Jump to content

Talk:Kyiv/naming/Archive 6: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
Next edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Irpen (talk | contribs)
32,604 edits
archiving
 
split in half
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkarchive}}

== Even More Kyiv Kyiv ==
== 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
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
Line 1,425: Line 1,425:
: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, --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 21:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
: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, --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 21:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


{{talkarchive}}
== Naming Conventions ==

Hello,

Thank you for the tidbits.
However, that doesn't answer the question - what in the Wikipedia naming conventions claims that the name should stay Kiev, rather than Kyiv?

Again, I bring to the fore the section which reads:
''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.''

This section alone gives reason enough to move the page.

Please, let's stick to this question, and no more name-calling.

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 01:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no rule that states for every article that it should be name whatever. We assemble various rules to determine that. We go by the common name. Kiev has already proven to be the more common name not only through the Google test, but through consensus. We didn't select those toponyms because the countries use them but because the Anglophones use them more. In this case, more Anglophones use "Kiev". And where did you get that quote anyway? If that isn't Wikipedian, that is original research. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 01:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)



Hello,
Thank you for your comment.

Kiev is not a more common name.

1)The google test has proven inconclusive. Again, the results of Google advanced search http://www.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en, as stated in Wikipedia naming conflict resolutions here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Dealing_with_self-identifying_terms


2)Consensus shows what people here use. That would be original research.


The quote above is from the Wikipedia naming conventions, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Resolving_disputed_names_within_articles, the same source which describes the steps in resolving a conflict
It is under the category "other considerations", sub-category "types of entities".


As the other ways of determining "common name", ie. International Organizations, Major English-language media outlets, Reference Works, Geographic name servers (as described in the page I would be grateful if somebody could put up a link to a video for those outside Australia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Resolving_disputed_names_within_articles, category "Other Considerations", sub-category "Identification of common names using external references") has also proven inconclusive, I refer again to the page Wikipedia:Naming Conventions, Category Ukrainian Names, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Ukrainian_names.
That clearly states: ''For geographic names in Ukraine, the Ukrainian National system is used. For historic reasons, many names are also presented in Russian, Polish, etc''.
I would be grateful if somebody could put up a link to a video for those outside Australia.
Why is there so much resistance to Wikipedia rules?

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 02:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


Kyiv is in common usage in Australia.


The Federal Government of the Commonwealth of Australia uses Kyiv:
http://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/ukraine/ukraine_brief.html
http://www.dfat.gov.au/missions/countries/ua.html
http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/zw-cgi/view/Advice/Ukraine
The lengthy country profile does include "Kiev" in brackets after "Kyiv". The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's travel advice only gives "Kyiv", as with the Consulate website.

The government's two broadcasting services - the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) use Kyiv when displaying the country's name on free-to-air television. News, sports and other broadcasts are also available for viewing over the internet, yet last I checked they must be viewed from within Australia; if this is now incorrect or someone obtains permission to upload excerpts for international viewing then please post something concerning that here.

My university, the University of Queensland, uses Kyiv. Methods for contacting the University can be found at http://www.uq.edu.au/contacts/ . If somebody wishes to run web searches, the University website's URL is http://www.uq.edu.au ; no hits were returned for Kiev when I searched. While I have no supporting statistics, atlases and textbooks being used in secondary school classrooms that I had seen in the past ten years have predominantly used Kyiv, with Kiev in some cases included along with and secondary to Kyiv.

I have seen other spellings in use, including Kyev and Kijow in Russian and Polish publications. Officially and in the media, though, the use of Kyiv seems by far to be the most predominant.

[[User:60.242.0.245|60.242.0.245]] 07:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


:We've been through this already, goverment institutions don't make a difference here only on Google. Now you're saying that consensus is original research? Did you even read the original research page? Obviously not. I'm not going to keep repeating myself. Do some more research on the rules and you will understand why Kiev has retained its more common name. I'll tell you one more time. CONSENSUS REFLECTS COMMON NAME... FULL STOP. And consensus says that the page stays so the page stays. No other country is going to tell us Anglophones how to use our language and that is implemented in Wikipedia's rules. I'm done with this now. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 08:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


Reginmund,
The last vote was obtained when it was widely believed that "Kiev" is 9 times more popular than Kyiv in Google search. Now that it has been shown that the difference is a statistically negligible ~5%, we must have another vote. You obvously put a lot of weight on the Wikipedia consensus and are very passionate about it. Why then are you insisting on keeping vote results obtained with incorrect dara?
[[User:Mykyta|Mykyta]] 15:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

:Which vote? I don't see a single oppositioner that uses the "9x more" information? [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 19:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

== Wikipedia consensus definitions ==

Hello,

Reginmund, thank you for the advice.
I looked into the Wikipedia consensus definitions. I think a very important point on that page is this:
''A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision, but when the article gains wider attention, others may then disagree. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision.''

Again, I would like to point out that in the Archives, the number of people who want to change the name is 33, while the number of those who want to keep it is 21.

Why is it difficult to believe that many other people, not just me, want to change the name?

Look through this discussion, and please tell me where I have not assumed good faith, and put forth fact-based arguments to support my decision. This is not a question of emotion, but one of fact.

Kiev is pejorative, you cannot tell me not to be offended by it, just as I cannot tell you not to be offended by racism. However, the focus has not been that point, but the commonality of Kyiv.

The only objective arguments are that other Encyclopedia use Kiev, and the US media. Governments, media outside the US, and major international organizations use Kyiv. Therefore, the name should change.

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 15:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

: Horlo, you are cherry-picking your "objective arguments". You are ignoring inconvenient facts already mentioned here.

:* The Dictionary uses "Kiev", and indicates that "Kyiv" is little used. Details at my note regarding the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, above. Information about other dictionaries is welcome, especially the OED, which may have more detailed notes. These dictionaries are based on descriptive research; they indicate how the English language is actually used.
:* English-language media outside the US use "Kyiv"? Please provide evidence. A quick search of theglobeandmail.com, canada.com (including the National Post), cbc.ca, bbc.co.uk, timesonline.co.uk, guardian.co.uk indicates that they all use "Kiev" more often.
:* Kiev is pejorative to most Anglophones? I think not, judging by my list of important authors writing about Ukraine, above. That you are personally offended by it is not in question, and the comparison to racism is hardly an objective argument.
: You show up here on a patriotic mission to change a single title which offends you, but almost no one else. You have made zero contributions to Wikipedia which are not aimed directly at changing this one word. You stimulate the production of 30,000 words of chatter, and all you can offer as a summary is a completely one-sided list of the "only objective arguments": is there any wonder no established editors are listening?

: This is an issue I care about, so I have actually taken the time to read through this whole page. But I see nothing here to justify anyone else taking the effort.

: Really, constructive work is always welcome. There's a lot you can do here, especially if you don't just leap into controversy. And then you can approach issues like this with more experience in Wikipedia and more contributions to your credit.&nbsp;''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]]&nbsp;<small>2007-08-06&nbsp;18:19&nbsp;Z</small>''

:::This is getting silly. It would be most useful if some who feel they own WP stop attacking , baselessly, anyone who dares challenge their POV. Why is someone who legitimately questions the use of a term anymore "patriotic" and any less objective than you? Your haughty pretence is not helping the discussion. And BTW, I am and will remain offended by the triumphalist use of the term ''Kiev'', for like the unnecessary definitive article ''the'' once "commonly used" before ''Ukraine'' it is, at its heart, intended to belittle and even dismiss. Dear contributors, if you can't see that then maybe you are the ''phobes'' here. With respect - --[[User:Volodia Tatlin|Volodia Tatlin]] 01:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

:::: I am certainly not attacking an editor, but merely his misleading statement about "objective arguments", pointedly ignoring factual information already presented on this page. I have tried to be constructive, in offering a suggestion on how a patriotic Ukrainian can actually accomplish something around here, based on my editing and some significant results accomplished during the last three years, and even during the ineffectual discussions taking place on this page.

:::: You think Wikipedia just appeared overnight without hundreds of references to "the Ukraine" all over it? You think no one has volunteered hours of their time discussing these issues and bringing things up to the standard you see now? There are hundreds of editors responsible for all of this, and you would do better to emulate them than to just show up and noisily express your displeasure.

:::: But you are quite right that this is getting silly. As I wrote before, good luck.&nbsp;''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]]&nbsp;<small>2007-08-07&nbsp;03:04&nbsp;Z</small>''

:We've already been over why Kiev is not pejorative but I'll repeat myself onece again. Just because a group of Russophobes find a foreign spelling of their city pejorative (especially when it isn't meant to be), doesn't make it universally accepted to be pejorative, especially on the level of "nigger". Some Holocaust deniers may find it offensive that Wikipedia doesn't deny the Holocaust. That doesn't make it so. I never said that there weren't a lot of people that want this page to be moved but there are more that want to keep it where it is and that is what counts the most. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 19:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

-----

Wow! What a thread! Much thanks to the folks who are working hard here to hash out a difficult consensus. But please avoid the ad hominem arguments (personal attacks).

Even those Ukrainian-Americans who don't consider the old spelling "Kiev" to be pejorative will certainly be eager to tell you that it is at least quaintly archaic.

The more modern form is "Kyiv", and for those who would like to view some useful and fairly definitive North American online sources on things Ukrainian, go to:

* http://www.ukrweekly.com (English-language newspaper about Ukraine)

* http://www.brama.com (a popular web portal for all things Ukrainian)

* http://www.houseofukraine.com (San Diego museum cottage in Balboa Park)

* http://www.yevshan.com (commercial source for dictionaries and music)

* http://www.svoboda-news.com (bilingual newspaper for Ukrainian-Americans)

The webmasters of all of these websites would doubtless be happy to provide further corroboration for the use of "Kyiv" as the more modern correct form, per their style guides. The North American Ukrainian community is fairly close-knit, and this spelling change has already propagated throughout.

The English language evolves. In my twenty-five years as a computer-industry technical writer I have watched one important technical term move through three variants, from "data base" to "data-base" to "database", but most folks now consider the first two variants to be archaic, even though I remember heated arguments among technical copyeditors during each of these transitions.

My vote is to use a redirector from the familiar but obsolete (pre-1990s) form "Kiev" to the more modern and canonical form (at least among North American Ukrainians) of "Kyiv".

[[User:shmorhay]]

-----

:Nope, you'll have to do better than that. See, "Kiev" is not considered archaic considering is widespread usage throughout the Anglosphere, especially (already determined) more than "Kiev". [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 22:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

-----

To offer a respectful rebuttal, a fairly definitive US source for geographic information is the CIA World Factbook --

* https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/

which uses "Kyiv" as the preferred spelling when you look up the country of Ukraine.

And to inject a bit of humor here -- Hey, if you can't trust the [[CIA]], who can you trust?

Seriously though, after the fall of the [[Berlin Wall]] on November 9, 1989, much changed in terms of linguistics and geographic naming throughout Eastern Europe as the regional power situation shifted.

Key question -- what evidence would you find unequivocally persuasive that Ukrainians who are expert in both English and Ukrainian and knowledgeable about history and world events have shifted over to the newer spelling, and find the older form "Kiev" as quaintly [[old school]] as "thee" and "thou"?

I suspect it harms Wikipedia credibility among English-speaking Ukrainians to see Soviet-era spelling still the norm in 2007. This has nothing to do with Russia-bashing or any other such chauvinistic nonsense. And aren't such knowledgeable people precisely those who you want contributing to Wikipedia articles?

Look also at the converse -- does it harm Wikipedia credibility to have articles on Ukraine use the more modern spelling "Kyiv"? Again, I guess the key question is -- what would convince folks that, in the 21st Century, those who are solidly knowlegeable in Eastern European affairs nowadays use the form "Kyiv"?

I first encountered this discussion thread when I looked up some data on the Ukrainian soccer team [[Dynamo Kyiv]] and discovered this copyediting backwater problem. While I appreciate a conservative approach to copyediting, there is a [[tipping point]] at which a new spelling takes hold.

Again, I want to commend the people here for their interest and efforts in maintaining the credibility of Wikipedia. Being watchful to avoid articles with political agendas is important. But language (and spelling) evolve based on how the native speakers use it, and hence based on all modern web and journalistic usage in the Ukrainian-American, Ukrainian-Canadian, and Ukrainian-Australian linguistic communities the spelling "Kyiv" is solidly preferred.

And if you understand how diverse [[hyphenated American]] Ukrainians can be when it comes to their political and religious opinions, the pervasiveness of such a spelling consensus is pretty darn impressive, and offers compelling evidence for "Kyiv".

[[User:shmorhay]]

-----

:The CIA isn't the all knowing and the all seeing supreme deity here. I can name you numerous, more prestigious (and less corrupt) institutions that use "Kiev", including the BBC, the largest media outlet in the world. However, these institutions are not to be followed when deciding these matters. The rules are that the most [[WP:COMMONNAME|common name]] is enforced and concluded by a Google test and most importantly, a vote, "Kiev" is the most common name. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 01:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

-----

::With all due respect, you keep suggesting you "could" name numerous, prestigious institutions that use ''Kiev'', but keep giving the same slim and short list. In earlier posts I have provided many, many international organizations, not chained by convenience and convention, who use ''Kyiv'': UN, UNESCO, NATO, OESC, OECD, EBRD, EU, European Parliament, English-language governments such as Canada, the US, Great Britain, Australia, and international English-language service clubs like Lions International and Rotary International, and significant NGO's like the International Committee of the Red Cross, National Geographic Society, universities, and publishing houses. And of course the major English-language publications in Kyiv and Ukraine: [[Kyiv Post]] and Kyiv Weekly. Why do wish to pretend this weight of evidence does not exist? Why the deep resistance? With respect - --[[User:Volodia Tatlin|Volodia Tatlin]] 01:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

-----

:The point I have been trying to make here is that the usage by these organisations is irrelevant. If you want be to go on, I could but it is pointless considering the rule that Wikipedia states to use the most common name and not necessarily the name used by governments and organisations. Kiev has already been proven to be the more common name. That is why it stays. You can name all of the organisations that you want but it is still just dead weight on this debate. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 02:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

::You have been trying to make a many points and claims, including your ability to provide some vast list (as yet unproduced) that challenges those partial lists provided countless times here in these pages that demonstrate the common usage of Kyiv. As the veracity of the "broad" Google test, as opposed to an "advanced" search, is questionable and as the authority of leading English-language international organizations will always have some weight and resonance, it seems these are worth putting on the table in this discussion. With respect - --[[User:Volodia Tatlin|Volodia Tatlin]] 13:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)



i have been following this discussion and am frankly baffled. wikipedia positions itself as being cutting edge in the information market, yet for some reason continues to use the outdated 'kiev' when refering to the capital of ukraine rather than 'kyiv.' this certainly was the norm in the past, but has not been the case for many years. the fact that some individuals, groups and institutions continue to use the old 'kiev' is their choice, but indicates a backward looking not forward looking perspective. during my lifetime the 1 july holiday in canada was renamed 'canada day,' and although i occasionally hear people refer to it as 'dominion day,' canada is no longer a dominion, and calling 1 july 'dominion day' is no longer accurate. similarly, ukraine used to be part of the russian empire and then the soviet union, and its capital was then designated as 'kiev,' by those who ruled. in 1991 ukraine became an independent state, and renamed its capital 'kyiv,' so although many continued to use the old term (i suspect mainly from inertia) it is no longer accurate. the trend over the past 16 years has been for 'kyiv' to become the norm, and although there are still individuals, groups and institutions using the old 'kiev,' they remind me of those who still say 'dominion day.' i would have thought that wikipedia should be striving for accuracy and reflecting contemporary trends rather than using outdated terminology and looking backward.

regards

marta
ps

the reference to the ukrainian government decision designating 'kyiv' as the official spelling of their capital city is provided at the bottom of the wikipedia page

[[User:Martauwo|Martauwo]] 04:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

== Defining Commonality ==

Hello,

Thank you for your comments.
It seems that the discussion is now about what is the "common name". This is a difficult question to answer, so there are steps outlined on the wikipedia: naming conflict resolution page.


Just a reminder, that the naming convention states ''Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.''

Note that this accounts for the fact that most people don't know the answer to what they are looking for - that's why they are looking. Hence the statement on ambiguity.


This leaves the question of what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize. This can be a tricky topic, and therefore a series of steps was established to act as a guideline for determining commonality.


First, a Google test. However, the naming conflict resolutions page clearly states that the test should be an advanced search, because of "false positives": "Raw Google searches using www.google.com will find Wikipedia and its mirrors. These are not reliable sources, especially for what we should use. Avoid raw google searches as far as possible",
as stated here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28geographic_names%29#False_positives

An advance google search of Kyiv vs Kiev shows 1,820,000 hits for Kyiv, with 1,900,000 hits for Kiev. This is a difference of 80,000. According to: www.aegis.com/pubs/cria/2003/CR030902.html and www.amfar.org/cgi-bin/iowa/bridge.html, that is a statistically insignificant number. Therefore, according to the Google test, the number of people using Kyiv and the number of people using Kiev is the same. Therefore, Kyiv is just as common as Kiev.


Second, major English-language media. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation uses Kyiv. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation uses Kyiv. When identifying itself, the British Broadcasting Corporation uses Kyiv. In the US, National Geographic Magazine uses Kyiv. When you are checking this, please keep in mind that there are very many old links on all of these outlets, which are most likely not changed because there is no time or money (one of the reasons why a "raw" google search should not be used);
However, US media outlets use Kiev.
Therefore, again, no decision.


Third, look for major organizations. The United Nations uses Kyiv. The CSCE (Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, not the Connecticut Society of Civil Engineers) uses Kyiv. The World Bank uses Kyiv. The World Trade Organization uses Kyiv. The World Health Organization uses Kyiv.
The International Monetary Fund uses Kiev.
Oh, I forgot - NATO uses Kyiv.

So far, Kyiv looks more widespread.


Fourth, look at other encyclopedia. Major English-language encyclopedia use Kiev.
So, one for Kyiv, and one for Kiev. They are again tied.


Fifth, look at government use.
The government of every English-speaking country - the UK, Canada, the US, Australia, and New Zealand, and even India, use Kyiv.

Kyiv wins.


It appears that there is no objective test which shows that Kyiv is not more widespread than Kiev.


