Talk:Kyiv/naming/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Google News

This will pick up recent news mentions, giving us a current snapshot, rather than a time lapse picture of all web pages, many of which are historical.

http://news.google.com/nwshp and click "advanced news search" and select last 30 days, or whatever interval you like.

The results I get for last 30 days:
Kyiv = 590
Kiev = 2,650

Burma = 20,257
Myanmar = 26,322

Peking = 626
Beijing = 57,857

There you have it. Relative prevalence of usage in current news articles. Seems like Kiev wins. What do you know. - Jehochman ^Talk 01:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we can all now agree to end this debate. Kyiv faction, I suggest we repeat this test on one year. For now, there's a really strong argument that Kiev is more commonly used. I'm ready to stop arguing about this. - Jehochman ^Talk 01:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Why wait a year. Lets try it again in October. Bandurist 02:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to run the test every month. Kiev has been the predominant spelling for more than a century. I doubt that this will change within a month. Reginmund 03:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I will be on a Wikiholiday until Friday. Please don't do anything foolhardy like changing the name of the article. Reginmund 06:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

One thing that is hard to do on these discussion pages is to smile or even laugh. Bandurist 11:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Quick, quick! The move button! Back to business...there's no consensus to do that. It's not going to happen. I suggest ending this conversation so everyone can get back to more productive things. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Kiev will always win a google search, I predict. It will always be more common because there will always be more Russian-speakers than Ukraine-speakers. I question the relevance of this commonality as the basis for which usage is correct. I did the Google News search mentioned above for Kiev and the very first article was written by a Russian writer in Moscow

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1666983,00.html?imw=Y

So, one of two things happened. 1. The author wrote the article in English, translating from Russian (not Ukrainian) to English to get "Kiev" 2. Someone else translatated the article to English and saw the Russian word, not the Ukrainian one, and thus translated it as "Kiev."

I agree that common usage should prevail, but only when that common usage is based upon correct assumptions. It's more common for English speakers to use an apostrophe for the possessive "Its", but that does not make it correct. Srilm 15:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Time Magazine has a style manual and an editorial stuff who assures the compliance of whatever the journalist writes, be he "Russian" or not. Time uses Kiev consistently as well as the most of the mainstream media. That's why you found Kiev there rather than because of your own derivations of the ethnicity of the author. --Irpen 17:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? I'm just asking. If you work in media, then I accept that explanation. Just to clarify, I am not even suggesting that this is done because of ethnic or political motivations. My point was that the author used Kiev because it is natural for him to do so -- that is the word for the capital of Ukraine in Russian. Ask yourself a deeper Why does Time use Kiev. Is Time exposed to the Ukrainian language at all and does it have any bearing on their style manual? Does Time realize that the official name of Kiev/Kyiv has changed? Do they ignore it or not consider it relevant? I don't have a lot of trust in the accuracy of the media because whenever they report on my areas of expertise, there are always numerous innaccuracies, especially in the obscure details, and the change of the name of a relatively unfamiliar country from a name in one language to a name in another is definitely an obscure detail. Srilm 01:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is so much emphasis put on the google results (that fluctuate) of what some in the media use? How come so little attention is paid to the fact that, if I am not mistaken, all English language governments use Kyiv? Why are important organizations such as UN and the Red Cross disregarded? The google test is not the ultimate arbiter of fact. Ostap 19:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Not Google test but the major media usage test. Because people read media web-sites more than the governmental ones and as such the former have greater effect on overall usage. In English, unlike Russian and Ukrainian that have both the regulating bodies, governmental usage does not equate the correct usage. In fact, both versions are "correct". One is just more common as reflected by the primary references such as Oxford, Webster, Britannica and Columbia Encyclopedia. --Irpen 19:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

What about the universities of Harvard, Toronto and Alberta and others? The renowned Ukrainian studies departments of these universities, and I am going to assume most others, use Kyiv far more often. As scholarly organizations, shouldn't their usage be given greater consideration for an encyclopedia? I have no source for this, but I think current scholarly publications are using more Kyiv. Ostap 19:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Books recently published by these professors (Wilson, Subtelny, Magocsi) use Kiev. --Irpen 19:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

how recently? Ostap 19:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

latest editions of all. Check amazon for exact dates. The most disseminated books about Ukraine for the Western readers are by Willson, Subtelny, Magocsi and Reid. --Irpen 19:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

True, I guess I will have to see the latest atlas by Mr. Magocsi to find out what he uses. You said earlier that "governmental usage does not equate the correct usage". That doesn't make much sense to me. It seems that governments are the organizations that would be most concerned with using the most accurate and up to date name of a capital city, rather than some journalist. Ostap 19:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

There are two correct usages in English. You can't argue with Oxford and Webster about this. Governments have to consider the issues of political convenience and political correctness more than the media. And we are not talking "Some journalist". I repeat that I only consider the media who can afford the professional editorial stuff that ensures the compliance. If the journalist gets it "wrong" (he majored in journalism after all, not English, the editor (certainly a professional in English grammar and style(, would correct it.

Here is the most recent book data where Kiev is uses:

Andrew Wilson:

• Ukraine's Orange Revolution (2006), ISBN 0300112904
• Virtual Politics: Faking Democracy in the Post-Soviet World (2005) ISBN 0300095457
• The Ukrainians: Unexpected Nation, (Second edition published 2006-2007), ISBN 0300093098
• Virtual Politics: Faking Democracy in the Post-Soviet World (2005), ISBN 0300095457

--Irpen 19:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It still doesn't make sense to me. I disagree that governments have to consider the issues of political convenience and political correctness more than the media. Even so, if this is the most popular name amongst governments, regarless of the reason, it seems it should be used.

And what about the hundreds of media results that use Kyiv? It passed their editorial staffs. Basing an article name on what is incresingly becoming a split opinion in the media seems not good. It is better to base it on what official governmental organizations use. Ostap 20:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

All it means that the style manuals differ between media outlets. We have to check the usage and see which is a more common one. And what "official governmental organizations use" is nowhere in naming conventions while "most commonly used in English" is. You can't just bluntly say that Oxford and Webster are "wrong" because if they are, who is right? Can't be Wikipedia user:Horlo vs Oxford+Webster arguing who is more correct in Wikipedia pages. Sorry, --Irpen 20:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If what government organizations use is not in the naming conventions, it certainly should be. I am not saying that Oxford and Webster are wrong, I am saying it is possible to be more accurate. It looks like this is going nowhere. I think I will remove myself from the conversation, knowing that eventually this page will change its name. Ostap 20:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I would substitute "will" for "might" and agree with you on that. --Irpen 20:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on, it's inevitable. Ostap 20:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I would substitute "will" for "might" and would rather sayy "let's wait and see" noting that Wikipedia users are in no position to argue with the compilers of the most authoritative dictionaries and Encyclopedias of English no matter what Horlo thinks of his own credentials of the English grammar teacher. When (and if) the prevailing usage changes, we would in accordance with our existing conventions all right. --Irpen 20:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, please don't try to say what "the most authoritative dictionaries and Encyclopedias" are if you say things like "credentials of the English grammar teacher". Aparently, there are things about English common usage that you don't know. Like the fact that media is not the only thing that affects commonality, all right.

Thanks, Horlo 21:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

In reference to the above discussion about Time magazine researching the correct usage of a term, I reiterate my concern that for such a detail, which is pretty low on the priority list of the English-speaking world, Time has probably put very little effort into ensuring that either Kiev or Kyiv would be the correct usage. So rather than just griping about Time, I decided to look at media that SHOULD be using correct terminology for geographic discussion, because it is their speciality. I checked Fodor's, Lonely Planet, and National Georgraphic websites and just browsed through like I was looking for information about Ukraine, like a person normally would. I first ran into "Kyiv" on Lonely Planet, "Kiev" on National Geographic, but Fodor's apparently doesn't cover Ukraine, at least online. Maybe it's worth researching some more geography and travel-specific media. They should theoretically be more correct than generic sources. Srilm 05:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I just picked up Yekelchyk's Ukraine: Birth of a Modern Nation from OUP. In his translation note the author says that he makes a point of using Ukrainian transliterations: "Most Ukrainian place names are transliterated from Ukrainian, including some that have established English forms derived from the Russian spelling; for example Kyiv (Kiev), Dnipro (Dnieper), and Odesa (Odessa). Exceptions have been made for names of some historical regions, such as the Crimea and Galicia."[1]

But Yekelchyk is still the exception. Judging from the prepublication table of contents, Magocsi's upcoming Ukraine: an Illustrated History may use Kiev.[2]

It's hard to say to what extent this is influenced by the particular author, editor or publisher. Yekelchyk's book is aimed at students of modern history and world politics, while Magocsi's looks like it is for a more general audience. Of course my speculation here is neither here nor there, what counts for article titles is what is most commonly used, not so much why. Remember, the basic justification for the naming convention is "the articles themselves reflect recent scholarship but the titles should represent common usage."[*] —Michael Z. 2007-10-04 02:01 Z

I think that these two authors are actually very representative. This is just an opinion - I'm not sure who Yekelchyk is, but as you mentioned, it seems that he is writing for students of MODERN Ukraine, who are interested in what is happening now. People like Magocsi represent the old guard, people who came through the system when the only way to make it was to follow what the "Russia and all of those other little countries" faculty wanted. Now, that's changing, and people who follow what is happening on the ground are using Kyiv. By the way, I still haven't been able to find a Canadian Press handbook, (every Chapter's is out) but here's [3] a CBC article that is from the Canadian Press, and it uses Kyiv. I think that they are pretty honest with the copyrights, and when they run a story by Reuters they use Kiev. Thanks, Horlo 03:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The Big Picture

Hello,

The argument for the move all along has been that there are many ways to determine commonality, not just media organizations.

Wikipedia itself lists five: the advanced google, international organizations, media, encyclopedia, and government organizations. There is no preference given, and this all has to be taken together, with a bit of common sense.

I have never stated that media all use Kyiv. Others, however, have stated that all media use Kiev, and that is just not true. Please also keep in mind that one organization like CNN can publish hundreds of articles which use Kiev in a year, and that will skew any google news search. That doesn't necessarily mean that most media uses Kiev. Again, please go to the media sites and count the current use of the names related to the city, and don't just google it.

When considering academia, you must be extra careful, because people who write books are dependant on their universities for funding, and most universities, including the one where prof. Magosci works, have departments called "Russian and East European studies", "Russian and Slavic Studies" or something similar. They are obviously skewed in one direction.

With respect to other dictionaries, Oxford ED uses Kiev. However, according to the same Oxford ED, Wikipedia doesn't exist. Please keep that in mind - I'm not saying that I'm smarter than the OED, I'm saying that it isn't necessarily the updated authoritative guide to modern conversational English. And before you say that Wikipedia is a common noun, not a word in a language, please remember that Kyiv is also a common noun, not a word in a language.

With respect to government influence on common language, it is true that English does not have an academy. However, countries have schools, and schools use texts, and they are issued by the government. The government does not have a publishing department, but they tell publishing companies what they want, and those companies provide it. The government has the money, therefore the government gets what it wants. And EVERY government uses Kyiv. (Please note that I'm referring to the present, not the past).

With respect to Encyclopedia, Encarta uses Kyiv. Kiev is a re-direct. Yes, Britannica uses Kiev, but remember that this category is arguably split.

With respect to international organizations, they all use Kyiv. Please keep in mind that protocol is important in organizations such as the UN, and what was used yesterday is not important if the current standard has changed. Please also keep that in mind if you run a google test about what organizations use.

Finally, with respect to rushing to a move, please note that this discussion has been going on since pretty much the beginning of this article. In the archives, the first section is a naming discussion, and the first entry is somebody who wanted to move the page to Kyiv. Also, please note that throughout the archives, there are more people who want to move the page than who want to keep it at Kiev.

Thanks, Horlo 21:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

One correction. There aren't "more people who want to move" as consistently shown by polls. It's just those few who do are more motivated to type in those screens after screens while others write articles instead. I've commented many times on the rest and I see no need to do it again per WP:pestering. --Irpen 21:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, please look at the archives. There are 33 people who have supported the name Kyiv, and 21 who supported Kiev. Those numbers do not include the current discussion, archive 001, but previous ones. Actually, one of the first entries in the history of this page is a move to Kyiv. The arguments here are the same ones that were in the archives, but the world has changed since August, 2003. So should Wikipedia.

Thanks, Horlo 01:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter which is more common. Just follow WP:NC#UA, an established policy, which states, use Ukrainian National system. WP:UE, which is under development, needs to be changed to comply. 199.125.109.35 03:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

With respect to other dictionaries, Oxford ED uses Kiev. However, according to the same Oxford ED, Wikipedia doesn't exist. Please keep that in mind - I'm not saying that I'm smarter than the OED, I'm saying that it isn't necessarily the updated authoritative guide to modern conversational English.

Which dictionary do you favour as a reference for English? —Michael Z. 2007-10-04 02:44 Z

Hello, as a dictionary I use OED. When I am looking for a place name, however, I will usually go with National Geographic, or what a combination governments/UN use. Those two categories don't change names easily and for no good reason. Thanks, Horlo 03:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

But the question is "what is more commonly used", not "what is reflected by recent changes", according to WP:NC(CN), right at the top. (Anyway, National Geographic strongly favours "Kiev".)

"Wikipedia is not a place to advocate a title change in order to reflect recent scholarship. The articles themselves reflect recent scholarship but the titles should represent common usage."

The question mandated by the guideline is what is most commonly used in the English language, and the appropriate reference is one about the language. Style guides used by governments and the UN are swayed by politics, and they represent data points in a survey, not references about English usage. —Michael Z. 2007-10-08 20:35 Z

Wikipedia Policy

At least two lengthy pages of discussion have largely been on what the name of this article should be, according to the policy WP:UE. Above, an editor with IP address 199.125.109.35 has just pointed us to WP:NC#UA. WP:NC is a Wikipedia policy establishing the naming conventions used by the English Wikipedia. I would like to bring attention to this section of the policy:

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

The Ukrainian National system holds Kyiv to be the spelling of Ukraine's capital. Most proper arguments put forward against moving the article to Kyiv, have been made under the auspices of WP:UE.

If this was raised earlier, then I either missed it or missed the significance of it. From my knowledge WP:NC is the decider in naming disputes, if one name is in agreeance with this policy and the others are not. And to me, it appears that this policy seems to clearly advocate one name over the other.60.242.0.245 10:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Horlo 17:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This was not missed, but in fact pointed out repeatedly. If you look at that little quote in its context, you'll see that the guideline is about which transliteration system to use to convey Ukrainian words, and pointedly not about how to choose English names. I know this, because I wrote the guideline, and added clarifying text in response to horlo's earlier comments here.

For those of you who are having trouble catching on, I'll see about amending the guideline or moving it elsewhere, to make things crystal clear. —Michael Z. 2007-10-04 01:32 Z

Hello, thank you for writing the guideline. I just re-read it, to make sure I understood it. It says, For geographic names in Ukraine, the Ukrainian National system is used. For historic reasons, many names are also presented in Russian, Polish, etc. Could you please show me where it discusses how to choose English names?

Also, please keep in mind that "Kiev" is not an English name. It is a Russian translation of a Ukrainian name, which is also used in English. Thanks, Horlo 02:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll quote the guideline with an important bit underlined:

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

See Romanization of Ukrainian for details of transliteration systems.

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

The "general naming conventions" mentioned are things like this, which appears near the top of the same page:

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

This is justified by the following principle:

Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists.

I wrote this convention to help choose a transliteration system, not to justify the choice of a name. I'll fix it again so there can be no confusion.

Of course Kiev is an English name for the city! Why else would it appear in my English dictionary? —Michael Z. 2007-10-04 02:16 Z

Hello, it appears in your English dictionary because it's used in English. However, it is not an English word, but rather a transliteration of a translation.

With respect to most people not recognizing Kyiv, I give people's intelligence the benefit of the doubt. If there is a re-direct, like there is now from Kiev, and in the first line it says also Kiev, like it does now for Kyiv, nobody will lose any sleep. Even readers. Thanks, Horlo 03:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Michael Z, I had read both WP:NC#Use_English_words and WP:NC#UA; as you wrote the latter, then I must have misinterpreted its meaning and how it fit into the rest of the policy. If it isn't just me, then I would appreciate any clarifications you could make.

Horlo, are you saying that 'Kiev' is or was used to refer to a Russian city and 'Kyiv' to a Ukrainian city, or am I misunderstanding your posts also?

60.242.0.245 22:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I'm saying that Kiev is the Russian translation of the name of a Ukrainian city (it can happen when the alphabet is very similar), and that was transliterated into English. Kiev is a borrowed word, and not an English word. However, Kiev is different from words like Parliament, liverwurst, or tsunami in that it is the name of an entity which evolves and changes. Therefore, the name is English has changed, by most sources (not Associated Press or CNN, but Canadian Press, ALL English-speaking governments and MAJOR international organizations). Therefore Wikipedia should also change to reflect this current usage. Thanks, Horlo 23:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"Kiev" appears in the Oxford English dictionary because it is the most common name of the city in English.

Trying to qualify this with "not an English word, but rather a transliteration of a translation" is layered doublespeak, with no basis in any literature about the language. The name has its roots in the prehistory of both Ukrainian and Russian languages. Names are words, as their inclusion in the dictionary attests, and the majority of English words were originally borrowed from some other language.

But never mind the semantics. The introduction of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) makes it clear that the essential principal is to use the name most recognizable by readers of English. —Michael Z. 2007-10-05 20:22 Z

Hello, Kiev appears in the OED because the editors of OED put it there. They also put labour, harbour, and centre. That does not mean that those spellings are the most common in the Anglosphere.

What kind of proof would you like that Kiev is the transliteration of the Russian name for Kyiv? A few weeks back, you mentioned that Kiev is used by the OED, and when I pointed out that according to the OED, Wikipedia doesn't exist, you said that Wikipedia is a proper noun, not a word in a language. Kyiv is also a proper noun, not a word in a language, and that should be kept in mind when determining how much weight to give the OED.

Thank you for returning this discussion to the topic at hand. How does Wikipedia determine what is common? What is most recognizable by readers of English? There are five points outlined on the "naming conflict" page, and according to those points, Kyiv is more recognizable. Thanks, Horlo 21:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand any of these arguments. The OED lists labour, harbour, centre, labor, harbor, and center, and it does not say that the first three are the most common. The OED does not say that Wikipedia doesn't exist. What does this razzle-dazzle have to do with the question at hand? The OED is a descriptive reference to the language, edited by the best lexicographers, and based on the largest and most detailed lexicographical database of the English Language in the world. Who in there right mind fall for your argument that it "hardly reflects the real language?" and you know better. I think you just want to pooh-pooh it because you don't like what it says.

. I am saying that the OED puts labour first, and labor second. Which do you think is used more? Same goes for Kyiv and Kiev. When I say that the OED says Wikipedia doesn't exist, I mean that there is no entry for Wikipedia in the OED, even though there is one for wiki or wiki-wiki. Thanks, Horlo 04:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The basic point of article naming is to use the name most widely recognized by readers. A month of wikilawyering may distract us, but it can't change what we all know. —Michael Z. 2007-10-05 23:43 Z

Hello. Thank you for your post but WP:IDONTLIKEIT and IWONT. So, I will keep typing. See you again after two more full scroll-downs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irpen (talk • contribs)

Hello, the basic point is also use common sense. And I quote: However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. Also, Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing. I have all along argued that many things need to be considered, not only google, not only governments, but everything. That is not wikilawyering. I am trying to discuss both the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. Thanks, Horlo 04:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Common sense should be considered when the name is incorrect or conflicts with another Wikipedia policy. This has not yet been proven. Kiev goes by all of the policies and Kiev is correct. The "common sense" point is not the ultimate argument winner. Reginmund 05:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, common sense should always be considered. Thanks, Horlo 06:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Now can you explain your point of how common sense should be considered in this case? Reginmund 08:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Common sense should always be considered, not just in this case. An advanced google search shows 1,950,000 for Kiev [4] and 1,750,000 for Kyiv [5]. A difference of 200,000, or 10%. Not an overwhelming majority. Media use both. ALL major international organizations use Kyiv, encyclopedia are split 66-33 in favour of Kiev, and all English governments use Kyiv. That, plus the fact that it is the self-identifying name chosen by a democratically-elected government makes it pretty clear that the name of the article should be Kyiv. Thanks, Horlo 16:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

"I am not saying that it hardly reflects the real language"

So what exactly were you saying when you wrote "these sources hardly reflect the real language?"

Hello, I looked back through this discussion, and couldn't find where I said that. I have said that it is not the only thing to look for, and it doesn't necessarily reflect what people are using on the street, because there are omissions, like "Wikipedia", and things just take time to filter up to the editors. Thanks, Horlo 16:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

"When I say that the OED says Wikipedia doesn't exist, I mean that there is no entry for Wikipedia in the OED, even though there is one for wiki or wiki-wiki."

So how is this not bullshit, and how does it discredit the OED?

Hello, I am not trying to discredit the OED. I use the OED. However, I think that it is not the only thing that should be considered. Thanks, Horlo 16:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME says to to use the most recognizable name. That would be "Kiev". —Michael Z. 2007-10-06 09:04 Z

Why do you think that Kyiv is not more recognizable? Just because CNN says so, doesn't mean it's true. Thanks, Horlo 16:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Somebody click on Horlo's advanced Google search links above and tell me if you get results similar to what he reports.

Horlo, you did write that the OED and encyclopedias "hardly reflect the real language". If you don't like what a good source reports, you just make something up about it being out of date or not accurate. No one will be fooled. —Michael Z. 2007-10-08 20:26 Z

I suggested this before, but then helped to railtrack the discussion by misinterpreting a Wikipedia policy. Can we all agree on a definitive Google test, and then all see what results it will give, please? When we last used Google to check which spelling was most commonly used on the internet, different people were using different search criteria.

In some ways, this discussion reminds me of Talk:Aluminium/Spelling. So many people used each spelling, and found the other completely unrecognisable, that they were sure that their spelling had to be the most common for the whole world. The debate got quite interesting.

