This is an archive of past discussions about Kyiv. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
If you want the article to be renamed, the ONLY way to accomplish this is to start a WP:RM. Please note however that this has been done at least 10 times in the past 11 years, and the result has always been the same. The last RM was less than two months ago; I suggest waiting until about a year from now, since nothing has changed externally since the last RM. Softlavender (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Note - discussion moved from talk:Kiev
This edit request to Kiev has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change Kiev to Kyiv, Ukraine government officially started campaign called #KyivNotKiev. The point is - Kiev is a russian spelling, Kyiv is a transliteration from UKRAINIAN name to English.
It's very important to ukrainians. MaJIbIu (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I am afraid I will be looking for arbitration enforcement prohibiting you to comment on Kiev vs Kyiv. You manage to disrupt every discussion by endlessly repeating the same mantra which was many times rejected by consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I would welcome such arbitration as a perfect example of politically-inspired censorship, especially in view of the fact that such censorship would be singling out one particular commenter, while the endless disruptive repetition of mantras by all other participants in these discussions would remain unimpeded. Roman Spinner(talk • contribs)18:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I am familiar with WP:CONSENSUS, however, discussions on this topic range far beyond the question of whether Wikipedia's main title header for the article delineating Ukraine's capital should be "Kiev" or "Kyiv". Many opinions are expressed which distort or misrepresent facts and which should not remain unanswered. Unless, of course, that is the very purpose of attempting to exclude me from these discussions. Roman Spinner(talk • contribs)18:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, Roman, "Kyiv" is used in English from time to time. Such usage is absolutely swamped by the usages of "Kiev", so that "Kiev" remains the general English form. Note that diplomatic usage is a separate issue. People (you included) keep saying that "the US officially uses Kyiv" or "the UK officially uses Kyiv", but that is a misrepresentation of the facts. US (and I presume UK) diplomatic protocol is to use the names requested by the country in question. But that usage is only binding on the diplomatic corps. Other governmental departments are free to use whatever they wish. And the idea of government regulation of names in the mass media is absolutely rejected. When you subtract the diplomatic usage that is bound by protocol, leaving only those usages that are up to the free choice of the writer, the usage of "Kyiv" in English all but vanishes.--Khajidha (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
The only "mantra" I have seen is your constant statement that "Kyiv is the modern English usage" despite having been shown that virtually every radio, television, or newspaper report in the Anglosphere has used "Kiev" in all recent stories about the city. --Khajidha (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Khajidha, "mantra" is not a term that I normally use and I only used it here to match my reply to the previous style. I realize that "Kiev" is still predominant over "Kyiv" and, therefore, have never initiated any discussions on this topic nor made virtually any edits to Ukraine or Eastern Europe-related articles. However, once a discussion is started by others, I feel obligated to point out that, while a consensus does currently exist, the subject is not unanimously agreed-upon by all Wikipedia editors and, if the discussion progresses further, bring up all the additional familiar examples of Peking/Bombay/Calcutta, Lonely Planet, Miami Herald etc, so that any potential newcomers to the discussion would at least see that it is not as WP:SNOW as it may appear. Roman Spinner(talk • contribs)19:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
So, the same several Russian Wiki moderators ban Kiev > Kyiv transfer
"Kiev" is the WP:COMMONNAME in English. To quote, TaivoLinguist like "Warsaw", "Moscow", and "Prague". That is not how they are spellt in their native tongues and not how they would be transliterated. It's their names in English. This is a perennial nowhere discussion. Please park your nationalism at the door. There is no room for it on Wikipedia.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
And since IPs don't care about Wikipedia processes and procedures, this one forgot to mention this. --Taivo (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC
Unwillingness to use the name imposed by the occupation forces (with the complete prohibition of the native language for Ukrainians), unwillingness to do it during the war, when every year thousands of Ukrainians dying through someone's ambitions — there is «nationalism»? --Synyc'a Vusata (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Kiev. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
This is just more of the same inability of the the Ukrainian government to understand that 1) the forms used in other languages are neither "mistakes" nor "transliterations from Russian", they are distinct words in those languages and 2) regardless of point 1 such things are beyond the power of the Ukrainian government to control. --Khajidha (talk) 14:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2019
This edit request to Kyiv has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ~ Amory(u • t • c)11:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This edit request to Kiev has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not my request, just pointing out to the original poster that Ukrainian norms are not binding on the English language. --Khajidha (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
In my understanding the Wikipedia always was an unbiased resource and definitely was not a propaganda media, but media that reflects reality.
