Wikipedia

Talk:Kyiv/naming/Archive 10

< Talk:Kyiv | naming
(Redirected from Talk:Kiev/naming/archive 005)
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Andriy155 in topic Requested move October 2009
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Continuing the discussion

Latest comment: 16 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion

It is clear to me that the name should be Kyiv, as it conforms official Ukrainian legislation, as well as the established usage by mere simple googling proves that even though Kiev prevails over Kyiv in English speaking sources, it does so very slightly, may be 5%. --Moldopodo (talk) 13:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll be bold and say: once the U.S. updates its geographical names database to show "Kyiv" as the common name (State Department pronouncements are merely saying the right things to the right audience unless they are backed up by an official change where it counts), I'll be the first to advocate the move as finally having conclusive evidence in its support. :-) To the Googlers, once you take out "wikipedia" and Ukrainian sites, "KIEV" still leads "KYIV" by 2 to 1. (Remember, my personal POV is to support the move, so I'm going to interpret positive evidence as positively as possible!) —PētersV (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Kyiv Ukraine - 673 000

Kiev Ukraine - 688 000

So KIEV definitely does not lead KYIV with 2:1. The ratio is rather 1:1.--Moldopodo (talk) 11:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Vecrumba, your really shouldn't have mentioned Kiev in the Bender dispute. Don't you know of WP:BEANS? ;-)
A Google books search gives a 7 to 1 prevalence of "Kiev", as far as English usage is concerned. In Google Scholar the factor grows to 10 to 1.
A Google News search on 2005-2008 period gives "Kiev" only a 2 to 1 prevalence, though. I think an appropriate conclusion to this dispute would be "Not there yet. Try again in five years." --Illythr (talk) 12:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Moldopodo. I get: 

+kiev -wikipedia -site:*.ua = 569,000
+kyiv -wikipedia -site:*.ua = 226,000

I should have mentioned the specific search I entered. For your search, unless you put in the "+", "Kyiv Ukraine" (for example) will also return related pages which don't necessarily contain the word Kyiv. —PētersV (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Peters, can you provide the links you use? I seem to get vastly different (and very strange) results: When I look for plain vanilla "Kyiv", I get 3.66 M results. When I apply the -site:*.ua parameter, I actually get 4.78 M hits! And Kyiv -Kiev lr=lang_en yields 5,78 M hits... Adding "+" to Kyiv in these queries also INCREASES the number of hits. Whereas kyiv -site:*.ua in English returns as few as 158.000. --Illythr (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


I don't think it's fair to exclude Ukrainian websites simply because their government prefers "Kyiv". Bogdan що? 19:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, it probably isn't, but since Google searches lack a "+exclude political motivation" tag, there's only so much we can do to emulate it (the lang-en option is still kinda freaky). --Illythr (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
My only counter is that Russian sites also have a very strong political motivation to using Kiev over Kyiv. So why not do -site:*.ru also? ··· MNO (Hi!) 11:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't call sticking to the form that was in use for centuries "very strong political motivation", but
+kiev -wikipedia -site:*.ru 476,000
Still, I seem to get rather unreliable results with standard searches (see above), so I prefer to look in news, or books. --Illythr (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Illythr's 4 million and odd results: 

Kyiv             = 4,070,000
+Kyiv            = same
+Kyiv -site:*.ua = 4,820,000 (!)
-site:*.ua +Kyiv = 1,950,000
-site:*.ua Kyiv  = 4,820,000 (!)

When I specify the search, it's exactly as I typed, now that said (and this should not be construed as a character flaw either regarding myself or Illythr...), those are numbers with SAFESEARCH off. With SAFESEARCH on, we get... 

Kyiv             = 8,000,000
+Kyiv            = 2,170,000
+Kyiv -site:*.ua = 244,000
-site:*.ua +Kyiv = 240,000
-site:*.ua Kyiv  = 244,000

So, SAFESEARCH makes a huge difference. Also, it appears it changes results regarding required (+) or not (no +). Now a term might only appear on a page that LINKS to a page returned and Google returns that linked-to page, so that likely explains the jump to 8,000,000 for SAFESEARCH for Kyiv, no "+". I'm still disturbed by the non-transitive nature of the explicit (+) include and (-) exclude, but that's likely the result of queries going to different search engines with different caches. —PētersV (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Peters, I asked for exact links not because I'm so suspicious, but because Google's "personalizing" and regional settings may affect the results without being immediately apparent, as you have just seen with the safesearch tag. Hmm, an interesting functionality this tag has. If it's supposed to block unwanted content, why applying it produces 2 times MORE hits (although the rest of the restrictions seen to apply better with it)? --Illythr (talk) 08:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I didn't quite get how you make the specific search, but what's for sure is that in order to get English spelling, we should most certainly exclude Russian sites, as they are more than ambiguous as far as Ukraine related subjects are concerned, and certainly leave the Ukrainian sites.--Moldopodo (talk) 09:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Googling

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I haven't read all the opinions here, nor do I know whether it should be Kiev or Kyiv. However, I've noticed a lot of talk of googling for the two names which I thought was irrelevant for gathering consensus. I mean if people are saying that calling it Kiev is a fallacy, and it actually turns out to be so, then of course Kiev will have more google hits than Kyiv since more people believe it to be Kiev though incorrectly so. Also, I don't know about in other countries, but here in England we have a meal called "Chicken Kiev" so surely part of the googles for Kiev will contain info on the chicken variety rather than the city variety. I have no idea if its name is Kyiv or Kiev but surely there are better arguments for one or the other then google? Deamon138 (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right; Google results don't seem to have settled anything for certain. Part of the problem is the lack of consensus on what we should be using...60.242.0.245 (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

a recently googling of kiev -.ru and kyiv -*.ru turned up 2,150,000 for the former, and 4,610,000 for the latter. it would seem most of the Kiev spelling is coming from Russian websites. This, I believe, is substantial evidence to not drop Kiev from the page, put rather list Kiev second, and have Kiev redirect to Kyiv.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=u27&q=kyiv+-*.ru&btnG=Search&meta= (kyiv) http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=f27&q=kiev+-*.ru&btnG=Search&meta= (kiev) --Yakym (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Horlo (talk) 07:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

section break

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

However unfortunate it may seem to some Ukrainian names have become more common in English than former Polish or Russian names. Horlo (talk) 07:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

For those who are too lazy to read older discussions here is a quick summary. Polish names probably exist for every city of Ukraine. There are three ways how they can apply.

  1. For some cities, their Polish name is so important that it may be found in English texts even nowadays (Lviv/Lwow/Lvov/Lemberg). For such cities it needs to be placed in the very first line of the article, except perhaps when the article has a name etymology piece close to the top where similar names are listed and explained (current solution at Kamianets-Podilskyi). In such articles all names except native are given within etymology discussion.
  2. For some cities, while much of the Polish history still applies to them, they are never, or almost never, called nowadays by their Polish names in English language texts. Examples are Kiev/Kyiv/Kijow, Chernihiv/Chernigov/Czernihow, Kaniv/Kanev/Kaniow, etc. Polish name should be used for such cities in the history sections (like Voivodship name) but not in the first line, because otherwise (like for Kiev) any name of any country that ever conquered it (Lithuanian, German, Crimean Tatarian, Swedish, whatever was the Khazar language, Cuman, etc.) deserves the place in the first line. Similarly, Варшава, Белосток, Краков, at times conquered and controlled by Russia, by this token would need to be mentioned in the first lines of the respective articles (and I know some of our Polish friends will not take it lightly). This would be clutter and/or bad blood. We have a separate list article called Names of European cities in different languages for this information.
  3. Finally, for some cities in Ukraine (Sevastopol, Kramatorsk) Polish name is totally irrelevant.

The same rule of thumb applies to Russian names. However unfortunate it may seem for some, many Ukrainian cities are mentioned in English by their Russian names occasionally even today (Kharkiv/Battle of Kharkov, Chornobyl/Chernobyl accident), etc. So, there are more Russian names than Polish ones in the first lines. I hope I captured everything. Do read archives, if interested. --Irpen

There are two applicable naming conventions, WP:NC#UA which clearly states as Wikipedia official policy, "For geographic names in Ukraine, the Ukrainian National system is used. For historic reasons, many names are also presented in Russian, Polish, etc." The second is WP:UE, which states "These guidelines are under development", and clearly states "use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works". These two naming conventions conflict with each other, but one is established, the other is under development. Much of the discussion has focused on just how common Kiev and Kyiv are. --199.125.109.35

Ministry of ecenomy of Ukraine spelling

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Go on http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2008/1/1/69342.htm, wait until it fully loads, and look at the picture of the first letter, and its spelling, Kyiv. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pazan.ua (talk • contribs) 15:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Final Request

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

1) Only official country's position is relevant to naming any city in that country.
2) If some alternative name has been created by another country, and it is objected/contradicted by the country in question - than the prevalence is given to the official naming by the country in question. This is the most basic international etiquette, ignoring which could only mean disrespect. [**In connection to this - I request names of the individuals responsible for this disrespect, through locking of the page and refusal to use official terms and names, for further action of possible removal of the person(s) from eiting/controlling the content of Ukrainian pages(whether in Ukrainian and/or in the International section).**]

3) Official names of all Ukrainian cities in both the native official language of Ukraine, according to Ukrainian constitution(being Ukrainian), and official transliterations of those names into Latin Alphabet (intended for international usage in all official manners) can be found on almost all high level official governmental sites (designated with .gov.ua), such as:

a) portal.rada.gov.ua - Official Portal of Ukrainian Parliament (Verkhovna Rada) (Ukraine having a Parliamentary-Presidential form of government).
- www.rada.gov.ua/translit.htm (Official Transliteration Guide into Latin alphabet for International Usage) - today I could only access the page through google cache - http://209.85.175.104/search?q=cache:UR3aaPN_VdQJ:www.rada.gov.ua/translit.htm+%2Bukraine+official+transliteration&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=sg
- http://portal.rada.gov.ua/rada/control/en/publish/article/info_left?art_id=105828&cat_id=105543 (List of Regions)
b) http://www.kmu.gov.ua/control/en - Main United Portal of Executive Branch(ruling) of Ukrainian Government
- http://www.kmu.gov.ua/control/en/publish/article%3fart_id=235995&cat_id=32672 (under Administrative Structure)
c) www.ukrstat.gov.ua - Official Governmental portal of The State Statistical Committee of Ukraine.
- http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/region/obl_e.htm (Regions)
- http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/region/region_e/mKiy.htm (Kyiv City)
d) http://www.ukrcensus.gov.ua/ - Official Governmental Portal of Ukrainian Census of 2001 with all the official data and names.
- http://www.ukrcensus.gov.ua/eng/regions/reg_mkyiv/ (Kyiv City)
e) http://www.mfa.gov.ua/ - Official Governmental Portal of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine
- http://www.mfa.gov.ua/mfa/en/265.htm (List of Regions)
- http://www.mfa.gov.ua/mfa/en/publication/content/312.htm (The City of Kyiv)

Therefore - The only name that should be even mentioned on the page is 'Kyiv' - anything else would simply be a sign of disrespect by those who actively oppose the usage of one and only official transliterated name of Ukraine's capital.

As for 'Kiev' - it can be used in the disambiguation page for such things as: former name during the Soviet Union, Photocamera, Kiev Chicken and so on. But should not be mentioned on the main Kyiv page simply for the reason that there are so many other foreign names.
The only consensus I could possibly think of in favor of leaving a mention of 'Kiev'- is to leave it for a few months with description: 'Before Independence also known as Kiev'

Vvolodymyr (talk) 10:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately Only official country's position is relevant to naming any city in that country. violates the core policy of wikipedia: Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article. Fact is that Ukrainian government does not regulate spelling of English. FYI, the Russian name of the city would not be Kiev, but Kiyev. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 10:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Please - to avoid unnecessary deviations from the topic - only the people directly in control over the content in the article at the moment are encouraged to respond (those who have taken it upon themselves to lock the article). What I have put in previous comment - is an official information, not a speculation or a personal opinion - but official evidence.

All Ukrainian governmental bodies insist on using those names of cities - including Kyiv - and not the former names, over which the people of Ukraine had not control before freedom of choice - before independence. Consider them as the only reliable source - which towers over the faceless mass of speculation and rhetoric. Using something else despite what is given by official sources - would be a gross undermining of a country's right to name itself and it's cities.

Your kind and swift action would be greatly appreciated.

Vvolodymyr (talk) 13:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Once again wikipedia is not ruled by Ukrainian government, but by a consensus of editors, and ultimately Mr Jimbo Wales, and they not Ukraine decide no how things go. I advise you to read WP:NC and WP:NC(UE). --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 14:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

A country has a right to name itself. Ukrainian government hold the power vested to it by it's people - naturally.

Before Ukrainian Independence - Ukrainian cities were named in Russian manner - Kiev - is a Russian way of calling Ukrainian capital. After gaining independence - people of Ukraine have the right to announce to the world what their country and cities are called.

One could post their desires and personal opinions - but all that would mean is denial of people of Ukraine to name their country and cities.

Now - please let us all refrain from posting personal opinions, desires, speculation and rhetoric. There is a simple and clean answer to all that - official sources. In such way all arguments will simply stop. It is so hard to find something concrete, conclusive, definitive and final - pertaining the usage of 'Kiev'- no officially recognized sources, not even sources that could be consensually trusted.

Now - Ukrainian government unequivocally expresses the desire of its people to call their capital Kyiv. Similarly all the other cities of Ukraine.

That is a great solution.

I will get around to changing the article and links, as well as disambiguation page according to official sources, as well as updated information on the city.

Meanwhile - whoever holds administrative authority, please kindly put a banner/marker stating that this article has disputes and in process of completing. Again non-administrators, or those who harbor passionate beliefs and feeling of possessiveness over a neighboring country(being Ukraine) - please refrain to interfere with articles describing or relating to Ukraine, particularly this one.

Sincerely, Volodymyr —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvolodymyr (talk • contribs) 15:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Volodya, first of all WP:OWN — noone owes anything on wikipedia, not me, not you not Ukrainian or for that matter Malaysian government(s). Second noone tells Ukraine how to issue their English language publications. However, should for example Russia state that it wants to use Moskva instead of Moscow for English language publications, it would be until the rest of English speaking world (i.e. CNN, BBC, associate Press, Reuters. Then finally books, scholarly references etc.) only then would wikipedia consider that the usage of Moskva is greater than Moscow, and rename its article accordingly. Again this would be done via a wide vote and on decree of an administrator if not an arbitrator of wikipedia. The best example I can think of is Beijing and Peking. Officially the change occurred in 1928, yet it was only well into the 1960s that the English speaking world fully adapted to the new name. Give it another decade, and then raise the issue. Look at it this way, type Kiev into google, you will get 64 million hits, type Kyiv into google you will get 6 million. I know people state above that Google is not accurate and so, but when we get a 1:1 ratio then we can seriously discuss all aspects of the issue, until then, as you can read from past discussions all attempts to rename Kiev got nowhere. Once again, this has nothing to do with disrespect for Ukraine, on the contrary the article explicitly states on the issue and describes it. Regards --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 15:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Reason?

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

1) I don't see any countrymen from countries with official English language denying the right to people of Ukraine to name it's cities and country.

2) For many years I only see one persistent person - a single person - who denies a whole country its free right to name it's country and cities.

3) Wikipedia is a project which provides truthful information to its visitors. It is only right for those visitors to know the official name of a capital of a country - alongside with former names - but current truthful name is a must.

4) Governmental sources which are up-to-date are the closest thing to a credible source one could find.

5) There is no one authority on English language for a long time now. Moreover there is no one authority on Latin Alphabet neither. Sources which give preference to other names to the capital of Ukraine - are often contradicting each other and are not conclusive.

6) Please refrain from denying Ukraine to name its cities. You stand alone - and your opinion does not approach the credibility of an official source of a body that has the power to represent the people of Ukraine.

Do not forget to put up a marker that this article has serious disputes - parties being Kuban Cossack vs. Government of Ukraine. Vvolodymyr (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, since you are new here, need I remind you once again that governments do not decide on anything in wikipedia, maybe to a degree in Ukrainian wikipedia wrt copyright, but certainly not on English wikipedia. Second I was kind enough to answer your queries, but assuming that I am alone here is a gross mistake, have a look at some of the previous votes, and see how many people voted against renaming the article Kiev. Third, it makes no different where one is from, that's the beauty of wikipedia, you can be from Antarctica for all I care, as long as you are a good contributor. Fourthly per WP:NOT and WP:SOAP wikipedia is not a propaganda platform, and it follows conventions and does not create them. Fifthly per WP:TRUTH, only referenced secondary sources do that, have a peak at Kiev vs. Kyiv at Google books: 19200 vs 1731 (i.e. the same 10:1 in favour of Kiev). Lastly, I am not denying Ukraine to name its cities anyway it wishes in its English language publications. However that's the limit the government of Ukraine has, and as you rightly said there is no one authority on English language, which is true that unlike Russian or Ukrainian which are regulated by the respective Academies of Sciences, English has no such body. Thus, it is what the majority of English speaking world use that decide and influence wikipedia. Once again, stop this nonsense about denying and read wikipedia policies that I linked you to. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 16:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from calling other people's valuable contributions with undisputable sources as nonsense. Name is what one calls oneself. wikipedia informs visitors on what are things and what they are called.

A right to name a person is reserved by ones parents, and that person. A right to name a country, region, city is reserved by the representative body of the people of that country - i.e. government; and not a group of random individuals on the internet. Again - please refrain from denying that right.

1) number of hits of Kyiv is greater than the number of hits for Kiev (excluding such terms as "chicken Kiev" or the brand of photo camera "Kiev" and other such names not describing the city itself.) - yet this number is lower for google books simply because this former name (being Kiev) was longer in use (than new name Kyiv).
2) Now the capital of Ukraine is called Kyiv - it has been announced 17 years ago - and is maintained by undisputed sources - such as government sites. This is the way of people of Ukraine (through their representatives) let the people of the World know - what their new free name is - in terms of country and city names. For the last 17 years the World is finding this out - and the usage of the new proper official name (Kyiv) is in use more and more often.
3) Which is very similar to the name change of the city of Kolkata(formerly known as Calcutta). Because according to common sense and international etiquette - people of the World, me included, pay attention to this name change and start calling it so - out of simple politeness and respect. To continue to call it by old name - would simply mean disrespect.
4) This is the sort of disrespect seen here - by simply refusing to acknowledge the name change from old 'Kiev' to new 'Kyiv'.

The reason the sources and reiteration of those sources are written here by me - instead of simple edit - is to politely urge you and the great many like you, to respect a country's decision to rename itself from Ukrainian Soviet Sosialist Repblic to simply Ukraine, and to politely urge you and the great many like you, to respect a country's decision to rename its cities including its capital from Kiev to Kyiv.