I think what we need to do is, after sorting out the Google issue and anything similar, lay out what we've got to show the commonality of each, and then weigh it all up to see if we've got one spelling that can be called the most common, rather than just common. If we can't, then at the very least we can achieve something by making sure that Kiev#City_name_evolution is up to date.60.242.0.245 14:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

OED uses British spellings, hence labour instead of labor, Oxford American Dictionary uses American spellings. It is not always easy to tell if a Wikipedia article uses British English, American English, Australian English, New Zealand English, or Canadian English. Occasionally people bring up that it would be helpful to note which version is being used somehow. 199.125.109.78 02:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The OED clearly identifies British, American and other kinds of English spellings, and it does not say that "labour" is used more commonly than "labor". But this is irrelevant, so let's not be distracted from the important points.

The naming conflict guideline is quite specific about how to choose names objectively, and what options to use in the Google search. The instructions are simple, and the results are clear.

• The Google test. Using Google's advanced search option, search for each conflicting name and confine the results to pages written in English; also exclude the word "Wikipedia" (as we want to see what other people are using, not our own usage). Note which is the most commonly used term.

When you follow these instructions, what results do you get? —Michael Z. 2007-10-08 20:26 Z

For some strange reason, the Google hits seem to go up when I disclude "Wikipedia". I received 38,600,000 hits foor Kiev[6] and 5,260,000 hits for Kyiv[7]. That makes Kiev seven times more common than Kyiv. Whether or not Horlo is altering the report of his results is another issue that should be taken up with the "common sense" argument. Reginmund 22:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I suspect horlo is simply reporting the results from some other search he'd tried in the past, and didn't bother clicking on the links he pasted above. Perhaps this is not the case: see below. Apologies to Horlo. —Michael Z. 2007-10-09 02:01 Z

My results are the same as yours.

And as the guideline says:

Before starting such a procedure, consider that very often (but not always!) the most predictable end result of the poll is the one that results from the Google test conducted with these parameters: ...

So before proposing a name change poll via WP:RM, consider whether the odds are worth it: you'll need to build a strong case if you propose a name change that strongly goes against a *clear* Google test result...

 —Michael Z. 2007-10-08 22:47 Z

Just to add my results to the mix (and keep in mind they're Europe-swayed as I'm currently located in Paris, France): "kyiv -wikipedia": 1,830,000 English pages for kyiv -wikipedia, "kiev -wikipedia": 2,070,000 English pages for kiev -wikipedia.

I used to be one of those that wanted to move everything over to Kyiv some time ago. Now, I think that it's more important to write the article rather than fight about spelling. It is always possible to use redirects to cover all possible spellings, and then in the header, use both: Kiev (Kyiv), or vice-versa. Just we'd then need to stick to use the primary throughout the rest of the article.

Whatever is decided, I am fine. Strongly pro-Ukrainians, please keep in mind: Kiev is a very multi-lingual city. Recently, there's been a stronger push for Ukrainian language in the capital, but I would suspect that at least a significant percentage of the population still prefers Russian on the streets.

I wrote this before somewhere: Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is not meant to force people to use one convention over another. It is meant to accurately represent the information. At present, the information is that Kiev is a Ukrainian city, but due to history, it's still perhaps better known by it's Russian name. Maybe Polish or German comes up from time to time. But when it comes to the Internet and news, the Russian spelling still predominates, even if that is only lightly (for some, but heavier for others).

In the end, I recommend that we stick to Kiev for now. Times change, and are changing. There are a lot more Kyiv spellings going around right now than even 2 years ago. We can either stall this dicussion for long enough (in which case little will probably happen), or agree that Kiev still predominates world-wide, and agree that when Kyiv becomes more common, we switch over. With such a strong push (if the wikipedia population is anything to be relied upon), this will happen sooner than later.

My two cents. ··· MNO (Hi!) 01:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Reginmund 01:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Just throwing this in. My results are based on my location in London. Reginmund 01:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Google results

I'm more confused than ever by the Google search results. I know that here in Canada, where French is the other official language, Google treats accented characters differently than it does in the USA for purposes of matching names. But I'm surprised that the results between editors vary so widely for no reason I can discern.

For example, in the advanced search as outlined in the guideline, I get about 40 million and 5M hits respectively, instead of around 2M for each like some editors.

• Kiev -Wikipedia 38,600,000 results in English pages
• Kyiv -Wikipedia 5,260,000 results in English pages

I confirmed the numbers by clicking right on these links in the preview. The results are also consistent whether I am logged into my Google account, or using a browser with no saved cookies from Google.com. —Michael Z. 2007-10-09 01:59 Z

Apparently "your results may vary". Here is what I get by right clicking on your two links.

Kiev - Results 1 - 10 of about 2,100,000 English pages for Kiev -Wikipedia. (0.14 seconds) Note: The first two of these are for Kyiv (Kiev).

Kyiv - Results 1 - 10 of about 1,840,000 English pages for Kyiv -Wikipedia. (0.23 seconds)

The results don't matter though if you use the proper guideline (WP:NC#UA). Google has a preferences link, click on that and change the language that the page was written in to English and you get the following results:

Results 1 - 10 of about 169,000 English pages for Kiev -Wikipedia -Kyiv. (0.12 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,790,000 English pages for Kyiv -Wikipedia -Kiev. (0.06 seconds)

Now tell me that Kiev is more commonly used in English. 199.125.109.88 13:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Kiev is more commonly used in English. I still trust Oxford's lexicographers more than Google's reported search results count, especially now.

Where is the preference link? I couldn't find it on the page (WP:NC#UA is a non-existent anchor on the general naming convention page), but when I run that last search I get on the order of 37 million[8] and 4 million[9] results.

It's hard to decide where the results count is screwing up. Searching English-language pages only, I get:

• Kiev: 39.5 M
• Kiev -Wikipedia: 38.5 M
• Kiev -Wikipedia -Kyiv: 36.6 M

• Kyiv: 5.4 M
• Kyiv -Wikipedia: 5.26 M
• Kyiv -Wikipedia -Kiev: 4.03 M

More fun still is to do a bit of math with anonymous's results above. Leaving out all results which mention "Wikipedia", there are 2.1 million for Kiev, and 169,000 for "Kiev -Kyiv", implying that 1.931 million pages had both Kiev and Kyiv. But there are only 1.84 M total results for Kyiv alone: I can live with this discrepancy—the result counts are estimates which may be further rounded off, and not exact figures. But do some more math: Kyiv (1.84 M) minus "Kyiv -Kiev" (1.79 M) means only 50,000 pages had both Kyiv and Kiev. One of these numbers must be bogus. Google results vary, but the "A -Wikipedia -B" search doesn't seem to be of a useful quality. (Your results may vary by orders of magnitude.)

Doing a similar calculation on my result totals yields a respective difference of 1.9 M and 1.23 M—not identical, but at least in the same order of magnitude.

But this is academic. When we followed the recommended Google search we all still get more results for "Kiev".[10] If someone can point out the "preference link" anonymous used, we can see if this version of the search creates a conflict in the guideline. —Michael Z. 2007-10-09 17:39 Z

All this is very confusing. What I mean to say is that when I click on the links for your results above I get numbers that are no where near the same. Ostap 20:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yup, they are very different from mine, but they also don't add up in a sensible fashion. Unless we can make some sense of this, it limits the usefulness of the different versions of Google search. Where did you find the "preference link"? All I could find was the recommendation I quoted above, at WP:NCON#Identification of common names using external references. —Michael Z. 2007-10-09 23:06 Z

Even if we clear our cookies and so on, our IP addresses rarely change (even if we're on dynamic IPs from our providers). Even if IPs change, Google still can determine where we're from geographically. This leads to exactly the same queries (potentially) returning (significantly) different results for different users. For this reason, I am a bit wary of the Google search test. ··· MNO (Hi!) 23:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Mzajac, when I click on your links I get 2,100,000 for Kiev and 1,840,000 for Kyiv. Its the same when I do the advanced search by myself. Ostap 14:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Google is pretty much the worst marker to use to judge popularity. Yes, it indexes a huge percentage of the web. But it also knows more about you as a user than you may imagine. It knows exactly where you're coming from, how many other searches you did, what links you clicked on before. Therefore, even the exact same search done from two different computers could yield dramatically different results. How about we include the city where the results were actually run from, and whether the results were received from a home computer, from work or from a public place (library, internet cafe).

It seems we have 3 distinct groups of people right now:

1. Those that get a significant amount more results for Kiev over Kyiv (Mzajac?)

2. Those with results about even (me)

3. Those that get more Kyiv than Kiev (Ostap?)

··· MNO (Hi!) 15:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I see two groups. Ostap seems to get a bit more "Kiev" than "Kyiv", until he uses the compound "Kiev -Kyiv" search, and then the results look confused (see above).

When you delete the browser cookie, then Google only knows your IP address, which can change or in some cases represent a pool of thousands of users. —Michael Z. 2007-10-09 18:03 Z

Still dicussing? Well why not have a laugh?

1. Kyiv 5,830

2. Kiev 41,600,000

and in similar manner

1. Kiev 16,100

2. Kyiv 19,500,000

Looks convinicing eh? --Kuban Cossack 16:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I have also posted my results on the previous section. Kiev wins hands down. Reginmund 22:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Kuban Cossack, you are correct, this is amusing. What I found particularly funny was that the links which you provided led to searches in Russian! However, we are discussing the name of a Ukrainian city, and we're doing it on the English Wikipedia, so please use English when running a search and in the Advanced test please limit the engine to find only pages in English.

I think that from this discussion we can agree on is that Google is variable to the point that a Google search is not a good enough yardstick for this discussion. There are other criteria, listed on the "Naming Conflict Resolution" page. They are: major international organizations, media, other encyclopedia, and governments. I suggest we focus the discussion on those points, and any other serious suggestions. Thanks, Horlo 02:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Tell me how Google is not a good enough yard stick for this discussion when it gives us an estimate of Kiev being approximately seven times higher than Kyiv. Reginmund 03:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Reginmund, your estimate doesn't apply in this discussion because it doesn't discount non-English citations nor does it discount references not related to the city. Eduvalko 03:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, the reason the google test is not a valid measure for this test is that it is always giving different results. Please read the discussion in this section: there are three different results from one set of links! User:Mzajac posted two links with his results, then user:Ostap R got completely different results, then user:Mno got other results, the Kuban Kazak got completely different results (of course using a google test in Russian, so that may not really apply here), and now you are getting different results, because you say Kiev is 7 times higher than Kyiv while only three weeks ago you said it was 25% higher.

The point is if a test cannot be repeated with the same results, it should be considered an invalid test. Sure, if the results fluctuate between 900000000000 and 9000000000010 or 50 and 55, the test may be considered valid. However, if one user is getting 39.5 million:5.4 million and another user is getting 2.1 million:1.8 million, that means that the test has serious issues. Any test which can be off by 37 million should not be considered valid.

Thanks, Horlo 03:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Mzajac, it seems like the test you are running is not from the advanced page. Here [11] is what I use for the advanced test. You will see the tab for languages, just set it to English. Then, re-run the test using Kiev, and I think your results will seem much more similar to mine. Thanks, Horlo 03:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

No, the searches I linked to above were in fact generated by Google's advanced search page, precisely following the steps from the guideline I quoted above. If you click the link you can see that the results are from English pages, in Google's blue bar on the page. —Michael Z. 2007-10-10 17:26 Z

There is a difference in selecting to return results in English using the Advanced page and selecting only pages that were written in English using the preferences link. When you go to Google [12], just to the right of the box where you can put in your search terms is the "Search" button and just to the right of that are two links, one to choose advanced search and the other to set preferences. What I meant by using WP:NC#UA was shorthand for using Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Ukrainian names. 199.125.109.26 12:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I still don't know what the "preferences link" you refer to is. Is something in the WP naming convention or in Google?

I know how to use Google's advanced search. As I mentioned above, I generated the link at the top of this section using the steps recommended in the guideline.

(By the way, #UA in a link is a page anchor, not just an abbreviation. This link doesn't work because there is no such anchor by that name, so linking to it just causes confusion.) —Michael Z. 2007-10-10 17:26 Z

Eduvalko, please do not discredit my estimate, especially when you have no idea what you are talking about. It says clearly on the link I gave that only English pages are included. Careless comments like this make your comments superfluous to the discussion and if you have nothing productive to say, you might as well not participate.

Horlo, you are misinterpreting the results. They didn't fluctuate from 30 million, They only changed when the search was altered. If you go back to the different links, you will find that this is the case. Reginmund 00:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Reginmund, from the same links posted above by Mzajac, the first score was 38.6 million, while 199.125.109.88 got 2.1 million, and so did OstapR. What results are you getting now? I'm getting: Kiev 2.06 mil, and Kyiv 1.85 mil. You're right, I did misinterpret. The difference is over 36 million, not 30 million.

Mzajac, why do you think that the results vary so much? What I see is that the results you get, even with the advanced search, are the same that I get on a raw search. I see that the "english only" tab is clicked in the links you provide, but the difference is crazy. Do you have any idea why that is? Thanks, 69.158.154.234 01:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC) I mean Horlo 01:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Mzajac, I just clicked on the links you provided at first, and there were no radio buttons clicked. Thanks, Horlo 01:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Reginmund, I will continue to participate in this and any other Wiki discussion and do not need your advice on how to go about it. I do not start out seeking to have a discourse with you on the Kyiv naming issue because it will be pointless. However since you are constantly commenting on this page that sometimes I decide to call you on some of your wilder assertions. And this will continue.

Horlo, Mzajac and others. Can we talk about the 38M Google hits for Kiev? Is this the unfiltered search? CheersEduvalko 03:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

These google test results are getting very confusing. Ostap 03:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Eduvalko, taking into account that you disregard perfectly legitimate Google results for reasons that you yourself do not understand and as I discourage you to take such actions, you hyperbolise my request into advice. I am not advising you. I am telling you not to make such idiotic claims and you can call it whatever you want. Advice, chastisement, McCarthyism, however, this gives you no excuse to refuse evidence of a claim that goes against your pride in submitting that you have nothing else to say and that your point has been disproven. If you digress this discourse from its original topic for the aforementioned reasons, there is no reason that I should take another post of yours seriously.

Horlo, you are disregarding the search for all the wrong reasons. Mzajac and I received the same results, anon ed has appeard to posted results without a link (apparently, he/she used a different criterion). Yet, there are other criteria that change the results such as removing Wikipedia, indifferentiating words, and using English in the preferences page. All links, (except for anon ed who didn't even cite his/hers) showed Kiev to be higher, whether it be 25% or 7 times. Reginmund 04:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, now something has changed, and I am getting different results. Please don't speculate that I was in error, because I checked and re-checked what I reported earlier, and it had been quite consistent since this very long discussion started.

But I just did a number of searches, and the result counts are all over the place. Over the last five minutes (from memory), raw searches for "Kiev" received ~43 M and 14.3M results, English search for "Kiev" got 38.5 M and 38.9 M. But just before that, English-only searches for Kiev were in the 2 M range. I have no idea why, but I have a feeling that it's the language filter that is inconsistent. —Michael Z. 2007-10-12 03:28 Z

Hello, Mzajac, I did not mean to imply that you were in error earlier. The reason I brought it up was that the results you had posted earlier were very similar to the results I got with a raw search.

Just something to think about - is there any way to measure the number of hits on Encyclopedia Britannica online and Encarta? Or, is there any way to objectively determine which of these is more widespread (besides a Google test?) Thanks, Horlo 04:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Main talk page

Please leave it alone. The article's title reflects the consensus. Now for anything, there can be found people who disagree. Some of such people are will to keep disagreeing and insisting on the discussing further until they like the result. This does not affect the status quo. I have no objections to Horlo's typing kilobytes of text here since this does not obstruct the page reserved for the article's improvement. But until there is an indication that the overall wikipedia consensus changed, the article stays were it is. --Irpen 03:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Irpen but the claim that there is consensus on the naming issue is a fanciful stretch even in the Wiki sense of the word consensus. For those that are not too lazy or selective in their memory can read and count in the archives that in the recent semicompleted and aborted polls that there was many editors for the change as were against. That is the indication that should be summarised at the top of this page.

Horlo, despite his Stakhanite endeavours to animate the discussion (surely deserving of a Barnstar medal) is not the only one heavily involved in this page. I would really like to see a listing of editors and how many kilobytes each has contributed. Have a good day. Eduvalko 03:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yet, there were more that preferred "Kiev". There's the consensus for you. Quantity of rhetoric should not be a determining factor in the article's name but quailty. Otherwise, I challenge any editor that opposes the spelling "Kiev" to a match for whom can type the most glyphs on the talk page. Reginmund 04:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're interested in a Wikipedian's contributions, try Kate's Tool. But let's not start a pissing contest: contributions by newbies are as valuable as any, or perhaps more valuable, because they have the potential to do so much more. —Michael Z. 2007-10-12 03:30 Z

The Topic at hand

Hello,

The topic under discussion here is the name of the article. There has never been consensus, except for the polls closed early either contrary to standard procedure or "because I ... deemed it closeable".

However, that is not what is being discussed. It appears that many editors are now doubting of the google test. Mzajac is getting 38 million hits for Kiev, as is Reginmund, while OstapR, 199.125.109.19, and I get completely - and I mean 36 million hits completely - different results, from the same links. Because of that, I submit other criteria should be considered.

Mzajac asked me which dictionary I use, and I replied that I use the OED. However here we are not discussing a word, but rather a name. In that case, I would not use a dictionary, but rather an atlas. As Eduvalko pointed out, modern atlases by National Geographic use Kyiv, while older ones use Kiev. Or I would look at what that country uses in English. (This is not only for place names, but also for other names, such as the Inuit, who consider Eskimo a pejorative term - therefore, I use Inuit). This implies, however, that the decision makers have a legitimate right to make such decisions. In the case of Myanmar, they didn't, as the government was a military junta (how is that pronounced?). However, as was recently demonstrated in the elections in Ukraine, the government there actually does have a mandate from the population.

"If that was unavailable, I would look at what a legitimate body, such as the UN, or various English governments, or National Geographic [13] use. The all use Kyiv.

Do these criteria seem rational?

Thanks, Horlo 05:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Did we forget to submit that anon ed performed the Google search on different criteria? It isn't wise that we jump to conclusions and say that the Google test is utterly pointless. Especially when we are unaware of the criteria that others are using. I suggest anyone who has any doubts please look over the other users' results and how they actually received them. Reginmund 05:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I forgot to mention that user:Mno also got the 2.01 mil result on a google test from Paris. The anon ed added that the advanced tab, with languages set for English, was used. Nobody is jumping to conclusions, user:Faustian also got the same results that I did a long time ago. There are other things to consider besides Google. Thanks, Horlo 06:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this here are the most constructive suggestions to date. I am not sure where the whole idea about using only Google came from. I remember there was a brief stint trying to follow Britannica some time ago (before I departed from WikiPedia), which, I guess, led to nowhere as we got back to Google. From the results, it seems that the results we're getting back are either pro-"Kiev" or close enough to be neutral (I consider 2m to be statistically indifferent from 1.8m). As such, I suggest that we all agree that the "Google Test" gives us +0.5 for "Kiev" and move on to other sources for further discussion. As we've already seen (and have been seeing since years ago), Google will return different results to different users. Maybe some won't use the Advanced settings, but then again, most users won't. As such, we may be getting back results that don't truly represent the population. But that's a tangent and I don't want to get into that.

As such, I propose that we agree on assigning some value for the Google Test (such as +0.5 as I mentioned above) and move on to the tests. At the end, we can do a simple vote count and then decide from there. Seem logical?

As an aside, if anyone's questioning where I came from, you can search for my history and the history of certain Kiev- and Ukraine-related articles, and see that I've been here some time ago and then left for various reasons. I am sure several users will remember me :) ··· MNO (Hi!) 06:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

They do :)). --Irpen 06:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Mno, welcome back.

What do you think of my other suggestions? These are actually the ones on the WP:Naming Conflict page. Thanks, Horlo —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 06:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Horlo, thanks for the welcome :) Can you please link to the page you're referring to? I've not been on WP for some time, so I forget how to actually get places. Must remember :) ··· MNO (Hi!) 16:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see this as a reason to omit the Google test. Notice how it always is in the range of Kiev being higher. That is no reason to omit it. Reginmund 13:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Reginmund, I never said we should omit it. I said we should assign a value to the Google Test and go on to do other tests. I think basing our decision only on the Google Test would be a bad idea. But I am in no way saying that we should ignore the Google Test altogether.

I suggest getting a list of tests we agree on, and assigning each a weight. Then, we will score each test a value from 0 to 1 (that is just easiest) and then multiply the result by the weight and in the end, we'll have our conclusion. I think this method will finally get most people to agree, or enough to have a decent vote passed. If people are skeptical, we can also agree to re-do the test in 1 year and then say 2 years from now. ··· MNO (Hi!) 16:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that you said that we should omit it. Yet, I never said that it should be the only criterion. If you have any other suggestions at a test, there is no reason that we cannot incorporate them. Reginmund 00:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, MNO, here is the page that I was referring to with the guidelines for determining common name. [14] There are six criteria, but the last one is Scientific Nomenclature, which I think doesn't apply here. Also, here is the section of the page which mentions self-identifying names: [15]. Thanks, Horlo 01:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Horlo and Reginmund, I think that Horlo's suggestion of using the established 6 (or 5 in our case as Scientific Notation doesn't aply) items from the Conflict resolution article is a good idea. I am not sure if this was tried before. I think a counter argument that a significant amount of members use is that there's no point to argue over the name, and that we should concentrate on the content. I think that this was the case previously, but now that there is (it seems) as significant amount of people concentrating on this, it's best to resolve this conflict so that we can all finally move along to writing the articles. In particular, if we switch over from Kiev to Kyiv, I don't think that someone could come in an say we are more biased than if we continued to use Kiev. ··· MNO (Hi!) 07:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a "significant amount of people", MNO. A very small amount but very significantly opinionated and motivated people. --Irpen 08:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Irpen is correct about the amount of people in the discussion. I would highlight that its only a couple of editors that have doggedly fought against the name change. Eduvalko 13:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Irpen is actually referring to hotheaded editors crusading to change the name, even when there is to much resistance to do so. One of those editors is you Eduvalko. Reginmund 14:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, MNO, if you want to see who the hotheaded editors are, please just read through some of this discussion. Even looking at this page, you will see who is a hotheaded editor. Also, please note that Irpen is more busy lurking on the talk page and reverting the title than actually discussing the topic. If you look at the number of people in the discussion, there are more who want to change the name to Kyiv. This is also true in the archives (before July, 2007, also).

