Talk:Kyiv/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

"Kiev", "Kiyiv", and "Keev"

At some point, this pronunciation issue must be addressed. There is no issue with either the Russian pronunciation (when speaking Russian) or the Ukrainian pronunciation (when speaking Ukrainian). That's not what I'm talking about here. But as "Kyiv" becomes an English name separate from "Kiev" [kiɛv] the pronunciation will inevitably shift to something else. As long as the capital of Ukraine is spelled so radically different from its pronunciation it is a foregone conclusion that its pronunciation will shift to match the spelling just as Peking [pikɪŋ] became Beijing [bedʒɪŋ] in English. Natural English phonotactics will quickly reduce the high front vowel-palatal glide-high front vowel sequence to a long high front vowel [ki:v]. It is inevitable among native speakers of English, 99.99% of whom don't speak Ukrainian and 80% of whom don't speak any other language or give a rat's behind how its pronounced in some other language. Indeed, the New York Times has already reported from the impeachment hearings that there were three different pronunciations in evidence--"Kiev", "Kiyiv", and "Keev". Despite the desires of Ukrainian speakers and other "purists", [ki:v] is already becoming the English pronunciation of "Kyiv". It will not be pronounced [kiɛv] in English as the spelling "Kyiv" takes hold. They are not the "same name" (or else they'd be spelled the same). This is just my forewarning about how we present the pronunciation of "Kyiv" in English. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

To be honest I disagree. I do not see a "radical" difference in Kyiv being pronounce as Key-ev. I could see a lot of people doing it. For me the most natural thing in seeing it is to pronounce it Key-iv instead of Key-ev. The Keeve thing was a mistake by the New York Times. It may very well change to Key-iv but it also might take a long long time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

It’s not just The NYT, basically ever major US news source reported on it. See my post earlier on the subject in the thread above.—Ermenrich (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

They reported it, but it was shown as being the incorrect pronunciation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

TaivoLinguist’s prediction is excellent, and we should address it the very minute that reliable sources tell us that it was correct.

Currently, dictionaries indicate the prevailing English pronunciation based on their lexicographers’ research into the large corpus of English speech. And during one week a few articles told us how a few non-Ukrainian-speaking non-linguists observed two individuals pronounce a name as in Ukrainian at a specific event, Trump’s impeachment trial (“American lawmakers and officials at Wednesday’s hearing generally sounded as if they were trying to pronounce Kiev in Ukrainian, rather than the way it is pronounced in Russian. But at points, it sounded more like “keev,” with the long “ee” pronounced as a single syllable.”).[1]

The article should reflect this.

Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary tells us that the name is pronounced \ˈkē-ˌef, -ˌev, -if; ˈkēv\, or in Ukrainian contexts \ˈki-​yē-​ü\, equivalent to Wikipedia’s IPA /ˈkiɛf, ˈkiɛv, ˈkiɪf, kiːv/ and /ˈkɪjiu/ (see their Guide to Pronunciation and help on entries, regarding variants). The OED Online, entry updated December 2019,[2] tells us Brit. /ˈkiːɛv/, /ˈkiːɛf/, /ˌkiːˈɛv/, /ˌkiːˈɛf/, U.S. /ˈkiɛv/, /ˈkiɛf/, /ˌkiˈɛv/, /ˌkiˈɛf/. The Canadian Oxford Dictionary (2004) says /ˈkiːef/, in Ukrainian contexts /ˈki·ɪf/. —Michael Z. 03:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

For the record, in standard Russian it is pronounced KEY - if, not KEY - ef.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Those dictionaries tell us how people are pronouncing Kiev, not Kyiv. Kiev has the advantage of being a centuries-old English word whose pronunciation has been adapted by English speakers.

The sources are clear that Kyiv and Kiev are supposed to be pronounced differently - but then go on to tell us to pronounce Kyiv exactly as in Ukrainian. Complete with unaspirated and unpalatalised initial [k] before a front vowel, impossible middle vowel combination [ˈɪji] and word-final /w/. That's not going to happen.

At this point, I don't think we can give an English pronunciation of Kyiv, because there isn't one - only a Ukrainian pronunciation. We can give a standard English pronunciation of Kiev pretty easily. Kahastok talk 08:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

"At this point, I don't think we can give an English pronunciation of Kyiv, because there isn't one - only a Ukrainian pronunciation." Can't disagree with that, and that is a standard procedure for pronunciation guidelines on Wikipedia for non-tonal languages. Softlavender (talk) 08:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

No. I’m tagging the two preceding two comments [Original Research]. I just quoted the pronunciation given by three English dictionaries that give both spelling variations. Please stop presenting your personal hypotheses. —Michael Z. 12:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate for Wikipedia to list four or five pronunciations of the same spelling in the lede (except maybe in a footnote). That would just amount to clutter, in my opinion. It is appropriate to list the correct pronunciation in the original language. Softlavender (talk) 12:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Mzajac, Please don't be so aggressive. One of the dictionaries you quote actually does give the "Keeve" pronunciation, Merriam-Webster. At any rate, it's only been a year since a wide audience was introduced to the notion that Kiev has a different name in Ukrainian, we can't expect the pronunciation of a word to that's basically impossible to say in English yo stabilize or change overnight. If we look at the media reports from last year, I'd say change is in the air: According to Polack, the correct way to pronounce the capital city of Ukraine is KEE-yiv This is compared to the Russian pronunciation of KEE-yev. [3], I made a 30-second video explaining the lesson in post-Soviet politics: Kiev is a transliteration from Russian, Kyiv is the preferred Ukrainian transliteration, and after simplifying Ukrainian’s guttural vowels for American speakers, the proper pronunciation is “Keeve.” [4], Bagliere explains that in Ukrainian, it is pronounced more like "Keev." [5], Perhaps some of the reticence [to adopting Kyiv] can be attributed to the difficulty many Americans have pronouncing Kyiv the Ukrainian way. Chernetsky and Wallo noticed some diplomats on Capitol Hill as well as some national broadcast journalists slurring the syllables (two should remain, albeit with the first one accented) into one. [6], According to Dr. Shevchuk, State Department employees and others who work in foreign policy in Washington generally try to pronounce it the Ukrainian way, out of respect to Ukrainians. [7], In other words: ‘Ki-’yeev.’ [8]. It simply does not make sense to most people that we would change how we spell Kiev to be "the Ukrainian name" Kyiv - and then just keep saying "Key-ev". So whether Keeve or something more authentic like Key-iv wins out, I can't imagine "Key-ev" has much longer to go as the dominate pronunciation, since people have it in their heads that it's "Russian" and offensive to Ukrainians.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Worth adding the quote from Miriam Webster here.

Kiev geographical name
Ki·​ev | \ ˈkē-ˌef, -ˌev, -if; ˈkēv \
variants: or Ukrainian Kyiv or Kyyiv \ ˈki-​yē-​ü \

I would have thought it perfectly obvious to even the meanest understanding that the pronunciation given to Kiev is ˈkē-ˌef, -ˌev, -if; ˈkēv, and that the pronunciation of Kyiv and Kyyiv is the Ukrainian ˈki-​yē-​ü - just as I described. Kahastok talk 13:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not being aggressive. I apologize if I wrote something upsetting, but I did not intend to sound aggressive.

I am not disputing any of the facts that you editors are challenging me with. I am disputing some of your original inferences and conclusions. A day earlier I hadn’t seen M–W’s added \ˈkēv\ pronunciation. I don’t know if it was added before or after the Trump impeachment trial, but we have no evidence connecting the two. It doesn’t matter. The article should include what these references say, in some summarized and clear form, including that. Please notice that M–W does not label that pronunciation US. M–W does not say that a particular spelling is pronounced a certain way—it shows “spellings variants” (their words) and pronunciations that are used in Ukrainian contexts. We should not add our own research and speculation.

By the way, this is also one of the rationales for Wikipedia to use the current spelling Kyiv in Ukrainian contexts, including “historical” Ukrainian contexts. —Michael Z. 15:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

To add to the above, Oxford’s NOAD (American) gives pronunciation as |ˌkiˈɛv, ˈkiɛv|, and their ODE (British) gives |ˈkiːɛv, ˈkiːɛf|. —Michael Z. 15:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

According to Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 5th ed. (2018), pp 810 and 800:

• Ky·iv (kē′yo͞o) capital of Ukraine, on the Dnieper: Russ. name Kiev.
• Ki·ev (Kē′ef′, -ev′) Russ. name for Kyiv —Ki′ev′an (-ən) n., adj.

This dictionary and Britannica are the Chicago Manual of Style’s primary recommended sources for spelling of place names. —Michael Z. 20:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Michael Z., Wikipedia is not the Chicago Manual of Style, and Wikipedia also does not blindly follow certain, or indeed any particular, source or authority. Wikipedia operates by consensus, and what happens in this wiki article will be determined by consensus. Softlavender (talk) 12:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I know. That’s why I’m discussing here to help reach a consensus. WP:Manual of Style#Further reading refers to the CMOS. WP:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Widely accepted name refers to Oxford dictionaries and M–W’s Geographical Dictionary (M–W Online and the NWCD reflect more up-to-date versions of their findings). These guidelines reflect our consensus and prevailing conventions. The sources I quoted are among the best, most relevant, and most current WP:reliable sources that we refer to when including information like pronunciation and usage in this article. Thanks. —Michael Z. 15:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

At this point, I think we're still too early for a "pronunciation guide" since the name of Ukraine's capital has not stabilized in American speech (the majority of English speakers). Americans who say [kiɛv] are not saying "Kyiv", but "Kiev", and the pronunciations of "Kyiv" have not stabilized, but range from [ki:v}/[kjɪv] (the most natural ways for Americans to pronounce "Kyiv" without hearing it) to perfectionists who say [kɪjou] because they want to sound "international". I just wanted to raise the issue as something to keep our eyes (and ears) open for. Coming to a consensus now is a fool's errand because it will be in flux as Americans shift from pronouncing "Kiev" to "Kyiv". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

It’s never too early to glean facts from the latest sources. Do you have reliable sources saying that the reliable sources are no longer accurate? That the pronunciation is currently “in flux” and “has not stabilized”? We should include the facts that sources give, and not write them off based on speculation. The sources have dates, but you can explicitly write “as of 2018,” or whatever, if you have evidence that they are out of date. —Michael Z. 19:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how much contact you have with English speakers trying to say, "Kyiv", but that's why I'm saying things are in flux. Published pronunciation guides are baloney as long as the actual pronunciation is seeking a stable situation. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

With respect, you sound like a fresh Wikipedian who’s has yet to be pointed toward WP:RS and WP:OR. This is not productive dialogue. —Michael Z. 20:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