I urge you reverently, no! i BEG YOU - please show some respect - and simply do not interfere in this tiny little expression of freedom of the people of Ukraine on this free and unowned fountain of information.

With all respect to all participants of this wonderful project!

Vvolodymyr (talk) 16:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Request to move to official name

Latest comment: 16 years ago93 comments18 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No move: far more opposes than supports, arguments don't justify renaming the article in accordance with the relevant naming convention guidelines WP:UE and WP:NCGN. Parsecboy (talk) 03:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It has been proposed that Kiev be renamed and moved to Kyiv.

as per official sources - the Government of Ukraine insists that its capital is called Kyiv - who has a right to deny?

3) Official names of all Ukrainian cities in both the native official language of Ukraine, according to Ukrainian constitution(being Ukrainian), and official transliterations of those names into Latin Alphabet (intended for international usage in all official manners) can be found on almost all high level official governmental sites (designated with .gov.ua), such as:

a) portal.rada.gov.ua - Official Portal of Ukrainian Parliament (Verkhovna Rada) (Ukraine having a Parliamentary-Presidential form of government).
- www.rada.gov.ua/translit.htm (Official Transliteration Guide into Latin alphabet for International Usage) - today I could only access the page through google cache - http://209.85.175.104/search?q=cache:UR3aaPN_VdQJ:www.rada.gov.ua/translit.htm+%2Bukraine+official+transliteration&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=sg
- http://portal.rada.gov.ua/rada/control/en/publish/article/info_left?art_id=105828&cat_id=105543 (List of Regions)
b) http://www.kmu.gov.ua/control/en - Main United Portal of Executive Branch(ruling) of Ukrainian Government
- http://www.kmu.gov.ua/control/en/publish/article%3fart_id=235995&cat_id=32672 (under Administrative Structure)
c) www.ukrstat.gov.ua - Official Governmental portal of The State Statistical Committee of Ukraine.
- http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/region/obl_e.htm (Regions)
- http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/region/region_e/mKiy.htm (Kyiv City)
d) http://www.ukrcensus.gov.ua/ - Official Governmental Portal of Ukrainian Census of 2001 with all the official data and names.
- http://www.ukrcensus.gov.ua/eng/regions/reg_mkyiv/ (Kyiv City)
e) http://www.mfa.gov.ua/ - Official Governmental Portal of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine
- http://www.mfa.gov.ua/mfa/en/265.htm (List of Regions)
- http://www.mfa.gov.ua/mfa/en/publication/content/312.htm (The City of Kyiv)

Vvolodymyr (talk) 21:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC) (keep forgetting to sign)

Discussion

Partial list of previous duplicate requests (only recent ones):

--Irpen 21:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I saw that.
But what does that mean?
The official name is clear as daylight - so can we move already or wait another 17 years?
The government of Ukraine insists that its capital is called Kyiv - who in their right mind will deny that right?
This is like the Twilight Zone
Thanks again
--Vvolodymyr (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
The government of Ukraine has no authority over English language. --Irpen 21:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

But we're not talking about Ukrainian government having authority over English language. For that matter no single government or group of persons have authority over English language - On International Arena. It is now unofficially a language of international conversation.

So... Since no government has authority over English language on International Arena (and Internet and wikipedia in particular IS an International Arena), then no single country or a group of persons has a right to dictate their name to a city that belongs to a nation of people.

But - since a country belongs to it's people they have a right to name cities in their country. But if that country happens to use other alphabet then Latin - they can Romanize (Latinize, Transliterate into Latin) the names of cities, of people - so that THAT name could be used in (for example) English language - on International Arena.

It would be a pity if some other country or some unrelated group of people chose to completely diregard that name and impose/dictate their own. Would those others have an upper hand over the people, to whome that city belongs? No they wouldn't.

Besides - wikipedia - is NOT a loudspeaker for persistent people with ideas, or perpetuation of old habits - it is an informative system - it informs unsuspecting visitors about stuff. Like... names of Country capitals. It wouldn't be prudent to simply perpetuate a misconseption or an old/derelict name/term - simply because of habit. Nooo - it would be prudent to inform those visitors that the name has been changed - it is now Kyiv. But even if they look for Kiev - we put a redirect there to it's true name (Kyiv) - and put a little note about name change - and the visitors will be well informed.

After all we did change the name of the country - from Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Why did we do that? Well... maybe because Ukrainian government changed it by itself - because it has a right to? And it didn't dictate anything regarding the use of English language - did it? No - it simply changed it's own name.

--Vvolodymyr (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is a perfect example of Proper Use of Wikipedia as informative platform. It informs people about things - even about common misconceptions.

Grand_Central_Terminal Grand Central Terminal in NY is often mistakenly called Grand Central Station. Here are google results: GCStation - 1,310,000 GCTerminal - 816,000

Just because the wrong "station" is used more often - it is still WRONG. Why? Because a proper authority insists on calling it a Terminal - and wikipedia informs visitors about it in a short and sweet way.

Now Ukrainian government has announced what the names of ALL its cities are, in Latin Alphabet and thus English language. Luckily International Geographic organization and other organizations have confirmed those names... What stops wikipedia? a group of random people? Why should those random people hold the information ransom for who knows what reasons - with endless rhetoric, designed to stall the Truth from coming out for eternity? Why do they "have an authority on English language"? Additionally Why do they have an authority over city names - despite a clear statement about those city names by the government of people that own them?

You want legitimate conclusive sources? OK 1) All The government sites I have posted. 2) In the archives a link to that Geographic Authority

It's Kyiv in there everywhere. Also Odesa, Kharkiv, Lviv, and so on.

Anybody care to give sources that would have enough power and credibility to contest those of the above? Anybody? The Burden of Proof is on them.

--Vvolodymyr (talk) 22:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at these American official governmental sources. Although US does not hold authority over English language - noone does - it does have a majority of people with English as primary language....

[1] - US Depratment of State [2] - again Department of State [3] - CIA (not the most reliable source, but....)

But then again I completely expect someone finding official (governmental are as official as they get) sources of some country with English as official language - and they will have 'Kiev' in there, and in other they will have 'Kyiv'.

So - with all this confusion and speculation, or simply uncaring use of names - and the lack of authority on English language - especially on International Arena - which Credible Body do we give preference for naming a city to? and why?

--Vvolodymyr (talk) 23:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Absolutely not - until Kyiv becomes predominant English usage (if it ever does; Praha has not, nor Roma). We have innumerable guidelines which say to use common names rather than official ones, centering about WP:Use English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
    • But Kyiv is in English. Wikipedia is not a loudspeaker for perpetuation of common misconception, but informative platform - to help people learn things other than they know. There is also information that most of "Kiev" hits come from the Russian sector of the internet as a simple transliteration [Russian_Transliteration] from Russian Киев. All in the archives. As well as other compelling evidence. Let us be prudent and not ignore things, like all the evidence that has been posted before. Vvolodymyr (talk) 04:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia is not a megaphone for the Ukrainian or the Russian or the Foolandish National Truth either. We are not here to indoctrinate our readers with anybody's new and improved truth. Kyiv does occur in English, sometimes; so does Praha. But neither is what English uses; neither communicates with readers of English as clearly and distinctly as possible, by using the language which actually exists. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
        • P.S. Another thing - Czech Republic and Italy are bad examples since their government sites in English section DO use Prague[4] and Rome - Italy didn't bother to put up and English version[5]. Their governments never established their Official English names for Prague and Rome as anything else.
          Examples refuted. Wiki Guidelines say that we should use Ukrainian Transliteration in one place, and that there are no firm rules in another place.
          Conclusion? Vvolodymyr (talk) 04:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

What happened?

OK. What just happened? User:JPG-GR has removed the move request without reason? What is this?

Vvolodymyr (talk) 00:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Again

{{move|Kiev|Kyiv}}

Vvolodymyr (talk) 00:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. You know - this is ridiculous - I'm not allowed to put a move request in the discussion page of the article (Kiev) - but when I do it here - it says "move Kiev/naming" etc. And there's nothing I can do to change that. It is clear that the move is intended from "Kiev" to "Kyiv".... I hope this imposed "technicality" does not cancel the request to move.

Vvolodymyr (talk) 01:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

P.P.S. This time I DID add the thing onto the main page.

Vvolodymyr (talk) 01:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I have added the notification at the top of Talk:Kiev (diff.). - Regards, Ev (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I See. Thanks. When is the deadline? Vvolodymyr (talk) 07:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome. Seeing that you publicized this discussion at 00:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC), the standard five days of discussion would elapse the 29th of September (monday). However, this deadline is not set in stone. If a reasonable degree of agreement is reached before the five days pass, the discussion can be closed earlier. Likewise, if after five days of fruitless discussion there are indications that a reasonable degree of agreement can still be reached, the discussion can be extended for another five days, or longer. - Regards, Ev (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
And might I be bold enough to ask who decides whether there are indications that a resonable degree of agreement is reached? In other words if you want to call me who do you ask on what my name is (I'm am able to speak English through my years of learning and so does Ukrainian government through ministry of foreign affairs)? What IS freedom and when is it being denied (in tears)? Sincerely Vvolodymyr (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
In the best of cases the decision will be taken by us, the participants in this discussion, unanimously :-) But usually it's the administrator that closes the discussion the one who asseses if a reasonable degree of agreement has been reached in favour of one option or the other.
On your second point, you can't really compare your own name with that of a city like Kiev, whose general importance, eventful history, cultural significance and rich artistic & architectonic heritage have assured it a place of prominence in the English language. In other words, English-speakers have often spoken, written and read about Kiev for a looong time; and in doing so have established a common English usage, a widely accepted English name, that the English-language Wikipedia (following its naming conventions' core principle of "using the name the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize") reflects in its articles. - Regards, Ev (talk) 22:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

"Conventions"

Wikipedia:Naming conventions#City names

Convention: In general, there are no special naming conventions for cities, unless multiple cities with the same name exist.

Discussion, rationale, and specifics: See: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Ukrainian names

With the general naming conventions above in mind, it is still sometimes necessary to render Ukrainian names, normally written in Cyrillic, into the Latin alphabet (to romanize them).

See Romanization of Ukrainian for details of transliteration systems.

Most personal names have a conventional English spelling, rendered phonetically. This is usually very close to transcription by the BGN/PCGN system, which is quite intuitive for English speakers to pronounce. Some Ukrainian names have conventional spellings that come from other languages, like Polish, transcription from Russian, transcription into German, etc. For geographic names in Ukraine, the Ukrainian National system is used. For historic reasons, many names are also presented in Russian, Polish, etc. Linguistics topics often use "scholarly", or "scientific transliteration" within the text.

So if you go by that - we should not have this discussion.

Anyways - why is this a controversy? Why don't we establish that fact first - if no sufficient or firm proof and evidence is provided - then we should stick to the Official name (you can see it in the article itself By The Way). I don't see any proof or evidence from those who make it into "controversy". Sufficient information was provided to Prove that Kyiv is the new name, and official name, and in English and with sources. No conclusive information is seen from the deniers.

The whole "it is widely used at the moment" rhetoric - is neutralized by the simple fact of an establishment of a new term, which made old one obsolete. It doesn't mean that the old term should not be used - it will be mentioned as the former name - to inform the visitors. And the redirect - so when people type "Kiev" they are redirected to new valid name "Kyiv" and they learn that there was an act of renaming the city.

Calcutta was renamed Kolkata. Maybe it didn't have so many random internet personalities denying the change so persistently. In such view - we should put a question - what and who gives those persons a right over the official government of Ukraine to name its own cities? Vvolodymyr (talk) 04:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Survey

  • Oppose because of arguments already presented in previous requests. Official naming has nothing to do with English usage. The new "official" form is not the predominant form used in English in English speaking regions of the world. 70.55.203.112 (talk) 04:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Evidence Needed for this statement
Official naming has nothing to do with English usage
How is the predominancy of the form measured?
Is en.wikipedia.org limited to English speaking regions of the world?
What is meant by 'English speaking regions'?
What relevance does the predominance have to the establishment of a new name?
Vvolodymyr (talk) 04:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
1) what is "ukase"? Is it some insult?;
2) Where is the proof and evidence to show beyond any reasonable doubt that in case of English or Latinized(Transliterated) names the only warrant is usage?
3) There may have been a loss during the exchange - has nothing to do with patriotism - official name is an official name.
There are many examples of when people use the wrong terms, names etc. - but no matter how overwhelmingly widely used they are compared to the correct(official) term/name, they are still incorrect (or in this case outdated).
Good example was given by me about Grand Central Station (in NY) which is a Terminal - common misconception.
4) Also governments of countries sometimes change the names of their cities - and good example is Kolkata (formerly known as Calcutta). The world simply accepted the name, and they were allowed to put Kolkata on wikipedia whithout much fuss, simply because of some minimal respect of a country's decision.
Where is the respect here? Where is an exhaustive proof that Governments are not allowed to name their cities? Please provide proof first.
Otherwise there is only speculation.
You can see the sources to government sites and usage by American government, United Nations etc.
When it comes to sources - governmental sources are far more credible than an opinion of a random internet individual.
Please - let's have some constructive discussion with backup.
Vvolodymyr (talk) 05:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose At present "Kiev" is the standard form in English-language works. An encyclopedia should not be at the forefront of change, encouraging it, but merely following what scholarship does. The usage of a particular government should not override common usage. Noel S McFerran (talk) 12:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
OK. That's actually a pretty clear statement. Thanks for that.
Just for clarification - where can one find a confirmation to the statement about wikipedia merely following what scholarship does, and not be on the forefront? I think this is one of the 2 or 3 crucial point which need to be determined beyond doubt.
Another statement about "Kiev" being standard does not reflect reality. It is habitual - yes. It is historical (presumably grew in usage during Soviet Times, when Ukraine did not have a right of self-determination) - yes. But it is not the only one in common use - a large usage of "Kyiv" is present and not overwhelmed. In other words those two are used at the same time. Most governments and international organizations do adopt and use "Kyiv" (examples given before) - but those are in the minority (naturally) on the net - but they are more credible by nature(important!). And other sites (personal and various private organizations) use "Kiev" - and they are naturally more numerous - but inherently less credible, and often use "Kiev" and "Kyiv" freely interchangeably (on the same source). Also "Kyiv" is official - not only in Ukraine - but in United States for example (not only Kyiv but the entire list of modern geographical names of Ukraine), while "Kiev" is unofficial.
Therefore we have a choice of preference to make.
I naturally assume that encyclopedia makes emphasis on accuracy and credibility rather than wide usage.
Statement about "particular government" - do not forget we are not talking about Greece refusing the right to Macedonia(another country) and the rest of the world, to use the name "Macedonia". This kind of influence is unacceptable! I fully agree. But we are talking about government naming it's own cities. Transliteration is a legitimate way for a country with non-latin alphabet - to introduce the names of it's cities etc. to the world - for proper use. This is not to be taken lightly.
Thanks again.
Vvolodymyr (talk) 13:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose move to "Kyiv", agreeing with 70.55.203.112, PMAnderson & McFerran. "Kiev" remains the form commonly used in the anglophone world, the one "the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize"... thus corresponding to the core criterion of our naming conventions, i. e. that of us[ing] the most easily recognized name. - Ev (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Please note that in order for it to be a contribution and a valid opposition - concrete evidence is needed.
1) Conclusive disproof of the specific Wikipedia Policy about Ukrainian Geographic names is needed.
The general city naming rules are ambiguous Wikipedia:Naming conventions#City names, There exists a very specific and very relevant wiki policy specifically on Ukrainian names including Geographic names Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Ukrainian names which by order of logic supersede in accuracy a more general policy (i.e. a definition of a square is a more precise definition than that of a rectangle, when describing a square)
2) The form commonly used is outdated and needs update as per credible governmental sources versus various random persona and private sources.
3) "names most commonly recognized" is a more ambiguous statement from a more general wiki naming policy - Specifically for Ukraine - wiki haqs a specific policy. Please provide dispute. Vvolodymyr (talk) 07:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
1) A detailed explanation of our naming conventions, including the section on Ukrainian names, can be found below.
2) "Kiev" is not outdated, but continues to be the form commonly used in the English language. — Furthermore, for the purposes of our naming conventions governmental usage is neither more important nor more "credible" than the common usage of individual anglophones reflected everyday in private (as in non-governmental) sources. In fact, the opposite is the case.
3) Far from being ambiguous and distinct from our case, the statement in question is the main principle of our naming conventions, upon which all specific guidelines are based, limiting themselves to explain how this core principle applies to each specific type of article. This includes the section dealing with Ukrainian names, as made obvious by it's very first sentence: "With the general naming conventions above in mind[...]". - Regards, Ev (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Rename WP:UE is very clear about this sort of thing, the alternate name already exists as a redirect so there's no issue of people searching the other name not being able to find the content. If we aren't going to call Germany by it's real name, Bundesrepublik Deutschland, I think we can leave this the way it is too. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Please note that in order for it to be a contribution and a valid opposition - concrete evidence is needed.
1) Statement about rules being clear is incomplete and incorrect. The specific rules about naming Ukrainian names and locations says Ukrainian Transliteration of Ukrainian names to be used.
2) The alternate name ARE to be added in a addition to the primary and marked as former, ancient, or in other languages (specifically Russian and Polish where applicable).
3) Comment on naming of Germany is inapplicable as an example since German government insists on Using "Germany" on international area including legal documents and international agreements, and German government does not dispute the usage of "Germany" on international arena in any way.
4) your opinion was heard but it needs sufficient backing to be taken as a valid contribution. Vvolodymyr (talk) 07:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support move to "Kyiv". Peking changed to Beijing. It is written exactly the same way in Chinese. All that changed was the preferred way of pronouncing it. It took some time for the change to be accepted. Some organizations were more progressive regarding this than others. Wikipedia in my eyes is a progressive reference source because it can change and be updated quickly, and instead you have so non-progressive conservatives who possibly have a hidden agenda pulling the ropes. 20 years ago. Ok. Now with all the evidence to me keeping the name as Kiev is incorrect. Bandurist (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Please confine your remarks to the renaming and don't make outrageous accusations of conspiracies. Unless you really think the cabal hates the Ukraine. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
What a silly comment. I stand by my opinion. Some of these "non-progressive conservatives" are the same individuals who are disprupting other articles dealing with Ukrainian matters. Bandurist (talk) 11:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Please, let's not make it into accusation discussion. Could you please restate you Approval using only arguments regarding the validity of all the given reasons for the renaming Kiev to Kyiv in titles and bodies of all articles&stubs on en.wikipedia.org (e.g. wiki policies, valid sources, etc.) - otherwise we do not have a single confounded opposition or approval. It would be a pity to simply make The change due to lack of confounded opposition or approval by anybody except the initiator of the change. Thank You again for you interest Vvolodymyr (talk) 11:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Just so everyone understands - we're not talking about different sets of alphabets - we're talking about the simple Latin alphabet used in international English (what you see on the keyboard) - not Turkish alphabet or Vietnamese, for example. Question about Kyiv - is not some internal issue - it's the name that was established by all branches of Ukrainian gov't to be used in communications with govt's of other countries, in international legal documents, agreements, international geographic societies. Refusal to use it - is a spit in a face.