Let's extrapolate from this (now I am admittedly moving into original research) and look through maps:
Rand McNally uses Kyiv.
Mapquest uses Kyiv.
Yahoo Maps uses Kiev, and so does Google.


Again, no decision
So the results for this test cancel each other out, and therefore Kyiv wins.


Please show me why Kyiv is not more widespread.


Now, again a review of Wikipedia naming policy on Ukrainian names:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Ukrainian_names
in a nutshell, ''For geographic names in Ukraine, the Ukrainian National system is used. For historic reasons, many names are also presented in Russian, Polish, etc.''. Again, this discussion does not want to state that only the Ukrainian name should be used, but it should be first.



I am very grateful to those editors who have accepted that people who want the page to be called Kyiv are not sockpuppets. With respects to polls and consensus, please remember that I personally sent everybody who had some input in the Archives of the Kyiv/Kiev discussion an invitation, not only people who agreed with me. However, the poll was closed "admittedly ... outside established procedure", and it was clearly stated in the preceding discussion:
''You can try starting a new poll but it sure would be closed even sooner than the last one.''



Let's stay civil, avoid POV, emotions, and focus on facts. And the facts point to Kyiv.


Thank you,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 05:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

:: Ermmm... how do two websites about diseases determine that Kiev is more common? That doesn't make the use of Kiev and Kyiv the same. The Google test determines that Kiev is six per cent more common. Yes, it's small, but it seems to reflect on the consensus. Now, as you said that the raw Google test might catch Wikipedia and its mirrors... well, won't it catch such mirrors as [[FC Dynamo Kyiv]], [[HC Sokil Kyiv]], [[FC Arsenal Kyiv]], [[FC Obolon Kyiv]], [[Kyiv Classic Orchestra]], [[Kyiv Post]], [[FC Dynamo-2 Kyiv]], [[List of Major Archbishops of Kyiv-Halych]], etc.. In this case, that argument is dubious, because if one were to cancel out Wikipedia and its mirrors, the ratio would undoubtedly be the same, or even possibly more in favour of Kiev due to the influx of Ukranian transliterations on Wikipedia Besides this, Wikipedia doesn't significantly affect the Internet by even whole number percentage points. Now the use of Google searches is discouraged and the default alternative is, of course consensus. Now, consensus is the most important objective in determining commonality, and as you can see, that is what it has done.

:: The citations of organisations is... again... useless in this discussion. It doesn't determine the popular name. Unless there is some Wikipedia guideline that you can find that says it has some weight on here, we'll go on a wild goose chase and toss names into a hat. Otherwise, it is a waste of glyphs.

::: ''For geographic names in Ukraine, the Ukrainian National system is used. For historic reasons, many names are also presented in Russian, Polish, etc.''

:: It does not say that Ukranian names come first! Where did you get that idea?

:: BTW checking the usage of the toponym by other organisations is not original research. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 07:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

: I wrote the naming convention. Your interpretation is too narrow. The guideline has been in need of review for a while, but that aside, if you read the first couple of paragraphs on that page, you'll see that the language-specific guidleine is subordinate to Wikipedia's general convention, [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)]].

:<blockquote> ''The Australian Broadcasting Corporation uses Kyiv. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation uses Kyiv. When identifying itself, the British Broadcasting Corporation uses Kyiv.'' </blockquote>

: This seems to be false. According to Google, of pages first seen in the last twelve months:

:* ABC: [http://www.google.com/search?as_q=kiev&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en-us&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=y&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=abc.net.au&as_rights=&safe=off Kiev: 1,060], [http://www.google.com/search?as_q=kyiv&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en-us&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=y&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=abc.net.au&as_rights=&safe=off Kyiv: 3]
:* CBC: [http://www.google.com/search?as_q=Kiev&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en-us&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=y&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=cbc.ca&as_rights=&safe=off Kiev: 208], [http://www.google.com/search?as_q=kyiv&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en-us&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=y&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=cbc.ca&as_rights=&safe=off Kyiv: 82] (also, the CBC's own word: [http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/words/kiev-or-kyiv.html "CBC News ... ruled that all its journalists should spell Ukraine's capital Kiev"].)
:* BBC: [http://www.google.com/search?as_q=kiev&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en-us&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=y&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=bbc.co.uk&as_rights=&safe=off Kiev: 7,590], [http://www.google.com/search?as_q=kyiv&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en-us&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=y&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=bbc.co.uk&as_rights=&safe=off Kyiv: 221] (The BBC's own word: [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4946456.stm "we spell the Ukrainian capital "Kiev" rather than the more authentically Ukrainian 'Kyiv'"])

Hello,

I have to disagree with your statistics. As the links for the ABC have already been put forth, I will look at the BBC and CBC.

When the BBC introduces its office in Ukraine, it uses Kyiv.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/trust/aboutthetrust/story/2005/07/050711_regionaloffices.shtml
When BBC reporters are used, Kyiv appears more prevalent. When other reporters are used, Kiev appears more common. That's what I've said all along. With respect to the quote, that was only for the England office. Internationally, Kyiv is more common.
Just as an aside, when you search Kiev in the BBC, the first two and a half pages are recipies for various poultry.


The CBC highlights the problems with the google search, and internet search engines in general. When I searched for Kiev 2007, there were three old articles on the first page, and six older articles (ie. not from 2007) on the second page. Six out of ten. I didn't check more than four pages deep into Kyiv, but all of the articles there seemed to have the number 2007 in them.

"The CBC's own words" were actually not that at all. One reporter said that once. If you look at the site, you will find Kyiv is much more common.




: <blockquote> ''It seems that the discussion is now about what is the "common name". This is a difficult question to answer'' </blockquote>

: Sorry, it's actually easy to answer. The authority on the living language, the Oxford Dictionary, says that "Kiev" is the most common name.&nbsp;''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]]&nbsp;<small>2007-08-07&nbsp;06:53&nbsp;Z</small>''


One more thing. According to the authority on the living language, Wikipedia doesn't exist.

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 00:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and Australia's Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) use Kyiv for their free-to-air television broadcasts, as I have stated earlier. Anyone in Australia can go to http://abc.com.au and view videos of news and sports broadcasts and search for appearances of "Kyiv" versus "Kiev" or other spellings. Unfortunately Google cannot do this for you...ABC television and radio are seen as authorities in Australia, but I am not certain that its website is, nor do I know how many would read online radio transcripts.

Since I may be misinterpreting the Wikipedia rules, can somebody please clarify for me the official hierarchy between atlases, dictionaries, encyclopaedias, websites and other sources if such a hierarchy exists? For city names would atlases, globes and maps have considerable clout when one is trying to establish "common usage"? Also, how recent must a source be in order to be considered in a "common usage" debate?

Michael Z, I know that the Oxford dictionary is an established and respected source, but why is it the overriding authority on the common usage of the English language around the world? I apologise if this has been covered somewhere else already.
[[User:60.242.0.245|60.242.0.245]] 13:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

One should respect the will of the Ukrainian government and the people who live there, or call themeselves Ukrainian. Kyiv is a Ukrainian city (despite claims by some Imperialist Russian sources) and when one lands at Ukraine's main airport - the biggest signs on Boryspil read: КИЇВ and then KYIV. The case should be closed - it is Kyiv, not Kiev. No-one says Peking when referring to the capital of China, Siam has been replaced with Thailand, so why are certain perople trying to live in the past and retain an antiquated spelling such as Kiev?!?

:Because other countries don't tell us Anglophones how to use our language. There is no hierarchy with atlases, encyclopaedias, and media outlets. The unquestioned lord and master of naming Wikipedia articles (pardon the hyperbole) is consensus. It is the best way to establish the most common name. As you can see, it has established that Kiev is predominant in the Anglosphere loooong ago. Kiev is nowhere near old. Don't get so anachronistic. It likely won't be outdated for another thirty years or so. But, until then, hold your breath when this article's name gets changed. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 16:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Reginmund, your continuous mispelling of the word "organization" (you spell it "organisation") in the pages you have contributed to, including "Wikipedia:Naming conflict", which I edited with the correct spelling,
might cast a shadow on your credibility as an authority on how to spell anything ,let alone a city in Ukraine.[[User:Bosska|Bosska]] 04:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)bosska

: bosska, organization vs. organisation it's all about [[British English]] vs. [[American English]]. World is huge and there is no single point of view on that is right and that is not. This can serve as additional example to show that something you feel is correct for you (Kyiv) - can be still incorrect for others (Kiev) - as result both points of views should be listed. --[[User:TAG.Odessa|TAG]] 05:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

TAG, I'll accept the British English vs American English explanation of
" organisation".[[User:Bosska|Bosska]] 05:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Reginmund, if Wikipedia is strictly using British English , then I apologize for the "organisation" comments and editing.
note: perhaps the articles should state which "English" it is written in.[[User:Bosska|Bosska]] 05:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

:Thank you for your apology. Fortunately, I didn't check Wikipedia in time to see your edit before your mistake was subsequently corrected. Wikipedia uses the dialect that coincides with what country the article is most commonly associated with. If it is neutral (e.g. Earth) then the dialect of the first contributor should be respected. By skimming the article, it looks as if it is written in American English, so lets keep it that way. Also note that the division of usage of Kiev and Kyiv between these two dialects has the same ratio. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 06:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

== Achieving Consensus ==

Hello,

It seems that the situation has come full circle. This is where it all began a few weeks ago - with my request for a "straw poll".

Before, continuing, however, please let me first say this: being a grammar teacher, I have developed a certain manner of speaking, which may come across aggressive. I would like to state that there was no intention to thrust my wishes on anybody else, nor try to dictate how anybody should speak. If that's what has come across, please accept my apologies. Also, I don't think this is a question of anybody telling anybody how to use a language, or "us" vs "you". Most people here are native English speakers. I submit that the passion that you are seeing in this discussion is that feeling of offense which many Ukrainians feel at the name "Kiev". That's not for the discussion, just some background as to where we are coming from.


Two weeks ago, I wanted to open a poll, and re-open discussion about the name Kyiv. I sent out invitations to many people from the archives who contributed to this article - even people who disagreed with me. However, it was suggested to me by an administrator that I open a Request to Move at the same time.

I opened a Poll/Request to Move on Sunday evening, hoping to get 5 days' worth of discussion. Much to my surprise, it was closed within 18 hours, admittedly outside usual procedure.


Therefore, I ask: How exactly is consensus achieved on Wikipedia? What is "normal procedure" with respect to a poll? Is it unreasonable to expect that people who are busy in real life also want to contribute? Can a minimum time limit be set?


Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 02:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Horlo. I would certainly like to see a poll run its full course. I am most interested in reading responses from respondents that actually work/live in an English speaking environment to gauge how common the Kyiv spelling has become. [[User:74.100.166.97|74.100.166.97]] 03:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry folk's the above text is my comment[[User:Eduvalko|Eduvalko]] 03:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

To the administrators of Wikipedia:
I have been following the discussions on the Kiev/Kyiv spelling issue.
Horlo, Volodia Tatin and others have presented facts supporting the usage of KYIV instead of Kiev....and don't accuse me of "original research" again.. I don't see the need to repeat what they have so eloquently,respectfully and patiently stated numerous times. Aren't you concerned about Wikipedia's reputation, or that school children will use Wikipedia as a research tool for homework and receive outdated information ("Kiev") with mispelled words ("organisation" as per Reginmund)?
[[User:Bosska|Bosska]] 05:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)bosska

Organisation is not misspelled. We've been over that at the previous tab. We have also been over how Wikipedia's reputation could be equally harmed when the pupils find that Wikipedia uses the less common name. Kiev is not outdated. With is widespread usage, it has yet to become retro, but until it does, Kiev stays where it is. If you were accused of original research, there must be some reason for it. If you feel that it was an unjust accusation, copy and paste the argument here. To Horlo, if you are curious as to why the poll was closed so early, you may ask the administrator that closed it, [[User:Stemonitis|Stemonitis]]. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 06:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)



Hello,
Thank you. I did contact the administrator, and explained my position. The reply was that it is against Wikipedia policy to call people racist. Your guess is as good as mine on that one.

My question now is how can this be avoided in a future poll?

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 15:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to chime in in support of "Kyiv" as naming convention for the capital of Ukraine in English. "Kiev" is merely Russian pronunciation of the city's name, albeit widely used in Ukraine itself. I won't delve here into reasons of such widespread usage of the name "Kiev", but since Ukraine is an independent state now with Ukrainian language being the only official language of the country, I believe, the city's Ukrainian name - Kyiv - would have more appropriate place than "Kiev" as naming convention in English.

Thanks, FlintOlly, born and raised in Kyiv.

:We've already been through this. Wikipedia doesn't decide on the English lexicon and neither does the Ukranian government. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 19:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
::Just to give my two cents, I'm a Canadian living in Alberta (we do have a fairly large Ukrainian community here) and I've honestly never seen it references as Kyiv other than on maps that also spell the capital of Italy as Roma. And before you call me ignorant, I pretty much watch the news every night and read newspapers and the such. Also, I did quick search in some humanities databases (Wilson Web, EBSCO Host, etc.) and Kiev is by far the more commonly used version in academic papers (including the recent ones). Honestly, I think Kyiv might slowly replace Kiev as the more common spelling but it definitely is not the case at the present in the English speaking world. If you check Google News, you'd also find the majority of major English news outlets do spell it Kiev. Anyways, that's just my two cents. I would support a move in the future should I see more references to it in the English-speaking media but definitely not for now... '''[[User:Sasquatch|Sasquatch]]''' [[User_talk:Sasquatch|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/Sasquatch|c]] 21:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)



Hello,
Thank you for your comments. Please don't worry - nobody will call you ignorant. If you look through the archives, you will see that it is I who am called ignorant.

With respect to news, I have stated all along that the US news media use Kiev. However, the Canadian Press uses Kyiv, CBC now once more uses Kyiv, CTV uses Kyiv, and the Globe and Mail uses Kyiv. Again, a caveat on that - when they run stories from Reuters or other US-based media, they sometimes change it to Kyiv, but sometimes don't.

All government publications - and this includes textbooks - use Kyiv. With respect to maps, I don't know which ones you have, but Rand McNally uses Kyiv (I have one in my classroom).


With respect to other sources, many large institutions are often the last to change, for various reasons. Oxford University Press last year published books using "Bombay" in the title. Is that more common? No. Is it correct? No. Do they do it? Yes.


Also, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, there is no Wikipedia.

Academia is a bit of a vicious cycle - professors don't want to change, because that takes time away from research. They order books with old forms. Publishing companies sell them what they want.

I think that academia and google tests are only two ways to look for a very broad idea, commonality - sports, religion, culture, and other aspects of society should also be considered.

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 00:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

:Off topic. Point to discuss... how Kiev is more common than Kyiv. This is not determined by institutions or original research. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 01:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)



Hello,
Reginmund, I disagree that it is off topic. Everybody has an opinion which is just as valid, and should be respected. Everybody has an opinion on a topic, then there is discussion, then there is a poll, and then consensus can be determined.


I submit that it is counter productive to say that only consensus can dictate what is common, when people arrive at consensus by analyzing the information they see around them, and information presented by such sources as media and organizations.

If there is no free exchange of ideas, no fair consensus can be reached.


Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 01:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

:We've already been over and '''over''' and '''OVER''' why we shouldn't go on a quixotic, foohardy wild goose-chase naming various institutions, determining which ones use which spelling, which institution is more prestigious, how commonly they use those spellings, who in the institution uses those spellings, which editor of the institutions websites is superior to thee other editors when using those spellings, and why. That will lead to a four-dimensional labyrinth that will never be solved. As you can see, its going off the beaten path. That is why it has no merit as a policy on Wikipedia. The simplest way to determine this usage is not by the media's usage, but every Anglophone that is aware of the city's existence's usage. That way has already been proven with a vote and a Google test. Now, can you tell me what is flawed about those two or should we try some other go-nowhere route. Otherwise, if this doesn't work, I suggest we all get a musket, jump inside of a dustbin in an alleyway in Pandaemonium and go to sleep with the muzzle of the musket in our mouth. When we wake up, if there are more people that favour keeping this article where it is with their cranium still intact, then we stick with "Kiev". Cheers! [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 02:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


Hello,
The reason people keep bringing up various institutions is that those institutions affect your point of view, and affect what you call a city.
If you have lived your whole life in a country where every newspaper uses Kyiv, you will only know it as Kyiv. People are trying to put forth arguments to convince people who may not have an opinion, but are willing to listen.

Now, you asked about the flaws with the vote and google test.

First, the google test shows that Kyiv and Kiev are equal. The reason I put the two links in the previous note was that when you google define:statistically significant, those two websites showed that 5% is not statistically significant. 1,820,000 vs 1,900,000 is not an overwhelming number. Statistically equal. Therefore, the results of the google test are no basis for judgement.


Second, the vote - opinions change, people change, everything changes. A vote that was held long ago may not be valid anymore. A vote that was cut short should not be valid.
I had asked about the proper protocol for establishing a new vote, and I haven't been able to find any further information on the Wikipedia site.

If you have any suggestions about one, I would be happy to hear them.

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 02:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

And where is the basis to draw the line on where the percentage should be? And what '''country''' (in the Anglosphere) uses only one spelling? And where did you get the idea that we must take a vote ever so often just because the people that voted against are still pissed about the results? Do you think that it will change the results? There were reasons for cutting the vote. Otherwise an admin wouldn't do it. You have been looking for proper protocol but can't seem to find it. There is a reason. Because there isn't any. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 02:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is another North American provider of information, The Weather Network, that feels that the Kyiv spelling is common enough that they don't even bother with the old spelling when giving the city's weather reports (http://www.theweathernetwork.com/weather/UAXX0001). This debate should also look at the increasing number of commercial entities that have switched to the new spelling. Their switch is less motivated by linguistics/political nuances but by the simple awareness that to reach your public use the name that is recognisable and in this case Kyiv it is.[[User:Eduvalko|Eduvalko]] 03:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

==Request for comment 30 July 2007==

{{discussion-top}}

A request has been made to move this page to Kyiv, to reflect the increasingly more common name. All comments welcome 03:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

:I am removing this RFC from the list of RFCs. If it is still active then please resubmit. --~~


Hello,
What is this? Who did this?