And with equal respect, you sound like a rigid wikilawyer who thinks that his tried and true source from 2001 is the current state of affairs. You're sounding more like some of the "Kiev" supporters than someone who recognizes that the ground is shifting. At no point have I advocated a change at this moment, but I'm also smart enough to see that the state of affairs is rapidly changing. I stated at the very beginning that at some point we need to address this and to go beyond the "correct Ukrainian" pronunciation and to be aware (obviously through reliable sources) of common American pronunciation. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 23:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Taivo, do we really need to address it at all? As far as I know, an English pronunciation of some name is always quite different from the foreign pronunciation (just compare English "Paris" and French "Paris": they sound totally differently). Not only Ukrainians started to teach us how to write the name of their capital in English, they are teaching us how to pronounce it. That is totally ridiculous. Whereas "Kiev -> Kyiv" can be explained (at least formally) by the desire of Ukrainians to separate themselves from evil Russians (and from their Russian speaking compatriots), the attempt to impose their vision on pronunciation do not have even that shaky ground, for English pronunciation of "Kiev" has nothing in common with Russian "Киев". Linguistic prescription is not universally accepted approach at all, and it is especially unacceptable when it is initiated by non-native speakers. Even if the time will come to replace Kiev with Kyiv (the recent renaming is an error, IMO, and it does not reflect the current state of things), a long time has to pass before some generally accepted pronunciation will emerge (or there will be no change at all).--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Well I’m sorry, I don’t understand. It sounded like you don’t want pronunciation in the article. Otherwise I don’t know what you mean by “too early for a pronunciation guide.” I think the pronunciation that is there needs to be made visible in the article text, rather than being buried in a note, and tweaked to better reflect recent sources. —Michael Z. 03:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The pronunciation guide, such as it is, should not be highlighted because it is a situation in flex phonetically until the pronunciation of "Kyiv" settles down. The present complex footnote is fairly accurate for the time being. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 03:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Then write in the article that it is in flux, citing the reliable sources on pronunciation that say so. —Michael Z. 18:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree there is no standard English pronunciation for "Kyiv" as of yet. If we offer a pronunciation guide for it, it should probably be for the Ukrainian pronunciation. English speakers currently pronounce it several ways (four or five different ways), so that would be too cluttery for the lede, although a footnote could be inserted conveying those pronunciations. Also, "Kiev" and "Kyiv" are not the same word; "Kiev" is an anglicization like "Calcutta"; "Kyiv" is a transliteration, or the accepted official transliteration, of the Ukranian-language word for the city. Softlavender (talk) 07:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I have cited sources, above, that give an attested English pronunciation of the name in Ukrainian contexts. The lede can certainly include the usual English pronunciation, /kiɛv, kiɛf/ with variable stress. The details and can go in the “Name” section. "Kiev" is an anglicization like "Calcutta"; "Kyiv" is a transliteration, or the accepted official transliteration, of the Ukranian-language word for the city: please cite your sources, and we can add this to the article too. Thanks. —Michael Z. 18:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The information I posted is already in the wiki article, with citations. What readers want to know is how to pronounce the newly established widely used name for the city, "Kyiv", and its pronunciation is not the same as for the long-used, historic, traditional anglicization "Kiev". That's why English speakers (Congresspersons and other politicians, news broadcasters and commentators, documentarians, etc.) are going to so much trouble to differentiate the pronunciation from that of "Kiev", and as has been brought up several times in this thread and in numerous news articles and other webs sources, the pronunciation of "Kyiv" is not yet settled in the anglosphere. Softlavender (talk) 11:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Reactions

What I'm curious about is, given the off-wiki canvassing that occurred before this RM started, if there are any reactions at all off-wiki to the fact that the article got moved. I did not find any, but quite possibly my Google-fu is not up to standards. Double sharp (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Being one of the more vocal opponents to the move, we never discussed anything off-wiki that I was aware of. Among the other editors that I've chatted with on-wiki, we've accepted the move and will continue on. Indeed, all the regular opponents weren't absolutely opposed to the move ever happening, we just weren't sure that now was the right time. Since the community has spoken and the article has moved, it would be extremely surprising to me if there was any real backlash over the move. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I found a Facebook post by Ukrainian Wikipedia. —Michael Z. 17:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't that page was anti-Kyiv, though and that's what User:Double sharp seemed to be worried about. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@TaivoLinguist and Mzajac: Actually, I was interested in both positive and negative reactions. So, to the both of you, thank you very much. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 19:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Double sharp Sorry for the misunderstanding. Mzajac read your post better than I did obviously :) --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@TaivoLinguist: No problem. I'm sorry that I'm not always as clear as I'd like to be. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

You guys are in the news, should you not know it yet: https://www.unian.info/kyiv/kyivnotkiev-wikipedia-changes-spelling-of-ukrainian-capital-news-kyiv-11150921.html

Zezen (talk) 07:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Ukrainian Wikipedia on Facebook
• Unian
• Kyiv Post
• Dmytro Kuleba, Ukraine’s foreign minister, on Facebook
• Ukrinform news service (MENAFN)
• Finally Kiev was renamed to Kyiv in English Wikipedia on Reddit

In a sea of admiring reactions, here is at least one not-so-positive (to put it mildly):

• Kiev is lost. "Patriots" have persuaded Wikipedia (in Russian)

For those who don't know Russian, the author basically states that Ukrainian "patriots" have been resorting to psychological manipulation. They portray themselves as eternal victims of "Russification" and whatnot and claim that that's why the world should side with them.

This native of Kiev (not Kyiv!) wholly concurs. I wish I had written this myself :) StefanMashkevich (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

It was indeed a pure manipulation. It's like if Russian nationalists will start to demand changing English spelling of Moscow to Moskva. Absurd? Indeed. And now all English speakers will need to twist their tongues saying Kyiv instead of Kiev. :) With regards, Oleg. Y. (talk). 21:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Oleg Yunakov, no it's not. It's as if Indian nationalists demanded the change of Poona to Pune. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

There IS a difference: overwhelming majority of Indian nationalists are native English speakers, so they have a right to express their opinion on that mater. With regard to Ukrainians, English is a foreign language to them, and I have no idea why they are trying to impose their vision of English to native speakers. Germans do not object to Cologne/Munich, Austrians have no objection to Vienna, Czech are ok with Prague, Russians agree that the English name of their capital is Moscow (by the way, "Moscow" preserved the very ancient version of the name, probably, 700 years old; in other words, it comes from the time when future Ukrainians and future Russians spoke the same language); Italians live in Roma, but they do not protest against the English "Rome", and so on. And only Ukrainians are so arrogant that they believe they have a right to teach us how to speak the language that is foreign to them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

None of those is an example of a name imposed by a colonizer. But this isn’t a forum to slag Ukrainians. Why don’t you criticize Wikipedians who by consensus decided to use the name here? —Michael Z. 03:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

First, I have a feeling your vision of consensus is somewhat different from what our policy says. "Consensus" is not a "vote", and a simple majority of votes does not allow us to speak about any consensus. In addition, consensus can change (as you probably know)...

Second, your vision is deeply ahistorical, for you are trying to apply modern concepts (such as "colonialism") to the events in the past. What "colonialism" are you talking about? There were no colonialism in feudal Europe, and there were no nation-states who had colonies in Europe, and no European country had ever been a colony (except Ireland). Borders were constantly changing, but that didn't mean anything. Henry III of France was a king of Poland - did that mean Poland was occupied or colonized by France? Obviously, not. The English word "Kiev" is much older then both Ukrainian and Russian nations are, and the fact that it sounds close (but not identical) to Russian "Kiev" means nothing.

Third, I do not criticize Ukrainians as a nation, for I am sure majority of them are reasonable people. I am criticizing Ukrainian nationalists, including those Wikipedians who want to impose their Ukrainian nationalistic views on us.--Paul Siebert (talk)

Interesting idea, Paul Siebert, that we should use the language of a period to talk about it. But if it were acceptable, then you could just shortcut this argument by pointing out that a “Little Russian language” could never exist (Valuyev 1863), and shut other Wikipedians down from a position of authority because Kyiv comes from a peasant dialect of Russian. But instead you have to resort to denigrating “Ukrainian nationalists,” although, as so often, your blanket pejorative is first applied to “only Ukrainians” as arrogant, and the apologism follows. I suggest you strike these comments as they are against Wikipedia policies WP:CIV and WP:NPA, and do not contribute to the subject.

This is clear, because you seem to have no insults for other arrogant name-changers, the Chinese with their “Beijing,” the Indians with their “Mumbai,” the Inuit with their “Iqaluit,” and indeed, entire articles full implicating even the Germans, Italians, and the Russians.

But my view is not ahistorical at all. In the 1920s, for example, Soviet economist Mykhailo Volobuiev published articles in the official Communist Party journal arguing “that first the tsars and now the Soviet central planners in Moscow subjected Ukraine to colonial exploitation” (Yekelchyk, 2007:95). The following year he was labelled a “nationalist deviationist,” forced to confess his membership in an imaginary “counterrevolutionary Ukrainian organization,” and sentenced to five years. See also Ukrainian dissident Slava Stetsko 1971, Revolutionary Voices: Ukrainian Poltical Prisoners Condemn Russian Colonialism.

But our articles are written based on today’s reliable sources, not primary sources from distant history. Magocsi (2010:718) tells us “‘Chornobyl’,‘ in the words of one Ukrainian political activist, “helped us understand that we are a colony’” Subtelny (2009) quotes another Ukrainian dissident of the 1970s: “Dziuba argued in his ‘Internationalism or Russification?’ that what was behind Russification was old Russian chauvinism and colonialism packaged in a pseudo-Marxist terminology. ‘Colonialism,’ he wrote, ‘can appear not only in the form of open discrimination, but also in the form of “brotherhood,” and this is very characteristic of Russian colonialism.’” Wilson (2002:211–214) has a section on “A ‘Post-Colonial’ Ukraine?”

So please, write about the subject, and stop trying to make arguments by labelling people. We’ve had more than enough of that. —Michael Z. 15:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Michael, you put a DS notice on my talk page. As far as I know, that means that BOTH I and the user who put it on my talk page (i.e. you) are duly warned, so DS may follow if we both do not observe needed decorum in the discussion. In connection to that, let me remind you that my original post was about the difference between Indian and Ukrainian nationalists, and that post was exactly about the subject. Later, I specified that under Ukrainian nationalists I mean ethnic nationalists, and that that phenomenon (ethnic Ukrainian nationalism) is a deeply negative and reactionary phenomenon, and their views should not be presented in Wikipedia. I believe that the users participating in this discussion do not share these backward, ahistorical and reactionary views, and we all implicitly share modernisation views. Therefore, my strongly negative comments about Ukrainian ethnic nationalists, whose views sometimes are dangerously close to fascism, are not directed at any concrete users (who, obviously cannot share these reactionary views), and, therefore have nothing in common with personal attacks or other inappropriate behaviour. Therefore, by claiming that I am "labelling people", you see personal attacks in absolutely acceptable statements, which means you demonstrate unneeded battleground mentality. I don't think that is correct.

Going back to the topic, your quotes are not convincing. Of course, it is possible to find isolated statements that may support the idea that Ukraine was a Russian colony. However, all of that is a highly superficial approach. If you want, you can read this.

However, there is one argument that beats all others. There is one important mistake both Ukrainian and Russian nationalists are making. They apply modern terms, such as "nation" to past time events. Actually, Ukrainian nation is very young, and Russian nation is not older. It would be correct to say that Russian nation started to form in late XIX century, and its formation became complete only in mid XX; I am not sure about Ukrainians, but it seems that the timeline of its formation is pretty much the same. That means such words as "Russian" or "Ukrainian" had different meaning in the past. In XIX century, "Russian" and "Ukrainian" (or "Little Russian") belonged to different categories, for all Orthodox subjects of the Russian Tsar were considered Russians, but among those "Russians" there were three major categories: Great Russians (i.e. modern Russians), Little Russians (i.e. modern Ukrainians) and White Russians (i.e. modern Belorussians). In other words, an ethnic Ukrainian was considered both a Russian (i.e. an Orthodox subject of the Russian Tsar) and Maloross, whereas an ethnic Russian was a Russian and Velikoross. When we say that Tsarist regime saw Ukrainians as Russians, that does not mean they denied the fact of existence of the Ukrainian nation specifically. In reality, they denied the existence of any nation in the Empire, for two reasons: first, these nations didn't exist by that time: even in much more advance Western Europe they started to form in late XVIII century only); second, the Russian Empire society was an estate society, so the division on nations was something Russian officials would be unable to comprehend. Therefore, the very idea that Russians (as a nation) colonized Ukrainians (as a nation) is totally ahistorical.