The burden of proof lies on those who deny the use of Kyiv as the primary.

Vvolodymyr (talk) 06:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

There have been requests to justify, provide conclusive evidence etc. on numerous questionable statements made in opposition to using Kyiv as a primary. Be noted - without any proof, conclusive evidence - those statements cannot be considered credible - and Wikipedia:COI If it is hard for someone to find those requests - please inform about it here, and we will compile a list for you. Meanwhile please provide sufficient evidence when making controversial statements, or they will be ignored.

So far none of the points have been confirmed - if you want your opinion to be a contribution - please hurry - otrherwise in a day the changes will be made as per request to move and rename.

Thank You. Vvolodymyr (talk) 06:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. If anyone wishing to contribute but has trouble finding all the viable proof and evidence already presented, please request for a compilation before posting a comment. Thank You for your interest. Vvolodymyr (talk) 07:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Support. It is long overdue. The argument that Kiev is standard English usage doesn't hold water. United States officially uses Kyiv and they are an English-speaking country, so does Canada and they also use Kyiv. The issues of sticking to the old name is political more than anything else. --Hillock65 (talk) 12:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Reiteration on official wiki policy
    Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Ukrainian names is not under discussion and is an official wiki policy. It specifically pertains the naming of geographical entities of Ukraine among other things.

    This is regarding a comment on the very top of this page. Don't forget to take this into consideration when posting an opinion to be contributed to the discussion. Thank You Vvolodymyr (talk) 08:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

An explanation of our naming conventions policy, including the section on Ukrainian names, can be found below. - Ev (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose, this survey is being repeated on a three-month basis, and each time the same arguments are repeated: Our core policy of WP:NC(UE) still maintains that most-commonly used name in English irrespective of everything else, thus until Google will show a 10:1 hit in favour of Kyiv, this discussion is useless and will show no result. My advice for the initiators, is to start publishing cookbook materials showing how to make Chicken Kyivs if they want the process accelerated. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 12:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Did it ever occur to anyone that if this issue keeps coming up every three months from different users there is a reason for it? Google has never been an authority in WP. This may not amount to much, that is true. But Wikipedia has to face the reality: Kyiv is gaining in usage and it's only a matter of time until this community catches up with the real world.--Hillock65 (talk) 14:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Well when restaurants and shops start offering Chicken Kyivs then wikipedia can "catch up", until then, its Kiev. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 13:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Please note that in order for it to be a contribution and a valid opposition - concrete evidence is needed. This is not a democracy, this is not a poll, and until a valid argumentation is provided your opinion will be take as a Wikipedia:COI.
Please note, that not being an administrator, and being less than a week on wikipedia, your self-perception of wiki procedures might be incorrect due to the lack of experience. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 13:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Simply saying "strongly oppose" does not add anything constructive to the decision.
Neither is saying strongly support. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 13:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
1) the past argumentations are being taken under consideration. Consensus have not been reached yet - but time is running short - so, again please provide conclusive evidence that negates/disproves/overrides the reasons (with valid credible sources) provided on this page for the name change from Kiev to Kyiv everywhere on en.wikipedia.org when explicitly or implicitly pertaining to the capital city of Ukraine; before the time runs out.
I have provided, a google lead of 10:1 in millions is a strong evidence, a similar google book hit of 10:1 and of course the fact that BBC, CNN and Associated Press still use Kiev negates, disproves, and wrt wiki policy of using most common English name disproves the reasons. So let the clock tick, this is not the first vote that got nowhere, nor alas will it be the last. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 13:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
2) If you still insist to use the fact that this issue has been risen as often as every 3 months for the past (?)umpteen years - then consider that the actual discussion has been waging more or less continuously for these past years - then all the more there is a reason to hurry up and provide credible, relevant evidence to oppose(in your personal case) the evidense and reasons including but not limited to the official wiki policy on Ukrainian names. I have posted several times the most crucial point that are needed for your opinion to become a valid contribution.
See reasoning above, also deciding on a validity is a question for admins not newbies. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 13:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
3) Again - there is specific and clear rule to Ukrainian names, which being so specific supercedes the more general and ambiguous policies.
Again - it does not, because the policy to supersede is that of using the common English name has been agreed back in 2004 when wikipedia started, hence why we use names like Munich, Warsaw, Moscow and Kiev instead of München, Warszawa, Moskva and Kyyiv. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 13:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
4) Please refrain from personal attacks, sarcasm, sophisms, condescending overtone and other manners that are uncivil.
Please point out where you noticed this occurance. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 13:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
5) We're only discussing the global usage of the name "Kyiv" on en.wikipedia.org ONLY when it pertains explicitly or implicitly to the capital of Ukraine. This does not include culinary dishes, brands of photo cameras, and so on.
And Chicken Kiev follows directly from the global usage of the name for the city it has been named for. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 13:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
6) Please refrain from expressing your POV and other Wikipedia:COI, and other undignifying ways to attempt to discredit the validity of the discussion. This only badly reflects on the beholder.
See answer to point 4, in Russia we have freedom of speech and expression and again the only person who can stop me from using my Human Rights is God himself.--Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 13:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
P.S. 7) Google hits often create false positives and is not a conclusive reason to override all the other credible evidence presented here here.
P.S. The false positives is true for a relatively small hit (<10,000), but here we are dealing with millions of hits, and yes it has never been conclusive, yet it certainly can not, and will not be discarded. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 13:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
P.P.S. 8) Please refrain from misleading the potential passerby by Modifying the wiki policy in your quote Wikipedia:NC(UE) - does Not say "irrespective of anything else". This was a very undignified act. Vvolodymyr (talk) 16:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
If dignity is expressed by summation of understanding of wiki policies, I can't help to wonder what person is hiding behind that identity. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 13:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
This is intended as a clarification of the opinion posted by Kuban-kazak. <-added this to be clear.
Thank you for taking such a loving time. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 13:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Nevertheless your potential constructive input is welcome. Thank You for taking such a strong interest
As is yours. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 13:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Your opinion was heard but it needs sufficient backing to be taken as a valid contribution.Vvolodymyr (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Again, an admin can decide that, not you.--Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 13:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral З одного боку, Kiev — традиційна англійська назва міста (інші українські міста таких назв не мають). З іншого, часто використовується назва Kyiv, зокрема футбольна команда Dynamo Kyiv.
    One side: Kiev is a English name for the city, and kyiv is native name. Another side: Kyiv is widely used, for example a well-known fotball club Dynamo Kyiv, which plays in UCL.--Ahonc (Talk)   15:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your input.
I would like to urge you to consider the following points:
#) Kyiv is the official name, and the only one to be used internationally in legal matters.
#) Kyiv has been approved to be the proper name for the capital of Ukraine by American Geographic Authority as well as other branches of its government (US being one of the countries with English language - if that truly matters these days).
#) Canadian government has switched to using Kyiv
#) Kyiv has gained a sufficient coverage on the internet - internet being a portion of the world's information space.
#) Google is a private company's search engine - and wikipedia warns people not to abuse "google hits" due to false positives. Kiev is also a domain name (not to be confused with city name) and half of google hits for kiev pertains to "xxx.kiev.ua" in other words a domain name - NOT capital of Ukraine. Chicken Kiev also does not describe the capital of Ukraine but a dish. Kiev is a proper transliteration of the Russian Киев - and is used in .ru part of the internet.
#) Kiev is not recognized to be the official name - but rather habitual - on the level of a nickname.
#) Usage of "Kiev" is mostly due to lack of knowledge about the real name of Ukraine's capital (being Kyiv) - and not having the article in the right place and not having Kyiv in the body of the articles contributes to this lack of knowledge.
#) Although no country dictates the use of English - every country has an undeniable right to name it's own geographic entities - and no other country, random internet person or an organisation has a right to deny that right to that country.
#) Kyiv is also an English name of the capital of Ukraine - moreover it's the only official one, more over it's a new (13years) name that outdates the old one. Moreover the new one is chosen by the people of Ukraine when they gained the freedom of self-identification. People of Ukraine had no say whatsoever when the term "Kiev" started to be used - which was created from the transliteration of non-native name of the capital. The native name of the city in fact is Київ - since the only official language of Ukraine is Ukrainian.
#) And last but far from least - wikipedia has an official policy regarding Ukrainian names Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Ukrainian names
Sincerely, Vvolodymyr (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Please provide sources. Wikipedia should be based exclusively on the sources.--Ahonc (Talk) 14:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Apply WP:SNOW; my opinion on the substantive mstter is above, and remains unchanged. Vvolodymyr has repeated the same points interminably; they persuade no-one not already convinced (a small band of Ukrainian patriots who do not by themselves constitute consensus); they have persuaded no-one, they didn't the previous times this was brought up, they are unlikely ever to do so. In the hope of getting an enthusiastic editor to do something useful with his time, I will create a new section, and answer his latest list one by one. I hope that will be the end of this discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Will comment on the rest in due time. For now I will have to remind you that this is not about persuading everyone, every passerby etc. - it is Impossible - it is to provide and accept the best evidence which will confirm the relevance of usage of a particular term. And snowball does not apply here in the least bit. Vvolodymyr (talk) 18:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • No, it's about one of two things; showing that you already have enough support to be considered consensus, or persuading others to join you until you have that support. Neither is happening here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • As for further comments, please don't bother. I have answered at length only because it might make clear to you why there is no hope of this ever being consensus, and why I personally find your arguments immoral and offensive. I have no wish to comment on them further, especially if your responses are more repetitions of the "same tyrannical principle". I shall be leaving Wikipedia shortly, and washing my hands throughly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia official guidelines insist that simply posting a Oppose template does not guarantee that they will be taken under consideration. Simple "moral support" does not guarantee accuracy of the subject in any way. And what happened here is complete lack of any well confounded opposition to the compelling evidence provided, not counting yours, of course - I haven't had time to assess it yet. Vvolodymyr (talk) 18:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Please, refrain from attempting to shut up an opponent - this is very rude and reflects badly on you - which in turn undermines your motives. Also please refrain from making such controversial statements as there never be a consensus (in wikipedia understanding). If you find my arguments immoral and offensive - please argument them the proper way - but not here, on my talkpage instead.
As to your mention of the fact that I repeat things - is because people who put "oppose" template - keep making same mistakes - they do not arguement and do not address the most important points (which only you attempted - and I will assess them in due course) - thus I kindly remind those people that according to Wikipedia official policies - they would have to show good effort and arguement their opinion - otherwise their opinion will not be considered as a valid input - I give those people a chance to come back if they wish and do so - if they care. If they don't care then so be it.
And please - I do honestly wish you didn't get so emotional and personal - and I honestly do not harbor any negative feelings towards any of the opponents - sorry if for some reason anybody comes to such conclusion. But this is wikipedia - and there are guidelines and some basic etiquette - let's keep it civil. Sincerely Vvolodymyr (talk) 18:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Vvolodymyr, your verbose and repetitive rants against everyone who disagrees with you will not accomplish your goal. Thanks for explaining to me why my opinion doesn't count though. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry! I'm really truly infinitely sorry! You can't imagine how sorry I am that you feel that way - but you didn't arguement thoroughly - I did not make that up - Wikipedia has rules - and those rules are being broken ruthlessly - and Ukrainian freedom is being denied.... :( Rules? 1) simply expressing an opposition does not guarantee it to be considered a valid contribution - but these sorts of oppositions have been counted nevertheless - preferred over the feverently collected evidense. You have no idea how that makes citizens of Ukraine, who are unfortunate enough to be English speakers and are denied the right to see their capital to be called by it's name!
Again - I don't rant - do not insult me please - I have enough insults on my head already. I repeat because people repeat mistakes of opposing baselessly, and then never bother to reply on requests for further arguementation. So if you doin't - how can we possibly count your opinion as a valid (credible etc.) contribution? Vvolodymyr (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC) (forgot to sign)


  • Oppose. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) is clear that we should use "the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject". A simple set of Google tests shows Kiev to still be the most popular usage:
If Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Ukrainian names conflicts with these wider guidelines it should be rewritten so it does not conflict. Iamaleopard (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Just a comment on Google searches. If you search all books without any restrictions in time or languages you will get the above result. But I guess we should search English books and recent ones, since you should remember that Kyiv for known reasons was hardly used before 1991, so it would be more interesting to search the latest years, let´s say 2000–2008 and it will give 1013 hits for Kyiv and 2283 hits for Kiev. So the difference isn't that big anymore. And if you do the same with Calcutta and Kolkata you will find more hits (3750) for Calcutta than for Kolkata (1251), although here in Wikipedia the article has been changed to Kolkata. Närking (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - I see no change in arguments given since this discussion began years ago. There is no official name of Kiev in English. There is only the name that the Ukrainian government prefers to use in a language that isn't even official in their own country. What the designate in English is irrelevant. The name should be determined by the majority of Anglophones. That name still appears to be Kiev. 71.106.182.162 (talk) 22:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Just as I said in the last move discussion, I will say it again: we should pay attention to the page's content rather that the title itself. A title is a title, but the content is what matters the most. Starting a page move initiative every three months is de-constructive, when efforts could rather be spent on improving the article itself. Just look at the page right now, a total mess, full of update and accuracy tags. Referencing is poor. Now to go and clean up the article. —dima/talk/ 05:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As an aside in an earlier iteration I've also dealt with the use of google results. I see no evidence that the situation has changed since the last time, and so I put my personal preference aside to note Kiev still predominates. Nor has Kyiv made it into being indicated as common English usage on the U.S. BGN database. I have to agree with DDima. It's the one year anniversary of the article failing GA, and it still has a long way to go. For those who are ardent lovers of Київ, we can work to improve the article or argue to yet another inevitable and unproductive (and as always with its vituperative moments) stalemate. —PētersV (talk) 07:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
    I would add that the Kolkata example (google versus WP) is irrelevant. English is the subsidiary official language of India. If Calcutta had been instead renamed to Kaali Daal, that would be the name of the English article as it is the English name of the city in a state whose official language is English. Same if New York were officially renamed to New Amsterdam but everyone "still used" New York. Not the same rules as transliteration or common English name of a foreign-language named city. Mumbai/Bombay is the better example as it doesn't falsely imply the choice of WP name has anything to do with choice of transliteration. PētersV (talk) 07:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose For the time being English-speakers continue to say Kiev. English is our language, and it has evolved names for places over time that differ from the official name in the language of the place. We have a right to our language, to use our language, to cherish our language, even when sometimes we neglect an official pronunciation in favour of our common pronunciation. That is our right as speakers of English, and Wikipedia has adopted a naming policy that respects that right.

    The French call the City of London 'Londres'. That is their name in their language. It has been used for centuries and it is the absolute right of French-speakers to retain their word in their language for the City of London. I would insist that French Wikipedia continue to use 'Londres' until such time as francophone speakers themselves decide to change their pronunciation and spelling. (If they ever do). German speaking people call my country 'Kanada'. That's 'wrong'. It's not official. But they have every right, and I support that right.

    Germans call Venice 'Venedig'. The Italians call it 'Venezia'. The Spanish call it 'Venecia'. The people of every language have the right to their words. User PetersV above makes excellent points.

    Look at it this way: Kiev is so important a city, that English has developed its own name for the city. It is a mark of honour for a language to develop its own unique name for a place. Over time, as English speakers become more accustomed to seeing the official 'Kyiv' spelling, our usage of the word may evolve and change. English use of the word 'Turin', for example, seems to be switching increasingly to 'Torino' and 'Torino' may eventually become the standard. But for the time being please respect our right to find articles using titles that reflect the words we actually use when we come to an English-language encyclopedic resource. Thank you.Corlyon (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Why we aren't persuaded

  1. ) Kyiv is the official name, and the only one to be used internationally in legal matters.
    • This is the nub of the matter. Most of the rest of these are special cases of this. The answer is simple, and if Vvolodymyr cannot accept it, he would do better to find another language to bug.
    • No government decides, or ever has decided, what is correct English. That means no government, not even all of them acting together; the only test of whether something is the English name is the collective usage of English-speakers. Non-English speaking politicians do not even have a voice in this decision as individuals. The suggestion that a government should do so is politically and ethically offensive to many English-speakers; but it is also a fact that governments do not.
    • It is also Wikipedia's decision not to use officially sponsored names against usage, no matter what officialdom, state or private, is involved. On our scale, English usage is stable; official decisions change without notice. If English in general happens to adopt the official name, as with aspirin, that's another matter; if something is the common name, we use it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  2. ) Kyiv has been approved to be the proper name for the capital of Ukraine by American Geographic Authority as well as other branches of its government (US being one of the countries with English language - if that truly matters these days).
  3. ) Canadian government has switched to using Kyiv
  4. ) Kyiv has gained a sufficient coverage on the internet - internet being a portion of the world's information space.
  5. ) Google is a private company's search engine - and wikipedia warns people not to abuse "google hits" due to false positives. Kiev is also a domain name (not to be confused with city name) and half of google hits for kiev pertains to "xxx.kiev.ua" in other words a domain name - NOT capital of Ukraine. Chicken Kiev also does not describe the capital of Ukraine but a dish. Kiev is a proper transliteration of the Russian Киев - and is used in .ru part of the internet.
  6. ) Kiev is not recognized to be the official name - but rather habitual - on the level of a nickname.
  7. ) Usage of "Kiev" is mostly due to lack of knowledge about the real name of Ukraine's capital (being Kyiv) - and not having the article in the right place and not having Kyiv in the body of the articles contributes to this lack of knowledge.
    • The claim is unevidenced, and I don't believe it.
    • However, even if it were true, we are not here to evangelize for any body of knowledge; we have policy against being a soapbox.
    • We are not here to ladle knowledge down our readers' throats. It would be immoral for us to do so.
    • We are nere to communicate with our readers, in the language they already speak. One of the things this article communicates is that the Ukrainian name of Kiev is Kyiv, and that that name is occasionally used in English. So Vvolodymyr's last claim is false. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  8. ) Although no country dictates the use of English - every country has an undeniable right to name it's own geographic entities - and no other country, random internet person or an organisation has a right to deny that right to that country.
  9. ) Kyiv is also an English name of the capital of Ukraine - moreover it's the only official one, more over it's a new (13years) name that outdates the old one. Moreover the new one is chosen by the people of Ukraine when they gained the freedom of self-identification. People of Ukraine had no say whatsoever when the term "Kiev" started to be used - which was created from the transliteration of non-native name of the capital. The native name of the city in fact is Київ - since the only official language of Ukraine is Ukrainian.
    • Largely a repetition of #1. Insofar as it is not:
    • Kyiv occasionally occurs in English, especially in works which are being politically correct. This does not make it the common name, normally used, and widely understood.
    • The local name need not be the English name, and there is no reason why it should be. Praha, Nürnberg, Roma, Warsawa, Moskva are none of them the English name of the corresponding city; although all occasionally occur in English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  10. ) And last but far from least - wikipedia has an official policy regarding Ukrainian names Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Ukrainian_names