Any advice on establishing parameters of a poll?

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 20:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


Let me reiterate what has been stated by some previous commentators. The country in which a city/region/geographical location etc finds itself should have primacy in determining spelling both in its own language and in English, which is the globe's lingua franca. We have accorded this principle consistently (e.g. India - Mumbai, China - Beijing, etc.). Since the state of Ukraine uses Kyiv as the anglicized version of its capital, so should we.
Mo3ok[[User:Jaskiw|Jaskiw]]

Thankyou to all that have contributed to this debate. I have learnt so much from all of you even those that have continued to slander and name call without giving any constructive arguments. I guess it is hard to comment further on what has been said as it is clear to see that the arguments that have been presented for Wikipedia changing its main reference from Kiev to Kyiv in my opinion are logical and current.
Some of my own points constructed from the above arguments.
- Kyiv is a Ukrainian city in Ukraine and that is how its government spells it so wikipedia should recognise this.
- Kyiv is the traditional name of the capital that was only known as Kiev because of a Russified domination during the growth of its English use in the 20th century. Governments, international organisations, and the English speaking Ukrainian community from all corners of the world are re-adopting Kyiv as the pronunciation and spelling of the capital in support of the positive democratic Ukrainian situations in Ukraine that have occurred since 1991.
I believe Wikipedia, a global resource should be at the forefront of communication and come to the realisation of the change which has already occurred world wide.[[User:Kyivukraine|Kyivukraine]] 14:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
:Correction ''in the 20th century; re-adopting'' what are you on about, find an English atlas from the 19th century and I can tell you the version that will be written there, it will not be Kyiv. --[[User:Kuban kazak|Kuban Cossack]] 16:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

:Kyivukraine, somehow I doubt you have read much of any arguments. Otherwise you wouldn't miss the umpteen times that I said that no foreign government tells us how to use our language. We rely on the common name and the common name has already been proven to be "Kiev". [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 16:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The "foreign governments" of United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, United States (representing a significant part of the English speaking world) aren't telling you how to use their language either. They have calmly adapted the Kyiv spelling and have moved on. Anyone doing business with their embassies,consulate or other parts of the foreign offices will see the Kyiv spelling and probably not be confused because the usage is widespread.

As for the government of Ukraine, they simply stated how they are going to use the English language to spell the name of their capital. No claim to the English language was implied.

However both of the above nmentioned instances have a significant impact on the number of "common" uses of the new Kyiv spelling. Hence the increased commonality of the Kyiv and time for Wikipedia to reflect this. Regards[[User:74.100.166.97|74.100.166.97]] [[User:Eduvalko|Eduvalko]] 19:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC) 17:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope, you'll have to do better than that. Governments don't make up a competetive number to their population. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 17:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody have a reasoned explanation why a government bureaucracy's decision to use the modern spelling of Kyiv is invalid for our discussion? [[User:Eduvalko|Eduvalko]] 19:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

:[[WP:COMMONNAME]] says to rely on the most common name, not necessarily used by the government but by civilians. It has already been proven that more civilians use "Kiev". [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 20:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"Not neccessarily used by governments" means that this use can be included in our discussion and not arbitrarily excluded. Also, where is this "proof" that "more" "civilians" this or that spelling. [[User:74.100.166.97|74.100.166.97]] 23:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Grrrr... I didn't say that the goverment was gexluded. They will be included in the Google counter obviously, along with the other enterprises that use "Kiev".[http://www.google.co.uk/search?as_q=Kyiv&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images][http://www.google.co.uk/search?as_q=Kiev&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images]. Kiev is actually 72% more used than "Kyiv". [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 23:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

-----
An excellent counter-argument to the conservative, monolingual, Anglophone-centric spelling "Kiev" is provided in the Wikipedia entry on countering systemic bias within Wikipedia --

[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CSB http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CSB (countering systemic bias)]]

In essence, maintaining that 'the Anglophone world has always spelled it this way' does not impress anyone who is bilingual and bicultural. Such a position is (correctly) seen as narrowly provincial by the rest of the world, and often mocked.

Also, as Wikipedia's influence grows, its spelling choices become ever more influential, and thus recursive in their feedback with respect to Google and other search engines -- many people will choose to spell the city name based on what they find on Wikipedia. Thus it turns into a self-perpetuating problem.

The more modern post-Soviet-era spelling, per the bilingual English-Ukrainian community and per academic and government Eastern Europe experts, is "Kyiv". I am not sure how to go about overruling (re-counting?) the current "consensus" on this particular article title -- a "consensus" which may be questionable, given the number of postings just on this page alone.

[[user:shmorhay]]
-----

:Ahhhh... so you think that the use of "Kyiv" is extravagantly larger outside of the Anglosphere? Well, the reason that we have been using the Google search that limits only to English speaking pages is because Horlo had an argument against counting how other languages use the toponym. Apparently because "Kiev" was significantly larger. Either way, if you exclude or include foreign languages, Kiev is still the predominant spelling.

:Now you have some pseudohistorical argument fueled by {{WP:NOR|original research]] that the Anglosphere is often mocked by the fact that it uses different words... errrrr... YEAH! It's sorta... kinda... '''a different language'''. But in a nutshell, this argument is void seeing as Wikipedia actually embraces the spelling not only used predominantly by Anglophones but also by other languages too.[http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Kiev&btnG=Google+Search&meta=][http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Kyiv&btnG=Search&meta=] [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 23:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

{{discussion-bottom}}

== The Anglosphere and Kyiv ==

Hello,

It seems that the discussion has moved slightly from the original topic. Before we shift back, please allow me to state one thing.


I am from the Anglosphere. I was born in it. I grew up, and went to school in it. I went through higher academia in it. I have published books about English Grammar.

As much as this may come as a surprise to some, I am as much a member of the Anglosphere as anybody. Please don't tell me how "we", "in the Anglosphere" do it. I know. I probably do it more than others.


Actually, looking back throughout this discussion, it appears that most of the rational arguments from "the Anglosphere", which don't degenerate into rants after one or two disagreements, prefer Kyiv. People from "foreign countries" for some reason insist on Kiev, and somehow claim to know what "English world" says. My argument all along has been that "the Anglosphere" is using Kyiv, and therefore so should Wikipedia.


Now, back to the original topic.
Reginmund, with respect to Google searches, you asked why 5% is insignificant. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) says so.

Once again, a question asked in Good Faith. What is the best way to resolve this issue?

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 01:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I never said how "we" in the "Anglosphere" do it. And who judged wich arguments about the Angloshpere are rational? Which arguments are these anyhow? I think that I am the only one talking about this. Most of the other discussions are about what major institutions use. You argument that the Anglosphere is using Kyiv has not been sourced whatsoever, although mine has. In fact, it is actually higher than five per cent... try 72%.[http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Kiev&btnG=Google+Search&meta=][http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Kyiv&btnG=Search&meta=] [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 02:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


Hello,

You are correct - you never said "We" in the "anglosphere". You said "tell us how to use our language".

With respect to irrational arguments, please see comments by Deaconofdpdziem, or David Lauder.

Again, returning to the Google test, "the raw google test should be avoided". Wikipedia Naming Conflict guidelines say to use the Google Advanced search. This does not give you the 9 times greater response, but 1,820,000 for Kyiv, and 1,900,000 for Kiev. 80,000, or 4.2%. Hardly an overwhelming number

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 02:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Horlo, here are some thoughts on those that permit their anti Kyiv naming arguments to live or die by the raw Google test.

Earlier anti change arguments cite that the old spelling was 10 times more prevalent than the emerging Kyiv spelling based on their Google searches (or 91%).

Now we are emphatically informed that this number of dominance is 72% which works out to just 3 times more prevalent. What's happening? Is it that the new spelling is gaining acceptance? One may be forced to conclude that uncomfortable truth.

Seriously though, looking over the last week raw data showed that the Kyiv hits increased at a faster rate than the old spelling. The world is changing with the times. Can Wikipedia?

Regards [[User:Eduvalko|Eduvalko]] 04:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

:Actually I was wrong. On the advanced Google search, Kiev is 72% more common than Kyiv.[http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Kiev&btnG=Google+Search&meta=][http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Kyiv&btnG=Search&meta=] [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 06:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC).

::Since we are talking about the English language you have to use English-language websites. When I went to the pages you referenced above and limited the search to English-language webpages, the result was 1,970,000 [http://www.google.co.uk/search?as_q=Kiev&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images] for Kiev and 2,040,000 for Kyiv [http://www.google.co.uk/search?as_q=Kyiv&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images]. Apparently the algorithm is is slightly different on different googles, because when I go to google (rather than your British google.co.uk) the number of Kyiv sites is smaller, 1,890,000 [http://www.google.com/search?as_q=Kyiv&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images]. Either way, according to google Kiev and Kyiv are about equally represented on the web. The discrepancy grows when one looks at books - in that case it's 14,400 for Kiev [http://books.google.com/books?lr=lang_en&um=1&q=Kiev] versus only 856 for Kyiv [http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&num=10&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images&q=Kyiv&um=1&sa=N&tab=wp]. Books published in the last 5 years show Kiev leading Kyiv 1452 to 544. So everything depends on the different criteria.[[User:Faustian|Faustian]] 17:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't see how your numbers match up. As they say on math tests : Show your work. Regards [[User:Eduvalko|Eduvalko]] 12:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

72% more English language websites use "Kiev"[http://www.google.co.uk/search?as_q=Kiev&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images][http://www.google.co.uk/search?as_q=Kyiv&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images] [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 18:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

:: The links you provided actually show more hits for Kyiv than for Kiev - 2,040,000 vs. 1,970,000. As I wrote earlier: "Apparently the algorithm is is slightly different on different googles, because when I go to google (rather than your British google.co.uk) the number of Kyiv sites is smaller, 1,890,000 [http://www.google.com/search?as_q=Kyiv&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images]. Either way, according to google Kiev and Kyiv are about equally represented on the web. The discrepancy grows when one looks at books - in that case it's 14,400 for Kiev [http://books.google.com/books?lr=lang_en&um=1&q=Kiev] versus only 856 for Kyiv [http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&num=10&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images&q=Kyiv&um=1&sa=N&tab=wp]. Books published in the last 5 years show Kiev leading Kyiv 1452 to 544. So everything depends on the different criteria."[[User:Faustian|Faustian]] 18:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

:No it isn't. Kiev is the first link anbd Kyiv is the second. Kiev is obviously 72% larger. Find me a Google test that shows Kyiv to be larger than Kyiv. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 20:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

:: This time, Kiev showed a little over 2 million and Kyiv about 1,900,000. How is 2 million "72% larger" than 1,900,000? It seems the numbers fluctuate a bit but that generally they are about the same.[[User:Faustian|Faustian]] 21:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

:Yes, they seem to fluctuate but Kiev is always higher. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 21:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

::When I checked this morning Kyiv had been higher by a little. Despite fluctuations they are always about the same, a far cry from your claims of Kiev being "72% higher".[[User:Faustian|Faustian]] 22:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

:Actually it was a day ago. But doesn't it strike you that Kiev is always the most popular. I mean, it never fluctuates between Kiev being more popular then Kyiv being more popular. It is always Kiev is a little bit more popular and then Kiev is much more popular. Doesn't that tell you that Kiev is more "popular"? [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 22:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

::As I said, just this morning Kyiv was slightly more popular. I find it hard to believe that it would fluctuate from a consistant 3% difference to a huge 72% difference. As for popularity - I don't think I ever claimed that Kyiv was more popular (I don't think it is among the general public, although I am not a populist who think the mob should determine things), just that the differences are not as great as you have stated. Personally I think Kiev is better and I use it, although given the decisions of most governments and especially most geographers (i.e., the National Geographic Society) I feel that Kyiv might be more appropriate. [[User:Faustian|Faustian]] 22:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It was %72 when I checked yesterday. Now Kiev is 77% more popular 1,900,000 vs. 2,490,000. Yes, the differences are as great as I have stated. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 01:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

:Sorry, but you need to brush up on mathematics. 1,900,000 is about 77% of 2,490,000. That is not the same as 2,490,000 being 77% more popular than 1,900,000. Rather, it is about 23% more popular. Remember, for Kiev to be 100% more popular it would be double the Kyiv's figure, 3,800,000. So being 77% more popular would mean approximately 3,200,000 or so. BTW, right now the figures are about even again (1,900,000 Kyiv vs. 2,020,000 Kiev). I've checked a few times today and it seems the comparison is mostly a tiny Kiev advantage, with rare tiny Kyiv advantage and rare moderate Kiev advantage. At most it has been a ratio of 1.25:1, very far from figures like nine to one or even two to one. Well, I learned something in this conversation - that the number of google hits vary hour by hour.[[User:Faustian|Faustian]]
02:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


Thank you Faustian for politely demonstrating the mathematical flaw of the "72% is more than " statement.

The number of english page Google hits between the Kyiv spelling and the old form seem to be fairly close (within 5-10%). At face value this certainly negates the assertion that the old form is predominantly used. Not good for the statist argument.

Alternatively we can suspect (or question) the Google algorithm that produces over 2 million hits in a split second. Does it group the old and new version together as interchangable search terms thus giving us a similiar count? Are parts of the search already prepackaged or given a greater valuation in order to speed things up? Are all the web sites really searched every time we ask for a Kyiv/Kiev list? This is something that only the good people at Google can tell us if they are willing to divulge some of their proprietory algorithm secrets. Or this could be a nice project for anybody who stakes a lot of faith on Google searches to claim that the old spelling is overwhelmingly in greater use. Compare the two lists of Google hits, set aside the hits that appear on both lists and count up the discreet hits. Repeat the following day to guarantee consistency.

Personally, I think we should encourage Wikepedia to take note what other established institutions and governments are doing re the Kyiv spelling. I am not a fan of surrendering my will to Big Brother but in the case of the new Kyiv spelling I don't see any threat or harm in Wikipedia adopting a similiar naming policy. [[User:Eduvalko|Eduvalko]] 04:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

:Oh, did you forget that it is %23 more popular? News Flash! We answer to common parlance, not government naming schemes as I have already pointed out [[WP:COMMONNAME]]. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 05:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

::Right now, 9:15 Eastern Time, Kyiv is about 1% more popular than Kiev. Anyways, in general Kiev seems to be slightly more popular, because the ratio varies over time from 2% Kyiv advantage to 23% Kiev advantage, with usually a 4-5% advantage for Kiev. If popularity is the criterium for naming than Kiev ought to be the name. If we want to follow not the mob but the official pronounciation , used not only by governments but also by geographers and cartographers, than Kyiv is correct. I don't know what wiki policy is and frankly I'm not interested in such legalistic arguments and will defer to others. At any rate, I don't agree with those claiming that Kiev is somehow insulting - it was the way the city was pronounced ''in the Ukrainian language'' until 100 years ago. [[Taras Shevchenko]] called in Kiev.[[User:Faustian|Faustian]] 13:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


hello

quick questions:

1) reginmund - who is this 'we' that you keep referring to? apologies of you have explained earlier
2) faustian - what records exist on pronunciation of the ukrainian language in the 19th century? did shevchenko know english?

thanks

marta

[[User:Martauwo|Martauwo]] 14:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

::I was going by the words of the late Canadian-Ukrainian linguist Edward Burstynsky of the University of Toronto, probably the most renowned expert on the Ukrainian language, who claimed that Kiev was the proper pronounciation of the city in Ukrainian until only 100 years ago. Therefore, all Ukrainians who lived prior to about the year 1900 pronounced that city "Kiev." More info can be found here: [http://www.infoukes.com/faq/kyiv-2/].[[User:Faustian|Faustian]] 15:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

:Give me a sentence in which I use we and I'll clarify it. To Faustian, Kiev is also quite common in the fields of cartography. It is best not to limit research to only certain sources. That is what the Google test is for. It encompasses all institutions that use Kiev. Right now, 19:22 GMT, Kiev gets 600,000 more hits. I'm not seeing fluctuate to %1 as you said. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 18:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

== The Topic at Hand ==

Hello,

Thank you for your comments. The late Dr. Burstynsky was a great man and accomplished in many things, but he was not the world's definitive authority on the Ukrainian language.

Also, the question here is not whether 100 years ago people in Kyiv called it Kyiv. At that time in Ukraine, official government policy as dictated by the Valuev circular was to discourage or destroy anybody using the Ukrainian language. There is no written proof of what Ukrainian people said at this time, because it was illegal to even own any books in Ukrainian, much less write anything in Ukrainian.


The question here is what to name this page. There are established procedures at Wikipedia, which, in a nutshell, state call the page what most people would recognize, with a minimum amount of ambiguity.

I submit that when most people search for the capital of Ukraine, they don't google the name of the city, because they frankly don't know. They google "capital of Ukraine", and then follow the links.

That, however, is original research, so according to Wikipedia guidelines for naming conflict resolution:

one - the google test. This is inconclusive. Again, the advanced search, not the raw search. The average difference is 4%, which is statistically insignificant, or by no means clear;

two - major organizations. Every major organization, with the exception of the IMF, uses Kyiv - CSCE, NATO, UN, WTO, WHO, World Bank, etc;

three - other media. Outside the US, most media (CBC, ABC, BBC, Canadian Press, The Globe and Mail) use Kyiv. For those who are searching media archives by keyword, please look through the results, for as I said before, when I checked the CBC for Kiev, the first two pages were recipes for the chicken. Also, please check for dates of publication. You will see that now, Kyiv is more popular. In the US, the primary geography resource, National Geographic, uses Kyiv;

four - other encyclopedia. They use Kiev. One interesting aside - the Oxford Dictionary of the English Language states that the capital is Kiev. However, according to this source, Wikipedia doesn't exist, but "wiki" does, so I submit that these sources hardly reflect the real language;

five - governments. The governments of every English-speaking country (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the US, and the UK) use Kyiv.



However, Wikipedia rules also say "ignore all rules".
The common factor in this change is that Kyiv has been steadily building, and Kyiv is recognized as the "real" name, as that is the official spelling that people see in all official sources. CNN is not an official source. It is how the Ukrainian government identifies its capital city. Kyiv is widely recognized as the correct name, and therefore the name of the page should be Kyiv.

Perhaps it may be time for another poll, as "that is what the consensus shows" is now the only argument against the move to Kyiv.

