents and the names of institutions (Kyiv).

Official translation the Constitution of Ukraine: www.kmu.gov.ua/document/110977042/Constitution_eng.doc

Use header Kiev is not approved in the official documents of the country, and was used in the Soviet Union. I believe that the use of the name Kiev possible only as an additional and historic, but not official. Tunyk (talk) 10:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

We do not have a policy of using an official name.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Uber uses Kyiv - 'Uber Has Arrived to Another European Capital – Kyiv!':https://newsroom.uber.com/ukraine/kyivuberx/ Tudy sudy (talk) 02:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Tudy sudy

What Uber uses has absolutely no relevance to existing Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia uses the variant most commonly used and recognized in the English language. If you have questions about what that means, I strongly urge you to read through the archives.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 1, 2016; 14:59 (UTC)

What I have pointed out that more and more companies are using KyivTudy sudy (talk) 05:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

One company using "Kyiv" is still not common English usage. The majority of English-language media sources still use "Kiev". The shift may be happening, but it's much slower than you think it is. It's still not unusual to see "the Ukraine". --Taivo (talk) 00:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Then we need to keep track on it, and this talk section could be the best place for it.--Tudy sudy (talk) 01:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, please feel free to keep track of it. You could do this using your own sandbox. There is, however, no point in bringing it to this talk page again until you have accumulated a lot of compelling evidence for a change in common usage across a broad variety of areas such as the Anglophone media, etc. Thanks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:05, 5 July 2016 (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.

Kiev janai, Kyiv da!

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

---

Yes. Again. I propose to rename the article to the proper transcription of "Київ", which is "Kyiv".

Rest assured, I have read all the arguments of both sides. The main argument of Russian transcription proponents is that Wikipedia stores the commonly used variant. Yes, this makes sense. Even if we just type both variants in Google, we will get much more results for "Kiev".

However, here I would like to express my point. How do you think: where does an average "common user" look for information? The answer is: Wikipedia. So it's just natural that if he or she visits the English page of "Київ" and sees "Kiev" as the name of the article, he or she starts using it and doesn't bother whether it's a proper name or not. What we get here is the endless circle: common users use Wikipedia to get information => information from Wikipedia becomes "commonly used" -> mighty Wikipedia's moderators say they just stick to the Wikipedia's policies of "common, not official usage". All in all, "Kiev" becomes kinda self-fulfilling prophecy. But the truth is: "Kiev" variant is "common" as long as it can be found on Wikipedia, which itself constructs the common usage. This phenomenon is very nicely described by Derrida and his concept of deconstruction. In short: those in power (moderators in this case) impose their own "truth" through the texts. So I wonder why should Russian moderators (I mean Ymblanter) decide how the world will call the capital of my country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotoner (talk • contribs) 09:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Kiev is common as long as English-language reliable sources commonly use it. I doubt the NY Times takes its naming standards from Wikipedia. [13] [14] Britannica sure as heck doesn't. [15] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

1) I doubt they don't. =) Anyway, Wikipedia has never given "Kyiv" a try. 2) Just another example of the logic described in my initial post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotoner (talk • contribs) 11:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

My question is: Why do the Ukrainians care what another language does? I neither know nor care what the Ukrainian language calls cities in my country. It is none of my concern, barring only the hypothetical case where the Ukrainian name for a city is insulting in Ukrainian. So, if the English word for the capital of Ukraine were something like "Assburg" or "Moronville", I could see and agree with their position. Otherwise, no. I also find it ironic that the Ukrainian populace resents the imposition of Russian language norms within their country for decades, but has no qualms about trying to impose Ukrainian language norms on others.--Khajidha (talk) 12:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

"My question is: Why do the Ukrainians care what another language does? I neither know nor care what the Ukrainian language calls cities in my country."

Because English is the third most spoken language in the world. And because what English Wikipedia uses as name for Ukrainian capital is the transcription of it's naming in Russian.

"I also find it ironic that the Ukrainian populace resents the imposition of Russian language norms within their country for decades, but has no qualms about trying to impose Ukrainian language norms on others."

Did I suggest to write it with cyrillic letters in English? Please read my first post carefully again. Conversely, I call to transcript the name of Ukraine's capital properly using the very norms of English transcription. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotoner (talk • contribs) 12:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

If you had read all the past discussions you would have realized your "call" is a waste of time. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Brilliant argument, bravo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotoner (talk • contribs) 15:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

You didn't actually answer my questions. What does the number of speakers of a language have to do with anything I mentioned? Let me rephrase my point, "why is the English name of the Ukrainian capital of any more interest to Ukrainians than the English word for anything else?" It's a different language, the words are going to be different. And the source of the English word is also irrelevant, Kiev being derived from Russian means no more than "telescope" being derived from Greek. Both are entirely English words at this point. I didn't say you were asking us to utilize the Cyrillic alphabet, but your insistence that we transliterate the Ukrainian term instead of using the English term is STILL an insistence on Ukraininan norms to the exclusion of English norms.--Khajidha (talk) 16:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

"your insistence that we transliterate the Ukrainian term instead of using the English term is STILL an insistence on Ukraininan norms to the exclusion of English norms."

The main claim of my initial argument is that what you call English norm (or commonly used variant) is in fact neither norm, nor it is English. It is a mere construction imposed by such sources of information as Wikipedia. If it was really a norm, all English versions of Ukrainian namings should have been created through transcriptioning of their Russian variants.

And please stop asking these "why-do-you-care" questions. Everyone in this thread including you can be asked the same. Discussion is arguments, not rhetorical questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotoner (talk • contribs) 17:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

How is it not English? It's been used in English for CENTURIES. English forms words (including place names) in many different ways, just because other Ukrainian places names are handled differently doesn't mean that Kiev is not the normal English form. I ask "why do you care?" because I find the insistence that English change the way it does things based on the opinions of outsiders to be massively rude. --Khajidha (talk) 19:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

"How is it not English? It's been used in English for CENTURIES."

Thanks God not for MILLENIA. Sorry, but I hope you understand Caps Lock is not the type of argument we should practice here.

"I find the insistence that English change the way it does things based on the opinions of outsiders to be massively rude"

To be honest, I find the efforts to present the distorted versions of namings as norms not only massively rude, but also extremely ignorant. That's why I care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotoner (talk • contribs) 19:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

You still haven't answered the question. How is a word that has been used in English for centuries not English? If this were some Cold War Era formulation I could see your point, but Kiev has been the usual term in English for centuries. How is it distorted? Anymore than any other English form is distorted. It is an English word, it doesn't have to match the Ukrainian word any more than "smile", "happy", "mountain", "green", etc match the Ukrainian terms for those things. --Khajidha (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

"You still haven't answered the question."

Because you still haven't provided any proofs to support your claim of "used for centuries". That's what I meant by arguments in my previous message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotoner (talk • contribs) 20:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

From the Kiev article: "In English, Kiev was used in print as early as in 1804 in the John Cary's "New map of Europe, from the latest authorities" in "Cary's new universal atlas" published in London." --Khajidha (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Right when the most of Ukraine's territory including Kyiv was under Russian empire's occupation. That's the very point I have expressed earlier: those in power impose their own "truth" through the texts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotoner (talk • contribs) 21:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The Russians didn't force the English speaking population to use that form though. Their power is irrelevant. And the fact that it has continued to be used makes it the normal English form. Whatever its origin, Kiev is now the standard English name. It is no more Russian than microscope is Greek. --Khajidha (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Faraway countries and cities like Kyiv were of no concern to English speaking population (I'm talking about common population, not governmental officials) at that time. The namings were used primarily by politicians and scientists. And I'm pretty sure the translators who worked for English government translated the official namings of Russian empire. So power is of quite a relevance here. --Dotoner

"So power is of quite a relevance here." Not really. Whatever the source, the 200+ years of usage has made "Kiev" the English form. As I've said before "microscope" isn't Greek despite being derived from Greek and "Kiev" isn't Russian despite being derived from Russian. You can't avoid the usage issue. If outside usage changes to favor "Kyiv", Wikipedia usage will change. --Khajidha (talk) 09:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

"Whatever the source, the 200+ years of usage has made "Kiev" the English form"

"Kiev" is not the English form, but a product of social construction existing in the past. Present reality is different. The principal difference between the genuine form (or essence of something) and construction is the possibility of change of the last one. What was constructed can be deconstructed and reconstructed.

"If outside usage changes to favor "Kyiv", Wikipedia usage will change."

Wikipedia is not something external to the reality. To make it more clear: Wikipedia is not a database about human world for some aliens who just observe us and don't interfere. In that case your argument would be relevant. However, Wikipedia not just stores the information about the present world, but also exists within it. That's why it inevitably influences it. The scheme is described above. --Dotoner

How is it not the English form? If English uses a word for 200 years, then that makes it the English word. I don't see how there can be any other way to decide what the English form is. English words are what are used when speaking/writing English. "Wikipedia is not something external to the reality." Seems like you have a problem with the fundamental nature of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia policy is based on the idea that Wikipedia reflects reality, but does not set it. If you cannot accept this, then you may wish to try to change the overall policy. However, this page is not the place to do that. By current practices, this page is named correctly. But, I suspect that you don't really care about the general naming guidelines, but only that this one page be changed.--Khajidha (talk) 11:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Languages do change according to the present social circumstances. You can take the texts from 1800 and 2016 and compare them.

"All Wikipedia policy is based on the idea that Wikipedia reflects reality, but does not set it."

Proofs please. But even if this is true that doesn't change anything because even if Wikipedia doesn't consider itself as setting the reality, the reality is: it does set it. So if Wikipedia reflects the reality, it should reflect the reality in which it sets it. Otherwise it reflects not the reality, but some vacuum world constructed in accordance with it's own guidelines. --Dotoner

Until someone can provide hard evidence that English speakers have generally switched from "Kiev" to "Kyiv", then it doesn't matter what the Rada says or what the UN says. Wikipedia runs by common English usage. We've had this discussion a hundred times at least and no one has provided any evidence that "Kiev" is not overwhelmingly the name in English for Ukraine's capital. --Taivo (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Would you care to read my first post? Did I say a word about the Rada or the UN? General shift from "Kiev" to "Kyiv" is impossible while such general sources of information like Wikipedia keep imposing the former variant. --Dotoner

You have yet to demonstrate that such a shift should be made. What rationale is there for one language to give up its own formulations in favor of others?--Khajidha (talk) 11:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

For "formulations" please see our discussion above. --Dotoner —Preceding undated comment added 12:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Dotoner you are apparently unaware of the purpose of an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is descriptive. It describes things as they are. The thing that is in this case, is that English speakers call Ukraine's capital "Kiev" about ten times for every time they call it "Kyiv". An encyclopedia is not prescriptive. It does not prescribe "correct" or "acceptable" or "legal" usage. But that's what you want it to do. You want to force Wikipedia to stop describing what English speakers actually do and instead make it tell English speakers what you think they must do. So why don't you demand that English speakers call the capital of Poland "Warszawa"? Or the capital of the Czech Republic "Praha"? Or the capital of Denmark "København"? Sometimes English common usage changes overnight ("Peking" > "Beijing", "Bombay" > "Mumbai"), but that hasn't happened for Kyiv. Sorry about that. Perhaps I should apologize to you on behalf of 500 million English speakers? It's the way it is and Wikipedia isn't in the business of changing the way things are. We simply describe them as they are. Ukraine's capital is overwhelmingly called "Kiev" in English. --Taivo (talk) 14:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Again. Whether Wikipedia with it's policies wants it or not, in reality it both describes and prescribes. Or you want to say that this "common users use Wikipedia to get information => information from Wikipedia becomes "commonly used"" doesn't make any sense?

"Sorry about that. Perhaps I should apologize to you on behalf of 500 million English speakers?"

Oh come on. Leave this sneering for someone else. --Dotoner 15:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Probably time for Softlavender's standard close. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Or to apply WP:NOTTHERE given that the user has no other contribution.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

What about at least joining the discussion before shutting the dissenter up with mighty moderator's hand? Besides, even the link you provided says: "What "not here to build an encyclopedia" is not: Expressing unpopular opinions – even extremely unpopular opinions – in a non-disruptive manner". --Dotoner —Preceding undated comment added 13:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Unlike my colleagues, I do not have any particular interest in feeding the trolls.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Highly argumentative. @"Thank you for your valuable personal opinion." --Dotoner 14:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

You've been told, multiple times, that the criterion for moving this page is "common English usage". Unless and until either a) you can demonstrate that such usage has changed or b) you can get the criterion changed (which would not be done through the talk page of this one, particular article), then you are being disruptive by continuing to insist that this page be moved. --Khajidha (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

"All Wikipedia policy is based on the idea that Wikipedia reflects reality"

"if Wikipedia reflects the reality, it should reflect the reality in which it sets it"

Maybe Wikipedia will simply stick to it's own policy? --Dotoner 15:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

It does. Wikipedia only sets reality in your mind. Again, show us simple proof that Kyiv is more commonly used in English discourse and media than Kiev. Unless and until you can do that, there is no point in continuing this conversation. --Khajidha (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

"Wikipedia only sets reality in your mind."

Here we go again: common users use Wikipedia to get information => information from Wikipedia becomes "commonly used". --Dotoner 16:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Which part of "Prove common usage" do you fail to understand? I agree with User:Khajidha and other users who have poked their heads into this discussion to caution us against "feeding the troll". The conditions for moving this article have been made crystal clear to you: Prove that English common usage has changed from "Kiev" to "Kyiv" and we'll entertain your move request. Until then, talking to you seems to be pointless. --Taivo (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I may ask you the same question: which part of ""Kiev" variant is "common" as long as it can be found on Wikipedia, which itself constructs the common usage" do you fail to understand? Or you simply cannot admit that Wikipedia doesn't exist somewhere outside this world and it does influence what you call "common usage"? Besides, quite pathetical of Wikipedia's editor to start calling the opponent troll when you are out of arguments. --Dotoner 19:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Kiev is the common English usage as found in numerous reliable sources separate from Wikipedia (atlases, encyclopedias, travel guides, etc), the usage of the man on the street is only relevant insofar as someone has studied and published about it. And we have not run out of arguments, we are simply waiting on you to actually answer the ones that have been made. For example, how is the form "Kiev" which has been used in English texts for over 200 years not the English form of the name? You have yet to address this question. All you can say is that it is derived from Russian, but -again- lots of English words are derived from lots of foreign languages and are nonetheless English words. --Khajidha (talk) 19:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

"Kiev is the common English usage as found in numerous reliable sources separate from Wikipedia"

And when you get numerous links in support of the same claim concerning "Kyiv" you just say they are not common. Sorry, I hold the discussion under your own rules.