Another common stereotype is suppression of Ukrainian culture. Come on, who can argue that many talented Ukrainian writers or poets were repressed by Tsarist and later Soviet regime? However, Russian writers were repressed even in a much more impressive scale (actually, even those authors who managed to survive were, to some extent oppressed by the regime, which had a deeply negative impact on their activity). In reality, Russian nationalism was the most suppressed nationalism in the USSR, and, interestingly, it was sees as a threat even by the Tsarist regime too [9]

With regard to suppression of Ukrainian language, in XIX century, that is also quite explainable. Imperial officials just wanted to have some uniform formal language, and they didn't care about spoken "dialects", not because they rejected the fact of existence of a Ukrainian nation, but because the very concept of nation was not recognized by them.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Where did you pick up the habit of referring to centuries by Roman numerals? —Michael Z. 02:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

From school. Glad to see that you have no other comments. I will hardly be available during the week, my weekend has ended, so I will not be able to respond. Meanwhile, try to read the article I am referring to, it is really an interesting reading, which changed my views considerably.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

It’s wrong. What kind of school would teach that? —Michael Z. 03:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

It's the standard way of writing centuries in many languages. Including Ukrainian. --Khajidha (talk) 11:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

No difference. --Khajidha (talk) 23:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

And the answer to any nationalists trying to interfere with any language other than their own should invariably be the same: "Sorry, guys, but you don't get to determine how a proper name is rendered in our language, even if that name pertains to your country". London is Londres in French, even if English nationalists don't like that. Napoli is Naples in English, whatever Italian nationalists might think... Hamburg is Amburgo in Italian, whatever German nationalists might.... and Kiev is Kiev. Period. StefanMashkevich (talk) 00:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually there is no indication that anyone, in English, will pronounce it any differently than they did before. It will be a long long time before it changes from Key-ev no matter how it gets spelled. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh my God, that article is fucking priceless! This is a pro-Russian website in Ukraine, if I’m not mistaken. “An inferiority complex screams in them.” Everyone should read it, even if in the google translation: Kiev handed over: "Patriots" persuaded Wikipedia. —Michael Z. 03:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

What kind of a website it is, is totally irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what the article states. And yes, "An inferiority complex screams in them" is an accurate statement. Estonians are not trying to convince Finns that their country should be called Eesti, not Viro, in Finnish. Germans are not trying to convince the French that... well, you know the drill. Inferiority complex is what this is all about. Plus a bit of Russophobia, to be sure. It's extremely regrettable that seemingly reasonable people don't recognize this... StefanMashkevich (talk) 00:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually Estonians, Germans, Ukrainians, and everyone else put their own place names in the same international databases. To poo-poo Wikipedia because it finally notices the rest of the world has started using a Ukrainian name for a Ukrainian place does is not seemingly reasonable. —Michael Z. 02:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Small or unimportant locations have no English names, so transliterations are used instead. If Kiev were a small obscure village with zero history, it would be quite correct to replace one transliteration with another when the official transliteration has changed. Unfortunately (or fortunately, that is up to you to decide), Kiev is a very famous, historically important city, whose history is deeply rooted into the history of Europe. Historically important cities, as a rule, have English names that differ from their modern national names, and that emphasizes their historical importance. Thus, Cologne reminds us that the city called by modern Germans as "Köln" is a former Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium, and that name became an English word long before the German nation (and the rules of German language) was created. Similarly, the word "Moscow" goes back to the times when people currently known as Russians and Ukrainians spoke the same language (southern and central Old Russian dialect, as opposed to the northern Novgorod dialect). A non-volatility of city's name emphasizes its historical importance, it is something Ukrainians should be proud of.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Why are you trying to offend other people using theoretical concepts that are not relevant to the topic of discussion?--Geohem (talk) 12:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

What do you find offensive in that comment? It seems perfectly fine to me. --Khajidha (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if some editors are on talk:Beijing, arguing to reinforce a wp:bias against the consensus spelling of the article’s name that the CPC imposed on the rest of the world. No? Perhaps some editors feel threatened by changes happening now, and so will keep relitigating last summer’s RM, resist applying it to any corner of Wikipedia they think they can, as long as they can try to reframe it all as something those “Ukrainians” who are forcing it on us are too stupid to be proud of. —Michael Z. 02:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually, you raise an interesting question: are English names of historical cities foreign words of English words? Most European countries use Latin alphabet, so there is no need in transliteration of their names. Therefore, "Cologne", "Prague", "Warsaw", "Lisbon", "Rome" are not transliterations. Obviously, these words became English words many centuries ago, some of them were asqured indirectly (e.g. from French), and they may reflect obsolete pronunciation of these names. For example "Moscow" is a very old historical name of the Russian capital ("Московъ"), which can be very rarely found in a literature. Nevertheless, no Russian in a clear mind will request for renaming the "Moscow" article to "Moskva". No Italian request replacement of "Rome" with "Roma". Frankly, I cannot find any other explanation for the latter RM than "stupidity", because I see no other examples in Europe when a nation requested for the change of the English name of their capital (or some other historically important city). The formal pretext is that "Kiev" is a Russian word, i.e. the name imposed by colonizers, and, therefore, it should be changed. But that is not working, because, first, as I already demonstrated previously, it is impossible to speak about colonization of Ukraine by Russia (and it seems you agreed with that). Ukraine was not more Russian colony that Scotland is an English colony.

Second, "Kiev" was in use in English literature] long before the "colonization" of Ukraine by Russia occurred, so, even if we assume colonization did take place, the word "Kiev" came to English not from the "colonizers".

I agree, it would be stupid to use transliteration of modern names of such cities as Kharkiv or Lviv, because the names "Kharkov" or "Lvov" had never been English words (although "The third battle of Kharkov" and similar names should stay, because it is known under that name in English). That is because these words are not English words.

Again, I am still no seeing any legitimate reason why Ukrainians have a right to demand for the change of the English word "Kiev". The fact that English "Kiev" is identical to the transliteration of the Russian word "Киев" is hardly a legitimate reason, and, in addition, it is just a demonstration that many Ukrainians are still obsessed with Russia.

The only situation when the English name of some European city should change is its renaming ("Chemnitz" to "Karl-Marx-Stadt" and back, "St Petersburg" to "Petrograd" etc). However, no renaming of Киев to Київ occurred in 1991: both names were in use before that date, and both names were official in Ukraine during Soviet times.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

You have your facts wrong. I’m not interested in chatting about your personal research. Ukrainians’ “right to demand” anything is not a question we’re considering; it only keeps getting brought up as a straw man by anti-Kyivans. There’s a moratorium on changing this article’s name, so don’t waste your breath on it. Have a nice day. —Michael Z. 21:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry, I thought I am talking with a person who is interesting in analysing of facts and arguments presented by their vis-a-vis.

Your references to the moratorium are irrelevant, because it prohibits new RMs, not a discussion. And, by the way, during the last RM I was busy with much more important things, so I had no opportunity to voice my opinion. Anyway, thank you for your responce, in future I will try to avoid talking with a person who is not interested to know my opinion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Premature RM?

Whereas I know that there was a one year moratorium on RM, however, taking into account that I was busy during the last RM and was not able to voice my opinion, I propose all of you to think about the following (we cannot initiate a RM, but we can discuss the subject, can't we?):

Compare these ngram plots:

• Belgrade/Beograd

• Vienna/Wien

• Lisboa/Lisbon

• Warsaw/Warszawa

• Cologne, Koln, Köln

• Munich, München, Munchen

and especially this with

that. For all these cities (except Kiev), the usage of non-traditional English names becomes more frequent in the XX century, but after some maximum has been achieved, it stabilizes at some level, which is always below the traditional name's level. If we lived in 1960, we would expect "Praha" to become a common English name, but that never happened. It seems the situation with modern Kyiv is the same as with Praha in 1960: My spell checker is still marking both words as non-English words. In connection to that, I am reminding you that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and it does not predict the future. We cannot present emerging trends as generally accepted facts. Therefore, I propose to think about the next RM in 2021, after the moratorium expires. In general, I think we should discuss some general rule: renaming may occur only after an obvious transition has occurred, and some sufficiently long time has passed after that. That transition can be a combination of ngram data with several other objective criteria. We must be cautious with renaming, because Wikipedia by itself has a huge cytogenic potential, so renaming may by itself shift the balance considerably. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Kyiv managed to "break into" English language sources, and recently. Look why Praha has a peak in ~1958. Google ngram counts very strange sources as the "English" ones. Not trustworthy tool in this. Chrzwzcz (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: You're absolutely right but bear in mind that the name change was influenced by politics and quasiscience. The most frequently used name of the city in the English language is 'Kiev'. This name has been used in the language for centuries; it appears in all English-language versions of the classical works of world literature mentioning the city (including recent reprints); it is by far the dominant name used in the prints of UK-based publishers; and it still prevails on the Internet as the most dominant name. We all know this and even some of those who, as a result of other reasons, voted for renaming to 'Kyiv'. On the other hand, the name 'Kyiv' is a variant fervently pushed by the Ukrainian government — not an official regulator of the English language. You may draw a comparison to other incorrect names used in English translations across countries, such as 'Beograd', 'Praha' or 'Moskva', but it's literally more than that — it's like allowing foreigners to introduce new spelling rules without consulting any linguists or the principles of the language. Moreover, if you cast a glance over the discussion that resulted in the name change, you can easily notice that, instead of scientific argumentation, the discussion regressed to the use of 'Kyiv' at international airports as a relevant factor. And it's up to you to guess what will happen after the moratorium ends but be aware that the name change to 'Kyiv' on one of the most visited sites on the Internet will inevitably impact its overall use on the web. Good luck if you plan to keep up tilting at the windmils.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

but we can discuss the subject, can't we? You kids don’t appreciate how easy you have it. During the previous anti-Kyiv “moratorium,” editors were actively and constantly prevented from discussing the subject by a small group of editors claiming to represent “consensus,” and even discussion about improving the #Name section was banned. Just another example of certain kinds of invisible but pervasive wp:systemic bias allowing prejudicial treatment of underrepresented POVs. When that ended, the RM attracted broader attention and concluded with a broader consensus. Now, apparently, this page is becoming a support group for hard-done-by anti-Kyivan refugees. Let’s move this to the Talk:Kyiv/naming ghetto or close it as WP:FORUM. —Michael Z. 19:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Frankly, I am somewhat disappointed that such an experienced admin as you demonstrates partisan mentality. If some "anti-Kyiv" users opposed to attempts to discuss renaming, what relation does it have to me? Is it your standard practice to separate people on some parties? I never supported any attempt to suppress a freedom of discussion, and I am slightly offended by your attempt to associate me with those who suppress a right of users to propose fresh arguments and discuss article's improvement (if they believe "Kiev -> Kyiv" is an improvement, they have a right to think so). In general, I suggest you to switch to a more productive manner to conduct a discussion, because your comments on my posts are focused on some petty and unimportant details, or they are focused on behavioural issues. Are you interested in a substantive discussion?

With regard to moving this discussion to another place, keep in mind that WP:CCC, and any attempt to move my comments from this page to another place will be against our policy and guidelines. They are about article's improvement, they raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances, and they are totally relevant to this page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I am in favour of you discussing anything you want, in an appropriate place. This page is for improvements to the article, and WP:TALK#TOPIC asks us to stay on topic. At the top of this page is an explicit note saying A special subpage has been created for discussing the name of the article, Talk:Kyiv/naming. Please take all naming discussion there! It was placed there in August 2007: I had nothing to do with it, but its endurance does imply consensus. And since there is now a moratorium imposed on moves under Arbcom sanctions, I suggest you take heed and hold discussions that are not about improving this article, or implementing the results of its recent move, elsewhere. —Michael Z. 00:25, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Kyiv/Kiev in other articles

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

There is consensus for implementing the following when it comes to choosing whether to use Kyiv or Kiev in an article:

• For unambiguously current / ongoing topics (e.g. Kyiv Metro), Kyiv is preferred
• For unambiguously historical topics (e.g. Kiev Offensive), do not change existing content
• For any edge cases, or in case of doubt or dispute, an RfC or move request debate is recommended
• In all cases, name changes must follow the WP:BRD cycle.

There is also support for the following as a rule of thumb about what his current and historical:

• From October 1995 (Resolution of the Ukrainian Commission for Legal Terminology No. 5), Kyiv is presumptively appropriate subject to specifics of the article
• From 24 August 1991 (Ukrainian independence), Kyiv is likely to be appropriate, but proceed with caution

The opposition to this proposal came from a belief that it does not handle complex/edge cases well and from a belief that it does not go far enough (namely that it should be Kyiv except when common name dictates otherwise). However, a consensus of felt that clear guidance was needed and that this proposal did so in an appropriate way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

---

Should the following be adopted as a content guide for naming of Kyiv in other articles? Guy (help! - typo?) 11:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Style guide: name of Kyiv

• For unambiguously current / ongoing topics (e.g. Kyiv Metro), Kyiv is preferred
• For unambiguously historical topics (e.g. Kiev Offensive), do not change existing content
• For any edge cases, or in case of doubt or dispute, an RfC or move request debate is recommended
• For interpretation of "current":
  • From October 1995 (Resolution of the Ukrainian Commission for Legal Terminology No. 5), Kyiv is presumptively appropriate subject to specifics of the article
  • From 24 August 1991 (Ukrainian independence), Kyiv is likely to be appropriate, but proceed with caution
• In all cases, name changes must follow the WP:BRD cycle.