I had presented the points from the Conflict Resolution points earlier, but they were refuted with such arguments as Kiev is nine times more popular on the Google test, and later it is 77% more popular, and later that same day,oops, really it is 25% more popular. Sometimes at first glance, it may appear that Kiev is more popular, but if you look deeper, you will see that Kyiv is the more common name.

I agree that it is important to focus on writing and improving the articles. I also find it interesting that people who say "the name is not important" will then fight tooth and nail to prevent a name change. Thanks, Horlo 14:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the last point the Horlo brings up is serious, and seems like it is quite true. I guess it's a status quouo that formed over several years at WikiPedia. I know for a fact there are several editors who don't get involved at all in this discussion, so I must agree that there are only a few editors who would like to change the name to Kyiv.

The only valid reason I see for changing the name to Kyiv is the Conflict Resolution policy. Otherwise, there's no point to continue these discussions. My other point that I already brought up would be to not use only the Google Test. It's 1/5 tests in the policy. However, I don't know the procedure. If there must be a vote and so on, and previous votes failed, I see no point in doing another one yet. However, I also don't see anything particularly bad about moving the article. The way WP works, through redirects, we won't lose any visitors. Also, with major media now beginning to accept "Kyiv" as the spelling, it is not something people would have never seen before. ··· MNO (Hi!) 18:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say that in general we are close to consensus for "Kiev", since that is the current title of the article, and of the hundreds of editors who have contributed, discussed, and read the article, only a few are arguing to change it. The discussion has been restricted to the few who are directly interested in discussing. If it looked like there was a risk of actually changing the article's title, literally dozens or hundreds would show up from Wikiprojects Cities, Ukraine, Russian history, and Russia, and from the Version 0.5 project (which are all listed on the talk page), as well as from the Village Pump once the call went out. Members of all of these projects are content with the current title of the article.

Regarding references: please don't make the mistake that an atlas is a substitute for an English dictionary. The two types of sources represent very different things.

An atlas represents one data point in determining what name is used in the wild. Atlases' editors decide how to name things, and many use local names instead of or alongside English names. A survey of the major atlas publishers' listing for Kyyiv/Kyjiv/Kyiv/Kiev/etc would be useful.

A good documentary dictionary on the other hand, is not just a single data point, but represents the best available research on English usage. The OED, for example, is a product of the single largest corpus of English lexicography in the world. A survey of recent dictionaries would be extremely useful too.

I had a look at the paper OED (2nd), and it doesn't have an entry for Kiev, but it does have the adjective "Kievan". I hope to get a look at the paper supplements and the online edition in the near future, to see if Kiev/Kyiv has been added. See Talk:Kiev#Mention in OED.

The Canadian Oxford (2nd ed, 2004) was created using Oxford's database, but is separate from the OED. It lists "Kiev /'ki:ef/ (Ukrainian Kyiv /'ki:ɪf/)" as the main headword. The dictionary guide explains that "The main headword represents the most common form in Canadian usage ... Alternative names in place name entries are given in bold type in brackets before the definition, preceded either by 'also called', or by 'called in German' etc. where the alternative name represents the usual form in the given language. Such alternative forms are included principally for their historical or political importance." (There is also a note on foreign pronunciations: "All pronunciations of foreign place names and people's names are transcribed as they are most commonly spoken by English speakers, .... Whether the pronunciation given is in the 'foreign' or Anglicized form reflects the degree to which the word has been naturalized by English-speaking Canadians.")

We should also include a survey of style guides, including ones for specific organizations, and more general ones. The Canadian Press guide was mentioned earlier, but no one has found a copy yet. Someone else pointed to the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute's submission guidelines[16], which uses "Kyiv". The Times specifically says "Kiev" (updated 2005-12-16).[17]

Regarding organizations and governments: since we completely disagree who uses what based on web searches, I am personally ready to disregard them unless we can cite specific style guides. The European Union's English Style Guide[18] points to Annex A5 of the Interinstitutional Style Guide[19] (updated 2007-07-01), which says "Kiev". The WHO Style Guide[20] (2004) says "Kiev". The ITU (styleguide.doc, 2007-09-06) uses "Kyiv".

General style guides like the Chicago Manual and Fowler's Modern English Usage are in use by the thousands of organizations which don't have their own, so including them is very important. —Michael Z. 2007-10-12 18:30 Z

Thanks for the thorough response. I think we could also include international English-language press: CNN and BBC being most common, although I also suggest the Washington Post, The New York Times, The Globe and Mail, The Guardian. Also, I would suggest we add a few Indian and Austrialian publications, but I don't know any to suggest some.

Otherwise, I strongly agree with the point about visibility of Kiev and almost no complaints.

··· MNO (Hi!) 18:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely, the more style guide references, the better. I didn't mean the above as an exhaustive list, just what was on my mind or easy to find in the browser.

I also found it remarkable that a number of detailed online style guides omit mentioning Kyiv/Kiev. I suspect they are taking the dictionary usage for granted.

Not exactly style guides, but from the horse's mouth:

• CBC News: "CBC News (representing radio, television and the internet) ruled that all its journalists should spell Ukraine's capital Kiev. A pledge was also made to review the spelling in six months." (2004-11-26)
• BBC News: "...we spell the Ukrainian capital 'Kiev' rather than the more authentically Ukrainian 'Kyiv'" (2006-04-26)

Newer or more authoritative references are desirable, because these may be dated. —Michael Z. 2007-10-12 20:41 Z

Hello, Mzajac, you bring up a few interesting points. I totally agree that just about every user from Russia, Russian geography, or Russian history would strongly oppose the change of this article to Kyiv. However, as this is the English Wikipedia, and we are discussing the name of a Ukrainian city, we should not focus on what people in Russia use or want, but rather on what is going on in the English world.

You mentioned that hundreds of editors have contributed to the creation of this article, and that is true, but you stated that only a few want the name to change. Please look through this discussion, and see how many want to keep the current name and how many want Kyiv. Also, please look through the archives from before this discussion, and see that 33 wanted the name to be Kyiv, while 21 wanted the name to be Kiev.

With respect to the polls, there were two recently. The first one was closed within 18 hours (admittedly "outside standard procedure"), and the second, even though most participants wanted it to continue, was closed in 3 days. In the second one, people who supported the move outnumbered those who wanted to stay by 2:1.

Could you please explain this sentence: An atlas represents one data point in determining what name is used in the wild. If you want to know what the capital of Alberta is, do you look in an atlas or dictionary?

Now, about the other criteria listed on the Naming Conflict page. First, media organizations use both. Earlier in this discussion, I had mentioned that the BBC had 6 hits for Kiev in the last year. You provided links to 13, but when I actually went to those links, there were only six related to the city, while the others were about sports teams, ballet, or a summary of what other media organizations use. I don't think that the BBC has a style guide, and writers are free to use what they want, because both names appear on the website. The US media uses the Associated Press style guide, which uses Kiev. The CBC uses the Canadian Press style guide, which I haven't been able to get my hands on. (I have been told by CBC reporters that they use the CP style guide, but that doesn't mean much here). By the way, even the Guardian sometimes uses Kyiv. This is a list of media organizations that use Kyiv, from a previous discussion: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) - http://ww8.president.gov.ua/en/news/data/6_17438.html · Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) - http://ww8.president.gov.ua/en/news/data/6_17438.html · CTV Television Network - http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20041125/ukraine_backgrounder_041124/20041125/ · Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty - http://www.rferl.org/newsline/2007/07/250707.asp · The Guardian (UK) - http://sport.guardian.co.uk/youtube/story/0,,2075889,00.html · The National Geographic (Magazine) - http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0603/feature1/index.html In Australia, Kyiv is more common (please see the discussion here: [21]

Personally, with respect to media, I think that National Geographic should get extra weight, because that's a geography publication. They use Kyiv: [22]

About major organizations, the disagreement is based on whether to look at the organizations' websites, or to look at google reports about the organizations. All major organizations, even the CIA, use Kyiv on their websites:

CIA: [23]

NATO: [24]

Red Cross: [25]

OSCE: [26]

UN: [27]

World Bank: [28]

There may be people who work for these organizations who do not follow protocol, but the website is an official organ of the organization, and therefore represents what the organization considers correct. If the organization did not sanction it, it would not appear on the website. It may appear somewhere else, but not there.

The next point is encyclopedia. Britannica and Colliers use Kiev, but Encarta uses Kyiv. Is there any way to judge which is bigger?

The next point is governments. ALL English-speaking governments use Kyiv.

Australia: [29]

Canada: [30]

India: [31]

Israel: [32]

The UK: [33]

The US: [34].

Again, there may be people who don't follow convention, but if it's the official government website, that's what the government officially uses.

When all of this information is considered together, the picture gets curiouser and curiouser. There are two clear points for Kyiv: major international organizations and governments. Google is a little for Kiev, media is mostly for Kiev, encyclopedia are 2:1 for Kiev - but again: is there any objective way to judge which encyclopedia is most influential?

Thanks, Horlo 02:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Again: "CBC News ... ruled that all its journalists should spell Ukraine's capital Kiev". BBC says "we spell the Ukrainian capital 'Kiev'."

"The CBC uses the Canadian Press style guide"—yes. The Canadian Press Stylebook (1992), p 282 recommends "National Geographic Society spellings are style for place names outside Canada." The National Geographic Style Manual,[35] under "Place Names", recommends "Follow National Geographic Atlas of the World." National Geographic Society, Atlas of the World, Eighth Edition (2006), map 68, has all of the city names in BGN/BCGN transliteration from Ukrainian, with the exception of the capital, which additionally has the English added in brackets: "Kyyiv (Kiev)."

So it looks like the official English spelling at the BBC, CBC, CP, and National Geographic is "Kiev".

Your other examples all have counter-examples. Try to cite verifiable sources. —Michael Z. 2007-10-13 09:46 Z

By the Numbers

Hello,

I was curious as to what the media actually use, so I went to their websites and looked, and this is what I found:

CBC - in 2004, an article was published in which was stated that "CBC will use Kiev". However, the quote does not end there. The second part of the sentence states that a review will be carried out in six months. Apparently, there is no consistency either way, as CBC uses Kyiv 35 times, and Kiev 30 times since that statement. The statement "CBC News ... ruled that all its journalists should spell Ukraine's capital Kiev" was just what somebody heard somewhere.

BBC - Here, I was curious as to what is happening, not what was happening. Therefore, I looked for what has been used in 2007. Kyiv appears 3 times, and Kiev also, surprisingly, 3. The BBC is very kind in separating types of articles - Sports (in which Kiev appears quite a few times; I don't understand this, as just about everybody else in the world accepts Dynamo Kyiv), Food, and news (however, some mistakes do slip through, as there are many mentions of Andriy Shevchenko in the news section).

National Geographic - I went to the National Geographic site, searched for "map of Ukraine" and found this: [36], dated march of 2006. The spelling is Kyiv. How does this apply to style manuals? Well, this means that National Geographic, CBC, The Globe and Mail, and CP use Kyiv. But apparently the BBC doesn't have a style manual. Or, they aren't very good at archiving their newspages, as I'm pretty sure that I saw a few articles about the recent Ukraine elections on the BBC, and they mostly used Kiev, with only a little Kyiv.

That whole argument, however, deals only with media. There are other points to consider:

My big question is: is it possible to quantify Britannica vs. Encarta? Or rather Britannica and Colliers (although I don't think that Colliers has been that important since Encarta, but they are one of the criteria mentioned on the Conflict resolution page) vs Encarta?

Mzajac, could you please explain this statement: An atlas represents one data point in determining what name is used in the wild. I don't think you're implying that atlas editors put any less effort or research into their decisions than dictionary editors? I think that they put just as much, but it is more focussed. That's exactly why I trust atlas editors more about place names than dictionary editors.

Thanks, Horlo 02:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

To add a few more news sources:

The Washington Post (online at least): uses Kiev. A search for Kyiv yielded 0 results, and many for Kiev.

CNN (International Edition, online): uses Kiev, even for Dynamo Kiev. There was 1 sole result for Kyiv: "Dynamo Kyiv", but that seems that it's a slip of a signle author, they use Dynamo Kiev a lot more.

International Herald & Tribune, online: use Kiev (677 results for publications since 1991). 1 article using Kyiv from 1999 - looks like CNN case above.

The New York Times, online: use Kiev (2266 results) vs Kyiv (2 results).

Reuters: use Kiev (160) vs Kyiv (0)

Bloomberg: use Kiev (367) vs Kyiv (1)

··· MNO (Hi!) 02:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, yes, those sources all use Kiev. However, those are all in the US, and I'm assuming that they all use the AP style guide. MNO, as you are not in Canada, could you please check the BBC website and see how many hits you get for Kiev in 2007? With all of the variation that we've seen here, it would be interesting if you got a completely different number than I from that source. Thanks, Horlo 03:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Horlo, I suggest that you write up your research methodology. If it is accepted by a journal, we can cite it in a Wikipedia article. Your method must be real kick-ass, because it makes all of my Google site searches, local web site searches, and library sources look like complete fantasy. In the meantime, I'll continue to put more weight on particular organizations' published style manuals and official statements on the subject than on isolated examples.

"Well, this means that National Geographic, CBC, The Globe and Mail, and CP use Kyiv." I totally want to see you explain how the National Geographic Society, CBC, and CP's style manuals are wrong about their own usage. (I'm also curious how you tie the Globe and Mail into it.)

National Geographic's authority says "Kyyiv (Kiev)", and the CP Stylebook follows National Geographic for place names outside Canada. CBC News's most recent known statement on the subject says that "all its journalists should spell Ukraine's capital Kiev." Your "just what somebody heard somewhere" was written by Blair Shewchuk, CBCNews.ca's Senior Editor of Journalistic Standards, on the CBC's own website. Likewise BBC News (which does have a style manual)[37] says "we spell the Ukrainian capital 'Kiev'"[38] (this "just somebody" is Stephen Mulvey, BBC's EU reporter). Regarding atlases and dictionaries: unlike an atlas, a modern dictionary represents research about English-language usage, which is the essential question here. Regarding "Kyiv is a proper noun, not a word in a language": "Kiev" is a centuries-old English toponym (while "Wikipedia" is not).

It is so tedious to keep repeating myself in responding to your non sequiturs. From now on, I'll just assume that interested editors are intelligent enough to get it, even if they don't have the patience to wade through all of this chatter.

But as I sign off, I'll remind you that none of this razzle-dazzle changes the guiding principle: "What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine" —Michael Z. 2007-10-14 07:57 Z

I am not too sure if I can agree with this point here - as I see it existing for the reason that people can find the article. Through a redirect, we can cover all possible uses (as we do now). ··· MNO (Hi!) 19:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, this is the basic principle of the guideline for choosing a name. The main naming conventions start with this:

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

This is justified by the following principle:

Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists.

This discussion is only about what is the most recognizable English name of the city. If you disagree with the naming principals, then that is a different discussion altogether. —Michael Z. 2007-10-15 16:48 Z

Hello, apparently yes, it took this discussion for some people to realize that google searches make mistakes. And apparently it took this discussion for some editors to realize that when you want to see what a media source uses, it is better to actually go to that media site rather than google what that media organization uses.

The link to the current National Geographic atlas is here: [39]. If you look carefully, you will see Kyiv, not Kyyiv, and no mention of Kiev. That is what National Geographic uses. Therefore, that is what the CBC, CP, and Globe and Mail (which also uses the CP style manual) use.

I understand that it is tiresome to repeat oneself. I have repeated this statement many times: "all its journalists should spell Ukraine's capital Kiev." is only half of the sentence. The second half says that the theory will be reviewed in six months. That's why the numbers I posted above focus on what happened more than six months after that statement.

Also, I understand why you are so tired of repeating arguments. For me, it is getting tedious to repeat my arguments to people who just want to focus on media (three weeks ago, it was people focussing only on Google, google, google) because they realize that if all of the other criteria are considered together, Kyiv will win. Mzajac, I completely understand your frustration. Thanks, Horlo 14:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No. An article entitled "Feature: Ukraine's Revolution" is not the "current National Geographic atlas"—I could find all kinds pages on their site which say "Kiev," but they are not the atlas either.[40][41][42][43][44]

The NGS Style Manual says "Follow National Geographic Atlas of the World":[45] It is also the authority recommended by the Canadian Press, and apparently even you "trust atlas editors more about place names than dictionary editors."

• National Geographic Society, Atlas of the World, Eighth Edition (2006). ISBN 07-9227-542-X. (NGS description)

Map 68 in this edition covers Ukraine in the most detail, and it says "Kyyiv (Kiev)." —Michael Z. 2007-10-14 16:26 Z

Hello, yes, I trust atlases more than dictionaries when it comes to place names. Personally, I find it difficult to believe that CBC, CP, and National Geographic use Kyyiv, because I've never seen that anywhere, except on maps that translate names phonetically. The most recent thing that I could find from National Geographic which states the name is the article I listed above, which uses Kyiv. However, with the talk of all of these names, it appears that manuals of style are not necessarily strictly adhered to, as both Kyiv and Kiev appear in many media outside the US.

Also, I mentioned that media is mostly for Kiev. I will accept that there is a three-way split between Kyiv, Kiev, and Kyyiv.

However, that is only one of the criteria on the Naming Conflict page. Governments all use Kyiv. Major international organizations all use Kyiv. One point which I am curious about is which Encyclopedia is more common - Encarta or Britannica? Britannica uses Kiev (so does Colliers, but I think that Colliers is not as influential anymore with the rise of Encarta, but that's my opinion). Is there any way to judge which is more widespread - Encarta or Britannica? Thanks, Horlo 17:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, "Kyyiv" is a transliteration of the native Ukrainian, and no one actually uses it in English—it is only seen in atlases, and certainly is not part of a "three-way split". Given an official reference which says "Kyyiv (Kiev)", which name do you think ten out of ten editors will use in their publication? And I posted five links to National Geographic pages which are just as recent as yours, where they use "Kiev" and not "Kyiv". But what is used by an organization is more varied than what their official style manual recommends. Please go ahead and publish your research about actual usage, but until you do, it seems we can only cite National Geographic's style manual if we are going to say what they officially use (and this applies to the Canadian Press, CBC, etc. as well).

Regarding international organizations, plainly they do not all use "Kyiv". I'll quote myself as a reminder:

The European Union's English Style Guide[46] points to Annex A5 of the Interinstitutional Style Guide[47] (updated 2007-07-01), which says "Kiev". The WHO Style Guide[48] (2004) says "Kiev". The ITU (styleguide.doc, 2007-09-06) uses "Kyiv".

Regarding which encyclopedia is more common, influential or widespread, the naming conventions do not recommend such research on our part, and neither would I. Let's just report what the encyclopedias say.

Again, all these details are just a distraction. We all know which spelling "the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize." —Michael Z. 2007-10-15 17:07 Z

Horlo, the answer is obvious:....Do a Google search!

BTW The various editions of National Geographic atlases in our local Chapters have both spellings. Rather inconsistent of them. Have a happy day Eduvalko 13:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Atlases published at different times, for different markets, I suppose—as we discussed above, an atlas isn't necessarily meant to reflect the most common name in English, the way a dictionary is.

But only the particular edition cited above is the one cited as the authority in National Geographic's style manual. (And as can be seen in the variation on their web site and magazine, their editors don't slavishly follow it.) —Michael Z. 2007-10-15 17:07 Z

Michael, but I see that dictionaries are also edited and published for local markets to reflect local usage which then does not make a dictionary a better arbitrator for our question. Cheers Eduvalko 21:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That is no excuse to omit a dictionary's merit in this discussion. It still has a substantial effect on the English language. Reginmund 22:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that makes it a worse arbitrator. We can just consult the various local dictionaries, as well as general ones, and we'll still see that "Kyiv" is not the most common English term.

I believe the OED attempts to be a broad reference about English usage in general, but much of it as not been updated recently, and anyway it doesn't have "Kiev" (but see Talk:Kiev#Mention in OED). It looks like Oxford's various local dictionaries have specific material added by their individual editorial staffs. For example, the Canadian Oxford Dictionary (2nd, 2004) gives the alternative Ukrainian name "Kyiv" under the main headword "Kiev", as well as under its own secondary headword which refers to the main one. The American Heritage Dictionary (4th, 2004)[49] has an alternate headword "Kyyiv", but does not present this as an alternative English name under the main headword "Kiev".

Some atlases are sold for local markets too, are they not? Anyway, many of them seem to provide "Kiev" plus a transliterated local name (I've seen Kyyiv in several, and I recall both Kyjiv and Kyiv in some atlases somewhere).

So far, I don't see English dictionaries or atlases, general or local, supporting a case for "Kyiv" as a more common English spelling than "Kiev". —Michael Z. 2007-10-15 23:54 Z

Support whichever one you will, but this is not a spelling issue. It keeps coming up as a spelling issue, which is misleading. I don't think that anyone here would disagree that "Kyiv" is the most common spelling in English of the Ukrainian name of the capital city, just as "Kiev" is the most common spelling in English of the Russian name of the capital city. A spelling issue would be "Kiev" vs. "Kiyev" -- or -- "Kyiv" vs. "Kyyiv". Even the Encyclopedia Brittanica, which has been used as a support for the "Kiev" camp, tacitly acknowledges this in the first few lines of their online article. "Kiev" is one possible English spelling of a transliterated Russian word, whereas "Kyiv" is one possible spelling of a transliterated Ukrainian word. Now, if you're arguing about which is the most common name of the city in English, that is a different story. http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9106466/Kiev Srilm 00:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Britannica spells the name and titles the article "Kiev", and its first line says "Ukrainian Kyyiv , Russian Kiyev" (BGN/PCGN transliteration from the respective languages). Clearly their view is that "Kiev" is the primary English name (and they wouldn't deserve the legacy of the British Imperial encyclopedia's name if they adopted new foreign spellings willy-nilly).