We can spend hours to argue, but Wikipedia people can consider few simple things.
Russians changed most of ukrainian city names to their own russian names. Like Kyiv to Kiev, Rivne to Rovno (there is the article with that russian name Rovno Ghetto), Kharkiv to Kharkov, etc. They even changed original city names to names of russian leaders, like Luhansk to Voroshilovgrad, Mariupol to Zhdanov, etc.
But you can't deny that Kyi is the founder of KYIv City.
Like Romulus is the founder of Rome City. By the way, the russian name for Rome is Rim and you will never accept it in your language, because English has Latin roots from Ancient Rome. :)
I understand, that the root of the issue with KIEV, that most of you, people, had no any imagine, that Ukraine even exists 'till the recent time, because the whole territory was the Great Mother-Russia in eyes of foreigners, despite that Beatles "Well the Ukraine girls really knock me out" in the Back in the U.S.S.R. song.
Nonetheless, Wikipedia has changed easily many of ukrainian city names to their proper names, like Kharkov to Kharkiv, Nikolayev to Mykolaiv, Kremenchug to Kremenchuk, Chernigov to Chernihiv, etc.
And why there are so many speculations and insinuations for Kyiv ...
The Guardian article and the note from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Ukraine) are just examples that something has been restored to it natural state and Wikipedia doesn't want to accept the truth.
English Wikipedia is indeed not a propaganda tool, in particular, not a Ukrainian propaganda tool, and this is exactly the reason the name of the article is Kiev.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
I hope, you can point out the place for the propaganda in KYIV word and explain the spick and span Wikipedia renaming for other UKRAINIAN cities? --Victor sunsay —Preceding undated comment added 12:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Your whole post above is propaganda. What we use is the most common name in English, and, absent that, we use an Ukrainian name properly romanized. Ukrainian government is not in a position to determine the usage of names in English. It can make illegal using certain names, and this could have legal effects in Ukraine (to be precise, in the part of Ukraine controlled by the central government) but not elsewhere. Concerning the most common usage, we had once this discussion and found out that most names of Ukrainian localities have no common usage (hence Chernihiv, Kharkiv, and Kremenchuk), but Kiev and Odessa do, and we are using their common names in English, despite having every couple of weeks nationalist Ukrainians explaining us what names we should be using,--Ymblanter (talk) 13:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Oh, finnaly, tovarisch, the sutuation is clarifying. So, those are "evil Ukrainian nationalists" ... I have no questions then, Ymblanter. Victor sunsay —Preceding undated comment added 13:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Presumably you think I am Russian, you hate Russians, and you are trying to attack me on that basis. This is by itself blockable, but you are clearly wasting your time because I am not even Russian.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Good job, Ymblanter! You have requested to delete the screenshot from your OPEN profile: "The user created this to facilitate personal attacks on me in the English Wikipedia". That was really unbiased and clear action. :) User Abzeronow (without any doubts) eagerly did the "Speedy delete". Don't I understand something?