Moving to formal RfC based on comments above. If adopted, this would also be added as a FAQ to this talk page. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Opinions

• Support as proposer. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support proposal is entirely consistent with what I would expect with any such name change.--Khajidha (talk) 11:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support following the above discussion--Ymblanter (talk) 12:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 12:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Kiev to Kyiv is a name change in English, whether the people who insisted we change it will admit it or not. No one disputes that the name in Ukrainian hasn't changed, but the usual practice in such situations is to use the historical form prior to the change unless there is some compelling reason not to. This is entirely consistent with Talk:Gdańsk/Vote. Additionally, numerous historical entities like Kievan Rus' show no sign of shifting from use of Kiev to Kyiv and should be left where they are.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

  It is not the “usual practice.” Peking, for example, is not used in articles pre-1979. It’s used for less than a handful of specific articles in all the subcategories of Category:History of Beijing. —Michael Z. 13:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

  You fail to address the Gdansk vote precedent. Peking is just an alternative transliteration of the same name in Chinese, not a difference in language like, e.g. Khanbaliq and Beijing. Anyway, I think discussion is supposed to happen in the section below?--Ermenrich (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

  The etymology is not directly relevant to our treatment, but you are wrong. Peking is from a romanization based on Cantonese, while Beijing is based on Mandarin. Close parallel to Russian– and Ukrainian-based Kiev and Kyiv, although the latter two are closer and effectively just spelling variants, with no generally accepted difference in pronunciation. In English, when we hear /ˌbeɪˈdʒɪŋ/ or /ˌpeɪˈkɪŋ/ then we know which spelling to transcribe each one with. When you hear /kiːɛv/, you can transcribe with either spelling, and normally preferring the current one. —Michael Z. 15:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

  That isn't correct, Wade-Giles was always intended for use with Mandarin, so the situation is not parallel. Additionally, I and other editors dispute that "Kyiv" is meant to transcribe a name pronounced "Kiev", which would render the name change simply idiotic, as if Cork (city) were now spelled Corcaigh but still pronounced Cork.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

  Peking is Chinese postal romanization, sorry not Cantonese, but “based on ‘Southern Mandarin,’ an idealized form of Nanjing dialect.” See also Names of Beijing#Peking.

  The name used in English isn’t “meant to transcribe” anything. As a name, it is used to refer to something. If you’re disputing that the spelling Kiev is associated with Russian, then maybe I should assemble some sources to refer you to, because I’m kind of tired of hearing arguments based on this false assertion. —Michael Z. 16:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

  No one is disputing that "Kiev" is derived from Russian. It's just that "derived from" is not the same as "is". Unless you are using some sort of cladistic-style definition that would be the linguistic equivalent of the biological statement that "humans are bony fish". Roughly 200 years of usage of Kiev in English means that it IS English. --Khajidha (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Google ngram says "Kiev" was in use when it was under Polish rule, and no "Kyiv" was used during those times. By that time, Western contacts with Duchy of Moscow were much less intense than with Poland, and cultural weight of Kiev was greater than that of Moscow (that is why Nikon initiated his Orthodox reform in Russia). Taking into account that written language in Russia and Ukraine was Old Slavonic, Russian could not be an origin of English "Kiev" at all, because all Russian texts during that time were written in Old Slavonic. In Old Slavonic, Kiev's name is "Киевъ", which is close to English "Kiev" than to the modern Russian words, which is pronounced "Kieff".--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Siebert’s wp:original research is very bad and his conclusions wrong. Kiev only became the majority spelling in the twentieth century: Google Books ngram? all Russian texts during that time were written in Old Slavonic—at what time? Old East Slavic was written down by c. 1110, before a distinct Russian language, ethnic group, or state indisputably existed. —Michael Z. 00:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Now you put forward rational arguments, so I am gladly responding.

First of all, we are not talking about all versions of the Kiev's name, we are talking about "Russian" Kiev and "Ukrainian" Kyiv. In reality, "Ukrainian" Kyiv was not used at all, Kiew+Kiow+Kiou+Kiovia are Polonized versions, and Kieff+Kief are true Russian phonetic names. In contrast to that "Kiev" is close to Old Slavonic "Києвъ"(in Old Salvonic, as well as in modern Ukrainian, the letter "в" at the end of the word pronounced as "v", whereas in Russian it sounds as "f"). Meanwhile, in Old Slavonic, both "и" and "i" sound as the first letter in English "eve".

By the way, due to this discussion I was able to find and fix a blatant fake introduced to Wikipedia 13 years ago. Laurentian chronicle uses the word "Києвъ", not "Кꙑєвь", and, therefore, the English word "Kiev" is more close to the historical name of the city than the neologism Kyiv, which you are trying to introduce into English.

With regard to Old Slavonic, ... by the way, do you understand the difference between Old East Slavic and Old Slavonic? Actually, to participate in a serious discussion, one has to understand the difference. When we are speaking about that subject, we must keep in mind that both Russian and Ukrainian society were diglossic until XVIII century: the written language was almost exclusively Old Slavonic, although spoken language was evolving. In Russia, the situation changed only due to Pushkin (and in Ukraine, probably, thanks to Ivan Kotliarevsky). Before that time, all Russian (and Ukrainian) written documents were strongly influenced by Old Slavonic, which was considered a literature language, whereas emerging Russian and Ukrainian languages were considered "low and rural". Taking into account that English authors were dealing primarily with Russian written sources, only "Києвъ", which was preserved in that form in Old Slavonic, and Polonized versions (Kiew, etc) was available for them, so evil Russian colonizers were unable to impose their colonial name, for a very simple reason: they didn't use it in written documents.

And, by the way, you forgot to address my another argument: the same ngram search shows that "Kiev" was used long before "colonisation" of Ukraine by evil Russians colonizers, and "Kyiv" was not used at all. How do you explain that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I added the word colonizers to my abowe post in a response to this. Thanks to Michael, now my above post is more precise, and it better reflects what I was going to say.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Sensible proposal, in line with our common practice in similar situations. No such user (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support per the "support votes" and discussions made above. Idealigic (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose  An wp:RFC should be neutral, and not advocating for a position. A better question would be “how should we decide which articles’ titles use Kyiv and Kiev?”, for example. In my opinion, Ukrainian subjects, including the history of Ukraine and Ukrainians, should use the Kyiv spelling, following subject-specific wp:reliable sources, and for wp:consistency with main articles Kyiv and History of Kyiv. Exceptions should be subject to RFC or RM. The wording of this RFC restricts responses, and discounts possible opinions other than its author’s. —Michael Z. 15:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, so now you want us to want to have us ask question whether something should be one or the other? I guess that whole 'its easier to seek forgiveness instead of permission' thing didn't work out so well... - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

That was two weeks ago, Jack Sebastian, now I want you to stop harassing me. —Michael Z. 05:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support. This is an English name change. We should treat it as such - just as we do in parallel cases in Eastern Europe, including Gdansk. If evidence arises in the future that historians have adopted Kyiv in historical contexts, then we can change at that time. I see no such evidence now. Kahastok talk 16:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support as per nom and Kahastok and others. I aprticularly support the use of RfC if BRD or normal discussion breaks down (as in the case of mass edits by a given editor who never returns to the discussion). Utterly oppose Mzajac's/Michael's (or whatever nom de plume they are using this week) attempts to rewrite history by renaming all Kiev articles. That's not going to happen. Full stop. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

  Jack Sebastian, less snark please. Mzajac / Michael Z is pretty obviously a real name. My sig has my name but links to my username. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay. I think I got a little carried away at the user pretending that this whole Kieve thing was not big deal (after seeing how deeply invested they were in it). My apologies for the snark, @Mzajac:. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support per many arguments above and what I explained here and another article's discussions.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC))
• Support having proposed this myself earlier in the page, and given my reasons therein. Walrasiad (talk) 10:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - Whichever way it goes Mzajac made an observation from Wikipedia Guidelines on naming conventions. particularly point 3 in the link. Articles that change to Kyiv, on first use in prose, should take the form of Kyiv (Kiev). Likewise I would think that it would be good practice in articles that don't change to use Kiev (Kyiv) on first use, unless Kiev is part of a formal name. It might help our readers and that should always be in the forefront. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support. It is a logical move. Mikola22 (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support this as an addition to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Ukrainian places). RGloucester — ☎ 00:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Perhaps just a "moral oppose" at this point. I started out in favor of this approach, but the more I dig into it, the more I look at historical articles, the more I think it's totally unworkable. Look: Mstyslav (Skrypnyk) was Patriarch from 1942-1993. Was he "Patriarch of Kiev" or "Patriarch of Kyiv"? Let's say he was Patriarch of Kiev. So his successors Volodymyr (Romaniuk) and Dymytriy (Yarema) (there was a split), in 1993, were Patriarchs of Kyiv or Patriarchs of Kiev? How do we say Mstyslav was Patriarch of Kiev 1942-1993, followed by Dymytriy who was Patriarch of Kyiv 1993-2000? Is it called Patriarch of Kiev or Patriarch of Kyiv? ("Kyiv", according to an RM that just closed, by the way). The Patriarchy's church is St Volodymyr's Cathedral, built in the 19th century. Was it built in Kiev or Kyiv? Are we going to say that St Volodymyr's Cathedral was built in Kiev and is home to Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kyiv Patriarchate? That makes no sense, it's super confusing.
  Then we get into: how do we list Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kyiv Patriarchate at List of Metropolitans and Patriarchs of Kiev? Why is the "Patriarchy of Kyiv" listed in "Patriarchs of Kiev"? Epiphanius I of Ukraine is the head of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine and holds the title "Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Ukraine" since 2018. Or is it Metropolitan of Kiev? So OK, we change it to "List of Metropolitans and Patriarchs of Kyiv"... and we haven't even gotten to the Metropolitan yet. But is he "Metropolitan of Kyiv" or "Metropolitan of Kiev"? Volodymyr Sabodan was Metropolitan from 1992 until 2014... of Kiev or Kyiv? If we say he was "Metropolitan of Kyiv", then are we going to say his predecessor was "Metropolitan of Kiev"? Are we going to say "Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Ukraine" but "Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus'"? It's the same city in both cases. Are we going to say the Metropolitan of Kyiv was established during the Christianization of the Kievan Rus'?
  This date-cutoff approach doesn't work for offices; it doesn't work for buildings; it doesn't work for people (Born in Kiev, died in Kyiv? Reminds me of that Russian joke about being born in St. Petersberg, grew up in Petrograd, lived in Leningrad, died in St. Petersberg, but never left the city). At the RM at Talk:Folkstsaytung (Kiev), I pointed out that Henry Abramson's book originally published by Harvard [10] uses "Kyiv" even when it's discussing stuff that happened 100+ years ago. It just consistently uses one spelling throughout the book, past and present. We should do the same. Atlas Obscura is not an academic publisher but they are owned partly by The New York Times and they have no problem talking about the "Battle of Kyiv" [11]. Memory Studies (journal) published a paper (admittedly by a PhD student, but published in a peer reviewed journal nonetheless) that uses "Battle of Kyiv" [12]. We should follow them. We should use the same spelling throughout the encyclopedia. Lev!vich 15:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

  Levivich, Mstyslav (Skrypnyk) does not meet the post-95, so falls into the historical and post-91, mostly historical. It's an obvious "case by case" under my proposed guidance. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

  "Born in Kiev, died in Kyiv?" Yes. It happens all the time. You may find it funny, but it's hardly rare. "Born in Leningrad, died in St. Petersburg" is extremely common. Since our Ukrainian friends seem to like to play up colonialism quite a bit, welcome to the reality many former colonial subjects have to live with, "Born in Lourenco Marques, died in Maputo", "Born in Salisbury, died in Harare", etc. History is to be preserved, not erased. Walrasiad (talk) 23:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