But the situation is more complex than what you describe. "Kyiv" appears in the Canadian Oxford Dictionary (as a secondary headword), it is used in English-language correspondence and publicity by many governments and international organizations, has been used on and off by the mainstream news media, National Geographic, and some academic publications, and is permanently inscribed in the English names of Ukrainian organizations with international profiles such as universities, publishers, and football clubs. "Kyyiv", "Kiyev", and "Kyjiv" are exclusively seen in the context of transliteration from foreign languages, while "Kyiv"—despite the fact that the Ukrainian government invented a new transliteration scheme to justify its spelling—is practically always used just as a name in English. This particular spelling is in the process of being adopted into English as another name for the city. —Michael Z. 2007-10-16 16:54 Z

All true, but I didn't intend to address all of the subtleties of the situation in my brief post. My only intent was to highlight that Kiev/Kyiv is not a spelling issue, which Brittanica acknowledges by noting the different phonetic qualities of the two distinct words. I would certainly agree that Britannica's view is that Kiev is the primary English name (that's why it's the title of the article), as opposed to Kyiv -- another name, not another spelling. Kyiv is not another spelling of Kiev. It is a translation of another word in a different language that sounds different when spoken properly. Incidentally, I have seen Kyyiv and Kiyev used outside the context of transliteration, i.e. in normal writing. Srilm 13:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, in those terms, it appears that Britannica considers "Kiev", "Kyyiv" and "Kiyev" to be three separate names. I don't know where "Kyiv" falls within this distinction, because they don't mention that spelling. Your interpretation is a valid one—But since "Kiev" and "Kyiv" are by far the most-used in English writing, and Kyyiv and Kiyev are BGN/PCGN transliterations from two other languages, it also may be that Britannica would consider "Kiev" and "Kyiv" to be two different spellings of the same English name (I know, they're usually pronounced differently, but then so are many British–American word pairs, like aluminum/aluminium, mum/mom, etc.).

If Kyyiv and Kiyev are used in normal English writing, this is exceedingly rare, and neither can be considered a normal correct English spelling of the name. I would guess it's a case of someone choosing to transliterate every single place name, or an editor hypercorrecting after seeing something like "Kyyiv (Kiev)" in the National Geographic Atlas of the World. —Michael Z. 2007-10-19 04:39 Z

Hello, the point has been that Kyiv and Kiev are both used by media. By the way, the reason I brought up the three-way split was because you mentioned that CBC and CP use what National Geographic uses, which is Kyyiv. That would be quite influential, if everybody in media followed their style manuals.

One of my points has always been that this is not the only way to judge commonality.

Major organizations do use Kyiv. Mzajac, I checked the link you provided for the WHO, and the only thing that I found about geographic names was to follow the United Nations standard. I couldn't find the UN style guide online. Again, here is their website: [50].

Nato: [51]

World Bank: [52]

CIA: [53]

If you have any information about these organizations, please put them up.

Also, governments now all use Kyiv.

Britannica uses Kiev, but Encarta uses Kyiv.

Where do we go from here? Thanks, Horlo 03:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

In the WHO Style Guide,[54] p 93 has "Ukraine ... Capital city: Kiev" in the table of Member States and Associate Members of WHO, and p 96 (Place Names) states "English/approved name: Kiev, Local/other name: Kiyev, Kiyiv, Kyiv." —Michael Z. 2007-10-16 04:23 Z

Hello, interesting about the WHO. In the beginning, under "geographic names" they say "follow UN conventions. The only current things that I've seen from the UN have been with Kyiv. Actually, I think that it was one of the first organizations that switched to the new spelling. Do you have the UN style manual?

Do you have anything else about all the other organizations? I still think that they all use Kyiv. Thanks, Horlo 01:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hm, you're right: it looks like there is more to it. Under "Geographical designations and regions," the style manual says (p 10)

Merriam-Webster’s geographical dictionary, 3rd ed. (Springfield, MA, Merriam-Webster, 1997) can be used as a guide to the spelling of common geographical entities. In general, WHO follows United Nations practice with respect to geographical terminology. However, situations may change, making it difficult to keep up with the latest developments. If you have any doubts on the acceptability of a particular name or designation or the status of a country with respect to membership of WHO, you should check with the Office of the Legal Counsel (LEG).

For further information on geographical designations, see Member States and Structure of WHO.

Then they quote from the UN a long list of WHO members including "Ukraine ... Kiev", updated 22 July 2003, with a note:(p 85)

The listing of capital cities is provided for general information purposes; however, it cannot be relied upon as authoritative. The United Nations, which is the source of information for this list, does not maintain an official list of capital cities.

And finally there is a much longer list of place names including "Kiev", without any cited source.(p 95)

So their style manual recommends 1) using "Kiev", or 2) consulting Merriam-Webster's (I suspect it says "Kiev"), or 3) following the UN (which only has a paper editorial manual published 1983). To see what the UN uses, we have to resort to anecdotal evidence, i.e. searching, and as you know this is fraught with disagreement about the meaning of the results. In my quick survey, it appears that UN uses "Kyiv" a little bit more often on un.org.ua, but "Kiev" significantly more on un.org (e.g.). The WHO also appears to use "Kiev" significantly more on their site.

So when WHO editors take the trouble to check their own style manual, and follow through by consulting the authority (M-W), they will clearly see that "Kiev" is the correct usage. In a critical situation, they might go to the trouble of checking with their legal department, but we don't know what they would say.

This is another case where you could argue that they should be using "Kyiv"—although this isn't really supported by either any references, just by the anecdotal evidence: "Kyiv" is a significant minority usage. But most common usage, and even their own published authority and references clearly indicate that the WHO still uses "Kiev" in practice. My interpretation is that "Kyiv" is probably in the process of being adopted, but is still not the most commonly used name by the WHO. —Michael Z. 2007-10-17 17:30 Z

Michael, its a pleasure to read a thoughtful, researched response. Possibly the reason why some of the WHO editors have diverged from their style manual and have begun using the Kyiv name is that the manual and Mirriam-Webster reference are out of date to pronounce on this question. Regards Eduvalko 18:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sure there are lots of reasons for diverging, and it may well be that the WHO's legal department or a senior executive have made a ruling, or that individual writers simply feel that Kyiv is correct. I'll write more about diverging from style manuals a bit later. —Michael Z. 2007-10-19 05:28 Z

Hello, Mzajac, it is interesting to see that. My take from the WHO manual is to first follow what the UN is using, then check a dictionary. When I look at official UN sites, I always see Kyiv. That does not mean that people who work in the UK do not occasionally use Kiev, but people (even in this discussion) still say The Ukraine, also. That doesn't mean that the official name - and most common name - isn't Kyiv. Also, please note that the ITU style guide was updated in February of 2007, while the Merriam dictionary cited was dated 1997 (even the US didn't use Kyiv yet at that time). :::::[55],

[56]

[57]

Also, in the statement by the US Government when it adopted Kyiv, Tom Casey explained "that's how NATO and the UN are spelling it" [58]. Perhaps the US government and NATO may know something about the UN that we don't.

The pages here show that the official spelling is Kyiv. I'm not saying that they should use Kyiv, I'm saying that they do use Kyiv. Just as possibly somebody in the CIA may publish something that says Kiev (perhaps somebody with romantic ties to the cold war), that doesn't change the fact that the CIA uses Kyiv. With these types of organizations, there IS an academy, and others are wrong.

Same goes with other organizations. The name has changed, and soon even CNN will. My take on this is that the governments waited to see what would happen politically, whether Ukraine would survive and if it would be worth changing the names. However, with Ukraine again hosting the most transparent and free elections in that part of the world, an independent and Ukrainian-speaking country is something that CNN, AP, Reuters, and Interfax will just have to get used to. Thanks, Horlo 01:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't disagree with much, but the word in the WHO's own style manual still carries more concrete weight than "perhaps they know something that we don't".

You point to UN links where they use "Kyiv", and I can point to as many or more UN links where they use "Kiev"—if we keep it up then we will have spent a lot of time assembling anecdotal evidence. All this shows is that "Kyiv" is definitely being used much more than it used to be.

But you conclude by predicting what CNN will do in the future, and offering your analysis on the grand strategy of westerners adopting the new spelling of Kyiv. Could be, but so far this is speculation.

As you say, most style manuals haven't been updated to say "Kyiv" yet (even though it's easy to find many which counsel against writing "the Ukraine"). Most people are not used to seeing "Kyiv" in print more than "Kiev". I don't think there is a basis to say that the name has changed, and the basic principal of titling articles around here is "what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize". —Michael Z. 2007-10-19 05:28 Z

By the way, the 1997 Merriam-Webster Geographical Dictionary can be searched at http://books.google.com/, and you can read the full text of the Kiev entry there (p 592). Apologies to Srilm, because it appears that "Kiyev" might be considered an English spelling, but still clearly extremely rare. The entry starts with "Ki·ev also Ki·yev \'Kē-if, -ef, -ev\; Ukrain. Ky·yiv \'ki-yē-ü\." (Kudos to M-W for including the first authentic-looking Ukrainian pronunciation that I've seen anywhere. And a big wet raspberry, because the otherwise good entry fails to clearly mention that this is the capital of Ukraine, and not only of an oblast.) References like this one represent the state of the English language today. —Michael Z. 2007-10-19 05:52 Z

All governments use "Kyiv"? Not really:[59], note the "v" in the street name. Note the use of "Lviv" (and "Kiev") on this page. Belgium does happen to be the place where the EU and NATO have their headquarters ... The Dutch embassy uses both spellings on their website ([60] and [61]). Finland has a problem: in Finland itself they use Kiev to name the town, but Kyiv in the address (if you switch to Swedish or Finnish, the same switch occurs). The website of the Finnish Embassy in Ukraine is on a Ukrainian server and only uses Kyiv, no surprise there: [62] Pan Gerwazy 12:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, you are correct that Belgium uses a different spelling, as does Japan, China, Russia, and Mexico. However, as we are dealing with the English Wikipedia, it is important that English-speaking governments use Kyiv. Really. Thanks, Horlo 01:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

But all of those examples are English-language web pages. Perhaps anglophone governments do carry more weight (not sure what I think about that), but do we really know that many or most of all 52 of them use "Kyiv"? —Michael Z. 2007-10-19 04:39 Z

Canada: [63] UK: [64] US - see above Australia: [65] India: [66] Israel: [67]

I think that although this may not be an exclusive list of all 52 countries where English is an official language, it constitutes the majority of the English-speaking world. Thanks, Horlo 04:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

In England we use centre, honour, labour. In the US we use Center, honor, labor. Which is right , which is wrong. From the information given it looks like there are currently two common ways of spelling Kyiv. Bandurist 19:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

But center and centre are two different spellings of the same word, in the same language, with the same pronunciation. Kyiv and Kiev have different pronunciations and represent the translation of two different words in two different languages. I've stopped arguing for one or the other, I just believe it's important for people to realize that this is not a spelling issue. For what it's worth, on my most recent visit to Kyiv/Kiev (September), I noticed that not a single Ukrainian corrected my pronunciation, no matter which pronunciation I used (Russian or Ukrainian), when speaking English. However, I have been corrected twice so far by native English speakers living in Kiev/Kyiv for using the Russian pronunciation. Not sure what is driving that. Also of note, I saw a sign in a bookstore, in Ukrainian, that referred to the capital as Київ/Киев. Interesting to note that the word Киев does exist as an exact duplicate of the Russian word in the Ukrainian language. I suppose this is similar to some words from the French language that are spelled and pronounced exactly (barring accents) the same in English.Srilm 23:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Киев is not a Ukraian word, it exists in russian. Maybe that book was written in 2 lanuages, but the only Ukrainian language version is Kиїв. Mona23653 14:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)mona23653

My take

Why is it so difficult to figure out what even a single organization uses? Why are all of the Google searches so mixed up? (They're not so unclear, in my opinion.) Why do organizations' manuals say one thing or another, yet on many cases they use the other, or the one?

The simple answer is that most people don't care. They just don't care as much as we do. Not due to carelessness, but merely because they've never had a reason to be asked the question.

Most folks on the street, Wikipedia readers and editors, reporters, writers, even chief editors and agency heads are very pragmatic. They will write whatever they've read before. When they see "Kyiv" for the first time, they may wonder what that is about, or they may just not care about spelling (yes, even some journalists!). Or they might just decide to check a reference, and most likely it will confirm the old way of spelling "Kiev".

This is the natural momentum and conservatism that the adoption of new ways faces. Until it has been overcome, the new ways cannot be considered to have been adopted.

So has the spelling "Kyiv" been adopted in English?

Where it is to someone's advantage to adopt the new spelling, generally for political or diplomatic, or sometimes editorial reasons, it has. And where it isn't, it has not.

The UN, a body run democratically by its members, uses what its member Ukraine has suggested it use. All of its web sites in Ukraine, where the staff is constantly aware of Ukrainian relations, use "Kyiv". Outside of Ukraine, the high-profile pages may use "Kyiv", but many more, including recent ones, just use whatever the writer was used to: often "Kiev".

Many international agencies follow suit. The WHO's official references all indicate "Kiev". But on their web site, a substantial minority of pages uses "Kyiv". Where does that come from? It's because someone there who cares is trying to use "Kyiv", but the organization as a whole does not care all that much. Maybe it is their official policy, but it's not important enough for them to enforce it across the board or to update their style manual.

Various countries' diplomatic services, in the interests of diplomacy, use "Kyiv". Some governments too, like the US State department, and apparently the Canadian Foreign Service.

National Geographic, when publishing exciting feature articles about the Orange Revolution, made the editorial decision to use "Kyiv". The following year, when they covered the anniversary of the disaster in "Chernobyl" [sic], they used a mix of Kyiv and Kiev. But their online references, the Ukraine Facts page and their map server still say "Kiev", and the 2006 edition of their authoritative atlas says "Kyyiv (Kiev)". Recent pages on their web site still show a mix.

Some media (especially in Canada, where there is a vocal Ukrainian minority) started using "Kyiv" in the heady days of the Orange revolution, but since then, it has not been quite so obvious. (does anyone have a 2006 CP Stylebook?).

This is my overall impression, after looking at this question in more detail than ever. In places where change is fast or where people are aware of Ukraine, in international organizations and the press, "Kyiv" is seen in a scattering of official usage, but it has not been generally adopted where there isn't a specific incentive to do so. In other places which are more conservative or slow-moving, in reference books and amongst the general public, there is some consciousness of "Kyiv", but the established usage is clearly "Kiev".

We may be around the tipping point of adoption, but we can't know that until we have passed it. Based on Wikipedia's naming policy and my understanding of the facts, I can't justify moving the article today. —Michael Z. 2007-10-19 07:03 Z

That's my take also. Since I tend to prefer a reader-focused encyclopedia, my criterion would be, "is this where people would expect to find the article?" I think today it isn't quite---having it at Kyiv wouldn't be ridiculous, but it would be somewhat surprising to most readers, whereas having it at Kiev would be expected by most native English speakers except some ethnic Ukrainians and academics. The trend is clearly towards Kyiv, though, so that may not be true in a few years. --Delirium 00:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly

Mzajac, I agree with you completely on most things that you said. Most importantly, I've been saying all along that most people don't really care. If you ask them what the capital of Ukraine is, most people will wait until they google it to answer you. (just as an aside, when I google "capital of Ukraine" I get this [68], which shows Kyiv). They don't care. Just like they don't really care that the spelling of the capital of China has changed, and the spellings of many cities in India have changed. It happens. Build a bridge and get over it.

However, I disagree with you on the point where you say that people have changed because changing provides them an advantage. I actually assume good faith - when people see that that is what you prefer to be called, that is what the majority will call you. This is evident not only with place names, but also in the names of food (how do you pronounce "gnocci" or "fajita"), and people ("Miroslav Satan" or "Jorge Garbajosa"?)

Also, I don't think that when people see the new spelling of Kyiv, they will look in an old reference book. They will probably google Kyiv, find that it is the name of the capital of Ukraine, and then, see the paragraph above. Again, it is just not that important to most people. Again, assume good faith.

Finally, I think we have reached the tipping point. Sure, there are places where kiev is more common, but there are also places where Bombay is more common, and I'm sure you could even find people who think that communism is a good idea.

Just because it's in the media, doesn't mean its true.

Thanks, Horlo 13:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Errrm... can you please explain what communism has to do with this discussion and whatever you are talking about that itsn't "true". Reginmund 16:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, my point is that you can find anything in the media and on the internet. That doesn't mean that it's common. There are academics publishing books extolling the virtues of communism and marxism, but that doesn't mean that people believe them, or that those views are common. People who want to know what the capital of Ukraine is will google "what is the capital of Ukraine" and then make a judgment call about which source to use. I think - original research - that people are more likely to trust the UN or the government of the country rather than CNN or the New York Times. That's why even though it's in the media, it's not necessarily true. Thanks, Horlo 23:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The media are more likely to represent commonality. Hence, they don't care what is used. They don't have a manual of style for their editors. As long as it's correct, it is acceptable. However, the UN and foreign goverments do so to change their "official spelling" for diplomatic purposes. That doesn't make it right either. Nor do the media have an agenda when spelling the name of the city. Discussing it on the other hand... Reginmund 23:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, please read Mzajac's extensive list of media and which manual of style they use, which he researched and presented above. My point is that many media people disregard it, and so it is not completely for Kiev, but mostly for Kiev. However, all major English governments spell it Kyiv, and all major organizations use Kyiv. Thanks, Horlo 01:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have read Michael's post and I based my argument off of it. However, the fact that all major organisations and governments use is just foor diplomatic purposes. Basically, they are just acting off of the Ukrainian government. Reginmund 01:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, If you've read the discussion above, you will know that media do have style guides, even though they are overlooked.

I don't think that governments just do things to be diplomatic, especially in this case. The US government didn't start using Kyiv until it saw that there was a good reason to do so - that the country was stable, and that people started using the name. Also, I don't see how much diplomatic benefit the CIA would get from changing the name to Kyiv. They did it because that's what people call it. Thanks, Horlo 02:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The U.S. government and the CIA did it because of their diplomacy towards Ukraine. They wouldn't have any other reason to do so, especially when the usage of Kiev was and is much more common. Reginmund 03:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, no Kyiv is more common. Such statements are not really conducive to discussion. I have tried to present arguments here about why Kyiv has become more common. Through this discussion it has become clear that Google results vary too much to be the only source. It does provide a small advantage for Kiev, but not one strong enough for it to be the only criterion. Others, such as those presented on the Conflict Resolution page, should be used. According to those measures, Kyiv is at least as common as Kiev. Thanks, Horlo 01:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That is absolutely one of the biggest problems with this issue. I think that people have this disillusioned view that the guy who writes the style guide for CNN has spent hours ensuring that either Kiev or Kyiv is the correct way to refer to the capital of Ukraine. In reality it was probably more like 3 or 4 mintues looking at a map, checking a couple of encyclopedias and then on to the other hundreds of decisions that have to be made that day. I find it unlikely that you would find anyone in the research department who knows why some people use Kiev and others use Kyiv, and what the difference is between those two words. Authorities about anything love to verify information using other authorities as a source, which creates an almost endless "information loop" that is very resistant to change. Unless Ukraine plunges into civil war or a Ukrainian doctor cures cancer, most people will remain unable to point to it on a map, much less know something of its culture and history. It's just not important, and the average person doesn't care. I'm sure we have all seen a news report that deals with an area that we are expert at -- my profession is in the aviation industry. A good portion of my work involves debunking what was on ABC Nightly News yesterday. The media gets a lot of stuff wrong, all the time. 75.66.91.10 17:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Horlo 23:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess then we found a fundamental flaw in the WP Naming Policies. As such, we are really at a cross-roads. On the one hand, we can disregard the policy and go on naming the article Kyiv just because we wanted to. (However, this is unlikely to happen due to the number of editors on the Kiev side.) Or, we could follow the Policy and just call the article Kiev. Since, as we seem to have agreed by all the discussion prior to this, people don't care (but not out of bad faith), there seems to be no point to continue arguing over this further. The only valid reason I see for changing to Kyiv is for good faith. ··· MNO (Hi!) 00:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, actually, again, this is getting back to the point of the media. I understand that media mostly uses Kyiv. Google shows a slightly higher usage for Kiev. However, ALL governments use Kyiv, ALL major organizations use Kyiv, and Encarta uses Kyiv.

This is not disregarding WP naming policy, it's looking at the big picture. The reason all those other points are included in the naming policy is that media is only one thing that affects how people speak. Again, governments may not directly affect people through their websites, but they do directly affect them through schools. The reason is not simply good faith, the reason is that Kyiv is more common outside the googlesphere. Thanks, Horlo 01:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

To further the point made concerning the media and inconsistancies with spelling:

The majority of Australia's print media is owned by News Ltd. All of their publications are supposed to be governed by the one style guide - one has to buy it to read it, and I don't intend on doing that so I can't cite from it.

I am unsure as to which spelling was used immediately before, but certainly by the end of the Orange Revolution Kyiv was the way in which Ukraine's capital was being spelt - even when talking about the chicken dish named after it. That isn't so concrete now though. When there is a 'major' article on Ukraine, or an article that its own reporters have put together, then Kyiv is often used. When there are smaller, interim or filler articles, particularly when they have been sourced from foreign media outlets, then the spelling is often Kiev; my guess is that whatever spelling was used by the source outlet is retained. The former type of article is larger and more noticable, and the latter is more common.