OK Guys. I'm having a soft moment and would like to call out to everyone to take a fresh friendly look (myself first).
Let's ease off, shake off the bad thoughts and speak plainly like human to human :)
First off I do apologize if my manner of speaking has offended anyone - in no way did I truly mean to offend the opponents - I was sucked in by ibserving how these sort of things were done before - and I guess I looked at the wrong examples.
So if I had to set aside all the bureaucracy, and so on and only left with one most crucial point it would be this:
Point) I do strongly believe in the right to self-determination. And the reason the gov't sources are always pointed out is in no way intended to say that some governments have control over the universal language of Earth communication - being English. In no way. English will remain English. The reason it's there is to simply show that the act of self-determination has indeed occurred - and the body that represents the people of Ukraine (by elections etc.) has legitimacy to establish the fact of self-determination (over, for example, simply asking a person on the street). That's the only reason I post those gov't sources.
Thought) So what would be your biggest "point"? Vvolodymyr (talk) 09:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Vvolodymyr, our only point is that we should follow our naming conventions, "an official English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should follow."
That the articles of the English-language Wikipedia should use the names preferred by the government of the respective country (and institution in general, presumably) is your own personal opinion. It is, however, at odds with what our naming conventions indicate.
As already explained over and over again, the main principle of our naming conventions is that "article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize" — which may or may not correspond to what the local government (and/or population) prefers.
How this general guiding principle applies to geographic names (including cities) is explained in our naming conventions for geographic names, which state that "[w]hen a widely accepted English name [...] exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name, or one of them; but not always." — Then it goes on to clarify that "[i]f no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local official name." This usage of local official names is intended for "places with no established English name" only, not for major cities like Kiev.
The sloppily-written section on Ukrainian names of the general naming conventions aknowledges these main guiding principles by stating at it's very begining: "With the general naming conventions above in mind[...]" — So, with these general principles in mind, it's crystal clear that the sentence "For geographic names in Ukraine, the Ukrainian National system is used" is intended for little-known towns and "places with no established English name" only, and not for all Ukrainian cities & geographical names; and most certainly not for a major city like Kiev. — Only when reading this sentence in isolation from its proper wider context can it be misunderstood as a general principle for all Ukrainian names. It's precisely to avoid such mistaken interpretations that PMAnderson added a clarification, which so far has found unanimous support among those familiar with writting our naming conventions.
In short, and for absolute clarity, for the specific purposes of using names in the English-language Wikipedia the usage of a person on the streets of Winchester, Providence, Auckland or Brisbane is more important than the decisions taken by the Ukrainian government or the desires of (a certain portion of) the Ukrainian population. — In my personal view this is exactly how it should be. The individual human being is free to speak as he likes, irrespective of what any government -own or foreign- says or does. But that is just my personal opinion :-) Regards, Ev (talk) 11:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

RFC

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I would ask that all parties currently involved in this dispute cease and desist for the moment and let the opinions of new, previously univolved editors be heard. Thank You. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

1) you don't determine if the debate came to a natural end.
2) this action is rude, as it was intended to shut me(your opponent) up. (I don't shut ppl up - I urge them to arguement their opinions. repeatedly.)
3) and the most below the belt, undignified action was by User_talk:Pmanderson who just like that on own accord changed a policy!!!! Changed to suit the opinion expressed here!!!!
Isn't it nice? - want articles to be written your way - just go and change policies up to you liking.
WOW!!!! Vvolodymyr (talk) 20:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Regarding 3), in his edit PMAnderson did not change the naming conventions, but limited himself to clarify the language to avoid possible misunderstandings. His edit was valid, and in my view necessary. — See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Ukrainian names. — Regards, Ev (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Vvolodymyr, I'm not just trying to shut you up. I am suggesting that we all should shut up and see what the rest of the community has to say. Repeating the same argument between the same users again and again serves no purpose. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Rules are rules

Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

1) Pasting oppose template is not a valid opposition - Wikipedia policy. 2) There is a specific wikipedia official policy on Ukrainian names.

Until those rules are changed we should follow them and not speculate on why they are there. So according to rules - we put Kiev to Kyiv - and change Kiev to Kyiv in bodies of articles when pertaining Ukrainian capital.

Dispute that first, please - since there are administrators here who have strong personal opinions and throw their weight around by shutting people up, by closing discussions, by counting unarguemented opinions that happen to support their personal views - why aren't you following clear guideline? Why is it perfectly ok to count as a valid contribution, an opinion of a person who says - oh that rule about naming Ukrainian entities - "oh it's nothing - we'll just ignore it cos I don't like it, and I don't like the person who initiated the move request." ??? Is it not Unjust?

I will take it up with anybody I can - this sort of Tyrannical enforcement will not go unnoticed, if those individuals insist. This is an unjust denial of freedom of self-identification!

Vvolodymyr (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If you are reffering to my above request for comment, it's not an "oppose template", it's just what it says it is, a request for comment from previously uninvolved users so that consensus may be reached. That is how Wikipedia works, by consensus. So put down the costume and back away from the government building. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
But it prevents me from commenting (starting in less than an hour) on things like pure speculation. If I don't point that out - will it be noticed later on? Can you guarantee me that? And I never accused anyone of conspiracy - just unjust treatment of the subject matter. Vvolodymyr (talk) 20:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Even if all things go down the drain - why should some users have the power to ignore very specific policies? This is why I think this is like a twilight zone - it's weird. I read the thing on consensus of course. Anyways - let's see where it goes. I truly hope that personal opinions Wikipedia:COI will not be given so much weight as in the past. And I truly hope that the specific naming convention will not be ignored as it has been so far (by the sheer fact that it is not being followed as we speak). So I won't "pester" with my "rant" for however long that clamp on my mouth is imposed, for fear of being reprimanded - meaning in future attitudes towards me and the things I propose will be even more stern. Vvolodymyr (talk) 20:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, you are really missing the point here. Your opinion on the matter has been heard (about 100 times) and will of course be considered. The purpose of RFC is to get as many views as possible in order to best gauge community sentiment on the subject at hand. There's no need to argue with everyone who posts an opinion you don't agree with as it's already crystal clear what you think. And, I might add, rules are not rules. Ignore all rules is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes here I am - an IDIOT - talking - while smart people like Pmanderson are changing conventions up to their liking! What's there to talk about??? Tell me - what is this? [6] ??? Vvolodymyr (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Please read this page Beeblebrox (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
OK - you're insulting me again. Please refrain from the insults! He did change the policy - ok. and I reverted it back to the original state. From now on please keep that sort of unrelated thing in the Public Forum. Vvolodymyr (talk) 21:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
In his edit PMAnderson did not change the naming conventions, but limited himself to clarify the language to avoid possible misunderstandings. His edit was valid, and in my view necessary. — See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Ukrainian names. — Regards, Ev (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Official U.S. usage

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Since Hillock65 brought it up again (U.S. official usage), this is not quite true. What we have is a representative of the State Department spelling out K-Y-I-V at a press session. When we check the U.S. official database of place names, we still have Kiev as the common usage term (U.S. Board on Geographic Names--BGN--Conventional), "Kyiv" does not exist at all as a variant, what is in the database is "Kyyiv" (BGN Standard) basically as the most appropriate transliteration, then a slew of variants. "K-Y-I-V" does not appear as a primary, secondary, or any other variant. It exists only in the State Department announcement. —PētersV (talk) 01:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

My personal preference is to support Kyiv, but after some perusing I don't see a ground-swell yet in common English-speaking usage. If and when the U.S. BGN conventional entry is updated from "Kiev" to "Kyiv", then I would support that as a concrete indicator that the spelling of "Kyiv" has finally "arrived." —PētersV (talk) 02:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

A RFC response

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As per WP:NCGN, we all seem convinced that the title should be translated into English. We must therefore decide which translation best fulfills: "a widely accepted English name" (from WP:NCGN}

We are not here to debate whether the Ukranian government can name their Capital what they will, as they clearly can. That is not the substance of the debate. As per WP:NCGN, we have to establish what the majority of people call it. Parenthetically, we see this with Burma/Myanmar, with the current preference for Burma.

So, I have based my next comments on WP:NCGN in the section: Dispute Resolution. This is an accepted guide to determining the acceptable title.

1. The first section suggests the consultation of notable encyclopedia. Britannica uses Kiev, Encarta uses Kyiv. The article says that Columbia uses Kiev, but I have no way of checking. Having failed to reach a consensus, let's move on.

2.There has been a lot of discussion about the relative merits of Google. There is some debate as to the accuracy of Google in such a matter. However, Google gives me a 10:1 ratio to Kiev, where as Google Books gives me 2:1.5. Google Scholar gives Kiev in a roughly 10:1 ratio. What I'd like to say is that these are not a source of themselves. Google Search gives us a rough indication as to normal use, but, as noted above, they are not sources unto themselves.

3. The third step is to apply dictionary sources to the search. I have access only to the OED, which doesn't mention it. The Library of Congress doesn't mention it either

4. News Sources. The BBC only uses Kiev. The Times Style Guide [7] uses only Kiev, and recommends against Kyiv. The New York Times mainly uses Kiev. The Herald Tribune uses Kiev only.

Having used some recommended sources, I have added some more on. The FCO uses Kiev in their country guide. The US Board of Geographic Names uses Kyiv and as per the Press Conferance, this is offical US Federal Usage.

I would now like to draw people's attention to this from WP:NCGN

The United States Board on Geographic Names determines official Federal nomenclature for the United States. Most often, actual American usage follows it, even in such points as the omission of apostrophes, as in St. Marys River. However, if colloquial usage does differ, we should prefer actual American to the official name. Similarly, its GEOnet server normally prefers local official usage in the country concerned (for example, Frankfurt am Main); in a handful of cases, like Florence, it has a conventional name field. Where it acknowledges a conventional name, it is evidence of widespread English usage; where it does not, it is not addressing our primary question.

In this example, I searched on GeoNet for Kiev and Kyiv. It acknowledges that Kiev is a 'conventional name' which PetersV just mentioned. According to WP:NCGN, "if it acknowledges a conventional name it is evidence of widespread English usage". IN this example, it does give Kiev as a 'conventional' name. Therefore, we must accept it as 'evidence of widespread English usage'.

To sum up what is an over-long comment, I think the situation is clear. Whilst the State Dept. are no longer using Kiev, the majority of the English-speaking world (as seen through Encyclopedias and Newspapers etc) are still using Kiev. As the point at issue is what is widespread English usage, I think it is clear that Kiev should be used; naturally with a redirect from Kyiv, as well as a note in the first line stressing the other possible English name. I would also recommend reviewing this again in the future, as these things will change.

I would also say to everyone involved that, at the end of the day, there are thousands and thousands of other things to do on Wikipedia. Perhaps we should all be doing them, rather than quibbling over semantics? Conclusion: Strongly OpposeTheone00 (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

None has quoted a very popular source which will continue to grpw in popularity. Monopoly has included Kyiv on their world edition and it is spelled Kyiv. here The tide is slowly turning toward Kyiv. Where as 15 years ago it could rarely be found, today it is the most progressive spelling of the word.Bandurist (talk) 11:44, 27 September 2008 (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.

Those who do not use Kyiv - are supporters of the return of the USSR or any other form of the Russian Empire

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Probably I will not add anything new. Nevertheless.

There are two competing spellings of the Ukrainian capital. One has a native Ukrainian origin - «Kyiv» (reads as Kyїv) another one is former colonial Russian «Kiev».

We have a newspaper http://www.kyivpost.com/ Jed Sunden is the Publisher and Brian Bonner is the Chief Editor. Both of them are native English speakers.

I do realize that this part of Wikipedia is English. But using of either Kiev or Kyiv - depends on the ideology. Those who use «Kyiv» - support the Ukrainian fight for the real independence. Those who use «Kiev» - vote for the return of the USSR or any other form of the Russian Empire. --Perohanych (talk) 05:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposition

Latest comment: 15 years ago60 comments15 people in discussion

I would suggest we do this less frequently and if possible open again only in the event of a concrete change such as in the U.S. BGN conventional entry being updated to "Kyiv"? Or at least after the article makes GA (better use of collective efforts!). —PētersV (talk) 04:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. The discussion inevitably becomes a spelling discussion, rather than an acknowledgement of the change of the official name of the city from the Russian word (usually transliterated "Kiev") to the Ukrainian word (usually transliterated "Kyiv"). The Ukrainian government muddied the waters even further by suggesting a "spelling" in English of the new city name. The words are so close in pronunciation that everyone knows which city is being discussed. Not even Webster's is accurate 100% of the time. I do suggest that the first line of the article should say "Kiev, also KNOWN as Kyiv" rather than "SPELLED as Kyiv". Kiev is never spelled as Kyiv. Kiev is an english spelling of a Russian word. Kyiv is an english spelling of a different Ukrainian word. 75.66.91.10 (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Kyiv, not Kiev. Maybe what some people on this site don't realize is how it's not just about common spellings; it's about the history between Ukraine and Russia that drives the importance for this name change. Ukraine is trying hard to rid itself of Russian influence (see Orange Revolution), and Russia has historically been terrible to Ukraine (see Holodomor). This name change is important because upholding the Russian spelling is offensive to Ukraine and to Ukrainians. What English speakers traditionally use is of no relevance. Russian influence on Ukraine is offensive. It's Kyiv, not Kiev. End of story. - Majk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.147.175 (talk) 08:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

"What English speakers traditionally use is of no relevance."
Actually, the exact opposite is the case: for the specific purpose of naming this article, what English speakers commonly use is the only relevant issue. See our naming conventions. - Regards, Ev (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
That is true. The wikipedia naming conventions do not support the use of a name because it is correct. Even though this city is officially known by the Ukrainian name commonly spelled and pronounced like "Kyiv", the most common English name is the Russian word which is commonly spelled and pronounced like "Kiev". It is unfortunate, because it is offensive to many Ukrainians, but Wikipedia supports common English usage over official and grammatical correctness when it comes to names. Hopefully it will be understood to most Ukrainians that most English-speaking people think that these are slight variations of the same word, just as a non-English speaker might think that "brawn" and "brown" are just slight variations of the same word. It is certainly not an intentional slight.75.66.81.166 (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Dear Majk, regarding "This name change is important because upholding the Russian spelling is offensive to Ukraine and to Ukrainians", it's only a question of common usage in English. English is not perfect. As I mentioned, when we can point to BGN being updated to replace Kiev with Kyiv, the we'll have an objective source that doesn't worry about history--only common usage. -PētersV (talk) 04:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
On a completely unrelated note, but perhaps not,... as far as I am aware, of all the foreign language names for Finland, only the one in Latvian names it for the Finns as they themselves name it (Finnish, Suomi, Latvian, Somija, the "ija" meaning "land"). I'm sure the Finns are not thrilled that no one calls them what they call themselves, but historical naming and English are what they are. -PētersV (talk) 04:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I can add that also the Estonians say "Soome", but the reason for the rest of the world to use variants of the name Finland is in fact that the official name of the country is Finland! Remember that Finland has two official languages: Finnish and Swedish. Närking (talk) 08:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Finland has not chosen to change its English name from the common external name (Swedish also falls into that category, the Swedish empire post-dates the Finns settling Finland). My observation was that there is scant reference to the Finns and their land in other languages reflecting the name the suomalaiset use for themselves and their land. PētersV (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia mods should surely know something about the site they moderate. What do people come to Wikipedia for? I'd say, they come here for facts. To learn things that are true. Here's a fact: The capital of Ukraine is called "Kyiv". Look at any English country's correspondence with Ukraine. They all say Kyiv. I thought Wikipedia was here to share knowledge that was true. If you allow the article to be misnamed "Kiev", all Wikipedia is doing is upholding recognition of the wrong name. And really, there is no way you can dispute that "Kiev" is wrong; you can say it's more common, but it's still wrong. "Kyiv" is correct, and that's what people should see if Wikipedia really is here to spread knowledge that is indeed true. - Majk Greszczuk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.147.175 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

So... let's get this straight. If all English speakers start calling the Internet the "vagina television", is Wikipedia going to change the name? Just wondering. I'm sure they'd keep the archaic "Internet" as the title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.147.175 (talk • contribs) 07:19 - 07:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If the common English name for this series of tubes changes to anything other than "Internet", per our current Wikipedia naming conventions our article will be renamed accordingly (and probably start with "The VT, formerly known as the Internet, is a series..."). - Best, Ev (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
It probably would, if enough people did it. The English-speaking world, and in particular the American English-speaking populace (I am an American, by the way), is unabashedly arrogant in its "interpretation" of foreign proper names. "Moscow" should be "Moskva", "Kiev" should be "Kyiv", "Russia" should be "Rossia", "Japan" should be "Nihon", and I could go on. But we have proven that we do not give a s**t about what is correct and what might be offensive to any other group of people. That is the way that it is, and I am ashamed of this part of our culture. 75.66.81.166 (talk) 09:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, if you'd like to lobby the U.S. to change the names usage database (while governmental, still an independent well-researched public service, not an instrument reflective of any official policy) for the common name for Київ and succeed, then in all likelihood we'd be done here and move on to "Kyiv" as the more appropriate transliteration. If you'd like to lobby the WP standards to move away from common English usage to the "latest" (a new area of debate) English usage and succeed, then... (the same). If you wish to be ashamed of American English-speakers, at least do so appropriately—do not mistake inertia (slow to change from spelling from a comfortable way to a new and frankly strange and not very "English" way) for arrogance (knowing the "correct" way but chosing to be d***ks about it). PētersV (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I am not contending that English-speakers know the correct way. It is an arrogance which results in ignorance. Not only is my argument appropriate, it is spot-on accurate. The fact that so many people see this as a spelling issue is built-in proof of this. Not only are the words two different ones, that are similar yet pronounced differently; the word "Kiev" does exist in the Ukrainian language -- distinct and different from the word "Kyiv." If a city publicly changes its name, then my belief is that the rest of the world should acknowledge this. Kiev is correct usage of Wikipedia policy, but it is not the correct name of the city. It is a shame that inertia and comfort are acceptable excuses to ignore a city's change of name. 75.66.81.166 (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the discussion is simply about the most common name (closely resembling a transliteration), which is still Kiev. It's not about (1) transliterate Ukrainian to English; (2) transliterate English to Ukrainian; (3) are the results the same? And I have to disagree, ignorance is a product of apathy not arrogance. Finally, the name of the city, Київ, has not changed.
   Once again, my personal preference is to support Kyiv, and when we have something conclusive not based on google searches and he-said/she-said type logic, I'll be the first to nominate the article for renaming. PetersV       TALK 03:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I think we are understanding each others' point, it's just the semantics we disagree on. I see an ignorance, yes, but I perceive it as a consequence of arrogance. Since English is more or less THE universal language at this point in time, we just assume it's correct. I cannot help but notice when I travel to other countries that most of the inhabitants make a conscientious effort to transliterate our place names as precisely as possible. English, on the other hand, is not even close on many place names. The big deal with Kiev/Kyiv, in my mind, is two-fold. First, the name did officially change from Киев to Київ. This is available in writing by Ukrainian government sources. English has not acknowledged the change, which is more significant than just getting it "wrong" in the first place. Second, while the word Київ does not exist in Russian, both the words Киев AND Київ DO exist in the Ukrainian language. They have made a conscious point of putting in official government documentation that the name of their city has CHANGED from Киев to Київ. Again, this is semantics to some extent, I agree, but the official name of the city has changed from the Russian word Киев to the Ukrainian word Київ. 68.118.14.109 (talk) 03:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi there: supporting the move to Kyiv im not gonna repeat the grounds supporters of the move have already written: I think the same way that happened in China (Peking to Beijing, Canton to Guangzhou), should apply... in the chinese case, if u ask me, well.. before 1958 Gwoyetzu Romatzi (Guoyu Luomazi in pinyin) was the legal standard, and, well, just to name an example the Kuomintang was named according to that standard. But societies evolve, and romanization systems can change: some examples: Why did Bombai became Mumbai? Why did Madras became Chennai? check the wikipedia pages if u want... In Korea we have an outdadet Mccuhne romanization and the revised romanization, which is encouraged by the government of seoul (again, revised romanization), and, well, check wikipedia looking for some korean pages written following the mccuhne standard (lemme know if u find any...). Now, the official language of Ukraine, as defined by its present constitution, is Ukrainian, and the ukrainian word for the capital of Ukraine is Kyiv... Ukraine is not a russian dependency, nor one of its provinces. Its been independent since 1990. Naming the national capital of Ukraine using a russian name is like using a french name to name the capital of spain (my point of view), and thats disrespetful to ukrainians (again, my point of view). The government of Ukraine has its own rules to latinize the names, the same way China has pinyin, or korea has the revised romanization system, even japans has its own set, thats why we latinize its capital as tokyo, not tokio, and, well, i just think we should respect that...