"For example, how is the form "Kiev" which has been used in English texts for over 200 years not the English form of the name?"

It was the English form of naming of the city under Russian and then Soviet occupation. Now this is the city of Ukraine. Can you see the shift?

Example: during WWII Germans were called nazis by the population of Allied countries. Is it still the case nowadays? Of course not, cause social and political circumstances have changed.

Then why do you keep (and what's worse - impose) the past social constructions in modern world? Why should Kyiv be commonly called as if it is still under Russian rule just at the Wikipedia authorities' pleasure? --Dotoner 20:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

"Numerous links" isn't "a majority of links" nor do any of these links prove that a majority of English usage is "Kyiv". You are simply using verbal sophistry to try to confuse the simple issue. And that very simple issue is that "Kiev" is the form that is still overwhelmingly used in English. That's all that matters. What is so difficult for you to comprehend about that? If you want examples of the evidence that was accumulated when this issue was first addressed a few years ago, then read back through the archives of this very page. It's all there. You're the one who wants to change the status quo, so it's your responsibility to read back through the research that has already been done on the matter. We don't have to do the work for every new editor who shows up with a flag to wave. But it's clear that you are changing no one's mind. No one's. Why? Because you have zero proof that English speakers have changed the name that they use for Ukraine's capital. Zero. "Kiev" is a word of English just as "Copenhagen", "Warsaw", "Moscow", and "Prague" are words of English. It matters not one bit where these words came from. They are here in our language. It matters not one bit what the Danish, Polish, Russian, and Czech forms are for these cities. We have English words for them and those words haven't changed. That's the simple fact that you fail to understand. You don't appear to be stupid, so it's not above your IQ. You're just unwilling to listen. --Taivo (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

"You're just unwilling to listen."

Are you the one who wills? Stop accusing me of something you are yourself faulty at.

"Because you have zero proof that English speakers have changed the name that they use for Ukraine's capital. Zero."

And I have already explained how Wikipedia's gods like you prevent this change with all means available.

"We have English words for them and those words haven't changed."

Then please explain me why Kaliningrad (which has been Konigsberg in English for far longer than 200 years) and Lviv (Lemberg in the past) can become commonly used English words, but Kyiv can't? --Dotoner 21:25, 6 September 2016 (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.

UNCSGN (United Nations Conferences on the Standardization of Geographical Names) and UNGEGN (United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names) version

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

---

Kyiv is the correct name according to UNCSGN (United Nations Conferences on the Standardization of Geographical Names) and UNGEGN (United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names).173.38.209.10 (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

And? Since when are they authorities on general English usage? --Khajidha (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

We've been through this argument before: I just couldn't be bothered dredging through the archives to find it. UNGEGN is not an authority on English language use. In fact, UNGEGN isn't even used as an authority on how we transliterate geographical names per country and language where there is no prominent English WP:COMMONNAME for the purposes of Wikipedia (or any other encyclopaedic resource). The only thing UNGEGN is an authority on is their own Romanisation system. Also, please don't present them as if they were two separate and independent bodies: UNCSGN and UNGEGN are essentially the same subsidiary statistical working group within the UN. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps people need to be reminded of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Ukrainian places) which gives outlined guidance on the naming of Ukrainian places. That way they will understand and cease wasting time requesting the article to be renamed "Kyiv". Also have we forgotten that the popular dish Chicken Kiev is not spelt Chicken Kyiv, because the dish cam from "Kiev". Wes Mouse  ^T@lk 21:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the article name should be kept as per Common name policy. Sort of like Czech Republic vs. Czechia, even though Kyiv is correct, most people searching in English will only know the incorrect spelling. 128.239.197.80 (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

It has nothing whatsoever to do with "correct" and "incorrect". "Kiev" is a correct spelling in English. "Kiyev" is not a correct spelling in English. "Kyiv" is not a "spelling", it is a transliteration from Ukrainian. It is just not the name that we use in English at this time. --Taivo (talk) 16:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

And we do have a redirect from Kyiv to Kiev, if this is the concern.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I keep seeing people in discussions like this saying that such and such current English usage is "incorrect" and that the change they are arguing for is "correct". This idea only makes sense if one believes that English place name usage follows (or at least should follow) some standardized rule or set of rules. English most definitely does not follow any such rule or set of rules for place names or any other words. In English you may find three cities of roughly equal size/importance one of which uses a direct borrowing/transliteration from the native language, one of which uses a modified form of the name better adapted to English sounds, and one of which uses a name that has no apparent connection to what the people living there call the place. And they are all CORRECT by the simple virtue of being the actual usage in the English language. --Khajidha (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2016 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2016

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

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

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

You're livid? Perhaps you need to get a real life. Your examples don't really prove what you say they do. The second and third examples clearly show that the BBC uses "Kiev" fairly consistently. Even when the quoted material uses "Kyiv", they correct it in brackets to "Kiev" for clarification. That's not a case of using both. It's exactly the same as quoting someone saying "I think that German Chancellor Mackerel [Merkel] is a good person." That does not mean that they accept "Mackerel" as an alternate spelling of "Merkel". It only means that their source used "Mackerel" and they must be accurate in using their source material. There's simply no evidence that they accept either "Kiev" or "Kyiv". It's evidence that they consistently use "Kiev". The BBC style guide is clear and unambiguous. --Taivo (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

First of all why didn't you mention my first example? Please give me your real-life, old-school explanation of that phenomena. Why BBC with clear and unambiguous style guide explicitly uses Kyiv without any brackets or other punctuation symbols intended to adduce your version?

There is a plausible version I could give you. In real life BBC style guide means as much as Ukraine government decree. It seems the very same BBC journalists supposed to follow 'clear and unambiguous' rules are breaking them. Just type "Kyiv" and "Kiev" in BBC search field. You'll get a bunch of results from both queries. That's the evidence, isn't it?

I'm not arguing "Kyiv" or "Kiev" spelling. What I'm arguing is "Most major English-language news sources like the BBC[27] continue to use Kiev." Verification of that statement failed in the paragraph above. "Continue to use" statement is false while there are multiple systematic evidences that both spellings are in use. You should use "both spellings are in use" instead. If and only if you have statistics you could emphasize "predominantly "Kiev". That's basic scientific verification (Do not confuse with Wikipedia verification. Please consult if you lack expertise in that field). That's why my case is completely relevant. That's not linguistics. That's sheer logic.

And that's why I am livid. Moreover shaking.93.73.62.38 (talk) 01:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

If they use both, then (by definition) they "continue to use Kiev".--Khajidha (talk) 01:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and your first example doesn't mention the city itself, only an airport. The name of the airport is consistently given with the Kyiv spelling, but that has no bearing on usage of the simple city name. --Khajidha (talk) 01:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

More BBC 'Kyiv' only examples. BBC 'Kyiv' press-release. BBC comments from real-life people with Anglo-Saxon names and surnames signed from 'Kyiv'. CNN examples.

Cream of the crop:

"No, this is the eco-conscious face of British diplomacy, where our ambassador to Ukraine blogs that he has been helping to pick up litter in a park in Kiev (now spelled Kyiv) as part of Earth Day."

"It was a great honour for us and we were met at Kyiv (formerly Kiev) airport by television and film crews and a choir who sang for us in national dress in the arrival lounge!"

How does that goes with Merkel [Mackerel] and airport?

Current article edition states "BBC continue to use Kiev". That's false. BBC uses both spelling on case-per-case basis. Which depends on willingness of discrete journalist to conduct with BBC style guide, tradition or whatever.

I'm sure that fact should be reflected in article since current edition implies that literally everyone but government spells 'Kiev'. That's wrong. Both spellings are in use.

What is really outrageous that article specifically mentioned BBC as an example of 'Kiev'-only use. Simple verification attempt (typing 'Kyiv' in BBC search field) fails. Shame.

Since article is protected I'm asking members with editing permission to carry on.93.73.62.38 (talk) 11:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Again, if they are using both then it is still true that they "continue to use Kiev". The statement does not say that they "use only Kiev". Also there are several problems with your list of sources.

Your source number 4 does not refer to the city of Kiev, but to the Kyiv Oblast. These are different things, and the Oblast (those few times it is mentioned in English) is often spelled that way.

Your source 7 is not a "Kyiv only" source as you state, the map clearly uses Kiev.

Your source 8 uses Kyiv in the body, but is given the byline of "Reporting by Mukul Devichand, Ravin Sampat, Tse Yin Lee and BBC Monitoring Kiev."

Similarly, your source 9 is filed " By Lucy Ash BBC News, Kiev"

Seems to me that BBC generally uses Kiev, but some individuals do not. And that's leaving aside cases of Kyiv in larger names (such as the oblast or the airport) as they are separate terms from the city name itself. --Khajidha (talk) 13:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

You're right, "continue to use Kiev" point taken. It would be still valid while single "Kiev" statement could be found on BBC.

I could agree as well with with your conclusion - BBC mostly uses "Kiev". But other spelling could be found as well. That's what I'm arguing.93.73.62.38 (talk) 16:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

PS - as for your "Cream of the crop" the first is specifically from an AMBASSADOR IN UKRAINE, he/she is diplomatically required to use that form and the second is the personal usage of a musician, not an example of BBC usage. And the BBC comments are examples of personal usage (and, in one case, a possible joke). Or do you think that "Cambs" is BBC official usage? But the most important point is the one I made first in the last post, "continue to use Kiev" does not imply "only use Kiev". --Khajidha (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Again point taken. And again but.

Non-government people are using "Kyiv" spelling in everyday life. Musicians, government-affiliated journalists, commentators, jokers. I just want to make sure that fact is admitted and properly reflected in article.93.73.62.38 (talk) 16:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• Those BBC selections are misleading and cherry-picked. If you check the BBC site, there are 10,800 results for Kiev [16], and only 3,230 results for Kyiv [17]. Even if you check only the past six years, there are 509 results for Kiev [18], and only 107 results for Kyiv [19]. -- Softlavender (talk) 13:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Those BBC selections are evidences.

Your Google-BBC statistics is brilliant. We could build on it.

I'd like to state my position once more. I'm just arguing that 'Kyiv' is also in use. Maybe marginal. Maybe 20% to 40% of 'Kiev' according to your statistics. But it actually exists.

All I want is reflection of that fact in article.93.73.62.38 (talk) 13:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

It is reflected in the article. Accidentally, in the first line.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Our argument is about the validity of "BBC continue using Kiev" statement which happened to be last line in Name section. That statement is false. One could say "according to Google search results BBC are using 20% to 40% (or whatever) "Kyiv" spelling". One could say "BBC style guides recommends "Kiev" but sometimes alternative spelling is used". One could certainly say "both variants are used". But not "continue using" without any references that alternative spelling could be found as well.

Current article edition implies "Kyiv" spelling is used in government-related documents only. That position of your community is unambiguously reflected in article. From what we said during last hours one could conclude that "Kyiv" spelling is at use at real life as well. Ok, maybe not as popular. But that's real-life existence we are arguing, not popularity. Again I'm asking you to correct that position considering everything we just talked about.93.73.62.38 (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

When I click on the link Softlavender gives for "Kyiv" usage, I can't see any results. If I then limit it to the past year, the first half of the page is about "Dynamo Kyiv" (a separate term) and the last half is not in English. --Khajidha (talk) 13:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• Since the current citation for the statement in this wiki article is ten years old, I think it's worthwhile to update the statement by qualifying it with a word such as "generally" or "in most instances" or something like that. The Google search reveals approximately a 20% to 30% usage of "Kyiv" by the BBC, but no more than that, so they still certainly mostly use Kiev. Softlavender (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, nothing needs to change. We're only quibbling over the last sentence of an entire, detailed section on the Name. And the last sentence is quite true: Most media sources, such as the BBC continue to use "Kiev". It doesn't say they exclusively use "Kiev". But the BBC Style Guide is quite unambiguous. Until there is more than the anecdotal evidence offered here and a definitive statement from the BBC, then there is no need either factually or semantically to change the sentence. --Taivo (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree with TaivoLinguist, with the added question of whether your Google search reveals usage by the BBC or usage on BBC sites. A large number of Ukrainian nationalists could post on comment threads and such there using "Kyiv", but that should not count towards BBC usage.--Khajidha (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I've made several changes to the sentence in question to answer the Anon IP's concerns. 1) I reworded the sentence to "X prefers 'Kiev'". 2) I linked to the style guides of both the BBC and The Economist which specifically state that "Kiev" is to be used. 3) I added a search of the New York Times for the last 12 months that shows "Kiev" both as the byline and in text (a corresponding search for "Kyiv" only yields the title of a book twice). This should clarify the situation. --Taivo (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

That is perfectly acceptable. Thanks. P.S: it may seem quibbling for UK or US citizen but question is actually important in Ukraine. 93.73.62.38 (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Could you try to explain WHY it is important in Ukraine? For my own part, I find the question of how another language might spell the name of my city to be of purely academic interest. Whatever the spelling might be, I would simply say "okay, nice to know" and move on. The only reason I could see being bothered by another language's name for my city is if they called it something that was derogatory in that language. --Khajidha (talk) 13:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

My POV: Kiev reminds Russian spelling and pronunciation and Kyiv comes from Ukrainian spelling. Ukraine would rather use its name rather than the one from Russian, you may deduce why, considering relationship between those two countries in recent years. Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

But this is English, not Russian. --Khajidha (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

IMHO again: Kiev is English transcription of Russian name of the town. They would prefer anglicized Ukrainian name of the town. They can see the Russian "heritage" or "baggage" in Kiev and it does not matter that the alphabet is different or also does not matter (if the lead is correct) there is no difference in pronunciation between Kiev and Kyiv in English. And of course English name of town is important, it is a world language. Chrzwzcz (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

You don't understand. "Kiev" is not a Russian name or a Ukrainian one. It is the ENGLISH name of Ukraine's capital. Just as "Warsaw" is the English name of Poland's capital and "Copenhagen" is the English name of Denmark's capital, "Kiev" is the English name of Ukraine's capital. 300 years ago it was a transliteration. Today it is just a name, like "borscht" and "cossack" and "Chernobyl". It's not "Russian" or "Ukrainian". It's English. --Taivo (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Ugh, I DO understand that it is English name for the city! Compare Kiev-Киев[Kiev] Kyiv-Київ[Kyjiv]. English name "Kiev" is clearly more similar to current Russian name than Ukrainian, don't you agree? "just a name"... in this case it is rather matter of politics. Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Chrwzcz's right.