Worse still, for any article, is when a map is included that marks the capital as Kyiv, but then the text refers to it as Kiev - the reader has to know or guess that they both refer to the same city. (I contacted the editors, but they haven't gotten back to me; I am not expecting a reply.)

To be sure about media usage, we might need to wait until the next time Ukraine becomes a major news item in much or all of the English-speaking world. I had thought that the most recent elections there might have provided a good opportunity for us to see which spelling is used more commonly now. However, they weren't as widely reported on as I had thought they might be (possibly because nothing catastrophic occured, thankfully), and I don't know if there is anything else coming up that we may wish to wait for.

From this discussion, it has long been clear that there are two commonly used spellings. I think it may now be apparent that unlike other naming debates, such as the Aluminium vs Aluminum debate - where the countries and circles in which each spelling was prevalent could be vaguely defined - we have a case where there is no clear boundary between the usage of each spelling. 60.242.0.245 14:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the questions of which types of sources are better than others, about their motives for using "Kyiv" or not, whether they care etc., may be interesting and help us understand what is going on, but they are irrelevant to the question at hand. The naming conventions don't ask us to make such determinations, we don't have the data to do so reliably, we'd be unqualified to analyze it, and in the end we'd disagree anyway.

Please note that I have not made a systematic list of sources, just ones that came up during the discussion—I'm sure there are plenty more we could list.

Horlo, the US government changed to "Kyiv" because that's what the majority call it? This conclusion about their motives is based on what? I also don't see how you reached the conclusions that "the media mostly use Kyiv" and "all major organizations use Kyiv." Or that governments affect people through schools—we're talking about usage today, not the future usage of grade fivers after they clear the educational system. If we accept your reasoning, then we could decide that references such as dictionaries and atlases have a more direct effect on the reading and writing public than governments do. Again, these details are academic, because the guideline doesn't care about them.

Likewise, the guideline doesn't ask us to determine what the most common name would be, assuming "good faith," whatever that means in this context. It asks for the most common name, period.

Everybody knows what the most common English name of this city is. But let's continue to indulge ourselves. Go through the steps in WP:NCGN#Widely accepted name, or WP:NCON#Identification of common names using external references, as written in the conventions. They will both indicate "Kiev", too. —Michael Z. 2007-10-22 17:22 Z

The US government's change is not because the majority use it. The BGN stated that the change was mandated by the US State Department, for political reasons: "on recommendations from the Department of State that Kyiv is the locally preferred Latin-alphabet rendering of the place-name and should be available for official use better to assist the people and government of Ukraine to promote that country's national identity."[69] Fine for governments, but not for encyclopedias. —Michael Z. 2007-10-22 17:40 Z

Hello, Mzajac, thank you for reminding us of the criteria for determining a common name using external references. Those are exactly the criteria that I have been using all throughout this discussion. Let me repeat what the results are:

1. Google test - a slight victory for Kiev. 2. Major international organizations - all for Kyiv 3. Media - mostly for Kiev.(thank you for pointing out that typo - I'm just so used to typing Kyiv) 4. Other encyclopedia - 2:1 for Kiev 5. Geographic Name servers. I interpreted this to mean what governments use. Please let me know if I'm mistaken on that. All governments use Kyiv. 6. Other scientific sources. I don't think this point applies here, as this is not a newly-discovered planet or isotope.

Thank you also for the quote from the US state department. That reminded me of another key guideline on that same page, WP:Naming Conflict, namely: A city, country or people, by contrast, is a self-identifying entity: it has a preferred name for itself. The city formerly called Danzig now calls itself Gdańsk. These names are not simply arbitrary terms but are key statements of an entity's own identity. This should always be borne in mind when dealing with controversies involving self-identifying names. This is a clear cut case of national self-determination, especially in the current political climate in Ukraine. As much as it may pain some, Ukraine IS establishing itself as the independent nation that it is, and this "should be borne in mind when dealing with controversies". All in all, it appears that when all of these criteria are considered together, the name of the article should be Kyiv, not Kiev. I'm glad that you know what the most common name of the city is.

Thanks, Horlo 01:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't interpret, because sometimes one can interpret black all the way into white. To be fair, let's see the results if you follow the guidelines precisely. For reference, here they are:

• WP:NCGN#Widely accepted name
• WP:NCON#Identification of common names using external references

Please go through the steps listed, and tell us what the actual results are. Did you search the sites of the four international organizations suggested in the guideline? If so, please report the results. Please tell us what geographic name servers say, not something else that you interpret that to mean. Did you forget Google Scholar and Books? Standard histories? I would say that under reference works we should consider several recent dictionaries, but they are not mentioned specifically, so go ahead and leave them out if you wish. —Michael Z. 2007-10-23 03:33 Z

Hello, here are the results. On the "widely accepted name" page, there are four criteria.

First, encyclopedia. Britannica (Kiev), Columbia (Kiev), and Encarta (Kyiv) 2:1 for Kiev.

Second, Google scholar Kyiv: 11,900; Kiev 77,000. However, there is a very important guideline: always look at the results, don't just count them. I was very surprised to see a prolific American-Ukrainian psychologist, Ari Kiev, who has written many articles, as have Jon Kiev and EP Kiev. I did not adjust the numbers, because I did not count every article, but that is important to keep in mind. Also, there is quite an extensive section on the pitfalls of Google scholar on the same page and how to check for false positives.

Third, look at standard histories. The site recommended the Library of Congress country studies, and when I went there I was surprised to see that there wasn't even an entry for Ukraine, but rather the former Soviet Union. I don't think that should be a valid source, as it is apparently 16 years out of date.

Fourth, look at major media. Most media uses Kiev, but in Australia and in Canada, Kyiv is very common.

The Identification of common name using external references

First, an advanced google search. The results I get now are Kyiv: 1,730,000; Kiev: 1,790,000. I don't know if that's because I was just searching for the various names. Please run this test yourself.

Second, major international organizations. Again, OSCE, UN, NATO, CIA, Red Cross, all use Kyiv.

Third, major English media - same as the "widely accepted name" results, mostly for Kiev.

Fourth, reference works - other encyclopedia, same as above, 2:1 for Kiev.

Mzajac, I have never been in favour of leaving out valid, current sources (books from 1873, however, and Citigroup links from 1964 - see discussion below, however, are a different story). OED uses Kiev, but Rand Mcnally maps use Kyiv. I have always suggested including as many current sources as possible, because I'm sure that they use Kyiv.

Also, I think that looking only at what has been expressedly written goes against the spirit of the policy it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.

Thanks, Horlo 05:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to add: A city, country or people, by contrast, is a self-identifying entity: it has a preferred name for itself. The city formerly called Danzig now calls itself Gdańsk. These names are not simply arbitrary terms but are key statements of an entity's own identity. This should always be borne in mind when dealing with controversies involving self-identifying names.. Thanks, Horlo 05:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like "Ari Kiev" accounts for 275 of hits on Google Scholar, so what percentage does that discount? Did you forget Google Books? How common is "Kyiv" in Australian and Canadian media? I believe we decided above, with references, that the UN uses "Kiev"—how did you determine that they use "Kyiv?" Why did you add the Red Cross and CIA to the list of international organizations, and how did you determine that the CIA uses "Kyiv"? Under standard histories, did you consult the other two recommended sources? —Michael Z. 2007-10-23 15:37 Z

Hello, first, if you actually look at the results, and not just count them, you will see that the names of the authors are usually not presented fully, but only their first initials are given. Therefore, you need to consider not only Ari Kiev, but also A Kiev, J Kiev, and EP Kiev. However, please note that I did say that I did not discount any numbers, but just put that forward as something which needed to be considered.

Second, I did not forget Google Books, but if you look at the long list of false positives and warnings about Google Books searches, you will see that Google Books does not have a languages tab. As user:PaulPieniezny has demonstrated here [[70]] (scroll up its easier than scrolling down from the start of the previous section), Kyiv is an international city and mentioned in every country. Especially now, as it has become the hottest real estate market in Eastern Europe. However, this is the English Wikipedia. Therefore, only English things need to be considered. Unfortunately, that isn't possible with Google Books. Well, that's not true. It is possible, but you will have to go through all of the books, find which are in English, and which are about the city.

Third, I don't know how common Kyiv is in Australian media, however please see the comment by user 60.242.0.245 just above here. In Canada, the CBC uses Kyiv, regardless of what Blair Shewchuk said years ago. Go to the CBC website, Kiev scores 260 hits, however, there is only ONE which was actually produced by the CBC in 2007. All others are reruns from AP. By the end of the first page, there are more hits for Kyiv for 2007, so I didn't really check the rest.

Fourth, I determined that the UN uses Kyiv by going to the UN website, looking under member states, and looking at the map that they provide. That says Kyiv. Personally, I think the opposite of what you think in this case - you say that most people don't care, and they will just use what the dictionary tells them to. However, I think that people in that situation will just go to this link [71] and type whatever's there. It's bad form to go against what head office is saying, so people who do so must have very strong motivation to do so.

Fifth, I added the Red Cross, because it's a major international organization. Again, I have always argued that the more sources are considered, the more informed this discussion will be. I added the CIA because they are also an international organization (and they are probably reading this discussion as we type.) I determined that the CIA uses Kyiv by going to the CIA website, and looking for Ukraine.

As an aside, I think organizations like the OSCE and UN are different from media in that they have a correct spelling. Many newspaper editors will not really pay attention to the spelling of a city's name as long as the story is well-written and sells papers.

Sixth, I did not consult the other histories, because we are not discussing history, but rather what is happening NOW. Now, most people use Kyiv. Sure, fifty or a hundred years ago most people used Kiev, but a lot has changed since then.

Seventh, I would just like to remind you that we are dealing with a self-identifying entity here, and as per WP guidelines, A city, country or people, by contrast, is a self-identifying entity: it has a preferred name for itself. The city formerly called Danzig now calls itself Gdańsk. These names are not simply arbitrary terms but are key statements of an entity's own identity. This should always be borne in mind when dealing with controversies involving self-identifying names.

Also, please include any other factors which you think may influence common usage - sports, religion, hobbies, travel, architecture - to determine the most common name everywhere, not just in the world according to Google. Remember, the guidelines themselves say it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense

If an English speaker types in Kiev, and gets re-directed to Kyiv, with an explanation that after 1995 the government of Ukraine officially changed the spelling to reflect the Ukrainian rather than Russian pronunciation, they won't really get upset at Wikipedia. Because, like you said, most people really don't care, they just want to know what IS going on.

Thanks, Horlo 06:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The guideline on naming conflicts suggests that "following a permanently established objective procedure that does not rely on a fleeting consensus" gets around disagreements. I thought if we followed the procedure outlined there, and at the geographic naming convention, we could find some objective basis for discussion. Sure, the procedure is not perfect. But if you add a half-dozen caveats and interpretations to your liking, then it is no longer objective, is it?

And your amendments to the procedure are arbitrary and unbalancing. You've decided that what the CBC publishes isn't good enough—let's throw away articles marked (AP), as well as articles bylined "CBC", "with files from the Associated Press". I'm still finding "Kiev" used in this year's reports by CBC's own journalists, in news, talk shows, sports, and arts. The CIA is no more an international organization than the FSB. You found one map at un.org, which you imply trumps the hundreds of instances of "Kiev" on their site, and compels us to pretend they don't exist (if it is "bad form to go against what head office is saying", then bad form appears to be de riguer at un.org). Histories are disqualified why?—because they were all written "fifty or a hundred years ago", or because "we are not discussing history"? (What about Kiev#History?) Google Books is a write-off too.

If you are unhappy with the suggested "objective procedure" as written (NCON, NCGN), then I don't see a reasonable way forward. —Michael Z. 2007-10-24 20:15 Z

Collateral damage (a reason to stick to google news)

Remember Antwerp?

• Antwerp [72] 2,000,000
• Antwerpen [73] 2,030,000
• Anvers [74] 446,000

The first time since I tried it that "Antwerpen" wins it, by the way. The Flemish government can be proud now.

However, luckily perhaps for the English language, the Google News situation is a bit different:

• Antwerp [75] 513
• Antwerpen [76] 21
• Anvers [77] 9

(that was a US news search, but a UK search was not much different, only "Antwerp" went down to 508)

Strange parallel? Not really, I think I know why Antwerpen en Kiyv score much better on "normal" web pages than on News: normal web pages often contain addresses, and when a foreign student, a government representative or a bank director put up an address, they are bound to be influenced by the law in the Ukraine and Flanders: just imagine your friend or client prints out the address from your website and when he gets lost, shows the paper slip to the nearest policeman. Newspaper articles do not often contain addresses, so that immediate forcing influence does not work there. --Paul Pieniezny 01:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, first, the name of the country is Ukraine, not the Ukraine. Second, I agree that the media mostly uses Kiev. Third, I'm not sure what you're driving at with the example of somebody getting lost. If you are lost in Kyiv, you look for the street address. If you are not in Kyiv, you go to the airport or train station and book a ticket for Kyiv. The stations (if they're labeled in English) will be labeled Kyiv. I think that your example actually supports the move to Kyiv, as the people who actually have anything to do with Ukraine (i.e. people who work in organizations such as the OSCE, UN, or Red Cross) will already be aware of the change and will be using the name Kyiv. Actually, Citibank uses Kyiv [78], and ING uses Kyiv [79]. That, however, is not really something that can be included in this discussion, as that is not suggested on the Naming Conflict resolution page. Thanks, Horlo 02:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from bringing attention to a user's writing style. The last thing this discussion needs is more bickering on how to use Ukrainian toponyms. While I agree that the adding of the definite article to the country's name is inane, it is still a perfectly acceptable variant as Kyiv is a perfectly acceptable variant of Kiev and when participating in a discussion like this, we must be dilligent of others' writing style, whatever it may be. I would also like to bring attention to the fact that the OCSE[80], the United Nations[81], the Red Cross[82] (contact information near the bottom of the page), Citigroup[83] (under 1964), and that link that you gave to ING uses both Kiev and Kyiv. Kiev is used on the twentieth line in the paragraph while Kyiv is used at the bottom for the mailing address. Reginmund 04:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, actually, I think that when the question at hand is one of semantics, words are important. I did not bring attention to the fact that "en" was used instead of "and" or "Kiyv" was used rather than "Kyiv". Those are typos, and not important. However, adding and article in front of a country name is not a perfectly acceptable variant.

Also, please note the dates of the pages to which you provide links. Here are more current ones: OSCE [84] - dated october 2007, not 2002; UN [85] dated October, 2007, not 2004. Also, in 1964, Kyiv wasn't more common, I grant you that. However, here we are talking about what is happening now, not what happened over 40 years ago. Also, please note that I mentioned that those are not really at issue here, as they are not one of the things suggested on the conflict resolution page. Thanks, Horlo 05:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is a perfectly acceptable variant[86]. You are not a lexicographer. Please do not decide what is right or wrong in the English language, especially when you haven't a clue what you are talking about. Let alone, adding the article in front of a country's name is sometimes the correct variant such as with The Gambia.

OSCE[87] (under work programme), UN[88]. Well it appears that all of these institutions such as the OCSE, UN, Red Cross, Citigroup, and ING use Kiev, regardless of whether or not they use Kyiv... satisfied? Reginmund 23:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Reginmund, if you don't know how to be civil, please learn.

It is incorrect to say "the Ukraine", just as it is incorrect to say "the England". If you're not convinced, check the Guardian style manual, or even the Wikipedia guideline.

The OSCE officially uses Kyiv. If you are not sure, go to the OSCE homepage, and look for Ukraine (it's in Eastern Europe).

Also, to see what the UN uses, go to the UN homepage, and look for Ukraine in the member states category. They actually give you a free map that you can download and print out.

Convinced? Thanks, Horlo 05:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I aboslutely agree with Horlo Mona23653 20:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)mona23653

Hello, Horlo, if you don't know what civility is, please learn. Especially because it is stupid to make such false accusations when you have no idea what you are talking about.

Why am I not surprised to see you twist my words again? I showed you a link that proves you incorrect. It clearly says that "the Ukraine" is a perfectly acceptable variant. However, I never said that this should apply to all toponyms like you have just fabricated. Now can you prove that the OCSE and the UN "officialy" uses Kyiv? Because it is apparent that they also use Kiev. Now I don't see how your sources somehow have superiority from mine. I am far from convinced, and likely will not be due to your insensitive immaturity and ad hominems. Reginmund 00:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Reginmund The link you’ve provided states that “the” is used in front of Ukraine “chiefly formerly” probably just to include some historical writings. However, it is not a "perfectly acceptable variant", not unless you want to change the English grammar rules. The rules state that you cannot use “the” in front of country’s name unless the name is plural or part of a group such as The United Kingdom, or The Republic of Gambia, shortened to “the Gambia”. You can also use it in front of geographical names that are NOT countries, such as the “the Bronx” So under which of these scenario does Ukraine fall; is it plural, or is it part of a group? Come on Reginmund, you should know better, this digression makes me question your motives in this. Mykyta 03:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read the link more carefully. The link says that most newspapers and magazines refer to the county without the definite article. That just goes to prove that you are wrong, Horlo is wrong, and yes, it is a perfectly acceptable variant and is still sometimes used by the BBC[89], Time magazine[90], and CBS[91]. So your fantasy that I am campaigning to change the English grammar rules is moot. Yet, you are wrong again. English doesn't have an academy so there is no definite rule that says that you cannot put the definite article in front of the name. It only depends on the toponym. The country's name is the Republic of The Gambia, not The Republic of Gambia. Therefore, "Gambia" must always have the definite article in front of it. So, basically you are saying that if any country's full name has an object in it, (e.g. the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Republic of Ireland) that they all can be reffered to as the Spain, the Sweden, and the Ireland?. Come on, Mykyta, you should know better, this digression makes me question your motives in this. Reginmund 17:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

No, Reginmund its you that's wrong -- on several levels ..but it's not worth the bother to explain. cheers Eduvalko 21:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Then it wouldn't be worth the bother to make a post. If you are so sure that I am wrong, why don't you lose your cowardice and give us a reason or two as to why I am wrong. Just saying I am wrong and not bothering to explain yourself goes to show that you are too weak to make a rebuttal. But what kind of dignity can I expect from a single-purpose account like yours? Touché. Reginmund 22:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Naming Conventions in detail

Hello,

Mzajac, I apologize if my tone has been snippy recently, but you can see that I'm carrying on two rather different discussions at once, and it is sometimes difficult to focus.

I do not suggest casting aside established naming conventions. On the contrary, I have been trying to get people to consider other conventions, outside media and Google for over a month now. I want to include as many things as possible, to get the widest possible picture. (Just as an aside, I put forth an article from a librarians' meeting where the letterhead said Kiev, but throughout the body of the letter they used Kyiv.) The only caveat I have is that a decision shouldn't be made quickly without considering many sources (including other fields, such as religion, sports, and culture). I think that the more sources that are included, the better the overall picture will be.

The reason that I interpreted the fifth point in the naming conventions as government websites is actually two-fold: first, the link provided there leads to a US government site. Also, on the NCON page, there is a section for determining the name of the article, here [92], and that section suggests check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations.

With respect to the UN, I think great care is needed here. The UN includes people from all over the world, and they may spell the word differently. However, if a high-ranking diplomat writes a word one way, it will stay that way, even if it is not the way the UN officially spells it. Like you said, it's not really that important to most people.

With respect to history references, the reason I didn't look at them is that this article isn't about the history of Kyiv. There is a section about the history of Kyiv, but the majority of the article is about what's happening there now.

With respect to GoogleBooks, books such as this: [93], [94], and this:[95] actually use "Kiev, Russia".

Also, with Google scholar, the first 19 links for Kiev are either for A Kiev, J Kiev, or EP Kiev. (I assumed that U Kiev was the University of Kiev, and that was the 20th link).

Thanks, Horlo 06:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

kyiv.ua approved, to be used in 2008

More reasons that an article name change to Kyiv is warranted.

The .ua domain administrator (Hostmaster.net.ua) has announced ( http://www.hostmaster.net.ua/news/?pr20071017) that starting in 2008, the geographic domain "kyiv.ua" will be available both to new domain names userss as well as allowing existing domain names using the current "kiev.ua" designation to switch or to use both names using mirrors. The announcement cites growing demand and usage of "Kyiv" on the internet. Cheers Eduvalko 17:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Google News results - something strange

I went to see if the Google News situation for Kyiv and Kiev had changed since early October. I came across something which suprised me:

- Number of articles with 'Kiev' in the headline, published in the past month : 192[96]

- Number of articles with 'Kiev' in the headline, published in the past week : 533[97]

I just checked these results before I posted. Does anybody else see anything similar?

Thanks, 60.242.0.245 (talk) 08:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a glitch with the numbers quoted for one week. If you actually go to the second page of the findings for one week you will notice, that there really are not that many. If I select "duplicates on" for the month (I got 197 there) the total goes up to 597. The same thing happens to Kyiv, by the way: 68 for last week, 62 for last month - and 68 again, when duplicates are allowed. Somehow the weekly count is incorrect and gives the numbers for the same month, including duplicates. The proportion between Kiev and Kyiv remains the same. I noticed the same glitch (39-33-40) with Antwerp one week, Antwerp one month and Antwerp one month duplicates alowed.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Paul - I wasn't able to work out what was going on. Do you recommend that the time period is left at one month for future checks?

60.242.0.245 (talk) 03:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that one week is too short to get usable results, anyway. I am not so sure about this "duplicate" business. Sometimes they come from the same site, but not always: some newspapers get their articles quoted more often than others. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Recognized U.S. spellings

I saw the note on the U.S. changing its spelling policy to Kyiv and the broken link. I went hunting, tracked down the State Department briefing session where it was mentioned (as Kyiv, on the State Department site), all good. I then went to the official names database to look for it and... nada. Upon inquiring, I received the following response (full body, contact at NGA.MIL deleted for privacy):

Peter

According to our system we have Kiev as a Conventional name and Kyyiv as BGN Standard. Since Ukrainian is the official language of the country transliteration from Ukrainian will be Kyyiv.

