Talk:Kyiv/naming/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Even More Kyiv Kyiv

Hi! Do we realy need writing and pronounciation of Kyiv in Russian at the begining of the article - "Russian: Ки́ев, Kiyev"? It's not official language neither in Ukraine nor in Kyiv city. --Oleksandr, 22 July 2006

We do this for many Ukrainian cities. Some even list the city's name in Polish, German, Hungarian, or Hebrew. That way people can scan the header to see if the article is about the city they are thinking about, no matter what the current name is.--tufkaa 14:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

U.S. government changes spelling of capital to Kyiv instead of Kyiv --Gutsul 11:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The Russian spelling and pronunciation, as you know, is used daily throughout the city. A wikipedia article should provide factual information relevant to conditions as they are and not support a specific political agenda of re-writing history. -- Abut 03:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason to implement the Ukranian transliteration until it dominates over the Russian transliteration. For now, it is quite far from it. 9x far. Reginmund 20:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Changes by User:hkdd

User:hkdd changed all the mentioning of Kiev to Kyiv and removed sourced information about the languages spoken in the city. If you look into the archives of this talk page, you would find an intensive discussion about the proper name for the city. The result was to use Kiev per WP:UE - it has 10 times of Internet usage of Kiev and the major news outlets still use Kiev.

If you want to change it, please start a discussion here or on WP:RM. Having the article named Kiev and the internal usage Kyiv only confuse the western readers who are the main target audience of the article.

Also please do not remove sourced info Alex Bakharev 09:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

I did look into the archives, and none of the arguments there hold any water. Kiev is as outdated as Kief, and is wrong. The correct spelling is Kyiv.

I have written three grammar texts about English, and may be more familiar with namings than some.

Invalid information, sourced or not, will be removed.

Regards, Hkdd

• Well, since the article was created by many people try to convince them first. The wikipedia is run by consensus. Meanwhile try to contribute something positive Alex Bakharev 23:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Hello,

Nobody else seems to be having much of a problem about it. The beauty of Wikipedia is that everybody is entitled to their opinion.

I am contributing something positive, the future!

Hkdd

By the way - just curious as to why so many Russian links are on this page. Russian history is a completely different thing, no?

Hello,

Hkdd is correct. The article and its internal references should use the accepted translation from Ukrainian: Kyiv. Language and information are power. Some, clinging onto long-dead empires do not give up easily. I can remember in Canada some Anglophone revanchists insisted on calling a certain city in Quebec “Three Rivers” rather than Trois Rivieres well into the late 1960’s. But the imperial term “Kiev” is now quite properly going the way of all calcified forms of oppression and occupation, like “Three Rivers.” Kyiv it is, as it should be.

Burlaka

You, Burlaka and Hkdd are the same person. That kind of deceitful sock puppetry is against the rules here. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Deacon of Pndapetzim: I am not “Hkdd.” Delusional clinging to long-dead empires is now accompanied by paranoia, it seems. Please stick to the issue of whether the capital of Ukraine should be referred to in English by the commonly accepted transliteration of its Ukrainian pronunciation and spelling or the Russian forms, out-dated but still symbolic of almost three centuries of occupation and oppression. Again, Kyiv it is, and as it should be. - Burlaka

ATTENTION:

I now see that one individual has managed to get the Kyiv page reverted back to the anachronistic imperial Russian form of “Kiev” AND has placed a page protection on it, alleging some heated vision of “sock-puppetry.” I note that this allegation is completely false. This game of “stealing” the name of Ukraine’s capital, historic and cultural appropriation, by computer stealth on Wikipedia by Great Russian chauvinists, and then closing down any edits, is offensive and intellectually empty. Why did the Administrator succumb to the request to "protect" this page so quickly and without any substantive reason? I trust that the Administrator will not allow one or two individuals to rule these pages.

Again, the issue is simply whether the capital of Ukraine should be referred to in English by the commonly accepted transliteration of its Ukrainian pronunciation and spelling or the Russian forms. In open and free societies this is the widely and commonly accepted form of expression. Kyiv is what it is called by Ukrainians and English speakers who understand Ukrainian.

Administrator?

-Burlaka

Hello, again, to those concerned about the use of the term "Kyiv":

This is only a partial list of major organizations that now use “Kyiv,” in English from the Ukrainian transliteration, rather than “Kiev,” based on the Russian rendering. Even the US State Department, traditionally much more sympathetic to Moscow and other Great States than “little” countries like Ukraine, has switched to “Kyiv,” referring to the Ukrainian capital in the Ukrainian way (explaining the change “… as a continuing effort to standardize practice with other international organizations and in keeping with what the Ukrainian government is doing,” - http://www.kyivpost.com/nation/25373/) Members of the U.S. Board of Geographic Names voted unanimously on Oct. 3, 2006 to change the spelling to "Kyiv."

While some others are still held back by the inertia out-dated conventions, the trend clearly is to “Kyiv ” as well as it should and inevitably will be. (Sometimes, however, media publications can be slow in recognizing name changes. The New York Times, for example, took almost 10 years to stop referring to the city of Mumbai by its colonial name, Bombay.)

A partial list of Governments, government agencies and international organizations using “Kyiv,” in English from the Ukrainian transliteration, rather than “Kiev,” based on the Russian rendering: · The Government of Ukraine - http://www.kmu.gov.ua/control/en/publish/article%3fart_id=235995&cat_id=32672 · The Government of Ukraine, President of Ukraine - http://ww8.president.gov.ua/en/news/data/6_17438.html · The Government of Ukraine, Ministry of Foreign Affairs - http://www.mfa.gov.ua/mfa/en/publication/content/329.htm · The Municipal Government of Kyiv - http://www.kmu.gov.ua/control/en/publish/article?art_id=335366&cat_id=32596 · The United Nations - http://www.un.org.ua/?p=about_un · The European Union - http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/news/07112003_en.htm · European Parliament - http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/event_by_type_page/09-2007-09/default_en.htm · Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) - http://www.oecd.org/document/10/0,3343,en_2649_201185_31916554_1_1_1_1,00.html · Organization for Security and Co-operation In Europe (OSCE) - http://www.osce.org/item/25500.html · North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) - http://www.nato.int/structur/oip/nidc/nidc.htm · http://www.mfa.gov.ua/mfa/en/publication/content/329.htm · The Government of Canada, Embassy in Kyiv - http://www.international.gc.ca/canada-europa/ukraine/menu-en.asp · The Government of Britain, Embassy in Kyiv - http://www.britishembassy.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1087554796297 · Government of Australia, Consulate in Kyiv - http://www.dfat.gov.au/missions/countries/ua.html · Government of India, Embassy in Kyiv - http://www.indianembassy.org.ua/english/index.htm

A partial list of non-governmental organizations and international service clubs using “Kyiv,” in English from the Ukrainian transliteration, rather than “Kiev,” based on the Russian rendering: · National Geographic Society - http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0603/feature1/map.html · Lions International- http://www.kyiv-lions-club.org/ · Rotary International - http://www.kyivmultinational.org/site/ · Green Parties of Europe - http://www.europeangreens.org/cms/default/dokbin/177/177291.defending_refugees_human_rights@en.pdf · International Association of Football Federations (FIFA) - http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/clubfootball/news/newsid=104618.html · United European Football Association (UEFA) - http://h20000.www2.hp.com/bc/docs/support/UCR/SupportManual/TPM_277984e2/TPM_277984e2.pdf?jumpid=reg_R1002_USEN

A partial list of the major English-language periodicals in Kyiv, using “Kyiv,” from the Ukrainian transliteration, rather than “Kiev,” based on the Russian rendering: · Kyiv Post - http://www.kyivpost.com/ · Kyiv Weekly - http://www.kyivweekly.com/

A partial list of international, English-language periodicals, news organizations and websites using “Kyiv,” from the Ukrainian transliteration, rather than “Kiev,” based on the Russian rendering: · Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) - http://ww8.president.gov.ua/en/news/data/6_17438.html · Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) - http://ww8.president.gov.ua/en/news/data/6_17438.html · Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty - http://www.rferl.org/newsline/2007/07/250707.asp · The Guardian (UK) - http://sport.guardian.co.uk/youtube/story/0,,2075889,00.html · The National Geographic (Magazine) - http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0603/feature1/index.html

A partial list of transnational and multinational corporations using “Kyiv,” from the Ukrainian transliteration, rather than “Kiev,” based on the Russian rendering: · Adidas Ukraine - http://www.press.adidas.com/en/DesktopDefault.aspx/tabid-116/194_read-2269/ · IBM - http://www.ibm.com/contact/ua/ · Kyivstar – among Ukraine’s largest mobile phone operators - http://www.kyivstar.net/en/about/ · Dragon Capital - http://www.dragon-capital.com/

A partial list of universities and other institutes of learning in Kyiv using “Kyiv,” in English from the Ukrainian transliteration, rather than “Kiev,” based on the Russian rendering: · National Taras Shevchenko University of Kyiv - http://www.univ.kiev.ua/eng/ · National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy – http://www.ukma.kiev.ua/eng_site/index.php · Kyiv Theological Seminary - http://www.ktsonline.org/new/ · Kyiv Economics Institute - http://www.kei.org.ua/

A partial list of arts and letters organizations in Kyiv using “Kyiv,” in English from the Ukrainian transliteration, rather than “Kiev,” based on the Russian rendering: · Kyiv Chamber Choir - http://magnatune.com/artists/kyiv_chamber_choir · Victor Pinchuk Foundation - http://pinchukfund.org/en/

A partial list of lawyers and other professionals in Kyiv using “Kyiv,” in English from the Ukrainian transliteration, rather than “Kiev,” based on the Russian rendering: · Squire Sanders - http://www.ssd.com/offices/office_detail.aspx?officeid=1504 · Baker & McKenzie - http://www.bakernet.com/BakerNet/Locations/Europe+Middle+East/Offices/Kyiv/default.htm · Chadbourne & Parke - http://www.chadbourne.com/kyiv/

Again, the issue is simply whether the capital of Ukraine should be referred to in English by the commonly accepted transliteration of its Ukrainian pronunciation and spelling or the old Russian form. The examples noted above indicate that Ukrainians, through their government organizations and non-government organizations, and English speakers aware of Ukraine's preferences have switched to "Kyiv." And this trend will only continue to expand.

I hope this helps in the discussion.

-Burlaka

Gentlemen,

Good to be back. During my extended holiday, I did some research into this type of situation, where there is passionate disagreement by more than one party. I am therefore requesting a vote/poll on the question of Kyiv vs. Kiev. However, as Alex quite rightly pointed out, this page is meant for the "Western" audience. I therefore add a condition to the poll, that only native speakers of English can vote. What do you say? Horlo 17:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)Horlo 14:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)Horlo

Horlo. The amount of work you invested in this research is quite impressive. You showed that Kyiv is indeed used in English as well as others showed that Kiev is used as well. The question we have to answer, therefore, is not which of the two is "correct" as they both are (both can be found in mainstream media, encyclopedias and dictionaries and you cannot argue that Britannica or Webster's entry are incorrect English.) The issue we have is a more subtle. Which of the two English name is more compliant with the Wikipecia's naming conventions to serve for the title of the article. For this we have rules outlined at WP:NCGN and WP:NC(UE). I am sure, we can compile an even more expansive list of Kiev usage. The question here is not who beats whom. The consensus that Kiev is indeed the most commonly used English name, as shown at the WP:RM survey seems to have been overwhelming. May I suggest you invest some effort in adding content to an article and referencing it? Thanks, --Irpen 03:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Archived Requested move

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

Kiev → Kyiv — 4 reasons provided below —Horlo 02:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Survey (if posting a new entry, please scroll down to post to the last SECTION as of current time)

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Strong Oppose - Kiev is not wrong. Kiev is a transliteration, mind you the most common one, and can you please explain how "Kiev" is pejorative? Or is that just original research? Reginmund 02:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Hello, and thank you for your comments.
  • Of course, pejorative is a point of view. Can you explain why it is wrong to use "nigger" when describing an African-American? It is something that is perceived by the listener as insulting.
  • As to Kiev being wrong, that is a question of what is right vs. what is wrong. That is a different question from what is common. First, what is right. The government of Ukraine has passed a law about the spelling of the name, and that is the internationally accepted standard: the UN, NATO, and governments of almost every country use it.
  • Second, what is common. At this point, there is a major transition going on. Many institutions did not want to change initially, perhaps (and this is conjecture on my part) to see if Ukraine would survive independence. There were indications that perhaps a split in the country, even civil war could have occurred. However, now Ukraine has established itself as a stable democracy, surviving the Orange Revolution, and the most current "political tensions" between President and Prime Minister, with no violence or bloodshed. Therefore, many organizations have made the switch. This is a process which does not happen instantly - how long before Beijing became common? However, the process is happening now, and therefore I think that Wikipedia should reflect that change.
  • Thanks Horlo 04:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    • How common is "nigger" in common parlance these days when it is not meant to be offensive? Now compare that with how common "Kiev" is with intent not to be offensive. As you think that "Kyiv" is somewhat becoming more common, it still isn't, nowhere near it. Seven times more Google hits say that it isn't. This shouldn't be a question of what is correct vs. incorrect. It is a transliteration as much as "Kyiv" is. If you are so obsessive about defining the "correct" name, then why don't we just change the name to the Cyrillic form then. After all, isn't it... "correct"? Reginmund 04:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Hello, and thanks for the comments.
      • The reason I brought up "nigger" is not to compare commonality, but rather to compare the depth of connotations that the word carries with it.
      • I think that the google hit counter cannot be considered a valid test because:
      • first, it does not count English sites only - many sites in English can be held in non English-speaking countries;
      • second, it does not count sites for the city only, it includes the computer language, aircraft carriers, and a particularly tasty preparation of chicken;
      • third, it does not count how many businesses open sites with very simmilar names, such as Kievbynight.com vs. Kievatnight.com, or cheapairfaretokiev.com vs. cheapflightstokiev.com, to cash in on the name. These can be all held by one person, thereby skewing numbers.
      • WP should not try to teach anybody what should be right and what should be wrong, but it does present information. People come here to find facts about just about everything. If they come here, for example, from Mapquest, to find out more information about the capital of Ukraine, they will be confused as to why Mapquest says Kyiv, but WP says Kiev.
    • Most reputable sources - online and offline - are changing to Kyiv, and I submit so should WP. Thanks,Horlo 05:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Try this on for size: A Google search that limits results from the U.K. (of course an English-speaking country) gives a shabby 137,000 hits for "Kyiv"[1] while "Kiev" gives of a majestic 930,000[2] (approximately seven times more than "Kyiv". Now you say that "Kiev" is ambiguous because it counts the computer language. Well, I doubt that the computer language takes up too much room on the counter as "Kiev" takes up more than 2,500 internal links on Wikipedia. The internal links for the other uses (irrelevant to the city) all totaled (not including project pages, talk pages, redirects, templates, and disambiguation pages) is one for the programming language, two for the restaurant, and six for the radio station, making a total of nine other internal links ambiguous to the city's transliterated name, "Kiev". I doubt that anything else can claim competitive usage.

How are we trying to say that the "Kyiv" spelling is wrong? In fact it says in the first sentence: "also spelled Kyiv" obviously stating that is is a correct alternative. From this beginning sentence, most people in their right mind will be able to determine that the city has two English spellings if they come from MapQuest confused. Problem solved. If that were a valid argument, I might as well say that more people would be confused since more people use the "Kiev" spelling in English (as determined by the less ambiguous Google test). Reginmund 05:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your comments, and your search.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the google test. There are more sites that feature Kiev than Kyiv, but: who put up those sites? Are those real sites or just sites which link you to other sites so that the owner of the site can make 2 cents every time you click on it as an advertisement? Do you see my point? The internet is a wonderful place, but there is no regulation possible. According to the google test, if I went and got 100,000,000 free websites with the word Kyiv in them for some strange reason, would that make the word more popular, and more widely used? No. This is a great example of why it's so difficult to judge a language - I am an English teacher, so I come across these kinds of situations often.

To judge how widespread a word is, widespread factors need to be considered. What types of groups use it? Cultural/Science/Religious/Sports/Economic? - all of those aspects need to be examined. I submit that if you look carefully into a representative cross-section of all of these types of groups, you will see the change taking place now. Two great examples are National Geographic, and FIFA. How many people do these two organizations influence? They both use Kyiv.

The numbers are there, but they have to be taken with a grain of salt as they can be very easily manipulated.

Thanks Horlo 06:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You make an argument that can be easily rebuttaled with the question "There are some sites that feature 'Kyiv', but who put up those sites?". If anyone wants to link sites to advertisements through keywords such as "Kiev", they might as well do the same for "Kyiv", thus if you omit all of those superfluous links on both searches, no doubt, you will still have the same ratio, that Kiev is more common than Kyiv.

Now as we have determined that "Kiev" is more prevelent in common parlance, let us look to an official guideline... the common name rule states "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." Thus "Kiev" is more common. Thus, "Kiev" goes in favour of the policies. Reginmund 07:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Reginmund, Thank you for the comments. My whole point here was that the Google test should not be used as the only test for judging the commonness of a word. There are simply too many "what ifs" for both sides. It can be used as a starting point, but it should by no means be the one and only test.