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 17:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

:ahem... NOT THE TOPIC AT HAND! We used the advanced search and it gets 23-27 per cent more hits thatn Kyiv. Did you read the previous filibusters? For the last time, you are using a limited amount of institutions which is completely irrelevant as I have already told you the means of solving this and you keep repeating and '''repeating''' and '''REPEATING''' a foolhardy scheme that will go nowhere. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 18:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


Hello,

The topic at hand is what people in the Anglosphere call Kyiv now, not what it was called 100 years ago in Ukraine.

The google advanced search does not get 27% more hits for Kiev than Kyiv. It did once, but there are many times when it didn't. Overall, the difference is between 4 and 5 percent, which is not a significant number. Please note: this is not an arbitrary statement by me, but generally accepted by the accounting and polling community. Please see here http://www.statsoft.com/textbook/esc.html#What%20is%20%22statistical%20significance%22%20(p-level)
for a detailed explanation of statistical significance.


With respect to institutions, why do you say that they are irrelevant when those are the actual institutions named on the Wikipedia naming conflict resolutions page?


You have repeatedly stated that the means of solving this is consensus, and that it was decided long ago.
I submit that the consensus you refer to does not exist anymore, or perhaps never existed, as
a) the number of people in the page archives (not including the current discussion) who suggested the article be named Kyiv is 33, while the number of people in the page archives (not including the current discussion) who wanted the page to remain at Kiev was 21.

b) the most recent poll was closed "outside standard procedure". The only explanation that I was given was "it is against Wikipedia policy to call people racist, even if it's true". Please explain that to me.

c) languages and opinions change.


No, polling is not a foolhardy scheme. It is a measure of consensus. With the internet, polling became so much easier, and free, that there is no reason to accept what was decided long ago as valid now.


Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 19:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

:Because we can go on a wild goose chase naming various institutions that use Kyiv/Kiev bleh. If we went on counting the people that vote for or against Kiev/Kyiv, we have to include all of them, and then check for sockpuppets among the anonymous editors with six of whiich reside in Toronto, give the same arguments blatantly, and disrupt Wikipedia to prove a [[WP:POINT|point]]. The reason we have polls is to determine the amount of people that support or oppose the move. We don't go on a wild goose chase counting what he said/she said. I can't explain to you why the poll was closed early. Take that up with the admin that closed it. Sysops are responsible enough to make those descisions. If you feel that he is abusing his powers, report him. It is still at 27%. Obviously this is significantly larger, and by the way, this is a way to determine the amount of institutions that use Kiev as opposed to Kyiv. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 21:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

So Horlo, ready to start another poll? I agree with you in that it's time to dispel the notion that there is a consensus on the current Kiev/Kyiv name scheme. Maybe there was once but, then again, there was once consensus that the earth was flat, that women were not allowed to vote, that cigarettes were good for you and that asbestos was a wonderful product. There was extreme resistance to changing these notions but we can understand why the detractors resisted change. They had power and wealth invested in these old notions.

I just can't understand why the sometimes vehement resistance in accepting the Kyiv name. There is no power or wealth awarded to the proponents of the old version. Wikipedia has nothing to "lose" by accepting the Kyiv name and, with points you list, there is enough momentum in usage to give this renaming a try in order to regain consensus on the name.

Now a promise to the naysayers. If after a few months the renaming to Kyiv proves as disasterous as they predicted, I will support a move back to the old form and eat my keyboard. [[User:Eduvalko|Eduvalko]] 04:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

:I think you are blowing this out of proportion. Toponym spellings are not the cause of ignorance, segregation, or cancer. Nor are there behind-the-scenes lexicon tycoons squandering money and cackling sinisterly at the dismay of an alternative spelling while the fascist predominant spelling prevails. Let me make this clear... KIEV... is... NOT... wrong. Wikipedia also has nothing to lose by keeping the popular spelling. It is the spelling most commonly used by the general public as concluded by the Google test (27% more). Nobody ever said here that the results of this move will conclude to be catastrophic. Nice try, Nostradamus. Please grow up or [insert profanity here] off. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 05:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Reginmund, are you 95 years old, that you are so resistant to change? Why can't you see that accepting "Kyiv" as the updated spelling is a progressive and enlightened move for Wikipedia?[[User:Bosska|Bosska]] 14:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


Hello,

Reginmund, I absolutely agree with you that all steps should be taken to preserve the validity of the poll.

Checks must be made for sockpuppets.

However, people who have demonstrated an inability to maintain NPOV, as well as people from outside the Anglosphere must also be discounted.

Thanks,

[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 17:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

:Bosska, not that you have actually read any of my arguments, but I have said that I personally use "Kyiv" and never "Kiev" because since it is a Ukranian city, I feel that it should retain the spelling transliterated from the language of the country. However, I am enforcing the rules of Wikipedia and they state to use the most common name. Remember this: '''KIEV IS NOT ARCHAIC'''. If 27% more Anglophones use Kiev, than it is not old at all. Don't expect 2,350,000 people to be outdated so don't give me that rubbish about how only 95 year-olds use the spelling because it is irrelevant and unconstructive to this debate.

:To Horlo, it isn't wise to discount people because they are out of the Anglosphere. The important principle is that they speak English. I'm not sure exactly if it is but it may be considered a ppersoinal attack to discount them. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 19:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


Hello,

I'm not discounting anybody. I have welcomed everybody - even invited people who disagree with me to this discussion - and answered all questions with equal courtesy since the beginning of this debate.

Looking through this page, I have been the target of more personal attacks than anybody.

I welcome everybody's good faith opinion.

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 01:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

:Could you show which personal attacks were directed to you? [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 02:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Bosska, please be kind to the 95 year olds. The ones I know are not the stereotypical inflexible dinousaurs. In fact they are the ones who know how to to deal with changes, what we sometimes call progress and have lived long enough to know that regimes, notions and fashions come and eventually go. There once was a Soviet Union, a fascist Italy, a harmonious Jugoslavia - but no more. They have seen tha map redrawn and renamed more than once. What they once called Bombay is now Mumbai, Peking has become Bejing, Ceylon is now Sri Lanka. In the past a gay man could light up a fag but now its not allowed unless its consentual between both homosexuals or alternative lifestyle citizens.

You see our almost centeganarians have seen a lot of the world change and some of the language "evolve". I don't believe that they would waste their energy protesting an evolvement of languge such as the growing usage of Kyiv as the name for the Ukrainian capital. What was once an unknown spelling is now an equally recognisable and acceptable version. Things change. May we be so wise to what we can change or accept in our old age. Regards.[[User:Eduvalko|Eduvalko]] 04:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


Hello,
Reginmund, please see the discussion sections:"Support Changing Kiev to Kyiv Throughout", "Sockpuppetry suspicion", "Wikipedia Consensus Definitions", and basically everything Deacon of Dndapetzim and the third contribution by David Lauder to see what personal attacks were directed to me.
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 05:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

:To Horlo,
It seems that David Lauder has an aggressive point that he is making although there is no personal attack I can find. Accusations of sockpuppetry are not considered personal attacks simply because anyone could cry "personal attack" whenever they are accused rendering the policy against sockpuppets useless.

:Now I am seeing a repetetive argument that Kiev is an old and decrepit spelling that pigeon-holes anyone that uses it as retro. Now I would like to make a rebuttal with hope that I shouldn't have to encounter this silliness again. Kiev is alive and well. Its usage is compareably more than its soon-to-be successor. Even then, I doubt it will be deemed as anachronistic, let alone for now it is certainly has not lost its rank as a primary usage. It is quite visible that Kyiv is gaining usage but let us not get ahead of ourselves. Kiev is still a modern name and '''only''' until it is successed, it should be changed. See again, [[WP:COMMONNNAME]]. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 05:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Regimund,
Yes, I have read all your arguments and comments. You are very eloquent and polite, except when you responded to Eduvalko with "Please grow up or [insert profanity here] off. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 05:07, 12 August 2007 "

Back to Kyiv:
Please see: Ukraine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , Modern History section...........there you will find "Kyiv" used more than once. This appears to be part of the original text....which leads me to believe that this is the modern spelling of the city. Unfortunately, the sections following do use "Kiev" again.

I would also submit that you consider, for a patient and clear moment, that when one, i.e. a schoolaged child or uninformed individual, enters "Kyiv" in the search box and gets redirected to "Kiev" by Wikipedia, that, that person may believe that he/she may have been mistaken with "Kyiv" and will thereafter use "Kiev" because Wikipedia does. This is an example of how Wikipedia can influence the "common usage".....impeding the natural progression of familiarizing people with the prefered and updated spelling of the capital of Ukraine.

Rules can tweaked and exceptions can be made. There are many exceptions listed in WP:COMMONNNAME, so why can't the issue of "Kyiv vs Kiev" be treated as a more serious matter and be reviewed by all of the administrators?
[[User:Bosska|Bosska]] 06:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

:It is much unhelpful to the debate when Eduvalko dramatises the point that is trying to be made here. It is absolutely necessary to be mature when discussing this matter.

:It is however, unorthodox to actually cite Wikipedia because it can be edited by anyone. This is why we need to cite our sources outside of the wiki. The problem of a pupil being redirected to Kiev from Kyiv is quite easily solved by the first three words in bold: ''"'''Kiev''' or '''Kyiv'''". Even if this was a problem, the student that searches for "Kiev" may be confused if the search redirects to Kyiv. Either way, the student may choose the spelling of his preference.

:I must agree that Wikipedia has some effect on common usage but not a large substantial amount. Wikipedia is not supposed to (for a lack of better words) revolutionise the English lexicon. Even if Wikipedia didn't exist, the pupil may encounter another source that uses Kiev (since it is more common) thus contributing to the usage of Kiev. At least on Wikipedia, they will have the option of choosing the variant of their preference. If you feel that this is something that should have the attention of an administrator, then that is no problem. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 17:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

== The Civilization Test ==

Sid Meier's Civilization games call the city Kiev. Damn, I love those games. <font color="red">[[User:Antelan|Ante]]</font><font color="blue">[[User:Antelan|lan]]</font> <sup><font color="darkred">[[User_talk:Antelan|talk]]</font></sup> 04:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Antelan would you still play the game knowing that sometimes the city is called Kyiv? BTW did you ever play pinball at the PJ pub on N. Charles near JHU Homewood in "Baa-more", MD? Regards [[User:Eduvalko|Eduvalko]] 05:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
:Hey - that might even merit putting out a new version of the game, which would make everyone happy. I haven't played pinball at the PJ pub, but it sounds like a good way to spend some time in "Baa-more, hon". Cheers, <font color="red">[[User:Antelan|Ante]]</font><font color="blue">[[User:Antelan|lan]]</font> <sup><font color="darkred">[[User_talk:Antelan|talk]]</font></sup> 05:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

:But in all seriousness, an English-language Google News search, which was already discussed to some extent above, reveals (1) There are about 4x the references to Kiev vis-a-vis Kyiv, which is simply indicative of (2) American & British media generally use Kiev, while many of the Kyiv references are not from natively English-speaking places. Is there any way to avoid the normative battle that is going on here and find some way to compromise on the description of the two names? <font color="red">[[User:Antelan|Ante]]</font><font color="blue">[[User:Antelan|lan]]</font> <sup><font color="darkred">[[User_talk:Antelan|talk]]</font></sup> 17:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


Hello, Antelan,

Thank you for joining this discussion.

My arguments have been all along that the google test is but one way of establishing common name. In the google advanced search searching only in English, Kyiv and Kiev are in a virtual tie. These numbers seem to change every hour, with a slight advantage going to Kiev.

However, by many other criteria, Kyiv is more popular - governments of all English countries officially use Kyiv, as do most international organizations such as NATO, the UN, the CSCE, WHO, and World Bank. Only the IMF uses Kiev.
Encyclopedia use Kiev, but Encarta uses Kyiv.

National Geographic uses Kyiv, as do media in Canada and Australia.

This is why it is difficult for me to understand why the consensus from either long ago or a greatly shortened poll is considered binding, and some other editors do not even want to put forth any arguments, but say that it was so decided and so it must be.

Thanks,

[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 21:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

:I must point out that between media institutions, the usage is split. However, the English usage of Kiev fluctuates hourly on Google at approximately 23% higher than Kyiv. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 23:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

:I remember not so long ago when in America we commonly referred to Torino as Turin. I imagine that the same will be the case for Kyiv/Kiev. I see your points and think they help form a good part of the complete picture. It strikes me that this could be a useful starting point for generating a policy discussion regarding naming on Wikipedia, not just of Kiev but of all place-names. <font color="red">[[User:Antelan|Ante]]</font><font color="blue">[[User:Antelan|lan]]</font> <sup><font color="darkred">[[User_talk:Antelan|talk]]</font></sup> 23:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

:Hello,
My point here has been that changing the name to Kyiv would actually bring this page in line with other Wikipedia pages. For example Mumbai, Myanmar, Beijing, and St Petersburg. When those names changed, they just became the new names. People didn't walk around confused.
I submit the same is happening with Kyiv.
Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 23:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

:We don't privilege "official" usages over those in common usage. Noticing one of your earlier assertions, I looked at the BBC's usage: overwhelmingly, they tend towards "Kiev". Polls are just one way to judge consensus, and ''repeated'' polls on the same topic are rarely an enlightening exercise. I think this seems likely to be a case where you might have to wait for "facts on the ground" in the English-speaking media to catch up with your preference. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 23:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

: Hello,
I know that there is no official group controlling English, as there is in other countries. My question is how does Wikipedia establish commonality?
Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 23:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

::I ran a Google Labs search, which shows search volume based upon how commonly a given word is searched for (not how many results come up when you search for it) to compare the popularity of searches for Kiev vs Kyiv. The results surprised me, especially considering the geographic origins of the searches: http://www.google.com/trends?q=kiev%2C+kyiv&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0 I still have no preference. <font color="red">[[User:Antelan|Ante]]</font><font color="blue">[[User:Antelan|lan]]</font> <sup><font color="darkred">[[User_talk:Antelan|talk]]</font></sup> 23:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello,
The latest google result:
Kyiv: 1,910,000 http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enCA234CA234&as_qdr=all&q=kyiv&btnG=Search&lr=lang_en
Kiev: 1,940,000 http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enCA234CA234&as_qdr=all&q=kiev&btnG=Search&lr=lang_en

[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 01:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What luck, you changed the page just before I did. It seems that differs on the U.K. Google[http://www.google.co.uk/search?as_q=Kiev&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images][http://www.google.co.uk/search?as_q=Kyiv&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images] [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 01:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Reginmund,
I got a result of 1,960,000 for Kyiv, and 1,940,000 for Kiev on the links you provided.
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 01:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting 2,420,000 vs. 1,960,0000. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 01:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I just checked again, and got the same results I did the first time. What do you think could be causing that?
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 01:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it must be picking up on some uses of "Kiev", then it doesn't. The Kyiv number doesn't seem to change. I figure since they are there, even though Google loses track of them, they should count. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 01:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


Interesting, but I don't see how it could lose track of 20% of the sites.
Is there any way you know of to stabilize it?

[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 01:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't a clue. I'm no interweb expert. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 01:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello,
I think the problem is that sometimes it filters out more sites, and other times it allows them through. I looked through some pages on both searches a bit and found sites from non-English speaking countries, and other instances where the name of the page had Kyiv, but the URL had Kiev.

I even found Wikipedia sites on both searches.

There has to be a better way.

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 03:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

On Yahoo! search, Kiev gets 6,610,000 hits[http://uk.search.yahoo.com/search?_adv_prop=web&x=op&.bcrumb=f1b38f0f76fb8d19b2a5bd3a0cd48653%2C1187065531&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-501&fr2=op&va=Kiev&va_vt=any&vp_vt=any&vo_vt=any&ve_vt=any&vd=all&vst=0&vf=all&vm=r&fl=1&vl=lang_en&n=10] and Kyiv gets 2,150,000 hits[http://uk.search.yahoo.com/search?_adv_prop=web&x=op&.bcrumb=f1b38f0f76fb8d19b2a5bd3a0cd48653%2C1187065531&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-501&fr2=op&va=Kyiv&va_vt=any&vp_vt=any&vo_vt=any&ve_vt=any&vd=all&vst=0&vf=all&vm=r&fl=1&vl=lang_en&n=10] (these are English language pages). That makes Kiev approximately three times more popular than Kyiv. On Dogpile, Kiev gets 2,006,350 hits and Kyiv gets 628,374 hits[http://www.dogpile.co.uk/uk.dogpl/search/redir.htm?r_fcid=415&r_fcp=top&advanced=1&top=1&nde=1&qcat=web&engineset=uk-only_oando&q_all=Kyiv&q_phrase=&q_any=&q_not=&lang=en&dpcollation=1&qk=20&qafterm=01&qafterd=01&qaftery=1990&qbeforem=08&qbefored=13&qbeforey=2007&domaint=&adultfilter=moderate]. That still makes Kiev approximately three times more popular than Kyiv. On Ask, Kiev gets 2,382,000 hits[http://uk.ask.com/web?q=Kiev&sm=adv&advl=en&dm=adv&qsrc=196] and Kyiv gets 464,500. That makes Kiev approximately five times more popular than Kyiv. So basically it seems to vary but the end result shows Kiev to be more popular by a longshot. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 04:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

So now that the most popular search engine ( see table at [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engine]]) has begun to show that Kyiv and Kiev are becoming equally recognizable in the English language we instead get to look at the engine lightwieghts such as Dogpile.