Kiev (BGN Conventional)

---

Kyyiv (BGN Standard)

---

Kiyiv (Variant)

---

Kiyev (Variant)

---

Kijów (Variant)

---

Kijew (Variant)

---

Kiew (Variant)

---

Kief (Variant) Ukraine Ukraine (general) 50° 26' 00" N 030° 31' 00" E

If you have any questions please let me know.

[contact deleted]

I am not suggesting anything be changed right now, I'm only providing the information. We can let it sit for a bit. It definitely requires some more followup. —PētersV (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. This is the problem with citing TV news. Links go stale, worse, no one bothers actually researching to get authentic information--and finding out the situation is both more complex and interesting than reported. "As seen on TV" is no way to reference an encyclopedia, IMHO. PētersV (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

For anyone interested, the GEOnet database page is here: http://earth-info.nga.mil/gns/html/index.html -- you can find a text file suitable for spreadsheet import of place names for all countries. PētersV (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

PētersV, thanks for going to the trouble. Checking up on non-internet sources is bad enough, but when internet-only content is pulled off the web it makes things difficult.

I am surprised that Kyiv wasn't listed at all in the correspondence you received - either as a standard, conventional name, or variant. Would you be able to ask your contact about it please?

Thankyou,60.242.0.245 (talk) 03:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

That is because on the GNS database cited above the latest modification for the capital of Ukraine occurred way back in 1998 http://gnswww.nga.mil/geonames/Gazetteer/Search/Results.jsp?Feature__Unique_Feature_ID=-1044367&Diacritics=Yes&reload=1. We're dealing with outdated information here. Regards Eduvalko (talk) 05:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw that too. Unfortunately, the database is current as of this November, as confirmed. The issue is that the Department of State announcement has not been promulgated by the U.S. Board of Geographical Names (that's "BGN")--who are the official keepers of the U.S. version of geographical names. That's why I indicated further follow-up is needed. I'm looking to see if I can find anything other than the US DS briefing session which verbally mentioned the change to Kyiv before writing back to the government. Right now we have an announcement with no verification of adoption. PētersV (talk) 05:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I bundled off the Department of State briefing from October 2006 off to my contact asking specifically why the "BGN Conventional" entry still shows Kiev instead of Kyiv. PētersV (talk) 05:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Any luck? 60.242.0.245 (talk) 13:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Not yet, but we did have the Thanksgiving holiday last week. I'll make sure to update as soon as I have a response. —PētersV (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, PētersV, thank you for your efforts. I still find this whole situation very amusing - the US government comes out and makes an official statement, with a press conference, press releases, and everything, that it will use the spelling KYIV, but some people still worry more about databases, and then I am accused of Wikilawyering.

I submit that the US government has other things to worry about, (I'm sure that everybody can think of something) rather than changing databases, and that this [[98]] should be enough proof that the US government uses Kyiv. All official websites like this[[99]] and this[[100]] and publications like this [[101]] show that the US government really does use Kyiv.

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No doubts about Kyiv here. I just thought I'd do the article a favor and track down the definitive source when the existing link (news story) went stale. The database entry should have been a no-brainer! I'm now waiting for the "thanks for letting us know our database was hopelessly out of date" Email :-) —PētersV (talk) 03:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

PētersV, good luck with the "Thank you" email - I think that they will get to that just after they fix the database.

Do you have any other suggestions? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime, we can use this link to the State Department briefing (transcribed) where the BGN spelling decision was announced, spelling it out letter by letter ("K-y-i-v"). PētersV (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

(I see it's already a resource link in the article under "Kiev or Kyiv") PētersV (talk) 16:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Google results (again)

Can all please check Google results again? I now have:

- c.5,730,000 results for Kyiv [[102]]

- c.1,480,000 results for Kiev [[103]]

- Total: c.7,210,000 results

With all of the talk concerning Google search results in the past, the Kyiv spelling was always said to have been either well behind or neck-and-neck with the Kiev spelling. From the results that I have now, it appears that Kyiv is in the lead by a significant proportion. As can be seen from my search links, the searches were handled by Google's Australian locale (google.com.au).

60.242.0.245 (talk) 01:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem is, how many of these are clones of others? I checked the official U.S. geographic names database, still shows KIEV as the common English spelling, Department of State prononcements to the contrary. I never did hear back from my contact there, I 'spose it's time to wish a Happy New Year and inquire gently. :-) PētersV (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm also curious as to how the number suddenly went down about ten times from what it was counting before. I doubt that all of those links didn't just disappear. Reginmund (talk) 01:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It's an increase from my old totals - but still lower than the totals some other users, including yourself, reported early last year. I remember that we weren't all using the same search parameters at that time; did you want to look at the URLs I posted above please, to see what you think of my current search criteria? And using those links, do you get similar totals to myself, for each spelling?

I hadn't checked Google results for a month, so I don't know how sudden this is. I obtained the same results today; it will be interesting to see if the results will remain the same after a week.60.242.0.245 (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

What I find interesting about the links that you provided was that again - even though the main title on the article was Kyiv, (Kiev) was included somewhere, to help those who need help. I think that skews numbers in both directions. Is there any way to eliminate that from the search? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

So, do other people obtain similar results? 60.242.0.245 (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Take two (for anyone rummaging through page history) Google results for non-Ukraine domains...

• +Kyiv -Kiev -site:*.ua = 217,000 = exclusively Kyiv [104]
• +Kiev -Kyiv -site:*.ua = 637,000 = exclusively Kiev [105]
• +Kiev +Kyiv -site:*.ua = 128,000 = explicitly both (assume this includes all Wikipedia derivatives) [106]

So, 3:1 in favor of Kiev outside Ukraine--actually between 2:1 and 3:1 depending upon the alignment of planets and which Google engines feel like responding. ("+" insures the word is actually there and it's not a match via some other association.)

BTW, I did write off to the U.S. geographical places names database folks again, still no response. I'll poke around the State Department to see if I can achieve some resolution. —PētersV (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Some additional stats:

• "+Kiev -site:*.ua" yields 25,900,000, "+Kiev -site:*.ua -wikipedia" yields 682,000
• "+Kyiv -site:*.ua" yields 2,090,000, "+Kyiv -site:*.ua -wikipedia" yields 226,000

The (side) conclusion is that Google searches to justify popularity of a term on Wikipedia are pretty much self-referential nonsense. —PētersV (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Google results are flawed because a significant amount of data is coming from Russian pages, including news pages such as RIA-Novosti, ITAR-TASS, Interfax(...), translated from Russian. Google News results, when you restrict to the most recent day AND coming only from English speaking countries, makes the results (as of March 28) a mere 1978 (kiev) to 498 (kyiv). Even then, Russian news agencies somehow make it into these stats. This finding is not significant in that it represents a 4:1 preference for Kiev, but instead that it reflects the rate of usage for Kiev is rapidly declining. When you factor this next to other criteria such as government/diplomatic usage, everything points to increasing usage of Kyiv and dropping Kiev.67.225.39.145 (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Issues with Google, Statements by governments ...

Hello,

In view of the above discussion about Google results, as well as the US State Department news conference quoted above - the speaker actually spells out the name of the city K-Y-I-V - I think it is once again time to open a discussion on whether the name should be changed.

Any Objections?

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

None from me 60.242.0.245 (talk) 10:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Are we having a discussion?60.242.0.245 (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If there are no objections here, I will ask again on the main discussion page. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It's going to be changed sooner or later anyway, I say go for it. Bogdan ^що? 16:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• What is the deal with the google results? If I remember correctly, that was the main argument opposing the rename. Have the results changed for everyone? Ostap 05:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I think different people have different issues. Personally, if a force of nature like Monopoly uses Kyiv, [107], it's good enough for me. Better than CNN. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 06:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that is certainly a a symbol of current usage. And I don't want to hear any cries of "politically motivated!" Ostap 06:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Curiously, for the Monopoly World Edition website: if one selected Australia as their country, the spelling used to be "Kiev", as opposed to "Kyiv" for the UK, USA and Canada (I didn't check New Zealand or others). Now all has changed to "Kyiv".60.242.0.245 (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Should the name of the article change to Kyiv?

I think it should. Any objections? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This was raised on this subpage eleven days ago, and no objections were raised. Go for it, put a notice on the main talk page. 60.242.0.245 (talk) 10:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should the name Kyiv is not the most common usage in English sources for the city. As a UK based person I have never even heard the word pronounced. The google page hits are flawed as used above as pointed out by PētersV. In my opinion English language news searches are a better way to find common usage, especially with a relatively common term like this. GameKeeper (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

While I personally support it, editorially I don't think we're quite there yet for common English usage. —PētersV (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

How exactly is this determined though? I think we are at that point. Ostap 02:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, for example, I just took a look through the web site of the British Embassy to the Ukraine and found it highly conflicted over which version of the spelling to use even through one would expect it to conform to Kyiv. And I'd like to see something better than the single U.S. State Department announcement with no further corroboration (as in the geographical names data base is still Kiev). The best indicator, I think, would be what are U.S. and U.K. schoolbooks using? Please no more google searches! That's not scholarship. —PētersV (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That does sound like the best way to check. But how is it possible? Ostap 05:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Gamekeeper, as a Canada based person, I have heard the name pronounced many times, in English.

What sources would you recommend in determining what is common? I have always recommended including as many sources from as many walks of life (education, sports, religion, culture, etc.) as possible.

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently doing some consulting work at a publisher that includes "imprints" such as Longman, Prentice-Hall, etc. I browsed through some history high-school texts in the current "adoption" library (so, current titles being sold to schools and school districts). Five different books (different authors, different overall topics) all still used Kiev, one published in 2005, two in 2006, and two in 2007. I would expect school texts to reflect/teach mainstream usage, so not there yet. If I had found "Kyiv" I'd have rested the case "for." So, we have to come up with some other indicators of mainstream use (and, as I repeat myself, not google!). For example, if we could identify/agree on 6 or 7 encyclopedias (not specifically on the Ukraine, and not dictionaries). —PētersV (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Horlo asked me what sources I prefer, as I said above I prefer English language news searchs such as google. Here for instance is a search for USA based news sources for Kiev you can play with the entries and try for UK Canada or Australian based searches, it is important to click right through to the end as google searches initially estimate the number of hits, so you don't get a real number until you have got to the last page of results. I prefer news searches as 1) they are not 'official', common usage is about what people as a group decide not what governments or organizations dictate 2) news is current, so if usage has changed quickly this is reflected. 3) the Media tends to represent a range of different views, reflecting populations (at least in countries with a free press). Note: that this is my view of why the news searches are an approximation of 'common usage' as with much on Wikipedia it comes down to common sense. As you have noted Canada seems to have adopted Kyiv more readily than the other countries, as can be seen with news searches. The UK is way behind which probably explains why I have never heard the pronunciation spoken on UK media. GameKeeper (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts behind offering the idea of encyclopedias... First, popular usage is still conflicted at best. Google results do not give a clear vote in favor of the rename. And regardless of the numbers, they are too open to interpretation--in many ways, they are the ultimate WP:OR, a lab result you can interpret any way you like. If we rename the article on such a basis, that will last all of five minutes and leave the rename itself open to all sorts of spurious attacks (and some perhaps justified).

   If we can demonstrate, however, that acknowledged encyclopedic references--so, peer-reviewed, editorial boards, not just the word of one individual, etc.--have now come to favor the Kyiv spelling, then using that spelling here would be fully justified. It's not just whether we think we're ready for a rename, it's that a rename should stand up to scrutiny. —PētersV (talk) 04:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

With respect to Encyclopedia, Encarta uses Kyiv. Also, every English-speaking government uses Kyiv. Advertisements for the Euro-cup 2012 all use Kyiv. Even monopoly uses Kyiv.

I'd like to bring up one other point here - the idea of self-determination. The change to Kyiv is an important one in Ukraine, as is the decision of Western governments to make the change. Personally, I think that many governments did not change until they saw that Ukraine was a stable country, and the USSR or CIS will not re-form. The change is happening, so the name of the article should also change. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 03:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Vecrumba I disagree that popular usage is still conflicted at best IMO it is more measurable than ever,. Basic Google searches are, i agree, not the way to go, but focuses searches such as media searches are useful. I disagree that they are WP:OR. They are independent and reproducible quickly, unless there is some special criteria introduced in the search they are in no way original.

User:Horlo, you said every "every English-speaking government uses Kyiv", I did one check and came across this as the 1st link this shows the UK foreign office using 'Kiev' preferentially. I am not going to check your other facts if the 1st one I check is so obviously not true. GameKeeper (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Gamekeeper, is it possible that the country brief is outdated?. For one thing, the Prime Minister of Ukraine is Yulia Tymoshenko, not Victor Yanukovych.

The travel advice website you provided a link to primarily uses the Kiev spelling. The Embassy in Kyiv website uses the Kyiv spelling. Confusingly, the advice offered by the Foreign Office uses both Kyiv and Kiev (even when referring to the British Embassy!). As (I think) you are a resident of the UK, do you want to try contacting the Foreign Office directly and sharing the results?

P.S. The country brief and travel advice given by DFAT, Australia use the Kyiv spelling exclusively, and don't even have 'Kiev' appearing once in brackets on these pages.

60.242.0.245 (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I've cast my vote rather reluctantly not in favor of a rename at the current time. I's be interested if we could confirm the spelling used (verified in printed copies, not quoting online searches) for:

1. Encyclopedia Britannica
2. Britannica Student Encyclopedia (expect that would be the same as EB)
3. Compton's Encyclopedia
4. New Book of Knowledge (published by Scholastic)

Anyone have these at home? —PētersV (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Article name

Hello,

The discussion on the naming page seems to have reached the consensus that the name should be changed to Kyiv.

Therefore, once again, in order to bring Wikipedia in line with the common usage of the name of the city, as evidenced by the usage of the Governments of all English speaking countries, as the name of a self-identifying entity, as used by Encarta, and many media, I propose that the name of the article be changed to Kyiv.

Does anybody have any objections?

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Change of name

It is funny that this discussion exists and certain individuals try to refute the error. The name of the capital of Ukraine when spelled in Roman alphabet is KYIV. If one wants to present otherwise that dispute should be taken at the Ukrainian government level which passed a naming resolution in 1995. Please refer to the official document. [[108]].

The "other" name of Kiev is a direct Russian translation which was arrived through Russian being the national language of USSR. Thus any past dictation or map printing was done based on that translation. Since Ukraine's independence and resolution to official name being KYIV it would be completely inappropriate and inaccurate to keep presenting the name as Kiev.

This is not a popularity nor a search result contest. If the masses use Kiev and Kiev is still in publication they use the name incorrectly. One can not dig through every book published and change the name. Wikipedia is a great, dynamic and fast "encyclopedia". It is a bylaw principle of Wikipedia to provide unbiased and correct information. Changing the article to KYIV is not only necessary but also the only correct action.

-Orest(iridium7777@yahoo.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.36.3 (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Matter of Style

The switch to Kyiv seems logical to me because of the inconsistent use of Kyiv/Kiev within WP articles. It seems to me the trend is toward increasing usage of Kyiv instead of Kiev (following the trend of increasing daily Google news citations of Kyiv). The shift of Kyiv at this point seems inevitable, and usage of Kyiv is more scholarly than now antiquated Kiev. Thoughts? --67.225.39.145 (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Kiev → Kyiv — I have followed the procedure layed out at WP:RM. If this is incorrect, then someone should ammend that procedure, or explain how we can get an actual move request for this page to progress. We have discussed it at length at the other page, and now some are of the opinion that a move is realistic. Why not discuss it here? Ostap 01:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose like the previous times this was suggested. We use the names actually used in English, which our readers will recognize, not the "correct" ones. See WP:NCGN, especially WP:NCGN#Examples. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

  Are you saying Kyiv isn't used in English? Ostap 01:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

  No, that it is less commonly used in English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

  Just curious - how do you judge that? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

  Six methods are suggested at Wikipedia:NCGN#Widely_accepted_name; of those Google Scholar and Google Books are (together) only one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

  Thank you. In order to avoid lengthy discussion here, can I ask you to look to the discussion section? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose as Kiev is the well established English form; Kyiv is still overwhelmingly an import produced by misguided political correctness, political manipulation and Ukrainian nationalism. Wikipedia is and should not be a vehicle for such sentiment. Don't care that much about WP:UE when it comes to things like this either, but main language of Kiev is Russian, not Ukrainian, so if a new "native" name were to be used, Kiyev would be preferable to Kyiv. Besides even that, Wikipedia does not use the name Bern instead of the far less popular and archaic Berne; until absurdities like Berne get dealt with, we're a million miles from Kyiv. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you are biased against Ukrainian issues, and probably Ukrainian users. This can be seen not only in your comment, but also in your participation in Russian history projects (there isn't much Ukraine-friendly people there). Sad... Ukrained (talk) 13:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

So I'm a Russian imperialist then? That kind of paranoia is typical of idealogical radicalization distorting a person's perspective. A Scottish anti-Ukranian? How do you suppose such a person could ever come into existence? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr.Deacon, I hope you're not provoking my comments on the brightness and learning abilities of Scots:) They may be anti-Ukrainians as well as any other humans. Not to mention the fact that you've been awarded by Irpen. I can't recall any occasion when Mr.Irpen awarded an editor opposive to his pro-Moscow political views, or the other way around:) Happy edits, Ukrained (talk) 06:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not to comment of most of this nonsense, but I would give one diff which is very interesting together with the post above. --Irpen 06:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr.Deacon, I hope you're not provoking my comments on the brightness and learning abilities of Scots

If you are going to attack Scots Ukrained, I am not in the least sensitive, and it will only make you look bad.

Not to mention the fact that you've been awarded by Irpen. I can't recall any occasion when Mr.Irpen awarded an editor opposive to his pro-Moscow political views, or the other way around

Irpen didn't contradict you here, but I have no recollection of being awarded anything by Irpen.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If we are giving unsourced evidence:

• Regardless of what one thinks they say in other languages, when Ukrainians are taught English in school they are taught to write Kyiv.
• Whatever language one thinks they use normally, Kyivans use Kyiv to identify themselves in written/typeset English.
• When English-speakers outside of Ukraine watch the football, read government travel advice, look up an atlas to see where this place is or correspond with businesses/government in Ukraine, they'll most commonly see Kyiv.

Please consult Talk:Kiev/naming for sourced evidence.60.242.0.245 (talk) 13:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

when Ukrainians are taught English in school they are taught to write Kyiv

Given the Ukrainian government's proactive policies on the Ukrainian language (which some users he are keen to replicate and reinforce), that's hardly a surprise!

When English-speakers outside of Ukraine watch the football, read government travel advice, look up an atlas to see where this place is or correspond with businesses/government in Ukraine, they'll most commonly see Kyiv.

How do you know? I still see Dynamo Kiev more than Dynamo Kyiv. Some of the google obsessed non-Anglophones here who wish to prove to English speakers what word they use for the city should learn to distinguish between textual replication and propagation and actual use in the English language. Kiev is the English name. Even those PC enough to write Kyiv will (as with US government spokesmen) still almost always pronounce it the evil Russian evil imperialist way. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think that Dynamo Kyiv is more commonly used, even though Dynamo Kiev has wide usage - see the talk page. Though it's a good point - it's not as if either the Kiev or Kyiv spelling isn't used widely. One is more common however.

I still see Dynamo Kiev more than Dynamo Kyiv. The only places I ever see Dynamo Kyiv are the same places I see Crvena Zvezda and FC Bayern München. The number of times the text "Dynamo Kyiv" is replicated on the internet does not necessarily reflect usage. Moreover, everyone I've ever heard pronounces it "kee-ef". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please be careful about entering Original Research into this discussion. Just because you think it is doesn't mean it is. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Horlo, my experience as an English speaker (as opposed to all the Ukrainians here with little experience of the language) is no more "original research" that than playing around with google searches.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, your experience as an English speaker is not questioned here. Statements like "everybody I've ever heard pronounces it kee-ef" are. That's original research, and while it may be true, it has no merit in this discussion.

Also, statements like "all the Ukrainians here with little language experience" are racist. You should be aware that such comments have no place here. Also, please note all the "Ukrainians here with little language experience" like Irpen and TAG, and also Russians with little language experience, such as Kuban Kossack and Ezhiki making statements like "Kiev is by far the most used name" without providing any support to their arguments besides media outlets. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, this is fun. In what way is the statement my experience as an English speaker (as opposed to all the Ukrainians here with little experience of the language) is no more "original research" that than playing around with google searches racist? I'm afraid to tell you Horlo no-one will regard that as "racist", and you just discredit yourself by attempting to make it out as such. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Your arguments are interesting, as at Talk:Kiev/naming, we earlier had pro-Kiev editors using Google results as proof, and pro-Kyiv editors urging consideration of non-internet usage. The new Google results were raised to try and settle something raised last year. I encourage you to look through a bit more of that talk page (I understand if not the whole thing, as it's _very_ long).
• It doesn't matter what is 'PC', when corresponding with businesses and government in Ukraine Kyiv is used. When determining an article name it doesn't matter how US politicians pronounce Kyiv, or Iraq, or Australia, though when recording a spoken article it has importance.60.242.0.245 (talk) 11:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support Kyiv is now an established and recognized spelling in the English world. Only dispute is how much weight to allocate to the preferences of various groups of users. Moving the name would be in keeping with the naming policies and good encyclopedia editing. Eduvalko (talk) 03:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Discussed endless amount of time at Talk:Kiev/naming. If person requesting move was unable to read huge red text mentioning this - how could he apply others Wikipedia rules ? Please somebody move this discussion to naming sub-page - I support this move. --05:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TAG.Odessa (talk • contribs)
• Oppose - Ohhh my that discussion is a disaster... and its even been going on since '04!!!! Yet, I see no clear change in primary usage. Kiev still appears to dominate independent media sources. (Yet, those diplomatic bureaucrats have to change the "official" spelling of the name to ease foreign relations with Ukraine.) Kiev is still predominant and it probably wont change for quite a bit. 71.106.173.211 (talk) 07:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Kyiv has become a widespread name. Encarta uses Kyiv. Governments officially use Kyiv. Even Monopoly uses Kyiv. Kyiv is the name of a self-determining entity. Therefore, the title of the article should be Kyiv. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NCGN - Kiev is still the common name. If Kyiv continues to gain more use and overtakes the usage of Kiev in the future, I will have no problem supporting then. EJF (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

How would you determine commonname? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The name that most readers and English speakers would recognise - in this case it is Kiev. Kyiv is by no means commonly used by a very large segment of the population. If you were to set the words 'Kiev' and 'Kyiv' in front of a sample of English speakers - Kiev would be recognised by far more, as it has been in common use for a considerable length of time - Kyiv is only gradually gaining popularity, so no, I cannot support this proposal. EJF (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. but how do you determine what English speakers would recognize? Horlo (talk) 07:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps being a native English-speaker himself, unlike yourself, helps him here. Additionally he is not influenced by a desire to force a Ukrainian name on the English-speaking world. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, and how exactly did you determine that I am not a native English-speaker?