On the other hand, I suggest taking three representative websites, for example, from the categories I presented above: Culture/Science/Religion, etc. Look into those websites, and determine what is commonly used now. It's tricky, because in many/most even cases you see that Kiev was used, and may even appear more, but if you check dates you will see that they have changed to Kyiv.

That's exactly my point. The change is happening now - it is not something that I predict, or want. It is real - media/banks/schools/universities/sports associations - all use Kyiv.

It's very difficult to believe something that is opposite to what one may be experiencing, for example if the people you know say Kiev. However the change is here, it's going on now, and everybody is doing it.

Therefore, so should Wikipedia.

Thanks,

Horlo 07:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

As for the inacccuracy of the Google test, say that we gather all of those shameful "what ifs" and omit them from both searches and only include searches in reference to the city. Would the ratio change? If you think that it would, is there another "what if" obstacle? As for the usage of "Kyiv", you show that it is used by important media outlets, although, it is not Wikipedia's policy to follow them. It is Wikipedia's policy to use the most common name... which is "Kiev". If there is a change occuring, we should only embrace it when it actually becomes more prevelent than the "Kiev" spelling, but until it does, we have to stick by the most common name. Reginmund 16:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - The arguments below make advocacy for implementing this change because it will put en.wikipedia "ahead of the pack", as it were, from other sources. This is not the role of the project, we are an english encyclopedia. Also, the claim that "people don't search for the popular name, they search for the correct name" is self defeating. If Kiev is the popular name, then obviously, that's the name people will search under, because far more people know THAT spelling for it, especially in english. A redirect at Kyiv serves the same function and is quite a bit more reasonable in the current climate. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Hello, and thank you for your comments.
  • The arguments below do not try to shove wikipedia ahead of the pack. Quite the contrary. The change is happening now - within the last year or two, ABC (US), the US Federal Government, BBC, CBC, ABC (Australia) and others have already made the change. Microsoft, National Geographic too. By making the change, Wikipedia would reflect what is currently happening in the English world, not try to start something.
  • As to the argument about searching, I did not mention that people look for the name - they look for information. People usually have some idea of what they are looking for, and then look to places like Wikipedia to fill in the gaps in their knowledge. I submit that most people don't really know what the capital of Ukraine is, and so they google those keywords, and take it from there. By stating that Kyiv is the capital, Wikipedia would reflect what all other government sources, and also many educational sources such as Rand McNally (I didn't find that on the net, but the map I have in my classroom is by them and it has Kyiv) and Mapquest are saying.
  • Thanks Horlo 04:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Support - even if one discounts almost exclusive use of Kyiv in Ukraine proper, an official resolution of the Ukrainian government in regards to the English spelling of its capital, this spelling in documents of a number of international organizations - UN, NATO and most governments (lately notably the US gov't) one has to explain why in this encyclopedia we have a contradiction - Dynamo Kyiv, Kyiv Post, FC Arsenal Kyiv, HC Sokil Kyiv, FC CSKA Kyiv, FC Obolon Kyiv, Kyiv International School... from the city of Kiev? Isn't it just a little bit strange? Those who have been to Kyiv, can testify, you can hardly find any other spelling other than the Ukrainian official one. So, what is the deal with WP, why do we have to insist on the ever-diminishing old spelling? --Hillock65 03:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • ThanksHorlo 04:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Kiev is still by far the most commonly used name in English. I notice all the other Roman alphabet WPs are still using Kiev or their local version of the name. Generally speaking, to have an "English version" of a city's name is a sign of distinction, I would have thought - you don't get Italians wanting to switch to Roma etc. The various other articles cited by Hillock naturally use their proper names. But most English-speakers can neither spell nor confidently or correctly pronounce Kyiv. Johnbod

• • Hello, and thank you for your comment.
  • I have to disagree that Kiev is by far the most commonly used name. It is widely used, but the change is happening now. The change is not something that will happen, it is happening now, and it is used in many schools in Canada, including the University of Toronto.
  • As to the other WPs, I don't speak any other languages besides French, Japanese, Arabic, and Ukrainian, but here, I'd like to focus on English. While I wouldn't count it as a sign of distinction, I would consider an English translation as pretty much standard for every other major city in the world. That is not the debate - the question is from which language to translate. I submit that Wikipedia should follow suit of the US, Canadian, British, Indian, and Australian governments, and translate the name of the Ukrainian capital from Ukrainian, not Russian.

• • As to pronunciation, it's easy - like "cave" but with an "ee" before the final "v". Thanks, Horlo 04:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

In regards to pronunciation, it is pronounced similarly to the English word naive [naїv], Kyiv - [kiїv]. --Hillock65 04:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Can be done only after kyiv.ua internet domain will be created in place of kiev.ua --TAG

Thank you for your comments, Let's focus, however, on events in the English-speaking countries. Just as an aside, I think that there are more important things in running a country than changing the website. Also, I think that the Ukrainian government in the last little while has done very well , considering events taking place in other countries in that part of the world.

Thanks, Horlo 08:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

* Strong Support - I thought wikipedia is supposed to be an Encyclopedia and contain FACTUAL information and not "popular" information. If the Ukrainian government has stipulated that the CORRECT spelling of Київ using latin letters is to be Kyiv then wikipedia is obligated to make the change. As to the transliteration issue, Kiev is a transliteration of the russian version of the name and not Ukrainian transliteration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.10.210.218 (talk • contribs)

• Anon account, besides Kiyev is a transliteration of the Russian version, whilst Kiev is a purely English term that should be used, on par with Munich, Warsaw and Moscow (as opposed to München, Warszawa and Moskva)--Kuban Cossack 18:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Support - Kyiv represents Ukrainian spelling of the name of city. Lot of other reasons are listed in Burlaka's post higher. --Gutsul 07:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose First, this is the English Wikipedia, so common usage in English is the most important factor. There was a similar issue at the Manchuria article. Several editors wanted to rename the article "Northeast China", which is what the Chinese government calls it now. But in English speaking countries, Manchuria is still much more common, so it remained unchanged. The same principle applies here. It does not matter how the Ukranian government spells it; that's totally irrelevant. What matters is English usage, and as the google test above crudely demonstrates (I never like google tests anyways), the usage of Kiev is much higher than Kyiv. As for Horlo's claims that several reputable sources are changing to Kyiv, can you provide links to those sources? Parsecboy 12:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Kiev is "use English" and "most common name" compliant, Kyiv is not. Kyivan Rus' anyone? Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Support - See my earlier post for many large organizations with websites and especially the most widely read English-language publications in the city in question: Kyiv post and Kyiv Weekly. Kyiv it is and certainly should be. Thank you. - Burlaka

• Strong Support - "Kiev" is not the generally accepted English name for the city. For instance, Encyclopedia Britannica uses "Kiev", while Encarta uses Kyiv [3]. BBC uses both "Kyiv" [4] and "Kiev" [5]. The same is true for US Department of State [6], [7]. So the Angus McLellan's arguments, "most common name" and "use English", do not work. Which English has to be used? That of Britannica or that of Encarta?

If there are two or more English names of the city, the one that is closer to the local official name has to be used.--AndriyK 16:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

КИЇВ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Survey (section break 1)

• Oppose.

1. The Ukrainian laws do not regulate the English language and do not define what is "right" and what is "wrong". That is defined by the dictionaries. Ukrainian laws only regulate what spelling should be used by the Ukrainian government bodies. Unlike Ukrainian and Russian, which have a formal regulatory body through the subject committees in their respective Academies of Sciences, the English language does not have such official regulatory body. Government agencies can advice what name is to be used in the government publications, true, but they do not define what usage is "correct". Therefore, there is no mention of the term "correct" vs "incorrect" name per se in our naming conventions. English encyclopedias and dictionaries choose the names for their article's entries based on the common usage. Our naming conventions, WP:NC(UE) also uses the term "most commonly used". The latest editions of Britannica uses Kiev as well as the major media, which confirms that this is the prevailing usage for now. Wikipedia should reflect that as well as prescribed by NC.
2. The most indicative reflection of "prevailing name, currently used in English" is the major players in the anglophone media market. CNN, AP, BBC, Reuters, CBC, NYTimes, et., etc., etc. use Kiev and they are the most indicative of the prevailing current usage, not the Govermnental web-sites which are hardly read. In fact the very AP article that reported the switch by the US government says: "The Associated Press continues to spell the name of the capital Kiev."
3. If only some of those who endlessly debate the issue were interested in contributing any content to the article but the endless naming wars.

Irpen 05:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Hello, and thank you for your comments.
  • 1. Of course there are correct and incorrect spellings for everything, otherwise there would be no meaningful communication. The fact that different people say and spell things differently in different areas simply reflects the fact that the world is different, and life in Southern Australia is very different from life in Northern Scotland. However, when it comes to international geography and politics and history, there are standards and conventions. When the Chinese government officially changed the name to "Beijing", that became the correct spelling and pronunciation. Did it take a while for people to get used to it? Sure, but they did. And it became correct, not just in China. So correct, in fact, that WP has a Beijing page. Same with Mumbai. When it became known that "Eskimo" was a pejorative term, people stopped using it and started using "Inuit". Why? I would submit that for most people it's not really that important. It will take people just as long to learn how to pronounce Kyiv as it did for them to learn to pronounce the name of the New York Yankee's all-star catcher, Jorge Posada. I assume good will not only on the part of the Wikipedians, but of people all over the world, and if they have a chance to stop doing something that offends others, they will.
  • 2. The most indicative reflection of "prevailing name, currently used in English" is not the media, as the media report, influence and teach the audience, rather than react and learn from their audience. However, they are changing - BBC now uses Kyiv (in press releases that it obtains from some wire services it reports the name as Kiev, but all of the BBC reporters use Kyiv), as does CBC, ABC (Australia), ABC (US), CTV (Canada), as well as print media around the world. The US is not the only English-speaking country, nor is the US media the only English media.
  • There is no one simple litmus test to determine what the prevailing name is, and many factors - education, business, cultural, religious, as well as sports aspects - need to be looked at as well. Also, please don't make sweeping generalizations, as just because you don't read government websites does not mean that they are hardly-ever read. Governments make policies and decide on such things as education policies, which DO directly influence which word is used.
  • 3. As I mentioned below, in the archives twice as many people want to change the name to Kyiv from Kiev. I submit that most of those people would have gladly contributed to the article. However, outside of the name, I don't see any problems with the article - it was even nominated for an award, no?

• • Thanks Horlo 05:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• • • Yes, there are "incorrect" spellings as well, like Kiyv or whatever. Here you have none. Both Kiev and Kyiv are correct English spellings and if you want to argue here, you have to do it not with WP editors but with most dictionaries and respectable media since both are used there. That ua-gov changed the spelling it uses "may" affect the most common spelling in English one day. It hasn't yet. Check the media and the most current dictionaries if you have doubts. Your "offense" claim is ridiculous. Only few fringe hard-core nationalists claim that the common English spelling is offensive and they do so only to make a point. Those are in no way representative of an overall moderate Ukrainian population which firmly rejects nationalist ideology.[8]
    • Media, overall, sure is the most indicative way to determine usage with one qualification. The reliable media analysis should consider major media, the outlets that have enough reputation and resources to afford some consistent editorial policy and team of editors to ensure the compliance. Yes, some of such media do use Kyiv (CBC-Canada, for one) but most don't. When (and if) they switch, WP will follow but WP won't be in the forefront of terminological changes as it reflects the prevailing usage rather than serves a vehicle to promote a change you desire.
    • The article has much room for improvement and you can help by adding content. Something that most of the name-change pushers had any interest in doing. --Irpen 06:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, Hello, and thank you for your comments. Yes, there is a correct, and an incorrect spelling here. Is it correct to say "Peking"? Why? I find it interesting that you use words like "most" and "respectable" without actually stating any names. Again, most media outside of the US has changed, and even US media is changing - ABC. Actually, I have checked the majority of media sources, and the result was one of the final reasons for my initiating this posting. One more time - BBC (all BBC reporters use Kyiv, while reports that they run from some wire services use Kiev), ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation), CTV (in Canada), ABC in the US - all use Kyiv. With respect to print media, The Globe And Mail, the largest newspaper in Canada, The Guardian in the UK, and the Christian Science Monitor all use Kyiv. By the way, has the New York Times finished apologizing for inventing those news stories?

But media is only one part of life. There are many other aspects. Do you think more people learn about spelling from a newspaper, or from Microsoft Word? Microsoft uses Kyiv. Do you think more people will remember what a reporter said in a broadcast, or when they lost their wallet in Ukraine, and call the international operator looking for the nearest branch? Citibank uses Kyiv. I submit that these types of events are much more influential on everyday usage - especially typing in MS word - than the media.

If you have any explanations as to why media is the only way to judge a language, please let me know.

These changes have already happened. This is not the future, it is now.

I took a look at the link you provided thank you. To my surprise, that book deals with events in Ukraine. However, as this is the English WP, I am talking from a Western perspective. Here, most people are offended by that name, and it does carry all of the negative connotations that I mentioned. Apparently, you are not aware of that. I think that your perspective, along with the sudden defensive tone that you have taken in your response: "name-change pushers", "changes you desire", etc. should maybe encourage you to take some time off from this discussion.

I am trying to improve Wikipedia by pointing out changes that some editors may not have been aware of. I have opened a discussion in hopes of keeping WP in the mainstream, as a source of current events. No personal attacks, please.

Thanks, Horlo 07:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose — I'll explain below. —Michael Z. 2007-07-30 05:07 Z
• Weak Oppose it is quite possible that in, say, ten years time spelling Kyiv would become prevailing. On the other hand, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball it is not our job to predict the future. According to WP:UE we should use the most common English usage and currently it is Kiev Alex Bakharev 06:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - Once Kyiv becomes common, we can change, not before. That's clear enough. I find the arguments about Kiev being somehow offensive to be totally inadmissible. If we accepted them, by analogy one day soon we would have to agree with those who wanted move Prague to Praha (since the English form comes from German Prag) and Warsaw to Warszawa (since the English form comes form German Warschau). Clearly, it was not the intention of the English speaking world to slight Ukrainians when Kiev was selected as the English version of the name. That is just a simple fact, and one should simply accept it. Balcer 06:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Kiev is the English word for the city. Everyone knows what Kiev is, and even for those who recognize Kyiv, it still looks strange. Generally, I hate "cultural imperialism" and I'm inclined to support native forms where there is a moral argument, but here there is no moral argument which overrides Use English. There are worse etymologies than Kiev ... e.g. Gaelic and Welsh people and words are known throughout the world by English forms. Check the interwikis for Ynys Môn (Anglesey) - almost entirely English derived despite the fact that the island's language is not and never has been English (unlike Kiev and "Russian"). See then Máel Coluim mac Cináeda ... Malcolm II in all the interwikies, why? The guy has nothing to do with English! It's just what happens, and, whether "imperialistic" (as its called on at sevceral points on this page) or not, it is independent of wiki policy. At least Celtic languages are entirely separate from English, whereas standard Russian and standard Ukrainian are very similar varieties, or as one person once put it, recently conceived standardizations at two separate points on the "Eastern Slavic" dialect continuum (even though Russians and Ukrainians are now supposed to be coherently separate peoples, they still haven't, for instance, worked out who Rusyns are). Besides that, Kiev is a predominantly Russophone city in any case, and the rise of Kyiv as an English spelling is a response to the corrupt Ukrainian government's internal and international policy of Ukrainization in the attempt to give a semi-convincing national identity across its borders to what is in all fairness a fairly historically arbitrary SSR created recently as a concept and extended by gifts in the Soviet period. In reality it's a "bilingual", or more accurately, diglossic land with little pre-WWI historical precedent as a state much of whose southern territory was taken by "Eastern Slavs" (formerly everyone, including them, just called them "Russians") from Turkic peoples in recent centuries. There is no moral argument for the Kyiv spelling rather than the neutral, English Kiev. The whole controversy here is just emblematic of immature, eastern European ideologically separatistic fanaticism; never seen any Germans complain about the naming of Cologne, spelled after those imperialist standardized Frenchies, or Luxemburgers complain about Luxembourg rather than Lëtzebuerg or Luxemburg. No, you only get that when you cross the Oder in to Eastern Europe. Few English-speakers know that there is a one vowel difference between how some Russians say the name of the city and the way some Ukrainians say the name. They certainly don't know that "Kiev" is closer to the standardized "Russian" way than the standardized "Ukrainian" way until Ukrainian nationalists tell them. Hey, most English-speaking Glaswegians call their city Glez-ga, not Glasgow, and despite the fact that there's more difference between Glez-ga and Glasgow than Kyiv and Kiyev, I've never heard anyone complain about the spelling, let alone advocate that English adopt the standardized Gaelic spelling Glaschu. So not only is Kyiv not English, it shouldn't become English, and wikipedia should not be acting as an extension of the Ukrainian government's immoral and unhistorical nationalistic language policy. Kiev is the spelling everyone knows. Having said that, there is precedent for ignoring English use and slavishly following the discriminatory dictates of Ukrainian government on wikipedia. E.g. the Russian-speaking city of Kharkov, for instance, already has the less common (in English) and Ukrainianized spelling Kharkiv, but this was wrong and Kiev anyways is a much more famous city than Kharkov in the English-speaking world. The wiki article should therefore remain at this location until Kyiv or any other name does overwhelmingly predominate in actual use in the English language; and for what it's worth, the English-speaking organizations who have adopted the spelling Kyiv in print have not taught their staff to change their pronunciation, since you always here KEE-eff/Kee-EFF whether they've spelled it Kiev or Kyiv. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Balcer, Thank you for your comment. I would submit that Kyiv is common. Citibank, ING, Eurus Financial, CBC, BBC, ABC, CTV, ABC (Australia) - all use it. The list is quite long.