While carrying on useful infographic this article could serve as an explanation of your community position (which I could well understand), doesn't it? Maybe it is worth considering linking it in main article?

Also that article pretty correctly explains Ukrainian-speaking people position. In Ukraine/in the Ukraine analogy and reasoning behind it in Ukrainians mind is relevant.

I'll try to add a few points to the article. First, Ukrainians supporting Russian-backed side in ongoing war (or their Russian sponsors, which is far more probable) would argue opposite spelling as fiercely as we are. Actually, I'm surprised they are not arguing 'in the Ukraine' here because accordinate Russian pejorative article ('на Украине') is widely used (Russian data on subject. On graphics: red is pejorative article usage by RF legislature). Second, since 2014 Ukraine drifted from language-tolerant country into mildly intolerant towards Russian (which still dominates media in Ukraine). Those are pretty understandable consequences of politics. Which unfortunately create tensions with third parties. Third, Odessa/Odesa spelling is awaiting same argument. Since Kyiv is much more Ukrainian-speaking capital Odesa is off the table for now.

2Taiwo: 'Kiev' implies origins of Ukrainian in Russian (which is false) and corollary Ukraine as Russia subject (unfortunately true to certain extent).93.73.62.38 (talk) 22:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

No, you don't understand at all. You keep talking about Ukrainian people and Russian language, etc., etc. The only things that matter in the English Wikipedia are the English-speaking people and the English language. Period. In English, the name of Ukraine's capital has been "Kiev" for hundreds of years. That's it. That's the end of the matter. It's just like red beet soup in English is "borscht", with a t on the end (from Yiddish). It's just like we spell "cossack" with a "c" at the front and a "ck" at the end. It's got nothing whatsoever to do with the Ukrainian and Russian languages. It's English. If Ukrainians want to change the name of their capital in English, they have a lot of work to do. Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. You're going to have to convince a majority of half a billion English speakers in the world to change what they call the capital of Ukraine. If that happens, then Wikipedia will happily describe English usage. But until English usage changes, "Kiev" it is here in Wikipedia. --Taivo (talk) 22:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

93...: I am glad that you (as Ukrainian I guess) wrote it openly, I was hesitating (as non-Ukrainian also non-Russian) :) Simply put - UA is trying to make English (as no.1 language) to follow and implement newly offered names/transcriptions/spellings which comes directly from (current) Ukrainian language and not via Russian in the past. Will English say "No, Kiev is my English word, not yours, I am not interested where I originally got it, or if it offends you now"? It is politics rather than linguistics. I am not taking sides, I just wanted to give Khajidha IMHO-explanation why it is important for UA, you wrote it in full scale and verified it.

Taivo: Names are important for people because they may be offended by them, your borscht is bad example. And they may be offended by English word too and want to stop it, because they sounds the same or too similar in other languages as in theirs. Will Wiki be politically correct and grant those wishes? I guess not, it follows sources, all would have to start using new word and Wiki would follow months or years after. Weak analogy may be "renaming" of Bombay-Mumbai.Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

You finally seem to understand, although "borscht" is a perfect example. It was borrowed from Ukrainian, but then a "wild t" was attached to the end as it worked its way to English via Yiddish. That is precisely the history of "Kiev". It differs from the Ukrainian original because of its history in another language. But it is the form we use in English. "Mumbai" is a different case because the hundreds of millions of speakers of Indian English changed it and the rest of the English-speaking world followed suit. "Kyiv" simply doesn't have a critical mass of English speakers using it to influence and change the usage of half a billion English speakers. You want to use Wikipedia as an instrument of change. But that's not what encyclopedias do. You are out of luck. "Kiev" is the English name and will surely remain the English name for a very long time to come. If Ukrainians are offended that the English Wikipedia uses the common English name for their capital city, they can use the Ukrainian Wikipedia instead. --Taivo (talk) 00:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

You're right, that's not linguistics but politics. Nobody cares about borscht, everybody cares about Kiev/Kyiv.

Sure native speakers are major language evolution force. But since English press written by Ukrainians exists (KyivPost) it performs it's modicum influence on language as well (take apart government). Maybe there's no good but that's the world we are living in.

That's certainly not for me arguing descriptive nature of Wikipedia. Please look through my original request. I'd not asked for immediate change since I've got your position. What I'd asked is reflection of natural language evolution process. Driven by politics, nothing to be proud of, but that's it. Certainly a lot of work has to be done. Mumbai is good example. And yes, being Ukrainian I'm increasingly using alternative sources.

I could understand your irritation: Ukrainians are trying to teach English their mother tongue spelling. That's not what it was intended. I meant that while writing about third party tensions and I'm sorry for that. Your reasons are good. But since question is of importance in Ukraine and Wikipedia is important source of information my request was intended to state explicitly that "Kyiv" spelling is making it's way into ordinary life. That's descriptive (I have to refer to my original request again). I'm biased but I'm not asking for prescriptive political preference.

I could see now that problem statement itself is important because there were concerns whether "Kiev" spelling is offensive just two screens up. Please have no doubts right now it is.

93.73.62.38 (talk) 09:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

That's my question again, HOW can it be offensive? I can see how usage of "Киев" when speaking Ukrainian would be offensive, but not how using an English word when speaking English is offensive.--Khajidha (talk) 11:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, let me try. They never perceive Kiev as an English name. They, 100% of the population, perceive it as a Russian name transliterated in English. And since they also perceive Russia as an enemy and as a former empire, they find "Kiev" offensive, because, in this big picture, Russians managed to convince British and Americans to use "their" version, and Ukrainians could not. This picture is IMO completely distorted, but it is what it is.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Details could vary but generally that's it.93.73.62.38 (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Well that just sounds ridiculous. That makes about as much sense as complaining that English uses the word "dog" instead of whatever the Ukrainian word is. It's a different language, it doesn't have to match. --Khajidha (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

It is ridiculous, and I also do not like battleground mentality, but this is how Ukrainians see it. Some of people I know in real life, told me that they believe it is "dishonest" to use Kiev over Kyiv, because in this way I support an alleged Russian war against Ukraine.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The word "dog"? What does it have to do with Ukraine? Nothing. For the Ukrainian editors: "Dear Ukraine. You have no say how I would call your towns, your country and your people. I figured it out ages ago, I don't care if it offends you because it sounds like something you hate, and I won't accept any name change propositions. Sincerely, English language". Yes, it is matter of PC, symbolics, bad blood, unresolved issues, not linguistics [20]. Again, I don't take sides and if Dnipropetrovsk was not approved to rename on Wiki then Kiev renaming is futile².Chrzwzcz (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

See, your "for the Ukrainian editors" sounds completely normal to me. Being offended that a word in language A sounds like a word in language B makes no sense to me. --Khajidha (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

B being language whole world uses, it easily can offend. They still must introduce "I am from Kiev" and use the hated word if communicating with foreigners in English. You are saying "If you hate it so much, don't speak English" or "English Kiev and Russian-Ukrainian Kiev have nothing in common, it is merely a coincidence it sounds the same and means the same" - no, general public won't see it that way, you can't deny that English copied the name. If it was Vietnamese of Finnish language, it won't bother them so much and that I do understand. Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

(ec) "Bombay" > "Mumbai" is not a good example. India is filled with English speakers and most of the urban population speaks English near-natively. This is not true of Ukraine. So when hundreds of millions of English speakers stop using "Bombay" and start using "Mumbai", that's a big deal and Wikipedia, following media throughout the English speaking world, reflected that tectonic shift in usage. "Kiev" > "Kyiv" is nowhere near that order of magnitude. We still haven't eliminated "the Ukraine". But "Kiev" > "Kyiv" suffers from an entirely different problem for change than "Bombay" > "Mumbai": pronunciation. There is simply not enough difference between them to register to an English speaker's ear, especially since English speakers don't pronounce "Kyiv" anywhere near the way that Ukrainians pronounce it. "Kiev" as in "chicken Kiev" and "Kievan Rus" fits well within common English phonotactics. "Kyiv" does not. --Taivo (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Yep, if you don't like the English word, don't speak English. As for the fact that it was borrowed from Russian, no one is hiding that; it is simply irrelevant as it is now an English word. --Khajidha (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

That's why I said "weak analogy" :) Just for fun - how quick "tectonic shift" was Bombay->Mumbai change in usage for Wikipedia standards? Like "if similar change happened now, article would have been renamed in days" or so? Yes, as I said, Kiev has a small chance when Dnipropetrovsk was not successful either and it is MUCH bigger change in name.

Even if the word meant "Russian colony", English would not change a thing because now it is English word with no hidden meaning. Pretty selfish approach from language which comes up with new PC word every day (hyperbole) :) Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Except that is change from within, this would be change from without. Different situations.--Khajidha (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Near as I can tell, the article was created at Mumbai. But you have to remember that India has millions of native English speakers behind its name changes. And the added weight of the strong national ties criterion of the English variant rules. --Khajidha (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I get it that India can influence English, Ukraine barely. Do you remember another case of renaming of town (non-English) and how successfully it went during renaming on wiki? To "show Kyiv the way". It can be successful for unknown towns or towns without English name, right. Chrzwzcz (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

don't know of any that have happened within the Wikipedia era. Certainly not any of the size or fame of Kiev. And your comment about "show[ing] Kyiv the way" implies that English SHOULD change when such an assertion is debatable at best. --Khajidha (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

So "To show Kyiv that it is achievable but what an effort it is". Not SHOULD but CAN. Some renamings happened in the past and we can analyze whether it was changed because English itself wanted and came with new name or because someone outside English language wanted to change English name and succeeded. Chrzwzcz (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

But then you have to deal with what Taivo explained so well before: "But "Kiev" > "Kyiv" suffers from an entirely different problem for change than "Bombay" > "Mumbai": pronunciation. There is simply not enough difference between them to register to an English speaker's ear, especially since English speakers don't pronounce "Kyiv" anywhere near the way that Ukrainians pronounce it. "Kiev" as in "chicken Kiev" and "Kievan Rus" fits well within common English phonotactics. "Kyiv" does not."--Khajidha (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Well it does not all have to be in sync. Now we already have for example FC Obolon-Brovar Kyiv on enwiki, Kievan this, Kyivan that... It IS too similar to force a foreign language into changing when it does not really seem like too much of a change. Not my fight though, for me "to deal with", originally I joined to add my IMHO comment (proven later by native Ukranian) why Ukrainians don't like the name Kiev (to sum up again: because it came to English through Russian, as confessed here, and they are trying to free themselves of everything Russian including this action). But I can tell you it would be weird to see Kyiv on all English maps, on airports, in sport, in diplomacy, but wiki would keep saying "it is not general knowledge and not enough in news sources, sorry" and according to its rules it would be right. Chrzwzcz (talk) 20:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

"Dear English language. As far as I'm speaking you I'm English speaker. As long as I'm making no mistake spelling Kyiv I'll continue doing that. I couldn't care less how does that looks like. Sincerely, Ukraine."93.73.62.38 (talk) 07:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

1) "English speaker" in the above discussion is to be understood as "native English speaker" as they are the ones who set language norms. 2) As far as most native English sources are concerned, "Kyiv" would be a mistake. --Khajidha (talk) 13:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Lol. From now on, State Department and Foreign Office are not native English sources. Amen. Dotoner (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

When Ukrainians spell Kyiv they are making a mistake. When native English speakers (who are the only source of English) spell Kyiv they are politically correct. I see. 93.73.62.38 (talk) 10:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Politics is an inalienable part of our lives. It's not a ground for common usage, but it certainly influences it. As well as "common English usage" doesn't have the authority to decide what is mistake in English and what isn't. Dotoner (talk) 17:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

To some degree it does. "Common usage" cannot override a grammatical rule, but it can establish what a thing is called. --Khajidha (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

What thing is called and "rightness" are two different terms. And the last one will always be subjective. Dotoner (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

"Kyiv" is not wrong in English, but "Kiev" is, by orders of magnitude, the most common. Various media style guides in English media sources state unequivocally that "Kiev" is the preferred form. They are style guides for those media sources that are widely used as style guides in other contexts. Political style guides state unequivocally that "Kyiv" is the preferred form. They are style guides for political purposes, but are not so widely used as the media style guides. In the end, style guides, no matter their provenance, are just suggestions. Common English usage is still the rock upon which Wikipedia is based and upon that rock are still carved the four letters "K", "i", "e", "v". --Taivo (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

""Kyiv" is not wrong in English, but "Kiev" is" - I have nothing to add here. Unconscious mind, it can't be helped. =) Dotoner (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Only if you are challenged by comma placement and appositional clauses ;) --Taivo (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

For the sake of the Ukrainians' blood pressure if nothing else, it should probably be pointed out that to English speakers who speak neither Ukrainian nor Russian, "Київ" and "Киев" sound identical, and "Kiev" in English sounds like neither of them. The English alphabet does not have the capability to accurately reflect, and English ears do not have the capability to accurately perceive, the difference between "Київ" and "Киев" (just as English speakers/readers of Ukrainian and Russian are amused by Donald Trump being seriously referred to in Russian and Ukrainian as "Donald Tramp"). If there is somehow the idea that the spelling and pronouncing of "Kiev" in English is because they've been fed the Russian pronunciation all these years, that's entirely inaccurate. Apart from anything else, if "Kiev" was pronounced in English in the way that would be most common for its letters to suggest (as in field, yield, wield, shield) it would be closer to both Ukrainian and Russian pronunciations, but it isn't. It has been hundreds of years since "Kiev" in English has had anything to do with how either Ukrainians or Russians refer to the city. Jamieli (talk) 13:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

You've hit the nail right on the head: it's been used as the WP:COMMONNAME in English for hundreds of years. Wikipedia has nothing to do with setting standards according, we follow the standards... and 'Kiev' is the English language standard. Greece, Turkey, etc. are English common names, not the native language transliteration. As for the Tramp vs Trump analogy, it's a non-starter. All you're arguing for is original research, and that is a big no-no. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Trump vs Tramp was is just a humorous way of illustrating the impossibility of approximating "correct" Russian/Ukrainian pronunciation in English and vice versa, and thus hopefully illustrating how pointless the argument is, and perhaps letting some of the political air of it (the argument above is cast almost entirely in political terms). The argument ("Київ" vs "Киев") is over a difference in pronunciation that English speakers are unlikely to notice, just as Ukrainians and Russians are unlikely to notice the difference between Trump and Tramp, and the Ukrainian and Russian pronunciations will sound to English ears far closer to one another than either to the English pronunciation of Kiev in any case, so excessively fretting about it is a colossal waste of time. But, if you want to be like that: no, it's not original research, it's phonetics. Good luck writing off a 2500-year-old scientific discipline as being rooted in nothing more than "well that's just, like, your opinion, man." Jamieli (talk) 07:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

No, that's your "opinion". No one is transliterating, nor interested in your take on phonetics. Again, read WP:COMMONNAME. There's a common name in English... and it's based on what English language readers know the place as (attested to multiple sources for current affairs alone): Kiev. It seems that you're at the wrong project... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a "take on phonetics". That's like saying a temperature reading 35 degrees is a "take on weather". And I'm pretty sure WP:OR only applies to statements inserted into Wikipedia articles, not every bit of discourse in the known universe. It's a shame Wikipedia:Civility has sheer incoherence as a loophole, otherwise you'd almost certainly be violating it. Jamieli (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Uh, why are you arguing with someone who agrees with you? --Khajidha (talk) 04:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• I think this sentence "Kiev is also based on the old Ukrainian language spelling of the city name and was used by Ukrainians and their ancestors from the time of Kievan Rus until only about the last century." in the "Name" section should be removed. Except for the statement itself, there aren't any proofs for this claim in the reference article. Dotoner (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Requested move 11 February 2017

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

---

Kiev → Kyiv

• Arguments in support of Move

Main reason: Major English-speaking countries (U.S., UK, Canada, Australia, South Africa, Republic of Ireland representing 94.6% of world English-speakers population), Ukraine and other states (via UN) approve `Kyiv` as the only legal name of Ukrainian capital. Names of geographical objects in English language ARE NOT a subject of personal opinions dispute.