My understanding of why we are using search engines as this is a means of gauging how most people are spelling Kyiv. More than half of web searches are carried out on Google probably because Google provides the most thorough and the most trusted results. Why would the results of the smaller engines be as valid as the grandaddy of them all?[[User:Eduvalko|Eduvalko]] 05:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

:NO because the most popular search engine is fluctuating more than NASDAQ. The most popular search engine has also never shown Kyiv to be more popular than Kyiv. The most popular search engine is now showing Kiev to be 25% more popular than Kyiv. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 06:31, 14 August 2007
(UTC)

::: 9pm, EST, Kyiv: 1,930,000, Kiev: 1.920,000. Links provided by Reginmund above.
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 00:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

::Given that google finds 33m+ "Kiev" usages with no language restrictions (as against 5m+ "Kyiv"), I'm inclined to believe that the above related to flakiness in the language-tagging. (Otherwise, we'd be forced to conclude that only 1/15 of the pages on Kiev are in English, and google finds only a third as many such pages as Yahoo...) [[User:Alai|Alai]] 06:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

:::I posted this link earlier but it got lost in the shuffle: http://www.google.com/trends?q=kiev%2C+kyiv&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0 . Unlike search results, this is a search of keyword popularity at Google. That is, this is a search that shows you how often Google users use a particular term when searching. This is probably a better indicator of general usage than simply comparing pagecount. Visual inspection suggests that Kiev is about 5-10x as popular of a search term as is Kyiv. <font color="red">[[User:Antelan|Ante]]</font><font color="blue">[[User:Antelan|lan]]</font> <sup><font color="darkred">[[User_talk:Antelan|talk]]</font></sup> 13:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

== Questions about Search engines ==

Hello,

I have a few questions about the search engines on the internet, and their use in establishing commonality of use.

I followed the links that were provided, and noticed these points:
First, on the google, I think that it is not unbelievable that most - even 14/15 pages about Kyiv - are not in English, as the city is not as famous in the Anglosphere as it is in Europe (soccer, Eurovision, chess, trade, etc.)

Second, when I looked at the Ask.com page, I noticed that on the Kiev search, in the "related searches" column on the left of the page, only three out of nine suggestions were about the city. The others were "kiev women", "kiev brothels", "kiev 35mm camera", and "kiev dynamo" (I forgot the rest). On the Kyiv search, on the other hand, six out of nine were directly related to the city. I think that this shows trends of what people are looking for under these two names. People who are looking for the city are using Kyiv. (just as an aside, on the BBC Kiev search, most of the first page, and some of the second page also, were recipes for chicken).

Third, searches show old pages. For example, a British government body, DEFRA, which apparently has regular dealings with Kyiv, used to use Kiev but now uses Kyiv.

Fourth, many pages use Kyiv as the name, and then Kiev in brackets. These sites are counted for both. However, pages that use Kiev often do not have Kyiv as a second name. This could lead to an inaccurate count, as Kiev is counted for both sites, even though it is not the name

Fifth, when I looked at the graph comparing the two names, and I tried switching the order of the names, no graph was generated - it said that there was not enough data.

I think that there is no way to objectively grade points one and two.

Is there a way to add dates to searches to eliminate the old pages? I tried doing this with the advanced google search by adding the number 2007, but it still showed hits from 2001 and before - for both Kyiv and Kiev.

I suggest that Google has the best filters that help overcome point four. Is there any other way of narrowing this down on other search engines? Would it be helpful to search by words such as "Capital of Ukraine"?

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 00:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

:The recipes and irrelevant uses etc. take up very little bandwith and are only sponsored links. Google must use different links to diversify and show which for example which company is beiing represented. In that case, Google can't represent 10 travel sites. Almost all of the other uses of Kiev refer to the city. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 01:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

:It's pretty unbelievable that 14/15 pages ''using the spelling "Kiev"'' aren't in English, in the light of the other numbers presented. There's a couple of million in Russian, a couple of million in Ukrainian (hilariously enough): what language do you imagine the remaining 28-million-odd are in? I submit it's predominantly likely to be undetected English (or mixed-language but mostly-English) pages. Your observation that most of the BBC's hits are on chicken do not accord with my naked-eye observation of the first page of results, nor with repeating the search as 'kiev -chicken', which only excludes ~200 out of 9000+. So while it's true that there's about as many hits for "chicken kiev" as for "kyiv", there's 30x as many hits for non-chicken Kiev as either. (That's even including things like message board comments from "Andriy in Kyiv", attached to an item using only the spelling "Kiev" in BBC-generated text.) The rest of your observations seems to essentially be anecdotal, or to be frank, cherry-picking. We can't sensibly trump the BBC and the Guardian (or pick any other major English-speaking news organisation) with DEFRA, just because you feel their position is better-informed or more enlightened. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 02:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


Hello,

Here is a link to the page to which I was referring on BBC, and all of the items on this page are recipes:
http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?tab=all&go=homepage&q=kiev&Search.x=32&Search.y=3&Search=Search&scope=all
Here is the second page, with the same results:
http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?Search.x=32&Search.y=3&go=homepage&Search=Search&tab=all&q=kiev&scope=all&start=2
Links directly connected to the city begin on the third.

I am not suggesting trumping any source with any other source.
I have always suggested taking a more holistic approach to determining commonality: the internet, major organizations, other encyclopedia, media, and governments. I have even suggested looking at businesses and cultural/sports/religious organizations for a more inclusive count.

I do not want to come across as a cherry-picker, but establishing the validity of such tests is important when determining how much weight to give them.

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 03:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

:Oops, my bad: I didn't realize you meant the BBC's internal search engine (I think that proves mainly that the BBC is better at content than search). Compare what google search with a site: restriction to bbc.co.uk produces, which is what I was going by. I saw similar results on the Guardian's web site, on the same basis, selecting these on no particular basis than "English-speaking news organisations whose URL I could recall (and successfully type)". Doesn't that seem strongly indicative that it's a good deal easier to find such with a strong practice of using "Kiev" over "Kyiv", than vice versa? [[User:Alai|Alai]] 03:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)



Hello,
I'm not sure what you meant in that last sentence, but I do agree that on the general google test, Kiev is more popular. Do you know how the "advanced search" filters? It's something that nobody here has been able to figure out, and which leads to frustration as the results there seem to change hourly.

However, that's just one standard. You mentioned other media - the CBC uses Kyiv, in line with Canadian Press guidelines(there's no Canadian Press manual online - for free - so I can't give you a link). The Globe and Mail uses Kyiv (another example of the weakness of search engines: in their internal search page for Kiev, if you look at the articles, they are just prints from US media sources; however, if you look at what The Globe and Mail prints, it's usually Kyiv).
There are links above to AustralianBC, and other major media in Australia which use Kyiv.
In the US, the largest and most widely-read geography publication, National Geographic, uses Kyiv.
CNN, well, is CNN.

I think that Kyiv is the name that most people are associating with the city.

Even if there is ambiguity in the media, look at things like sports: everybody who follows soccer would know Kyiv.

Again, I think that search engines are not the only way of judging the commonness of a name, and other things should be considered.

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 04:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

:The "advanced" search is more than a little opaque to me. (Come to that, the behaviour of "basic" search is not without its mysteries, either.) In particular, if I could work out why most of the "Kiev" hits were apparently "languageless", or even find a way to enumerate some of them, I'd feel somewhat better informed. By-organisation is probably more meaningful, but is obviously going to be much more time-consuming to get anything meaningful out of. (I have to say that the chances of being doing much in the way of off-line searches on this small: bear in mind I'm only commenting here at all due to being "canvassed".) But as you mention CBC... If I do a google site-search on cbc.ca, for ''either'' spelling, the top hit is [http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/words/kiev-or-kyiv.html this article]. Most interesting. They observe, inter alia, that "But most major media outlets in the West have stuck with Kiev[...]". (Kiev also gets more hits on that site overall, btw.) [[User:Alai|Alai]] 05:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


Hello,

Thank you for continuing to participate in this discussion. The article you mention was written over three years ago, and since then Kyiv has predominated. At the bottom of the article, it states that the policy of using Kiev would be re-examined in six months. By that time, most governments had switched, so they went with Kyiv. The only other thing that I can tell you is that the CBC follows the Canadian Press style guidelines, which unfortunately is not available on-line for free.

I echo Antelan's suggestion above that this is a good time to establish Wikipedia conventions for naming cities, not just for Kyiv. There seem to be conventions, but is there a way to reduce them into a formula?

Again, I submit that this move would simply bring Kyiv in line with names such as Mumbai and Beijing.

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 00:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

:: What is your source for "Kyiv has predominated" and "they went with Kyiv"? Google finds "Kiev" about twice as often as "Kyiv" on cbc.ca in general, and about twenty times as often when limiting the search to pages appearing within the last three months.

:: Since the CP style guideline is not online, can you quote the relevant passage?&nbsp;''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]]&nbsp;<small>2007-08-16&nbsp;05:20&nbsp;Z</small>''

:::It's misleading to talk about the Mumbai and Beijing examples as if there were a single over-arching principle at work that would cover all three. (Well, "always use the official version" ''would'', but that's not the practice Wikipedia follows.) Beijing just out-and-out "wins" on current usage of that transliteration. For Indian cities, there's the consideration of "national variety of English", where it's possible to assess usage ''in'' that variety, as distinct from non-English-speaking countries issuing directives as to what English users "ought" to say. Neither of these really covers the Kiev/Kyiv case. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 10:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


Hello,

What is the naming principle that Wikipedia follows? If it is "use the common name", how is the common name actually determined?

Personally, I think that one of the strengths of Wikipedia is that there is no standard, and that every case can be judged and discussed individually.

I have some questions about the two examples of Beijing and Mumbai.
With respect to Beijing, when was the name officially changed? When was the Wikipedia page made? What was the usage at the time? How was commonality decided then? I was actually living outside the world wide web at the time the change was made, so I just started saying Beijing, and stopped thinking about it.

With respect to Mumbai, I have two questions. First, there have been suggestions made here that the locals don't actually call it Mumbai, and well-intentioned tourists get strange looks when they refer to it as such. Same thing with Kolkuta. If that is the case, how was commonality determined? (I guess that's the same question, but with a different slant). Second, does the fact that English speakers in India use it really influence what English speakers outside of India call it? I submit that there are more English speakers outside India than in India, yet the requests of the Indian government were honored.

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 05:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello,
My source for saying that Kyiv has predominated is the CBC internal search engine. I searched for Kyiv and Kiev, and then counted how many hits each got for 2007.
Kyiv: 56
Kiev: 33 and that included a few for "The Great Gate of Kiev" on CBC radio.

Do you have any suggestions for putting the naming conflict guidelines into a formula?
Search engines are just too full of irregularities. The Advanced Google Search fluctuates madly. Right now, Kyiv sits at 1,950,000, while Kiev sits at an even 2,000,000. 24 hours ago, the results were flipped.
These differences are insignificant, so some other criteria should also be considered.

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 06:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

:: Hm, a Google search of English-language pages at CBC appearing within the last year finds
::* [http://www.google.com/search?as_q=kiev&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en-us&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=y&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=cbc.ca&as_rights=&safe=off Kiev]202
::* [http://www.google.com/search?as_q=kyiv&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en-us&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=y&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=cbc.ca&as_rights=&safe=off Kyiv]92
:: Limiting it to the last 3 months finds
::* [http://www.google.com/search?as_q=kiev&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en-us&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=m3&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=cbc.ca&as_rights=&safe=off Kiev]212
::* [http://www.google.com/search?as_q=kyiv&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en-us&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=m3&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=cbc.ca&as_rights=&safe=off Kyiv]9
:: I think the figures Google presents are estimates, because they simply can't count all of the actual pages in a search result quickly enough to present the number immediately.

:: I think Google and other search engine counts should be taken with a lot of salt anyway. Besides being subject to the whims of their technical implementation and secret algorithms, skewed by possibly irrelevant results like chicken Kiev, trademark names in catalogues, duplication and syndication, etc. They may give an idea that a word is overwhelmingly more used than another, but when the results are closer together then the usefulness is reduced.

:: One can't put the naming conflict guidelines into a deterministic formula. They are guidelines, subject to the details of any specific situation, and ultimately decided by [[Wikipedia:Consensus |consensus]] (not necessarily a majority vote).

:: What does the Canadian Press say about Kiev/Kyiv?&nbsp;''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]]&nbsp;<small>2007-08-16&nbsp;18:45&nbsp;Z</small>''





:Google seems to have quite a number of glitches. I would suggest using a few other search engines unless we can find a glitch in them. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 06:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


:I think that the same glitches will happen in any search engine. They are looking through billions of bytes of information in .2 seconds or something crazy like that, and regardless of the power of a computer, they will make mistakes. Keep in mind also that the sites themselves are made by people, who make mistakes with things like language tagging.

I think outside of Google, the only other search engine that has enough scope would be Yahoo!
Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 00:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


Hello,
MichaelZ,

Don't you find it interesting that the Google results for Kiev for the last three months are greater than the results for the last year? Did you look at the CBC page?

With respect to consensus, how is that established? How long do polls usually run? What is the difference between consensus and majority vote?

I'm looking for my copy of the Canadian Press style guide. As soon as I find it, I'll post the section.

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 22:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

== Definition of consensus ==

Hello,

Could somebody please provide a definition of consensus?

I have looked through all of the Wikipedia guidelines, and there is no explanation of what consensus means.

It appears that consensus is the only argument left as to why the page should stay "Kiev".

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 03:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

in a sense, has the unanimous approval of the community [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 06:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Judging by the number of archived pages, the length of this talk page and the arguments put forth by the numerous discussants its not possible to say that there is unanimous consensus. [[User:Eduvalko|Eduvalko]] 12:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

:Well, then we'll have to go through these objectives piece by piece until there is. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 15:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)



Hello,
Which objective do you feel still needs to be gone through?

One: The google test is inconclusive (9:30pm EST, Kyiv, 2,170,000; Kiev, 1,990,000, a statistically insignificant difference)

Two: The media is split

Three: Every major English-speaking international organization uses Kyiv

Four: Encyclopedia, with the exception of Encarta, use Kiev.

Five: Every English-speaking government uses Kyiv.


It seems the majority of tests suggested on the naming conflict resolution page suggests Kyiv.

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 01:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

One: All other search engine tests that do not fluctuate show Kiev being three to five times more popular than Kyiv

Two: The media is split.

Three: Organisations are part of the media, therefore, it is split.

Four: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, and Encarta.

Five: The people, not the government, make the English lexicon what it is.

[[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 03:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


Hello,

Reginmund, for weeks you were saying that the way naming is verified on Wikipedia is the Google test. Now, you want to look at other search engines, because google no longer shows the 9x majority for Kiev.

As to point three, how do you equate NATO, the UN, the World Health Organization, and the World Bank with media?

Four, Encarta uses Kyiv. It redirects a Kiev search. Here is the link:
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/search.aspx?q=kiev

Five: Unless you want to go and ask everybody in the Anglosphere which word they use, you have to accept other criteria. I submit that governments do not make language, they reflect it.

These are not arbitrary criteria invented by me. They are on the Wikipedia:naming conflict resolution page.

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 05:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I wanted to look at the other search engines because google was fluctuating. Didn't you read what I said before?

How is NATO, World Health Organization, and World Bank not a part of the media?

Your assumption that they the governments reflect the usage of the people is pure original research. That is something you have to cite. Otherwise, it has no merit here. Kiev has reigned superior on all of the English language searches I have tried. It is somewhat obvious that the common name is Kiev. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 06:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)



Hello,

Reginmund, I have been reading what you have been saying for quite some time now. The question of google number fluctuation was never an issue before, because it was always in the range of "a majestic 9x that of Kyiv". Have you actually checked other search engines for fluctuation? I have.
A Yahoo! search fluctuates between

a)a Canada-based "web" search (ie. not only pages from Canada) brings a count of 29,100,000 pages for Kiev, and

b)a UK-based "web" search (ie. not only pages from the UK) brings a count of 19,600,000. A difference of 10 million, or 30%, of the same search term, same search engine, but the computers are stationed in another country.



According to the Wikipedia definition, media is: ''Media (the plural of "medium") is a term referring to those organized means of dissemination of fact, opinion, entertainment, and other information, such as newspapers, magazines, out-of-home advertising, cinema films, radio, television, the World Wide Web, books, CDs, DVDs, videocassettes, video games and other forms of publishing.'' (from the Wikipedia definition of media)


On the other hand, ''NATO... [is] a collective defence whereby its member states agree to a mutual defence in response to an attack by an external party'' (Wikipedia definition of NATO);

The World Health Organization is ''is a specialized agency of the United Nations (UN) that acts as a coordinating authority on international public health'';

The World Bank ''is a family of five international organizations responsible for providing finance and advice to countries for the purposes of economic development and eliminating poverty.''.

That's why NATO, the WHO, and the World Bank are not media. If it's still not clear, please let me know. That's why, on the naming conflict resolution page, they are in a separate category.



Your statement "it is obvious that the common name is Kiev" is pure original research, and has no place here unless you can cite it. Throughout this discussion, I have been trying to establish what the common name is. If you have any suggestions, please let me know.

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 15:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

And notice it all fluctuates in the vicinity of higher than Kyiv and never lower? That makes the fluctuation argument irrelevant. You brought it up anyway. Note that NATO and WHO are both part of the media. I never said that they were media outlets but as you are sourcing yourself from the world wide web, it has a substantial effect of the media. Did you read what I said before that? No it can't be original research considering the fact that I am basing off of the considerably '''higher''' hits on all search engines, regardless of fluctuation. Next time you use my point as an example, don't cherry pick examples of my text. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 00:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


Hello,

First, the search engines - I think that there are enough examples of Kyiv getting more hits than Kiev presented in the discussion above. I am not cherry picking your arguments, as from the start of this discussion to August 4th, you were claiming that Wikipedia only follows the common name, as shown by the google test, and that has been proven to be Kiev.

However, Wikipedia does not suggest using a raw google search, but rather an advanced google search. And on that, Kyiv does get more hits than Kiev. Not always, but regularly enough to show that the test is inconclusive, and other methods of determining common name should be considered.


Second, could you please explain how NATO and the WHO are media?

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 01:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You said that my quote of Kiev being obviously more common than Kyiv is original research, despite the fact that I wrote because of the Google search. You left that out. Therefore, you are cherry picking my arguments. I see no proof of Kyiv ever getting more hits. Note that this is also based off of the advanced google search which makes it more accurate. Just because Wikipedia doesn't instruct to use the Google search, doesn't mean that it can't be used. We don't even need to bring up the Google search either. It has been shown at the polls that Kiev is more popular. We don't need to consider any other ways because the advanced Google test and polling are both suitable enough to determine that Kiev is substanitally more common than Kyiv. End of. If you repeat another argument I covered, I won't bother to respond. That includes the NATO and WHO argument. I already said that since you received information from the WWW (part of the media) it is substantial media assets. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 01:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


Hello,
Reginmund, if you want to see proof of google showing more hits for Kyiv, just scroll up this discussion a bit, and you will find figures posted not only by me, but also by other editors.