Personally, I see no problem in changing a word if it offends somebody. Peking became Beijing, Bombay became Mumbai, Eskimo became Inuit - no problem.

I think that as there was no intent to slight, there is no problem. However, when the slight becomes known, it is only becoming to cease.

Thanks,

Horlo 08:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current English name is Kiev. Andrewa 12:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose per English-language tradition. "Kiev" is the name of the city in English. We do not have articles called Yerushalayim, München or Makkah al-Mukarramah. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose please don't mutilate the English language with invented terms like Kyiv. The english word for the city is Kiev. Actually that is not the Russian version for it. The Russian version based on the principle of our transliteration will be Kiyev not Kiev. --18:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose- as per years of discussion. (Kiev is more popular in use therefore it is to be used.) Please end these arguments, they're not helping anybody. Bogdan 19:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Be it resolved that a new page, Kyiv, be started, and Kiev be redirected to it.

I would like to open a poll on this question.

Here are my arguments (in no particular order) for the move:

1. Kyiv is the correct form. When people search in an encyclopaedia, they look for correct information, not popular information. The problem of confusion with Kiev can be easily overcome with a simple re-direct and explanation at the top of the page. This is just another example of how Wikipedia is much more powerful than a traditional paper encyclopaedia. I give people the benefit of the doubt that they will pretty quickly clue into what’s happening.

2. Kyiv is becoming more and more common – gaining currency as it were – while Kiev is disappearing. This argument is actually in two parts: a) Within the last two years, the United States government, National Geographic, Citibank, Microsoft, the B.B.C. news service, C.B.C. news service, A.B.C. (Australia) news service, ABC networks (U.S.), the Guardian newspaper (UK), the Globe and Mail newspaper (the largest newspaper in Canada), and many other government, NGO, and private businesses have switched to Kyiv. Many others, such as the Christian Science Monitor and ING bank are currently switching over, temporarily using both. Any surfers looking for more in-depth information about Kyiv who come to Wikipedia from any of the above-mentioned sources, and are directed to a page called Kiev, will be confused.

b) The number of individuals using Kyiv is increasing. This cannot be empirically measured, including by means of the google test, but if all of the educational atlases & maps printed by Rand Mcnally and Mapquest use Kyiv, as well as publications such as National Geographic, Kiev will become less and less widespread. This is an assumption, but it is logical, and something to think about.

This transition is happening NOW, not in the future. By changing now, Wikipedia would reflect current events as they unfold.

3. Kyiv is more popular among contributors for the Wikipedia site. I actually counted the number of people – throughout all 4 archives – in favour and against the use of Kyiv, and the number for Kyiv is 33, while the number for Kiev is 21. More than a 50% difference for Kyiv. There is a popular complaint that if only people would contribute something to the page, rather than whine over the name, Wikipedia would benefit. This is true, but I submit that people do not want to contribute to something which is mis-named.

4. Kiev is a pejorative term. I think that many native English speakers don’t realize that for Ukrainians, including people born in English-speaking countries, Kiev is as offensive as “nigger”, “coolie”, “chink”, or “nip”. This is not connected to the political situation now. It is, however, summed up beautifully in the Valuev Circular of 1863 by Russian prince Valuev: “There has never been a Ukrainian language, there is no Ukraine language, and there can never be a Ukraine language”. This is the baggage that “Kiev” carries with it. Again, I want to stress that this does not affect my relations with Russians, but it does affect my relations with Kiev.

There it is. In order to keep this discussion as focussed as possible, let’s stay away from discussions about anything else, including the aircraft carriers, chicken, and computer language, called Kiev. Also, as many people have so correctly pointed out, this is the English Wikipedia. Therefore, although input is welcome from everybody, I suggest that more weight be placed on votes by native English speakers.

I apologize for my long winded-ness, but I think that this covers most of the arguments used against the move to Kyiv in the past. If you have an opposing opinion, I’d love to discuss it with you.

So what should it be – Kyiv or Kiev? Horlo

I have banged on the same drum years ago (talk archive), but Wikipedia naming conventions don't support the change, and there are more important things to work on.

Article names are not political statements, they just reflect the most common current usage, and in English that is still "Kiev". The most general references like the OED support this view (my Canadian Oxford Dictionary says "see Kiev" under the headword Kyiv, and that's an improvement on the previous editions). Wikipedia's mandate is not to set the precedent, but to follow it. The use of the Russian transliteration "Kiev" might bug you, but it is the most-used name for the city in English, and can't be considered pejorative because that is the only name most English-speakers have ever heard.

There are much more important tasks on Wikipedia to put your energy into. The truth is the only durable propaganda, so please:

1. Read about Wikipedia's basic criteria of citing sources, reliability, and verifiability.
2. See what information is still missing in important articles like Ukrainian language, History of Ukraine, Ukrainian People's Republic, Ukraine after the Russian Revolution, Ukrainian SSR, etc.
3. Don't fight over controversial issues, but work to reveal the incontrovertible facts. Goodness knows there's enough to keep us occupied for years to come.
4. Write.

Regards. —Michael Z. 2007-07-30 05:29 Z

Hello, and thank you for your comments. I agree that the titles of articles are not made as political statements, but in some cases they automatically take them on.

I submit that there is no one easy way to judge what is common and what is not. In the last few years many governments, schools (including the U of T), businesses, and media sources have begun using Kyiv. You yourself mentioned that now the Canadian Oxford is using Kyiv. This is not something that will happen, this is something that is happening. Because of the precedents set by Beijing and Mumbai, this change need not drag out for very long. Outside of the US, most major news services - CBC, CTV, ABC, BBC, ABC (US), and various newspapers including The Globe and Mail and The Guardian - have already changed to Kyiv. Microsoft. Citibank. The list goes on. I am not advocating setting the precedent, I am advocating reflecting what is currently happening.

Ten years ago, I would agree with you that Kiev was the only name that many native English speakers had heard. However, after the World Cup, Orange Revolution, Klitschko brothers, recent political crisis, Russia cutting oil supplies through the pipeline in Ukraine, and even Eurovision and the UEFA championship, and the fact that the previous Pope was half Ukrainian, have put Ukraine on more people's maps. There, they find Kyiv, at least if its a Rand McNally or Mapquest map. Then, most people get confused by sites such as this.

I don't think that most people are using Kiev pejoratively intentionally, but that name nevertheless has those connotations, and that is one thing that I want people to realize. I have faith in the goodwill of not only Wikipedians but also people in general, and once they realize what their comments mean, they will stop. I like your statement that the truth is the only durable propaganda. I believe that the truth will always win.

I will happily contribute to Wikipedia, but I think that this must be resolved first, as this affects just about every topic that you mentioned. Also, in the archives I counted 33 people for Kyiv and 21 people for Kiev. I think that this topic turned off many other people.

Thanks, Horlo 06:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I am just a little bit puzzled. You believe it is a well known fact that the previous pope was half-Ukrainian? Clearly it cannot be that well known, since neither English nor Ukrainian Wikipedia has any mention of it, as far as I can tell. Balcer 07:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, I was listing events which are important for various types of people. People to whom Roman Catholicism is important knew that fact. I think that this is another good example of how we have to be very careful when judging what is "common" or "widespread". There are many facets of life which are not necessarily represented on-line. When making such decisions, extreme care must be taken.

Thanks, Horlo 07:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral But, as to Horlo's assertion that Kiev is a pejorative term I disagree. I know dozens of people in Kiev, both Ukrainian and Russian speakers, and the majority use Kiev (when using English). Why is this? Because Russian language is still dominant in Kiev, with most residents speaking Russian over Ukrainian. Now, if you are from Lvov, then yeah, Kiev is likely going to be offensive (as well as anything else remotely Russian), but for the vast majority of Ukrainians, particularly those in Kiev, and Odessa, Donetsk, Kharkov, the Crimea, etc (basically all of Eastern Ukraine), the use of Kiev is not insulting or pejorative. Now if we had articles at Khokhol language or Culture of Malorussia, then yeah, these would be pejorative (although I admit to using Malorussia when talking to people I know in Ukraine when discussing similarities between the two countries), but to call Kiev a pejorative term because it is "Russian", but yet Kiev (the subject in question). is basically a Russian speaking city, is a bit of a stretch. --Russavia 09:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 17:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Support changing Kiev to Kyiv throughout

Argument: It seems to me that the proper approach to the issue of treating Kyiv as the proper spelling for the capital of Ukraine should be to respect Ukraine the same way that other countries are respected when they have changed their country name (Ceylon to Sri Lanka, Cambodia to Kampuchea, and so on) and when they have changed their official city spellings (Peking to Beijing, Rangoon to Mangan, Bombay to Mumbai, Calcutta to Kolkata and so on). This avoids the endless arguments over the "legitimacy," "commonness/widespreadness" of the current or past version and any issues around the "difficulty/simplicity" of the change. Bombay is surely one of the most widespread city names in this list of changes, yet the new version was readily adopted and is used everywhere now. Ukraine should be given the same respect and not "dissed" by those who happen to not like the new version. Using this same argument, these names should also hold: Odesa, Dnipro, Chornobyl and so on, even in phrases that entered common use some time ago. Chornobyl blew up only five years before Ukraine became independent, so the Ukrainian spelling should long ago have been accepted as the official spelling, given that it has been in use for three times longer!Rascalndear 14:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This guy appears to be a sockpuppet, as this is his only edit to the english Wikipedia, and was created only a couple of hours ago. C'mon guys, surely this is not so important that we've resorted to using socks to sway the vote (which doesn't matter anyways). Parsecboy 14:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you for your comments. You have my word that I did not create any sockpuppets for this discussion. However, as yesterday some people stated that they weren't aware that Ukrainians in the English-speaking world consider the name Kiev pejorative, I did let some people in the Ukrainian community know about this discussion.

This is a very important issue not only to me, but also to millions of people across the US, Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. If this is not an important issue to other people, why is there so much negativity in this debate? Most of the arguments have been very focussed and neutral, quite healthy intellectual curiosity which I welcome, but it appears that some editors are starting to let emotion into the discussion.

I want to stress that I want to discuss this, not try to force my opinion on anybody, but I would like this debate to continue for as long as it takes to achieve consensus on the topic.

Thanks, Horlo 16:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

His comments need some clarification, anyway.

As a rule, the naming conventions don't use the official name, but the most common name (for example, we don't have articles titled Commonwealth of Australia or Federal Republic of Germany).

Ukraine's government has mandated its own official spelling in English-language documents as Kyiv—this is a mandate of language and transliteration. Unlike the examples of Rangoon or Bombay, it is not a change of name. An analogy is the change from Peking→Beijing—although that involved only transliteration and not language—which has become accepted through most of the English-speaking world.

The city's name has long been Київ (Kyyiv, Kyjiv or Kyiv) in Ukrainian, and Киев (Kiyev, Kijev, or Kiev) in Russian, and this has not changed. In English, it is Kiev or Kyiv (according to my dictionary), sometimes Kyyiv or Kyjiv (in some atlases) with the first spelling still being the most-used, but gradually waning

Interestingly, the less well-known Kharkiv has become an accepted spelling (except in WWII histories), but the Russian-origin spellings of Odessa, the Dnieper (a river in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia), and newsworthy Chernobyl spellings remain entrenched in English. —Michael Z. 2007-07-30 15:14 Z

Deaconpndapetzim,

Hello, and thank you for your comments.

I am very happy to hear that you are against cultural imperialism. This will make you equally offended as it makes me to hear terms like "little Russians" and "great Russians" - terms that were used until the tragic experiment that was the USSR - including the gifts of the Holodomor, in which between 6 and 8 million people were systematically starved to death; Shcherbytsky's purges, in which countless were executed for speaking the "official" language of the Ukr.SSR.; and Chornobyl, but that was a gift to Byelorussia and Northern Europe, not just Ukraine. So far, we agree.

I also agree with your point that "as someone once said". It probably was just once, by somebody anonymous. Because by saying that, they would be exposing their ignorance of the history of the area. So it's probably better to ignore that. Rusyns are Rusyns. Ukraine has a policy of allowing people to speak whatever language/have whatever regional government they want - for example, the Crimea. (Please note the use of "the" and "Crimea" - that is what people there want to be called, so so be it.)Agreement again.

I am also happy to hear that you do not worry about most English speakers being concerned about a change in vowels. That's been another one of my main points throughout. To most people, seeing it once on the BBC, CBC, ABC, any government release, in MS word, Citibank (the list can go on, but here I'd rather get to the point) will be all that they need to change. To most, it's not a big deal. So people are changing it now. Most people have been accepting it as quickly as they accepted the change to Beijing. Third point, agreed.

On the topic of this becoming an extension of the Ukrainian government, you will notice that I had asked some contributors from Ukraine and other non-English speaking countries to limit their comments, as this is a thread relating to what is happening in English speaking countries. By extension, I would submit that what some people propose is happening in Ukraine not be considered here. I would like to focus on English-speaking organizations such as National Geographic, the UN, and NATO. Kyiv is not English, but neither is Kiev. Kiev used to be more widely used, but it is being deposed by Kyiv.

With respects to other countries, although this is not the place to discuss it at length, I will add one sentence. I believe that everybody has the right to choose what they will be called, and if anybody from those countries puts up a discussion like this, I will support it 100%.

So all in all, we agree. Thanks for your support,

Horlo 19:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well how much more people will read BBC than a US gov't response. And actually my MS word has KIEV and redunderscores Kyiv. I wonder why. See that is the definition of the English term. Just like it would redunderscore Munchen, or Moskva or Warszawa. Lastly Little Russia comes from the term Lower Russia, i.e. southern Russia, when my ancestors, the Zaporozhian Cossacks united with central Russia, which was big and hence Great. And please withhold from "tragic experiment" POVs, need I tell you that Ukraine was a founding republic of the USSR, and people like Leonid Brezhnev were ethnically Ukrainian. --Kuban Cossack 19:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your comment.

I'm not sure what you meant by your comment on the BBC and US gov't site - both of them use Kyiv. As to MS Word, I'm not sure why yours underscores Kyiv, but mine doesn't. The reason I said that MS uses Kyiv is that on its website it gives Kyiv in its address. Here is the link: https://solutionfinder.microsoft.com/Partners/PartnerDetailsView.aspx?partnerid=c2a36c22a9ce49de8d26cfb4754f3f52 Also, in the Network Development Network section (which is used by every country in developing international networks), it uses Kyiv as the spelling to use for Microsoft partners. Here is the link: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms866171.aspx

Just as an aside about the underscoring - MS Word gives a red underline to Wikipedia.

As to your proud family heritage, congratulations. Being a descendant of the Zaporozhtsi is indeed reason to be proud. However, this is not the place to discuss that.

Again, I will ask that while your input is very welcome, I would like to focus on native English speakers, as this is the English Wiki. Let's discuss the etymology of "Little" and "Great", or even Rus' and Russia at a different time, on a different page, and keep this focussed on Kyiv.

Thanks,

Horlo 21:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

As for the inacccuracy of the Google test, say that we gather all of those shameful "what ifs" and omit them from both searches and only include searches in reference to the city. Would the ratio change? If you think that it would, is there another "what if" obstacle? As for the usage of "Kyiv", you show that it is used by important media outlets, although, it is not Wikipedia's policy to follow them. It is Wikipedia's policy to use the most common name... which is "Kiev". If there is a change occuring, we should only embrace it when it actually becomes more prevelent than the "Kiev" spelling, but until it does, we have to stick by the most common name. Reginmund 22:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Regimund, Thank you for your comments. More importantly, I thank you for maintaining a spirit of "good faith", even though we disagree. Unfortunately, I have found it lacking with a few other editors here.

Thank you also for agreeing that CNN should not be used as an exclusive determining factor.

Again, I do not want to say that the Google test is inaccurate or wrong, but I do want to say that it should not be the only basis for the change.

Here's an example of a meeting of English Librarians: http://southernlibrarianship.icaap.org/content/v03n01/Barrett_g01.htm On the "established" form, it says Kiev, (at the top, in the letterhead), but the body of the article uses Kyiv throughout. It was written by English speakers (or as far as I can tell by the names mentioned), and uses Kyiv throughout. All of the members appear to be English. Which is more common in everyday speech? I submit Kyiv, because that's what the people in the article are using. Only the letterhead uses Kiev.