Objective reasons:

United States (64.3% of world native speakers population)

U.S. Board on Geographic Names (BGN) approves `Kyiv` only as legal name of Ukrainian capital. Steps to check this proof:

1. Go to BGN's website https://geonames.usgs.gov/

2. Press 'Foreign Names' on the left hand side. You will be redirected to https://geonames.usgs.gov/foreign/index.html.

3. You will see this part: “Information about foreign geographic feature names can be obtained from the GEOnet Names Server (GNS) (contains active hyperlink http://geonames.nga.mil/gns/html/index.html), developed and maintained by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA). The GNS database is the official repository of foreign place-name decisions approved by the U.S. Board on Geographic Names”. Go to GEOnet Names Server (GNS) (hyperlink above)

4. On newly loaded page find 'GNS Search - Text Based Page'. Press on it. You will be redirected to http://geonames.nga.mil/namesgaz/.

5. In 'name' line enter either 'Kyiv' or 'Kiev', press 'Search database'.

6. In pop up window you will see that 'Kiev' is (Conventional - C) while `Kyiv` is (Approved - N). Press on word 'Kyiv'. You will see:

Unique Feature Identifier (UFI):	-1044367

Unique Name Identifier (UNI):	10809489

JOG Reference:			NM36-04

Name Modify Date:			2013-04-24

Access date: 11 Feb 2017.

Alternative proof:

Official list of embassies from the U.S. Department of State. Ukraine (https://www.usembassy.gov/ukraine/):

Address: “U.S. Embassy in Kyiv* 4 A.I. Sikorsky St. 04112 Kyiv*, Ukraine Phone: 044-521-5000”

As listed on US government website. Access date: 11 Feb 2017.

United Kingdom (16.7% of world native speakers population) Find a British embassy, high commission or consulate. Ukraine (https://www.gov.uk/government/world/organisations/british-embassy-kyiv)

Address: “9, Desyatynna St. Kyiv* 01901 Ukraine”

AND

Permanent Committee on Geographical Names (https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/the-permanent-committee-on-geographical-names)

“What does PCGN do? … 4. Promotes the international standardisation of geographical names by representing the British government within the biennial United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names (UNGEGN)(which will be mentioned below), and at the United Nations Conferences on the Standardisation of Geographical Names held every 5 years. 5. Achieves and maintains policy harmony with the United States Board on Geographic Names (BGN) (US gov. dep. mentioned above) by means of annual BGN/PCGN Conferences. …

As listed on UK government website. Access date: 11 Feb 2017.

Canada (5.3% of world native speakers population) Government of Canada / Travel Assistance abroad / Embassies and consulates. Ukraine (https://travel.gc.ca/assistance/embassies-consulates/ukraine) “Kyiv* - Embassy of Canada. Street Address 13A Kostelna Street, Kyiv* 01901, Ukraine”

As listed on Canada government website. Access date: 11 Feb 2017.

Australia (4.7% of world native speakers population) Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade: ‘Our embassies and consulates overseas’ (http://dfat.gov.au/about-us/our-locations/missions/Pages/our-embassies-and-consulates-overseas.aspx) Ukraine (Australian Embassy – Kyiv*). Address 13A Kostelna Street Kyiv* 01901. Ukraine (Australian Consulate – Kyiv*). Address Turhenievska str, 45-49 Office 53 01054 Kyiv*.

As listed on Australian government website. Access date: 11 Feb 2017.

South Africa (1.3% of world native speakers population) Department of International Relations and Cooperation. South African Representation Abroad. Ukraine. (http://www.dirco.gov.za/foreign/sa_abroad/sau.htm)

South African Embassy 9/2 Velyka Vasylkivska Street 01004 Kyiv*

As listed on SA government website. Access date: 11 Feb 2017.

Republic of Ireland (1.1% of world native speakers population) Irish Embassies Abroad - Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Ukraine. (https://www.dfa.ie/embassies/irish-embassies-abroad/europe/ukraine/)

Ukraine Honorary Consul Mr. Volodymyr Sai Honorary Consul of Ireland 32B, Khreshchatyk Street Kyiv*, 01034. Ukraine As listed on republic’s government website. Access date: 11 Feb 2017.

New Zealand (1% of world native speakers population) Embassies | New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/countries-and-regions/europe/ukraine/) “New Zealand's representation to Ukraine is from the New Zealand Embassy in Warsaw, Poland. There is a New Zealand Honorary Consul in Kyiv*, Ukraine. Ukraine is represented in New Zealand by the Ukrainian Embassy in Canberra, Australia.”

AND

https://www.safetravel.govt.nz/kyiv*

Type: Honorary Consulate. Street: Address: c/o Pulse, 17/21 Bahhovutivska Street, 04107, Kyiv*, Ukraine

As listed on NZ government website. Access date: 11 Feb 2017.

Other countries through UN

UN Statistics on Ukraine. (http://data.un.org/CountryProfile.aspx?crName=Ukraine)

Capital city 2015 Kyiv*

As listed on UN website. Access date: 11 Feb 2017.

Ukraine (included as interested party):

Law 55 of Ukraine (since 2010, http://zakon1.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/55-2010-%D0%BF) ‘Regarding setting transliteration rules of Ukrainian alphabet in Latin’ clearly states all the alphabets and their respective Latin alternatives. Link also provides examples, including capital name ‘Київ’ transformed into `Kyiv` by law.

Pending Law 5670 (not yet voted, not yet in force) predicts extension and Law 55. All media, printed sources etc. will have to use `Kyiv` only based on ‘national spelling’.

Other objective reasons:

Mentioned above Eng. Speaking countries do not mention word “Kiev” on their government websites.

Claims in support of name Kiev held by Wikipedia users of different background and who (even if in majority) support keeping it, are not necessarily native speakers of English and therefore their comments represent their personal opinions only and cannot serve as genuine source for keeping its current name since names of geographical objects in English language ARE NOT a subject of personal opinion dispute .

Taking these facts into account, it should be emphesized that 6 mentioned above English speaking countries with total of 94.6% % (definite majority) of world English native speakers population (who are the ones to decide how English language should be used) through democratically elected representatives (specialists of respective government offices presented in ‘objective reasons’ section) approve `Kyiv` only as Ukrainian capital name.

All information above is open source. Estimated percentage of natives by country is taken from English-speaking world.

Subjective reasons

1. Popularity of word `Kiev` is based on secondary citation from unreliable sources, including Wikipedia. Keeping it only boosts misinformation that is afterwards wildely used in media – one of subjective reasons that `Kiev`-keepers use as a proof. As a result, it creates even more unreliable sources with wrong spelling. Therefore, unreliable source which is based on unreliable source will also be unreliable.

2. Word ‘Kiev’ is heavily offensive to Ukrainian language speakers since word ‘Kiev’ is wrong transliteration taken from another language. It is unacceptable, similar to changing (example) New York to Niu Iork based on language rules from another country.

3. List of examples of websites using Kyiv: Google and its services, including maps (2nd), Bing, Bing maps and other Microsoft sites , Facebook , Wikipedia (as second `choice`, currently), Lonely Planet, Skyscanner, Yandex maps, Tencent QQ and WeChat.

Conclusion

Taking into account information above, article should be renamed/moved to ‘[http://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=Kyiv ’. However, it should be noted that word `Kiev` can be kept after ‘Kyiv’ in article body (not title) as unofficial city name. Names of geographical objects in English language ARE NOT a subject of personal opinion dispute. Also Common name can remain, however only after official name of an geographical object. Хмаринка (talk) 10:00, 11 February 2017‎ (UTC)

Those wishing to contribute their opinions here may wish to read those already posted at Talk:Kiev/naming.—Anne Delong (talk) 11:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment was surprised to see Lonely Planet has switched to Kyiv. But it's clearly early on the start of the trend. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/31/kiev-and-kremlin-trade-blame-surge-in-fighting-in-east-ukraine-russia-backed-rebels I would support a move in 2019 or 2033 or whenever when the Guardian etc. quality broadsheets follow Lonely Planet but we shouldn't be anticipating or driving such a change. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

As user BilCat stated in his update of this page ( 09:19, 11 February 2017), "move discussions are to be held on the main talk page".

• Per WP:COMMONAME the common English name of Ukraine's capital is "Kiev". That's not "Russian", it's English, just as "Copenhagen" is English, "Warsaw" is English, and "Prague" is English. Until you present actual data that common English usage has changed, then this discussion has been concluded for several years now. You seem to be confused about what constitutes a "common name". It is not official government usage. It is usage in common, public, non-governmental venues like media outlets. The usage of "Kiev" as the common English name in the media is still overwhelming. --Taivo (talk) 11:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
• You also don't seem to understand that BGN Conventional names are considered to "outrank" any other BGN status. Conventional names are what the BGN has determined that English sources not bound by other policies use. Diplomatic sources ARE bound by policy to use "Kyiv". The conventional name is what is used in everyday English. --Khajidha (talk) 13:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. This yet again? Major English sources:

• NY Times: Kiev vs Kyiv
• BBC: Kiev vs Kyiv
• CBC: Kiev vs Kyiv
• ABC: Kiev vs Kyiv
• CNN: Kiev vs Kyiv

• So one source out of five prefers Kyiv over Kiev. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:15, 11 February 2017 (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.

Why is "Kiev" still being used over "Kyiv?"

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

---

I mean, it's even posted in the page itself that the Kyiv city government demanded that "Kyiv" be used over "Kiev" due to the incorrectness of "Kiev."

Why has nobody changed this yet, and should it be changed now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordMathe2 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

"Kiev" is being used because it is the common English name for this city. Just like English uses the names Moscow, Prague, Warsaw, Belgrade, Copenhagen, Cologne, Venice, Athens, etc. None of which match the native names for those cities. Also, the government of Kiev (or the entirety of Ukraine) does not have jurisdiction beyond their own borders and, thus, cannot legislate what the English speaking nations of the world say. --Khajidha (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

""Kiev" is being used because it is the common English name for this city." ....and has been such for hundreds of years. --Jamieli (talk) 12:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

There's a permanent sub-discussion on the naming of this article, noted when you edit talk, Talk:Kiev/naming. My position is once the U.S. BGN database (very carefully researched geographic names database, includes common English usage) goes "Kyiv", we can rename the article. Currently:

• Kiev (Conventional - C)
• Kyiv (Approved - N)
• Kief (Variant - V)
• Kiew (Variant - V)
• Kijew (Variant - V)
• Kijów (Variant - V)
• Kiyev (Variant - V)
• Kiyiv (Variant - V)
• Kyyiv (Variant - V)
• Київ (Variant Non-Roman Script - VS)

Hope this helps. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah...no. It's Kiev. Some Kyiv. Those other ones are NOT variants. Those are foreign languages all together. LordAtlas (talk) 04:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, aside of Russo-Soviet imperialists supporting "Kiev" over "Kyiv" and ignoring all possible legit arguments for "Kyiv", the only real argument for "Kiev" is that like "it's commonly used in English", however you can easily recall times when N-word was considered normal and was commonly used, and probably there were people out there claiming that black people have no jurisdiction to decide which words the white people should use, however the N-word is obviously not used now. The same with "Kiev" it's plainly offensive and is used either of ignorance or of overt support of sick Russo-Soviet machist-imperialist dreams (more like phantom pain though). I hope now the subject is finally clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weregrabber (talk • contribs) 23:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's clear you haven't read how most English sources say to spell Kiev. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

And it is not actually clear that the user is here to build an encyclopaedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 03:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

"Nigger" is an English word with an offensive meaning IN ENGLISH. "Kiev" is an English word with no offensive meaning in English. The supposed "offense" you mention is to the use of the RUSSIAN word. As we are not writing in Russian, this is irrelevant. --Khajidha (talk) 09:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and "Weregrabber" is not only obviously NOT here to build an encyclopedia, he/she/(other preferred pronoun) is also obviously the same as a previously banned user. I'll check the archives for the name later. --09:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SlavaUkrainiGeroyamSlava and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/94.244.129.207 Same "argument" about the "N-word". --Khajidha (talk) 09:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, a good catch. I blocked them indef.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:07, 1 August 2017 (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.

Everything starts in Kyiv

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

---

When the Wikipedia article called "Kiev" contains the official logo of the city which says "everything starts in KYIV", it is very confusing. I think this article should be renamed to Kyiv. 46.63.38.5 (talk) 00:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

So remove the logo. - BilCat (talk) 00:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a Wikipedia vandalist. 46.63.38.5 (talk) 00:58, 3 October 2017 (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.