Please, keep typing. Everything you add to this discussion shows people just how much weight to give to your arguments. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

And, Mr.EJF, how do you determine the moment when the Kyiv would finally "gain popularity" (given that the process is already going on like you wrote)? Why don't we make it happen, righ here, right now? Ukrained (talk) 13:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Ukrained, the fact that you say to an opposer

I think you are biased against Ukrainian issues, and probably Ukrainian users

makes me wonder about your motive on this issue. I am inclined to agree with some of Deacon of Pndapetzim's sentiments on this issue, if not entirely the way he expressed them. I think WP:UE clearly states to use English where possible, and Kiev is the most common anglicisation and it is not about using "the correct spelling". How would one decide which is the correct spelling anyway? Kyiv is just another anglicisation. If we were to use the "correct name", how would be define it, given that most people in Kiev speak Russian, although most are ethnic Ukrainians? Horlo, the fact is that the BBC and major news agencies overwhelmingly use Kiev; the only time "Kyiv" is ever seen by many anglophones is in Dynamo Kyiv. Kyiv is still a little-used variant of Kiev. Ukrained, you say "Why don't we make it happen, righ here, right now?" - no, Wikipedia's role is to describe not prescribe - it should not say which spelling is "right" or "wrong", as an encyclopedia it should use the term most used by people at large. For Wikipedia to take a pro-Ukrainian "Kyiv is the correct spelling not the Russian-derived Kiev" could strike as political advocacy and would breach the core content policy of neutral point of view. EJF (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I agree that the BBC and other media use Kyiv less than Kiev, but that surely is not the only thing that people pay attention to. For example, soccer fans would definitely be acquainted with Dynamo Kyiv, and Monopoly fans would definitely be acquainted with Kyiv from this page [109]. There are many other sources that should be considered, don't you think? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I still see Dynamo Kiev more than Dynamo Kyiv. The only places I ever see Dynamo Kyiv are the same places I see Crvena Zvezda and FC Bayern München. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should check out the Wikipedia page Dynamo Kyiv. Lots of links there. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per PMAnderson/Septentrionalis. Our naming conventions are clear:
  - Naming conventions policy: "article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize[.]"
  - The ones on using English require us to follow common English usage: "[i]f you are talking about a [...] town, [...] use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works."
  - The ones for geographic names: "When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it."
    Keep in mind that, for the specific purpose of choosing this article's title, Kiev & Ukraine's governments, local languages, ethnicities, religion and the forms under which the city was and is known in languages other than English, have no significance whatsoever. All we're asked to do is to passively refect the form with which most English-speakers are already familiar, instead of actively promote the adoption of the forms we prefer.
    For a long time "Kiev" has been the form commonly used in English, and nothing I see here or in Talk:Kiev/naming tells me that this common usage has changed. Therefore, this article is already properly named. - Ev (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, the debate on the talk page has focussed on how widely accepted each name is. For example, Encarta uses Kyiv (there's a re-direct from Kiev [110]), and governments use Kyiv when identifying themselves, for example here: [111]. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand the nature of the dabate :-) But, Horlo, instead of watching at the general picture of English usage at large you're cherry-picking examples of no special significance (we don't do diplomatic lingo :-).
Use your general perception: what form are English-speakers most likely to find when reading a book, newspaper or magazine, when watching TV, when writing to or talking with others ? It's "Kiev", and by a rather wide margin. - Regards, Ev (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, actually, I have always tried to include as many facets of life as possible. I have argued that sports, politics, religion, and every other avenue should be included. To take your example one step further, imagine somebody who is interested in the name of the capital of Ukraine. What would they do? *original research alert* They would probably access a familiar source (such as a newspaper, blog, political website, etc) and then do what everybody else does - they would follow the links. Depending on how much time they had, they would find that the name was changed from the Russian transliteration of Kiev to the Ukrainian transliteration of Kyiv, (that naming issue never seems to go away) and that is now what the people who live there call themselves (I really don't believe the editors who think that Kyiv is a Russian-speaking city: they obviously haven't been there recently). Then, they would look at a reputable source - again, I'm going out on a limb here and I'll say that more people trust the government than CNN (at least they will after Barrack is in the White House), and when they look at the government site, they will see Kyiv here [112], or here [113] or here [114]. For sports, they would likely end up here [115], or even at the UEFA here [116]. So I don't think that Kyiv is ahead by a wide margin, but I do think it is ahead, and growing. In many fields. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Once more, you're weaving these highly personal theories around the few examples of usage you cherry-picked before instead of paying due attention to actual usage in the real world. - Ev (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, excuse me? "highly personal theories"? Were it not so sad, that would be funny. Please note that the Naming page dates back to 2004, and has no mention of Horlo until 2007.

Actually, I have provided a few examples of why Kyiv is more common in the real world to save you the trouble of reading through the entire "naming" page. Now, it appears that as you have made up your mind, and instead of actually providing any real world facts which would support your incorrect sweeping generalizations, you have simply decided to call people who disagree with you names. Sad, really. Good luck, thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Due to lack of persuasive evidence that Kyiv has become the most recognizable appellation for the city in the English language. This ground has obviously been covered before...on what basis do we overturn prior consensus? Erudy (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

CommentThank you. But two quick questions - first, on what do you base the fact that Kyiv is not more recognizable? Encarta uses Kyiv, [117]. Monopoly uses Kyiv, [118].

Second, thank you for joining the discussion. Actually, contrary to the title of the secondary talk page, there has never been a consensus as to the name of the page. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I had no pleasure to work with either Horlo or Erudy before. But, as a veteran user of the project, I can list a minimum of 5 established users who never supported Kiev in either RM discussions or particular edits, me excluded. Please recheck the "Consensus" definition to make sure that we've never had one regarding this naming issue:) Let's make the rules clear:

• if a WP user hasn't participated in previous Kiev/Kyiv surveys (like me) - is one thing
• if a user has clearly stated his approval of Kiev before (like TAG I guess) - it is a totally different case.

A consensus here is something we have yet to achieve. Happy edits, Ukrained (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support As shown at Talk:Kiev/naming, Wikipedia policy has Kyiv being the correct name. There is plenty of evidence to show that the Kyiv spelling is in common usage. It is also the name for a self-identifying entity. Nobody questions that Kiev is widely used, with internet-based media and culinary names being good examples of usage; that doesn't dismiss every other argument favouring Kyiv. 60.242.0.245 (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support per Eduvalko and also per Horlo. And WP itself is an important case of English usage. If we switched to Kyiv (for obvious reasons) now, it could be the world's FINAL step towards the correct spelling. Happy edits, Ukrained (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose This is English wikipedia and English names for the cities should be used, which is Kiev for this one. --Kuban Cossack 16:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support Per Horlo and the lengthy discussion on the naming page. Ostap 16:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, especially per PētersV's thorough work at Talk:Kiev/naming#Article name. Mcmullen writes (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose common name in English is Kiev, like Chicken Kiev. Can this request be summarily speedily closed/denied for the next year, so we don't have to deal with this next month? 70.55.85.35 (talk) 05:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, please remember that this is the name of the city Kyiv, not the chicken. How would you determine what the common name is? Please don't be afraid of debate. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose for the same reasons I did the other 5 times this was proposed. Not that English usage won't change, but see Talk:Kiev/naming for evidence of current English usage. — AjaxSmack 08:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Kiev and Kyiv are both commonly used English names. In addition, Kyiv is consistent with Ukrainian pronunciation, adopted by Ukrainians, and internationally accepted by the U.N. and the U.S. --Greggerr (talk) 11:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Also Australia - DFAT only uses Kyiv in its travel advice or country profile for Ukraine - not even one Kiev in brackets somewhere. Also note the usage of Kyiv by Canada and the UK. 60.242.0.245 (talk) 12:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Wikipedia should not create its own standards. Kiev is a far more common name in the English-speaking world. Why don't we move Rome to Roma and Vienna to Wien? Voyevoda (talk) 13:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, on what do you base the statement that kiev is a "far more common" name in the English-speaking world? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose It pains me greatly to vote on the side (it's contradictory to my personal preference) that we're not quite there yet. I completely agree that we have leading indicators and policy statements (though followed in contradictory manners--a touchstone in itself) which say "Kyiv" is on its way in and "Kiev" is on its way out. But we're still not at most widespread use. My suggestion would be to table this and revisit again in 6 months. —PētersV (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. More common English form should be used as a title.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, on what do you base the statement that Kiev is more common? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

On personal observations. I do follow news related to Ukraine, and it is extremely rare that I see the "Kyiv" spelling in print here in the United States. Before you accuse me of basing my vote on original research, let me reverse the question: on what do you base the statement that "Kyiv" is more common? From what I gather based on your detailed response to Ev, your arguments are nothing more that theorizing.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, perhaps my arguments were unclear. Before restating them, however, please let me say that everybody, including myself, uses original research. That's the foundation of a justifiable opinion. When original research is used in good faith, common ground can be found and compromise can be reached.

My arguments are based on an examination of various aspects of life, for example encyclopedia (Encarta), entertainment (Monopoly), sports (Dynamo Kyiv), and politics (government usage). These are not arbitrary decisions on my part, but what I found on the WP:Naming Conflict Resolution page. Throughout the discussion here, I have suggested looking at as many aspects of language as possible and not basing a decision exclusively on one source, such as google, or news. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications, but my main problem with your arguments is that they do not assign due weights to the aspects you listed. Risking on bringing the argument to the level of original research again, I should say that despite the alternative spelling often being used in some fields (sports, Monopoly, and Encarta are all good examples), those fields still do not constitute the majority of the usage. In other words (based, once more, strictly on observations), the number of occurences of usage of "Kiev" in a limited number of areas (for example, in the news or in day-to-day talk) is significantly higher than the number of occurences of usage of "Kyiv" in a multitude of other, less prominent, fields. This observation is the principal basis for my vote, in which I opposed to renaming the article at this time.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, but how would you judge the majority of usage? You mentioned day-to-day talk. How would you measure that? I suggest that media are important, but they are only one aspect of life. The question has always been that. The problem is determining what people use and use now (that was the whole problem with Google searches - they report books published in the '30s). I think that including more fields of life provides a better picture of what is used in day-to-day conversation. Just something to think about - what connection do most people have with the city? I think that people don't really care what the name is. When they are curious, they will simply go to a source they know. Soccer fans, for example, would go to the Dynamo Kyiv website, people who want to travel there would likely go to either their government site or the city site or another Ukrainian organization site; politicians would also probably go to the UN atlas, and music fans would see the Eurovision site here [119]. All of those aspects use Kyiv.

Therefore, I think that Kyiv has become more widespread. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

So widespread that the site you're using to promote Kyiv uses 'Kiev in its url! Think you got a bad cherry there ... no matter, the cherry orchard is big enough! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per PētersV, Kyiv is growing in usage but is not there yet. GameKeeper (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. At this time and judging by wikipedia guidelines, it is difficult to conclude that the move would be justified from Kiev --> Kyiv, if only because as pointed out by PetersV, it would be immediately challenged, and moved back. However, the usage of "Kyiv" today is much wider than in 1991 (for example: From 1991-2008, books with title "kyiv" - 124, From 1991-2008, books with title "kiev" - 470. The ratio in modern period is about 1 to 4.5; between 1850-1990, the ratio is about 1:12), and it is reasonable to expect that this pattern will continue and this "moving" issue will return. This trend is not bad for a name that was hardly known (in English) only 15 years ago. In the mean time, I request that efforts are spent on creating new Ukraine-related entries of potential interest to English readers (see portal:ukraine) and on repulsing vandals.--Riurik^(discuss) 22:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Some of the Kiev books are historical (Latin Books and the Eastern Orthodox Clerical Elite in Kiev, 1632-1780 and Dynamo: Triumph and Tragedy in Nazi-Occupied Kiev, some are fictional historic (A Perfect Mitzvah Gift Book: Time Travel with the Kagan's Kids to 10th Century Kiev), some are written by Kiev (Actions, Not Words: The Sermons of Rabbi I. Edward Kiev). The modern spelling appears to be Kyiv. 199.125.109.35 (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support Kyiv is the Latin spelling preferred by the city itself, and the spelling used by the major English-speaking nations in official diplomatic documents. Historically, popular media has been slow to recognize new geographical spellings. Peking/Beijing is a perfect analogy. It is time to move to Kyiv. Qe2 (talk) 07:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually since Ukrainian does not use a Latin script please explain used by the city itself. Moreover just because the "latin" version of the name that "the city uses itself" is say München, we still title the article as Munich. --Kuban Cossack 12:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for allowing me to clarify. The City of Kyiv uses the Latin spelling "Kyiv" when producing material, such as promotional literature and sister-city agreements, in English. Your example is actually a very good one as the city of Munich uses the spelling "Munich" for its Enlgish-language materials [120]. If one wished to weigh how a city wished to identify *itself* in English, Munich and Kyiv would both be correct. Qe2 (talk) 14:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Mild Support User:Riurik said it all. I wish Kyiv was used more often, but it's not enough yet to justify a change. On the other hand Wikipedia could help in doing that... Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

WP is not a institute for spelling reform.... Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral to both. I agree with TAG that this is nothing more than a page name. If we would have spent ¡so×10²³ much time working on the article as "discussing" the page's name, it would not be in the horrible state that it is right now... Nothing more to say here. —dima/talk/ 21:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose This is the English Wikipedia not the Ukrainian Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Septentrionalis, eV and GoodDay. Someday it may be changed, but not yet. --Aphaia (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose on two grounds. First, this is the English-language Wikipedia. In English, the name of this city has been "Kiev" for centuries, and by and large it remains Kiev. Second, the article on the city states that 52 percent of the population of Kiev speaks Russian at home. Presumably, that means those people call their own city Kiev, not Kyiv. I can't support a change when it's even questionable that the majority of people in the city use the "new" name in everyday speech. Jsc1973 (talk) 06:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Hello, the name was Kiev for centuries, but now it is not - even Monopoly uses Kyiv. Please keep in mind that for centuries the English name was Peking and Bombay, but those are not the names now, and Wikipedia has correctly reflected that change. Also, because this is the English Wikipedia, what people use in English should be important. Just something to think about. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 06:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't list the name of the city as Peking on the English Wikipedia because the overwhelming majority of English speakers use the modern Hanyu Pinyin version of the city's name, Beijing. But many other Wikipedias on here still use variants of "Peking" because that is the most common name in that language. And I noticed you ducked my other point. 52 percent of the people of Kiev speak Russian at home. That means the majority of the people who live there don't even call the city Kyiv, they call it Kiev. That clinches it for me. Jsc1973 (talk) 05:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:common name. Sebisthlm (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Another oppose to add, per several previous commentators here. Callmederek (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - We are English Wikipedia, thank you. See WP:V. Bearian (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Google search shows 39 million vs. 6 million for Kiev. Much more common name. Bssc81 (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Kiev is by far the most common name, and has been used in English for at least the last two centuries. john k (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support I continue to use Kyiv in all my articles and books despite often having the term changed to Kiev here on Wikipedia. I am not vehemently opposed to Kiev, however I do suport the continued use of Kyiv. Bandurist 21:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

What "other page"? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Kiev/naming. Ostap 01:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Raw google results are unreliable for several reasons; see WP:Search engines and WP:NCGN#False positives. In this case, it is all too likely that results are affected by direct transliterations from the Ukranian. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This is, what, fifth WP:RM request by Holro of this page within several months? And when it gets rejected just like the last five, do we have to deal with Horlo's next sixth request at once. Time to put an end to this crusade. --Irpen 02:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

it was me, not Horlo. Ostap 02:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

My apologies to Horlo. The rest stands, though. --Irpen 03:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware it has been requested five times before. If you look at the naming page, Horlo first proposed there to begin this here. It seems there has been new developments. The contributors at that page all said to try it. How exactly do we put an end to it? Move it? Ostap 03:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• And who ever made this edit a few days ago forgot to sign. Ostap 04:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It was obviously an anon troll who did not sign for a reason. Does not change anything though. --Irpen 04:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Irpen, please read the talk/discussion pages before trying to discredit an attempt made in good faith by an editor to bring this article in line with current usage. I initiated a discussion on the talk page, and all of the contributing editors suggested that the page be moved.

Please feel free to apologize to user:Ostap, also. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Horlo, please quit trying to harass Irpen. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Deacon, please familiarize yourself with harassment guidelines, and then refer to your personal attacks against me here [121], twice, and here [122] before trying to accuse others. Please don't try to obfuscate the discussion even more than your comments above already have. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr.Deacon, for your information, Irpen is known for systematically harassing several users for months. Given that he's never been blocked for that, shouldn't we all just follow his manner? Happy edits, Ukrained (talk) 13:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You know Horlo, nonsense like that won't distract anyone. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, Deacon, please stick to the topic at hand and avoid personal attacks - otherwise I will have to report your comments to an admin. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Er ... go for it. Good luck finding any "personal attacks" too. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

First, it's the nature of the world that as of now there are two competing spellings with Kyiv gaining popularity over Kiev. Second, the idea of Wikipedia is not to reflect the world as of yesterday, or as of 10 years ago. While the world is changing so is Wikipedia.

Now, let me answer Irpen's question on how do we have to deal with yet another Kyiv/Kiev request. There is nothing wrong to bring the issue, and there is no harm out of discussion.

Contrary to the above, Irpen's position seems to be the following. He says that the issue was discussed many times, he studied it himself, he found what is "right" and what is "wrong", and now what he believes to be "right" needs to be fixed once and for all. His logic begins with the statement "I’m right", therefore "everyone who disagree with me is either a troll, or a disruptor, or a confused one, or just someone who is wrong". The user shows unacceptable intolerance to alternative opinions and his desire to fix a particular spelling "once and for all" needs to be clearly rejected, especially give that this move request resulted from an extensive discussion with new evidence provided. --Greggerr (talk) 11:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

My dear friend, please stop putting things in my mouth. I said nothing like you alleged. Your obsession about my editing repeatedly pronounced in each of your Wikipedia reincarnations is ridiculous. Ukrained at least does not change his username every few months. --Irpen 18:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thats not very good-faith-assuming. Ostap 04:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ostap, there is no need to assume anything here. With editors you know for a long time, nothing is left to assumptions. --Irpen 04:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

So what exactly is Ukrained putting into your mouth? Horlo (talk) 09:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If everybody who has participated in Kiev <-> Kyiv discussion spent his time to contribute to articles instead - then we had many existing articles improved or those articles created Kiev Hydroelectric Power Station, Akademmistechko, Feofania, Koncha-Zaspa, Ivan Franko National Academic Drama Theater, Kiev Puppet Theater, Kiev Circus, Feofaniya Convent. There are are lot of things can be done instead of conflicting on page name. It's just page name - not content! --TAG (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, won't somebody think of the children? What you don't realize is how many editors are turned off by such comments. If it's "just a page name", then why don't you just vote to move it and end this debate, (which has been going on since the beginning of this article) and then everybody can just get along? Then we can have in-line citations and all of the other things that the GA review suggested! And we would even be able to make it an FA! Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Because move will sparkle new discussions on moving it back. You are failing into False dilemma - listing only two options - Kiev or Kyiv. Compromise was already reached by inclusion of both names in article lead. Compare this at Names of European cities in different languages: I-L#K --TAG (talk) 11:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

TAG, Please don't base an opinion on fear of what the truth may spark. Discussion is a good thing. A similar situation occurred on the Dynamo Kyiv page, and the name remained Dynamo Kyiv, and the world did not stop spinning, and after a discussion everybody stayed friends.

I don't understand your statement about the false dilemma. I am not saying that the name Kiev should be removed from the article, I think that it should be in the lead. However, the name of the city is Kyiv, and that should be the name of the article. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

False dilemma = "Should this page be named Kiev or Kyiv. Please decide." Nobody mention that it can be any random number like Page_1232 - it's just page name and moving should be stopped. So let's stop it right now. ----TAG (talk) 09:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm sorry, but I don't understand your argument. The old name for the city was Kiev. The current name of the city is Kyiv. The question is which should be used. That is not a false dilemma, it is a choice. The issue here is not one which has many possible outcomes, and people are not suffering from functional fixedness. The name has changed to Kyiv, not Page 1232, and therefore the name of the article should also be changed. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

On "cherry-picking" and qualified name usage

One of the gentlemen here accuses Mr.Horlo of "cherry-picking" the facts on Kyiv usage, arguing that overall usage statistic shows the Kiev dominance. Well, those may be just two extreme approaches to studying the same subject. Should we consider lay name usage by ordinary Westerner (a U.S. school teacher/student, a provincial Australian journalist and so on) as equally qualified compared to Ukrainians themselves, or to Western organizations and people that work with Ukraine every day? If this is "cherry-picking", it makes some sense. As a general rule, WP does discriminate the sources by their quality. Ukrained (talk) 06:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we should consider name usage by [an] ordinary Westerner equally with that of the Ukrainians themselves. We are intended for general readers, not for specialists. Furthermore, this English Wikipedia is intended for general readers of English, and should be intelligible to them; there is a Ukrainian wikipedia for Ukrainians. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree; general common usage must be considered along with the name chosen by self-identifying entity, as per Wikipedia policy. We have to try and look at the global English usage as well.