The google test is not inaccurate, but all it does is provide numbers, and unfortunately numbers can be interpreted in many ways.

How about some kind of formula - a combination of organizations/groups/businesses plus media plus google, combined with a dose of respect for traditions and international customs and common sense? Any suggestions?

Thanks, Horlo 01:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I never objected to the use of CNN as a source (although, this shouldn't imply that I respect them). According to Wikipedia's common name policy, the most common name should be followed as opposed to names used by prominent media figures. Their opinions aren't "superior" to the most common name. I'm sure that "Kiev" is gaining prominence but until it becomes more common than "Kiev", the Russian transliteration should stick. Reginmund 05:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no needs to reinvent anything. Read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) --TAG 01:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Tag Sorry, TAG Thank you for your comments. I have read the naming conventions, but they simply state use the most common name. What is the most common name? That's what I'm driving at here. There is no rule on how to judge what is common, especially in a case like this when more and more groups are officially switching over every month. Everybody I know uses Kyiv. But that doesn't mean that everybody uses Kyiv. My question is how to judge commonality.

Thanks, Horlo 01:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You oversimplify guideline. It state that ALL names must be listed. This is how it's currently done. Also I think you have missed WP:NCGN#Examples. --TAG 02:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

TAG,

Thanks for the comment. I agree - every pertinent name must be listed. However, the proposal here is to change the name of the page to Kyiv, not eliminate names from the listing. Thanks, Horlo 02:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The is the ENGLISH language, latin alphabet, version of Wikipedia and we spell it Kiev and have done for 2000 years. We spell Wien Vienna, Warszawa Warsaw, Munchen Munich, to name but a few. Just as importantly many British town names, such as London, are spelt differently on the continent just as anyone who has been in an airport will tell you. There is no justification for pandering to this overtly nationalist request. David Lauder 14:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you for your comments. I understand that this is the English Wikipedia. I am an English teacher.

I submit that one of the strengths of English, and why it has become such a dominant language around the world is the ability to change and adapt. Another one is the English idea of respect for others, as evidenced throughout the history of English dealings with other countries. A strength of the US is the willingness to do what is right - Lincoln paid for the Emancipation Proclamation with his life, for example.

I submit that most people won't really notice the change, because it is not important to most people. But just in the same way that most people say "EEraq" and not "EYE-raq", because that is the way that most people there prefer it.

Thanks, Horlo 16:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

As you are from USA - you probably should trust your military. Go and see that they have Kiev. Once you will be able to convict your own National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency that it's Kyiv - you are welcome return back here ;-) --TAG 17:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

TAG, your condescending tone is unwelcome here. For starters, the link you provided is inaccessible. Second of all, the official spelling for all U.S. government agencies is Kyiv. So at least by your conditions, Horlo is welcome here to discuss this issue. If there are instances where Kiev is utilized as in the example which you provided (but which at least I was not able to access), then it is merely a holdover since the Kyiv spelling practice for U.S. military is a year or so old.--Riurik^(discuss) 20:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for been unfriendly. This is simply not first time this issue is discussed and people not willing to read archives. As for link - try here search for Kiev or Kyiv. My point was - there are a lot of others places there Horlo can change city name and he or she is welcome to return back here once will be done with this. --TAG 20:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. This is one of those things that just keeps coming back, and probably not for the last time. I did finally see what you were referring to on the NGA site after searching for "Kiev" using the GNS search box. It was under "Kievka" with "Kiev" listed as a variant. I will note that the non-Roman language code provided is "ru". So presumably, were it "uk" the translit/variant would be Kyiv; not that it would help the issue here. Anyhow...regards.--Riurik^(discuss) 04:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

TAG, Thank you for the link. Alas, it did not work for me, either.

Actually, I am not from the US. There are many English-speaking countries in the world. I would submit that this is not your place to "welcome" or "unwelcome" anybody here, as obviously you are not from one of those countries.

I have read the archives, and there is nothing in the archives which contradicts the evidence I have put forth here. The name is changing, in places all over the English speaking world.

Again, let's keep this civil, stick to the facts, and stay away from name-calling.

Horlo 22:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

I am from Canada and everyone I know uses Kyiv, NOT the Russian form.

In fact, most high-profile, official agencies use Kyiv. Here are some partial lists:

A partial list of Governments, government agencies and international organizations using “Kyiv,” in English from the Ukrainian transliteration: · The Government of Ukraine - http://www.kmu.gov.ua/control/en/publish/article%3fart_id=235995&cat_id=32672 · The Government of Ukraine, President of Ukraine - http://ww8.president.gov.ua/en/news/data/6_17438.html · The Government of Ukraine, Ministry of Foreign Affairs - http://www.mfa.gov.ua/mfa/en/publication/content/329.htm · The Municipal Government of Kyiv - http://www.kmu.gov.ua/control/en/publish/article?art_id=335366&cat_id=32596 · The United Nations - http://www.un.org.ua/?p=about_un · The European Union - http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/news/07112003_en.htm · European Parliament - http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/event_by_type_page/09-2007-09/default_en.htm · Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development - http://www.oecd.org/document/10/0,3343,en_2649_201185_31916554_1_1_1_1,00.html · Organization for Security and Co-operation In Europe (OSCE) - http://www.osce.org/item/25500.html · North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) - http://www.nato.int/structur/oip/nidc/nidc.htm · http://www.mfa.gov.ua/mfa/en/publication/content/329.htm · The Government of Canada, Embassy in Kyiv - http://www.international.gc.ca/canada-europa/ukraine/menu-en.asp · The Government of Britain, Embassy in Kyiv - http://www.britishembassy.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1087554796297 · Government of Australia, Consulate in Kyiv - http://www.dfat.gov.au/missions/countries/ua.html · Government of India, Embassy in Kyiv - http://www.indianembassy.org.ua/english/index.htm

A partial list of non-governmental organizations and international service clubs using “Kyiv,” in English from the Ukrainian transliteration: · National Geographic Society - http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0603/feature1/map.html · Lions International- http://www.kyiv-lions-club.org/ · Rotary International - http://www.kyivmultinational.org/site/ · Green Parties of Europe - http://www.europeangreens.org/cms/default/dokbin/177/177291.defending_refugees_human_rights@en.pdf · International Association of Football Federations (FIFA) - http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/clubfootball/news/newsid=104618.html · United European Football Association (UEFA) - http://h20000.www2.hp.com/bc/docs/support/UCR/SupportManual/TPM_277984e2/TPM_277984e2.pdf?jumpid=reg_R1002_USEN · Canada Ukraine Chamber of Commerce - http://www.cucc.ca/section.php?CBID=0c9e41d07b4fd1cedbbb1c583b45cf91

A partial list of the major English-language periodicals and media outlet in Kyiv, using “Kyiv,” from the Ukrainian transliteration: · Kyiv Post - http://www.kyivpost.com/ · Kyiv Weekly - http://www.kyivweekly.com/ · National Rdaio Company of Ukraine - http://www.nrcu.gov.ua/index.php?id=2

A partial list of international, English-language periodicals, news organizations and websites using “Kyiv,” from the Ukrainian transliteration: · Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) - http://ww8.president.gov.ua/en/news/data/6_17438.html · Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) - http://ww8.president.gov.ua/en/news/data/6_17438.html · CTV Television Network - http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20041125/ukraine_backgrounder_041124/20041125/ · Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty - http://www.rferl.org/newsline/2007/07/250707.asp · The Guardian (UK) - http://sport.guardian.co.uk/youtube/story/0,,2075889,00.html · The National Geographic (Magazine) - http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0603/feature1/index.html

A partial list of transnational and multinational corporations using “Kyiv,” from the Ukrainian transliteration: · Microsoft - http://www.microsoft.com/worldwide/phone/contact.aspx?country=Ukraine · Adidas Ukraine - http://www.press.adidas.com/en/DesktopDefault.aspx/tabid-116/194_read-2269/ · IBM - http://www.ibm.com/contact/ua/ · Kyivstar – among Ukraine’s largest mobile phone operators - http://www.kyivstar.net/en/about/ · ING Bank Ukriane - http://www.ingbankukraine.com/?tid=89&lang=en · European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) - http://www.ebrd.com/oppor/procure/opps/goods/general/070711a.htm · Citigroup - http://www.citigroup.com/citigroup/global/ukr.htm · Dragon Capital - http://www.dragon-capital.com/

A partial list of universities and other institutes of learning in Kyiv using “Kyiv,” in English from the Ukrainian transliteration: · National Taras Shevchenko University of Kyiv - http://www.univ.kiev.ua/eng/ · National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy – http://www.ukma.kiev.ua/eng_site/index.php · Kyiv National University for Construction and Architecture – http://www.knuba.edu.ua/en · Kyiv Theological Seminary - http://www.ktsonline.org/new/ · Kyiv Economics Institute - http://www.kei.org.ua/

A partial list of arts and letters organizations in Kyiv using “Kyiv,” in English from the Ukrainian transliteration: · Kyiv Ballet and Opera Theatre - http://www.wumag.kiev.ua/wumag_old/archiv/2_98/opera.htm · Kyiv Chamber Choir - http://magnatune.com/artists/kyiv_chamber_choir · Museum of History of Kyiv - http://www.ukrmuseum.org.ua/en/main/museums/show/histkieveng.html?PHPSESSID=fd8d2a25a2225945d31 · National Museum of Medicine (Ukraine) – http://www.histomed.kiev.ua/about.php.htm · Victor Pinchuk Foundation - http://pinchukfund.org/en/

A partial list of lawyers and other professionals in Kyiv using “Kyiv,” in English from the Ukrainian transliteration: · Squire Sanders - http://www.ssd.com/offices/office_detail.aspx?officeid=1504 · Baker & McKenzie - http://www.bakernet.com/BakerNet/Locations/Europe+Middle+East/Offices/Kyiv/default.htm · Chadbourne & Parke - http://www.chadbourne.com/kyiv/

While some others are still held back by the inertia out-dated conventions, the trend clearly is to “Kyiv ” as well as it should and inevitably will be. (Sometimes, however, media publications can be slow in recognizing name changes. The New York Times, for example, took almost 10 years to stop referring to the city of Mumbai by its colonial name, Bombay.)

For me at least, the most convincing example is the use of Kyiv in ERnglish by the most widelt read and prestigious English-language publications in Kyiv itself: "Kyiv Post" and "Kyiv Weekly."

Thank you for your consideration.

(Volodia Tatlin)

I agree that the Google test is questionable but as I previously pointed out, "Kiev" is not very ambiguous at all and if it received nine times more hits than "Kyiv", there is no reason to question its inaccuracy because I guarantee you, the majority of the links will refer to the city. Reginmund 21:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Decision 9 9, in accordance with the Legal Terminology Commission s express authority, is binding only for the transliteration of Ukrainian names in English in legislative and official acts .... In certain cases, "traditional" forms may be shown in parentheses after the official form: Dnipro (Dnieper). Wikipedia include BOTH versions and this entire discussion is only matter of page URL. --TAG 09:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Greetings All,

As a native Canadian (but now long time resident of Kyiv) I find the Kyiv discussion fascinating for all the socio-political reasons that gave rise to this issue in the first place. After all the genesis of the debate is the attempt to differentiate from the Russian/Soviet imperial past.

However what I find most perplexing are the frequent references to the BBC as some sort of quality/integrity indicator of standard usage in English. Having been around now for some six decades I've had the privilege of witnessing numerous 'place name changes' in the latter half of the twentieth century, all of which curiously, involved the BBC playing a catch-up role in each case. The reasons for this are probably best left for the poli-scientists among us who are better versed in the specifics of the British imperial penchant for marching to their own drummer irrespective of what the rest of the world thinks. Laudable but foolish; see American revolution battlefield tactics. But I digress.

However the BBC's stubbornness does make for some humorous incidents. I recall several decades ago when the Chinese government insisted on changing the English version of Peking to Beijing and the refusal by the BBC to follow suit. Nobody at the time had ever heard of Beijing and the BBC felt smug in the knowledge that this little pique by the Chinese government would soon blow away. The Chinese oriental mind didn't get phased by this imperial snub but went immediately for the British jugular and started returning all mail, telegrams and trade goods addressed to Peking. Result? The BBC and the British public immediately capitulated. Sometimes a little hard fisted diplomacy is all that it takes.

More recent name changes such as Bombay to Mumbasu and Saigon to Ho-Chi-Minh city followed a similar pattern of initial BBC stubbornness followed by meek capitulation.

My point, therefore, is to not lose sight of the Ukrainian government's objective as in the final analysis that’s all that will matter in the end. As for the BBC, its a great institution that is very good for many things that it does better than most of its peers. Unfortunately climbing down in humility is not one of them. So for all of the above reasons I would caution anyone quoting this peculiar BBC practice as an indicator of anything more that historical amusement. After all its difficult to translate the uniquely English phrase 'ossified thinking' into any other language.

Zenoviy

10:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)~~

Thank you for this anti-British fantasy. In fact the BBC moves quickly enough when a name is actually changed, in the case of St Petersberg for example, but like Wikipedia, does not aim to be in the forefront of change. Nor, as has been amply demonstrated above, are they the only such organisation sticking to Kiev. Johnbod 11:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

What is the reason for the Ukrainian government wanting everyone to change their spelling from "Kiev" to Kyiv"?

Official directive

Resolution of the ukrainian commission for legal terminology No. 5

Protocol no.1 of October 14, 1995
"the Roman spelling of Kiev does not recreate the phonetic and scriptural features of the Ukrainian language"

The objective - to establish correspondence between how the name is written and how it is pronounced - does not seem to have been achieved outside Ukraine. The spelling in English-speaking countries is becoming "Kyiv", while the pronunciation in English-speaking and most other countries remains "Ki-ev" (or "Ki-v").

While one European language - English - is moving towards "Kyiv", other languages written with roman letters are generally not undergoing this change (Polish Kijow, German Kiew, etc).

Nor is the government's resolution having any effect on cyrillic languages, for example Russian, Belarusian and Serbian are still using the non-Ukrainianized spellings "Киев", "Кіеў", "Кијев". Even the Ukrainian government in its Russian-language publications continues to use the non-Ukrainianized spelling "Киев", instead of introducing a Ukrainianized spelling like "Кыив".

Result: English speakers are falling over themselves to Ukrainianize their spelling yet no-one else is doing so with their language. And not even English speakers are Ukrainianizing their pronunciation, despite pronunciation being at the very core of the spelling change, according to the official resolution (see above).

Political divide

The spelling "Kyiv" is being pushed by one side of the Ukrainian political divide. The people of Ukraine are in fact not united in deprecating "Kiev". The side desperately pursuing the spelling change is the same side longing to turn back the clock to pre-Soviet times. In the process they not only seek to demonstrate contempt for a neighbouring, foreign country (Russia) but also to impose their current political superiority on a large part of their own population - people who are citizens of Ukraine, have lived all their lives in Ukraine, contributed to Ukrainian society, call themselves Ukrainians, yet do not necessarily support anti-Russianism. -- Abut 03:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to frequent assertions, the BBC actually still uses KIEV

like here Johnbod 22:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you for your comment.

However, when mentioning the location of their head office, they use Kyiv: http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/trust/aboutthetrust/story/2005/07/050711_regionaloffices.shtml

Throughout this debate I stated that whenever a BBC reporter reports something, they use Kyiv: such as here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/world/onyourstreet/mslen2.shtml and here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/11_november/18/ethics.shtml and here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4375192.stm

Again, this is a change which is happening NOW. It is not a question of what will happen, it IS happening. And I think that Wikipedia should reflect that.

Thanks, Horlo 22:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

What about this report, and this report ... and this report ... and this report ... and this report ... and this report. I could go on forever. Searching for "Kiev" on the BBC's news website yields 231 pages, whereas searching for "Kyiv" on the same site yields ... wait for it ... 4 measly pages. And it certainly isn't true that they only use "Kyiv" when talking about their office in Kiev, as this page, this page and this page will show you. I know Horlo that you're not particularly interested in facts; but rather, the "facts" that you find are merely slaves to your emotional desire to change Kiev's spelling in English to accord with Ukrainian nationalist reconstruction. You and I both know that's the way it is. I doubt anyone here takes seriously your pretense to be neutral either ... I liked it particularly when you said that it "appears that some editors are starting to let emotion into the discussion", which of course was in the discussion from the beginning when you, your sockpuppets and their friends began bombarding this encyclopedia page with their nationalistic campaign. I mean, Horlo, I respect your passion and the fact that you are prepared to devote time to change the world, but let's not go insulting people's intelligence. If nothing else, that will do you and your cause no good. Although not outnumbered by "Russian imperialists", Ukrainian nationalists are still small-fry on wikipedia; Use Englishers generally rule the waves here; just wait it out for a few years and you may well have them on your side. In the mean time, you lost that vote very heavily ... so heavily that it's pretty clear that your efforts on this occasion are going to be a complete waste of time. I suggest you devote yourself now to something where you can actually make a useful contribution. I mean, I trust you are not here merely to press one issue? Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

PS, on my MS Word, Microsoft Office Word 2007, purchased in Seattle, WA, in April 2007, Kiev is not regarded as a mistake, though Kyiv is not underscored there as it is in Mozilla Firefox. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Deacon of Pndapetzim,

Thank you for your comments. I have stated throughout the discussion that when BBC uses an outside source, it uses Kiev, but when it sends its own reporters, they use Kyiv.