Victor sunsay (talk) 14:24, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
I want to inform other participants that Ymblanter person is from Russia and tries to confuse English-speaking contributors with politics and insinuations about Ukraine, because his own Russian Federation country does act of direct aggression against Ukraine. The crucial point for understanding why such people so resist to Kyiv renaming is that their leader Vladimir Putin insists that ukrainians do not exist and Kyiv is a russian city. --Victor sunsay
Ymblanter isn't from Russia. Neither am I. I've lived in Ukraine, western Ukraine, and I'm married to a Ukrainian, so I know the linguistic situation in that country very well. But the English Wikipedia is governed not by passions from nationalists of any stripe--Ukrainian or Russian. And as the English Wikipedia, we are governed by common English usage. For the vast majority of locations in Ukraine there is no common usage because the places are rarely, if ever, mentioned in English language sources. Thus "Kharkov" > "Kharkiv", "Dniepropetrovsk" > "Dnipro", etc. That is not true for "Kiev", "Chernobyl", and "Odessa" which are firmly entrenched and regularly mentioned in English. This is regularly checked in reliable English sources and the usage of "Kiev", "Chernobyl", and "Odessa" has not changed in the last ten years. There are English common forms for these three names and they simply cannot be changed based on the whims of the government in Kyiv and an act of the Rada. I suggest you expend your passions elsewhere for the good of your country and not in terrorizing Wikipedia with your personal attacks on other editors. --Taivo (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Interesting. So that was me who pulled out "arguments" with the "ukrainian nationalists", the "Ukrainian government is not in a position" the "part of Ukraine controlled by the central government" and other stuff to "terrorizing Wikipedia with MY personal attacks on other editors"? I have tried to talk with arguments and without any mentions of other editors. There is a screenshot from Ymblanter profile that clarifies situation why he is so excitable about "ukrainian nationalists" in the ENGLISH segment of Wikipedia. Victor sunsay —Preceding undated comment added 14:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Victor sunsay, I strongly recommend you to calm down, to stop commenting on other users (it is not a good habit, which may lead to serious consequences), and, importantly, to think about the following. The English names of almost all important European cities (Prague, the Hague, Munich, Vienna, Warsaw, Moscow, Rome, Lisbon, Belgrade, and many others) are different from their names in local languages (Praha, Den Haag, München, Wien, Warszawa, Moskva, Roma, Lisboa, Beograd, accordingly). Have you ever thought why? The reason is that these words became English words, the names of those cities became an inseparable part of the culture of the Anglophone worlds. It is well known that in any language, important words are more resistant to changes than less important ones. Thus English irregular verbs (which are archaic forms that came from the Anglo-Saxon predecessor of English) are preserved only for the most important (frequently used) verbs, whereas all others converted to the standard "-ed" form.
The very fact that "Kiev" resists to modern nationalistic trends is an indication that the name of this city became a part of English culture. I think Ukrainians should be proud of that: it makes "Kiev" a full member of the constellation of important European cities (like those I listed above). In that respect, it is not important whether English "Kiev" originated from the Russian word or not: it really does not matter.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
“But you can't deny that Kyi is the founder of KYIv City. Like Romulus is the founder of Rome City. By the way, the russian name for Rome is Rim and you will never accept it in your language, because English has Latin roots from Ancient Rome. :)”
You do realize that your example completely contradicts the point you are trying to make, right? If the Russian name for the capital of Italy can be a word that does not have the letter sequence “Rom” in it, then the English name for the capital of Ukraine does not have to have the letter sequence “Kyi” in it.
“English-speaking person will never accept russian name for New Zealand: Novaya Zehlandiya, or Kentookie instead of Kentucky”
Here you confuse several different things. No, a native English speaker would not accept the usage of the Russian name for Kentucky when speaking English. If speaking (or writing) Russian, no one would object to using the Russian name for any place. But neither of these situations is exactly parallel to the case at hand. The English Wikipedia uses the English name for this city, but you object to it because it is etymologically linked more closely to Russian than to Ukrainian. I do not know what the Ukrainian name for any city in my country is, but I can see no valid reason for me to object to the forms of those names, whether they are derived from the English form, the Russian form, the Chinese form, or even just based on a random draw from a bag of Scrabble tiles. Note: "no valid reason" based solely on language of derivation. I could object if the Ukrainian name for a city was a derogatory term. Example: Ukrainians could object to English naming their capital something like "Shitburg".
“I understand, that the root of the issue with KIEV, that most of you, people, had no any imagine, that Ukraine even exists 'till the recent time, because the whole territory was the Great Mother-Russia in eyes of foreigners”
Insulting the entire Anglosphere is hardly likely to help your cause.
“Nonetheless, Wikipedia has changed easily many of ukrainian city names to their proper names, like Kharkov to Kharkiv, Nikolayev to Mykolaiv, Kremenchug to Kremenchuk, Chernigov to Chernihiv, etc.” and “The notorious Wikipedia's "collaborative consensus" gets along smoothly with other UKRAINIAN cities name correction (Kharkov to Kharkiv, Nikolayev to Mykolaiv, Kremenchug to Kremenchuk, Chernigov to Chernihiv, etc.). There is obvious discrepancy in an approach.”
Paul Siebert has explained this very well. We do not follow a blanket approach of “directly transliterate all names using the same standards”, we ask first if there is a commonly used form in English. If there is, we use it regardless of its source language. If there is not, then we utilize standard transliteration rules.