I am still a bit unclear about how you equate NATO with the media. Are you saying that because I got information about it from the WorldWideWeb, NATO and the WHO should be considered media?

If you want to move the discussion away from the google test, I will be very happy. From the beginning, I have said that the google test is only one way of judging commonality, and that other things should be considered. I am very willing to discuss any other suggestions that you may have about this, including sports, cultural, and religious associations, off-line resources, and any other criteria that you would like to suggest.

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 02:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

:I'm not seeing any reference to the point that Kyiv was ever more common. NATO is not a media outlet itself but its website, since it is part of the WWW, makes it part of the media. As for another determination, limiting to sports, cultural, and religious associatons may induce bias from them and start another foolhardy trip off the beaten path. that is what the search engine tests are for. to sum them up. Never mind that anyway. The most important part of this discussion is polling and it has already determined that Kiev is more popular. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 03:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)



Hello,

If you look at the entries of August 10th, 14th, 15th, and probably others (these were just a quick look on my part - original research, so please verify that), you will see actual dates and numbers when Kyiv was more popular.

Second, being on the world wide web does not make something part of the media. Media exists to transmit information to a (large) group of people. NATO exists to militarily protect its member states. The WHO exists to help sick people, and to help healthy people stay healthy, and not become sick people. Three completely different things. Again, that's why they are mentioned in different categories on the Wikipedia naming conflict resolution site.

But back to the question at hand.

Third, I have never said limit the discussion. On the contrary, I think that to find true common use, every source should be considered valid, as that is what people use. It is impossible to eliminate bias, because everybody has an opinion, and those opinions are based on the sum of acquired knowledge that a person possesses. If you possess different knowledge than I, your opinion will be different from mine, and you will consider me biased, and I will consider you biased.

Please note that I asked for any suggestions on your part. A search of Internet sites is one measure, but that induces a bias on people who make internet sites. How about all of the people who don't make internet sites? As of February, 2007, there are only 108 million-odd internet sites in the entire world (as of here: http://www.boutell.com/newfaq/misc/sizeofweb.html ), and over 5 billion people. According to Bill Bryson, in [[Mother Tongue]], "Over one billion people in the world speak English, and the rest are trying to learn."

Searches of off-line searches is another measure, organizations (of English speakers) another, as well as anything you can add.

Fourth, could you please explain the process of polling on Wikipedia? Is it always only 15 or 16 hours long? Does the spirit of Wikipedia mean that one poll should be considered binding forever? Could you suggest a way to poll as many people as possible, to make the result the most inclusive that it could be?

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 04:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

In the most unusual circumstances, the internet will be flooded with those dirty little pet peeves. They squander, say a certain ratio of the search. umpteen out of 100 should be ignored, with search B, the same applies. The elimination of bias is not conclusive when removing all sources. It is only enforced when limited sources are available. That is what the search is for. That is why it is possible to eliminate bias, in this context. To sum up the inevitable Internet. As for NATO, it is not a media outlet itself but it has substantial effect on the media as it plays a part in it (WWW). [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 05:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


Hello,

What does that mean?

Thanks
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 05:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

== Request for comment: Change the name of the article Kiev to Kyiv ==

{{tl|RFChist|section=Request for comment: Change the name of the article Kiev to Kyiv !!reason = Change the name of the article Kiev to Kyiv !!time= 02:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)}}<!-- no longer needed -->

There has been some debate, including the interpretation of the Wikipedia rules of naming conflict resolution and Wikipedia naming guidelines, as to whether title of the page Kiev should be changed to Kyiv.

== Naming discussion results ==

Hello,

The discussion on the naming page has gone through roughly 50,000 words, with basically the following results:

One, the google test is inconclusive;
Two, major English media is split between Kyiv and Kiev;
Three, all major English-speaking international organizations use Kyiv, except for the IMF;
Four, Encyclopedia Britannica and Columbia use Kiev, but Encarta uses Kyiv;
Five, all English-speaking governments use Kyiv.

There is also a Request for Comment open at the bottom.

If there are any other objections to moving the page to Kyiv, please add them. Otherwise, it seems apparent that Kyiv is more common, and the page should be moved.

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 18:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This has been gone over point by point long ago. Stop using those superfluous obnoxious weasel words ''"it seems"''. We have not concluded the Google test as inconclusive, you fail to mention the other search engine tests with five times more hits for Kiev, and you use irrelevant facts which has already been discussed. You seem to have a problem with repeating the same arguments. It has already been decided by a poll which is the final authority. KIEV stays where it is. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 01:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello,
Please see the discussion on the naming page which shows numerical data as to why the google test is inconclusive. Again, clear directions, dates, and test results are provided in the final section, definition of consensus.

Again, please see WP:naming conflict to see why the other facts/arguments that I put forth are not irrelevant.

Please stop making statements like ''"Kiev stays where it is"'', as you have no authority to make such statements.

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 04:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

: Horlo, your one issue account is wasting its time. Name is not going to get changed anytime soon. If you must waste your time on this, go back to the naming page and write whatever you want there to your heart's content. Regards, [[User:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Deacon of Pndapetzim]] (<small>[[User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Talk]]</small>) 05:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Horlo, this wasn't decided by me, it was decided by the Wikipedians. I won't be discouraged to say it just because you don't like it but it is true. '''Kiev stays where it is'''. If you have any arguments to put forth, bring them to me. Don't expect me to go on a wild goose-chase looking for them. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 06:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


Hello,
Deacon, if you have some facts to add to the discussion, please add them. Otherwise, please refrain from POV statements like "won't change anytime soon" and "waste your time".

Reginmund, there was an interesting discussion going on, until you stopped paying attention to numbers, started stating that NATO is media, and making comments like your last comment in the "definition of consensus" section.

Consensus changes, and a poll is not the final solution forever. Other editors also pointed out that polls are not binding.

If you have any other arguments, please put them forward. If you just want to keep hammering that there was a poll and the discussion is over, please understand that this will not lead anywhere.

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 20:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You made no counter to the fact that a website (such as NATO's) can't be considered part of the media. In your entirety, you have ignored the substantial numbers regarding the search engines. What I am stating are guidelines on Wikipedia and by you disregarding them, goes to show why this argument is a pandaemonic mess. If you want to start making sense, drop the weasel words. The reason that the argument isn't going anywhere is because you keep repeating the same conflict that has already been discussed. When it has been proven against you, you go to another until you cycle around back to where you started. There's no wonder why we're at a cul-de-sac. You haven't countered a single argument last that I have of yours which leads you to think that there must be some existentialist alternative solution only because you are driven only to find and exploit any irrelevant possibility as to why this article should be renamed while ignoring the common name and polling rules in lieu to making up your own. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 21:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)



Hello,

Reginmund, let's take your points one at a time.

First, I gave you exact definitions, actually from Wikipedia, about what the media is, and what NATO is. Just in case, here they are again:

Media: ''The news media refers to the section of the mass media that focuses on '''presenting current news to the public'''.''

NATO: ''The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO; French: Organisation du Traité de l'Atlantique Nord ("OTAN"); also called the North Atlantic Alliance, the Atlantic Alliance, or the Western Alliance) is a military alliance, established by the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty on 4 April 1949. With headquarters in Brussels, Belgium,[2] the organisation established a system of collective defence whereby its member states agree to '''mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party'''.''


In other words:
Media = people giving information;

NATO = good people with guns stopping bad people with guns.

If you can't see the difference, there is nothing I can say to help you.


Next, your reliance on search engines. Where in the Wikipedia guidelines does it say to use only search engines and ignore every other facet of society? Please point that out to me.


You seem to ignore the entire Wikipedia: naming conflict resolution section. You can find it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Naming_conflict

The other categories which I presented, which you have claimed are find irrelevant, are listed in black and white on the above page, in the category "Identification of Common Names using External References"


Another point, also from the above page, states ''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.''

This is clearly written in the "Other Considerations, Types of entities" section.


Why do you think that Dogpile.com is more important that Wikipedia guidelines?


Finally, the reason that I haven't addressed some of your final arguments is that they are not coherent. Could you please explain to me this paragraph:

''In the most unusual circumstances, the internet will be flooded with those dirty little pet peeves. They squander, say a certain ratio of the search. umpteen out of 100 should be ignored, with search B, the same applies. The elimination of bias is not conclusive when removing all sources. It is only enforced when limited sources are available. That is what the search is for. That is why it is possible to eliminate bias, in this context. To sum up the inevitable Internet. As for NATO, it is not a media outlet itself but it has substantial effect on the media as it plays a part in it (WWW). Reginmund 05:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)''

You will notice that I asked for an explanation of this paragraph after you made it, but you have not said anything.

If it's not too much to ask, please separate your points into separate paragraphs, as sometimes it becomes difficult to differentiate where one idea ends and the next begins.


By the way, 7:20pm EST, on the Google Advanced search, Kyiv gets 2,050,000 hits, while Kiev gets 1,940,000. Please note this time and date, as I may refer to it in a following example. I would not like you to get lost in all of the information presented here.

And you still have no authority to say that Kiev stays where it is.

Please let me know if there is anything that is still unclear.

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 23:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

1. You argue that I said that NATO is part of the media. I don't think you understand me. Since the WWW is part of the media and NATO contributes to the WWW, it contributes to the media, although it is not a media outlet itself.

2. You say that I rely on search engines. What you fail to point out that the prime factor in determining the name is polling which has already been done.

3. You want me to search a topic on naming conflicts. Again you are sending me on a wild goose-chase. I do not know the point that you are trying to make, therefore, I cannot combat it.

4. You claim that the categories that you present I say have no merit. If I haven't already explained why, bring them up again, but make sure that I haven't otherwise you would just be repeating another argument.

5. You make the point that the city is the institution in self-identification. Here is something that you may have missed:

''A distinction should be drawn between a self-identifying entity and an inanimate entity. An inanimate geographical feature such as a sea or mountain does not have its own name for itself (obviously). Thus the English name Mount Everest is just as arbitrary as the local name, Qomolangma. The use of "Mount Everest" as the definitive term in Wikipedia is simply a matter of convenience, as the mountain is far more widely known by the English name than by its native Tibetan one.''

Now substitute "Mount Everest" with "Kiev" and "Qomolangma" with "Kyiv".

6. You had previously expressed disdain for Google due to its fluctuations. To combat this, I researched several other search engines (not only Dogpile) and summed their average ratio of hits (including Google). Again, '''you''' expressed disdain for Google.

7. My point being in the text is that you consistently want to cherrypick certain organisations using a certain spelling. However, a search engine has the utter convenience of pileing all of those organisations into a single sum which can be determined by observation of a number.

8. I took the liberty of checking my watchlist every five minutes until you would come up with another example of how Kyiv has supposedly reached more hits then Kiev. Right after your post, I immediately checked the search and as chance would have it, I concluded that you were either wrong, or you just exploited Google's weakness and blew it out of proportion, or in other words, you lied. Kiev is once again at 2,480,000[http://www.google.co.uk/search?as_q=Kiev&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images] and Kyiv is at 1,980,000[http://www.google.co.uk/search?as_q=Kyiv&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images]. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 23:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


Hello,
Thank you for organizing your arguments.

First, I am glad that you agree that NATO should not be considered part of the media, and therefore should be in a different category.

So far, we agree.

Second, your main argument against the name change for the first 8 days of this discussion was that the only thing that counts on Wikipedia is the google test. I have always stated that the google test should only be one part of the discussion. Then, when I pointed out that there is ambiguity in the google test, you started claiming that there was a poll, and there is consensus. I have two arguments about this. First, consensus means that everybody agrees (your definition). Please show me one part of this discussion where everybody agrees about keeping the name Kiev. Second, there was a poll, and by wikipedia guidelines, a poll should not be considered binding, much less binding forever.


Third, here are the Wikipedia naming conflict conventions. This is taken directly from the Wikipedia:naming conflict page. However, it is very difficult for you to actually go to that page, I will cut and paste it for you here:

''Identification of common names using external references

A number of methods can be used to identify which of a pair (or more) conflicting names is the most prevalent in English.

* The Google test. Using Google's advanced search option, search for each conflicting name and confine the results to pages written in English; also exclude the word "Wikipedia" (as we want to see what other people are using, not our own usage). Note which is the most commonly used term.
* International organisations. Search for the conflicting names on the websites of organisations such as the United Nations, NATO, OSCE, IMF, etc.
* Major English-language media outlets. Use Google News and, where possible, the archives of major outlets such as BBC News and CNN to identify common usages. Some media organisations have established style guides covering naming issues, which can provide useful guidance (e.g. The Guardian's style guide says use Ukraine, not the Ukraine).
* Reference works. Check other encyclopedias. If there is general agreement on the use of a name (as there often will be), that is usually a good sign of the name being the preferred term in English.
* Geographic name servers. Check geographic name servers such as the NGIA GNS server at http://gnswww.nga.mil/geonames/GNS/index.jsp .
* Scientific nomenclature. Check usage by international bodies like CIPM, IUPAP, IUPAC, and other scientific bodies concerned with nomenclature; consider also the national standards agencies NIST and NPL. Consult style guides of scientific journals.''


Fourth: These are the categories which I present, and you claim are invalid. Please take a look at them, and see where I was incorrect. The only one I did not mention is scientific nomenclature, because we are talking about a city name, not a new molecule.


Fifth, let me offer more explanations:
According to Wikipedia, ''A mountain is a landform that extends above the surrounding terrain in a limited area. A mountain is generally steeper than a hill, but there is no universally accepted standard definition for the height of a mountain or a hill although a mountain usually has an identifiable summit.''

On the other hand, ''A city is an urban settlement with a particularly important status which differentiates it from a town.
''

Please let me know if that is clear, of if you would like some more help in differentiating between mountains and cities.


Sixth. I did not express disdain for Google, but from the beginning of this discussion, I have stated that it is only one criteria. Search engines have to scan billions of bytes of information in .15 seconds, and although they may provide a good starting point, they should not be considered the conclusive source for everything. That is why there are other criteria listed in the conventions above.


Seventh. Please show me where I have said that certain organizations should be excluded, according to Wikipedia guidelines, as noted above. You can see that I have always said, and will say again, examine everything. In all fairness, I have said that places like "Kievbrides.com" should be excluded, but that is because they do not refer to the city.


Eigth. Personal attacks have no place here. I can just as easily say that you blow the results out of proportion, or lie.

Please see if you can agree with this statement: search engines are unpredictable, and should not be the only criteria in judging a name.


I hope that this helped.

[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 00:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

1. I never said that the only thing that counts is the Google test. That is untrue. I said that Google is a secondary way of determining the common name and polling is the primary. Then you wanted to know what the definition of consensus was and I copied the definition form Wikipedia's consensus guideline. I never said that people unanimously agreed on the topic.

2. We have already been over the various organisations that either use Kiev or they do not. This is also only an alternative to determining the common name which is only justified when the common name is ambiguous since the primary means of determining the name are WP:COMMONNAME. Due to the polling and testing, it is not ambiguous.

3. You are steering away from the subject when you distinguish between mountains and cities. The mountain is just an example of how to resolve a naming conflict. It is not meant to have relation with the city. The point it is trying to get across is that regardless if an entity is a mountain or a city, it should be named in regards to the most commonly regonised English usage and not primarily how it is identified by the nationality that identifies it.

4. I never said that search engines should be the conclusive source for all means of determination. I made it clear that polling is the primary means of determination. Search engines are not perfect but can express substantial merit, especially when their results are unanimous, as they all point form Kiev being 5x more popular to 3x more popular. This also makes them more reliable in this debate considering that since the agreement between media outlets is nowhere near unanimous, in common parlance, it is much closer.

5. I have described the circumstances under which you either lied or were misinformed. This is not a personal attack. In any case, you were wrong about the Kyiv being more popular than Kiev at the time. That makes your explanations of the Google searches fluctuating rather vague. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 00:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


Hello,

1. From a quick scan, I found that on August 2, you stated that the most precise way of determining the common usage is the google test. And kiev is 9x more popular.

There are probably more times, but that is one I found with a quick glance.


2. The criteria listed show how to establish common name. You cannot ignore them because of an old poll, or a test which by no means is unambiguous.


3. I am not steering away from the subject, you are. The item clearly states: ''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.''

Please not the use of the term "by contrast". That means that cities are different from mountains. It is a different paragraph.

Please notice the statement: ''"These names are not simply arbitrary terms but are key statements of an entity's own identity."''

Do you know what Mount Everest calls itself?


4. I am happy that you agree that search engines are not the only criteria. Referring to the poll, there was actually quite a bit of support for the move, and much more expressed after it was closed.

Actually, about the polling and consensus, I counted the contributors to the discussion here. The number of editors who support using Kyiv is 17. Those in favour of Kiev:8. By your own definition, the name should change.


5. You clearly said "you lied". Stop saying things like that, they are not very ambiguous. I was not wrong, the results were the ones I posted.
Name-calling doesn't help anybody, so it must end now.


In conclusion, going by the numbers of editors on this page (people to whom this is important enough to actually contribute something to the discussion), the name of the page, as a product of consensus, should be Kyiv.

Thank you for your support,

[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 01:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

1. And now we've found an even more precise way, the '''advanced''' Google test. If you can think of another way, I'd like to hear it.

2. The criteria listed do not actually cancel out the poll or the test, they are alternatives to them. FYI, polls don't "expire".

3. The different paragraph deals with the same subject. The message is that regardless of the identity of Mount Everest, whatever the natives call it doesn't make it the primary usage. The same applies to Kiev.

4. Note the considerable sockpuppetry that this debate has generated due to POV. We only go by legitimate polls, not de facto. Therefore, the name shouldn't change by my definition. You need not try to put words in my mouth, especially when you aren't sure whether or not I would agree with them. As you can see, I don't.

5. Yes, I blatantly said that either you lied or you were misinformed. Apperently you have a habit of cherrypicking not only from media organisations, but my quotes. You also seem to pigeon-hole my arguments as if this was name calling. Now answer this... if a person is proven to have committed perjury, does he shout to the court, "name caller"? You seem to be taking these arguments to personally and emotion should never speak for one's actions. In this case, you seem to be unsuitable for debate.