Kiev is not a mistake, it is an old form which is disappearing. That's exactly my point - people are not using it anymore, just like "thou" and "hast" - neither of those is red underscored, but they are not used, either.

As for the rest of the comment, please check your opinions at the login page. We are here for productive discussion, not name-calling. Thanks, Horlo 16:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but it simply is NOT an old form which is disappearing. Everyone I know in academia uses it and every map I have ever seen has it. The comparison with thou and hast is ludicrous. we are speaking about accepted spellings and pronunciations of place-names in the ENGLISH-speaking world over two thousand years. You may not like it, but KIEV has never varied. David Lauder 18:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. You bring up an important point in academia. Many universities and university presses have maintained the Kiev spelling, and I think this is for two reasons: First, most universities have faculties which are named something along the lines of "Russian and East European Studies". It is often staffed by people who are more interested in Russia than the rest of the area. Please don't misunderstand me - this is not a slight on what they like. They can like what they want. However, that does lead to a bias in favour of Russian terminology.

Second, it is very difficult to get teachers to change. Again, this does not only apply to universities, but all other levels of teaching, also. However, this is especially common at the university level as (in my opinion) most professors are more interested in research than teaching. They set one curriculum, work out the kinks for a few years, and then focus on research and writing. Again, this is not a slight - the economic realities of academic life dictate that in order to be comfortable, professors must publish. This is quite a vicious cycle when combined with the first point, as they usually give place names no second thought.

Also, many universities are changing. The University of Toronto uses Kyiv, as do most universities in Canada, and I recently ran across an article (I don't have the link now, but I will look it up and post it here) from Columbia University in which the professor has changed to Kyiv, even though the name of the course in the University Syllabus is Kiev.

I want to mention here again that I think it is important to be careful about making changes. In 1991, the future of Ukraine was quite uncertain, and there was no need to rush headlong into major changes. However, Ukraine has now established itself as the most stable democracy in the former Soviet Union - survived the "Orange Revolution" with no violence or bloodshed, has established power-sharing in which former political rivals now work within the same administration (Yushchenko and Yanukovych), and even a recent highly tense political situation, again without violence, mass arrests, or bloodshed. The democracy has survived, and therefore governments have changed to Kyiv, most major media outlets (outside the US) have changed to Kyiv, major businesses have changed to Kyiv, so I think it is time for Wikipedia to change to Kyiv.

Even though Kyiv is over 1500 years old, I don't think that the name was common in the English world for that long. I'm not sure about this, but I think the first records were from the sixteenth or seventeenth century, and were not actually spelled Kyiv.

Maps published by Rand Mcnally and Mapquest all use Kyiv. I have a Rand Mcnally map in my class.

Map makers can make money because names and boundaries change all the time. Peking was the standard English word, until it changed to Beijing. Bombay is Mumbai. Trois Rivieres used to be Three Rivers. At the time of transition, there may be slight confusion, but then everybody just gets used to it, and life goes on.

Thank you, Horlo 19:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Alas, it is all too clear that you are pushing a Ukrainian nationalist agenda here which is the sort of thing WP can do without. Digging about trying to locate a school or college which actually uses, wholly or otherwise, the latest spellings doesn't really help, any more than me telling you that the London 'Daily Telegraph still calls Bombay, correctly, Bombay, and not Mumbles or whatever the current crop of stupid nationalists have changed it to. Doubtless you would strongly disapprove of the fading batch of obituaries which still refer to people being born in Lemberg. One of the glories of our language is that we have not caved in to the political correctness of every silly government which comes along and changes the names of cities and towns to suit current trends. If we did that each generation would lose all idea of human geography. As I said before, we spell the names of cities and towns as we see them. Even the populace of St.Petersburg continued to call their city 'Peter' after the Bolsheviks had changed it to to Leningrad, and it is a credit to most of our cartographers that they continued to use the original name on our maps putting one or the other name in brackets while the silliness persisted. We don't need Political Correctness on Wikipedia. You ought to abandon this campaign and do more constructive work. David Lauder 20:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

David,

Thank you for clarifying your position. Very informative.

Horlo 22:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

To all:

I for one admire the great flexibility of the English language to borrow, hybridize, and perhaps most of all, adapt. And I am also reminded here that the spirit of Wikipedia is certainly less about calcified norms guarded by old elites and more about open and collective collaboration. The issue here is not, as some feverishly insist one of Ukrainian nationalist agendas any more than it is of revanchist Great Russian chauvinism or even tired, old, reactionary “Great Stateism.” The issue here is how does an intellectually-conscious collective wishing to be open and fair decide on “what is the most common name?” Unfortunately, the simplicity of the question belies a vast complexity of possibilities. Is a simple Google search likely too simple-minded? Perhaps one should narrow the potential scope in terms of relevancy: should the use of one form or the other by marginal-English speakers in tiny non-English websites carry the same weight as, say very large groups of significant English language users, like universities, NGO’s, service clubs, institutions, etc? Perhaps one should focus the review of usage more on the most common forms used by English speakers in the geographical area or city in question, such as how many more times Kyiv has been consciously chosen over Kyiv by English speakers, their websites and publications in Kyiv and what is the trend? Certainly from everything I have seen everything points to Kyiv.

Again, thank you for your consideration.

Burlaka

Thank you all for these very interesting discussions that remind me of theoretical debates on the topic of "How many angels can dance on the head of a needle". As stated above we accept as common Mumbai, Beijing as the names of these cities. Was this because suddenly the whole world woke up and decided they would use transliterations from the original language? Is it because somone "googled" and discovered this is now the right way to spell them? NO. The countries decided that they wanted the correct transliteration/ translation to be used.

Well low and behold Ukraine also has made a statement to the world. Please check out this link from the official "RADA" pages.

http://www.rada.gov.ua/translit.htm

They categorically state that the capital city in English is: KYIV.

This is not a decision for the BBC to make nor for Wikipedia or Google or any other publication. The government has decided. The deccision has been made by a government not by consensus.

159.18.221.197 14:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Andy G.

I don't see how it's relevant what the BBC calls Kyiv. They're not the arbiters of these decisions, nor are they even the arbiters of the English language (witness the differences between British and American English) If they're not calling Kyiv what Ukraine and its government have designated is the correct spelling of Kyiv, they're guilty of faulty journalism, period. It's just that simple.

We don't call Ukraine "THE Ukraine" anymore, just as we don't call Africa "the Dark Continent" and so on. We still hear these errors made but it doesn't change that they are errors and no longer acceptable. So it seems time to acknowledge that the former spelling of Kyiv, "Kiev" is incorrect in the current context and should be universally changed, although links or references to that previous traditional spelling should be noted. It just seems so very clear to me, I can't imagine that it warrants this much debate.

my two cents..... Eastenne 15:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Eastenne

You are probably the worst sockpuppeteer I've ever come across. Horlo man, watch those signatures! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Learn the rules, sockpuppet! They don't control the English language! Kiev is not incorrect just because anothert country says it is. We don't tell them how to use their language and they shouldn't tell us how to use ours. Google tests show 9x more hits for "Kiev" than "Kyiv". Mind you, I'm not biased. I actually prefer "Kyiv" personally but I am faithful to Wikipedia's rules and Wikipedia's rules say that it stays. Reginmund 16:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Very well, here's another reason why "Kiev" is wrong: phonetics. The traditional spelling leads most non-Ukrainian speakers, and particularly English speakers, to pronounce the name of the city "KEE-ev" or "Kee-EV". That's not how it's said, although you hear it mispronounced that way all the time. The name of the city is pronounced "Kiy-YIV", and the Kyiv spelling is a better reflection of that reality. You know, reality, that place most of us live in.

159.33.10.92 18:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Eastenne

You know, incivility can get you blocked. Cut the sarcasm. Kee-ev and Kiy-yiv are rather too close to call either of them incorrect. Especially when they are in a different language, the pronunciation may be altered. Is Warsaw incorrect? NO, just because it is spoken that way in English, doesn't make it incorrect. Same principle with Kiev. Lose your incivility because its encouraging me to report you. Reginmund 20:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion here is whether this collective uses the English transliteration of the capital of Ukraine from the current Ukrainian language or from the Russian. Feverishly ranting about "sockpuppets," hoping to dismiss the many positive responses is not helpful to the discussion. (However, I must ask why do so many pro-Russian posters, all allegedly different people, like "Deacon of Pndapetzim" and "Reginmund," all use the same peculiarly stilted term "sockpuppet?") --Volodia Tatlin 19:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you read my post? I said that I use "Kyiv" personally. That doesn't make me biased. The reason I oppose the name change is because it goes against WP:COMMONNAME. Let us not speculate here. Reginmund 20:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes I did read your post, "sockpuppet" and all. And I have read WP:COMMONNAME. Again, for those who perhaps have not read my posts and the many other positive posts here, the issue is indeed about what constitutes "common usage?" Let me state my case, one more time:

• in Kyiv, the major English langauge publications, KYIV POST and KYIV WEEKLY, use "Kyiv," not the Russian form;
• in Kyiv, most of the English-langauge websites that I have accessed use "Kyiv," not the Russian form;
• in Canada and most of the rest of the English-speaking world, "Kyiv" is now used more than the Russian form, on large websites by major organizations - and this trend is increasing rapidly;
• everyone I know uses "Kyiv," not the Russian form.

It seems to me that that is precisely what is meant by "common usage" in WP:COMMONNAME. I beleive it's quite clear.

With respect,--Volodia Tatlin 00:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

With respect to the most common uses, media enterprises are not superior to the general public. Nor is the fact that everyone you know uses "Kyiv"; that is original research. The most precise way of determining the most common usage is the Google test. Kiev is 9x more popular in common parlance than Kyiv. Reginmund 00:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Google vs. the Government

Hello,

It appears that there are, according to Wikipedia naming convention, many ways of determining commonality. One is the Google test, one is what the US government uses. The US government uses Kyiv. Google supports Kiev. How about we agree that these two arguments cancel each other out, and look for other sources.

Thanks, Horlo 01:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The common name simply states to use the most "common name" (hence the title). The U.S. government doesn't determine this (they don't take census as to which variant of "Kiev/Kyiv" Americans use); the majority of English speakers do. That is where Google comes in. Reginmund 01:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I completely agree - the US government does not determine which name should be used. There are no questions on pronunciation of anything on any census. The Government reflects what people are saying. I believe that is the big reason that the US government has switched to Kyiv. (I believe - and this is speculation on my part - that the other reason was to see what happened, as the geo-political situation of the area was unstable in the first years after the latest Ukrainian independence).

Thanks, Horlo 16:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi all, I know both sides have presented good arguments. In the end both the Ukrainian government as well as the US government have recognized the capital of Ukraine to be spelled as "Kyiv", hence that is what it should be called. Granted "Deutschland" redirects a user to "Germany" even though by German standards their country is named "Deutschland." However, the US recognizes the country name as "Germany", and hence that is what an English-based website can and should be allowed to title it. On the other hand, the country Myanmar was once called Burma. However, officially it was renamed Myanmar and that's how the world should address it and respect their wishes to change the spelling. And hence, Wikipedia redirects "Burma" to "Myanmar". And although the official change from Kiev to Kyiv is not as drastic as the previous example, I feel it is somewhat stubborn and simple-minded to simply ignore this and go on spelling the capital by its old form. (Here's the CIA webpage which recognizes that it should be called Kyiv: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/up.html) Thanks,Andrewpdemi 04:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, it is not up to a foreign government to determine the name of a country in English. It is determined by the most common usage. Read WP:COMMONNAME for reference. As determined by a previous Google test, "Kiev" is nine times more common than "Kyiv". Reginmund 04:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Naming Conventions - Ukrainian Names

Hello,

Deeper and deeper digging into the rules of Wikipedia have helped me find that there is a rule for naming conventions on Ukrainian names It is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Ukrainian_names

It states that when describing Ukrainian geographical names, the Ukrainian National system will be used. The Ukrainian National system uses Kyiv.

I don't want to hide behind rules, as that is against the spirit of Wikipedia. However, I do think that this shifts the onus onto proving why NOT to move it, rather than why to move it.

Thanks, Horlo 01:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be hiding when you leave out the last sentence...

For historic reasons, many names are also presented in Russian, Polish, etc. Reginmund 01:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you agree that "also presented in Russian, Polish, etc" means that the Russian, Polish, etc. spelling is "also presented", not that they are used exclusively? 199.125.109.35 22:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

I have never stated that Kyiv should be the only name on the website. There are many names for everything, and they should all be included to avoid confusion. However, the name of the article should be Kyiv, with other names stated later.

Thanks,

Horlo 16:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Regimund, You state that the most precise way of determining the most common usage is the Google test and according to it “Kiev” is 9x more popular than Kyiv.

That's because “Kiev” spelling comes from the English language websites in Russia that are specifically about Kyiv and Ukraine. One would expect that “Kiev” would be mentioned many more times in an English langauage travel websites from Russia than for example, in an US Govenment webite or at CBC. In fact I can’t remember last time CBC mentioned Kyiv, but I know that when they did, they spelled it Kyiv.

So basically you are saying that it does not matter that most of the English speaking countries, their governments, their news outlets and major corporations adopted the name Kyiv, it only matters that one, small, non native-English speaking group talks about it more!

I don’t know what that indicates but it definetely does not indicate the most common usage – a major flaw in your logic. Mykyta 04:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"Kiev" isn't only used on the English/Russian websites. Did you actually scan every Google page and determine this? I don't think so. Seeing as The Guardian[9], The BBC[10], Defra[11], UNECE[12], Expedia[13], British Airways[14], Radisson Hotels[15], Encyclopædia Britannica[16], Tiscali SpA[17], Time Magazine[18] all use "Kiev" and none of which are written outside of the Anglosphere goes to show not only that "Kiev" is not only used by Russian travel sites, but since its usage is so prevelent in the English-speaking media, it had to be influenced by common parlance (i.e. that's where all of the Google hits come in). But, you're missing the point. What matters most is the prevelance of "Kiev" and even if Jesus used the Ukrainian transliteration, it wouldn't fly over the majority of English-speakers that use the Russian transliteration. Now who's logic is flawed? Reginmund 04:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

KYIV(formerly known as Kiev) is the capital of Ukraine

Hello, I am an English speaking Ukrainian born in the U.S who is not understanding why the administrators of Wikipedia.org would ignore all of the facts and reasonable arguments presented by individuals like HORLO,BURLAKA,and others to update the spelling of the capital of Ukraine. The individuals ( ALEX BAKHAREV, DEACON of PNDAPETZIM and others,who so strongly oppose the usage of the correct, updated, Ukrainian,non-Soviet spelling of the capital of Ukraine - KYIV don't seem to recognize truth and honor connected to this subject. All the local and national American/Ukrainian and Ukrainian/American organizations,newspapers as well as schools,churches,etc. have stopped using the old Soviet spelling (Kiev). Ignoring and making fun of this issue, as a few of the contributers have done in the archives, is an insult to the Ukrainian English speaking/reading communities in all countries. Wikipedia.org is providing a disservice to its users by not correcting and updating information found on its site.Bosska 05:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Bosska

You are in You're either with us, or against us trap. Wikipedia list BOTH names. --TAG 05:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I smell an influx on unsourced factoids and original research from Bosska. Reginmund 05:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

What a useless discussion about Kyiv vs Kiev. Kyiv was always Kyiv for over 1000 years. US Government uses proper transliteration as Kyiv, National Geographic uses proper transliteration as Kyiv, and Ukrainian government uses Kyiv. So the argument is closed. Only Russians and Vikipedia insist on calling it Kiev. Russians in Russia as well as in Ukraine insist on using Kiev. About time Russians grew up and gave up their imperial desires. Kyiv will never be Russian.

(The) argument is closed? For someone that doesn't even sign their posts or even have a user name, you certainly seem to think that you have the divine right. You apparently haven't read any of the previous points I have made and you are making this to be a political debate. It is about popular usage. Get over your anti-Russian sentiment. Reginmund 06:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This is response to Reginmund.

Yes, the argument is closed. Yes, I do have divine right, because I am correct. Wikipedia like any encyclopedia should be correct and not about popular usage. Anyway, who determined that "Kiev" is a popular usage term? You? Why should Kyiv be transliterated from Russian name of Kiev and not from Ukrainian proper name of Kyiv? You correct, I did not waist my time reading all the previous pages but I skimmed through them. You wrong about me making this a political issue, apparently you and Russians making this a political issue.