    In google maps we see the local name, which latinized is Kyiv. Live maps (windows) uses the same policy...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.43.124.203 (talk) 23:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Good maps use local names for all cities, so, "Wien" and not Vienna. In that regard, Kyiv is just another transliteration like Kyyiv. Again, when common usage catches up, so will the spelling. Whether or not we believe the current Kiev transliteration is "Russian" or not is a red herring. India is a poor example, as English has official status, it's naming not transliteration.
   The BGN database is still the best indicator we can point to, as policy is to discourage BGN conventional names (such as "Kiev") and to stick to BGN standard as much as possible (in this case, "Kyiv"). BGN conventional is the term reflecting and recommending common usage for diplomatic/state department desk agents dealing with the general public. PetersV       TALK 03:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Agree... lets push for BGN to be the standard... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.38.223.195 (talk) 22:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
BGN naming policy frowns on the need for "BGN conventional" (in this case Kiev). The day that "Kiev" is deleted as no longer needed for everyday use is the day we can unreservedly rename to Kyiv. Just to be clear, the "BGN Standard" entry is already Kyiv. What needs to happen is for the determination to be made that "Kiev" is no longer needed for common usage. (And common usage cares not at all for its origin, nor should common usage be taken to be a sign of any intent on the part of any individual or the masses.) PetersV       TALK 06:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
We could do well to adopt BGN as the WP (English) standard. PetersV       TALK 06:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi again... just checked the CIA world factbook website, adn found that now they use Ukrainian to latinize the names: Kyiv, Lviv, Karhkiv... THEY NOW USE UKRAINIAN, NOT RUSSIAN... The section about the regions uses also Ukrainian names, not the russian onesGumuhua (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Another argument for move. http://www.rada.gov.ua/const/conengl.htm - "CONSTITUTION OF UKRAINE" - Official English translation.
Article 20
- …
- The capital of Ukraine is the City of Kyiv. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.187.108.19 (talk) 12:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

'Kyiv' shows up as 'BGN standard' in the BGN atabase. What else is required for the article to change its name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andriy155 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Kiev please - that's the city's name in English. The comparison with Bombay/Mumbai is not correct, because that city's name was actually changed, unlike Kiev, where there's been no change in name. Apples to oranges really. A more apt compare would be something like Milan (which is Milano in Italian, Mailand in German, and so on) or Cairo (Le Caire, Kairo, etc) - these are different ways of calling the same city. Jasepl (talk) 07:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Yet, you do not complain about transition from Tallin to Tallinn --Andriy155 (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
If Kiev were the English name for the Ukrainian capital, why does the UK government use Kyiv? http://ukinukraine.fco.gov.uk/en/ Let's let the English authorities decide what is the official way to spell the city name in English. --Andriy155 (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
A common misconception. The name of the city DID change. Unfortunately, the words are very similar so that it APPEARS to an English-speaker that it is simply a slight spelling or pronunciation change.187.153.2.186 (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The core criterion of our naming conventions policy is to use "[the names] the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize". That would be Kiev. — For our purposes, the usages & desires of the Ukrainian government & nationals, the contorted practices of diplomatic lingo, the name's etyomolgy and its true nature are all basically irrelevant. — Remember: Wikipedia aims to be an English-language encyclopedia that communicates effectively with an anglophone readership, not an excercise in diplomatic lingo (as the British Foreign Office website is by its very nature) to please Ukrainian nationals. — In any case, the idea of letting any government decide how we should speak and write is pretty scary. - Best, Ev (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
A quick check of the BGN database finds that there are two listings: Kyiv is described as "BGN Standard" and Kiev as "BGN Conventional". DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
And? Is the fact that the spelling is standard enough to convince you? The reference to the official spelling of Kyiv by British govt is stated above. --Andriy155 (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Be that as it may, amongst other things, one of the concepts Wikipedia works on is popularity/commonality. The British goverment can call it whatever it wants to be politically correct. In any event, governments are hardly standard-bearers in these matters - what a majority of English-speaking people use, is what matters. Also, as was also pointed out, it's not as if the English language has expunged the word 'Kiev' from its vocabulary. Oh, and why not call it 'Kyyiv'? Why just 'Kyiv'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasepl (talk • contribs) 15:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Even the British Government don't use Kyiv universally. For example see [8] [9] [10] DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
This is true: we are currently in the transition period were both names are used. Wikipedia, on the other hand, lags behind in this transition. Again, please outline precise set of criteria for the change to occur on this site. Just appealing to the "majority" of English speakers is vague and subjective - does this satisfy "high" standards, I am told, Wikipedia has?--Andriy155 (talk) 22:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, well, as I have been assured by the "well-respected" wikipedia mods, whenver the majority decides that the name should be changed to Kyiv, it will be changed. On this page I see more comments in favour of Kyiv. Therefore, a question arises, what are you guys waiting for? A blessing from God? Can any of you, mods specify exactly and precisely the criteria for the change rather than stating that saying something like the name will change whenever people agree. This is very vague in nature. It seems to me that some of the mods are simply conducting pro-Russian revisionist campaign. --Andriy155 (talk) 22:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Per numerous earlier discussions, "BGN Conventional" is a category the geo. names group prefers NOT to use, they use it ONLY when the public is used to a particular name which may not reflect the latest developments or simply other alternate names. This is the most objective source we have as the BGN folk are not beholden to any political body; their continued use of "Kiev" in the "BGN Conventional" category--discouraged unless needed to reflect common usage--is an indicator "Kyiv" is not ready for prime time. And, once again, I personally support "Kyiv" but I don't yet support it editorially as definitive common usage. One editor's "Wiki lags" is another editor's "the purpose of Wikipedia is not to lead." This has absolutely nothing to do with Ukrainian versus Russian. It only has to do with common English usage. (And anyone who knows me will tell you that I am not part of any pro-Russian revisionist campaign cabal and am, in fact, pro-Ukrainian for many reasons, so it pains me when I state not yet for "Kyiv.") Of course, this is just one opinion. But let's not start denouncing "Kiev" as some evil Russian Wiki plot. That just makes considered conversation impossible. PetersV       TALK 05:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
So, in your opinion, whenever, BGN assigns label 'variant' to Kiev, you would entertain the idea of switching the article name? Could everyone agree or disagree on this or propose other clear criteria? As for pro-Ukrainian and pro-Russian stances, I clearly remember that it did not take long in most media outlets to change from Tallin to Tallinn. Nobody was crying about the fact that English had been using Tallin for years. Instead, it was considered a move to support Estonians, their language and independence. Sorry, I have small doubts about political unbiasness of some of the Wikipedia moderators. BGN luckily uses Tallin as variant now so the town name is safe from their hands.--Andriy155 (talk) 13:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, please be aware that accusing other editors of "revisionist campaigns" will not help the case. See Wikipedia:Civility. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I am not the only one who believes that this is the case, check out Ev's talk page. Notice that up until now I did not mention any names. So please do not throw the civility guidelines at me. I am free to state how I feel about current state of wikipedia editing. Certain changes are ok and certain are not. Nobody has clear guidelines when changes must occur. As a result, some of the decisions seem politically biased and revisionist campaign is only a mild term to describe it. --Andriy155 (talk) 13:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually it is very, very, clear when the change will occur - when the majority of English readers understand Kyiv more readily than Kiev, as agreed by a consensus of Wikipedia editors. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Right, just as expected - a subjective decision by a group of people without any stated numeric (or other precise) requirements.--Andriy155 (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations, you've finally worked out how Wikipedia operates. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and I'd wager that an overwhelming majority of English speakers have no clue about the Ukraine's past, or of any imposisiton of Russian-ness on the country - or any of the many fantastic reasons cited above. Most of us have no connection with Russia or the Ukraine either. We just call Kiev Kiev because, well, that's what we call it. Jasepl (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
That is a completely correct observation. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, Jasepl would have it right. I do follow up and check BGN periodically--at least for myself, that's what I'm using as an objective barometer of English language usage. That's my way of informing my editorial opinion and keeping that separate from my personal leanings. PetersV       TALK 16:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
P.S. I have not seen anyone advocating for "Kiev" being current English language usage that I would characterize as a Russophile editor based on interactions here or elsewhere, so, again, let's not go there. Let's refrain from further accusations of "revisionist campaigns" et al. PetersV       TALK 16:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
A lot of very interesting points... well, "interesting". You all seem quite relaxed about the issue. Just let the sleeping dogs lie. I particularly like the part about "we english speakers". And who am I? There does appear inconsistency: Peking and Tallin have existed in English for a long time and none of you openly protested against the change to reflect correct pronunciation in the home language. You could have also been telling Estonians and Chinese that English speakers simply spell Peking and Tallin simply because they do and that you guys have no idea about Estonia. But you did not. But somehow Kyiv is a really big problem for you. Not sure why. As a result, it may seem there may exist some underlying reason why in some cases you do not care and in some cases you do. With regards to stating exact conditions for renaming: are you planning to do that? If no, you are simply stating that you will agree to change whenever you feel like it. This does not seem right. I can suggest two ways of solving this. Number one: conduct a vote, limit one vote per ip address. Do not allow more than one vote per year. Allow everyone to vote. If you believe that only the mods should vote, explain why this is the case and what kind of qualifications and affiliations you have: don't want to repeat thepiratebay's trail but at the same time want to avoid people "who have no clue about Ukraine" deciding how to spell its capital name. If you don't like this, here is another way, the one that I personally prefer. Use PetersV ide about BGN and adopt either the standard or conventional way of spelling. It is not quite clear to me why conventional should be preferred over standard (standard is standard after all), however that's another issue. Whichever way you pick, please pick something. The point is to avoid subjectivity as much as possible. As for the comment by DJ Clayworth, "Congratulations, you've finally worked out how Wikipedia operates".... thanks for your attitude. I think it should be you who should review civility guidelines.--Andriy155 (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
For the specific purpose of naming this article, knowledge about the Ukraine is absolutely irrelevant. The usages of the English language are all that matters (details in our general naming conventions policy, and the specific ones for geographic names). - Best, Ev (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Your post does not answer my question.Andriy155 (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


Just got a message from DJ Clayworth regarding Wikipedia's guidelines regarding changes. It seems as though the best way to approach this issue is to explore these guidelines and ensure that as much as possible of subjectivity is eliminated. The point is to avoid very vague stetments of consesus and wide usage in the English language. Please note that none of you actually explained their stance on Peking and Tallin, which may hint at some biasness towards Kiev. Andriy155 (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
(od) Dear Andriy155, I appreciate your enthusiasm in the defense of all things Ukrainian, but give it a rest. There are no biases. Checking the BGN database:
  • "Beijing" is BGN Standard, "Peking" is a BGN Variant, and there is no BGN Conventional entry, meaning BGN Standard applies for common English usage
  • "Tallinn" is BGN Standard, Tallin (one "n") is a BGN Variant, as is Reval and a host of other names, and, again, there is no BGN Conventional entry = common English usage
There is no inconsistency in Kiev + Beijing + Tallinn being preferred common English usage, per BGN. PetersV       TALK 00:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstood. I was talking about the transition from Tallin to Tallinn, when it originally happened in the 1990-ies and the transition from Peking to Bejing in the 60-ies and 70-ies. At that time both of the older versions were conventional in English language, however, it does not seem that conversion to Tallinn actually caused any problem for English speakers (at least, it does not seem like you guys were writing to English language media in defence of Tallin). Of course, now both new forms are considered conventional and the problem has disappeared. PetersV: this is getting interesting. So, it turns out, that it is inappropriate to call the supporters of Kiev pro-Russian, but supporters of Kyiv are in "defence of all things Ukrainian". Nice one! And you are telling me about no bias :) I missed the part where I was defending "other ukrainian things". This debate is not to promote Ukrainian culture but rather recognise the transition that is currently occuring in the spelling of the Ukrainian capital in English language. Everyone except for you has been very vague about defending word Kiev so far. As for you, I am not convinced that "BGN Standard" cannot be interpreted as BGN preferred. Similar question exists for Odessa/Odesa case. How long will it take before Odessa article is moved to Odesa? Odessa now only shows up as BGN Variant. So what is Wikipedia waiting for in your opinion? This, has, obviously, nothing to do with Wikipedia's conservative moderators :))) --Andriy155 (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I just received a letter from BGN that inluded their press-release regarding Kyiv/Kiev issue. I am quoting it here as I have not found it elsewhere online:

US Board on Geographic Names

Statement on the Status of Kyiv

In October 2006 the Foreign Names Committee of the US Board on Geographic Names (USBGN) decided to approve the spelling Kyiv as one of the USBGN official standard forms of the name of Ukraine’s capital. Official US Government documents may continue to refer to the city using the conventional spelling Kiev when context calls for that spelling.

The Board based its decision on recommendations from the Department of State that Kyiv is the locally preferred Latin-alphabet rendering of the place-name and should be available for official use better to assist the people and Government of Ukraine to promote that country’s national identity.

Congress established the US Board on Geographic Names in its present form in 1947 with the express mandate to standardize geographic nomenclature for official US Government use.

By the way, it seems as though New York Times is considering using Kyiv: NY article. In all fairness, majority of their articles still use old spelling. --Andriy155 (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The one thing that irritates me about statements such as this from BGN is that they constantly refer to this as a spelling issue. Imagine this hypothetical statement from BGN... In October 2006 the Foreign Names Committee of the US Board on Geographic Names (USBGN) decided to approve the spelling BLUE as one of the USBGN official standard forms of the name of this color. Official US Government documents may continue to refer to the color using the conventional spelling RED when context calls for that spelling. BGN does not realize that the name of the city CHANGED. It is only because the words in question are so similar that it APPEARS to an English-speaker that it is a simple spelling issue. 187.153.2.186 (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
So what you are saying is that the BGN classifies Kyiv as "standard" not because it is the most popular English usage but because it wishes to promote that usage. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Let's clear up the BGN confusion, listing in order of preferred English usage:
  • 3rd place = "BGN Variant"—there can be none, one, or many, these are all names by which a place is known by, however, these are not current standard or common English usage
  • 2nd place = "BGN Standard"—this is the current standard name
  • 1st place = "BGN Conventional"—this is the current most common English usage, defined only if and when it differs from BGN Standard. This is the version that the diplomatic desk uses in dealings with the public, keyed to most common English language usage so as to not confuse the general public
That "Kyiv" has been recognized as BGN Standard indicates that is the current standard spelling, that is not a recognition of common English usage, which is still "Kiev." With all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over names, The BGN database is the only source I've found which I can consider fair and objective (and I've gone through quite a goodly amount of their materials, for example, presentations about issues regarding place names at cartographic conferences, etc.) which keeps this from descending into a smarmy name-calling contest. PetersV       TALK 23:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
P.S. The USBGN does not "promote" the use of a particular name, it is apolitical and agnostic, it only recognizes. PetersV       TALK 23:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
While correct in principle, your description is not exact (at least, it did not match what USBGN told me in their email). There can be various and numerous variants (and indeed it is 3rd place as per your classification). There must be one standard and there can be one "conventional". Standard appears everywhere, while conventional appears only sometimes. It is used to denote spelling that has/had been in use for considerable amount of time; while standard... well it is standard. We can now how a discussion about what is more important: conventional or standard, but let me stress something else. I actually respect PetersV for the fact that he has explicitly stated when/under which condition he would consider Kyiv to be more widely used in English than Kiev. Others, I am hoping, are using Wikipedia guidelines and so look at Britannica, Encyclopedia.com, Encarta and so on. It is true that Britannica and Encyclopedia have still use Kiev. However. these users so far failed to explain why they ignore Encarta (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570437/Kyiv.html). I decided to go check out local Chapters store and have a look at what current maps, atlases and travel guides use. I was impressed almost everyone uses Kyiv, not Kiev. I would imagine that travel guid and map publishers must be interested in using the modern most widely used naming - they would otherwise confuse their readers and eventually lose them. Here I present my findings: all Lonely Planet products, Thomas Cook European Train Timetable Winter 2008/2009, Let's Go - Eastern Europe on a Budget, Frommer's Road Atlas Europe, Michelin Map of Europe, Mapart world map, The Times Concise Atlas of The Workld (9th Edition), National Geographic Visual Atlas of The World. In all fairness, Bradt was the only publisher using Kiev. all editions have been 2009, I think. You guys would surely be able to explain why this all should be ignored. Finally, PetersV, I find your "just give up" statement offensive.--Andriy155 (talk) 01:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Using one of your examples: Peking somehow started to turn into Beijing long before (I suspect) most of us were born. I have no idea of the reasons why – and these reasons are almost immaterial in this context) – but it’s just something that happened. English was one of the languages that came to increasingly refer to the city as Beijing. However, that is still not the case in a majority of languages, and you will still find the city called Pékin, Pequim, Pechino, Pekín, Pekini, Pequín, etc). And no, that does not mean that French, Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, Turkish speakers have any love or hate for the communist regime or Chairman Mao or whatever other conspiracy theory is being bandied about. Kyiv is Kiev in English just like Beijing is Pequim in Portuguese and Mumbai is Bombay in French and Seoul is Seul in Turkish – that’s just the way it is. Jasepl (talk) 12:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC) Fair enough - some of us were not born at the time. How about Tallinn/Tallin. why weren't you protesting the change in the media?--Andriy155 (talk) 01:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposition continued

Latest comment: 15 years ago25 comments9 people in discussion

Dear Andriy155, you take offense incorrectly. I have already explained that for many reasons I personally support "Kyiv", but cannot (yet) as common English spelling. What I was addressing was the commentary that "Kiev" is being pushed by some anti-Ukrainian Russian-glorifying conspiritorial cabal. That did not belong in this discussion.
   As you've corresponded with the USBGN, you will note, again, that there is only one "standard" and, if defined, one "conventional," name; again, "conventional" being defined when it

  1. differs from "standard" and
  2. represents the predominant English language usage by the general public

When USBGN deletes its "conventional" Kiev entry, then that will be fair and objective expert evidence that Kyiv has become the predominant English usage name for Київ.