“The Guardian article and the note from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Ukraine)”
The Guardian is just one newspaper, admittedly a fairly influential one, but its usage is simply dwarfed by all the other English language newspapers that use “Kiev”. As for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Ukraine)”, the policies of any Ukrainian government representatives are irrelevant to English usage. The change in usage at London Luton Airport is significant, but does not outweigh all the other usages of “Kiev”.--Khajidha (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
The majority of English speakers in the U.S. (the largest English-speaking country, of course) don't read the Guardian. The only major U.S. newspaper that has switched to Kyiv is the Miami Herald and it isn't even near the top of the list. The New York Times and Los Angeles Times both use Kiev. And the most popular travel sites (Expedia, Travelocity, Orbitz) send travelers to "Kiev, Ukraine (KBP-Borispol Intl.)" or "Kiev, Ukraine (IEV-All Airports)". The average American never visits a government web site to see "Kyiv". Television? Here's one of the big-three American networks using Kiev. --Taivo (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
The comment that has been begging for a reply is the one at 17:13, 26 April 2019 — "The English names of almost all important European cities (Prague, the Hague, Munich, Vienna, Warsaw, Moscow, Rome, Lisbon, Belgrade, and many others) are different from their names in local languages (Praha, Den Haag, München, Wien, Warszawa, Moskva, Roma, Lisboa, Beograd, accordingly). Have you ever thought why? The reason is that these words became English words, the names of those cities became an inseparable part of the culture of the Anglophone worlds."
Those three sentences are obvious and incontestable. The conclusion drawn in the last three sentences, however, is most certainly misguided — "The very fact that "Kiev" resists to modern nationalistic trends is an indication that the name of this city became a part of English culture. I think Ukrainians should be proud of that: it makes "Kiev" a full member of the constellation of important European cities (like those I listed above). In that respect, it is not important whether English "Kiev" originated from the Russian word or not: it really does not matter."
First of all, the mentioned cities have stable English names which are used without exception throughout the English-speaking world. Their citizens, including the most rabid nationalists, are almost certainly "proud" to be "a full member of the constellation", etc, etc. The name of the Ukrainian capital, however, stands in a unique position and it is only tangentially related to nationalism, unless we believe that governments around the English-speaking world, Google Maps, Yahoo Maps, Lonely Planet, The Guardian, Miami Herald and all the other entities now using "Kyiv" kowtow to Ukrainian nationalists.
Furthermore, none of those cities have an English exonym that their citizens know is the same as the exonym used by a neighboring country with which they are or have been in conflict. More apt examples would be city names such as Wrocław, Gdańsk, Szczecin or Kaliningrad. Once upon a time, the stable English exonyms for those cities were Breslau, Danzig, Stettin and Königsberg. The first three cities are still under those names in the German Wikipedia since those are the German exonyms for those cities, but those are no longer the English exonyms.
Finally, what "really does not matter" at this stage is the English pronunciation of Kyiv's name. Since Ukraine has a very large Russian-speaking population, the Russian speakers will continue to pronounce the name "Kiev", no matter what, and the Ukrainian-speakers will continue to pronounce it "Kyiv", no matter what. The fundamental consideration is that key English-language print sources are moving towards the use of "Kyiv" even if continues to be pronounced "Kiev". Perhaps the pronunciation could be something in-between, such as the difference between Calcutta and Kolkata. —Roman Spinner(talk • contribs)11:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Pronunciation doesn't matter. All that matters here in Wikipedia is that Kiev is still the English name of Ukraine's capital city in the majority of reliable sources and the rate of change to Kyiv is glacial at best. --Taivo (talk) 13:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
As things stand now, yes, it doesn't matter — only the written form matters. But the contention (repeated, as all arguments are, from previous discussions) that Ukrainians should be "proud" that the name of their city is part of English culture, when Ukrainians know better than anyone that the English name "Kiev" is also the Russian name, mischaracterizes and misunderstands the perspective of the Ukrainian populace. —Roman Spinner(talk • contribs)14:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
But this is English, not Russian. The inability to accept this is just as offensive as the contention that "there is no Ukrainian language....". The source of the word is irrelevant, it is English. --Khajidha (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
...when Ukrainians know better than anyone that the English name "Kiev" is also the Russian name. So what? If the goal is to eradicate Russian language in Ukraine, that is not what the international community can accept. Ukraine has a conflict not with ethnic Russians, and not with Russophonic Ukrainians, their enemy is the Russian Federation (a state, not an ethnic or a language group). In contrast, a mother tongue of a significant part of Ukrainian population (and of the majority of well educated Ukrainians) is Russian, and it is really a mother tongue (ridna mova). In connection to that, the attempts to force English speakers to change their own language and to start speaking "Kiev" because it was ostensibly originated from the Russian word "Kiyev", and despite the fact that majority of the polulation of this city (which is Russophonic) use the word "Kiev" is the worst example of ethnic nationalism, which is the XIX century anachronism, and is unacceptable in the modern Europe. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Since a large percentage of Ukrainian speakers have intermarried with Russian speakers, not even the most nationalist Ukrainian parties have mentioned a desire to "eradicate Russian language in Ukraine", which would be counterproductive since it is the common language for all 15 republics and not even possible under the most extreme circumstances. From most accounts, the majority of Ukrainians, even the Russian-speaking ones, see the name change as simply an assertion of their national identity.