Requested move 3 October 2017

The following is a closed 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: Snow not moved (non-admin closure) {{repeat|p|3}}ery (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

---

Kiev → Kyiv – Official name of the capital of Ukraine is Kyiv, official logo of the city in English says "Kyiv", the name "Kyiv" is very often used in official documents of many countries and in the press, so the current title of the article can confuse Wikipedia readers. 46.63.38.5 (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support per nomination, of course, a hundred times, which seemingly is the number of debates which have swirled over and over and over the city's exonym. There is a separate link above, created solely to discuss this very issue. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Kiev is still the WP:COMMONNAME in English, and this is English Wikipedia, nothing has changed from the former discussions._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Nothing has changed since the last (monthly) discussion. There is no more evidence that the English name of Ukraine's capital has changed than there is evidence that "Prague" has suddenly become "Praha". --Taivo (talk) 03:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:UE. "Kiev" is a well-established word in English and there is no reason to replace it for political reasons. Academicoffee71 (talk) 03:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, not English. The proposer has been previously blocked for misbehavior at this page, is currently blocked for two weeks, and needs to learn how to drop the stick.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:UE. This is still overwhelmingly the common name in English. Softlavender (talk) 08:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:UE. English usage is overwhelmingly "Kiev". --Khajidha (talk) 08:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:UE. English usage is still overwhelmingly "Kiev", and it's not likely to change within the foreseeable future, if ever. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 08:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Once again oppose. This is the correct spelling in English. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose for all the usual reasons as enumerated above. Good grief, not again. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. English language usage is absolutely, undoubtedly, and overwhelmingly "Kiev". --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose and speedy close. No change in consensus since the last RM.  ONR  (talk)  20:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose For all the reasons given above most especially WP:COMMONNAME. Jschnur (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2017 (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.

List of English-language media outlets now using Kyiv spelling (will be continuously updated; don't archive)

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

---

List of major English-language media outlets now using Kyiv spelling (continuously updated; don't archive).--Piznajko (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• Deutche Welle English (example: http://www.dw.com/en/ryanair-now-flying-to-ukraine/a-43100647 )
• RFE/RL English (example: https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-savchenko-hunger-strike-court-hearing-/29117487.html )
• Ukrinform English (example: https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-economy/2427721-ryanairs-management-signs-agreement-with-managers-of-borispil-and-lviv-airports.html )
• UNIAN English (example: https://www.unian.info/politics/10055093-poroshenko-congratulates-ukraine-s-security-service-on-26th-anniversary.html )
• Interfax Ukraine English (example: http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/494013.html )
• KyivPost (example: https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/eu-commissioner-bienkowska-visit-kyiv-march-27.html )

Comments

• Deutch Welle goes back and forth. Here's one from 22 March 2018 that uses Kiev. It depends on who is doing the writing for this media outlet. See Deutch Wells: Putin Re-elected: A Toxic Presidency? The other media source is RadioFreeEurope, and though backed by US money, it is specifically targeting Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East where free press is minimal or at least of lesser quality. Since late 2017 it has used Kyiv exclusively. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
• What is needed to sway the opinion here is proof that Kyiv is now being used by a majority of major news outlets in English speaking countries, i.e. news outlets aimed at native English speakers... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• Gentlemen, Fyunck(click) and Thomas.W, thank you your comments but this section is intended to just list the major English media outlets using Kyiv spelling. Not discuss how good/bad they are. Also, Fyunck(click), per your comment about DW English, I think they have a couple of editors who occasionally forget to spell it correctly, but the vast majority of editors now spell it Kyiv (e.g., Kyiv give 2029 search results, while Kiev gives 513 results, with nearly all of them before May 2017 (and only 2 after May 2017) )--Piznajko (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• "Spell it correctly"? According to every English language dictionary, encyclopedia, and atlas I've used KIEV is the correct spelling. If you mean "the official transliteration", then say so. --Khajidha (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
• Also, define "major". --Khajidha (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

These first two sites are hardly "major" English-language media sites since they originate in non-English-speaking countries and target audiences that are English-speaking, but not living in English-speaking countries and not native speakers. They use English because English is the lingua franca of Europe. Deutsche Welle originates in Germany, RFE/RL originates in Prague. --Taivo (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Piznajko: Ukrainian websites do not count, so there's no point in clogging up this talk page with them. What you need to provide is proof that a bunch of major news outlets in English speaking countries, such as BBC, CNN, Washington Post, New York Times, The Times and others, have switched to Kyiv. That's what counts, not websites/news outlets like the ones you have provided. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Thomas.W, I'm not trying to provide any proof or prove anything in any way. This is just a list of English language media that are popular and respectable and that switched to using Kyiv. That's it.--Piznajko (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Piznajko: This is not a web host. If you want to keep a collection of links unrelated to any ongoing discussion please do that offsite. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

NeilN, I beg your pardon? The list of English-language media that switched to using Kyiv is relevant to this article in the sense showing where we stand in terms of the usage of this spelling in English-language media. You don't have a monopoly on this talk page, despite the fact that you're an admin on English Wikipedia.--Piznajko (talk) 00:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Can I have an opinion of a different enwiki admin here? I know you, admins, usually like to stick to each other, but I'm hoping for an impartial comment here. Am I dreaming, or is NeilN trying to bully me into removing the list I've created (that has a direct relevance to the article) by stating that, quote, there is no place for "a collection of links unrelated to any ongoing discussion" on Wikipedia talk page? Firstly, who said that a talk page comment has to be related to any ongoing discussion (e.g., what's wrong with writing on a talk page something related to the article itself, not any ongoing disscussion? - please direct me to a rule on Wiki that unequivocally states that enwiki talk pages are only for ongoing discussions (in case I've missed it) 2) secondly, the list I've created (and intend on updating) does have a degree of relevance to the ongoing discussion of naming the article because it helps with a quick overview of where we're in terms of the adoption of Kyiv spelling by English-language media.

ps. FYI, I originally posted this list on regulat article talk page, but TaivoLinguist has moved it here, I'm assuming cause he thought it was related to this discussion.--Piznajko (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Not an admin, but if you are "not trying to provide any proof or prove anything in any way" then there is nothing to talk about and no reason to post this. Talk pages are for discussing changes/improvements to the relevant articles. They should be relevant to an ongoing discussion or starting a new discussion. If you aren't trying to change the article, then this is just spam and should be deleted. --Khajidha (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Everything related to "Kiev" vs. "Kyiv" goes here. --Taivo (talk) 02:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

And the relevant policy is WP:SOAPBOXING--Ymblanter (talk) 07:29, 25 March 2018 (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.

@Softlavender, I specifically asked NOT to archive the list. I looked at WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:SOAPBOX, and WP:NOTWEBHOST rules that you referenced as your reasoning to delete it - I didn't see how any of these rules apply here. This list is RELEVENT to the article itself. None of the 3 rules quoted by you above said anything like "editors of enwiki are not allowed to post information relevant to the article on the talk page"; in fact, I belive talk pages were created for this very reason: so editors could post various information they consider relevant to the article.--Piznajko (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

If you don't see how those policies apply, then I seriously doubt that you have the intellectual capacity to edit here. --Khajidha (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Piznajko: You've been repeatedly told that your collection of miscellaneous links here is totally irrelevant to the naming of the article, and why, and have also been told to do it the way it should be done, if you want to propose a change of name. So stop. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:41, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

And I've repeatedly said that the collection is NOT of miscellaneous links (it's a collection of names of English-language media) and that this link is relevant to the article and as such doesn't violate any existing rules of Wikipedia (nothing in the aforementioned WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:SOAPBOX, and WP:NOTWEBHOST said anything about not allowing an editor to post information relevant to the article on its talk page.--Piznajko (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussing proposed changes to the page. You claim not to be asking for a change, therefor this is just spam. --Khajidha (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not up to you to decide if it's relevant or not, a whole bunch of other editors have said that it isn't, so it isn't... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

List of English-language media outlets now using Kyiv spelling (will be continuously updated; don't archive) round 2

List of major English-language media outlets now using Kyiv spelling (continuously updated; don't archive). Returning this list to the talk page, where I originally posted it. A couple users accused this of being spam and archived it (even though it's information relevant to the article and therefore not a spam). Please keep it civil people, it's just a list - not need to go all crazy/nasty because of it. --Piznajko (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• Deutche Welle English (example: http://www.dw.com/en/ryanair-now-flying-to-ukraine/a-43100647 )
• RFE/RL English (example: https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-savchenko-hunger-strike-court-hearing-/29117487.html )
• Ukrinform English (example: https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-economy/2427721-ryanairs-management-signs-agreement-with-managers-of-borispil-and-lviv-airports.html )
• UNIAN English (example: https://www.unian.info/politics/10055093-poroshenko-congratulates-ukraine-s-security-service-on-26th-anniversary.html )
• Interfax Ukraine English (example: http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/494013.html )
• KyivPost (example: https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/eu-commissioner-bienkowska-visit-kyiv-march-27.html )

According to banner on the top of this page, This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kiev article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. What improvement do you suggest and why? My very best wishes (talk) 00:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

This is just somebody being all butt hurt because we called him out on his pointless "but these random minor league sources use Kyiv, so why don't we?" whining. I don't see how a list can be relevant when the original poster claims not to be advocating any change. If Piznajko wants to keep such a list there's this very useful program called Microsoft Word. If this continues to be posted contrary to consensus, I smell a block, topic ban, or outright ban for this user coming on. --Khajidha (talk) 01:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Khajidha, thanks for using phrases like "butt hurt" to describe me - very friendly behavior. Also, thanks for threatening me with "block, topic ban, or outright ban" - bulling on enwiki is prospering indeed; maybe you should just go ahead and suggest that you all just burn me like a a witch of the olden days for heterodoxy. ps. anyone here has yet to show me anything in WP rules that prohibits posting information relevant to the article (e.g., they are examples of media outlets that use Kyiv spelling).--Piznajko (talk) 12:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

EVERYTHING related to the "Kiev" versus "Kyiv" issue goes on this page, User:Piznajko, no matter how you try to frame your list. --Taivo (talk) 03:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

This is not your decision User:Piznajko as to whether or not this remains here. You have been warned repeatedly that this is not appropriate content for Wikipedia until you are using it to improve Wikipedia. This is just your vanity list. Keep it on your own computer or on your personal sandbox. --Taivo (talk) 12:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

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

---

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2018

Kiev is wrong spelling Swdanylenko (talk) 11:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

No, it is not.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is. 46.63.38.5 (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

It is the correct spelling for the English name of Ukraine's capital city. How the Ukrainians spell their capital's name in Ukrainian is immaterial here. All that matters is how English speakers spell the name and that is overwhelmingly "Kiev". --Taivo (talk) 20:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

"Kiev" is indeed the correct name for the Ukrainian capital if one is a Russian speaker. To use one of many such other examples, "Rzym" is the correct name for the Italian capital if one writes it in Polish. German speakers refer to Wrocław as Breslau and to Gdańsk as Danzig and those were also the names used by English speakers, but no longer. The correct English spelling for the Ukrainian capital is, in fact, "Kyiv", as confirmed by the U.S. State Department and the world's largest publisher of travel books, Lonely Planet.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

No it isn't, as you have been told countless times by countless other editors, so don't start this again. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 04:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is, as I have replied countless times to countless other editors and, as can be easily determined, I did not start this discussion again, nor have I ever started any of the previous discussions.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

And your responses have been rebutted every time. Neither the Rada, nor the US government, nor Lonely Planet, nor even all three together set the standards of English usage. By a large majority, "Kiev" is still the commonly used form in English. Yes, "Kyiv" is used by some sources, but the weight of sources is vastly against that form. --Khajidha (talk) 10:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Roman Spinner, your argument makes zero sense. But then none of your arguments ever have since they are based on your fallacious notion that English spelling can be dictated by the Rada. Give it a rest. --Taivo (talk) 04:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Taivo, my argument makes as much, or as little, sense as yours does. Regarding fallacious notions, we can add the one that posits the Rada dictating English spelling to the State Department and Lonely Planet (also, with gratitude to you for discovering Miami Herald's use of "Kyiv"). As for giving it a rest, I wouldn't consider suggesting that you do so. After all, you wouldn't want your arguments to remain unanswered.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

My argument is as simple as knowing that the sun rises in the east: Common English usage. It's spelled out clearly and simply in WP:COMMONNAME. When the evidence shows that the most common name for Ukraine's capital in English usage is, by a large margin, "Kiev", then that's the English name for Ukraine's capital and the name that Wikipedia uses. Neither the Rada nor the State Department have anything whatsoever to do with it. That's what you fail to understand. --Taivo (talk) 08:47, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Google news, last year search, in English, the ratio is pretty equal. Yes, English written Ukrainian sources helps a lot... You still write about spelling, but what about pronunciation? The article says nothing about Kyiv's pronunciation... Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Que? The very first sentence of the very first section of the article lists proper pronounciation of the name in multiple languages, including both English and Ukrainian... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Chrzwzcz you are obviously not paying attention. Google search for pages with "Kiev" and not "Kyiv" in English in the past year: 4,780,000. "Kyiv" and not "Kiev" in English in the past year: 1,710,000. Not even close. --Taivo (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

common. First sentence describes English pronunciation of Kiev and Ukrainian pronunciation of Kyiv. No English pronunciation of Kyiv. Google news (!!!) I said Google news (OK I forgot capital N) roughly 1:1. In search of everything, 1:3 is pretty much, your posts here suggested 1:1000000 :) Chrzwzcz (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Why should there be an English pronounciation for "Kyiv"? "Kyiv" is the Ukrainian language name, not the English language name... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: Kyiv IS English language name, less used, alternate name, but used by English written sources in English speaking countries nevertheless. So I am obviously curious how it is pronounced when inside English sentences. First sentence: "Kiev or Kyiv..." - this means Wikipedia also considers it alternate name and English pronunciation should be provided. Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Chrzwzcz: No, it's not. Being the preferred Ukrainian transliteration of the name does not automagically make Kyiv the English language name, since that's decided by what's in common use among native English speakers, not by what people in a country where everyone speaks a totally different language say... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 23:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is. As for "Kyiv" being the preferred Ukrainian transliteration of the name — it is not the preferred Ukrainian transliteration — it is the sole Ukrainian transliteration of the English language name of its capital. "Kiev", on the other hand, is the English transliteration of the Russian pronunciation of the Ukrainian capital's name.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand that "Kiev" may have been a "transliteration" when it was first used in English, but it is no longer a transliteration, it is the normal English exonym for the capital of Ukraine. To be a transliteration, then each use must know the Cyrillic alphabet and mentally change each Cyrillic letter into an English one. If you're not doing that, then it's not a "transliteration" any more. And "Kyiv" is the preferred transliteration by the government of Ukraine, but the government of Ukraine has zero authority over the United States of America and the 300 million English speakers living here. So it is only "suggested" or "preferred", it is not the exonym of Ukraine's capital in the English language. "Kiev" is not "Russian", it is an English exonym. --Taivo (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I understand the situation in all its aspects. Here, at English exonyms#Ukraine, we have the text, "Many Ukrainian place names in English historically match the Russian spelling/pronunciation". Ukraine, however, has been an independent nation since 1991 and such historical grandfathering is no longer applicable per US State Department, Lonely Planet and, as you pointed out, Miami Herald, most likely due to its Ukrainian-heritage publisher Alexandra Villoch.