                                               MP

More for Reginmund I did not scan every website to determine what they are, but neither did you. It is just common sense that a travel website about travel to Kyiv would use the name more. Proabably at least 9x more. If an entity A uses tha name 90 tines, and entities B, C, D, E, F,...and so on use it only once, the result is 90 against 10, but that does not mean that the first one is more common usage, The fact that the usage of the word Kyiv is more prevalent in Russia goes without saying - I'm sure you've used the word Cotwolds many more times than the rest of us...

Since you know you lost this argument, you are back to listing websites, however it was already proven many pages ago, that you lose on this one as well. ( by the way , you did not even locate proper links to these website, just links to their Wiki pages) 74.108.179.124 12:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't wikipedia concerned with accuracy? Don't we adhere to a NPOV rule? The correct name of the city is "Kyiv". There is no way of escaping that fact. No one says that you can't mention that it is commonly called kiev. But, as the websites listed above show, it is called Kyiv. As the rules state "describing Ukrainian geographical names, the Ukrainian National system will be used." [19]. "Kiev" is incorrect, and the page should be moved. Yes, it does say that for historical reasons Russian names can be used, so by all means mention that the Russians call it Kiev. But don't have the article named the old Russian way.

"Get over your anti-Russian sentiment". Since when is the desire to be factual and correct "anti-Russian". Stop using Ad hominem. Thats not allowed either Ostap R 15:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Common sense? Probably? Goes without saying? ORIGINAL RESEARCH! What makes you tink that the ratio of how much the travel sites use "Kiev" more is higher than "Kyiv"? I already gave you the links to the websites. Don't give me that schtik that I didn't and don't deny it. Or do you want me to throw them at you again?[20][21][22]][23][24][25][26][27][28][29]We have an anynymous editor here that thinks he has the Divine Right (if he even knows what that means, probably not since he is writing in fractured English). NEWS FLASH!!! KIEV IS NOT INCORRECT. Just because you say so doesn't mean that it is true. Don't say it again because I have already given you sources including Encyclopædia Britannica which is definitely not incorrect. If you say that they are incorrect, you have some serious issues.

Since you know you lost this argument, you are back to listing websites, however it was already proven many pages ago, that you lose on this one as well. ( by the way , you did not even locate proper links to these website, just links to their Wiki pages)

Wow, you are really in denial. I already gave you the links right next to the names of the companies. Do you really think that there are thirty six million different travel sites in the world advertising with the name Kiev? There aren't nearly even that many McDonald's restaurants. And do you think that the "Kiev" hits are due to it being written in Russian? Hmmm... last time I checked, the Russian language uses the CYRILLIC alphabet. Wikipedia says for historical reasons, use the Russian name. Well, historically, English uses "Kiev" and by the common name policy Wikipedia uses... KIEV!!! Get over it. Kiev is NINE TIMES more common and that isn't only because of travel sites (check the links and don't deny their existence). This article's name is not going to be changed. Not until the Ukrainian transliteration becomes nine times more popular than Russian transliteration. Kiev is as right as rain[30]. Reginmund 18:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I have completed by own google test by comparing Kiev to Kyiv in English-language articles that include the words "Ukrainian" and "capital", in order to exclude stuff like "chicken Kiev". I furthermore limited my search to article first seen in the past year. The result was 1,950,000 for Kiev [31] and 1,530,000 for Kyiv [32]. Hardly the dramatic nine times difference you are talking about. Faustian 20:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The addition of the country omits several articles that don't mention the country. That includes most of the articles I have already sources which explicitly describe Kiev as a city and not as a chicken. As a chicken, Kiev is far from ambiguous as Wikipedia has only three article links to the chicken compared with more than 2,500 links to "Kiev". The dramatic nine times more hits http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Kyiv&btnG=Search&meta=cr%3DcountryUK%7CcountryGB][33] almost always discusses the city often without mentioning the country. Kiev is not as ambigous as you think. Yet, it is still nine times more common than the Ukranian transliteration. Reginmund 20:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point. However I notice that your comparison is for articles from the UK, which include Russian-language articles (presumably involving some of London's many Russian-speaking expats). So, let's compare 'English' language articles that refer to a city, since that is what this article is about - the city. And since the conversation is about current usage, let's limit them to the past year. The number of hits is

2,110,000 for Kiev [34] versus 1,020,000 for Kyiv [35]. A 2:1 advantage for Kiev, which is dramatically different than the "nine times more common" that you keep repeating. The overall summary seems to be that Kiev appears twice more often than Kyiv on google when refering to a city, and dominates the American media. On the other hand, most governments of English speaking countries, geographers, the Canadian (CBC and Canada's largest newspaper Globe and Mail) and Australian (English-speaking) media use Kyiv. I am almost nuetral on the naming of the article, because the fact that the National Geographic Society has switched to Kviv carries more weight for me than the fact that, say, a guy's heraldry website [36] uses Kiev. Faustian 20:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Last time I checked, Russian uses the... Cyrillic alphabet. That means that Google won't pick up on any Russian sites that write "Киев".

But some Russian sites also use some English, and these often use "Kiev."

If you include "city" in the search, it will knowck off a number of substantial hits that refer to the city but need not mention that it is a city because they would assume the reader would already know that Kiev is a city. That still makes it nine times more common. Reginmund 22:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. By removing "city" from the search, the number of English-language websites from the past year using Kiev is 2,170,000 [37] while that using "Kyiv" is 1,960,000 [38]. A virtually even number. This further indicates that Kyiv is the appropriate name, even though I personally agree with Dr. Gregorovich [39]. This makes your claims of "nine to one" even more unrealistic.Faustian 22:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Of all of the sites that haven't been updated within the past year, do you think that they have no substantial effect on the English lexicon today? Especially since these sites make up most of the search which is bound to receive as many clicks as one that is updated hourly and is bound to influence the English lexicon as much as the one that is updated hourly. In this case, my "claim" is realistic. [40] [41] Reginmund 23:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

With due respect, you are changing the subject. We are discussing current, not past usage. Nobody denies that in the past Kiev was used much more often, and thus a google search including unupdated web pages from years ago will favor Kiev. However, as has been shown, web pages 'in the English language' put up or updated in the past year show that the use of Kiev is about equal to the use of Kyiv - 2,170,000 million for Kiev [[42]] versus 1,960,000 for Kyiv [43].

Furthermore I question your reliance on web pages originating in the UK. We are speaking of 'English language' websites, not British ones. Wikipedia is organized by language, not by country of origin. Why not use English-language webpages of any origin rather than UK webpages of any language as your sources?Faustian 03:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The WP:NCGN and WP:NC(UE) clearly point us towards the media usage as well as towards other reference books such as dictionaries and encyclopedia. As long as the dictionaries, encyclopedia, most of the major English language papers as well as most world-wide news agencies use Kiev, we don't need to go any further. Once we see they are getting split to a considerable degree, we can employ other factors, like the Google search. For now it is premature. Oh, and most books published today also use Kiev. Check google books ig you have doubts.

One more time, I am dismayed that the team that spends dozens of hours filling up talk pages and filing page moves haven't made a single content edit to the article. I leads me to believe that these editors came to the WP with a political agenda rather than content writing. Very said indeed. Please prove me wrong. For instance, we still do not have a Lypky article. Kiev circurs is a red link. Mykilska Slobidka anyone? Please get to work! --Irpen 03:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Kiev is not Russian! Kiyev is

Just to point out to all the svidomy minded folks, that Kiev is not the Russian transliteration. If we follow the Romanization of Russian the Russian version of the spelling is Kiyev, or Kijev. Which leaves Kiev as an ENGLISH spelling of the city, just like Warsaw, Munich or Moscow are. None of the listed examples (and I can provide much much more) sound anything like the pronounced version by the residents of those cities. Yet our articles are not titled Warszawa, München or Moskva. If we take this theory further how do these Kyivisers explain that Kiev is a Russophone city. So maybe we should rename it to Kiyev? --Kuban Cossack 19:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No, the reason it is at Kiev is because it is the most common name as proved by the Google test. The standard transliteration from Russian is "Kiev". Киев = Kiev, K = К, i=и, е = e, v = в. The addition of the y is just to put emphasis on the yod but that is already done by the i. Reginmund 19:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

According to Romanization of Russian, and WP:CYR's BGN/PCGN romanization of Russian that we use, e=ye when:

1. Word-initially;
2. after vowels;
3. after й;
4. after ь;
5. after ъ

and e=e in all other cases. Киев will be Kiyev. Therefore Kiev is not a derived Russian word, but an English word for the city. --Kuban Cossack 20:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

As I already mentioned, with an i precceding the e, the y is redundant in English as they make the same sound in this context. It was meant to be a transliteration from Russian, despite the fact that "Kiyev" is more phoenetically accurate. The Russian language is still the root of the "Kiev" transliteration. Reginmund 20:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, the i plays a role of the И sound otherwise Kiev can be backtracked into Къев or Кьев. i is not same as y in BGN/PCGN. --Kuban Cossack 22:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Please see the reply on the new page Horlo 19:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Kiev is Russian

Hello,

Thank you for your comments. The argument is whether the name is current or old. Currently, most people use Kyiv. Before, most people used Kiev. Kiev was translated from Russian, but because it was probably recorded by mapmakers or explorers rather than linguists, so it was written as Kiev. Languages always change - that has been my point all along. It is changing now, and so should Wikipedia.

Thanks, Horlo 19:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Naming conflict

Wikipedians should not seek to determine who is "right" or "wrong", nor to attempt to impose a particular name for POV reasons.

If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name except for conflicting scientific names --TAG 19:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

TAG, Thank you for your comment. What is common in the English speaking world may be quite different from what you think is in the English speaking world. Please do not give opinions like this, as this is clearly POV. Thanks, Horlo 22:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC) 22:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Moreover most people use Kyiv? Do a google test and see quite the opposite. Besides, even the residents of Kiev (an English name) refer to their city as Kiyev, in their daily speech. --Kuban Cossack 20:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you for your comments. Again, I want to stress that we are talking about what is happening in the Engilsh world. Please stop adding your original research as to what you think people in Kyiv use. They use Kyiv. But that is not what we are talking about here, so let's focus on what's happening in the English world.

The google test is a good starting point, but it should not be the end point. Here are my reasons: First: I would suppose that about 15% of Kiev-related articles do not refer to the city. I would suppose that this does not apply to Kyiv, as I don't think anybody calls it chicken Kyiv, but I may be wrong on this one. Second: many sites are set up simply to link to other sites, simply to make money. Third: sites may be old - set up before the name change. Fourth: with respect to academia: many books were published before 1991, and are still used in various universities, even though the name of the course has been changed, so they would still show as Kiev.

This is my understanding of why, according to Wikipedia naming conventions, the google test cannot be the only test used. Another test proposed there is to use the US government standard. That is established as Kyiv.

It appears that we are at a loggerhead, and need to move ahead. Again, I propose that we let the government and google cancel each other out, and look for other ways of solving this.

Thanks, Horlo 22:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC) 22:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to put some stress on your statistics.

-Your First argument is that approximately fifteen per cent of "Kiev" on Google does not refer to the city. Where did you get this statistic? Is it original research? I think I'll make a test of my own. "Chicken Kiev" is also interchangeable with "Chicken Kyiv". It is obviously a reference to the city's name so it can conclude that the usage of "Kiev" is more common even in that field. However, we will focus on such ambiguous official names such as "Kiev Restaurant" "Kiev-Arsenal", "KIEV radio station", and the aircraft carrier. The grand total of internal links to these ambiguous uses (not including templates, redirects, or project pages) is 93. Now compare that with more than 2,500 links to the "Kiev". That's less than one per cent. It barely affects the ambiguous results of the Google counter.

-Your second argument states that the sites may be set up to link to another site. If that is the case, there are probably links to other sites via Kyiv.

-Your third argument is that sites are older than the "Kyiv" spelling. The spelling was introduced twelve years ago. Compared to the size of the Internet during the introduction of the spelling, the old links since the name change have little effect on the number of hits as the Internet 48 times larger than it was in 1995 (during the introduction of the Ukranian transliteration).[44]

-If the titles of the books are implemented in the Google counter, they still count since they make obvious reference to the city and have a significant effect on common parlance.

Again, the government and Google can't cancel each other out. The government has no say in this debate. It doesn't say on Wikipedia to honour the official name according to a foreign government. It says to use the most common name. Now Google isn't perfect but it does have an accurate approximation as to the amount of hits to determine a more popular name and I don't think much question needs to be raised to the fact that "Kiev is approximately nine times more common. Reginmund 22:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I did state that the number was an opinion, and I may be wrong. I think that there are simply too many sites to go through them all. However, I will trust your search.

My argument about the age of the sites does not start at the time at which the government made the official change. Some changes happen slowly, and therefore many sites were created after that time with the old spelling. However, I think sites that are made now use Kyiv. Again, I did not count. If you can, I will trust your search with this also.

With respects to the books, I think that they do not reflect common use. Most universities don't have the funds to get new textbooks whenever they want to, some whenever they need to, so they must continue using old books, although this is not what the lexicon is. Also, many reference books in libraries remain listed as required readings, so the course uses Kyiv, but the old books use Kiev.

When I speak of governments, I am not referring to the Ukrainian government. I am referring to, in this case, the US government. I think that the US government does not dictate common usage, rather it reflects it. That's why it made the change. That's why I propose these two items cancel each other out.

Thanks, Horlo 01:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

In the case of "common use" not reflected by the Google searches, it would be necessary to determine where people would learn the name of the city. Now these books may be old, but they still will influence the readers for years to come, thus contributing to the usage of "Kiev" and since they knock up the Google searches so high, they will have great influence on the English lexicon. Also there is no way yet of determining whether or not they are just outdated or simply prefer the Russian transliteration. It doesn't seem as if people looking for information about Kiev would look on a government website rather an encyclopaedia or media outlet. Many of which I have sourced and they all give the Russian transliteration. Reginmund 01:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, You bring up two very interesting points, thank you.

First, I think that what these books are doing is showing the different eras in the modern history of Ukraine - I think that the name change demonstrates the political changes going on. Books published before 1991 will all contain certain information, for example in many books that I have read from that era, authors used the words "Soviet Union" and "Russia" interchangeably. Same thing with movies (for example "Hunt for Red October" - I'm sure that many Lithuanians get full body shivers when they hear of Sean Connery's character referred to as the Russian sub captain), and other media, with the notable exception of "Back in the USSR". Most university departments that deal with this topic have faculties called something like "Russian and Slavic Studies", so the focus is on Russian studies and other professors just don't have the resources to rename everything on paper. However, at Harvard, University of Toronto, Rutgers, and many other prestigious universities, the courses are all taught using Kyiv. (Please don't take this as a complaint - more people know and are interested in Russia, so that's the department that gets the money). On a lower educational rung, I submit that changes made by governments do indirectly influence language use, as they dictate what is used in elementary school and high school textbooks. Various regions have various laws and decision-making processes, but it is all paid for by governments, so in reality they have the last say. I think that this is extremely difficult to measure for words like Kyiv, because realistically, how many times a day do most native English speakers say "Kyiv"? However, people learn Kyiv in school, and that's what it is.

Secondly, you talk about searching the internet for information. I submit that many people do use government websites when looking for the name of capital cities. If I want to know the name of the capital of Namibia, I will go to the website of the government of Namibia. I think that most people now know that most information on the internet has to be taken with a grain of salt, and so try to look for the most legitimate source available.

If I come across two websites which use Kiev, and then the official government site says Kyiv, the first two sites will lose credibility and look like a dialect or old information. This is current, and that's why I think Wikipedia should change the name to Kyiv.

Thanks, Horlo 03:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Holro. Kiev is NOT Russian. Russian uses Cyrillic alphabet and Russian name for the city is Киев. The fact that Киев is Russian and Київ is Ukrainian is not affected by any political changes. It is not uncomon for the English name to be different from the name in the other languages. Warszawa, Munchen, Praha are just some of the many examples. Kiev is English. So is Kyiv. If you want to argue these names, please argue which of two valid English anmes is more compliant with the naming conventions and not which one is "Russian". None of them are Russian or Ukrainian. Would you be interested in content writing as well? TIA, --Irpen 03:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Kiev is NOT Russian, but English!

Officially English is not regulated by any body (unlike Russian or Ukrainian who have their own Academy of Sciences). Moreover wikipedia recognise the US government as a body which decides on spelling of cities. Even further to that what happens when editors use British English, like I do, and reject the US english spelling (considering it leaves -Us out of words and some spell lasers with a Zs (read as Zeds!)).

Sites maybe old? In 1991 very few people had access to the internet, besides how do you explain that the offcial internet domain uses .kiev.ua in its URL?

Check google books 14000 hits for Kiev, 820 for Kyiv the latter seem to be nothing but a collection of historico-revisionist, political books with an obvious quasi-natioalist slant.