With that in mind, English names change in response to national sensitivities. The Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference announced in 1949 that their capital's official name is Beijing, but the English-speaking world was slow to adapt until Nixon's visit to China in 1972. In 1995, the Government of India changed the name of Bombay to Mumbai, arguing that it was an "unwanted legacy of British colonial rule" and the English-speaking world followed suit. And so it goes with "Kiev" to "Kyiv". If the many important English-language sources that have already revised the name did not accept this reasoning, the name change would remain as a strictly local matter. —Roman Spinner(talk • contribs)19:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
...not even the most nationalist Ukrainian parties have mentioned a desire to "eradicate Russian language in Ukraine"... What is currently happening in Ukraine (even if we leave new language law beyond the scope) is tantamount to an attempt to eradicate Russian language. The interference of the Ukrainian state into its citizens' private life is unprecedented.
...as simply an assertion of their national identity. As I already explained, in a modern society, national identity cannot be built around a language. Americans don't have to speak English, and the state take all needed efforts to make the life on non-English speakers easier. With regard to a language test, its is applicable only to immigrants who apply tfor citizenship. Do you imply that Russiphonic Ukrainians are a kind of immigrants? This is a very dangerous approach, because it is a pure separatism. The example of the Baltic state is misleading, because their situation is absolutely unusual, and what they are doing sets no precedents in the international law. The only reason the West tolerates their deeds is because they were illegally annexed by the USSR. As far as I know, Ukraine was not annexed by the USSR, it was one of the creators of the USSR, and during the long period of its history the USSR was ruled by Ukrainian nationals.
Peking/Beijin. It was not just a change of the capital name, it was a new transliteration system for all Chinese words. And, by the way, in contrast to Ukraine, in real democratic countries, their governments have no authority to decide what and how should their people speak and write, so even if some political leader decided to use Kyiv, that will hardly have any appreciable effect on the whole Anglophonic world.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
User:Roman Spinner, you really don't have any good arguments at all. Bombay>Mumbai is irrelevant. India has more English speakers than any other country in the world. Once that half a billion English speakers switch the spelling of the name, it's virtually a done deal throughout the rest of the former British Empire (which accounts for about 80% of all the English speakers of the world). Ukraine isn't an English-speaking country so your argument is falsified. Peking > Beijing, as stated above, was a case of China changing its transliteration system, but since China isn't an English-speaking country it took decades for the change to filter into the rest of the world along with the pinyin transliteration system of Mandarin. So your "examples" are simply irrelevant to the issue of "Kiev" > "Kyiv" in English. "Kyiv" is overtly rejected by the BBC style guide (link in the article). It's only used in proper names (such as "Kyiv Dynamo") in the New York Times. It's never used as the name of the city on any of the dozen English-language travel booking sites that I consult regularly (I buy tickets for myself or my family to Kyiv at least once a year). The American Board of Geographic Names lists "Kiev" as the "conventional name", a term they use for "commonly used name". It's going to be decades before "Kyiv" becomes the common form in English (if ever). Rather than coming here every month or so to argue about it again, and be confronted with the very same data on usage that never change from month to month, why not edit somewhere more constructively in Wikipedia rather than wasting everyone's time here? But, as the song says, "If you've got the money, honey, I've got the time." --Taivo (talk) 01:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
First, let's consider the fact that among the capitals of the 15 Soviet Republics, the Ukrainian capital is the only one which is still not generally transliterated into English according to its government's official English transliteration.