The situation is unique in that there is no other capital which has, as its English name, not its native name, but the name used by another country, in this case Russia. In contrast, "Moscow" is strictly an English-language exonym — no other language uses that name for the Russian capital.

The Belarus capital, Minsk, is the native name, the Russian name, the English name and the name used by most other language. The Moldovan capital, Chișinău, is listed on Wikipedia by its native name, including the presence of both diacritics, although the city's Russian name continues to be its Soviet name, Kishinev.

The Polish city of Gdańsk was once referenced in the English-speaking world as "Danzig", but it is no longer so referenced in English, except in a historical context. Its German name, however, continues to be "Danzig" in the same manner as the Russian name for the Ukrainian capital will continue to be "Kiev".    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

It's so sad, Roman Spinner, that English speakers don't care about your tender feelings or about the laws enacted in Ukraine. And it simply doesn't matter what you think, English speakers by a wide margin call Ukraine's capital city "Kiev". They don't even pronounce it as it is in Russian. That must irk Russian speakers. And even "Kyiv" isn't pronounced in Ukrainian style when it's used in English. English speakers are such unappreciative monolinguals. But the English exonym for Ukraine's capital city is "Kiev" [ki.ɛv], complete with final voiced [v] and stress on the final vowel. For all your complaining, nothing has changed and nothing will in the foreseeable future. Indeed, there was a brief period in 2014 when some media outlets were using "Kyiv" intermittently, but they have since changed back to "Kiev" all the time. --Taivo (talk) 03:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The article admits that some English sources (state department etc.) do use Kyiv. It does not make it a common name, no argue there (!!!), don't start again, that was not the question! Question was how it should be pronounced when inside English sentence. Even this article uses it in sentences. Supporters want to be the preferred variant and they are talking just about spelling. So pronunciation is not the issue for them, Kiev and Kyiv have no difference in spoken word? Chrzwzcz (talk) 07:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Roman Spinner: You're wrong about there being "no other capital which has, as its English name, not its native name, but the name used by another country". The English language name for the capital of Denmark, Copenhagen, isn't based on the native Danish language name for it ,da:København, but the German language name for it, de:Kopenhagen. Yet no one in Denmark has ever made any fuss about it here... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 08:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

And once you filter out all the "Dynamo Kyiv"s (whose name is no more indicative of English usage than Bayern Munich) and stories from the Kyiv Post (about as relevant here as the New York Times would be to Ukrainian usage), the ratio is even more lopsided. --Khajidha (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

And "News" is certainly not the only context in which people write about Kiev. To use just news is to put your hand on the scale and bias the results. 3:1 is, indeed, overwhelming. That is 75-25. If the popular vote for US president were decided by that margin, it would only be dwarfed in landslide quality by the election of George Washington. --Taivo (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Khajidha is absolutely on target. I just checked the results of "Kyiv" and not "Kiev" in Google News and over half the results on the first two pages of results were from Kyiv Post!!! So your Google News search is a sham. --Taivo (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

How many of the rest are from Unian? Hardly seems fair to ask for general English usage to change to match Ukrainian norms and try to use Ukrainian media as evidence. --Khajidha (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Most of the rest were from Unian. --Taivo (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Can't be. I excluded Unian, most of the results remained (though further excluding necessary). Try Kyiv -site:unian.info -site:kyivpost.com -site:interfax.com.ua -site:ukrinform.net" and you may add more and more sites ... maybe you'll at last see some you like. Chrzwzcz (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't using your search link, but simply Kyiv -Kiev within the last year. I used your exclusion list and searched for English "Kyiv -Kiev" in English over the past year but also excluded -"Kyiv Dynamo". The news search yielded 31,200 results. Here's the link: [21]. Next I searched for "Kiev -Kyiv" in English over the past year and got 48,400, still a clear majority. Here's the link: [22]. So there's still no justification for arguing that "Kiev" is not the name of Ukraine's capital in English. But as we've said elsewhere, news is not the only data point for common English usage and looking at all of Google, "Kiev" is even more overwhelming (without even excluding "Kyiv Dynamo"). --Taivo (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

And as I said, it was a nice result. Your comments indicating crushing defeat of Kyiv are not real - victory of Kyiv in several years is plausible ... to say the least. Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

If you grade newspaper coverage the same as random tweets, blogs and instagram posts then yeah. Newspapers suggest an editor present and I tend to say more reliable. Anyway, it is 3 times higher frequency, a lot, (maybe 10 times after further analysis what to exclude) but no it is not as much as your "forget about it, never gonna happen" posts suggested - it looked like only US government and Lonely Planet use it. ;) Kyiv Post, Unian - yes I tried search without those too. Nort a sham, you just need better tools than just "word" and search. Chrzwzcz (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Editors are not the arbiters of "common English usage". Common English usage is determined by the mass of English usage. That includes tweets, blogs, and instagram posts. --Taivo (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

And how do you monitor spoken word - youtubers etc. They surely have their say too :) Anyway this leads nowhere. You say Kyiv no, I say Kyiv no... Chrzwzcz (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Question: Mumbai/Bombey and Beijing/Peking?

This discussion has pretty much stalled with the same things being brought up over and over. Since it is turning into more of a blog with circular arguments where it leans heavily towards the KIEV spelling, and editors have asked for it to end, I have closed this discussion. A formal move request could always be attempted though I see nothing in the arguments that has changed since the last snowball request from six months ago. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

---

Why would not you call Mumbai Bombey and Beijing Peking then? Constantinehuk (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Constantinehuk: Peking was officially changed to Beijing in 1949 (by changing systems for Romanization of the name, not changing the name of the city), and Bombay was officially changed to Mumbai in 1996, but it took at least 30-40 years before Beijing started to be used in English, instead of Peking, and it took 10 years, that is until 2006, before any major English language news source started to use Mumbai instead of Bombay. Ten years from now major English language media may have also started to switch to using Kyiv instead of Kiev, but don't expect much to happen before then, especially not since all other Western European languages also still use Kiev, or variations thereof, such as Kiew, and not Kyiv... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Food for thoughts: a comparison of searchterms over the past 12 months, Kiev vs Kyiv (written in Latin script), on Google Trends shows that Kiev has been searched for ten times more often than Kyiv worldwide, and, which might come as a suprise for you, Kiev has also been searched for 5.6 times more often than Kyiv in searches originating in the Ukraine. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Only search relevancy counts? Bombay: about 88,500,000 results (0.88 seconds). Mumbay (Including results for Mumbai): about 585,000 results (0.91 seconds). And "Following independence in 1991, the Ukrainian government introduced the national rules for transliteration of geographic names from Ukrainian into English. 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" - 22 years have passed. Constantinehuk (talk) 10:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

What has any of that got to do with anything? Bombay has been changed to Mumbai, even here on en-WP, but the English-speaking world continues to use Kiev instead of Kyiv (hint. Ukrainian law etc only applies within the Ukraine...). When a majority of media, i.e. not just one or two news sites, in the English-speaking world has switched to Kyiv we can seriously start to consider moving this article to your preferred spelling, but until then it stays where it is... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

What has any of what got to do with anything? You brought search relevancy, you brought time lapse. Or was not you? Constantinehuk (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The point, which you guys do not seem to be able to understand, is that the Ukrainian government is not in a position to change the norms of the English language. They can adopt whatever laws they want, they can write letters to the Wikimedia Foundation, they can even prohibit all media spelling "Kiev" from being distributed in Ukraine - none of this is going to change the language.--Ymblanter (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The point, which you guys do not seem to be able to understand, is that the Indian government is not in a position to change the norms of the English language. They can adopt whatever laws they want, they can write letters to the Wikimedia Foundation, they can even prohibit all media spelling "Bombay" from being distributed in India - none of this is going to change the language. Constantinehuk (talk) 09:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The point, which you guys do not seem to be able to understand, is that India is an English speaking country. What they do can have a much greater effect. --Khajidha (talk) 10:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, the new entity has emerged, "an English speaking country". Is China an English speaking country also? Constantinehuk (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm having trouble following you, because of your lack of familiarity with the language. This isn't a "new entity", this is basic reasoning. Countries where a language is spoken as one of (if not the only) major languages of communication will always have more influence on what place names are used than countries where that language is only used as a secondary language when dealing with the outside world. As for your question, no, China is not an English speaking country. Which is why it took 40 years for the change from Peking to Beijing to really be noticed. And that is despite its huge population and military and economic power. If the English speaking world couldn't be bothered to change the name from Peking to Beijing for 40 years, it is going to take a heck of a lot longer for any change from Kiev to Kyiv. --Khajidha (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Until Nixon's trip to China, the State Department was actively holding back the conversion to "Beijing". The conversion to "Kyiv" is the exact opposite — the change has already happened, with the State Department, Lonely Planet and Miami Herald taking the lead and the rest of the English-speaking world slowly following.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

This will help you to follow me: Entity. Your reading of the article will alleviate differences of "our familiarities with the language". Basically, you have brought "English speaking country" into the context of this discussion, and I am grateful you eventually decided to back it up with some (kind of) reasoning. What about Almaty? I am eager to learn which languages speak Kazakhstan. Constantinehuk (talk) 10:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Constantinehuk:, to be honest, I do not think your contribution to this page is constructive. If you are unhappy how our articles Kiev, Beijing, Mumbai, and Almaty are named, you can open a move request for each of them. This is how Wikipedia works. I anticipate, however, that if you do it demonstrating the same level of argumentation you demonstrate on this page, you might be blocked for disruptive editing.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Are blatant accusations all that left in your pocket? Maybe you should instead try to answer a very simple initial question once more. I am eager to learn that not only India but Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kirghizia, China, Korea, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan all "English speaking countries", since only such has a right to change the naming of their cities in English. Constantinehuk (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Never said that only English speaking countries could, just that their chances were better. The English language has a great deal of inertia to such changes, they are more likely to take effect if one of the following conditions is met: 1) the country in question is English speaking. Mt. McKinley changed to Denali virtually overnight because the US is basically an English only country, Bombay has more or less changed to Mumbai because English is a major language in India - but not so major as to force all of its changes, 2) the place has little or no impact on the English speaking world (no one cares whether it is Alma Aty or Almaty), or 3) the country is a major enough power for people to want to kowtow to them (Peking to Beijing). If the place is fairly well known, but not powerful, the change won't happen (which is why we still say Ivory Coast, East Timor, and Cape Verde). Guess which group Ukraine as a whole (and Kiev, in particular, falls into).--Khajidha (talk) 12:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I am pleased by your recognition of Kyiv importance to the English-speaking world; I am also fascinated by your view on Ukraine (the largest state entirely in Europe) as having little "power". Nevertheless, let's take a closer look at your examples:

Long list of stuff that is of no relevance to this discussion

- Ivory Coast - changed naming in April 1986; Population: 23,740,424 GDP (PPP): • Total $96.092 billion • Per capita $3,849 - East Timor changed naming in 2002; Population: 1,167,242 GDP (PPP): • Total $4.567 billion • Per capita $5,479 - Cape Verde changed naming in 2013; Population: 539,560 GDP (PPP): • Total $3.649 billion • Per capita $6,867 - And now Ukraine (fighting back the largest military on the continent) - changed naming in 1995; Population: 42,418,235 GDP (PPP): • Total $366 billion • Per capita $8,656 -

Please consider respecting it.

-

And the most important thing, none of the states you gave uses a non-Latin script, so your examples are of little relevancy (like Prague-Praga, Munich-München so on from the discussion branch below). Constantinehuk (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

You obviously still don't get it: Wikipedia does not lead, Wikipedia follows. That is, Wikipedia does not start using new names until those names have become widely accepted and used among English speakers, since WP:COMMONNAME/WP:NAMECHANGE clearly state that we are to use whatever names etc that are used by a majority of English language media/sources. So until a majority of English language media/sources have changed from Kiev to Kyiv the English language Wikipedia will continue to use Kiev, not Kyiv. Period. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I have never said "Wikipedia leads" - get it. I merely responded to opponents' arguments - successfully. As for "following" matter (another entity you eventually decided to through at me), there is a mention of importance not only major international organizations (Kyiv wins), major English-language media outlets (Kiev wins), but also geographic name servers - let's study maps then. I went to List of online map services and what do I find? Here: 1 2 3 4 5 6 78 9 10 11 12. Do you see the pattern?

P.S. And "the long list of stuff" above was about examples, brought not by me. Constantinehuk (talk) 09:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

No, you did not successfully respond to my points, I've simply been flabbergasted that you think that mere area is somehow indicative of a nation's relative power. Or that a GDP that is roughly in the 50s out of approximately 200 countries (exact rank varying slightly by source) is indicative of a powerful country. Not to mention that Ukraine has not fought back the largest military on the continent. Russia has not bothered to put its full might behind its actions and has still managed to take away large chunks of Ukraine's territory. This is hardly evidence that Ukraine is a power. --Khajidha (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

"I've simply been flabbergasted that you think that mere area is somehow indicative of a nation's relative power. Or that a GDP that is roughly in the 50s out of approximately 200 countries (exact rank varying slightly by source) is indicative of a powerful country. Not to mention that Ukraine has not fought back the largest military on the continent."

50s out of approximately 200 countries? Not so bad. Please consider giving an example of such treatment in one of those upper 50 countries - because I have given plenty of examples of the opposite in the lower 150.

You may also present a better "indicative of a powerful country", will you?

-

"Russia has not bothered to put its full might behind its actions and has still managed to take away large chunks of Ukraine's territory. This is hardly evidence that Ukraine is a power."