English world uses an English spelling of the city which is Kiev! Associated Press btw after the US gov's decision said that they will stick with the established English name. The same that Britannica uses. There is no original research in that. --Kuban Cossack 22:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Kuban Cossack, Thank you for your comments. When I spoke of the government, I was speaking with the governments that use English. The Canadian, UK, Australian, and US governments all do. Here, governments don't impose their will on people, they react to what people want. When the US government switched to Kyiv, it was because most people in the US used it. In 1991, very many people had access to the internet. Again, in the English speaking world. However, as I said above, the switch from Kiev to Kyiv was not made instantly after the 1995 resolution by the government of Ukraine.

I think your comments on the books speak for themselves.

And your comment "English world uses an English spelling of the city which is Kiev!" has enough original research and grammar to make any assertion that you may make about the commonality of Kyiv in English invalid. Thanks,

Horlo 01:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems that in my part of the English speaking world (Canada) the Kyiv spelling is becoming the norm. English speakers are not confused by the new spelling and do not fall out of their chairs afflicted with hypertension because the name has been made current with the aim of self identification and self determination of the locals. Eduvalko 03:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Greetings!

The resistance to change is always intense, not only due to lumpen inertia but also thanks to long-seated interests (chauvinists, etc.). Interestingly, many who fall into the latter camp take psuedo-intellectual pleasure in accusing those who seek change, of acting because of vested interests (ironically accusing them of being nationalists, etc.). Unfortunately, leaving the status quo, while convenient, is rarely the most intellectually honest option. How to move forward is the real question here? No manner of odd oxymoron ("accurate approximation" when defending the contentious Google test) or contorted sophistry (dismissing the language usage of the largest English-language governments in the world when trying to determine most common English-language usage, as being "foreign" while feverishly defending the "Russian" form of a name of the capital of Ukraine) will settle this in a way that meets the intellectually open spirit of Wikipedia.

If the English-language websites of all the major universities in Kyiv, the major English-language corporations in Kyiv, English-language NGO's in Kyiv, English-language service clubs in Kyiv, and the major English-language publications in Kyiv, such as Kyiv Post and Kyiv Weekly, all use the Ukrainian form Kyiv, doesn't that tell us that they have checked for common usage and they have decided to use Kyiv? Even more telling for us here is that some of these institutions once used Kiev (and still, due to inertia - or lack of funds - some still use "kiev" in their URL addresses), but now, and where it counts, in the webpages they use Kyiv? Their choice speaks clearly and powerfully as to "common usage." Isn't this more helpful than a mindless Google search? Isn't "common usage" by those English-speakers who most commonly use the word, more important than say, how it is occasionally used by some marginal Anglophone in Maputo, Murmansk or even Moscow who has a small website (or ten) or even a haughty wire service (who for many reasons always prefers the cost-savings of maintaining the status quo)?

With respect, --Volodia Tatlin 03:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

it doesn't necessarily mean that they have checked for common usage. Maybe it is just their preference. These institutions may be a voice but they aren't "superior" to others. The use of Kiev/Kyiv varies depending on the institution, reliable or not. The "mindless" Google test, although not perfect, enforces some extra emphasis when one encounters confusion and I think with the numbers (disregarding, of course, the extra links, old links, and small fraction of ambiguous results, all of which cancel each other out with the same ratio to each alternative) justify the most common spelling. However, I don't disagree to the growth of "Kyiv"; in fact I personally use all of the Ukranian transliterations when referring to a Ukranian city such as Kyiv, Lviv, Chornobyl, Odesa, Kharkiv, but until it becomes more accepted in common parlance (give or take a few years), that's when this subject should be brought to heat again. Reginmund 06:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your viewpoint. However, it does seem to me that when all the many English-language websites in Kyiv make a decision to use Kyiv, and especially that of the major English-language publications there, it is not based on mere "preference." Rather, since it is clearly in their best interest to use English-language terms that their readers (and potential English-language customers, students, faculty, donors, volunteers, etc.) will easily understand and identify with, the decision can be accepted as a clear reflection of what they understand is common usage. Furthermore, it does seem to me that between the resistance to accept local (Kyiv) usage as “superior” and the legitimate questioning of the far too broad and unrefined (“mindless”) Google approach, some resolution needs to be found.--Volodia Tatlin 13:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

What I meant by "superior" is that an institutions usage of a spelling should not be counted over a large sum of people. Reginmund 00:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Reginmund, Thank you for your comments. You are an intelligent, thinking English speaker. You are also the most neutral person here. If you personally use Kyiv, why do you find it so difficult to believe that most other intelligent, neutral English speakers use Kyiv?

My point all along has been that they do.

Thanks, Horlo 20:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that there are intelligent, poigant, debonair English speakers that use the (standard) Russian transliteration. I am however following Wikipedia's rules. On here, I spell it "Kiev" but outside of Wikipedia, I use "Kyiv". Reginmund 00:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Google Advanced Search results

Hello,

I am not very knowledgeable about the intricacies of google, so could you please explain this test. I went to the Advanced Google Search, limited the search for English results, and typed in Kyiv. The result was 1,820,000. I did the same for Kiev, and the result was 1,900,000.

Could you please explain these results? I am not being pedantic here, I have never used this form of google before. What's the difference between this form and the non-advanced form?

Thanks, Horlo 03:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Never heard of Google Advanced. Could you give us a link? Reginmund 03:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, It's the one from the naming conventions: http://www.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en Thanks Horlo 03:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Moved more from talk:Kiev

Greetings!

Cultural appropriation will always be hotly contested. It seems to me that it would be useful to offer the average Wiki user a little more information as to the use of the terms Kyiv and Kiev in the article's subsection "City name evolution." I suggest that it be made clear that "Kiev" is the traditional English name, "following old imperial conventions." This additional statement would throw some very useful light on this rightly-contested subject.

In addition, it would also be valuable to let Wiki users know that the major English-language publications in Kyiv and Ukraine, Kyiv Post and Kyiv Weekly use the Ukrainian form, Kyiv.

Last, I would also suggest that the term "Ukrainianized" is both inaccurate and frankly offensive (unless we equally label Kiev as 'Russified.") It seems far more reasonable to simply say "the Ukrainian version Kyiv..."

Thank you for your consideration.

--Volodia Tatlin 21:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I was quite disappointed with the decision to move the discussion about naming the article, as well as the lose of my previous posts with the move.

Sorry to hear it, but I think it was necessary to split the discussion. Uh.. loss of what previous posts? I certainly didn't intentionally mislay any posts. I archived older material, and moved the newer to the new page, as I say above. If something was lost, I apologize. Could you please find yours in the History and restore it yourself, if I messed up? And could you please indent your talkpage posts appropriately, so they don't look like part of the previous post by another person? Every little helps; this talkpage is difficult enough to follow. Anyway, are you trying to change the subject...? This page is for discussing changes to the article. I notice you just edited the article against consensus, changing Kiev to Kyiv, without discussing it in any way on the new page (which is where it goes) or anywhere else. Please don't do that. If there's edit warring, I'll protect the article. Bishonen | talk 23:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC).

Sorry if I added any grief. Certainly the edits in the body of the text of the subsection "City name evolution" reflected the comments posted above and still consider to be modest and, more importantly, correct. I must say that it seems odd to me that letting Wiki users know which form, Kyiv or Kiev is used by the major English-language publications in Kyiv, is debateable or controversial. Likewise, a simple note identifying the imperial conventions at the heart of the "traditional English usage" would also seem largely uncontentious and helpful to Wiki users trying to understand the name and its "versions." Which brings me to the use of the "Ukrainianized." Here, I must reiterate, very clearly, that the term is inaccurate and offensive. I request, as strongly as possible, that the term used should be rather, "Ukrainian" (or, as suggested earlier the form Kiev be identified as a "Russified.")

As for the edits to the "Notes," these were simply corrections since the official English language websites I provided for these universities will be much more useful for the English readers of this Wikipedia. And since these universities on their official English-language websites use the term Kyiv, it seemed only logical and consistent to use that term in the reference noted in the article. Again, Thank you for your consideration.

--Volodia Tatlin 23:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Horlo, there is more to the world than nationalistic point scoring; all these identities are anyways short-lasting state and elite inventions imposed gradually on the masses through mass media and education. These "national languages" have no more greater reality than the drawings people put on cloth and sing stirring songs too. Try to rise above it and recognise how meaningless such things can be in the greater, deeper context. No-one except brainwashed ideologues care whether Kiev should be Kyiv or stay Kiev in English, and all most English-speakers will think when someone complains about the minuscule difference between the two is ... "oh, those Eastern Europeans". Your bogey-men, the "Russian Imperialists", gain nothing from the use of Kiev in English, and your own lot gain nothing from pushing Kyiv, since only you guys care; it is the world that loses by having to reconcile two half-identical double-syllable formations for a city in Eastern Europe. Meanwhile, it's a cheap way for governments with their own agendas (such as the US, who've adopted your spelling) to score cheap diplomatic points in order to obtain more real gains, laughing contemptfully behind your back. Besides that, the struggle on Wikipedia is effectively over for you. It's not gonna get moved, and all you and your friends/sockpuppets are doing now is taking up time from real editing. If you can't stop yourself, take Bishonen's advice, stay away from naughty main-space articles, and stay in Talk:Kiev/naming, where you can spam misleading nationalistic text to your heart's content with as many user accounts as you desire. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope "Horlo," whoever that is, responds to the bile posted above. My comments regarding re-naming the entire article are directed, as requested by the Administrator to the other site. Here, I have addressed details and given my reasons as to edits that would make using the article easier, more helpful and more coinsitent. Please have the decency and intellectual honesty to address these and leave your very odd hate-attacks for other sites.

(And what's with the "sockpuppet" you, and so many who sound just like you, use?)

--Volodia Tatlin 02:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Volodia Tatlin is yet another sockpuppet being used on this page pushing a non-English language agenda on the English-language Wikipedia. David Lauder 08:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Volodia, please see Wikipedia:Sock puppet if you don't know what a sockpuppet is. Bishonen | talk 08:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC).

Thank you, Bishonen. Why are such baseless and vengeful personal attacks allowed? It is unfortunate that small and angry people wish to divert discussion from the substantive issues, or at least the suggestions I have made to aid English-language Wiki users, with attacks on me. I am most assuredly not a "sock puppet." I would love to return to the real issues here (How do we decide what constitutes "common usage" in the case of Kyiv?) but let me ask what credibility does David Lauder (or Deacon of Pndapetzim) have to accuse me of anything?--Volodia Tatlin 13:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Now if there are no further baseless accusations or vile attacks on my integrity, can I we discuss the validity of making the following tweaks in the article:

Subsection "City name evolution:"

This subsection is a great help to English-language Wiki users. The brief outline it provides would be even more insightful and helpful if Wiki readers were given the information about common usage in Kyiv, in particular the forms used by the major English-language publications in Kyiv, Kyiv Post and Kyiv Weekly. Their preception of "common usage" evidenced by their selection of city name would cast more light on the subject for Wiki readers.

Furthermore, so that English-language users can more properly understand the evolution of the city’s name and the issues around forms of the name commonly used, and why, it would be useful, I believe, to either make a small change or make a small addition. As I have stated previously, the term “Ukrainianized” is inaccurate. It suggests to the English-language Wiki user that somehow the English-language transliteration of the Ukrainian name of this Ukrainian city, the capital of Ukraine, somehow didn’t exist before but has been introduced by some seemingly-artificial process of linguistic hybridization, or worse. I propose the term should instead be simply “Ukrainian” (that is to say “…the Ukrainian version Kyiv is gaining usage.”). More cumbersome, but still more insightful than the existing text, would be to identify the version Kiev as “Russified.” One of these changes, I believe would add to English-language Wiki users' better understanding of the city’s name and the important issues around the commonly used forms, and why, and of course through this, the city and the country itself.

Notes:

I suggest that, again for English-language Wiki users, the links and URL addresses (for example, #14 and #15) should be to the English-language websites of these universities, etc. (#14. Kyiv University official website: http://www.univ.kiev.ua/eng/; #15. KPI official website: http://www.ntu-kpi.kiev.ua/en). Especially in the case of the main website for KPI, in Ukrainian, there is no easy or obvious link to their English-language pages. Of course, let me state the obvious that these pages use Kyiv and not Kiev in all references to their university's proper name and of course the city, too. For simple reasons of consistency (especially helpful when trying to look less sloppy) and to avoid confusion, it does seem to me that here, at least, the name used in the noted reference for Kyiv University should correspond to that used in the linked English-language webpages. i.e. Kyiv.

I am uncertain as whether this discussion is better suited to this page or the other (Talk:Kiev/naming) and how these simple but helpful tweaks can be best implemented (through “consensus?”). Perhaps I haven’t read the correct Wiki pages regarding editing protocols (but those that I have read were quite lugubrious and not “user-friendly,” to say the least.) Sorry to take anyone’s time but I believe these changes will improve the article. As always, your comments, assistance and viewpoints (sans personal slagging) are appreciated. --Volodia Tatlin 15:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Since no one has disagreed with the small edits proposed, can we assume some form of concensus has been achieved? - --Volodia Tatlin 21:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• No. Johnbod 22:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Thank you. Are there any substantive arguments as to why these small edits might be considered contentious? They really would help to clear up some sloppy inconsistencies and help WP English-language users. - --Volodia Tatlin 01:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, interesting new twist. Well, it does have some credence although "Kiev" gets 130,000 more hits and there is already consensus on here to say that it should stay at Kiev. I'll say that its getting more common by the glyph but maybe if that counter gets to close to call, I'll vote for "Kyiv", which probably won't take too long considering "Kyiv"'s growth. Reginmund 07:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I ran the test today, and again got a difference of 80,000. With numbers of this size, that difference is statistically insignificant (less than 5%). Therefore, the google test is inconclusive.

With respect to the consensus, I had originally opened a straw poll on sunday evening, hoping to have a week's worth of discussion. Much to my surprise, it was closed in less than 18 hours, by an editor who admitted acting "outside of established procedure". I submit this latest poll was flawed.

For further consideration: on the wikipedia naming conflict resolution page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conflict, five criteria for outside sources are outlined. First the google test, then looking for major international organizations, then major media outlets, then other encyclopedia, then to governments.

1) The google test is inconclusive.

2) Major international organizations (with the exception of the IMF) use Kyiv. There is a ratio of 7:1, Kyiv to Kiev on the ones that I checked UN - http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/ukraine.pdf NATO - http://www.nato.int/structur/nmlo/nmlo_kyiv.htm CSCE - http://www.csce.gov/?CFID=2735239&CFTOKEN=19177777&FuseAction=UserGroups.Home&UserGroup_id=117&x=2&y=10 WHO - http://www.euro.who.int/countryinformation/CtryInfoRes?language=English&Country=UKR World bank - http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/ECAEXT/UKRAINEEXTN/0,,menuPK:328543~pagePK:141132~piPK:141107~theSitePK:328533,00.html#Contact_Information, The Red Cross - http://redcross.org.ua/ the WTO - http://wto.in.ua/index.php?lang=en&r=2311&get=search Only the IMF still uses Kiev.

3) Major media outlets outside the US use Kyiv: Canada: CBC, CTV, The Globe and Mail (Canada's National Newspaper), CANOE internet news UK: BBC, when they use their own reporters Australia: ABC US: National Geographic

4) Other encyclopedia still use Kiev

5) All governments in the English world, including the US - http://kyiv.usembassy.gov/assistance_media_development_resources_eng.html UK - http://www.britishembassy.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1087554796297 Canada - http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/offices/missions/kyiv.asp Australia - http://www.learn4good.com/travel/australia_embassies.htm New Zealand - http://www.ukrconsul.co.nz/request.html use Kyiv.

So, point number one is inconclusive, point number two is for Kyiv, point number three is split, point number four is for Kiev, and point number five is for Kyiv. That leaves a total of 2.5 out of four for Kyiv.

With that in mind, I again repeat the Wikipedia convention for Ukrainian names, that when describing geographic names in Ukraine, the Ukrainian National System is used. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Ukrainian_names

Therefore, according to the naming conventions of Wikipedia, the name of the article should be Kyiv, not Kiev.

Thanks, Horlo 22:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually there are more institutions than you think that use Kiev.[45][46][47]][48][49][50][51][52][53][54] The first and foremost resolution to the naming conflict is, of course consensus, and by the polls, it has already been voted and there are more people that prefer "Kiev". Therefore, it stays. Reginmund 22:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you for your comments.

I checked the links that you provided, and here is my reply: 45/46 were from the same institution, the Guardian UK. As our friend David Lauder pointed out, there are still some newspapers that use Bombay. I was speaking on major media outside the U.S., such as the CBC, ABC, and BBC, when the BBC uses its own reporters. That's why that point is only 1/2 for Kyiv;

47 is a government of the U.K. site, reporting a conference from 2003. This is an example of what I meant as "old links" when I was talking about the google test. Here is a newer link for the same organization, reporting on the same conference, with the current use of Kyiv: http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/resprog/findings/climatechange-biodiversity/execsummary.pdf As this counts as an official body of a government, I think it applies to point 5, which is for Kyiv;

48 is another an old link, as every United Nations body now uses Kyiv. Here is a more current link: http://www.unece.org/press/pr2003/03env_p13e.htm. This applies to point 2, major international organizations, the vast majority of which use Kyiv;

49,(Expedia); 50, (British Air); and 51, (Radisson Hotels) are all businesses. They should not count towards the criteria;

52 (Encyclopedia Britannica); and 53 (Tiscali Encyclopedia) are both encyclopedia, point 4, which I agree still use Kiev;

54 (Time magazine/CNN) I admit that most media in the US still use Kiev. I focussed on media outside the US. Again, that's why that point is only 1/2 for Kyiv.