Such transliteration, obviously, cannot be forced upon into English use, but it is being respected in the printed references issued by the United Nations, the governments of nations representing the English-speaking world, Google, Yahoo, Bing and other maps, Lonely Planet, The Guardian, Miami Herald and various other entities. Surely, such an array of highest-level recognitions of the name "Kyiv" would not have occurred if the English form "Kyiv" was perceived as a representation of virulent nationalism.
Second, whether it's a change in transliteration (Peking>Beijing, Bombay>Mumbai, Calcutta>Kolkata) or an unrecognizable change (Madras>Chennai), those revisions have accepted by virtually all of the English-speaking world, not simply, as in the present case of Kyiv, by governmental units and a cross-section of very important, but still random entities.
Granted, Kyiv is a key world city, unlike Chișinău, which continues to be referenced in Russia by its Russian and former English exonym Kishinev, or Tallinn, which continues to be referenced in Russian by its exonym Tallin (the single "n" in the Russian name form is comparable to the "ss" in the Russian form of Odessa, rather than the single "s" in the Ukrainian form for Odesa, which is another transliteration dispute owing to the fact that the city's transliteration in the English-speaking world continues to be the double-s Russian form, "Odessa"). However, the names Peking, Bombay and Calcutta were also those of key world cities and the acceptance in the English-speaking world of the changes has not been especially long.
The name revision for Mumbai, announced in 1995 and the revision for Kolkata, announced in 2001, actually occurred after the Ukrainian government's official English transliteration of its capital's name as Kyiv in 1991.
Finally, as to the comment regarding "coming here every month or so" and "wasting everyone's time here". The last posting I made on this topic was in the previous discussion, which occurred not "every month or so" as it may seem, but on October 16, 2018, nearly seven months ago. Also, unlike most, or likely all other participants in this discussion, I have not made any edits to the Ukraine, Kiev or any other related articles and only entered this discussion yesterday, May 4, well after the initial comment on April 22, nearly two weeks earlier. Other regular participants wasted no time, with the first reply coming 30 minutes afterwards.
There are also two basic themes in these discussions — one concerns being "confronted with the very same data on usage that never change from month to month" and the other is a much broader theme weaved into the discussions concerning Ukraine's national identity. Surely, you wouldn't expect to go unanswered the previously-repeated comment regarding purported Ukrainian pride in having what they know to be their capital's Russian name as the English exonym. But the song lingers on. —Roman Spinner(talk • contribs)22:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
You simply don't get it. The only issue is that "Kiev" is a common name with a commonly used spelling in English and Dushanbe is not. Period. Wikipedia is not a driver of English usage, but a reporter of English usage. Your opinion of fairness doesn't matter. Wikipedia reports common usage. If sometime in the future "Kyiv" becomes the common English spelling, then Wikipedia will follow. Until then you are wasting your time. --Taivo (talk) 03:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
"...among the capitals of the 15 Soviet Republics, the Ukrainian capital is the only one..." Not exactly. What about Moscow (according to the ISO transliteratio, which is accepted by the Russian government, it should be "Moskva", therefore the Russian government conceded there are two different names of the capital, one is a Russian name, another is an international English name)? Moreover, do you know that the actual name of Georgia is Sakartvelo? The name Georgia originates from the Russian name "Gruzia" (St. George's country). In addition, I do not completely understand to your reference to "15 Soviet Republics". Isn't Ukraine a part of Europe? Why do you refer to Minsk or Dushanbe, and ignore Prague, Warsaw, Vienna, etc., each of which have different names in English and local languages?
With regard to other cities, they are too insignificant to the Anglophone world to have own English names, so their transliteration is used instead. That is a general rule: when some foreign city, country, etc has an English name, this name is used, when no name exists, a transliteration of the original name is used instead. In the latter case, naming is not stable, and it quickly changes when the original name changes. When the official (Russian) name of the Turkmenistan capital was Ashkhabad, the English used this transliteration, when it changed to the Turkmen "Ashgabat" the English name changed accordingly. However, this quick change is a demonstration that that name has almost no roots in English.
The reference to Bombay is not working, because English is an official language in India, and India is the country with the biggest English speaking population in the world, so they do have a right to set the rules of their own language.
With regard to "Odessa", it is "Odesa" that is an exonym. The name "Odessa" has Greek, not Russian roots ("Odessos"), and the city was founded long before Ukrainian speaking population came there: it was always a multilingval city, Ukrainian speaking population was not even a significant minority there, and it was never a part of Ukraine before 1917. Therefore, "Odesa" is not an attempt to return to the original name as it sounds in the language of an indigenous population of the city, but the transliteration of an old name according to the rules of the official language of the country Odessa is currently a part of.