  Please list a few well-written sources that use the alternative spellings Kiev and Kyiv this way. Are there none? MOS:CAPS#Place names discusses this general issue, speaking of “places that have not been parts of more than one culture or have had only one name. An article about Junípero Serra should say he lived in Alta Mexico not in California because the latter entity did not exist at the time of Junípero Serra.” Kyiv one year apart is nothing like that. Every article should use one name or the other. —Michael Z. 00:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Adding to my !vote rationale that at this point, despite repeated calls, nobody has yet come up with an example of any RS using two spellings for the same city in the same work based on the time period discussed. I think we might be the first and only publication to do that for Kiev/Kyiv. Nobody writes "born in Kiev, died in Kyiv". Lev!vich 14:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support Makes sense to avoid "Kyiv" for topics preceding 1995. Dimadick (talk) 17:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Michael Z. and Lev!vich. Kyiv is a fundamental world city in the same manner as the three metropolises — Beijing, Mumbai and Kolkata — which also underwent name transliteration revisions, at least as far as those transliterations are applicable to the English-speaking world (for example, the main title headers in French, Italian and Spanish Wikipedias are Kiev, Kiev and Kiev, Pékin, Pechino and Pekín, Bombay, Mumbai and Bombay and Calcutta, Calcutta and Calcuta, respectively). As far as city names are concerned in a historical context within English Wikipedia entries, Kyiv should be treated no differently than Beijing, Mumbai or Kolkata. Thus, there are historical uses, such as Bombay Castle or Black Hole of Calcutta, but there are also main headers using present-day names for historical entities — Battle of Beijing (1644), Tan Prefecture (Beijing), Guozijian (Beijing), Gobindapur, Kolkata or British Electric Traction Company (Mumbai). Granted that WP:OTHER STUFF EXISTS, but if the former English transliteration of Kyiv is to be retained in associated article headers, as discussed at Talk:Folkstsaytung (Kiev)#Requested move 28 September 2020, then analogous standards should apply to former transliterations of other entities. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Lev!vich: ultimately this would be a mess. There is much more continuity pre-1991/1995 Kyiv with the present in contrast with Gdánsk, whose German population was largely replaced by Poles. Therefore, I would be in favor of treating more like we do Beijing, Mumbai, or Kolkata. (t · c) buidhe 09:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Levivich and Buidhe, the articles should be consistent and not confused the readers. --Geohem (talk) 09:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

  Geohem, what confusion? Kiev redirects to Kyiv, and we explain the naming history right up front. There's no confusion. But talking about the "Kyiv Offensive" would be confusing since it happened before the adoption of modern Ukrainian, at a time when Ukraine was officially Russophone. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

  No, the Ukrainian People’s Republic was officially Ukrainophone during the Kyiv Offensive, although it had published some of its founding documents in Ukrainian but also Polish, Russian, and Yiddish. And some of its currency. The Ukrainian SSR had no official language until 1990, but once established it operated primarily in Ukrainian until Stalin’s 1933 crackdown. This is academic, because we are not writing for the people of 1920, and sources on this subject matter are using Kyiv from now going forward. —Michael Z. 18:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

  Regarding "Kiev Offensive", "Kievan Rus" - no question it is historical terms and should be renames only with separate discussion. But it seem to be a little bit stupid "painter who held exhibitions in "Kiev, Moscow, Leningrad, Kyiv and St.Peterburg" in the 1980s through the 1990s" --Geohem (talk) 11:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

  Well, if there's a good reason to change pre-1991/5, you can always start a discussion in that article. My guess is that most cases will not be controversial. This is just a proposed guideline, not a rule.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

  "painter who held exhibitions in "Kiev, Moscow, Leningrad, Kyiv and St.Peterburg" in the 1980s through the 1990s" Well, yeah, if you purposefully write it in that stupid way it looks stupid. Especially when the Kyiv exhibition was posthumous, so that the painter can't be said to have held it. Why not write something like "exhibited his work in "Kiev, Moscow, Leningrad, and St.Peterburg" in the 1980s and 1990s. Posthumous exhibitions were later held in some of the same cities."--Khajidha (talk) 17:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Where this is a change in transliteration, not in the name itself like St. Petersburg or Constantinople, we shouldn't be so reluctant to apply it prior the 1990s. -- Calidum 13:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support as proposed. One can argue on the logic of exact years, especially considering that Kiev remains the predominant common name in English ever after 1991/1995/2018, but as overall style guide this a good compromise and a path forward. I suggest that it be applied with common sense in article editing. It's not a huge problem that two different names appear in the same article, as long as the prose works well. If dealing with a subject that has both historical and contemporary components, you can use wordings like '[foo event] happened in Kiev (today also known as Kyiv in English) in 19xx' or likewise, and then just using 'the city' in rest of article unless necessary that the name be spelt out. --Soman (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support as it is. Starzoner (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mzajac, Levivich, Roman Spinner, buidhe, Geohem, and Calidum. Following RM change from Kiev to Kyiv, the name should change everywhere on Wikipedia, with the exception of idiomatic expressions such as "Chicken Kiev", which stay as they are because they are idiomatic expressions. It makes absolutely no sense to impose any restrictions on the use of Kyiv in any other context outside of idiomatic expressions (including "historical topics") in both titles and body of articles, because the name of the city has never changed since Kyiv's establishment in AD 482. The only thing that has ever changed in the last 15 centuries since city's foundation, is the spellings of its name in English Latin alphabet. In different centuries it was transliterated/romanized into English from Ukrainian/Russian/Polish/Lithuanian in many different ways, including (among others) Kief, Kiev, Kiyev, Kijova, Kiew, Kyyiv, Kyjiv, Kyїv, Kyiw, and finally Kyiv. Some editors here have expressed an incorrect statement that Kyiv is an English word - no, it is merely a transliteration/Romanization of the city's name into English Latin alphabet; English never had an actual English name for Kyiv (the only language that ever had its own unique name for Kyiv is Icelandic and its Kænugarður (which roughly translates as boats-fortress (Kæna - a kind of boat, garður - fortress, city)). The vast majority of Support votes (with the exception of Mikola22 and JzG, who voted for Kyiv during the RM, and their current Support vote for this arbitrary restrictions on the usage of Kyiv pre 1991/1995 seems illogical and counterproductive) seem to be strongly in the pro-Kiev camp and all their arguments seem to be basically against Kyiv in general, so they are essentially trying to re-litigate the RM by trying to create artificial "permissible boundaries" of where Kyiv can be used on Wikipedia.--RogueRickC137 (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

  Note to closer. This account has exactly 17 edits, joined today, and has posted exclusively on Ukrainian topics.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: There should be a consistent title across Wikipedia, with rare exceptions where it is effectively a direct quotation. Take for example the book, The Gates of Europe: A History of Ukraine (Penguin, 2018) by Serhii Plokhy, referenced above. The author consistently uses Kyiv throughout, with the cingle exception of a reference to the Chicken Kiev speech from George H. W. Bush. We should take a simple encyclopedic approach of a consistent spelling of the name in English. I'd contrast this with the changing and alternating usage by effect, as in for example, Philippe Sands's excellent East West Street, where he swerved jarringly between references to Lviv, Lvov, Lwów and Lemberg, sometimes within paragraphs or sentences of each other. An interesting editorial decision in a stylised historical work where the changing identity of the city was a key part of the narrative. But ordinarily, if we make a decision to adopt one spelling, it should presumptively be that in all contexts. –Iveagh Gardens (talk) 19:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. We can't invent and choose this date here, we should take it from sources. But this date does not exist there, because only the spelling was changed. I have not seen any authoritative source in which different names of Kyiv are used in different periods of history. Therefore, the wording of this RfC violates WP:ORIGINAL, WP:VERIFY and distorts the perception of history. I'm sure that we should write "Kyiv" in the entire historical line since Kyiv was founded, including places, events and persons. --AndriiDr (talk) 01:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support as proposed, per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGES, which addresses situations like these. The arguments that it's just a spelling change are not compelling; this is a name change in the English language, while subjects like Kievan Rus', Olga of Kiev, Battle of Kiev (1941), etc. have their own established common English names in the preponderance of sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support as reflecting the general consensus and consistent with off-Wikipedia English-language usage. However room should be allowed for a lot of flexibility based on common sense, such as favouring consistency within the same article, especially biographical articles, or historical sections which can reflect a specific context. If a Ukrainian character in notable in a context where Kyiv is the majority usage, then this spelling should probably used consistently all along their biographical article, even if they were born before 1991. Also, from examples given above, if generic time-independent article List of Metropolitans and Patriarchs of Kyiv should use Kyiv, articles about past Metropolitans located in a context where Kiev is the better usage should probably use Kiev for the same title, e.g. 15th-century Isidore of Kiev. Also, section Russia § Kievan Rus' should of course follow the same convention as Kievan Rus' because that is the local context. Place Clichy (talk) 09:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support - The whole Kyiv/Kiev thing has been and continues to be a jumbled stew of opinions and back and forth. I'm not sure this proposal is ideal, but it is workable and reasonable. It will not appease the "Never-Kievers" nor those who want articles written with both spellings in the same paragraph depending on the year in question, but it has a compromised-built framework that is understandable and "I think" doable. A reminder that on first use in an article per Wikipedia it should be Kyiv (Kiev) and perhaps Kiev (Kyiv) for clarity to our readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. I feel this proposals focus on time periods is looking at the wrong aspect of titles. The more relevant consideration is whether Kiev/Kyiv is used as part of a descriptive title (eg. History of Kyiv), or within a proper name (eg. FC Dynamo Kyiv). Where it is used as part of a proper name, WP:TITLE considerations would apply to that name as a whole, rather than just the single word Kiev/Kyiv. I would say this applies to both the current and historical examples given in the opening request: Kiev Offensive (1920) and Kyiv Metro. In both cases, Kiev/Kyiv is not an independent word but part of a larger term. Prior to the recent move, such a distinction regarding proper names was already made, which is why FC Dynamo Kyiv was already at Kyiv. The proposed guidelines may be a useful way to meet WP:NDESC, but they should not overrule WP:TITLE characteristic considerations for individual articles that aren't using a descriptive title. CMD (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Given the Kyiv/Kiev thing has been an issue for sometime now a proposal is obviously needed. –Davey2010^Talk 19:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support - As per nom, but the others have clearly pointed out that, in the absence of guidelines, visiting editors and Khiev advocates were thinking they had a free hand to edit-willy-nilly. This proposal seeks to address that, and I am completely in agreement with it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment This RfC partially reiterates what our policy or guidelines say, and partially introduces new rules that contradict to commonly accepted rules. I've compared the proposed content rules with that, and in connection to that I have a question: do I understand it correctly that we are going to essentially reiterate commonly accepted guidelines for Kiev specifically? What is the difference between Guy's proposal and what WP:MPN says? If there is no difference, why do we need this RfC? If there IS some difference, what is the reason to introduce specific rules for Kiev?

In my opinion, guidelines are quite clear:

"In some cases it is not the local name but the spelling of the name in English that has changed over time. For example, Nanjing, as the contemporary pinyin spelling, is used for the name of the article rather than Nanking. However, the article on the Treaty of Nanking spells the city as was customary in 1842, because modern English scholarship still does."

Clearly, Kiev -> Kyiv is the change of spelling, because the city's name never changed. In connection to that, similar to the cited example, the decision should be made based on how the majority of sources spell that name in each concrete context. If majority of sources say "Battle of Kiev", the word "Kiev" should be used in the Battle of Kiev article, if majority of sources say "Kyiv metro", then "Kyiv" should be used. Any specific threshold looks like original research, and that is something that cannot be decided by consensus or vote, because our content policy cannot be overruled by a local consensus. At least, a bunch of mainstream reliable sources should be provided that clearly say: "since 1991, an English name of Ukrainian capital is "Kyiv"" (per WP:WIAN).