P.S. Travel guides and maps are not indicators of common English language usage, they are indicators of the most likely transliterations a traveler is likely to find for non-Roman alphabet languages. You will note that Roman-alphabet place names are typically reproduced with all their diacritics and often in the native language—again, not necessarily representing the most common English language usage. PetersV       TALK 02:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough - no offense taken. With regards to USBGN, you may be right on the matter - it seems as though you have dealt with them much longer. I must disagree with you regarding maps and travel guides. I specifically checked for two other names: Warsaw and Rome. Both were spelled as Rome and Warsaw and not Roma and Warszawa (Frommers, Michelin, Mapart and Lonely Planet did it - at least for the editions I looked at). However, all, except for the one that I mentioned, used Kyiv. So, I am not sure I can agree with you. Please provide factual evidence to support your viewpoint. The only map that, as far as I know, does what you have described is Google Maps, no? No word on Encarta from you.--Andriy155 (talk) 05:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
On Encarta... Microsoft is pulling the plug. I was quite excited by it (and its possibilities) when it first came out, but having grown up on real encyclopedias, I was disappointed in its quality and chalked it up to Microsoft hubris thinking they could do anything, including writing encyclopedias. And so I've never used it (or cited it on WP) for anything. While the "changing market"—including the ascent of WP—is being blamed for its demise, for me at least, Encarta never hit the ground running, just with a thud. Obviously many editors do cite it here on WP, but I don't use it. On guides and maps... more applicable to printed maps, somewhat less to guides, but I have seen local versus common English in both, so I'd rather not argue over which guide book is more authoritative. Lastly, on BGN... I use it as an objective barometer—that the BGN conventional "Kiev" exists—for common English language usage not because I'm trying to be a hardass about it, but because that is how I keep my editorial opinion objective and separate from my personal leanings. For me, the day that the BGN conventional entry for Kiev is deleted is the day the article is renamed to "Kyiv." Obviously, WP is built on consensus and you are free to build one here and I wish you good fortune. I've told you the conditions under which I'll editorially support the rename, and conversely, the conditions under which I'll oppose it.
   It's only about what the common English name is for Київ, nothing else. Because Kiev is so similar to Kyiv for English-speakers, it confuses the issue that it's about the wants of Ukraine, about Russian and not Ukrainian being transliterated, etc. Those are all perfectly valid and interesting points as to how a name came to be, but they are not material to the concept of "common English usage." If Київ was named Марз in Russian under the Russian Empire and that created the common English usage of "Mars", the article would be titled "Mars" until "Kyiv" replaced "Mars" as common English usage. How common English language usage came to be doesn't count. It's not about whose transliteration of Київ versus Ки́ев is the "right" one. PetersV       TALK 07:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The only issue that I have had is the failure of the English world to acknowledge the change of the city's name from Ки́ев to Київ. The common misconception is that they are the same word and that Kiev and Kyiv are two English transliterations of the same word... they are not. In fact, the word Ки́ев exists in the Ukrainian language, but the Ukrainian name for the city is Київ. I am sure that most English speakers don't realize the nature of the incorrectness here, and I admit that confusion (as to which city is being discussed) is unlikely. Most Ukrainians would probably not recognize the difference between "New York" and "Newark", thinking they are transliterations of the same word or city name. Bombay's name was changed to Mumbai, which is distinct enough in sound difference that an English-speaker recognizes that they are dealing with a new word. Ukraine's "mistake" was changing the name of the city to such a similar-sounding word, which does in fact trace its roots back to an even more similar sounding word. 65.4.209.91 (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
In fact, the word Киев does not exist in the Ukrainian language. This word - Киев - exists only in Russian. The only correct word in Ukrainian is Київ. --Perohanych (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I suppose folks are getting tired of me by now. The etymology of "KIEV" and what letters in the alphabet of what language were originally transliterated versus what that official preference (by Ukraine) is today is not at issue here. If most people in the English speaking world used MARS to refer to Київ, the article would be titled MARS. I've already discussed what I consider my objective litmus test for when it's time to rename the article. PetersV       TALK 22:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
As Vecrumba say, we follow English usage. Details in our general naming conventions policy, and the specific ones for geographic names. - Best, Ev (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
The word Киев DOES exist in the Ukrainian language, and can easily be constructed using the letters of the Ukrainian alphabet, appearing identical to the Russian word. I have spent many years in Ukraine and I hear this word used all the time. When Ukrainian is being spoken in conversation, this word in context most often refers to the capital of the Ukrainian SSR during the time of the Soviet Union. It can also refer to the pre-Soviet city of Ukraine (1800's or earlier?), when the Ukrainian word (which now no longer exists in the modern language) was closer in pronunciation to Киев.
The word Киев DOES NOT exist in the Ukrainian language. Ukrainians use the word Киев when they speak in Russian and use Київ when they speak in Ukrainian. There is no any Ukrainian dictionary, no any literature novel or newspaper article in Ukrainian language with the word Киев. --Perohanych (talk) 05:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I have a Ukrainian dictionary right here that does include the word Киев. The definition is a bit nondescript and would not support either my argument or yours. More importantly, if we are comparing apples to apples -- arguing which is "common" English usage, then we should also consider whether Ukrainian speakers "commonly" use the word Киев when speaking Ukrainian. My experience is that they do, especially in the western portions of Ukraine, when referring to the SSR capital or ancient city of Kiev/Kyiv.187.153.2.186 (talk) 13:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Please provide a scan of the page where you found Киев. Discussion whether is Kiev or Kyiv in English. It should inevitably happen before the final transition is made to Kyiv. However, trying to convince everyone that it is Киев and not Київ in Ukrainian is beyond funny.--Andriy155 (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
You misunderstand my point. I am not trying to convince anyone that Киев equals Київ in Ukrainian, in fact just the opposite. They are two distinct words that both exist in the Ukrainian language. Київ is the name of the capitol city of modern Ukraine, Киев is not. An analogy to this would be the city of Charleston in the USA. It is still referred to as "Charlestown" when speaking of the original city as it existed over 100 years ago, but the name has been changed to Charleston to conform to the American standard of English. The word "Charlestown" still exists in the American dialect of English, but only as a reference to the city as it existed in the past. Of course, this is an issue of dialects within the same language, but then also the Ukrainians had a word that sounded like "Kiev" long before the Russians did, before the Soviet Union and before the modern-day Ukrainian word that sounds more like "Kyiv". It's rarely black and white, is it? As for the scan, wish I had a scanner, but I'll quote the entry here in English -- Киев: Capitol city of Ukraine. see Київ. -- If there were ever a more ambiguous connotation, I haven't seen one. Is it trying to say the words are interchangeable (I think not), or is it saying that the reader should be using Київ instead, or is there clarification in the definition for Київ (not really -- I checked). The use of Киев while speaking Ukrainian is a subtle situation, but I can assure you from personal experience that it does exist -- we may just have to agree to disagree about this. I'm not going to post any more about this for now as I feel I've made my point and that any more would distract from the main argument of renaming the article. I strongly support the move to Kyiv, but Wikipedia policy is the main block to this.Srilm (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
To Srilm: You are not right. There IS NO word Киев in the Ukrainian language. You have to look for the ethymology of the word. There was a Prince in the very old times. His name was Кий. That Кий was the founder of the city. The city name means belonging to Кий. When one uses the Ukrainian grammar - he receives Київ for belonging to Кий. When one uses the Russian grammar - he receives Киев for belonging to Кий. When one uses the Polish grammar - he receives Киюв / Kijów for belonging to Кий. --Perohanych (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I am correct, but you are not seeing the point that I am making. I am well aware of the history of this city, and have studied it for many years. I think the point that you are making is that the modern word Киев is not innately Ukrainian, which is also arguable, since one of the ancient Ukrainian names for the city was pronounced (probably) more like "Kiev" than "Kyiv". You could probably make a good argument that the Russian language actually acquired the word Киев from the Ukrainians. Is it true that the word Киев is not the correct name of the city today? Absolutely. Is Киев a word that is usable in the Ukrainian language? Absolutely. It serves to differentiate the modern capitol city from the capitol of the Ukrainian SSR and/or the ancient capitol. I hear it used all the time in Ukrainian in instances such as "do you remember the good times we had in Kiev back in the 1970's?" Just because it is "borrowed" from Russian (again, an arguable point) does not mean that it is not a legitimate Ukrainian word. This is why I support the move to "Kyiv" for this article -- we English speakers are transliterating the wrong word. See my examples above about words from other dialects/languages being used in context, and therefore being legitimate words in the receiving language. Here's another one... The word "croissant" appears in most English dictionaries. This is 100% a French word. We didn't even attempt to change the spelling or pronunciation, and yet since English has no other word to describe the pastry, well there is this 100% French word that is clearly now a part of the English vocabulary. Similarly, virtually all of the Ukrainians I know, rather than saying "Kyiv back when it was called Kiev in Russian when we all spoke Russian", instead just say "Kiev". As a side note, I have noticed that most residents of Kyiv pronounce it "Kiev" when speaking to me in English, although this seems to be improving every time I visit. This could be a part of the problem in getting the title of this article changed. I realize there is some indignation among nationalistic Ukrainians that a word that is perceived as solely Russian is sometimes used to refer to the capitol. Considering the history, I don't really blame them, but Киев is part of their history, and always will be, and it is a legitimate word in the Ukrainian language.Srilm (talk) 03:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
The second poster is correct -- Wikipedia policy is predominant English usage, and if the English world chooses to call Kyiv/Kiev Mars, then it will be Mars here. The point I have made is should we consider whether predominant English usage is based on incorrect data and/or an ignorance of the situation, or does that even matter? How many English-speakers (percentage-wise) realize that the name of Kyiv/Kiev was changed by its governement?Srilm (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
A good point, but no, it doesn't matter. We are not in the business of trying to 'correct' the entire English-speaking world. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
WP using the "wrong" transliteration has been variously taken as anti-Ukrainian, pro-Soviet, USSR-glorification, et al., and regardless it should be changed to the "correct" one. Romanization, as in transliterating a person's name, is different from common English usage. The two are (unfortunately, from my personal perspective) not the same. PētersV       TALK 14:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Supporting the change to change the article name to "Kyiv" and redirect from Kiev. Oh and how exactly is it relevant to give the Russian name of the city in the first line?... --98.227.38.196 (talk) 02:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't support, and you have not made an argument for common English usage. Personally I agree, but WP is not about personal wants and desires.
   That said, I don't see any reason for Russian in the lead, Russian is not an official language of Ukraine. PētersV       TALK 14:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
For very many years Russian was the official language spoken in Kiev. Surely it would be helpful to have that Russian name in an encyclopedia? Putting it there doesn't in any way imply that Wikipedia approves of the use of Russian during that time, or that Wikipedia is condoning anything that happened in the past. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
There are numerous places where Russian was an official language and is no longer. In a perfect world I might agree. Unfortunately, I have seen the insistence on inclusion of Russian names used in numerous places on WP to push certain POVs regarding current affairs--as opposed to simply reflecting historical usage. Despite my defense of "Kiev" I'd likely be labeled pro-Ukrainian, if there is a persuasive case for "value added" providing Russian in the lead, I'd consider it. PētersV       TALK 15:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Just because some people have argued for something for the wrong reasons, that doesn't mean doing it is wrong. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Hence my statement regarding making a case for the value added. While I thought it (editorially) appropriate to remove the Russian from the lead, that doesn't mean I'm closed to a good case for keeping it there. (Kievan Rus', for example, has three languages in the lead for historical reasons.) PētersV       TALK 18:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, for one, Lvov was changed to Lviv on Wikipedia. --98.227.38.196 (talk) 23:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Makes my point. L'viv is the BGN standard, there is no BGN conventional, L'vov is a variant. PētersV       TALK 03:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Then you should support the move from Odessa to Odesa, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Odessa#Requested_move --Andriy155 (talk) 07:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

My small contribution.

Latest comment: 15 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

First (as these seems to be relevant to other contributors) I am an Englishman who has worked throughout the former Soviet Union, presently living in Kyiv. I have no political axe to grind either for Russia or Ukraine.

We have on WP Beijing, Mumbai, etc. I cannot uderstand therefore why we have Kiev. The transliteration of the Ukrainian name of this Ukrainian city is Kyiv. This is used by English-language newspaprs in the city, by the Delegation of the European Commission, etc. It is the country's own preferred version of the city name in Latin script. Kiev is the transliteration of the city's name in a different language (Russian). It seems to me unreasonable and inconsistent to retain it as the article title. The argument of 'common usage' in these circumstances is highly debatable - and if it is highly debatable it canot per se be justified as 'common usage'. Where there is no clear open consensus - and I note the topic has been hotly debated - we should surely go the 'official' route, as WP has done with Mumbai etc.--Smerus (talk) 04:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

A bit of research - a quick trawl shows that the British Embassy, the French Embassy and the American Embassy all use 'Kyiv'. Even Terry Wogan uses Kyiv, saying ‘only the chicken is Kiev’. I think one can argue a strong case now even on common usage and unless anyone can show me any good reason, I will take this once again to AfR.--Smerus (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all this work, Smerus. It's very interesting. However it should be made clear again that Wikipedia policy is to use the most widely-understood English name when referring to foreign places. Currently that is unquestionably Kiev. If it changes in the future then Wikipedia will change its usage.
While the British Embassy in Ukraine does use Kyiv, the rest of the British Government does not. See my contributions above for lists of major organizations that use Kiev. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely. Besides, governments and similar organisations tend to be overly PC in these matters, so they can hardly be considered bellwethers when it comes to what is common and what is not. Of course, once governments start using a particular name over another, that might lead to everyday people adapting the revised name as well. In the case of Kiev, however, it has simply not happened. Not yet.
As an aside, I'd bet money that a majority of the native English speakers who contributed to this long-running discussion did not even know that the city's name was supposed to have changed until the issue came up on Wikipedia! Jasepl (talk) 15:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Jasepl, this is highly NNPOV ('governments and similar organisations tend to be overly PC in these matters') and very dismissive of other contributors ('I'd bet money that a majority of the native English speakers who contributed to this long-running discussion did not even know that the city's name was supposed to have changed until the issue came up on Wikipedia!'). Crude condescension isn't the way to conduct a discussion. Just reread WP:AGF. If these are the best arguments you can address, then I suspect you don't have much of a case.
DJ Clayworth, if the argument is to use 'the most widely understood English name' (and I would be graeful for a clear reference where I can see and study such an established WP policy) , then how come we have 'Chennai'?. The BGN database gives Kyiv as 'standard' and 'Kiev' as 'conventional'. It also gives 'Chennai' as standard and 'Madras' as conventional. If 'Chennai', then 'Kyiv'. Please explain any reason why things should be otherwise.--Smerus (talk) 05:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Without wishing to be rude, if you haven't read the Wikipedia pages on naming conventions then you really should be thinking twice before contributing to this debate. For your information, the place name conventions are here. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
You may not wish,but you certainly succeed!--Smerus (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
A couple of things. On Odessa/Odesa and BGN, there is conflicting data as the railway station is Odessa, the oblast containing the city is Odessa—this thread of conversation to be continued in the proper place.
   India place names supersede BGN standard/conventional (common English outside India) as "Indian" English is an official language of India, hence according to WP naming conventions, Mumbai trumps Bombay, Chennai trumps Madras. The name Київ has not changed, nor is English an official language of Ukraine, thus a different circumstances. Hope this clarifies. PētersV       TALK 16:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
It is not directly relevant that English is an official language of India, nor that Mumbai is an official name (in English). It is the most widespread use that counts. Of course the fact that millions of English-speaking Indians call the city Mumbai helps to establish the widespread usage of Mumbai, but it's not a deciding factor. It's usage that counts. Mumbai is now so widely used I suspect many younger people don't even recognize the name Bombay. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Kiev=>Kyiv move by Christian Science Monitor: [11] Good job, guys!--Andriy155 (talk) 10:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Official city name

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

It caught my attention that a change of the official city name to Kyiv has been reverted back to Kiev. I realise that given the mood on this forum it is very unlikely that this article will unlikely move to Kyiv any time soon. However, since when is the official name of the city Kiev? Isn't it something that the Ukrainian authorities should be able to figure out on their own? See article 20 of the Ukrainian consitution: http://www.rada.gov.ua/const/conengl.htm in its official translation. Notice that this issue has nothing to do with the English usage of the word. I am curious, who has higher authority to determine official names of cities in Ukraine than the Ukrainian consitution? Furthmore, in the entry for Milan the official city name is Milano. Hence, we should either adopt Kyiv as the official city name or set Milan as the official city name for Milan. Otherwise, there is no consistency. Again, in this part I do not propose to moce the article to Kyiv but simply to correct the opfficial name in the template.--Andriy155 (talk) 06:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the main problem is that Kyiv is not in India. Names for cities such as Bombay, Calcutta, and others (some, such as Kolkota, are mere spelling changes too) were quickly changed to there new names in most media to avoid offending Indians. The solution: Have Kyiv declare itsefl a city of India! Seriously, there is a double standard on this issue on WP, as Indian city articles are promptly renamed as soon as the new name is passed by the city government, well before common usage accepts the new names. Why should Kyiv be any different? - BilCat (talk) 23:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
This decree you are referring to has been passed by the Ukrainian officials last century.--Andriy155 (talk) 08:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You neglect to note that there are few Great Pakastani chauvanists around to get in the way. Bandurist (talk) 06:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia - look in the mirror ...