The other problem with including "Odessa" is that there are multiple cities in the U.S. named "Odessa (disambiguation)". So that spelling is irrevocable in English. It is pure English, even more firmly established than "Kiev". It will never change. Ever. --Taivo (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I do "get it" indeed. Whether "Kiev" still continues to be the Ukrainian capital's "common name with a commonly used spelling in English" is a major, but not the only, aspect of these discussions which also find participants expounding upon Ukrainian national psyche, ethnic and linguistic identity as well as offering misguided reflections regarding Ukrainians' need to feel pride that the English exonym for their capital is the same as the English transliteration of the city's Russian name.
Next, some misunderstandings need to be clarified. Regarding Kyiv, my wording was, "the only one which is still not generally transliterated into English according to its government's official English transliteration". No one in the English-speaking world disputes that the English transliteration of the Russian capital's name is "Moskva" and that the English exonym is "Moscow" but, as far as is known, Neither Russia nor any of the other former republics has expressed dissatisfaction with names used in the English-speaking world nor has entered formal requests that their English names be revised to forms such as "Moskva" or "Sakartvelo".
The sole dissatisfaction comes from Ukraine and is expressed in this letter to the Wikimedia Foundation. Estonia is obviously satisfied that Wikipedia's entry for its capital is titled "Tallinn" and not the Russian form "Tallin" and Moldova is obviously satisfied that Wikipedia's entry for its capital is titled "Chișinău" and not the Russian form "Kishinev", per Russian exonyms as currently indicated in those articles' main headers in Russian Wikipedia.
As for "Isn't Ukraine a part of Europe?", my mention of the 15 former republics was intended to highlight that Ukraine is the only one among them whose capital is known in English by its Russian name (the Russian form for some capitals such as Minsk or Tbilisi is the same as the English transliteration of those cities' native forms, which is not the case with Kyiv).
There was also no need to mention "Prague, Warsaw, Vienna, etc." since those cities were never part of the Soviet Union, never had Russian as an official language and the Russian exonyms for those cities are not used as exonyms in the English-speaking world.
The city names Peking, Bombay and Calcutta were as deeply ingrained in English-speaking culture as Kiev and yet, the revised forms, unlike "Kyiv" were relatively quickly adopted into widespread English usage. Incidentally, it should be noted that India, which produces the world's largest number of films, has English as a second language — among those thousands of films, in a number of languages, fewer than one percent are made in English.
All your sophistry is utterly immaterial. The only thing that matters is the most common usage in English. It's too bad for Ukraine that the common English spelling of Peking and Bombay changed so quickly. So sorry. That's the luck of the draw. "Kiev" in English is not changing very fast to "Kyiv" and "Odessa" will probably never change because American placenames are so common and so entrenched. English usage is all that matters in the English Wikipedia. The other issues (Ukrainian nationalism, linguistic independence, and ethnic identity) don't matter at all one way or the other. It's all about English common usage. "Kiev" and "Odessa" are placenames in the English language not just for cities in Ukraine, but for cities in the U.S. and Canada as well. --Taivo (talk) 06:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is an archive of past discussions about Kyiv. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
If you want the article to be renamed, the ONLY way to accomplish this is to start a WP:RM. Please note however that this has been done at least 10 times in the past 11 years, and the result has always been the same. The last RM was only eight months ago; I suggest waiting until about a year from now, since nothing has substantially changed externally since the last RM. Softlavender (talk) 01:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This edit request to Kiev has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Does the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs not realize that telling other people that their language is "wrong" is as offensive to us as telling them that "Ukrainian is simply incorrect Russian"? Seriously, you'd think that a nation that endured attempts to have its language eliminated would better understand that it is not their place to tell others how to speak their own languages. --Khajidha (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Such announcements are standard diplomatic procedure. China and India sent similar postings around the English-speaking world informing all that the English-language names of their cities are no longer Peking, Bombay and Calcutta, but Beijing, Mumbai and Kolkata, and those requests were, for the most part, respectfully accepted and followed without complaint that China and India were "offensive" in instructing English speakers "how to speak their own language". —Roman Spinner(talk • contribs)18:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