In addition, our policy does not require that all related articles use the same name in their titles. This talk page relates to this concrete article, and I am not sure we can develop some common rules for other articles. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

There is an ugly truth about Wikipedia that isn't always admitted--it's inconsistent in certain respects. "Kiev to Kyiv is just like X." "No, it's not just like X, it's just like Y." Each side claims divine imprimatur because there are Wikipedia precedents. The truth is that both editors are right because the process of WP:CONSENSUS drives that inconsistency. One group of editors at X chose to follow one path and another group of editors at Y chose to follow a different path. And there is often a third group of editors at Z who were in a similar situation and chose a third path that no one mentions. That's just the way it is. Just like you can prove anything from the Bible, you can prove anything by reference to Wikipedia articles. That's just my two cents. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Quite right. But by examining precedent, we can ensure that we don’t make decisions that are wildly and illogically inconsistent with others. That precedent can be used to help us identify our own prejudices (wp:bias) that might make a certain decision feel right. —Michael Z. 15:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah but the problem with that parallel is that it fails to address the situation where a significant number of contributors show up and start editing all Jesus-based articles to denote that he had two wives and children, based on a few interpretations of Scripture. Enough of these people get together and edit ALL of the Christianity articles to reflect this, and they have a pre-determined consensus (backing up each other's edits in discussion and via reverts. etc.) and suddenly the very process we utilize to create neutral articles has been hijacked by folk with an agenda. And frankly, people coming here with a nationalistic agenda don't belong here. At all. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Which people are those, specifically, Jack Sebastian? Please don’t start accusing undefined groups of unknown or anticipated malign acts against Wikipedia. If you have a specific accusation, then address the Wikipedia on their talk page or take the issue to WP:ANI. If you want to say Ukrainians are nationalists and should be banned, then name them. But innuendo or conspiracy theory is unhelpful. —Michael Z. 20:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I thought I was clear as to what group I was referring to, Mzahac/Michael. You've been advocating this change since your very second edit in Wikipedia. You have a horse in this race, and its exceptionally disingenuous to pretend you don't know the name of the horse. I would prefer to not play semantic games with you, since nothing I say is going to convince you of the wrongness of your actions here. I am writing to express my view to others who have a more open mind on the subject. Good day. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian Your comment is unfair. I learned about COMMONNAME shortly after, in 2004, that and haven’t proposed an RM of Kyiv since. I advocated for the right decision since, and I complained about abuse by other editors, and I don’t need to apologize to you or anyone for it. If you’ve checked my comments of sixteen years ago you’d know I’ve used the same sig since, so it is disingenuous to cast petty shade about “whatever nom de plume they are using this week” in comments elsewhere without pinging me. And your accusations are inappropriate. This is a personal attack. —Michael Z. 23:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Clarification needed: this is about article titles, and not word usage in the body text, right?

Clarification needed: Kyiv Metro, an article about an entity with a 60-year history is “unambiguously current/ongoing,” right? What about the following: History of Kyiv, Timeline of Kyiv, and their parent Category:History of Kiev, and see the titles of articles in that category?

So, 2008 Kyiv local election is current, but once they’re added 1994 Kyiv local election will be current but 1990 Kiev local election “historical”? This would defy wp:consistent and wp:titlecon. How about the category names in Category:Decades in Kiev and Category:Centuries in Kiev?

Why is 1990 “historical”? Many of us lived through this time. Articles about living people include ones that took part in this history. If nothing else, then living inhabitants of Kyiv should be referred to as Kyivans, per MOS:IDENTITY: “When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, use the term that is most commonly used by recent reliable sources. If it is unclear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses.” —Michael Z. 15:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Mzajac, the RfC is neutrally stated because it proposes adopting a guideline. We don't say "what should a guideline on naming look like", we propose a guideline and it is then either accepted or rejected. In this case the details are the result of discussion above.

The reasons for defining historical and ongoing are stated, and edge cases like the categories are covered by WP:BRD and "edge cases, or in case of doubt or dispute". If you would like to propose an alternate guide, you are absolutely free to do so. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Guy, are you saying that the example of History of Kyiv is not unambiguously historical? —Michael Z. 15:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Sources? - This has been asked before and I haven't seen an answer yet: are there any examples of a book, article, or other reliable source that refers to the city as both "Kiev" and "Kyiv" in the same work based on the time period being discussed? Does any reliable source do this? Would Wikipedia be the first and only to ever do this? Lev!vich 14:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

  I found one source that self-consciously uses the two spellings. The author uses Kyiv throughout the main text, and Kiev on only two pages, in reference to medieval Ukraine (note this, opponents of Kyivan Rus), and in the name of a military institution that spanned the history of five states.

  [p 2, “Author’s Note”] Ukrainian words, names and places are transliterated Ukrainian-style, while Russian ones are rendered in their form. Thus, although Russian-speaking insurgents would refer to e.g. Donbass, Lugansk and Slavyansk, these are rendered as Donbas, Luhansk and Slovyansk. References to Kiev rather than Kyiv relate to the period before 1991, when the Russian form of the Ukrainian capital was most widely used.
  [p 4] The very name Ukraine springs from the word for “border,” yet it can rightly call itself the heart and wellspring of the Rus people. Its capital, Kiev, was politically and culturally dominant amongst their city-states before it was sacked by the invading Mongols in 1240. During the years of Mongol domination, the small town of Moscow and the ruthlessly opportunistic Rurikid dynasty that controlled it rose to assume Kiev’s place.
  [pp 41–42] At the end of 1991, when the USSR was dismantled, Kyiv assumed control of these legacy forces on its territory: the Carpathian, Kiev, and Odessa Military Districts, four Air Armies, the 8th Air Defense Army, five armies, and an army corps.

  — Mark Galeotti (2019), Armies of Russia’s War in Ukraine, Oxford: Osprey.

  Obviously, anyone that holds that Kiev is the majority usage in historical sources would see this one and only instance as a counterexample of their argument (I cite numerous reliable sources using Kyiv in histories about Ukraine’s pre-1991 history). But I think these majority-usage claimants should 1. present evidence that this claim is true in current sources, and 2. accept other criteria in the spirit of the move of the main article, that found: the debate above provides evidence for two common names, and thus (per COMMONNAME) we should consider criteria other than frequency to figure out which name is better.

  Anyway, if we accept this as a reliable source, maybe one lesson is that in practice we can have some tolerance for different usage in appropriate contexts. To be clear, this is my appeal for compromise, not an invitation to take this as support for an inflexible position. Not necessarily for using mixed spellings in every article, but recognizing that as spellings Kyiv, Kyivans, and Kyivan Rus and other Ukrainian spellings are certainly appropriate in Ukrainian contexts, like History of Kyiv, they also belong in a Ukrainian historical context in other articles. —Michael Z. 14:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The other case of mixed spelling in a work is, of course, per article in academic peer-reviewed journals, edited books, conference proceedings, &c., where authors generally follow their own style choices, and one sees the Ukrainian spelling used in Ukrainian subjects, regardless of historical period covered. Take notepad this too, proponents of “common use” in some restricted context. For example:

• Thomas Prymak (1999), “Mykola Kostomarov as a Historian,” in Thomas Sanders ed., Historiography of Imperial Russia: The Profession and Writing of History in a Multinational State, Armonk NY, M. E. Sharpe.
• Anthony Heywood (2005), “Socialists, Liberals and the Union of Unions in Kyiv during the 1905 Revolution: An Engineer’s Perspective,” in Jonathan D. Smele and Anthony Heywood eds., The Russian Revolution of 1905: Centenary Perspectives, London: Routledge.

 —Michael Z. 23:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Continued changes by MichaelZ

Mzajac has continued to move instances of Kiev to Kyiv from before 1991 despite being aware of the immense controversy and this RfC: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], among many, many others. It becomes difficult to assume good faith when he has repeatedly been asked to stop until a consensus is reached. This appears to be an attempt to present us with a fait accompli.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

1. Kost Novytsky, living person, in Category:21st-century Ukrainian musicians. one of the more influential bandurists in Kyiv today. . . . Currently he teaches bandura at the Kyiv Conservatory
2. Hryhory Nazarenko, died 1997. In the United States he continued for a brief time to be a member of the Ukrainian Bandurist Chorus. Nazarenko died in Detroit in 1997. Nazarenko had written works published posthumously in 1998 and 2013. A creative career doesn’t just stop like digging ditches.
3. Victor Mishalow, living person, in Category:21st-century Ukrainian musicians. In 2013 he became an Adjunct Research Fellow at Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. . . . Victor Mishalow was awarded the title of Merited Artist of Ukraine by Ukrainian president Leonid Kuchma in October, 1999. In August 2009 he was awarded the Order of Merit 3rd class, by Ukrainian president Viktor Yushchenko and the Medal of "Cossack Glory" from the Hetman of the Ukrainian Cossacks for his services to Ukrainian musical culture. Mishalow’s works listed in the article date up to 2014.
4. Honcharenko brothers, died 2000 and 2005. From 1949 to 1989 he oversaw 34 concert tours on three continents and arranged 550 concerts. . . . In 1992 Ukraine's Ministry of Culture recognized Petro Honcharenko for furthering the refinement of the bandura instrument, and the propagation of "the art of the kobzari" by naming him Merited Artist of Ukraine. With this decree, the government of Ukraine underscored Petro Honcharenko's lifetime achievements as important and significant in the annals of bandura development and artistry.
5. Nina Matviyenko. Living person, in Category:21st-century Ukrainian musicians, published recordings in 1994, 1997, 1999, 2002, and 2004.

Please get a more productive hobby, Ermenrich. You got real issues with me, talk to me on my talk page.

This just goes to show what a bad idea some 1995 or 1991 cutoff is, when half of us editing this page were adults at the time. These people are not “historical.” Some of us could personally know them. It’s also in the middle of one of the most important periods of change in Ukrainian history, during Hlasnist and Perebudova, declarations of sovereignty, independence, and the dissolution of the USSR. Mixing up spellings in the middle of this will be a mess.

Let’s work on these articles instead of stalking each other to find things to complain about. Just use the modern name in this modern encyclopedia. —Michael Z. 20:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Mzajac, perhaps you should get a more productive hobby than blatantly disregarding consensus and being snarky about it. I don't dispute that they have done something post 95, however, you also changed: (December 26, 1950 in Kiev, Ukrainian SSR, In 1935 he was enlisted into the newly formed combined Kiev Bandurist Capella, In 1979 he received a scholarship to attend the Kiev Conservatory, Peter was born in the village of Olshanytsia near Kiev, in the Russian Empire and She completed her studies in Ukrainian philology at the Kiev University in 1975.. That's just to take a random example from each of the articles I cite here, which are only a fraction of the ones you've changed in pre-1995/91 sections. These all obviously predate the 1995 proposed cut-off, and you are fully aware of it. Telling me about some other things these people did afterward does not change that. At least stop making these changes until consensus is reached, as many people, not just me, have asked you. This is the third or fourth time this has been brought up to you, and it really does feel like you are abusing the process. This comment Just use the modern name in this modern encyclopedia for instance seems to go to show you really are just going to keep on doing what you're doing, damned whatever anybody else thinks. Just cool it with the changes. It's not that hard.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

75,000 words of discussion about a proposal, and you guys haven’t even figured out that half of you want to apply it to whole articles, while the other half thinks everybody’s talking about “historical context” on a sentence-by-sentence basis. Maybe write a concrete proposal with some real examples, or you’ll still be discussing this in 2025 and still not realize the only “consensus” you have is that you’re not willing to accept Wikipedia’s actual consensus to adopt the modern spelling. —Michael Z. 21:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

To be clear: I have not moved any of those. —Michael Z. 03:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Ermenrich, Guy’s proposal is clearly about entire articles as context. His example of Kyiv Metro makes this clear, as that article discusses 1884 and 1916 to the present, but only spells Kiev in direct quotations. Only one or two editors wants to use mixed spellings in an article, apparently without being aware that no one else wants that. I see no evidence of consensus for this notion or that you have even tried to plainly discuss it. Someone should expand Guy’s proposal by phrasing it as a clear guideline, by mentioning more than just two examples, and actually determining how it would be applied there. Until then, it is just a lot of talk, and will continue to cause disagreements even if adopted. —Michael Z. 17:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Don't entirely disagree with you on there probably will be more arguments, but I think just as a show of good faith it would be nice if you held off on a few things - for now. If consensus is to change every or most instances of Kiev to Kyiv, then I certainly won't complain again. I changed the heading, as, as you point out, you haven't actually moved anything.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

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

"and it is gaining in frequency in English-language sources"

This is an original research. I propose either to change it to a direct reference to EB and Oxford (without generalisations), or to remove altogether, or to add a source that directly makes that general statement.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The existing OED reference is terse, but it clearly refers to a gain in frequency. Its entry for Kiev (as a modifier noun, e.g., as used in chicken Kiev), updated December 2019, states “Origin: From a proper name. Etymon: proper name Kiev. Etymology. < Kiev (now also Kyiv; Ukrainian Kyjiv), the name of the capital city of Ukraine,” a gain in frequency to “now also,” from previously not. —Michael Z. 17:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the situation is even worse. I didn't participate in the last RfC, but I assume some convincing arguments and reliable sources were proposed during that discussion, and it was firmly established that Kyiv has already gained popularity in English literature, and its popularity is stable. I assume that that was persuasively demonstrated, because, per WP:NCGN, when a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it, which means renaming may take place only if it has been demonstrated that the new name is the most popular English name.