Also, thank you for bringing up the issue of consensus. I have two arguments for this: first, before I started the request to move, I examined the archives of this page from before the current debate and counted the number of editors who wanted the name changed to Kyiv, and the number of editors who wanted the name to remain Kiev. There were 33 in favour of Kyiv, and 21 in favour of Kiev.

Second, as I mentioned before, this current poll was suddenly cut short, by an act admittedly "outside standard policy" procedure. I do not want to speculate as to why this was done, but it was.

I submit, therefore, that there is no consensus, and another poll be conducted, based on these two conditions:

First, comments should be limited to one line - I think it's important that it remain a poll, not become another discussion;

Second, the poll should be open for one week, regardless how many people participate or not.

I would like to stress that input from everybody is welcome, not just native English speakers, or people who agree with me.

Thanks, Horlo 02:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Greetings! Regimund and Horlo, there are far more substantive international organizations that use Kyiv than that presented by Horlo. You can find these in the lengthy lists offered in my previous posts. Here, let me give you some key examples: European Union - http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/news/07112003_en.htm; European Parliament - http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/event_by_type_page/09-2007-09/default_en.htm; Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) - http://www.oecd.org/document/10/0,3343,en_2649_201185_31916554_1_1_1_1,00.html; Organization for Security and Co-operation In Europe (OSCE) - http://www.osce.org/item/25500.html; World Trade Organization (WTO) - http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/pres02_e/pr312_e.htm; European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) - http://www.ebrd.com/oppor/procure/opps/goods/general/070711a.htm; Lions International- http://www.kyiv-lions-club.org/; Rotary International - http://www.kyivmultinational.org/site/ . And this only a small sample.

And while not wishing to contradict Horlo, let me also add an encyclopedia that does use Kyiv: Encyclopedia of Ukraine - http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkPath=pages\K\Y\KyivArtSchool.htm.

With the information provided in the discussions, it seems that a more current consensus poll might be in order? - --Volodia Tatlin 02:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that we've already been around this. Since the Google English-language searches proved "Kiev" to be higher (not excrutiatingly) but enough substantially, it seems to reflect in the previous poll that Kiev is still somewhat more popular. Give it some more time and Kyiv will succeed Kiev. As for the prestigious organisations using "Kyiv", it should be noted that it is not exclusive to formal texts, hence the several ones that I have sited previously so they basically cancel each other out. What matters most is the consensus within Wikipedia itself reflected by the most popular usage (i.e. WP:COMMONNAME). Given the Google test, "Kiev" is still more common. However, since the Google test isn't always perfect, the final authority should rest within the Wikipedians. Hence, the vote to keep it at "Kiev". Reginmund 05:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, with all due respect, your "several" citations of "international organizations" (a few airlines, a hotel chain, a recalcitrant pair of publications) hardly compares to virtually all the major international organizations using "Kyiv." Why the resistance to a form of common usage accepted so widely and seriously? --Volodia Tatlin 13:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Kyiv not Keiv

The proper way of saying the name of the capitol of Ukraine is Kyiv, not Keiv. Keiv is pronounced in Russian and will not have this because it is a name a city in Ukraine. I am from an English speaking country and everyone here that is Ukrainian says Kyiv because it is the proper way of saying it. We would like to change the spelling of this on the page on Wikipedia so people that would like to look this up will know that this is how you spell in Ukrainian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.251.50.204 (talk • contribs)

Take that argument here. BTW I doubt that you are an English speaker as the name is Kiev not Keiv. Reginmund 01:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear anon, please read the discussion above and archives. Perhaps you will find some answers to your questions. --Irpen 02:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry suspicion

I invite the new user(s) to check WP:SOCK. I am not alone in having the impression that the new push for Kiev involves sock- and meatpuppetry. I urge the users to log in and make edits from single account only. If this continues, WP:RFCU request will be submitted. In addition to having the confirmed sock accounts blocked and the reputation of the puppeteers ruined, this may have some consequences to the privacy of the said users (if they are concerned about it) as their IP's will certainly become known to the chekcusers, at least. While the checkusers are supposed to be "trusted", leaks did occur in the past. Also, if the accounts become seen as connected with the IP's that edited as well, this fact will become publicly known.

One more time I would like to make a plea to the user(s) to show any interest in content writing. If they love the city, here are some articles that are still red links: Lypky, Koncha Zaspa, Lukyanivka. Any takers? --Irpen 03:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that 67.71.179.225, 67.71.18.241, 159.33.10.92, 24.235.101.50, 74.99.241.225, and 74.108.179.124 all hail from Toronto, 72.90.211.249 and 69.116.226.137 both hail from northern New Jersey, and 12.47.30.10 and 68.251.50.204 both hail from the Chicago metropolitan area. As referred by http://www.ip-adress.com/. (It won't copy & paste, it has to be searched manually. Hmmm... I smell sockpuppetry. Reginmund 04:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this issue. A few weeks ago, when I was doing research for a course that I teach, I came across the Kiev page. Because of all of the reasons that I have outlined above, I changed it to Kyiv. However, I was at a new computer, one which did not have my Wikipedia password stored on it. I did not remember my password, so instead of anonymous editing, or sitting trying to remember my password, I created a new account. Much to my surprise, it was quickly changed back. So I re-did the changes, for the four reasons outlined above. As soon as my computer became free, I started using it, and have used this computer and only this account since.

As to the number of people joining the discussion, I would refer you to my fourth point in the request to move - Kiev is a pejorative term to Ukrainians. I refer, of course, to Ukrainians living in English-speaking countries. If you called African-americans "niggers", you would be right to expect a massive response, and they would be right. There are very many Ukrainians living in English-speaking countries to whom this is a very important issue.

Irpen, threatening people with the disclosure of their IP address is not really scary here, in the West. Every website that you visit has an invisible IP tracker to allow the sales people to track your internet search patterns and sell you more stuff. This was one of the arguments that I put forth, that people don't really trust most things on the internet, and therefore when looking for information about things like country capitals, they WILL go to government sites. You speak of reputations - consider for a moment the reputation of Wikipedia, should somebody start their search at Wikipedia and then continue to the Government of Ukraine website, and find conflicting information. They will, however, trust the government site. How will that reflect on Wikipedia? Also, how many people do you think will want to help you if you continue insulting them by calling the city Kiev?

Reginmund, Chicago, New York/New Jersey, Montreal and Toronto are among the four largest ex-pat communities of Ukrainians in North America. There are over 100,000 Ukrainians in each metropolitan area. You can probably expect more new editors in the future.

Now, that we have cleared that up, can we please return to the question of a new vote on the name change?

Thanks, Horlo 05:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I am tired of discussing with the person who won't listen. You can try starting a new poll but it sure would be closed even sooner than the last one.

Your persistent refusal to do any content writing is noteworthy as well. You could have enriched the world, the Wikipedia and the Ukraine with 2 or even 3 good articles about the city and the country you claim to love so much if only you invested half the time you spend engaging everyone in those endless arguments into content writing. I hope some day you change your mind about non-willingness to write articles. Happy edits, --Irpen 06:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Irpen,

Thank you for your support in the poll. Horlo 06:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

No need for those statistics. It doesn't seem like such a coincidence that all six of those Toronto IPs would have anonymous editors pushing the same POV with the same arguments within a fortnight. That's called sockpuppetry. If they had an opinion, they'd get an user name. Otherwise, they must already have one.

Would you please stop comparing "Kiev" to "nigger"!? You know damn well that it is in no way as offensive on the level of the N word. Regardless "Kiev" is not offensive at all. Then such prestigious institutions such as the BBC, British Airways, Expedia, The Guardian, etc. would not use them in common parlance, now would they? Maybe its a pet peeve with flaming Russophobes but that gives no credence to it being pejorative whatsovever. You are making a lot of original claims here because you haven't shown any sources whatsoever that Kiev is offensive.

You make a claim that we already have been over. Maybe if a web surfer went to Wikipedia and saw the city spelled as "Kyiv", he would feel contempt because the BBC, the most viewed and most prestigious media outlet in the world refers to it as Kiev. See, you can go on and on with who refers to it how but the final authority is the popular vote and the popular vote says that it stays with Kiev. Don't expect the name to change for a while because there are plenty more Wikipedians going against it than for it. Reginmund 07:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Friends, "Kiev" in English is as offensive (maybe as offensive as "nigger") as "Three Rivers" (Trois Rivieres, Quebec) was back in the 1960's. Many, if not all, international news agencies used the chauvinistic term "Three Rivers" for many years even though the Quebecois and Canadians in general reverted to the proper English form, Trois Rivieres years earlier. Why the resistance to a common usage that is clearly less offensive? - --Volodia Tatlin 13:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

There is no objective way to explain why something is pejorative. To many Ukrainians in the West, who lost family members at the hands of the regime that proliferated the use of Kiev, it is a very stark reminder of suffering, institutionalized humiliation, and imperialism.

Please read through this archive, and look at the personal insults that have been aimed at me because I simply disagree with holding on to an old form.

I have even ignored the fact that once numeric arguments against the use of Kiev were disproved, the issue became one of accusations of sockpuppetry. I do not think that helps anybody, so I ignored it.

Throughout this discussion, I have stayed away from emotional issues, focusing on presenting facts about how Kyiv is the current form that would be recognized by English speakers. I believe that these are the facts that most Wikipedians are concerned with.

Irpen, could you please explain why you are so adamant about keeping the name Kiev when you are not a native English speaker, or even a native Ukrainian speaker?

Reginmund, I would indeed be interested in creating lists of organizations that use Kyiv vs organizations that use Kiev. I think that it is important to really find out who uses Kyiv, and who uses Kiev, and use that as a basis of a rational decision.

Let's work together to resolve this issue.

Thanks, Horlo 16:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

SOURCES! Kiev is not offensive. Not unless you provide a single source on that. We have good reason to believe that there are sock puppets here due to the aforfementioned IP addresses. We needn't bother going on a wild goose chase making a list of organisations because that isn't how Wikipedia determines names. We have already voted on this and it has shown that most English speakers are more aware of "Kiev". Don't bother saying that it is offensive again unless you can provide a reliable source (besides a message board) saying that it is. Reginmund 18:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

There was a vote however it was done when it was believed that Google hits were much greater for Kiev. Now that this information was proved to be invalid by Horlo, it makes the vote results questionable. Do you really believe that a poll based on incorrect and invalid information should be binding? I suggest that we have a new vote and keep it for the appropriate length of time. If you really feel that you are in the right, you should not fear a new poll.

Accusing people of being sockpuppets, threatening with consequences to their privacy and their reputation and personal attacks is childish is not within the spirit of Wikipedia. I am one of the people who inadvertently entered an anonymous comment, because I did not realize I was not logged in. There was no manipulation and no misuse intended. I am not a contributor to Wikipedia, but I am a frequent user and have a right to comment just like anyone else.

You asked for “ a reliable source proving that Kiev is offensive “ ? Just by definition, aren’t the very people offended by the term, the most reliable source? Well, you can count me as one. As person of Ukrainian descent, I am offended by Kiev spelling. Mykyta 19:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Horlo never proved Kiev to be less popular. He brought up a Google test that showed the results closer but Kiev was still signifigantly higher. The vote was to determine which one was more popular. The Google test still shows that Kiev is still more popular.

2. Call it childish to accuse of sockpuppetry but then it would never be uncovered if we ever did. It just seems conspicuous that six different IP addresses holding the same argument hail from the same city. Yet there are also established usernames here that have little to no other contributions to any other articles besides this one. That includes you Mykyta.

3. NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH! Haven't we already been over this? Just because you afre offended, doesn't mean it is an offensive name. You have to provide a reliable outside source stating that Kiev is an offensive name. I could very well say that catfish are offensive to my chastity. Lets destroy the catfish article! Does that sound crazy to you? Well it sounds even more crazy to me that you actually consider a city's name used by prominent organisations to be pejorative. Enough! No sources, no argument. You don't count as a source. Reginmund 19:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Reginmund,

I'm sorry that you can equate the name which represents a government which slaughtered millions of innocent people with a fish and your chastity. However, if the name did offend you, I would stop using it. Horlo 03:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Naming conventions

Hello,

Thank you for the chance to re-state my arguments. Here is a source which shows that some find the spelling Kiev offensive. http://www.bestofukraine.com/kyiv.htm

About the way Wikipedia chooses names: there is a process of establishing how to name an article, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions The list even includes how to spell Ukrainian names, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Ukrainian_names

Should this prove inconclusive, there are steps outlined in the naming conflict page, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Other_considerations

I would like to point out the specific note of: A city, country or people, by contrast, is a self-identifying entity: it has a preferred name for itself. The city formerly called Danzig now calls itself Gdańsk. The country formerly called Burma now calls itself Myanmar. These names are not simply arbitrary terms but are key statements of an entity's own identity. This should always be borne in mind when dealing with controversies involving self-identifying names.

Also, the section entitled: Identification of Common Names Using External References: 1. The Google Test (advanced search option); 2. International Organisations; 3. Major English-language media outlets; 4. Reference Works; 5. Geographic name servers.

Please show me which of these steps state that the capital of Ukraine should be Kiev.

Thanks, Horlo 19:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I will not comment on your arguments that has been already answered multiple times except a narrow thing. Your link that claims that Kiev is considered offensive for some is nothing but a fork of an earlier version of this very wp article that carried such unsourced claim. Any chance to make you recoinsider your adversity to content writing? --Irpen 20:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Self-identity is no rule on Wikipedia. We go by Myanmar because the English lexicon goes by Myanmar, not because Myanmar does. Now I wouldn't be suprised that due to some anti-Russian sentiment, there are Ukranians that find that transliteration offensive, but I can find you more anti-Semites that find it offensive that Wikipedia doesn't deny the Holocaust. It has already been stated BTW that for historical reasons, Russian names may be used. Reginmund 01:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking in on the discussion

I just skimmed over this page to catch up on the chatter. Wow, nearly over 30,000 words generated, so far [broke 30k while I was typing]. I encourage the editors here to try adding some non-controversial material to a few articles in this encyclopedia. But if you prefer to chat, I'll leave behind a few tidbits to chew on (and call out some "facts" presented above).

Naming is complicated. I don't believe anyone who presents a few figures and says that the answer to the naming question here is resolved. Kubijovyč wrote:

The editors encountered great difficulty in systematizing both the terminology and transliteration. The choices made are not entirely satisfactory but are consistent within their own frame of reference and represent a consensus of many different views. The editors are aware of other shortcomings which in a work of such scope are unavoidable, especially as the contributors and editors engaged on the task are scattered over many parts of two continents. —"Introduction" to Ukraine: A Concise Encyclopaedia, vol 1, p xxxi.

Also, "some well-known geographical names retain the form generally accepted in English usage, although they differ from the original form. Among these are the following:...", including "Kiev (Ukrainian: Kyïv)".

That was written back in 1963, and reprinted in 1970 and 1982. Also Subtelny in his 1988 History (reprinted 2000), Paul Robert Magocsi in 1996, Anna Reid in 2000/2003, and Andrew Wilson in 2000/2002, and their editors didn't appear to believe that the name "Kiev" was as offensive as the epiphet "nigger".

"Kiev" does correspond with the transliteration of the Russian Киев, in six out of seven standardized transliteration systems.

But the spelling "Kiev" is rather established in English. In the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, 2nd ed. (2004), Kiev appears as the main headword ("the main headword represents the most common form in Canadian usage", p xiii), and Kyiv as a variant spelling with the restrictive label "Ukrainian Kyiv" ("such labels indicate only that the variants are very infrequent in Canadian practice, not that they are unacceptable", p xiv), and a secondary headword which merely cross-references the first. The Oxford is a valuable reference because it is based on a survey of the language as it is currently used. Does anyone have access to the full OED's notes about the name?

Does the CBC really use "Kyiv"? In 2004 they officially stopped, but from Googling their web site, it looks like they aren't so careful with the forms. I'd be interested to see what the latest Canadian Press style book recommends.

So good luck. I'm glad that the discussion has remained mostly civil, and mostly concerned with the relevant facts.

Please consider the possibility that after another 30,000 words, this argument will peter out with no clear consensus to change anything. When the question re-emerges in a few weeks or months, will you come back with some significant edits under your belt, or just a lot of talk? —Michael Z. 2007-08-05 20:54 Z

Michael, thanks for the 'tidbits'. Very interesting. As for your calls to our Kyivizers to actually write some content, I think this effort is moot. I tried so many times above to get Horlo interested in content writing. No luck so far :( Oh, and Paul Robert Magocsi is also a red link? Any takers? Never mind, I will do it. Happy edits, --Irpen 21:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10