6. See answer four. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 01:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


Hello,

1. Are you again saying that search engines, and the advanced google test is the best way to judge commonality?

2. The criteria do not cancel each other out, nor are they alternatives to each other. They are all equal. FYI, polls do expire, according to Wikipedia policy, on the WP:Naming Conflict page. Again, to save you the great difficulty of actually going there, here is the information:

''Equally, the prospects for achieving long-term consensus can be complicated by the fact that contributors change over time. At one point, a certain group of contributors may agree to use one name, but this group only represents the view of the particular sub-community of editors that exists at that time. When new contributors arrive, they are faced with the choice of reopening the discussion (thus diminishing the weight of the opinions of their predecessors), or sticking to the old consensus (which deprives the new contributors of a chance to have their say). In short, no consensus represents the voices of all the contributors to a given article. Following a permanently established objective procedure that does not rely on a fleeting consensus gets around this problem.''

The permanently established objective procedure is outlined in the five points in the section: Identification of common names Using External References, above. I can re-copy it here for you again, if you like.

3. The two items are different. That's why they're in different paragraphs, with different examples and guidelines. Where do you think names come from? They are made by people, not mountains or rivers. People who got the name Kiev got it from Russian, but as more and more people started realizing that it is not Russia, they are calling it Kyiv.

4. Where is the sockpuppetry? Who are the sockpuppets?

I was not putting any words in your mouth.

Let's stick to the issue at hand - which point here still show not to move the page?
Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 02:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

1. I am saying that '''besides polling''', search engines are the best way. If you can think of another, I'd like to hear it.

2. It says nothing about the poll actually expiring. After the close, there was an influx of sockpuppetry that can only be a Wikipedian taking this issue to seriously. This poll is less than a month old. That's no expiration date or enough time to generate an influx of Russophobes coincidentially after the polls closed. That can only be sockpuppetry.

3. Now you are saying that the reason the name should be changed is that people suddenly realised that Kiev is not in Russia? This isn't archaeology or astronomy. It is irrelevant that Kiev is in Ukraine. What is relevant is the most common usage and the spelling has nothing to do with misinformation.

4. For one, '''you''' are suspected of sockpuppetry and not just by me, the six Toronto IPs (judging by you mistakingly signing a post without being logged in and resigning it with your user name, you are all of them). then there's the random usernames that appear to have little to no contributions to other articles.

5. ''By your own definition, the name should change'' - Horlo
You appear to be saying that I would say something that I don't actually agree with. That is putting words into my mouth.

6. Hmmm... try the fact that the polls are in favour of keeping the page and Kiev is three to five times more popular on AOL, Dogpile, Yahoo!, Ask.com, Alexa, and 20% more popular on Google. That's enough to end this conversation. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 02:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


Hello,

It appears that I am not the only one taking this personally. Everybody who disagrees with you is my sockpuppet. Hmmm...

But back to the issue of naming,
I have been proposing four other ways of judging commonality, but examining Wikipedia policy was a wild goose chase for you. I have pasted the information from other pages onto this page, but you think they are not useful.

Again, the reason that I propose the name be changed is not because suddenly people realize that Kyiv is in Ukraine, it is because people use the name Kyiv.

It's too bad that you want this conversation to end.

[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 03:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There you go again, now you're not only cherrypicking but misconstruing what I am saying. I never said that the people that disagree with me are your sockpuppet. I said that Wikipedians that influxed immediately after the poll was lost and appeared to have little to no other edits on any other pages were your sockpuppets. Now are you insinuating that I am the one taking this personally?

Now what part of my argument says that analysing Wikipedia's policy is a wild goose-chase? I assure you, no guideline that you pasted I have referred to as a wild goose-chase.

Now you are proposing that you want to change the name because people use the name Kyiv? Hmmm... according to Alexa, Ask.com, Yahoo!, AOL, and Dogpile, people use "Kiev" more.

If you think that it is too bad that I want this convo to end, I think that it is worse that you have an excessive habit of repeating the same arguments. Now lets see if you do it again...
[[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 03:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)



Hello,
Earlier today you said: ''''You want me to search a topic on naming conflicts. Again you are sending me on a wild goose-chase. I do not know the point that you are trying to make, therefore, I cannot combat it.''''.
I am not putting words in your mouth, nor misconstruing what you say. I am just pointing it out to you.

It's too bad that you have this attitude "the poll was lost", us vs. them. This is not a war, this is a discussion.

Yes, more people use Kyiv. NATO (the non-media one), the UN, the World Bank, the OSCE, the government of the UK, Canada, the government of Australia, New Zealand, the US, and Encarta use Kyiv. Why do you think that is?
And a lot of media use Kyiv.

There is life outside the internet. Search engines should only be one method of judging.

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 04:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


1. Yes, you are putting worlds into my mouth. You say that due to the overwhelming influx of Wikipedians that agree with the name "Kyiv" have topped the ones that agree with Kyiv and that I would agree for the page to be moved to Kyiv because of that. Well, I wouldn't agree as I have already previously stated after you put the wrong words into my mouth and misconstrued what I wrote. To keep it showrt, you are [[Public_relations#Spin|spinning]] my arguments.

2. I never said that the poll was "lost", nor did I make any statements or implications that this is a war. There you go again spinning my arguments. If you think that I am being [[WP:CIVIL|incivil]], then point it out to me; don't pull some POV out of your hat.

3. I knew that you would repeat the same argument. Well, I guess I will have to repeat myself '''once again'''. This is what the search engine tests are for. To sum up all of those organisations (and civilians) and by that, determine how much more of them use which toponym. It goes to show that this statement was made out of stubbornness:

''Yes, more people use Kyiv.''

...right after I showed you the results by six different search engines determining that Kiev is with no doubt, still the most popular English toponym for that city.

4. More spin! I never said that there is no life outside of the Internet! Now obviously you are also taunting me which is [[WP:CIVIL|incivility]] on Wikipedia and is not tolerated. As for the actual argument you are making, you seem to think that there may be a way of proving the usage outside of the Internet. Well, I'm all ears here. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 05:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)




quick question

it seems that there are two arguments here and two people who are convinced that their argument is correct

how does wikipedia resolve such a situation?

thanks

marta

[[User:64.228.89.172|64.228.89.172]] 19:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yet, another random Toronto IP with only two contributions to his name. Nice try Horlo. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 01:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello,
Reginmund, you're being uncivil. You wanted me to point that out to you, so I did.
I was hoping some time off would help you cool down.

I will now re-post my argument which I made before asking others to contribute on the talk page.

The reason Wikipedia guidelines recommend looking at criteria other than the internet is that the internet does not represent all humanity. It represents the people who make websites. As per this search engine, http://www.boutell.com/newfaq/misc/sizeofweb.html, there are only about 108 million odd internet sites in the world (as of February, 2007). However, there are five billion people. According to Bill Bryson, "...one billion speak English, and the rest are trying to learn"(Mother Tongue).

Not everybody makes internet sites, so you have to look outside internet search engines to find what people are using. Hence the suggestions to look at things like organizations, other encyclopedia, news, and governments.

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 02:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

:Note that sockpuppetry accusations are not [[WP:CIVIL|incivility]] which goes to show that you didn't even read the page.

:Now for your new argument, does this somehow change the ratio of how many people use Kiev as opposed to how many people use Kyiv? Remember that organisations have websites. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 02:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


Hello,
The point is that the internet does not represent all the people in the world, or even the Anglosphere, so cannot be the only determinant for the commonality of a term.

I think what you meant in your previous reply to that argument (and I am speculating here) was that introducing organizations into the measurement introduces bias. I said that depending only on the internet introduces bias on the part of people who use the internet.

If NATO uses Kyiv, it influences all of the people deal with NATO. Same goes with the UN.

Just because an organization has a website, doesn't mean that everybody in the world uses that website. When the internet was first becoming big, everybody predicted the imminent collapse of print media, TV, radio, brick-and-mortar schools and brick-and-mortar stores. That hasn't happened.

The internet is not the only thing that people pay attention to. Therefore, the internet should not be the only measuring stick for commonality.

Judging by non internet-based criteria, yes, more people use Kyiv.

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 02:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

:Nope, you're making judgements based on original research. Show me why the ratio between how many people use Kiev/Kyiv would be any different from the Internet than common parlance. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 05:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello,
Nope, I'm not. Why do you think there are other criteria listed?
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 05:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

:You still haven't answered my question. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 05:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


I have been following what was a debate on the name of a city, and now appears to be something else, for a few weeks now. It is unfortunate that either malice or unchecked and unhelpful irritation is seeping into this discussion. I have tried to stay abreast of this discussion, and to read over and consider everyone's comments, in order to contribute properly to this debate. Now that I have finally read all since my last post, I must say that due to the souring of the debate it has become very daunting to post anything.

Horlo and Reginmund, I appeal to you both: please put any annoyance or animosity behind yourselves, regardless of cause. As the two main contributors to this debate, your comments will set the tone for what follows.


My judgement, based on all of the points made above, leads me to conclude that Kyiv should be the name for the article. I don't think all will agree or disagree without further discussion, if at all; if this issue can be moved forward through more debate here, then the issue at hand must be debated civilly and objectively.

My IP address is provided.
[[User:60.242.0.245|60.242.0.245]] 16:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Soooooooooo, what made you decide this? [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 18:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


Hello
Reginmund, here is the answer to your question.
There are approximately 108 million websites.

There are over 1 billion English speakers.

As I personally run 3 websites, we can deduce that one website does not correspond to one person.

108 million is roughly ten percent of one billion. Ten percent is not a representative number when determining a relative cross-section of a population. That's not original research, that's here:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/evaluation/glossary/glossary_r.htm.

However, one website does not represent one person. Therefore, the internet represents less than ten percent of the Anglosphere.

That's why Wikipedia has alternatives to internet search engines listed on the naming conflict resolutions page.


Now, would you kindly answer my question: why are you ignoring all of the other criteria in the guidelines?

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 21:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll answer your question. What makes you think that the guideline to use the Google test is inferior to the guideline to use what the organisations use? The reason we use the Google test the most is because it is most compatible with the common name policy. Now before you bring up the obstacle that one website doesn't represent one person, answer me this, what makes you think that the ratio would change depending on if you count every person's usage as opposed to every Internet user's usage? [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 04:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Reginmund, I was stating my bias after appealing for civility.
I would like to have something reclarified please: do people who use the English language, but not as a domestic or primary tongue (e.g. business, diplomatic, academic use etc. or in a polylinguistic situation), contribue to "common usage" with the same weight as those who solely use the English language?
[[User:60.242.0.245|60.242.0.245]] 13:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That is an irrelevant argument. Wikipedia doesn't put "proper" usage before common usage. That is what [[WP:COMMONNAME]] is about. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 21:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

== Burden of Proof ==

Hello,

Reginmund, I have never said that the Google test is inferior. I have said all along that it is only one test among others that should be used. It is common because it is easy, and that's why we use it most. That does not make it most compatible.

Actually, the burden of proof shifts to you: can you show me that a 10% sample of a population is a correct representation of the remaining 90%? Please keep in mind that we are discussing the entire Anglosphere, not just one country.

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 21:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't answered my question. Why would the ratio be any different? Keep in mind that "Kiev" is not Internet slang. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 21:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

Consider this example:
Which of these statements are true?
a) All people in the United Kingdom are originally from India.

b) All people in the United Kingdom are women.

c) Ten percent is not enough of a sample.

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 22:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

What? Give me your point in a nutshell, not a labyrinth. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 22:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


Hello,

Ten percent cannot be considered an absolute measure of the whole. It may be, but it cannot be assumed that it is. If you say that it is, you have to show why.

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 22:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't answered my question. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 22:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


Hello,

Which question haven't I answered?

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 23:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

How would the ratio of the usage of the Kyiv/Kiev spelling be any different on the Internet as opposed to the real world? [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 23:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


Hello,
There are many different types of people in the world.

How would the ration of the usage of Kyiv/Kiev be the same in the real world as opposed to the internet?

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 23:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Many different types of people use the Internet. Now how would it be any different? [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 00:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)



Hello,

Google, or any other search engine, is not counting the people using the internet. It only counts websites. Therefore, every search engine is biased towards people who make websites.

Second, not everybody uses the internet. According to this article (from the Guardian) http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2102517,00.html, only 60 million people in the US had broadband access. However, there are over 300 million people in the US http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html. That's only 1 in 5.

Again, not really enough to get a picture of everybody, especially considering the inequity in internet access still prevalent around the world.

So, how can this small group represent everybody?
Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 01:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, why would the ratio be any different? [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 01:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello,
Because it's not a representative number.

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 01:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

:You'll have to do better than that. You have no proof that the ratio would be any different. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 01:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


Hello,

Actually, you're the one claiming that it would be the same. You have to prove that it would.

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 01:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No, you still haven't answered my question. What exactly would alter the ratio of people? See, by predicting that the ratio would be different, you are engaging in original research. If the Google test was unreliable, then Wikipedia would not implement it to determine the common name. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 07:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)



Hello,

Actually, I'm not predicting anything. I am stating a fact. You do not know that it will be the same.

You are predicting that a 10% sample would be representative, and all other criteria should be ignored. That is the original research.

That is why you have to show proof that the results would be the same.

Once again, I have never said that the Google test is unreliable. I have never said that it is bad. I have never said that it should be ignored. I have always said that it is a great starting point. If the Google test were all that is necessary, however, there would be no naming conflict resolution page, or other criteria that we use.

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 13:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

:No, you are predicting that it would be different. It's not a fact. Predicting that the ratio would be differnt is original research. Especially when you have nothing to back that claim up. You would know if you read the page. Say if Wikipedia writes an article about a current event and the source is the BBC. Then you say that the BBC is too inaccurate to trust and you don't back up your claim. Its the same principle. The BBC is trusted enough by Wikipedia to implement its usage in the encyclopaedia as much as Google is and unless you don't have any prooof whatsoever to determine that the ratio of usage would be different outside of the Internet, your argument has no merit. It seems that the argument that you have that stands out most is the fact that all Anglophonic governments and internationalk organisations use Kyiv. Now this is emphasis on the subject but it doesn't overlap the common name policy. The policy to use this alternative is only enforced when the common name of an article is questionable. Let me remind you that the common name is not determined just by you, but by all Wikipedians who vote. They assess the information of the search engine test and the usage of media outlets, governments, and international organisations and they decide the commonality and if they follow the Google test, that is perfectly legitimate. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 17:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)



Hello,

I am not predicting anything. I am saying that it may be different, and it may be the same. You are stating emphatically that it will be the same.

I'm not sure what you mean with your BBC example. One media organization is quantifiable and verifiable. When you quote the BBC, you are not quoting everybody who reads the BBC, nor are you saying that everybody who reads the BBC website will agree with what they read.

Back to commonality, if you look through the archives, you will see that 33 people were in favour of the name Kyiv, but 21 were in favour of Kiev. This is not about the current discussion, because you are under the impression that everybody who disagrees with you is me in disguise.

In the old archives, the ratio of Kyiv:Kiev supporters is 3:2. Yet you claim that Wikipedians have decided in favour of <s>Kyiv</s> Kiev(sorry, edited by horlo).

How do you support/source that argument? Is that original research?

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 21:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

1. You say that it may be different. That is still original research. Therefore, your argument is irrelevant.

2. When I quote the BBC, I am quoting '''the BBC'''.

3. You cannot count the archives as votes. Only people who have voted in the poll. This is because most people opposing the move that see that it has not been executed have left the discussion. That is why a notice is put up at [[WP:RM]].

4. Now if you're actually going to question me on original research, do it with some integrity and source yourself. Otherwise, stop enforcing a rule that you have little to know knowledge of. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 21:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


Hello,

How is it original research to say that it may be different? How is it not original research to say that it will be the same? I am not stating anything - I am asking a question. You are stating that it will be the same.

I'm still not clear on how your BBC example relates here. Could you explain that again, please?

I am not counting anything as votes. I am saying that there is no consensus, and nothing has really been decided.
How can you say that there is consensus?

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 22:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Disregarding the search engine test because you feel that it won't represent the majority of English speakers is original research because you have no proof of it. The reason I am using the BBC as a comparison to Google is because Wikipedia trusts them both legitimately because of their accuracies. That is why the Google test is implemented in order to determine the common name. Consensus has already been reached when the poll was closed. You can't count the users in favour that didn't even vote. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 22:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


Hello,

I have never said disregard the Google test.

Here is what I am saying: The Google test is inconclusive, so other things should also be looked at.

Throughout this discussion, I have said that other things should be looked at also, not just the internet.

Besides Google and the BBC, there are many other things which Wikipedia trusts, such as major organizations and encyclopedia. Google shows Kyiv and Kiev in a statistical tie. The BBC uses Kyiv as well as Kiev. Therefore, other things should be considered, not just the internet and the media.

I was referring to other users who contributed BEFORE the poll. There has never been consensus.
It is obvious from the discussion on the page that there are many other users who support the use of Kyiv, and there is no, nor has there ever been, consensus on this issue.

Wikipedia is always changing. That is one of the strengths of this medium, that when something new happens, Wikipedia can immediately reflect the change.

Kyiv is now more popular.

Therefore the page should be Kyiv.

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 23:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You are still using original research. You have no proof that the Google test is inconclusive. Until you can actually prove it without hypothesising, your argument is invalid. I'm going to stick to this argument for now. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 01:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


Hello,

As of 22:00 EST, advanced Google search results:
Kyiv, 2,160,000: http://www.google.com/search?as_q=kyiv&hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enCA234CA234&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images
Kiev, 2,050,000:
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=kiev&hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enCA234CA234&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images

If you would like to consider this result conclusive, great. However, statistically, it is tied.

I submit other criteria also be considered.

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 02:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe you seeing as your previous speculation was inaccurate. It seems that your argument now is the only thing in this discussion that can be exploited: time.

I won't continue with this discussion any more. There has already been consensus for very good reasons and you seem to be going in circles with your arguments. The Wikipedians have already voted and just because one Wikipedian thinks that it is unjust, doesn't mean that his opinion is any better than the oppositioners to the move; especially when he is using sockpuppets to prove a [[WP:POINT|point]]. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 18:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


Hello,
Reginmund, did you actually look at the links that I provided? I know that you consider me genius enough to manipulate ISPs around the globe and create an army of evil undead sockpuppets against you, but even you can't think that I'm smart enough to create a fake Google test result. Or do you?