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Dear Wikipedia!

We noticed something interesting today. When we ventured to ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiev#City_name_evolution

... you very properly state, that:

“since the 1995 adoption of Kyiv by the Ukrainian government as a preferred spelling, the Ukrainianized version Kyiv is gaining usage”.

So, as you further state, it appears the name Kyiv is gaining usage by many notable entities, such as ...

“Ukrainian government, [...]

United Nations, all English-speaking foreign diplomatic missions, several international organizations, Encarta encyclopedia, and by some media, notably in Canada and Ukraine [...]

United States federal government, [...] Monopoly”

... EXCEPT you, Wikipedia, as we see in THE NAME of your article that describes the city of Kyiv.

Shame! Get it right - NOW, please ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyiv

... must be THE NAME of the article and ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiev must redirect to the article ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyiv

Sincerely, Mumbai & Beijing

(as told to Hokej (talk) 01:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC))

lost cause :( --Andriy155 (talk) 08:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps lobby the BGN folk. WP follows convention, not creates convention. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  16:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Kyiv vs Kiev

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

The official name of the city, is Kyiv.... Ukrainians living in Ukraine as well as around the world make this common mistake since. Verkhovna Rada, the Ukrainian Parliament has made this decree... I feel that as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia it should reflect the CORRECT information not information that has made us complacent.

thank you

http://www.rada.gov.ua/const/conengl.htm

--UkrNole 485 (talk) 19:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the official mouthpiece of the Rada. Only common English usage matters and the common English spelling of Kyiv is still Kiev. That is the guiding principle of Wikipedia. (Taivo (talk) 00:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC))
Well this is an instance again where b.s. editors are wrong. If a country has come out and said this is the way we want our english translations to slavic words it should be respected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.50.80 (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The official name of London is...London. However it appears in the Ukrainian Wikipedia as Лондон. Why? Because that's how Ukrainians spell it (just as the French spell it Londres, which is how it appears on French Wikipedia). The principle is no different with Kiev. English-speakers have always spelt it Kiev, just as they have always spelt Köln as Cologne and Venezia as Venice. It's a fact of life and no amount of bickering over name changes is going to make any difference. There is no earthly reason why English Wikipedia should be a special case - until every Wikipedia changes its spellings to the spellings in use in the country of origin I see no reason why English Wikipedia should be obliged to change spellings in long use in English-speaking countries just because a city happens to have changed its official name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree, I will add a short, but impressive list of facts of why it is spelled as Kyiv in English language:
1) Ukrainian government insists on Kyiv spelling
2) The State Department of the U.S. issued a directive to write Kyiv
3) The Prime Minister of the U.K. calls the city Kyiv - http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page20199
4) United Nations Multilingual Terminology Database (the ultimate body on geographical names) approved it as Kyiv - http://unterm.un.org/dgaacs/unterm.nsf/WebView/B57BF6AB5F06749B85256DC700440AAD?OpenDocument
5) Major English speaking governments worldwide switched to Kyiv spelling
6) CIA refers to the city as Kyiv - https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/up.html
7) The name of the famous football club is Dynamo Kyiv (recognised worldwide)
8) Many papers, e.g., British The Guardian, are already writing Kyiv
9) All major Canadian media already use the spelling of Kyiv
10) and many more reasons and references on http://kyiv.of-cour.se/
Let's initiate another discussion and make the final change. We have waited too long already. (Markiyan (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC))
Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are all irrelevant to the discussion. Wikipedia is not the mouthpiece of any government or governmental agency. The only relevant facts are common English usage, not official English. And your number 10 is a link to a website from which you have copied this list verbatim without any further "reasons or references". It remains to be seen whether enough modern reliable sources are using "Kyiv" at this time to make the change. (Taivo (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC))
By the way, what is your relationship to the website at this address? (Taivo (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC))

(outdent) In case you haven't read it, here is the discussion and result the last time the issue was thoroughly discussed (Sep 2008): [12]. Before you continue on, you should familiarize yourself with the issues and not repeat them here. (Taivo (talk) 03:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC))

Strong arguments

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It is spelled as Kyiv in English language because:

1) Ukrainian government insists on Kyiv spelling

2) The State Department of the U.S. issued a directive to write Kyiv

3) The Prime Minister of the U.K. calls the city Kyiv

4) United Nations Multilingual Terminology Database (the ultimate body on geographical names) approved it as Kyiv

5) Major English speaking governments worldwide switched to Kyiv spelling

6) CIA refers to the city as Kyiv

7) The name of the famous football club is Dynamo Kyiv

8) Many papers, e.g., British The Guardian, are already writing Kyiv

9) All major Canadian media already use the spelling of Kyiv

10) and many more reasons http://kyiv.of-cour.se/

(Markiyan (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC))

Requested move October 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago106 comments14 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was consensus against move. Overwhelming and varied evidence provided that Kiev is currently the common English language name for the city.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Kiev → Kyiv — This issue has not been visited formally for a year (September 2008 as far as I recall). There is steady nationalistic pressure to change the title and a recent case of soliciting meat puppets was discovered. I don't really care one way or the other (I personally always use Kyiv outside Wikipedia), but simply want to gauge Wikipedia consensus (again). How common is the Kyiv spelling outside the government and official channels? How common is the Kiev spelling? Obviously anything written before 2004 or so is going to have Kiev, but how about during the past two or three years? Has there been a significant shift to Kyiv in non-governmental sources? Are English speakers shifting to Kyiv? Taivo (talk) 11:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Results of September 2008 Renaming Survey

This is the last time that the move issue was officially visited with a move request, discussion, and survey. The results of the survey were 11 Oppose, 1 Neutral, 2 Support. The arguments there almost entirely focused on three things: 1) Google hits, 2) Ukrainian official policy, and 3) Wikipedia's relation to governmental policies. There were no comprehensive surveys of English common usage at that time. (Taivo (talk) 04:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC))

Survey

I have, as promised, carefully replaced the survey results here that were added yesterday. (Taivo (talk) 11:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC))

  • Neutral. I asked my questions above. While the data clearly point to "Kiev" as the most common English usage (at least in the U.S.), I am sitting out the survey. (Taivo (talk) 11:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC))
  • Oppose per the reasoning provided in the last many previous renaming discussions, and the evidence provided below by the nominator showing that "Kiev" is the predominant form used. (as of the time of my signature) 70.29.209.91 (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose The evidence provided seems to indicate that Kiev is by far the more common name (not that it matters, the article on Myanmar is located at it's former name of Burma). TJ Spyke 22:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose I cannot see any reason why transliteration of Ukrainian language should have precedence over English language spelling on English wikipedia.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is a plain case of common sense. This is the English wiki and common English names are to be used (even if they are English translations). This wiki is written in the English language and read by the English-speaking world. Original and/or native names should NOT be used "here". Flamarande (talk) 23:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose considering the data, it has to remain Kiev. Izzedine (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Is there enough data now? I have assembled mostly U.S. data and it strongly points to "Kiev" as the most common English spelling here. How about other English-speaking countries? The three or four news sources from the U.K. that we have also point to "Kiev". Are there other (non-governmental) sources that we need to be looking at? (Taivo (talk) 11:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC))
  • Oppose as before. Kiev is the English name that English speakers recognize. Arguing for the Ukrainianised form is well and good, but Ukrainian isn't even the language of modern Kiev, so I don't understand why the Ukrainian form ought to have any authority. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per common English language usage at BGN database. When it changes, my vote changes. Personally I would like to see the rename, that is why I look to an unbiased source. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 18:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:NCGN would also consult the Library of Congress country study, and the New Cambridge Modern History, but even if they tilted the other way (and I don't expect it), the evidence below is robust. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Kiev remains the most common spelling in English. Thanks for the conclusive evidence of usage collected below. Johnbod (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Kiev seems outdated and conservative spelling of the city name. Please see reason provided by Christian Science Monitor for abolishing using Kiev and switching to Kyiv earlier this year here --Andriy155 (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe that Andriy155 means "Kiev seems outdated and conservative..." rather than "Kyiv...". (Taivo (talk) 13:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC))
Thanks! Fixed.--Andriy155 (talk) 04:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidence collection: usage in English-language texts

I'd like to make a very strong suggestion in an attempt to get the most out of the following discussion - let's keep the discussion tightly focussed on reporting actual usage of each name in the English language.

All the arguments based on governmental decrees, transliteration systems, relative number of Ukranian/Russian speakers, the etymologies - we've heard it all before. These arguments are thoroughly documented in the previous discussions, and we don't need to waste time and kilobytes trawling through it all again - and most importantly none of these issues have changed since the previous discussions. The one thing which may have changed since the other discussions is actual usage in English-language texts, so if we focus on this we will use our time most productively.

I suggest collecting data from a wide-range sources that represent a selection of reliable English-language sources (i.e. not just crude Google counting, including any blog, raw data file and script-generated text that's been dumped on the net - see WP:NCGN#Search engine issues). With enough good-quality evidence, it will be far easier to come to a consensus on the strength of the case.

Please provide links for verification, and (if possible) an indication of the year the usage comes from. Knepflerle (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I completely concur and have removed the survey from the proposal for now. Once data have been assembled and we are ready, I'll repost the survey and we can gauge where consensus might (or might not) stand. (Taivo (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC))
It is a noble effort, you have spent a great deal of time on this, in the end, the article name will remain as is per my note at the bottom. If we are driven by a love for Kiev, then we should put our energies toward getting the article to GA or FA, not yet another debate on naming. (This should be moved to the Naming sub-page where this has all been discussed in painful detail before.) VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 17:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree about the futility of all naming debates here. Rather than moving every debate to the naming sub-page immediately after closure, perhaps we should leave the last debate in situ until the next one starts. That way it's easier to see for casual browsers who might want to engage in the next round. (Taivo (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC))

Data Demonstrating Common Usage

English-language newspapers and news websites

United States
Newspapers
However, as of May 2009 Christian Science Monitor switched to the spelling of Kyiv Kyiv or Kiev --Andriy155 (talk) 23:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
News Magazines
Television News
Canada
United Kingdom
Australia
Ireland
South Africa

Works of general reference: encyclopaedias, standard histories

Academic use (journal papers/academic books with direct relevance to Ukraine)

Although the identical numbers might lead one to think they were duplicate lists (with text such as "Kiev, or Kyiv" (or vice versa)), they are not duplicate lists. Most of the 10 titles in each list are unique to that list. It's just coincidence that they are exactly the same length. (Taivo (talk) 11:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC))
  • Chronicle of Higher Education (uses an odd "intelligent" system of constraining searches so "Kiev" can be constrained for articles occurring within the last year but not within the last 3 years, but "Kyiv" can only be constrained for articles within the last 3 years): Kiev 2 (within the last year, both written by Americans), Kyiv 1 (within the last 3 years, from June 2008, written by a Ukrainian) (Taivo (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC))
This source is actually a news and opinion source, but it relates completely to academia, so it properly belongs here, I think. (Taivo (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC))

Major international organisations

Major English-speaking organisations

Other Relevant History/Geography Media

Miscellaneous Relevant Numbers

Data Demonstrating Official Governmental Policies

(This section was added later by a supporter to reflect official policy, not common usage. (Taivo (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)))

Governmental bodies in English-speaking countries. Also those of English-speaking countries acting in Ukraine.

Discussion

At this point, the evidence shows:

1) The news sources surveyed strongly favor "Kiev", in some cases by an overwhelming majority of instances. "Kyiv" is not always the most recent usage. One Canadian newspaper gives equal weight between "Kiev" and "Kyiv"
2) Encyclopedias have not been thoroughly surveyed. The four listed are split between "Kiev" and "Kyiv".
3) The academic sources surveyed generally favor "Kiev" with a few split between "Kiev" and "Kyiv". The academic sources tend to have a low number of hits to compare.
4) International organizations have not been widely surveyed. The one source favors "Kiev".
4.a) If you are talking about UN - officially they recognise it as Kyiv. Links were added.
4.b) Major English-speaking governments and their embassies were consulted - they all use Kyiv. --- Londain (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
5) The two American scientific organizations favor "Kiev". The other two organizations listed do not really favor either.
6) The two American educational channels overwhelmingly favor "Kiev".
7) The data from Google Books strongly favor "Kiev".

So as of Friday morning, 30 October (Mountain Daylight Time), that's where we stand on gathering sources and examining the usage data. (Taivo (talk) 12:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC))

I have suggested in the past we simply use BGN as the impartial third party. As long as they have an entry in their database specifically stating there is a special case that "Kiev" is standard English usage, we should observe that. When that changes, we rename the article, plain and simple. Anything else will degenerate into the usual. I've been occupied elsewhere, I see my suggestion for doing Kiev justice to go GA or FA lies completely fallow—if a tenth of the energy were spent on article content that has been wasted on Kiev vs. Kyiv, we'd have something we could all truly point to with pride. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 17:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
The problem with BGN is that it coesn't have a conventional field as often as it really should; for example, it doesn't have one for Frankfurt. When it does have one, we should follow it - unless ambiguity makes that impractical. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, you're not quite correct, Frankfurt am Main (BGN Standard) indicates Frankfurt as the (Short) version, hence no requirement for a conventional common English usage exception. (And Frankfurt is also BGN Standard for the other Frankfurt.)  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  04:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Including Short forms would be a different proposal. I suspect it will still diverge from normal English usage for such places as Brixen, and that it will give multiple answers quite often; but we don't need to decide such things here; try WT:NCGN. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Reading Wikipedia policy (below) and considering the assembled data, the following points point unambiguously toward Kiev as the common English spelling of Ukraine's capital:

  • BGN Conventional is "Kiev" indicating common English usage
  • The major news sources in several English-speaking countries overwhelmingly use "Kiev" over "Kyiv"
  • Academic sources generally use "Kiev" over "Kyiv"
  • The web sites for four major American scientific, geographical, and educational organizations use "Kiev" over 90% of the time
  • Both Google Books and Google Scholar register "Kiev" over "Kyiv" at more than a 3:1 ratio.

(Taivo (talk) 04:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC))

We already knew that official policy of most countries doing business in Ukraine is to favor "Kyiv" in official documents. That has been documented ad infinitem before. What is new here is the definitive data demonstrating that common English usage is "Kiev". (Taivo (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC))

Relevant Wikipedia Policy

For those who may not be thoroughly familiar with relevant Wikipedia policy in this issue (and who may not like to click on links), these are the relevant points (from WP:NCGN):

From General Guidelines: "The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it."
From Use English: "When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This will often be identical in form to the local name (as with Paris or Berlin), but in many cases it will differ (Germany rather than Deutschland, Rome rather than Roma, Hanover rather than Hannover, Meissen rather than Meißen). If a native name is more often used in English sources than a corresponding traditional English name, then use the native name. An example is Livorno, which is now known more widely under its native name than under the traditional English name "Leghorn"."
From Widely Accepted Name: "A name can be considered as widely accepted if a neutral and reliable source states: "X is the name most often used for this entity". Without such an assertion, the following methods (not listed in any particular order) may be helpful in establishing a widely accepted name (period will be the modern era for current names; the relevant historical period for historical names):
  1. Consult English-language encyclopedias (we recommend Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta, each as published after 1993). If the articles in these agree on using a single name in discussing the period, it is the widely accepted English name.
    • One reason for 1993 is to ensure that post-Cold War changes in usage are duly reflected; other (especially later) limiting dates may be appropriate in some parts of the world.
  2. Consult Google Scholar and Google Books hits (count only articles and books, not number of times the word is used in them) when searched over English language articles and books where the corresponding location is mentioned in relation to the period in question. If the name of the location coincides with the name of another entity, care should be taken to exclude inappropriate pages from the count. If the name is used at least three times as often as any other, in referring to the period, it is widely accepted.
    • Always look at search results, don't just count them. For more, see the section on search engines below.
  3. Consult other standard histories and scientific studies of the area in question. (We recommend the Cambridge Histories; the Library of Congress country studies, and the Oxford dictionaries relevant to the period and country involved). If they agree, the name is widely accepted. The possibility that some standard histories will be dated, or written by a non-native speaker of English, should be allowed for.
  4. Consult major news sources, either individually, or by using Lexis-Nexis, if accessible. If they agree in using a given name, it is widely accepted."
From BGN: "The United States Board on Geographic Names determines official Federal nomenclature for the United States. Most often, actual American usage follows it, even in such points as the omission of apostrophes, as in St. Marys River. However, if colloquial usage does differ, we should prefer actual American to the official name. Similarly, its GEOnet server normally presents local official usage in the country concerned (for example, Frankfurt am Main); in a handful of cases, like Florence, it has a conventional name field. Its BGN Standard is a systematic transliteration, as Moskva — Wikipedia prefers Moscow. Where it acknowledges a conventional name, it is evidence of widespread English usage; where it does not, it is not addressing our primary question."