The evidence I've seen shows that both Kiev and Kyiv are largely used. Personally, I barely see the Kiev spelling; I see it when in some restaurants, reading older history books or using this talk page. No doubt, there will be editors here who barely see Kyiv, and find the usage of Kiev overwhelming within their circle or locality. Earlier I compared this to the Aluminium naming debate (Aluminium vs Alumina) - two widely used terms, with each one seeming rare and strange to certain people. However, like with this debate, one name must be more appropriate than the other; we should now be discussing which is more appropriate to be the primary name, and not for whatever reason try to dismiss either of the spellings as 'incorrect'.

It is very well to accuse people of cherry-picking, and not looking at the global picture. However, unless married to concrete counter-arguments or -examples, repeated accusations of cherry-picking do not hold much weight.60.242.0.245 (talk) 13:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't get this conflict. kiev.ua domain name was not created by mistake - but because it was city name. New zone kyiv.ua is only in planning stage now. --TAG (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

*********

Gentlemen, I'm terribly sorry for my inaccuracies regarding some of you in personal. This must be a result of my long absence. I also apologize for my humor, obviously missed by Mr. Deacon.

Having that said, I'm sticking to my point in our discussion. Wishes, Ukrained (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The real test for when this should be moved is when English-speakers cease to to protest, when Kyiv is less surprising to us than Kiev, It is clear that day has not yet come. It may, as with Beijing; on the other hand it may never come. The Czechs will have to put up with mad dogs and anglophones misspelling their capital for the foreseeable future.

In the meantime, there is a double standard at work here. The Ukrainians use uk:Англія, although that is certainly not the official spelling of England. I think they should; just as I think we should use Kiev. I could respect someone who disagrees on both; but supporting both uk:Англія and Kiyv is linguistic imperialism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No double standard. The two cases are different in what's involved from historical background to current positions on the issue. If England wants to be called, Inhland please send a letter to Ms. Tymoshenko.--Riurik^(discuss) 21:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, there will always be people who protest everything. On the naming talk page, there is an enlightening statement by an English-speaker about the changes of Peking-Beijing, Bombay-Mumbai, including my personal favourite "the London 'Daily Telegraph still calls Bombay, correctly, Bombay, and not Mumbles or whatever the current crop of stupid nationalists have changed it to." This is followed up by "One of the glories of our language" and "you are pushing a Ukrainian nationalist agenda".

Also, please explain on what grounds you say that "that day has not yet come"

Yes, I agree, that those nasty Ukrainian linguistic imperialists should be reigned in. However, I have never heard [The Ukrainians] use "Англія" in their music.

By the way, how do English people want "England" to be spelled in Ukrainian? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Horlo , English people don't care how "England" is spelled in Ukrainian, we wish Ukrainians did not care how Kiev was spelled in English. GameKeeper (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, but that is the whole issue with the "linguistic imperialism" argument. If England asks that the name of their country be spelled differently, then I'm sure people in Ukraine would change it. The government of Ukraine has asked that the name of the capital be spelled Kyiv to reflect the current name of the city.

The transliteration "Kiev" carries with it very much real imperialistic (not only linguistic) baggage, and that is why many groups and other entities have changed to Kyiv. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly sorry for being a bit flippant with my previous reply. For 99% of English speakers we see no imperialistic baggage and continue to use the spelling & pronunciation Kiev, very few of us consider it a slight on Ukrainians to do this. It does seem very bizarre that a county which does not even share our alphabet is trying to tell us how to pronounce/spell a name of a city in our language! We don't even pronounce Paris in the same way as the locals and that is one of the closest capitals to the UK. I am sure you can appreciate how as a nation or even group we don't appreciate being told how to speak by a foreign power. GameKeeper (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Gamekeeper, no worries about your comment, I totally understand your position. Here is what I see: first, this issue has somehow been morphed into a foreign power TELLING English speakers how to pronounce the name of a foreign city. That's never happened - the government of Ukraine ASKED that respect the Ukrainian language and use the transliteration Kyiv. Nobody wants to force anybody to say anything.

Second, I think that the spelling Kyiv has become more common. Dynamo Kyiv, Monopoly, and Encarta are but three examples of that. Many media sources also use Kyiv.

Third, I assume that people usually don't want to slight anybody, and given the choice to say something that offends somebody and something that doesn't, they would usually choose the one that doesn't. I think that's why governments and the UN have switched to Kyiv. I think that's why people started using Beijing, also. That's probably also the wisdom behind the Wikipedia caveat on naming articles about dealing with "types of entities". Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Your assumption that Wikipedia must reflect only current state of world is false. Wikipedians did their best already by including long section with all details on history of name at Kiev#City name evolution. The whole issue of this naming conflict that Wikipedia software use some human-readable name instead of numbers and it allow only one name be primary one. But all others names can be also used as redirects. Most of editors fall into logical trap that page name (and title) mean more to people then content of it. Everybody who actually read article - can see that both names (and others alternatives) are used and their usage history. --TAG (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, could you please explain your statement that Wikipedi must reflect only the current state of world is false? That seems to be against everything Wikipedia stands for. Is it not Wikipedia's place to describe what is happening now?

Nobody is arguing that the history of the name be ignored - just like nobody is arguing that demolition of ancient historical monuments by Kaganovich should be removed. Again, if the page name is not important, you should have no problems in changing the name to Kyiv. Everybody who reads the article will see the evolution of the name, but by using the name "Kiev", (not only in this article but throughout) Wikipedia is tacitly sanctioning its use as the real name of the city. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

A narrow comment to Horlo's strange assertion about the common English name being "slighting" and "offending" to the Ukrainians. "Ukrainians offended" is an outright nonsense. The narrow nationalist slice of the tolerant Ukrainian nation should not usurp the right to speak for the entire people. Ukrainians are not offended at all, except of a small part who make up this non-existing "offense" just to push the change they like to see. --Irpen 21:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

A narrow answer to Irpen's narrow comment - your comments are an outright nonsense. You see, saying such things is just not nice. If you don't agree, great. Variety is the spice of life. But saying that an opposing point of view is "an" outright nonsense is just, well, outright nonsense. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Horlo, perhaps I was not clear and I apologize. I did not mean to imply that your case is nonsense. We are actually in agreement that the variety is indeed the spice of life. By nonsense I meant your denying this variety to the Ukrainians themselves and making a baseless claim about your knowing and, in fact representing, the spelling that is preferred by 'the Ukrainians". The term "nonsense" in my comment was narrowly directed at this aspect. The "conscious nationalists", "Great Russian patriots", the tolerant and non-committed majority of the country, the national minorities like Crimean Tatars, Ukrainian Jews, Greeks, Romanians, Lippovans and whoever else lives in Ukraine (I hope you consider them all "Ukrainians" for the matter of this debate) do not have a single POV on any issue and thanks god for that. No one should usurp the right of the Ukrainians to speak for themselves, neither you nor me. This very page demonstrates the diversity among the Ukrainians in the view on this matter. --Irpen 21:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, dear Irpen, thank you for the apology. However, there is a limited number of ways to understand statements like "utter nonsense". I would also like to draw your attention to some more of your provocative statements, such as "making a baseless claim"; "conscious nationalists" (as opposed to those nationalists who happen to be sleeping at the moment); "usurp the right of the Ukrainians to speak for themselves" (again, [The Ukrainians] have never had a problem expressing themselves, nor have Ukrainians). By the way, you forgot to mention that there is a sizable ethnic Russian minority in Ukraine. Please look through the discussion, and on all of the talk pages I have been the one who is in favour of including as many opinions, editors, and sources as possible.

Now, I understand that your English may not express exactly what you mean, and that may be the reason you feel it necessary to make so many reverts to my edits all over Wikipedia.

However, getting back to this article, I find it very amusing that somehow my arguments have become "nationalist". (User:Dumrovii's comments below are a great example - an accusatory statement, with no substantiation). All of the sources that I provided are legitimate, verifiable, and even based on those suggested on the Wikipedia naming conflict page [123]. I have never made claims like "it is most prevalent" without explaining myself, or relying on one source such as media. I have simply put forth arguments in good faith, hoping to inspire discussion and a better Wikipedia. After all, that's why we're here, aren't we? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Reading this discussion, I can't help but notice that Horlo's arguments are fueled by Ukrainian nationalism. Dumrovii (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, is there anything specific that you could point to? Thanks Horlo (talk) 07:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You must be English? That would be a classic example of the British Understatement if ever I saw one! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Deacon of Pndapetzim, can you explain that one ("[y]ou must be English") to me please? Is this a common joke, or a comment on Horlo or the naming dispute? I don't get it...

I thought part of the purpose of Talk:Kiev/naming was so that editors could get over generalisations there, put together a case and throw the evidence offered by each side open to scrutiny. PētersV and GameKeeper both opposed the move, but were contributing to the discussion on the naming subpage. If someone believes that today, the usage of the Kiev spelling is dominant in written or typeset English, then they cannot assume that everyone else should just 'know' if they are being reasonable; on the naming subpages, editors from both schools of thought had acknowledged that the spelling they view to be less common globally can be more common within certain locales.

We should be discussing evidence, and I think the burden of proof is now on the opposers' side. Even if the evidence should be blindingly obvious, or if was stated back in 2003 and you are sure that it's still current, then please raise it anyway.60.242.0.245 (talk) 11:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think that is quite clear to see that this move is motivated by Ukrainian nationalism. I note that the vast majority of the supporters of this move are Ukrainian or of Ukrainian extraction, and while I respect and appreciate their opinions given, it is easier to judge the common name in Anglophone countries of a certain city when you live in an Anglophone country. Cherry-picking of usage by governments (which are not representative of normal usage - diplomacy is the key here: Western governments do not want to be involved with disputes in regards to petty Ukrainian nationalism), and Encarta (which is only one encyclopedia - and its reputation doesn't even get anywhere that of Encyclopædia Britannica, which has always used Kiev) is a sign of desperation. Also "Monopoly" - come on, it is laughable to suggest that a board game is related in any way to normal language use. I don't know about anyone else here, but I certainly do not use board games as a guide to proper English. With regards to Google, I note that if you do a Google News search 'Kyiv' is mostly only used by English-language sources within Ukraine itself. Sorry, but Wikipedia has no real interest in what is used in Ukraine itself - I have never came across the usage 'Kyiv' in all my years reading the press or in general interaction with people living in the UK/Ireland. Anyway, if we were to use the 'proper name' it would be Kiyev as the majority of Kiev residents speak Russian as their first language, hard as you may find it to stomach. (see sources 6 and 7 in the main article). Once the usage of the Joe Bloggs changes to Kyiv along with the media such as BBC, CNN, ITN, New York Times, Washington Post, Times of India etc., I will support and wholeheartedly. Regards, EJF (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, nobody cares about what you think this move is motivated by, nor about your perception of other user's ethnic backgrounds. Please keep your comments on how to improve the encyclopedia, not on other users. Regards, Ostap 19:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry if I have offended you, I was not saying that a Ukrainian user's opinion should be less respected or ignored, I was saying that if one lives in an anglophone country, they would be more acquainted with normal English-speaking use of the city's name. Again, apologies if you believe that I was commenting on users but I was actually referring to geographic location and I also did not call any user a 'Ukrainian nationalist'. And they were not 'perceptions' - I simply looked at userpages or previous revisions of user pages to see this. Also, it is important what a page move is motivated by, as we can not allow POV page moves per WP:NPOV. I regret any confusion caused - I hope you do not believe that I am saying that a native of one country has a lesser opinion than one of an other country. Regards, EJF (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

EJF, it seems to me that a significant proportion of people who have commented on this talk, or who have edited this article, have a background which is all or partly Ukrainian or Russian, or of another Eastern European ethnicity - even if they live in countries where English is the official language. That is possibly one reason why they took interest in this article in the first place. Of course, an editor should be twice as careful to keep an open mind this is the case, but this does not necessarily mean they have to excuse themselves. There has been at least one supporter of each spelling who I personally think is biased by their ethnicity, but I'm hopeful that the majority of us can sort this out rationally.

Everyone should be supporting what they think is the appropriate name by Wikipedia policy, so that is why nothing like 'Kyjiv' or 'Kijev' is here. However, people have different ideas of what should be correct by Wikipedia policy. I don't doubt that EJF has rarely or never seen 'Kyiv'. I've already said that in Australia, except when dealing with restaurants or older history books, I rarely see 'Kiev'. What we have to do is compare everyone's experiences, supported by sourced evidence if possible, and try to get a global picture of English usage. This is what I thought had been done already on Talk:Kiev/naming before the move was requested.60.242.0.245 (talk) 04:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, EJF, I think you are correct and there is a POV being pushed here: I have noted that the vast majority of the users who so vehemently oppose the move seem to live in the UK, or are native Russian speakers.

By the way, where do I live?

However, that aside, let's take a look at your arguments. Please see the discussion on the talk page as to why the Google test is not really a useful test. As to what you have or have not ever come across, while that is important in a survey, it is definitely not an objective measuring stick. Also, Encarta doesn't have a reputation like Britannica - it has a reputation of showing what is current in the information age. With respect to Monopoly, come on - how many people do you know who have never played Monopoly? How can it get more common than that? Now, I'm not saying that board games set usage, I'm saying that they reflect usage. With respect to "proper" name, it is what people call themselves. And that is Kyiv.

Finally, I find it very interesting that people who accuse me of "cherry picking" just outright ignore most of the arguments that I put forth (for example sports - Dynamo Kyiv, entertainment - Eurovision uses Kyiv, travel - the IATA uses Kyiv), and simply focus on the one field, such as news media.

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Personally at the moment I have no time or want to debate about 'POV pushing' - but no, I wouldn't say that there is pro-Russian/British POV-pushing (there are people opposing the move from Kiev to Kyiv who are Ukrainians) indeed, at WP:POVPUSH it is defined as the "aggressive promotion of a particular point of view, particularly when used to denote the promotion of minor or fringe views". So, while I very readily accept that in an English-speaking context in western/central Ukraine Kyiv is more common, and that Kiev would be a minor or fringe usage, in the Anglophone world at large Kiev is still holding out. Until the majority of mass media switch to Kyiv (which may happen quite soon), the use of Kyiv will not filter down to the average English speaker who reads this encyclopedia. Sincerely, EJF (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Horlo, you're free to continue the debate as long as you wish, but you should consider backing off for sometime. Regurgitating the same old arguments, like Encarta, Eurovision or Monopoly, is not making the case for the move stronger. What's amazing is that you have editors who are engaging in a dialogue with you on this issue in a constructive and reasonable manner. Like I said, give this some time off, busy yourself with other things, and return to this issue whenever you feel the case for the move has grown stronger.--Riurik^(discuss) 17:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Riurik, thank you for permitting me to continue this debate. The reason I did not repeat all of the arguments for the move is that they were discussed a lot on the naming page. I think that editors of good faith who are really interested would be able to read them there. I am not really amazed that there are editors who are willing to have a constructive discussion here - that's the entire principle of Wikipedia. Now, if you feel yourself growing tired of this debate, please feel free to busy yourself with other things, also. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Riurik, there was a time when I spoke to Horlo along the same lines, that is asking him to busy himself with other things. Now that I saw those "other things" he chose to get himself busy with, that is the "Holodomor denial" article he created, especially in his version of it, I think I am more comfortable with him spending his energy at talk:Kiev/naming. There it is at least less prominent and less harmful to both the Wikipedia and to the Ukrainian editors who, by such "articles" are collectively put in bad light.

As for this debate, I just want to repeat one thing that I have said earlier. Among several Horlo's arguments, there is one that may seem less obvious to impartial readers than the rest. When he talks about Monopoly and FC DK, any reader, no matter how little one is familiar with the Ukrainian issues, can judge his arguments on their face value. But when Horlo speaks that his preferred spelling is preferred by the "People of Ukraine" or by "residents of the city" etc, it is important to let any uninvolved reader know that such claims have no basis. There is absolutely no evidence to claim that the people of Ukraine want the English speakers to change their language. More, there is no evidence whatsoever that the Ukrainians themselves prefer the Ukrainionized spelling in the English language. We certainly know how to write the correct name in both Russian and Ukrainian but continued repetition that we have a preferred view of what it should be in the language alien to most of the country is a mere red herring for one and totally baseless for two.

Our being one of the least nationalist nations is even exemplified by our Wikipedia editors' community, which, unlike some other communities, never votes in-synch in AfD's or RM discussions, as exemplified even in this very vote. Neither me nor Horlo have the right to say what the "Ukrainians" prefer. Whenever one side of a political debate attempts to claim they represent their nation, anyone should be wary of whoever tries to make such claim. --Irpen 21:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Can't we stop commenting on Horlo? This isn't a Criticism of Horlo article. Lets not bring up Horlo's other wikipedia editing activities, lets talk about this move. And Horlo may not represent the nation, but the government the people elected does. Ostap 22:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Irpen, there are Ukrainian students who are taught English at school, Ukrainian businessmen who correspond in English, and Ukrainian students studying in English-speaking countries - at Talk:Kiev/naming, all we have seen is evidence pointing to them using Kyiv. Of course, if the Ukrainian government is organising the teaching of English, and mail addresses must be spelt officially, then 'Kyiv' will be used. Further, English is the language for peer-review scientific journals - you could try a PubMed search for recently-published articles, and check Kyiv against Kiev (I'll try when I get a chance). Of course, I have no idea as to what the rest of the Ukrainian population would prefer.

Could we perhaps separate 'self-identifying entity' arguments from 'common usage' arguments, to make this debate easier to follow?60.242.0.245 (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Irpen, you have never spoken to me, you have simply stalked me around Wikipedia and reverted any changes I made with which you disagreed. Then, when I started an article that needed to be written, you made such a supportive comment entitled "Shame" which included such non-provocative statements as "campaigning on the bones of famine victims". I have to warn you - there are things in the world that you do not agree with. Even people with whom you may not agree. It happens. So please, get off the soap box, stop criticizing my articles, and stick with the topic at hand. That is the name of this article.

Also, Irpen, don't make statements like "Neither me nor Horlo have the right to say what the "Ukrainians" prefer" (especially because such statements are grammatically incorrect, and put Ukrainian editors into a bad light) and then follow them up with "We certainly know how to write the correct name in both Russian and Ukrainian": you don't know what Ukrainians certainly know, you only know what you know.

One more time, I would like to make this very clear, to avoid confusion. This "when Horlo speaks that his preferred spelling is preferred by the "People of Ukraine" or by "residents of the city" etc," never happened. The freely democratically elected government of Ukraine, in 1995, issued guidelines about the spelling of the name of the capital city. All governments of English-speaking countries, all major international organizations, some media organizations, and some encyclopedia have changed the spelling. That is why I think the name should change. These are the majority of the criteria outlined here [124]. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Horlo, you've contradicted yourself, telling Irpen he only knows what he knows and then proceeding to repeat your attempt to generalize on behalf of the people of Ukraine. Stop making spurious accusations against Irpen. I know moderates are the bane of every non-moderate, but on wikipedia we gotta learn to live and co-operate with each other. And it is in the interests of wikipedia and the principles of WP:NPOV to supervise the contributions of users with known agendas, though as Irpen is a Ukrainian user too you could encounter much more often before it would become be reasonable to throw out nonsense accusations of "stalking"! Irpen's English is fine btw. When one learns to speak English naturally and fluently, one will often use idiomatic English which might throw off less familiar speakers. So we can all forgive you for this mistake! All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Great - we have a FLAMEWAR in progress. How about all of us being rational and discussing the move request instead? 60.242.0.245 (talk) 17:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure it's a flame-war, but yes, anon, you are correct. Being rational is highly recommended; harassing Irpen is not! Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that arguments on both sides are now being repeated ad nauseam. Unless Horlo has any objections, I suggest that an admin closes this. EJF (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I second that arguments are being repeated continually, but instead move that we actually discuss the issue at hand. This was supposed to be a move request, not a debate on editors or nationalist tendancies. Further, all of the big debating was supposed to have taken place at Talk:Kiev/naming. Obviously I think Kyiv is the more common spelling, as I supported the move, but I also think that Kiev must have a wide usage since there are editors against the move. This means that there must be evidence for this usage. Why not present it and let the evidence speak for itself?60.242.0.245 (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. EJF, why must Horlo be the one to object? Worthy as his contributions are, he was not elected spokesman for the 'support party'. Also, Ostap R made the move request.60.242.0.245 (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(I reluctantly reply as I think there are more constructive things I could be doing within Wikipedia and off-wiki) While I entirely appreciate WP:NOTVOTE, the fact of the matter is that the time of writing this, under 30% of the commenters supported the move, and at this time there is not a chance of this move passing - the fact is that we are longer debating the merits of the move and this is clearly becoming personalised, so I don't see why an admin isn't closing this. With regards to 'evidence' of the usage of the spelling Kiev, it has been said that almost all major media organisations use 'Kiev' and not 'Kyiv', but I am afraid that we cannot have accurate statistics on what the average Anglophone uses in everyday life, although my own personal experience and that of others suggests that Kiev is far more popular, and in many cases 'Kyiv' is only known by association football fans (I am one, but that doesn't mean that most English-speakers are!)
It was said by one editor that it was up to the opposers to find evidence that most English-speakers use 'Kiev' - no, it is up to the proposer and his supporters to find the evidence; believe me, and I say this sincerely, that if the use of Kiev in my own recent experience was a deviance from most English-speakers current use, and if there had been evidence that the mass media and society as a whole now used 'Kyiv', I would have supported the move (as I have stated before). <To the IP: I asked Horlo, as it is he that I and other users have been discussing with, mainly. And I appreciate that his contribution are worthy :) I don't think there is a flame war yet, but I do think we should reassess while we are continuing to debate - it seems like flogging a dead horse. Best regards, EJF (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.