There is much evidence of direct Russia involvement into Ukraine - arms, personnel, ammo. You may choose not to look at it though. Constantinehuk (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

See great power for what a powerful country is. And I never said Russia wasn't involved in Ukraine, only that they haven't put their full might into the task. --Khajidha (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I have never said Ukraine is a "great power". What about giving another example of such unfair treatment? Constantinehuk (talk) 08:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I reported the user at ANI. To be honest, I am not happy with the need to go there, but this became too much a timesink.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Citation needed that English usage is supposed to be fair. --Khajidha (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I did not state that "English usage is supposed to be fair". Give an example that supports your position, please. Constantinehuk (talk) 14:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

You are the one who called it unfair treatment. I was just pointing out that that was irrelevant. And I'm not sure why you think what is done with other names in other countries has to do with what is done with this name. English usage isn't systematic or fair. --Khajidha (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

So no examples that support your position, so sad...

-

Let's summarize:

1. No answer (except for made-up sets of arbitrary criteria) for the initial question presented.

2. No examples of such an unfair treatment to a city in the whole world showed (plenty of the opposite exist).

3. A clear violation of direct Wikipedia rules about geographical objects - the vast majority of not only major international organizations but modern online maps use Kyiv. Constantinehuk (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Let's summarize

1) No answer because it's not a valid question. How English handles the name of city A has no bearing on how it handles the name of city B.

2) Still waiting on any evidence that "fairness" is a valid concern, basically see previous answer.

3) You are ignoring that general usage in major English media is also part of that guideline. And general usage is so heavily weighted in favor of Kiev, that it is simply overwhelming. All those international organizations and maps are mere drops in the bucket. If general usage was roughly equal, then those organizations and maps would tend to tip the scales to Kyiv. But that's not the case. --Khajidha (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Constantinehuk: No country has a "right to change the naming of their cities in English", that's not how it works, neither here on Wikipedia nor in the "real world". It's what's in common use in English that controls it, and as a result of that it's far easier to change names of places that are outside Europe, and new aquaintances for most people, than changing names of places that are in Europe, and because of that have been in use for centuries and are known by most English-speakers, such as Kiev. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Your introduction of new entities makes the system a little bit too complicated. For me all countries are equal; there are many states not in Europe have caused major influence on world culture and English language particularly. Actually, among cities in countries using a non-Latin script that changed their naming in English 25 years ago I see only Kyiv with such an unfair treatment. But if you insist, please consider presenting such an example in Europe. Constantinehuk (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Actually, we do still call Bengaluru Bangalore, and Belagavi Belgaum, despite the former names being made official by the Indian Government in 2014. This is for the exact same reason as we still use Kiev: These are the common names in English. - BilCat (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, we still use Mysore for Mysuru, and Mangalore for Mangaluru, both also officially renamed in 2014. - BilCat (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

You can use whatever you want - the corresponding articles of Wikipedia are named rightly. Constantinehuk (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

And no one is trying to change Warsaw to Warszawa or Prague to Praha. --Taivo (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Warsaw/Warszawa, Prague/Praha, Munich/München or Florence/Firenze, and other examples from languages which use the Latin alphabet and do not require transliteration, would not be applicable to situations which do require transliteration and are transliterated from the Russian language, not the Ukrainian language ("Kiev" reproduces as close as possible how the Russian name for the city is pronounced, while "Kyiv" reproduces as close as possible how the Ukrainian name for their capital city is pronounced). Here, at English exonyms#Ukraine, we have the text, "Many Ukrainian place names in English historically match the Russian spelling/pronunciation". Ukraine, however, has been an independent nation since 1991 and the name of its capital city's English-language newspaper is Kyiv Post.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

So what. How a Ukrainian paper transliterates the term is basically irrelevant to how the native Anglophond world chooses to translate it. --Khajidha (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Here is link to the website of the U.S. Department of State and an example of the results when one searches for "Kiev", not even "Kyiv", and yet the results, other than the historical ones, still come up "Kyiv". Here are the results when one does type "Kyiv".    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

We're discussing geeral uszge, not diplomatic. --Khajidha (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

See WP:NAMECHANGES: "Sometimes, the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to sources written after the name change is announced. If the sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. If, on the other hand, sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well, per COMMONNAME". And English-language sources/media overwhelmingly still use Kiev, not Kyiv... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 02:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Yawn. The monthly attempt to try to "prove" that the name of Ukraine's capital isn't "Kiev" in English. "Kiev" is not a transliteration except in a historical sense. "Kiev" is the name given to Ukraine's capital in English just like "Moscow", and not "Moskva", is the name of Russia's capital in English. It's a word of English, no longer a transliteration. --Taivo (talk) 03:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

When we focus upon the English-language names of cities in countries that use the Cyrillic alphabet, we find a small handful of well-known Anglicized exonyms, such as Moscow, Saint Petersburg or Belgrade. The exonyms of almost all other cities, including capitals (Kyiv, Minsk, Sofia) are straightforward transliterations. In the case of Ukrainian cities, most (Kharkiv, Dnipro, Zaporizhia) are transliterated from the Ukrainian names and even in instances where the transliteration is from the Russian name (Odessa, Donetsk), the difference is too small to really affect English pronunciation.

In the case of Kyiv, however, the difference in pronunciation between the Russian form Kiev and the Ukrainian form Kyiv is clearly evident. That is why the retention, in the extended portions of the English-speaking world, of English transliteration of the Russian form of the Ukrainian capital's name, instead of the Ukrainian form, draws so much Ukrainian dismay.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

We don't go by what the small number of English-speakers in the Ukraine may feel about it, but by what the rules here say about using names that are understood/recognized by native English-speakers, since they make up the vast majority of all readers of this Wikipedia, the English language one. Period. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 07:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Your comment is rather simplistic, User:Roman Spinner. English usage is based not on "transliterations", but on anglicizations of transliterations. We use "Lviv" in English, not "L'viv". So your argument based solely on transliteration is false. And your list conveniently ignores "Odessa", which is so English that several American cities are named thus. "Kiev" is English. That's why the entry in the U.S. Board of Geographic Names for "Kiev" clearly labels it as the English language name, a label that "Kyiv" does not share. --Taivo (talk) 08:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

That "small number of English-speakers in the Ukraine" must be very active and persistent users of Wikipedia since the matter keeps returning to the fore again and again. It also needs to be noted that the lead paragraph of Wikipedia's Name of Ukraine article states, "In English, the traditional use was "the Ukraine", which is nowadays less common and officially deprecated by the Ukrainian government and many English language media publications."

Nothing simplistic about my comment, User:TaivoLinguist. All transliterations are inexact and insertion of apostrophes to simulate the soft sign is rarely done for city names. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Ukrainian places), Romanization of Ukrainian and Exonym and endonym discuss such matters in detail, but suffice it to say that Ukrainian cities do not have English/Anglicized names such as Moscow/Moskva, Belgrade/Beograd or Warsaw/Warszawa. Regarding Odessa/Odesa, I specifically mentioned it (along with Donetsk/Donets'k) to demonstrate that names of those cities (Ukraine's 4th and 5th largest) are not the focus of sustained attention because the Russian forms are close enough to the Ukrainian in transliteration and because all of the attention is on the name "Kyiv".

As for the grandfathered entry in the U.S. Board of Geographic Names, it is obviously in disagreement with the U.S. State Department which consistently uses the Ukrainian form, "Kyiv", rather than the Russian form, "Kiev", when referring to the present-day Ukrainian capital. There is nothing wrong with Russian speakers using "Kiev", since that is the Russian name for the Ukrainian capital, but the present day English name for the Ukrainian capital is the transliteration of the Ukrainian name, Kyiv. The outdated Russian form will, of course, persist, in the same manner as the name "Bombay" persists, in the city itself, where it continues to be used alongside "Mumbai".    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

You are wrong about the English name of Ukraine's capital. It is, right now, in current usage in American sources other than official government documents, "Kiev". You see it all the time in contemporary media sources and rarely see "Kyiv". English speakers who know neither Russian nor Ukrainian consistently use "Kiev". That is the English name for Ukraine's capital despite what "transliterationists" like yourself want to claim. "Kiev" is not Russian. "Kiev" is not Ukrainian. "Kiev" is English and the numbers bear that out. And we're not talking about numbers from 1965 or 1991 or even 2014. We're talking about contemporary usage. "Kiev" is still the form that the majority of English speakers use and that makes it English, just like most English speakers call a truck a "truck" and not a "lorry". --Taivo (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

It is a small group of people in the Ukraine, or Ukrainians living elsewhere, who keep requesting a name change, with the same people popping up time and time again, refusing to accept that both the rules and a majority of editors here are against them. The two latest formal attempts to get the article moved have resulted in snow closes, and as you can see in this thread there's nothing to suggest that the next one will be different, so find another hobby... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Roman Spinner you still aren't paying attention to THe difference between diplomatic usage and general usage. The State. Department has a policy of following the official usage of other governments when referring to cjties in those countries. The Bureau of Geographic Names simply records actual usage in geeral English. Kiev is recognized as the conventional name by BGN. Conventional names are listed only in a few cases and those cases are considered to outrank other forms. --Khajidha (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Khajidha I am, indeed, paying close attention to both diplomatic usage and general usage. Here is the U.S. State Department's use of "Moscow" in its press releases and here is its use of "Moskva". Here is its use of "Warsaw" and here is its use of "Warszawa". Here is its use of "Prague" and here is its use of "Praha". Here is its use of "Munich" and here is its use of "München". Here is its use of "Turin" and here is its use of "Torino". In all recent releases, the State Department's use of mainstream English names has prevailed, which puts forth "Kyiv" as the mainstream English name of the Ukrainian capital.

Tom I rarely edit Ukrainian topics and the Kyiv naming dispute is not a hobby of mine. I have never initiated a discussion or a requested move on this or any other Ukrainian subject and only participate in already-existing discussions in order to correct false, misleading or outdated interpretations regarding Ukraine, such as the one I quoted in my previous comment, "In English, the traditional use was "the Ukraine", which is nowadays less common and officially deprecated by the Ukrainian government and many English language media publications." (lead paragraph of Wikipedia article Name of Ukraine).

Taivo It may be noted that during the Soviet era, only Ukrainian diaspora publications used the Ukrainian transliteration of Ukrainian names, while virtually all reliable sources in English used the "official" Russian transliteration of Ukrainian names — a practice which continues to this day and extends to all the major English-language newspapers. Change, however, has come. Grandfathered uses, such as Chicken Kiev will remain in the same sense as Peking duck or historical references 55 Days at Peking or Black Hole of Calcutta, but the key development has been the U.S. State Department's use of Kyiv in its press releases which has spurred the use of "Kyiv" in the mainstream press (the State Department has deviated from the "mainstream" spelling for no other nation's capital). Travel guides, including the world's largest one, Lonely Planet, now use Kyiv.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

And if you search the Ministry of Foreign Affairs sites for Poland and Russia, you will see that they use Warsaw and Moscow respectively much more than Warszawa and Moskva. Which is my point. The US State Department defers to what the foreign country's Ministry of Foreign Affairs uses or what said ministry asks them to use. --Khajidha (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Roman Spinner, but you are sorely misled about what matters in Wikipedia's usage of geographical names. 1) The BGN is important, more important than the State Department, which is of least importance. The BGN lists "Kiev" as the English term. 2) Even more important than the BGN is common English usage, that is, what is the majority usage in English language sources. And that is, far and away, Kiev. You are simply following the path of every other failed name change discussion for the last five (or more) years: "The State Department...", "The Rada...", "Kyiv Post...", etc. The vast majority of references to Ukraine's capital in English language media are still to "Kiev". Until that changes, then all your comments about the State Department are simply spitting into the wind. The State Department doesn't drive anything in terms of common English usage despite your wishful thinking. And even if it does eventually drive a change of name in common English usage, that change has not happened yet. There is no evidence at present that change will ever happen. When it does, then we can change the name of the article. But not until common English usage changes. And we are far from it at this time. --Taivo (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Khajidha, we are examining the same State Department sources, but arriving at opposite conclusions. All nations, including Ukraine, want the State Department to use English exonyms when referring to the names of their cities and the State Department obliges those nations by doing so. That proves my point that the English exonym for the Ukrainian capital is the Ukrainian native name, "Kyiv" since that is in fact the city name used by the State Department.

Sorry, Taivo, but there is nothing to be gained by clinging tenaciously to an outdated name form of non-native origin. In the same manner that Lonely Planet outpaced the BGN in issuing its Kraków guidebook when the BGN and various "mainstream" sources were still insisting on "Cracow", so the world's largest guidebook issuer is ahead of the game with its Kyiv guide. Before the Internet revolution, it took years for the absorption of Beijing, Mumbai, Kolkata..., but it happened... and the mainstream acceptance of Kyiv is moving much faster in this day and age.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

If they want us to use the English exonym, that is Kiev. They have requested the use of Kyiv. That is a change from the traditional exonym. --Khajidha (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Khajidha is absolutely right. Kiev is the English name. Ukraine would like to change the English name to Kyiv, but the Rada does not control common English names or usage. Nor does the State Department. Nor does Lonely Planet. Common English usage is determined by the majority of English speakers and what they use. Right now, the vast majority of English speakers use Kiev. That's just the simple fact. It doesn't matter how much anyone complains about Kiev over Kyiv, they cannot dictate the usage of the majority of English speakers. Perhaps in the future the majority of English speakers might use Kyiv. But that's in the future, not now. And Wikipedia's naming of this article will remain in accordance with contemporary usage, not possible future usage. --Taivo (talk) 00:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Hear, hear. I don't know how many times we have to go down the same route every few months when general usage in the English speaking world points to WP:SNOW. "Kiev" is the absolute standard from news sources to geography teaching texts. Until/if/should such a change come about, we would have reason to re-evaluate Wikipedia's usage. There is no such evidence, ergo end of argument... full stop. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

You can use whatever you want - the corresponding articles of Wikipedia are named rightly. Constantinehuk (talk) 10:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

It may be also noted that The New York Times has been using "Kyiv", with all the accompanying comments referring to the city as Kyiv.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Roman Spinner: No, The New York Times haven't used Kyiv, but Paul Krugman, one of their "Op-Ed columnists" (people expressing own opinions), writing on the NYT blog, has used Kyiv (hint: it's on krugman.blogs.nytimes.com...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: Yes, The New York Times did use Kyiv. Although the content of NYT columnists' opinion pieces is their own, it is the editorial page editors who decide upon the columns' main title headers and conform such headers to the paper's in-house orthography, style and form.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Prove it. A search on "Kyiv in:nytimes.com" on Google returned only Kiev (including these who are all from after the blogpost you linked to was published: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• LA Times: Kyiv, 16 results, most recent November 24, 2017. Kiev, 648 results, most recent March 15, 2018.
• Chicago Tribune: Kyiv, 19 results, most recent December 23, 2017. Kiev, 964 results, most recent March 28, 2018.
• Seattle Times: Kyiv, 14 results, most recent December 22, 2017. Kiev, 1016 results, most recent March 29, 2018.
• Miami Herald: Kyiv, 294 results, most recent December 7, 2017. Kiev, 125 results, most recent March 25, 2018.