(Taivo (talk) 04:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC))

General Guidelines require only acceptance not the overwhelming usage.
A bit of history: I recall changes like Beijing did not happen overnight. It took Chinese some 10 years to convince the West about it. Mumbai went a bit faster as British did not want to bother with their colonial past.
We have already moved all post-Soviet names on Wikipedia: Kishenev is now Chişinău, Alma-Ata is now Almaty... Kiev just stands as an odd example giving some room to revert the above changes. Why give the others another case to revert the other changes? Using the same logic as we used in those geographical names it should be Kyiv instead of Kiev. Any other reasons not to?
As time will pass Kyiv will be catching up, now the real question comes as: do we at Wikipedia recognise it as the modern spelling, as accepted one, or as the one that it overwhelmingly used over the web (it is difficult to count elsewhere, who is counting? haven't seen anyone so far.) --- Londain (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Concerning "acceptance" versus "usage", if the occurrence of "Kiev" and "Kyiv" were fairly evenly matched (or even close), then that would be a good argument that neither is common and that "Kyiv" was accepted. In other words, it would lean the argument in the direction of "Kyiv". However, we're not dealing with two spellings that are even close. In some of these sources (where "Kyiv" occurs at all), there is as much as a 150:1 ratio of "Kiev" to "Kyiv" (the Financial Times). There is not a single public source where "Kyiv" dominates over "Kiev". At most, the two spellings are equal in a small number of sources. (Taivo (talk) 01:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC))
There is an error in Londain's statement, however. Not "all post-Soviet names" have been moved on Wikipedia. Odessa is still Odessa, not Ukrainian "Odesa". One of the reasons for this is that the official Odessa city website [13] spells its name in English "Odessa", despite the official position of the government of Ukraine, but the other (stronger) reason is the same as that being used here--common English usage uses "Odessa" overwhelmingly. The majority of English speakers know only four cities in Ukraine (in descending order of knowledge): Kiev, Odessa, Yalta, and Sevastopol (the latter two are only familiar to those who read any history). Yalta and Sevastopol are spelled the same in Ukrainian and Russian. Only Kiev and Odessa are spelled differently. Until English speakers adapt to "Kyiv" (even Odessans don't want to change the spelling of their city), then we must use "Kiev" here. (Taivo (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC))

I agree that in time the change to Kyiv will happen, but Wikipedia is bound by the present, not the future. We are a descriptive encyclopedia, not a prescriptive one. Neither Kishenev nor Alma-Ata are referred to with any regularity in English sources. Neither are Uzhhorod nor Dnipropetrovsk. They are rarely encountered in English so "common usage" is not relevant to them. Compare this, however, with Bangkok, which is not its name in Thai, and Rome, which is not its name in Italian. And what about Moscow in the post-Soviet world? Why not "Moskva" (or "Warszawa" instead of Warsaw)? Indeed, if we want local names, then Dnepropetrovsk is the way that the inhabitants (who nearly all speak Russian) want their city known, not the Ukrainian Dnipropetrovsk. In the end, all we have is common English usage. We must not get caught up in WP:OTHERSTUFF. That is never a strong argument when it comes to deciding individual issues in Wikipedia. We don't tell people how things should be, but simply report how they are. (Taivo (talk) 00:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC))

I must give credit where it is due; I strongly applaud Taivo's argumentation above. I love the: "Compare this, however, with Bangkok, which is not its name in Thai, and Rome, which is not its name in Italian. And what about Moscow in the post-Soviet world? Why not "Moskva" (or "Warszawa" instead of Warsaw)?" -part in particular. However I would improve the first sentence: "I agree that in time the change to Kyiv might happen." Flamarande (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Relevant Notes

User:Londain has been banned because he/she turned out to be a second account for banned User:Markiyan. The contributions of such second accounts are often deleted based on the reasoning that a banned user should not be editing under a new name. These secondary contributions are usually not productive. However, in this case, I'm not inclined to personally delete Londain's contributions for two reasons. First, they represent a minority point of view, and second, they are not inflammatory or otherwise uncivil. If you feel otherwise, then feel free to act accordingly. (Taivo (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC))

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

Requested move October 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago106 comments14 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was consensus against move. Overwhelming and varied evidence provided that Kiev is currently the common English language name for the city.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Kiev → Kyiv — This issue has not been visited formally for a year (September 2008 as far as I recall). There is steady nationalistic pressure to change the title and a recent case of soliciting meat puppets was discovered. I don't really care one way or the other (I personally always use Kyiv outside Wikipedia), but simply want to gauge Wikipedia consensus (again). How common is the Kyiv spelling outside the government and official channels? How common is the Kiev spelling? Obviously anything written before 2004 or so is going to have Kiev, but how about during the past two or three years? Has there been a significant shift to Kyiv in non-governmental sources? Are English speakers shifting to Kyiv? Taivo (talk) 11:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Results of September 2008 Renaming Survey

This is the last time that the move issue was officially visited with a move request, discussion, and survey. The results of the survey were 11 Oppose, 1 Neutral, 2 Support. The arguments there almost entirely focused on three things: 1) Google hits, 2) Ukrainian official policy, and 3) Wikipedia's relation to governmental policies. There were no comprehensive surveys of English common usage at that time. (Taivo (talk) 04:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC))

Survey

I have, as promised, carefully replaced the survey results here that were added yesterday. (Taivo (talk) 11:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC))

  • Neutral. I asked my questions above. While the data clearly point to "Kiev" as the most common English usage (at least in the U.S.), I am sitting out the survey. (Taivo (talk) 11:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC))
  • Oppose per the reasoning provided in the last many previous renaming discussions, and the evidence provided below by the nominator showing that "Kiev" is the predominant form used. (as of the time of my signature) 70.29.209.91 (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose The evidence provided seems to indicate that Kiev is by far the more common name (not that it matters, the article on Myanmar is located at it's former name of Burma). TJ Spyke 22:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose I cannot see any reason why transliteration of Ukrainian language should have precedence over English language spelling on English wikipedia.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is a plain case of common sense. This is the English wiki and common English names are to be used (even if they are English translations). This wiki is written in the English language and read by the English-speaking world. Original and/or native names should NOT be used "here". Flamarande (talk) 23:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose considering the data, it has to remain Kiev. Izzedine (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Is there enough data now? I have assembled mostly U.S. data and it strongly points to "Kiev" as the most common English spelling here. How about other English-speaking countries? The three or four news sources from the U.K. that we have also point to "Kiev". Are there other (non-governmental) sources that we need to be looking at? (Taivo (talk) 11:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC))
  • Oppose as before. Kiev is the English name that English speakers recognize. Arguing for the Ukrainianised form is well and good, but Ukrainian isn't even the language of modern Kiev, so I don't understand why the Ukrainian form ought to have any authority. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per common English language usage at BGN database. When it changes, my vote changes. Personally I would like to see the rename, that is why I look to an unbiased source. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 18:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:NCGN would also consult the Library of Congress country study, and the New Cambridge Modern History, but even if they tilted the other way (and I don't expect it), the evidence below is robust. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Kiev remains the most common spelling in English. Thanks for the conclusive evidence of usage collected below. Johnbod (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Kiev seems outdated and conservative spelling of the city name. Please see reason provided by Christian Science Monitor for abolishing using Kiev and switching to Kyiv earlier this year here --Andriy155 (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe that Andriy155 means "Kiev seems outdated and conservative..." rather than "Kyiv...". (Taivo (talk) 13:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC))
Thanks! Fixed.--Andriy155 (talk) 04:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidence collection: usage in English-language texts

I'd like to make a very strong suggestion in an attempt to get the most out of the following discussion - let's keep the discussion tightly focussed on reporting actual usage of each name in the English language.

All the arguments based on governmental decrees, transliteration systems, relative number of Ukranian/Russian speakers, the etymologies - we've heard it all before. These arguments are thoroughly documented in the previous discussions, and we don't need to waste time and kilobytes trawling through it all again - and most importantly none of these issues have changed since the previous discussions. The one thing which may have changed since the other discussions is actual usage in English-language texts, so if we focus on this we will use our time most productively.

I suggest collecting data from a wide-range sources that represent a selection of reliable English-language sources (i.e. not just crude Google counting, including any blog, raw data file and script-generated text that's been dumped on the net - see WP:NCGN#Search engine issues). With enough good-quality evidence, it will be far easier to come to a consensus on the strength of the case.

Please provide links for verification, and (if possible) an indication of the year the usage comes from. Knepflerle (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I completely concur and have removed the survey from the proposal for now. Once data have been assembled and we are ready, I'll repost the survey and we can gauge where consensus might (or might not) stand. (Taivo (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC))
It is a noble effort, you have spent a great deal of time on this, in the end, the article name will remain as is per my note at the bottom. If we are driven by a love for Kiev, then we should put our energies toward getting the article to GA or FA, not yet another debate on naming. (This should be moved to the Naming sub-page where this has all been discussed in painful detail before.) VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 17:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree about the futility of all naming debates here. Rather than moving every debate to the naming sub-page immediately after closure, perhaps we should leave the last debate in situ until the next one starts. That way it's easier to see for casual browsers who might want to engage in the next round. (Taivo (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC))

Data Demonstrating Common Usage

English-language newspapers and news websites

United States
Newspapers
However, as of May 2009 Christian Science Monitor switched to the spelling of Kyiv Kyiv or Kiev --Andriy155 (talk) 23:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
News Magazines
Television News
Canada
United Kingdom
Australia
Ireland
South Africa

Works of general reference: encyclopaedias, standard histories

Academic use (journal papers/academic books with direct relevance to Ukraine)

Although the identical numbers might lead one to think they were duplicate lists (with text such as "Kiev, or Kyiv" (or vice versa)), they are not duplicate lists. Most of the 10 titles in each list are unique to that list. It's just coincidence that they are exactly the same length. (Taivo (talk) 11:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC))
  • Chronicle of Higher Education (uses an odd "intelligent" system of constraining searches so "Kiev" can be constrained for articles occurring within the last year but not within the last 3 years, but "Kyiv" can only be constrained for articles within the last 3 years): Kiev 2 (within the last year, both written by Americans), Kyiv 1 (within the last 3 years, from June 2008, written by a Ukrainian) (Taivo (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC))
This source is actually a news and opinion source, but it relates completely to academia, so it properly belongs here, I think. (Taivo (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC))

Major international organisations

Major English-speaking organisations

Other Relevant History/Geography Media

Miscellaneous Relevant Numbers

Data Demonstrating Official Governmental Policies

(This section was added later by a supporter to reflect official policy, not common usage. (Taivo (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)))

Governmental bodies in English-speaking countries. Also those of English-speaking countries acting in Ukraine.

Discussion

At this point, the evidence shows:

1) The news sources surveyed strongly favor "Kiev", in some cases by an overwhelming majority of instances. "Kyiv" is not always the most recent usage. One Canadian newspaper gives equal weight between "Kiev" and "Kyiv"
2) Encyclopedias have not been thoroughly surveyed. The four listed are split between "Kiev" and "Kyiv".
3) The academic sources surveyed generally favor "Kiev" with a few split between "Kiev" and "Kyiv". The academic sources tend to have a low number of hits to compare.
4) International organizations have not been widely surveyed. The one source favors "Kiev".
4.a) If you are talking about UN - officially they recognise it as Kyiv. Links were added.
4.b) Major English-speaking governments and their embassies were consulted - they all use Kyiv. --- Londain (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
5) The two American scientific organizations favor "Kiev". The other two organizations listed do not really favor either.
6) The two American educational channels overwhelmingly favor "Kiev".
7) The data from Google Books strongly favor "Kiev".

So as of Friday morning, 30 October (Mountain Daylight Time), that's where we stand on gathering sources and examining the usage data. (Taivo (talk) 12:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC))

I have suggested in the past we simply use BGN as the impartial third party. As long as they have an entry in their database specifically stating there is a special case that "Kiev" is standard English usage, we should observe that. When that changes, we rename the article, plain and simple. Anything else will degenerate into the usual. I've been occupied elsewhere, I see my suggestion for doing Kiev justice to go GA or FA lies completely fallow—if a tenth of the energy were spent on article content that has been wasted on Kiev vs. Kyiv, we'd have something we could all truly point to with pride. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 17:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
The problem with BGN is that it coesn't have a conventional field as often as it really should; for example, it doesn't have one for Frankfurt. When it does have one, we should follow it - unless ambiguity makes that impractical. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, you're not quite correct, Frankfurt am Main (BGN Standard) indicates Frankfurt as the (Short) version, hence no requirement for a conventional common English usage exception. (And Frankfurt is also BGN Standard for the other Frankfurt.)  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  04:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Including Short forms would be a different proposal. I suspect it will still diverge from normal English usage for such places as Brixen, and that it will give multiple answers quite often; but we don't need to decide such things here; try WT:NCGN. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Reading Wikipedia policy (below) and considering the assembled data, the following points point unambiguously toward Kiev as the common English spelling of Ukraine's capital:

  • BGN Conventional is "Kiev" indicating common English usage
  • The major news sources in several English-speaking countries overwhelmingly use "Kiev" over "Kyiv"
  • Academic sources generally use "Kiev" over "Kyiv"
  • The web sites for four major American scientific, geographical, and educational organizations use "Kiev" over 90% of the time
  • Both Google Books and Google Scholar register "Kiev" over "Kyiv" at more than a 3:1 ratio.

(Taivo (talk) 04:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC))

We already knew that official policy of most countries doing business in Ukraine is to favor "Kyiv" in official documents. That has been documented ad infinitem before. What is new here is the definitive data demonstrating that common English usage is "Kiev". (Taivo (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC))

Relevant Wikipedia Policy

For those who may not be thoroughly familiar with relevant Wikipedia policy in this issue (and who may not like to click on links), these are the relevant points (from WP:NCGN):

From General Guidelines: "The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it."
From Use English: "When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This will often be identical in form to the local name (as with Paris or Berlin), but in many cases it will differ (Germany rather than Deutschland, Rome rather than Roma, Hanover rather than Hannover, Meissen rather than Meißen). If a native name is more often used in English sources than a corresponding traditional English name, then use the native name. An example is Livorno, which is now known more widely under its native name than under the traditional English name "Leghorn"."
From Widely Accepted Name: "A name can be considered as widely accepted if a neutral and reliable source states: "X is the name most often used for this entity". Without such an assertion, the following methods (not listed in any particular order) may be helpful in establishing a widely accepted name (period will be the modern era for current names; the relevant historical period for historical names):
  1. Consult English-language encyclopedias (we recommend Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta, each as published after 1993). If the articles in these agree on using a single name in discussing the period, it is the widely accepted English name.
    • One reason for 1993 is to ensure that post-Cold War changes in usage are duly reflected; other (especially later) limiting dates may be appropriate in some parts of the world.
  2. Consult Google Scholar and Google Books hits (count only articles and books, not number of times the word is used in them) when searched over English language articles and books where the corresponding location is mentioned in relation to the period in question. If the name of the location coincides with the name of another entity, care should be taken to exclude inappropriate pages from the count. If the name is used at least three times as often as any other, in referring to the period, it is widely accepted.
    • Always look at search results, don't just count them. For more, see the section on search engines below.
  3. Consult other standard histories and scientific studies of the area in question. (We recommend the Cambridge Histories; the Library of Congress country studies, and the Oxford dictionaries relevant to the period and country involved). If they agree, the name is widely accepted. The possibility that some standard histories will be dated, or written by a non-native speaker of English, should be allowed for.
  4. Consult major news sources, either individually, or by using Lexis-Nexis, if accessible. If they agree in using a given name, it is widely accepted."
From BGN: "The United States Board on Geographic Names determines official Federal nomenclature for the United States. Most often, actual American usage follows it, even in such points as the omission of apostrophes, as in St. Marys River. However, if colloquial usage does differ, we should prefer actual American to the official name. Similarly, its GEOnet server normally presents local official usage in the country concerned (for example, Frankfurt am Main); in a handful of cases, like Florence, it has a conventional name field. Its BGN Standard is a systematic transliteration, as Moskva — Wikipedia prefers Moscow. Where it acknowledges a conventional name, it is evidence of widespread English usage; where it does not, it is not addressing our primary question."

(Taivo (talk) 04:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC))

General Guidelines require only acceptance not the overwhelming usage.
A bit of history: I recall changes like Beijing did not happen overnight. It took Chinese some 10 years to convince the West about it. Mumbai went a bit faster as British did not want to bother with their colonial past.
We have already moved all post-Soviet names on Wikipedia: Kishenev is now Chişinău, Alma-Ata is now Almaty... Kiev just stands as an odd example giving some room to revert the above changes. Why give the others another case to revert the other changes? Using the same logic as we used in those geographical names it should be Kyiv instead of Kiev. Any other reasons not to?
As time will pass Kyiv will be catching up, now the real question comes as: do we at Wikipedia recognise it as the modern spelling, as accepted one, or as the one that it overwhelmingly used over the web (it is difficult to count elsewhere, who is counting? haven't seen anyone so far.) --- Londain (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Concerning "acceptance" versus "usage", if the occurrence of "Kiev" and "Kyiv" were fairly evenly matched (or even close), then that would be a good argument that neither is common and that "Kyiv" was accepted. In other words, it would lean the argument in the direction of "Kyiv". However, we're not dealing with two spellings that are even close. In some of these sources (where "Kyiv" occurs at all), there is as much as a 150:1 ratio of "Kiev" to "Kyiv" (the Financial Times). There is not a single public source where "Kyiv" dominates over "Kiev". At most, the two spellings are equal in a small number of sources. (Taivo (talk) 01:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC))
There is an error in Londain's statement, however. Not "all post-Soviet names" have been moved on Wikipedia. Odessa is still Odessa, not Ukrainian "Odesa". One of the reasons for this is that the official Odessa city website [14] spells its name in English "Odessa", despite the official position of the government of Ukraine, but the other (stronger) reason is the same as that being used here--common English usage uses "Odessa" overwhelmingly. The majority of English speakers know only four cities in Ukraine (in descending order of knowledge): Kiev, Odessa, Yalta, and Sevastopol (the latter two are only familiar to those who read any history). Yalta and Sevastopol are spelled the same in Ukrainian and Russian. Only Kiev and Odessa are spelled differently. Until English speakers adapt to "Kyiv" (even Odessans don't want to change the spelling of their city), then we must use "Kiev" here. (Taivo (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC))

I agree that in time the change to Kyiv will happen, but Wikipedia is bound by the present, not the future. We are a descriptive encyclopedia, not a prescriptive one. Neither Kishenev nor Alma-Ata are referred to with any regularity in English sources. Neither are Uzhhorod nor Dnipropetrovsk. They are rarely encountered in English so "common usage" is not relevant to them. Compare this, however, with Bangkok, which is not its name in Thai, and Rome, which is not its name in Italian. And what about Moscow in the post-Soviet world? Why not "Moskva" (or "Warszawa" instead of Warsaw)? Indeed, if we want local names, then Dnepropetrovsk is the way that the inhabitants (who nearly all speak Russian) want their city known, not the Ukrainian Dnipropetrovsk. In the end, all we have is common English usage. We must not get caught up in WP:OTHERSTUFF. That is never a strong argument when it comes to deciding individual issues in Wikipedia. We don't tell people how things should be, but simply report how they are. (Taivo (talk) 00:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC))

I must give credit where it is due; I strongly applaud Taivo's argumentation above. I love the: "Compare this, however, with Bangkok, which is not its name in Thai, and Rome, which is not its name in Italian. And what about Moscow in the post-Soviet world? Why not "Moskva" (or "Warszawa" instead of Warsaw)?" -part in particular. However I would improve the first sentence: "I agree that in time the change to Kyiv might happen." Flamarande (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Relevant Notes

User:Londain has been banned because he/she turned out to be a second account for banned User:Markiyan. The contributions of such second accounts are often deleted based on the reasoning that a banned user should not be editing under a new name. These secondary contributions are usually not productive. However, in this case, I'm not inclined to personally delete Londain's contributions for two reasons. First, they represent a minority point of view, and second, they are not inflammatory or otherwise uncivil. If you feel otherwise, then feel free to act accordingly. (Taivo (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kyiv/naming/Archive_10&oldid=1142766980"