The claim that Kyiv is just gaining popularity implies that either that statement or the RfC were wrong. Wikipedia does not predict the future, and renaming could not have occurred just in a response to some emerging trend. Therefore, the text cited by me should be either replaced with "and it has become the most common in English-language sources" (and supplemented with a bunch of sources that clearly say so), or removed altogether, because it violates our guidelines and policy. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

If by RFC you mean the requested move and decision, I suggest you at least read the full decision if you have not yet done so: talk:Kyiv/Archive 7 § Requested move 28 August 2020. —Michael Z. 00:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

In this section, I am discussing not the renaming, but the article's text. Concretely, the statement "Kyiv is gaining in frequency in English-language sources" which is quite relevant to the article named "Kiev", but it looks ridiculously in the "Kyiv" article. I am going to remove it, because it casts a doubt on validity of the article's renaming.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

That’s doesn’t seem to be a good reason to remove factual information. But I agree that the two or three sentences of the #Name section are woefully inadequate, and I would support restoring the entire section that was deleted and improving that. —Michael Z. 02:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I placed the "citation needed" template to the weasel word "historically". This word is ambiguous, because it may imply that (i) "Kiev" is in use for many centuries (and is still the most common), and (ii) that the word was common, and is obsolete now. If (i) is true, this word is redundant, if (ii) is true, some mainstream and respectable source(s) must be provided to confirm that clearly and unequivocally. The sources mush meet NPOV and NOR criteria. If no sources will be provided in one month, I am going to remove the word "historically".--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

That is an exceptionally ridiculous demand for cn. It's POV to the extreme. ii is false because "Kiev" is still extremely common (probably still more common). i is true. Please don't clutter our articles with needless and WP:POINTy demands for citations. You might as well demand citations for "the earth is not flat". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

This seems a little bit too aggressive. As I already explained, the word "historically" is ambiguous and it seems redundant. Can you please provide arguments in support of this word (taking into account that the source does not say "Kiev" is a historical name, it just says "Kiev" is an English name of this city.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:19, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

"Historically" simply and clearly means that the name "Kiev" is not a recent invention, but is the name applied to the city in English for a long historical period including the present day. It's not a "weasel" word at all, but a simple and clear statement of fact. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Do you mean "historically most common" by no means can be interpreted as "obsolete"?--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I looked more closely at the sentence and the English syntax was quite poor. I've rewritten it. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 06:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Paul Siebert that that summary is much too vague. It was written as an introduction to a long “Name” section that was deleted, and doesn’t stand alone without it. Kiev is not the traditional name, it is a traditional name, following other traditional names like Kiof, Kiow, and Kiovia. The factual statement about frequency of use is vague too, and needs to be sourced. I still think the deleted section should be restored and edited further. —Michael Z. 23:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I am satisfied with the current version of this section. I also agree with TaivoLinguist, who removed the cn tag. The tagged sentens is already sourced. The cited source (OED) says:

"Kiev"

Forms: 19– Kieff, 19– Kiev.

Origin: From a proper name. Etymon: proper name Kiev.

Etymology: < Kiev (now also Kyiv; Ukrainian Kyjiv), the name of the capital city of Ukraine.

Clearly, if all other names are mentioned only in a context of etymology (i.e. about the origin of this English word), "Kiev" is THE name of Ukrainian capital city in English, whereas all other names are foreign words. --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

You think the article should say Kieff and Kiev are the traditional and most common English names for the city? That’s what your original research implies.

Google news search limited to last 24 hours, "Kyiv" in quotation marks 63 results, "Kiev" in quotation marks 35. Kiev is not “the most common English name” without qualifications, and this bald statement is dubious. TaivoLinguist’s “common knowledge” is not worth the paper it’s written on if neither of you can find a single citation that actually says what you’ve written. —Michael Z. 03:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

First, you accused me of engaging in original research, i.e. in violation of our core content policy. Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence are considered personal attacks. Remember, you placed DS warning on my talk page, which implies you yourself were duly warned. Taking into account that that is a second time when you accused me of doing original research, it is a good time to stop.

Second, the dictionary is quite clear. If you type "Kiev", you get an entry that says "Kiev" is a dictionary word, which originated from a foreign word Kieff/Kiev/Kyiv. If you type "Kieff", you get

1. the entry "kef | keif | kief, n.

2. the entry "Kiev, n.

The same happens when you type "Kyiv": it says "No dictionary entries found for ‘Kyiv’."

Obviously, if some word has a separate entry in OED, it IS an English word. If some word has no entry in OED, it is hardly an English word. It might be an English word, but it is quite unlikely that it is as common and popular as the word that has its own entry.

With regard to you exercises with google search, please familiarise yourself with the correct procedure described in relevant guidelines.

Finally, your poorly explained re-addition of the cn template does not fit a good practice (I mean BRD), and is the first step to edit warring. Do you really need that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

By the way, the statement "The Oxford English Dictionary added a standalone entry for "Kiev, n." in December 2019, citing the name of the city as "Kiev (now also Kyiv" in the footnote 24 seems incorrect: Currently, OED has no such entry as "Kyiv" (I cannot provide a link, because it will not work from IPs not associated with my university, however, I can provide a screenshot if there is a possibility to send it).--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Which “the dictionary” are you referring to? The OED has no entries for names of places. It only mentions Kiev and Kyiv in the etymology of an entry for different versions of the name as part of “chicken K**v,” and related terms.

Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 5th ed., has a main entry for Kyiv and a “see-also” reference from the spelling variant Kiev. This does imply that its lexicographers have determined that Kiev is not the most common spelling. Since sources seem to disagree, I suggest that it is wrong to just say so without any references, and in fact, wrong to just say so when the unqualified statement has been shown to be false.

And sorry, if you’re drawing conclusions from original research, I don’t think it’s against any guideline or common sense for me to point it out. Just cite sources that directly back up your statements. —Michael Z. 17:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

OED does have an entry for the word "Kiev", and has no separate entries for "Kyiv"/"Kieff". That means "Kiev" is an English word, whereas "Kyev"/"Kieff" are just transliterations of Ukrainian/Russian names. Since the OED is not accessible from random IP, I saved a screenshot from my computer, because my university provides access to OED. This screenshot will be provided to arbitrators in a case if this conflict will be escalated further.

I checked Webster, and results are:

• "Kiev"

• "Kyiv"

That is inconsistent with what you say, and suggests that either I or you cannot use English dictionaries properly.

You again accuse me of doing original research. Next time, please refrain from that in future. If you are not sure, please post a question at NORN, and throw such accusations only after the consensus will be achieved that the statement in question was OR.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

With regard to Webster New world, here it is:

• Kiev definitions: The capital and largest city of Ukraine, in the north-central part of the country on the Dnieper River. Founded in the fifth century, it became the capital of Kievan Russia in the ninth century. Invaded by the Mongols in 1240, Kiev passed to Lithuania in the 14th century, became part of the Russian empire in 1686, and was ceded to the USSR in 1920.

• Kyiv definitions: Capital of Ukraine, on the Dnieper. proper name. Alternative spelling of Kiev.

In other words, your source clearly says "Kyiv" is an alternative name (which implied "Kiev" is the most common name). In future I am going to check every your statement to make sure you correctly transmited what the sources cited by you say.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

With regard to Britannica, yes, it changed "Kiev" to "Kyiv" in 2020, and it can be used as a source for the last sentence (the current source does not support the statement, and it does not pass the OR filter.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

PS. With regard to Webster New World, it seems that the link I found redirected me to YourDictionary, which seems to be different from the WNW. dictionary. I need some time to figure out what WNW says.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think you’re getting my point, so let me explain in some detail.

Firstly, the OED will never have separate entries for Kieff, Kiev, and Kyiv, because each entry represents one term with a common etymology, including all of its spellings—you will notice that near the top it says “Forms: 19– Kieff, 19– Kiev,” indicating that these spellings were in use from the 1900s on. Secondly, as I mentioned, the OED does not include entries for proper names—it is only defining Kiev as a postmodifier and common noun used in I.1. chicken Kiev, I.2. phrases like pheasant Kiev, and II.3. as a common noun as in “while the Kievs cooked,” which also explains why there are no forms at all listed from the 1600s, 1700s, when the city was not called Kiev, nor from the 1800s. Thirdly, as a historical dictionary, the OED tends to use the earliest etymological spelling as its headword, so I suspect it will continue to use Kiev as the headword spelling until and only if that spelling’s usage becomes rare or obsolete. What the OED does say about the proper name of the city is only its mention in the etymology, where it refers to “< Kiev (now also Kyiv; Ukrainian Kyjiv), the name of the capital city of Ukraine.”

Now let me walk through my argument. The article used to say “Kiev is the . . . historically most commonly used English name for the city.” That is vague, but I think we can agree that it is true if we interpret “historically” as meaning in the past (specifically from around 1800 to the 2010s). TaivoLinguist changed it to “Kiev is the . . . most common English name for the city,” meaning in the present. This is dubious, and possibly false. It needs a source. I think even TaivoLinguist has written that usage is changing at at some point Kiev may no longer be the most common spelling. There is no source saying that point has not already come. In some realms, e.g., in journalism and in academic writing, I think there is evidence that it already has. And as I demonstrated, at least one recently updated major dictionary has now listed Kyiv as the main headword, implying that that has become a majority usage in the corpus. So stating that it has not is not “common knowledge,” it is an un-cited assertion, that doesn’t belong here without being tagged as such. —Michael Z. 21:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

And re: “The source directly supports the statement,” that is false. The OED’s list of quotations is a survey demonstrating usage and spelling, and doesn’t say anything about frequency of use. To interpret it as such is WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. The second source cited, Britannica which updated its entry title to Kyiv, implies that the exact opposite may be true, although it also does not say so explicitly. —Michael Z. 21:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Michael, now I understand your logic. Yes, OED's entry for "Kiev" is "Compounds, as a postmodifier". It doesn't say "Kiev = a capital city of Ukraine". I compared it with other names, and that is what I got:

• Moscow: "Originally: the government (ideology, etc.) of the Soviet Union (now historical). Now also: the government of Russia."

• Prague: "1. Prague ham, 2. attributive. Designating, of, or relating to the Prague Linguistic Circle"

• Paris: "1. Paris candle, 2a 2. attributive. Designating articles or materials made in Paris"

etc. That means OED can hardly be used in that context, because it provides no direct information about names of cities in general (not only to Kiev). I suggest to remove it, because its current usage is close to original research. Nevertheless, if I type "Kyiv" OED says "no such entry", which means "Kiev" is more acceptable as a postmodifier than Kyiv.

However, all of that does not change the fact that other two dictionaries (Merriam-Webster and MyDictionary) say "Kiev" is the name of Ukrainian capital, and "Kyiv" is just an another form of it. By the way, Wikipedia's own spell checker also says "Kyiv" is not an English word (when I type "Kyiv", it highlights it as a typo). I haven't checked Webster New World, because it seems it is available in a printed form only, and I am to lazy to go to a library, but I agree that Britannica changed "Kiev" to "Kyiv". Other dictionaries say the following:

• Dictionary.com: "Kiev", "Kyiv"

• Cambridge dictionary: "Kiev". "Kyiv", but "Moscow" (wtf??!)

• Lexico.com: "Kiev", "Kyiv"
• Longman: "Kiev", "Kyiv"

• Collins "Kiev", "kyiv"

• American heritage dictionary: "Kiev, "Kyiv"

• Wordsmyth.com: "Kiev", "Kyiv"

• wordreference.com: "Kiev", "Kyiv"

• thefreedictionary.com: "Kiev", "Kyiv"

I omitted the dictionaries that, like Cambridge, contain no entries both for "Kiev" and "Kyiv", but you can see that majority of dictionaries in the list either have no separate entry for "Kyiv", so the primary entry is "Kiev", or/and say that "Kyiv" is a Ukrainian name of the city known as "Kiev" in the English world, or just redirect "Kyiv" to "Kiev". And I was not able to find a single dictionary that lists "Kyiv" as a primary entry, and "Kiev" as a secondary or obsolete.