It's too bad that you don't want to continue with this discussion. It was quite entertaining, especially the last little while. Even now - how can I exploit time? Please explain that.

I hate to have to be the one to break this to you. "Just" and "unjust" have nothing to do with it. Proving how a name is used in the real English world, does.

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 16:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

== Resolving this dispute ==

I suggest consulting [[Wikipedia:Resolving disputes]] before resorting to more serious methods for resolving a simple dispute.&nbsp;''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]]&nbsp;<small>2007-08-25&nbsp;14:12&nbsp;Z</small>''

Hello,

Not only I but also many other editors have tried. <s>Some people just don't listen</s>.Sorry, poor phrasing. I meant that some people don't listen to any opposing opinion or facts.
Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 18:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I don't really consider this a simple dispute.
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 18:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

: I was referring to your request for mediation, which was only about "whether the page should be moved to a page named Kyiv, with a redirect from Kiev"—you sought a simple yes or no result.

: There are only two people actively participating in the lengthy discussion about this (horlo and Reginmund have each generated about 100 edits, other editors under 15). I don't see that the other steps suggested in [[Wikipedia:Resolving disputes]] have been tried. And furthermore, I see no evidence that the Wikipedia community supports the article move. This dispute certainly doesn't warrant the attention of the mediation committee at this time.&nbsp;''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]]&nbsp;<small>2007-08-26&nbsp;14:58&nbsp;Z</small>''



Hello,

Every dispute can be boiled down to a simple yes-no answer - regardless of the complexity of the dispute.

There has been discussion about the name of this article from the beginning. There have always been people who want to move it, and a group that doesn't. Right now, there is a small group who want to keep it at Kiev, and everybody who disagrees with them is labeled my sockpuppet.

There was a request for comment, two actually, but apparently the bot that handles that isn't working. Third party opinion is for a discussion between two editors only.

What other steps are there in the dispute resolution process?

Please read through the discussion, and notice how "assume good faith" has gone out of the window. Especially telling are the comments, not about the article, but about me personally, on the Request For Mediation discussion page. Actually, there are no facts about why the article should stay at Kiev at all, just attacks against me. Precisely because of that attitude, I sought outside mediation.

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 15:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


Michael, much of the recent debate on this page has been between two people. However, I think my relatively low number of responses (I haven't counted, but <<15 I'm sure) ties in with something that Horlo said earlier - not every editor has the chance to read and edit this talk page regularly, or has constant internet access. It can also be difficult to take part in any discussion which exhibits incilivity or unproductive circular questioning. I will continue to contribute when I can in the hope of resolving this dispute via debate, however if a repeat of what one can read above will follow then I am of the opinion that outside mediation will be required.

One issue being circularly expounded relates to the Advanced Google Test. If one consults the Wikipedia page on [[Statistical significance|statistical significance]], then they can conclude that a 10% difference between two spellings would not be statistically significant - even if the one spelling was always more common than the other (\Delta p ≤ 0.10), which does not seem to be the case according to the evidence presented on this talk page.

If someone wishes to check IP addresses, they will see that I am not even from the same country as most other editors on this page. I would gladly prove my humanity or uniqueness to anyone who has evidence enough to question it, rather than debate-derailing accusations.

Thankyou, [[User:60.242.0.245|60.242.0.245]] 12:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

: Sorry, but you misunderstand what statistical significance is. Percent difference has nothing to do with it. Statistical significance has to do with the probability that a difference is caused by chance rather than really existing. It can be set at different levels - for example, one can decide in a study that if there is only a 5% chance that the difference between two scores is caused by chance or random error, then that difference is significant. However the actual numbers can be much smaller than 5%. For example, IQ differences between older and younger siblings have been shown to be statistically significant although very small (about 1 point, or around 1%). Generally, the greater the number of subjects or data points, the easier it is to establish significance and thus the smaller the difference it takes to be significant. This is because with large numbers it's far less likely that differences are caused by random or unaccounted for factors than if using small number. With respect to millions of google pages a very small consistant difference would still be significant.

:As for this issue, it's difficult to take Horlo and friends seriously as they've made no contributions to any other articles. Please look at the 'meatpuppet' chapter on [[Sockpuppet (Internet)]]. [[User:Faustian|Faustian]] 15:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
::People get "dragged into" Wikipedia for various reasons, sometimes they stay and contribute to other articles, other times they remain "single purpose" editors. In Horlo's case he relayed to me (see [[user talk:Horlo]]) that he was teaching a course and looked up Kyiv and was surprised to find that Wikipedia spelled it Kiev, and agressively tried to make the correction. His lack of experience with Wikipedia has not helped. However, the debate appears to predate his appearance by almost three years. [[User:199.125.109.35|199.125.109.35]] 22:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

I think that statistical significance can mean different things in different situations. For example, when you are discussing a pre-election poll, a research company calls a few thousand people and then tries to predict how the rest of the population will vote according to those answers. Because that group may not be a representative cross-section of society, regardless of how much the polling company may try to eliminate bias, they cannot say for sure that the results will be the same. Because of that, there is a larger chance of error, so you need a wider "safety zone", and a larger number becomes "statistically significant percentage".

However, here we are trying to establish which name is more popular, and which name is more common in the English speaking world. In the case of the Kyiv/Kiev advanced google search, especially with fluctuations, I followed the standard GAAP in naming 5% a statistically significant amount. This was not an issue when people were claiming a "9 times greater" number, but with the current Kyiv: 1,940,000 http://www.google.com/search?as_q=kyiv&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images
vs Kiev: 1,920,000 http://www.google.com/search?as_q=kiev&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images,
I think that the two should be considered tied. A one percent difference does not establish either name as more common, especially if the results could be reversed in an hour, with more or less the same ratio. I think that this 5% also eliminates things like food and authors (like Ari Kiev, who counts for at least 100,000 hits on the advanced Google, more on Google Scholar).

That's why I submit that other criteria should be considered.

I can't speak for anybody but myself, but I learned long ago, the hard, expensive way, that it is better for me to focus on one issue at a time, rather than try to do many things at once. That's why I haven't done anything to other articles. With respect to this article, I find the name offensive, and therefore don't want to add anything to it at this time. I have, however, tried to discuss in good faith towards a resolution.


Please note that I have never objected to people "cherry-picking" anything in my arguments, as I think that this is important enough for every point to be clearly scrutinized.

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 01:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to warn Faustian of Horlo's tendencies to exploit the Google test. The test almost always shows Kiev at a consistent 20-25% advantage to Kyiv. However, Horlo claims that the results fluctuate with Kyiv being higher sometimes. As it has already been established that Horlo abuses sockpuppets, I can conclude that he will use any way to exploit Wikipedia's discussion on the subject matter, specifically ''time''. In doing so, I took the liberty of checking my watchlist every five minutes at work. When I saw within a matter of minutes that he reported that Google showed Kyiv to have more hits than Kiev, I immediately checked the results. It turned out that Kiev was 25% more popular as it always was in the range of. Hence, he either lied, or is dyslexic. Horlo also refuses to accept the polls results as he/she thinks that it is inferior to his/her algorithm. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 01:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


Hello,

Reginmund, did you check the links that I gave, or did you use your own?

By the way, if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything. Cherry picking my arguments is fine, personal attacks are not.

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 02:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I checked the exact links that you gave me. You need not accuse me of personal attacks, especially when you don't know what they are, judging by the assumption that you made about what I said. I am not trying to be mean, I am just warning other Wikipedians of your un-kosher tactics to push your agenda. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 05:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)



I checked the links that Horlo provided at 11:03 UTC (21:04 AEST), directly after I had read this page, and took a screenshot of the results:

http://users.tpg.com.au/kataryna/WP/Kyiv.png

http://users.tpg.com.au/kataryna/WP/Kiev.png

The difference is 1.5%, in favour of Kiev. I then waited half an hour and found:

http://users.tpg.com.au/kataryna/WP/Kyiv2.png

http://users.tpg.com.au/kataryna/WP/Kiev2.png

Kyiv and Kiev are pretty much tied. It is possible that in the future, such a test will consistantly have one spelling having more results associated with it than the other, by a statistically significant amount. Checking again just now, it was still almost a tie, and the evidence presented earlier on this talk page holds.

I do not understand this return to a debate on the Google test; other evidence had been debated for quite some time. This discussion now goes backwards.

Faustian, I have edited several other articles. I'm not sure how often my IP address is reset, so you may not be able to find other edits; it's a shared IP as well. This debate has become so prolonged and intense that I haven't had a chance to correct any other errors that I have come across in other articles recently. You can see this for yourself if you look through the above for evidence. Unproven conjecture: perhaps others find it daunting to contribute to this debate. I certainly did.

Could people from each side of the debate please let me know what they believe has changed since the last summaries of the debate were posted by Horlo and Reginmund? Some new ground has been covered, but I'm having some difficulty pulling out the evidence and arguments as they stand. Thanks,[[User:60.242.0.245|60.242.0.245]] 12:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

We seem to be labouring under the impression that because Google doesn't detect the hits at one point, doesn't mean they're there. Do they all of the sudden disappear off of the interweb and they show up again only to knock up the counter by %25? I don't think so. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 17:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


Hello,
The issue is not whether the pages exist, the issue is whether they are English pages dealing with the city.

Please feel free to go through each one of them and eliminate those which don't belong.
Just as an aside, on the same advance google search, I found that "aircraft Kiev" comes up with 401,000 hits. Here: http://www.google.com/search?as_q=kiev+aircraft&hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enCA234CA234&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images
I realize that for some people this may appear as four hits, but for me it was 401,000.

I would take a screen shot, but don't know how to do it.

If anybody could teach me, I would be happy to post them next time I google the city names.

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 03:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Aircraft Kiev generates approx 283 hits[http://www.google.co.uk/search?as_q=%22Aircraft+Kiev%22&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images] [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 05:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

== Summary so far ==

Hello,

Here are my arguments, in a nutshell:
There is a set of criteria listed at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Naming_conflict#Identification_of_common_names_using_external_references page which describe how "common name" should be determined.

They are
1. The Google test
2. Major Organizations
3. Other Encyclopedia
4. Major Media Organizations
5. Governments
6. Scientific Organizations

According to these criteria,

1. Google is inconclusive, as Kyiv and Kiev are in a tie;
2. Major organizations (UN, WHO, OSCE, World Bank) all use Kyiv;
3. Encyclopedia Britannica and Columbia Encyclopedia use Kiev, while Encarta uses Kyiv;
4. Media organizations use both - media outside the US, while US media with the exception of National Geographic, uses Kiev;
5. Governments all use Kyiv;
6. I did not check any Scientific organizations, and I don't know if that applies here. If anything, the only one that may fit would be National Geographic, but I include that in Media. What do you think about this?

4. Media and 1. Google are inconclusive, 3. Encyclopedia go for Kiev, but 2. Organizations and 5. Governments go for Kyiv.

There is, however, on the page given above, also this section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Naming_conflict#Types_of_entities
which states that when a self-identifying entity, such as a city, country, or people, has a preferred name for itself, that should also be considered when choosing the name.

Because of these points, I think the page should be called Kyiv.

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 05:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


Wrong. Google is not tied. Kiev is %25 higher. Within the encyclopaedia, media and organisations, there is a tie, although, these arguments are moot anyway considering that polling is the final authority. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 05:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


Hello,
Reginmund, how do you take a screenshot of a website? I would like to post them here.
The current tallies are: Kiev at 2,550,000, and Kyiv at 2,280,000. What percent higher is Kiev than Kyiv?

Also, there is no tie with organizations, they all use Kyiv.

Also, there is no tie with governments, they all use Kyiv.

Please stop saying that other points are moot, or this discussion is over because of a poll, because you know that is wrong. Opinions change, and there were many people who did not see the Request until after it was closed.

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 05:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


Horlo, thanks for providing that summary. The operating system's method for taking a screenshot varies with platform. Typically if you hit the Print Screen key then either a screenshot manager opens up or your window or screen are copied to the clipboard, ready to be pasted into a graphics program.

Reginmund, I have never seen Kiev score 25% higher than Kyiv with a Google test at all. If you are seeing such results, and I am seeing the results you can see with the links I provided above, then I don't think we can definitively decide on a name based on this test alone; all that it demonstrates is that both usages seem widespread. I did get a result where Kyiv had quite a few more hits than Kiev, but I can't use this as a trump card since I know that you see Kiev being 25% higher and I usually see them evenly matched. In this case, Google tests can successfully eliminate spellings such as Kiow and Kyyv, but you cannot say they conclusively put Kiev ahead of Kyiv when there is no constant, statistically significant difference between the two (and one isn't constantly more common than the other).

If somebody wishes to, we could take readings regularly for a whole day, time-average them and determine the statistical error in the results; the actual number of hits for each, rather than a percentage difference, would need to be recorded. Though unless the statistical error somehow ends up being low, or it can be shown that large numbers of websites favouring a certain spelling go offline at certain times, then I am not sure that this would clarify matters at all.

I don't know much about any polls on this issue. I do know that now there is what I would call a good case now for changing the article name from Kiev to Kyiv. In my opinion points 2, 4 and 5 on Horlo's summary, as well as the Wikipedia naming convention for self-identifying entities, demonstrate this clearly and have not been countered sufficiently for Kiev to remain as the main spelling.

Thanks,[[User:60.242.0.245|60.242.0.245]] 14:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I have already explained to Horlo why polling is the final authority but he continues to lie and twist my words. I am warning you, continue this crusade, and I'll have you reported. Wikipedia can't change just because you are pissed off at the results of the poll. Everyone that voted had perfectly good reasons they implemented and if you cannot accept that, go trolling on a message board. Your schtick is not welcome here. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 16:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


Hello,
I have two screenshots saved, but I'm not sure how to upload them. If somebody could explain that to me, I would appreciate it. I don't want to give any numbers, everybody can see them at their own convenience.

Reginmund, your story has changed from Google being the ultimate authority, to consensus being the ultimate authority, to a poll being the ultimate authority. I think that consensus is the final authority, and I have been working to build one.

If you want to invite other people to this discussion, please feel free. Please ask anybody to look over all of my comments here - administrator, checkuser, mediator, arbitrator, and even Jimbo Wales, and let them decide who should be "reported". This is a place for everybody, not just people who agree with you.

Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 22:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again you are lying. I said that consensus is the final authority. I never said that Google was. Google is a way to determine and vote on a common name. Consensus has already been built in the polls and just because you're pissed off at the result, doesn't give reason for the debate to continue. There is already enough consensus for whether or not the page should be moved and that includes the people that do not agree with me so you can put that argument in your pipe and smoke it. This is why we have polling. So we can determine what the majority of Wikipedians think is just and if you cannot accept that, than you are just a common POV crusader. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 23:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

dear 60.242.0.245 please don't be turned off by that rude tone, most of the contributors on this discussion are able to write in a respectful manner. And your contributions are welcome. Your points above add one more argument that there is no consensus to the English spelling of Kyiv. What might be able to safely say that the "Kyiv" spelling, relatively unheard of fifteen years ago, is gaining wider acceptancy and usage in the English speaking world. The English language evolves and Wikipedia might evolve with it. This might take more polls, discussions, and Internet searches. regards[[User:Eduvalko|Eduvalko]] 23:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a section discussing how Kyiv is gaining usage rapidly. However, this doesn't mean that it is dominant in the English vernacular. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 00:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

== Atlas ==

Could someone check their atlas? In my Chinese-based version atlas, I could not see "Moskva", "Praha", "Wien", "Kyiv" or other cities, but "Moscow", "Prague", "Vienna", "Kiev" respectively. [[User:KyleRGiggs|Raymond]] [[User_Talk:KyleRGiggs|Giggs]] 17:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

How old is your atlas? National Geographic uses Kyiv.
Does your atlas have Peking or Beijing? St. Petersburg or Leningrad?
Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 22:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, another question. I don't have encarta, so I can only see what they offer for free online. Do you have that service? Does encarta have an atlas?
Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 22:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

National Geographic uses Kiev[http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/places/countries/country_ukraine.html] [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 23:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Newer articles in National Geographic use the Kyiv spelling especially post Orange Revolution ie. http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0603/feature1/map.html [[User:Eduvalko|Eduvalko]] 23:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

In that case, it is not completely limited to National Geographic, it only depends on the editor. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 00:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


Hello,
That is why I said that the media is split, and other things should be considered.
Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 00:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


Hello,
With respect to atlases/maps, I know the Rand McNally map I have in my room uses Kyiv.

The Google map uses the Ukrainian name.
Yahoo uses Kiev.

Any other suggestions?
Thanks,
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 00:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The Randy McNally map also uses [[Rome|Roma]], [[Moscow|Moskva]], [[Prague|Praha]], [[Munich|München]], etc.. I have it too. It translates the city names phoenetically and not lexically. That argument is irrelevant anyway. It is original research. Google Maps however uses Kiev[http://maps.google.com/maps?q=kyiv,%20ukraine&spn=0.153809,0.253372&t=k&hl=en].

I have a suggestion! Lets do what every other Wikipedian does and follow the results of the poll! [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 01:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to leave you alone now to wallow in this pitiful argument. I have already explained to you why Kiev stays. I have already explained why we have polls and why we follow the outcome and don't repeat points. You have lied and used sockpuppets to push your POV. I'm not wasting any more time on this. I'd rather go stick my head in a microwave oven. [[User:Reginmund|Reginmund]] 01:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Took a stroll through our local Chapters bookstore and their atlas/world map section to see what was current in the printed world. A mixed bag really. One edition of Rand McNally atlas 2002 edition uses Kiev and a larger newer edition uses Kyiv. Both canadian and english editions of Oxford showed Kiev but several versions of National Geographic, Macmillan altases used Kyiv. several others listed the capital as Kyyiv, Kyiiv. No consensus among our mapmakers to indicate what form Wikipedia should adopt. Regards [[User:Eduvalko|Eduvalko]] 03:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:40, 9 September 2007

Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 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)
  • 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.
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)
  • 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)

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?
      • 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 - 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)


  • 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)

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)


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 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kyiv/naming/Archive_6&oldid=156788484"