But let's look at just one recent story, the report of the arrest of Nadiya Savchenko at the end of March 2018:

• Kiev: BBC, Washington Post, Al Jazeera English, The Australian, TRT World, Reuters, ABC News, Newsweek, Daily Mail, Irish Times
• Kyiv: Deutsche-Welle English, Kyiv Post

In other words there is indisputable proof that "Kiev" is far more common usage in English than "Kyiv". I did a Google search on "Nadiya Savchenko News" and examined the first two pages of results dealing with her arrest during the last week of March. The only two news sources that used "Kyiv" were the English-language editions of foreign media sources--one Ukrainian (so it doesn't count at all) and the other German. All of the other sources in this search, from English-speaking countries around the world, use "Kiev". WP:SNOW. --Taivo (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Of course it will not happen this year or next year. It will take a bit longer for English language newspapers outside of Ukraine to use "Kyiv" on a full time basis. But that time is inevitably coming — sooner rather than later. Perhaps Wikipedia will take the lead — or perhaps not. The U.S. State Department as well as Lonely Planet have certainly taken the lead among reliable sources and, thanks to your detailed research, we see that so has the Miami Herald Media Company, perhaps due to the influence of publisher and president Alexandra Villoch who was installed in 2014. However, even currently meager and yet visible, results from other major media outlets are a portent of things to come.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath, especially when you see that the Savchenko news last week was reported as happening in "Kiev" among all English language newspapers that weren't from non-English speaking countries. --Taivo (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Your research regarding current use of "Kyiv" is actually quite encouraging and as for the use of "Kiev" in the Savchenko story, the paraphrase, "this is then, that will be now" will speak of the inevitable change.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 13:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Speculation. I see no reason to expect it to change. --Khajidha (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

But what no one has ever been able to explain is why it seems to matter so much to some Ukrainians. WHY does the English word used for this particular spot of dirt matter any more than the English name for any other spot of dirt? Or the English name for "dirt" in general? This constant whinging makes no more sense to me than if you were to complain about how English uses the words "circle", "dog", "green", "happy", etc rather than the Ukrainian words. The idea that a word in another language could upset someone isn't just nonsensical to me, it is SILLY. English and Ukrainian aren't the same language, they aren't going to have matching words. --Khajidha (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The explanation is simple — unlike "true" English-language exonyms for European cities — exonyms that have been created by English speakers for English speakers — such as Moscow, Saint Petersburg, Warsaw or The Hague — all these names exist only in English and are different in other languages — "Kiev" is not an English-language exonym for the Ukrainian capital. It is the Russian name for the Ukrainian capital and is grandfathered from the era when Ukraine was "the Ukraine" and considered to be a part of Russia.

The Russian name "Kiev" is the same in French or Spanish (in German it is still the Russian form, "Kiew"). If "Kiev" was a true English exonym, such as Rostov-on-Don, Ukrainians would easily consider it as an element of their position on the world stage, in the same manner as Poles consider "Warsaw" and Czechs consider "Prague". The use of the Russian name, "Kiev" for their capital, however, flies in the face of their identity as an independent nation.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

And you are qualified to determine what is a "true" exonym how? More importantly, Ukrainians are qualified to make that determination how? An exonym is, quite simply, any name in language B that differs from the name of said place in the native language A. "Kiev" is an English exonym. That it matches exonyms in other languages is irrelevant. And if the Ukrainian "identity as an independent nation" is so fragile that it cannot withstand a simple word, then they have much bigger problems. --Khajidha (talk) 23:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Why is this thread still being added to? A move of the article, from Kiev to Kyiv, requires a formal "requested move" (because of the long string of previous failed such requests), so continuing this thread even after the question asked by the original poster has been answered is just a waste of time and energy. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

"A waste of time and energy" is exactly what happens two or three times a year when some patriot discovers that "Kiev" is still the English common name for the capital of Ukraine and decides to go on a crusade, hoping that Wikipedia will be the force for change in English. Little does that patriot realize that Wikipedia is not a force for change, but a reflection of change after the fact. "Kiev" is not "the Russian name" it is the English name. The Russian name is Киев. --Taivo (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

"Kiev" is the spelling in use in the English speaking world. It is the name I would look for if I wanted info on Kiev. Ukrainians can call it whatever they wish; in English it is now "Kiev". Changing the name of the article makes no sense at this point.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not good with cyrillic, but does "Киев" not transliterate to "Kiev"?--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The Russian name for the Ukrainian capital, "Киев", does indeed transliterate to "Kiev" in the same manner as the Ukrainian name for the Ukrainian capital, "Київ", transliterates to "Kyiv", which proves the point that the English-speaking world, along with the French-speaking world, the Spanish-speaking world and the German-speaking world, has been using the Russian name for the Ukrainian capital.

As for why there is so much "waste of time and energy" on this thread, the question has been asked above and answered below — "no one has ever been able to explain is why it seems to matter so much to some Ukrainians" — "WHY... isn't just nonsensical to me, it is SILLY... This constant whinging makes no more sense to me than if you were to complain about how English uses the words "circle", "dog"... Then why should Chinese or Indians care if we use "Peking", "Bombay", "Calcutta" or "Madras" — names that have been in use for a very long time — perhaps there is some colonial baggage attached to those names, or perhaps not, but if those places "cannot withstand a simple word, then they have much bigger problems".    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

While you continue to ignore English and think that it's just some extension of Russian foreign policy, you are "spinning" your wheels and wasting time. This article will never be renamed as long as the name of Ukraine's capital in common usage in English is "Kiev". The Rada's opinion doesn't matter, the State Department's policy doesn't matter, your sophistry doesn't matter. It has once again been definitively demonstrated that English speakers overwhelmingly respond with "Kiev" when asked the name of Ukraine's capital. "Kyiv" has two roadblocks to ever replacing "Kiev" in English: (1) It doesn't sound different enough from "Kiev" for English speakers to register a difference; (2) It violates English phonotactics with that initial [kjɪ] sequence. Two strikes against it. So until you have actual evidence of a change in usage in English, then don't waste our time here anymore. A change in usage isn't just, "Hey, Lonely Planet changed". I amassed overwhelming evidence for "Kiev" in 10 minutes without breaking a sweat. Imagine the amount of evidence I could throw at you if I spent an hour at it. --Taivo (talk) 08:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

How does the fact that "Киев"transliterates to "Kiev" prove that English is using a transliteration? The English name originated as a transliteration, but it hasn't been one for 200 years. And, I do find Chinese and Indian name changes just as silly, but those changes have (mostly) been accepted by the English speaking world so I (mostly) use those names. Unfortunately for Ukraine it is too well known but not powerful enough to enable this change to go through. --Khajidha (talk) 12:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

And, of course, while I too think the Chinese and Indian name changes are just as silly, we have the problem with Indian names that India is officially an English-speaking nation and therefore it could be argued that, for example, Mumbai has replaced Bombay in common usage, since it is now the "English" name and since it's claimed (probably incorrectly, but that's another issue) that most of the countless millions of Indians who speak English now use it. When Ukraine also adopts English as an official language then this may also begin to apply to Kiev (although given its population in comparison to India's, this still wouldn't prove anything like common usage). -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Saying that English speakers use a transliteration means that every single speaker of English goes through this mental process every time they write "Kiev": "What is the Russian word? OK, so K is K, backwards N is i, E is e, and B is v. So that's 'Kiev'". No. The name "Kiev" was transliterated a couple hundred years ago and then passed down as English for every English speaker since. --Taivo (talk) 14:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. The current English toponym "Kiev" is no more a transliteration than the current English term "microscope" is a Greek word. --Khajidha (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

A couple of notes regarding India — although it has been described as the world's largest English-speaking country — only about one percent of its prodigious film and television output is in English. There is also inconsistency regarding the new names' relationship to the old names — Kolkata is almost indistinguishable in pronunciation from Calcutta, while Chennai is completely different from Madras.

Speaking of completely different, since no claim can be made that China is an English-speaking country, is the English pronunciation of the Chinese capital's name really more consistent as "Beijing" than as "Peking"? The city's German name (Peking), Italian name (Pechino), Spanish name (Pekín) or French name (Pékin), remain unchanged to this day.

Returning to Europe, no one begrudges Russia its use of "Kiev" as the name of the Ukrainian capital, since that is the city's name in Russian. In Polish, the Italian capital is called "Rzym" and the French capital is called "Paryż", while in Italian it is called "Parigi". A number of Polish cities, such as Wrocław or Gdańsk, were once part of the German-speaking world and were known in English by their then and current German names, Breslau and Danzig, but no one is insisting that those German names should continue as the cities' English exonyms.

In the same manner, when Ukrainian cities were part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union, such cities were known around the world by their transliterated Russian names, but now, that Ukraine has been independent since 1991, those cities are now listed in Wikipedia by their transliterated Ukrainian names. The 4th-largest city Odessa/Odesa and the 5th largest Donetsk/Donets'k may be pointed out as the last other holdouts, but the pronunciation differences for both would be virtually indistinguishable to English speakers.

As far as the capital city is concerned, however, the difference in English transliteration and pronunciation is sufficiently distinguishable that the insistence on English use of "Kyiv" will continue to be pressed.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

This continued argument against WP:SNOW is ridiculous. User:Roman Spinner seems to think that Wikipedia naming policies should be abandoned simply because he doesn't like them. So unless he presents a formal WP:RFM (which will once again fail by WP:SNOW), I will no longer participate in his vanity exercise. --Taivo (talk) 08:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The same is true of User:Constantinehuk, who is making a fine art of arguing based on nothing more than his personal dislike and wasting the time of everyone with this article on their watchlist. Initiate a formal request to move this article and then find something else to do once it's again defeated by WP:SNOW. --Taivo (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Not at all "ridiculous" and there is nothing remotely close to WP:SNOW when transliteration of the native name of a major European capital is being used on a full-time basis by the U.S. State Department and the world's largest publisher of travel guidebooks as well as being sporadically used by newspapers throughout the English-speaking world. Furthermore, I have never initiated any of the Kyiv naming arguments nor have I indicated "that Wikipedia naming policies should be abandoned" or that I don't like them.

As for "wasting the time of everyone with this article on their watchlist" — there are compelling reasons why these arguments have been proceeding non-stop since the founding of Wikipedia — here are some of the earliest ones, dating back to 2003 — and will continue. Listed at the top of this page are 12 archives of these discussions, with every possible argument being made a number of times and with more and more sources, over the passing years, starting to use "Kyiv".

Finally, it should be noted, if it is not obvious to everyone, that the main title header of this page is "Talk:Kiev/naming", not Talk:Kiev, which has its own separate archives, unrelated to the naming issue. We are all volunteer editors and users at Wikipedia and if anyone cares enough to respond here, then he or she is obviously interested in the issue and does not feel that his or her participation time is being wasted.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Your answer is in your own statement: usage of Kyiv in English is sporadic. Unless and until it becomes dominant in the outside world, Wikipedia will not change. End of story. --Khajidha (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

For those who care nothing about this matter, those who are bored with it and those who consider it a "hobby" or a "waste of time", the story is indeed over, if it had ever begun in the first place, but for those who consider it a defining exemplar of national identity, this story never ends — until it achieves its objective.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 16:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Ukrainians define their national identity by English language usage? That is so nonsensicsl thst I am not sure if you are joking. --Khajidha (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Not at all nonsensicsl, no joke and not just English language usage, although, since this is English Wikipedia, such usage is key to this specific discussion. The name of the capital of a newly independent nation which has emerged from centuries of lacking independence is, indeed, an extremely potent symbolic point and, what may seem a minute detail of changing two letters — transposing one and replacing another — takes on elevated significance as symbolizing the understanding and acceptance of that independence.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Still seems nonsensical. Being newly independent they are obviously welcome to change how they name the city. Were I in Ukraine or speaking Ukrainian, I would follow that usage. As I am neither of those things, I utilize the English name. Which name is beyond the power of Ukraine to regulate. We aren't disrespecting their right to self-determination (no one is running around the city painting Kiev on all the signs or anything like that), they are disrespecting our right to linguistic self-determination. --Khajidha (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Kiev Ukrainian: Київ, translit. Kyiv. Russian: Киев, translit. Kiyev (Kiev). Kiev or Kyiv is the capital and largest city of Ukraine or Russian? Thank you. ROMANTYS (talk) 05:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Your problem is the same as all other Ukrainian nationalists here: that you forget you're in the English language Wikipedia. What is the English name of Ukraine's capital? Kiev. It's not a transliteration, it's a name in English. --Taivo (talk) 07:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

What we hearing in ukrainian "Київ"? Please, for example, visit the google transle, type "Київ" in ukrainian and push the play button. You do not hear "Kiev" and that, what will you hear is a not sound, which can you simple translate to English. Kyiv is right variant. --Rom4ek91 (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that English doesn't sound like Ukrainian? WOW! That's an amazing discovery! <end sarcasm> They are different languages, the pronunciations aren't the same. And plugging the Russian spelling in and playing it gives me a third sample, which doesn't sound like either the Ukrainian or English words to me, so I am STILL not sure what your point is or why you are complaining. For clarification, the Ukrainian form sounds like the English words "key" and "you" while the Russian form sounds like "keef" (rhymes with "beef") and the English form sounds like the word "key" followed by the first syllable of the world "ever".--Khajidha (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Precisely, User:Khajidha. "Kiev" is not Russian. "Kiev" is not Ukrainian. "Kiev" is English. --Taivo (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Could we please hat this (mentally, if not physically) for the SOAP it is? If we're responding to an SPA/SPAs creating an account/accounts in order to BLUDGEON the process, we're feeding the trolls at our own expense. Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)