Whereas I agree that your arguments were logical, and that they forced me to modify my original opinion, I believe you must admit new evidences are quite convincing. Therefore, I believe I've sustained my burden of evidence.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Please cite your sources properly, including the actual source and date of publication or compilation, and drop the duplicates and dated versions from these aggregators of dictionary entries. For example, the two supposed entries in your first dictionary are not; they are from different dictionaries, one dated by a decade and a half. Scroll down and you’ll see that Dictionary.com’s entry for Kiev cites “THE NEW DICTIONARY OF CULTURAL LITERACY, THIRD EDITION COPYRIGHT © 2005 BY HOUGHTON MIFFLIN HARCOURT PUBLISHING COMPANY. PUBLISHED BY HOUGHTON MIFFLIN HARCOURT PUBLISHING COMPANY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED,” while its entry for Kyiv is from a different, up-to-date dictionary: “DICTIONARY.COM UNABRIDGED BASED ON THE RANDOM HOUSE UNABRIDGED DICTIONARY, © RANDOM HOUSE, INC. 2020.” As another example, several of these are based on the American Heritage Dictionary, 5th edition (2016), but don’t even list that date, and define Kyyiv but lack Kyiv. Many encyclopedic dictionaries republish their encyclopedic content from other sources and don’t work very hard on it.

And no, you have not demonstrated that Kiev is currently the most common spelling. Not one of those sources says that. You have demonstrated that sources even a very few years old lack a spelling found in almost every current newspaper, and shouldn’t be indiscriminately relied upon to answer questions like this one. Your survey of dictionaries to support a conclusion that is not stated in any of them is the epitome of original research. Please restore the citation-needed tag. —Michael Z. 02:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

The requests to cite sources properly at the talk page look ridiculous. In addition, I provided full links (what you have never done), and any good faith user is quite capable of opening these links and seeing all information.

If you believe the 2016 or 2005 dictionaries are obsolete, go to RNS or to the V talk page, ask a neutral question, and if the consensus will be: "these dictionaries are outdated", come back. So far, the dictionaries that I presented are the best dictionaries that are available online. By the way, you totally ignored the fact that Merriam-Webster has no "Kyiv" at all: "Kyiv" redirects to "Kiev".

Your "refutation" of my arguments is directed at minor details, and it will not be accepted by any neutral user as convincing. In addition, you it seems you ignore the arguments that you cannot address. That does not make your position stronger.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

The cn tag is nothing more than a WP:POINTy attempt to push the "Kyiv über alles" narrative. Based on his arguments in the move discussion, Mzajac will probably reject each and every attempt to provide evidence that "Kiev" is still the most common in usage (outside of the listing of style guides that tipped the Kiev>Kyiv argument). He has rejected all types of search results no matter how carefully constructed. The opponents of the move provided multiple searches of of media usage within the last year, including the very media that were trying to switch to "Kyiv" in their style guides, but these were rejected and argued away with incessant "but the style guides" comments. Short of "Kiev is a historical form that is no longer used", what wording will you accept that "Kiev" is still widely used and quite common, User:Mzajac? --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 08:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Same we can tell about your and Paul Siebert position that "Kiev" is the most common/ only correct version, despite the fact that it is not true. I propose to remove all subjective estimations based on original research from the article.--Geohem (talk) 08:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually, TaivoLinguist, I am encouraging you make any attempt to provide evidence to support the statement you added to the article, but you are rejecting it. Your assertion in the article says most common, not “quite common.”

And please spare us the Nazi references while you cast shade on the consensus decision to move the article. About eighty Wikipedians participated, and the “Ukrainian government,” the “Cossacks,” and I did not bamboozle them all. Either challenge the decision or show a bit of respect for the community. —Michael Z. 14:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

With respect to "you have not demonstrated that Kiev is currently the most common spelling", let me point out that the actual statement in the article is

"Kiev is the traditional and most common English name for the city."

Therefore, I don't have to present a source saying ""Kiev" is currently the most common spelling". I presented sources saying that ""Kiev is a name of Ukrainian capital", and ""Kyiv" is a Ukrainian name of Kiev". I believe that must be sufficient. If you disagree, read the foilowing:

• First, it is obvious that "Kiev" was the most common spelling in some distant past. No Wikipedian in clear mind can negate that fact;

• Second, if the situation has changed at some point, there should be some neutral and authoritative source that says when and how that transition have occurred, preferrably in the form: ""Kyiv" is the name most often used for this entity". Can you present such a source? Per guidelines, that should not be an official source (see the "Moskva vs Moscow example in WP:WIAN), but some source that is more reputable than Merriam-Webster or Collins.

I can present other arguments, but, since you prefer skipping the arguments that you are incapable of addressing, I would prefer a stepwise approach.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

TaivoLinguist obviously changed the statement from the past to the present tense. That one hasn’t shown that Kyiv is most commonly used is not showing that Kiev is, either. The fact remains that you have produced no source that says Kiev is most common in 2020. [Citation needed.] —Michael Z. 22:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Look, what people usually do to figure out if some word is a common word? Look in dictionaries. I analyzed all dictionaries that I was able to find during first 30 minutes of googling. I excluded the dictionaries that do not contain both "Kiev" and "Kyiv". I presented the list on that talk page. Do you call that "no evidences"?! That strongly resembles refusal to get the point. Let me re-iterate: I didn't selectively ignore the dictionaries that say "Kyiv" is the most common word: I just found NO online dictionaries that say so. And I neutrally summarized what other dictionaries say: most dictionaries have "Kiev" as the only entry (no "Kyiv"), some of them redirect "Kyiv" to "Kiev", and some of them say "Kiev" is a name of Ukrainian "Kyiv". I believe, to any good faith user that should be enough.

It seem you have no counter-arguments to the fact that Kiev was the most common name in the past, but you insist it is not the most common name anymore. And, instead of providing a good source, you request me to prove negative: to provide a source that majority sources still consider "Kiev" the most common name. Come on, I don't have to prove negative: the fact that (i) "Kiev" was a common name, and (ii) there are no sources that say "Kiev" is not the most common name anymore is sufficient. Indeed, you cannot request me to prove that "London" is still the most common name of the English capital (because MW said that in the past, and no reputable source says otherwise).

In contrast, if you want to add a statement to the article that "Kiev" is not the most common name now, you are expected to provide a source, and that source must be very reputable. The reference to the recent RM is not working, for Wikipedia is not a reliable source. You cannot provide any source that proves that "Kyiv" has became the most common name (a pathetic attempt of OR, I mean the analysis of OED in one footnote is definitely not a proof). Instead, you prefer adding unjustified <cn> tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced. Please, keep in mind that disruptive editing is sanctionable per DS.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Please stop making up arguments for me that I never made. There is a positive statement in the article: “Kiev is the . . . most common English name for the city.” There is no source cited that says that. Sorry for repeating this, yet again. I will try to stop now. —Michael Z. 04:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. I added the references, removed OR (see edit summary), removed duplicated Britannica. If you believe some sources are not reliable or outdated, or that I misinterpreted them, please go to the relevant noticeboards. If you have other sources, you are more than welcome to add them.

By the way, I removed the statement about "gaining in frequency": the source cited does not say so. I replaced that with a neutral description, which is not OR.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Kyiv - ,obviously, not Ukrainian language name. It is standardized Roman-letter correspondence to the Ukrainian language geographical name.--Geohem (talk) 09:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Per sources, "Kyiv" IS a Ukrainian name (some sources cited by me say that unequivocally). Similarly, "Лондон" - is an English name. If some word was transliterated from Latin to Cyrillic (and back), their meaning remains the same.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, is still no source cited that says “Kiev is the . . . most common English name for the city.” You think we should infer that from a bunch of cherry-picked dictionary entries, mainly republished from print editions and omitting the material’s original publication dates. I did ask you to cite them properly. I still call this OR. After I’ve repeated this several times, I can longer tell whether Paul Siebert is trying to source the statement in good faith, or just decorating the article with citations to keep the statement in it unchallenged. —Michael Z. 15:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I improved the citations with details and notes. They do paint a picture of changing usage. —Michael Z. 18:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

All those allegations would be understandable if some sources existed that challenge my statement. So far, no sources have been provided that say ""Kiev" is not the most common name anymore". Had you provided such a source? I didn't see that. You attempts to combine various sources to reach or imply a conclusion that "Kiev" is not the most common name were a complete failure. If you are unable to acknowledge that, maybe, it makes sense to move this discussion to another place, where uninvolved users or admins will tell us who is right?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I never reached that conclusion. I said that you have shown any evidence that supports yours. I reviewed your dictionary survey, and I am even more convinced it is evidence supporting the opposite conclusion. What exactly is your “statement,” something like “your failure to prove Kiev is not the most common spelling is proof that it is the most common”? You’re the one who reminded us that we can’t prove a negative. Or is it “we agree Kiev was the most common spelling in the past, which proves it is the most common until proven otherwise”? Your logic is unsound.

But sure, I can see you won’t be convinced, so let’s get some neutral opinions. Please call a WP:RFC, with a clear statement like “Kiev is currently the most commonly used spelling of the city’s name in English,” alongside your citations, and ask other Wikipedians whether they support it. —Michael Z. 21:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it would be correct to waste other people's time if we can resolve the problem by ourselves. To do that, let me ask you the following. Which statement most correctly described your point of view?

"Kiev was the most common English name of the Ukrainian capital in the past, but it is not the most common name anymore"

"Kiev has never been the most common English name of the Ukrainian capital"

Thank you in advance,

--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

“There has been no evidence presented that Kiev is the most commonly used English name of the Ukrainian capital in late 2020.” Also, “Kyiv has become the preferred usage over Kiev in many realms of professional writing, namely in news media, and in the subject field of Ukraine.” And “there is evidence that some dictionaries prefer Kyiv over Kiev, possibly because it is the most used.” —Michael Z. 01:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Look:

1. you accused me of broken logic;

2. In attempt to understand what is wrong with my logic, and to understand your position better, I asked a simple question.

3. I got a totally confusing answer, that clarified nothing.

4. So far, I am not interested to know your position about Kyiv. I need to know if you agree that "Kiev" was the common name of the Ukrainian capital in the past. Do you agree with that or not? I am not trying to convince you in that, I want you to clearly say: "Yes. I agree with that", or "No. I disagree". If you will help me to understand your logic, that may help us to come to some common point of view.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

By the way, what’s with this edit? “The English name” implies it’s the one and only name, which we all know is false. Do you think you might be losing the thread? —Michael Z. 01:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

That implies nothing but the fact that the cited sources say so. That does not imply it is the only name, because the sources do not say so. However, the sources do not say "historically" or "often", so we cannot add that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I noticed that some edits were made that say directly opposite to what sources cited say. I reverted them. Please, do not re-introduce false statements into the article, that is a severe violation of our policy. Anticipating references to the last RM, please, keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a source for itself, which means the fact that the article's name was changed cannot affect what reliable sources say in reality.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, according to Resolution of the ukrainian commission for legal terminology Kyiv confirmed as standardized Roman-letter correspondence to the Ukrainian language geographical name, so please don't remove information from reliable sources.--Geohem (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I am not going to. This information is factually correct, and it is supported by the source. However, per our policy, official documents are primary sources, and they are reliable only for themselves (i.e., they are RS for such descriptive statements as "Ukrainian commission for legal terminology adopted "Kyiv" as standardized Roman-letter correspondence to the Ukrainian language geographical name"), so I would propose to change the statement a little bit, although that is not absolutely necessary.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Russian caption

I don't think russian transcription and russian naming of Kyiv have to be mentioned in the beginning, like it is something really important. Ukraine is not a part of Russian Empire or Soviet Union anymore, so what for are these "imperial" remnants here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dim.yttrium (talk • contribs) 23:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Switzerland is a predominantly German speaking country, but it had never been a part of German empire, and even was never contemplating an alliance with Nazi Germany. Moreover, despite its neutral status, it prepared for a full scale war with Nazi in a case they invade. Americans and British were fighting during the War of Independence, but Americans continue to speak English. Even Ireland speaks English. In addition, Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting some political views, it just reflects the current state of things: Russian is still in use in Ukraine, and it will be in use in observable future. If Ukraine wants to become a European nation, it is useful to keep in mind that majority of European nations are multilingual, and this multilinguality is, by and large, "imperial remnants".--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

MOS:LEADLANG: If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence, usually in parentheses. So, yes, the redundant Ukrainian romanization and the Russian can and ought to go into the following #Name section. —Michael Z. 04:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)