India is an English speaking country and China took years and years for the name changes to be accepted. --Khajidha (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Of course they use the preferred spelling of the host government for their embassy in that country. That's called being polite and diplomatic. However, Wikipedia works on common name, and the common name of the city outside Ukraine remains Kiev. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a diplomatic mission. How many times does this point need to be hammered home? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia, it's an encyclopedia. Correct spelling is even written in its logo. How many times does this point need to be hammered home? </sarcasm>
Before showing someone that you know what is a rhetorical question, please patiently read the whole conversation. I was answering to the "ask to switch to Ukrainian transliteration = calling language wrong" point. Obviously, it's not, because there is no "right" and "wrong" spelling in English since there is no "International Bureau of English Spelling". Pixov (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
You are correct that different organizations can adopt different spelling standards in most (if not all) English-speaking countries. Therefore, the English Wikipedia uses the principle of "most common usage" in determining article titles and spelling usage within itself. "Kiev" is overwhelmingly the usage in English for the name of Ukraine's capital. It's not even close when you analyze the data. It doesn't matter one bit what our governments use to maintain diplomatic courtesy from government to government. It doesn't matter what Ukrainian nationalists want. It doesn't matter what the Rada dictates. All that matters is that the majority of English language usage around the English-speaking world has "Kiev". --Taivo (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Again, an irrelevant 2+2=4. There is no need to tell me what does common name mean or how Wikipedia works. Better try to tell me why is it considered offensive for Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to ask other nations to switch to transliteration that better reflects the actual pronunciation of a name in original language? Because it was the point I doubted in the first place. Pixov (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
It's not considered offensive for the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to ask, it's just ignored as having no weight on the English language. Spelling and pronunciation changes tend to happen slowly if at all. But you never know... look at the recent move away from chairman. It has moved to a title that has little actual sourcing and is rarely used in the real world. Wikipedia can be a strange place. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't consider it offensive at all. They can have their opinion in a free society. But it's also our right to ignore their opinion when it doesn't align with common English usage. --Taivo (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Bingo! And I do respect the right of each individual to choose the word he thinks is right. But playing "it's offensive" card by Khajidha was mean. Pixov (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
When the Ministry of Foreign Affairs says that the commonly used English spelling is "incorrect" and a "mistake", yes that is offensive. It is just as offensive as it would be for English speakers to tell Spanish speakers that "teléfono" and "televisión"are incorrect, as those words originated in English and "should" be spelled "telephone" and "television". There is no problem with them saying that the correct transliteration of the city's name is "Kyiv", they just don't seem to realize that general English usage does not see "Kiev"as a transliteration at all but as an English exonym.--Khajidha (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
So in this context saying "Kiev is incorrect" is offensive, but "Kyiv is correct" is not? What kind of (il)logic is that? Are you familiar with the concept of negation? Pixov (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
It's sort of like "Eskimo". The vast majority of English speakers use it to refer to the indigenous inhabitants of the coastal regions of Alaska, Canada, and Greenland. English speakers simply don't use and wouldn't recognize the preferred Native terms. But when talking to a member of one of those communities, they find it offensive to use in reference to them. One of my PhD students is an Iñupiaq. While I can use "Eskimo" among other Anglos for understanding (as I would "Comanche" or "Navajo" or "Ojibwa"), and common English usage is still overwhelmingly "Eskimo" (see Wikipedia Eskimo), it is still somewhat offensive to the Alutiiq, Yupik, Iñupiaq, and Inuit, so I never use it with my student or other members of that group for courtesy. Thus, while the governments of the US and UK use "Kyiv" for courtesy, the common name among English speakers is "Kiev". It's not offensive or rude for the Ukrainian government to ask that English speakers dealing with them use "Kyiv", but it would definitely be rude for English-speaking governments to use "Kiev" in official documents related to Ukraine. --Taivo (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
It is completely natural and even expected for Ukrainian governmental entities to distribute requests of this nature or of this nature to governmental and private entities, such as educational institutions or media outlets throughout the English-speaking world so that everyone knows how Ukraine transliterates the names of its cities into English. Without such official requests, it could be argued that the revised transliterations are simply the handiwork of expatriate Ukrainian nationalist fringe and are not used by as well as have no support from the Ukrainian government. —Roman Spinner(talk • contribs)23:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Actually both are offensive, because they both still miss the point. "Kyiv" is the correct transliteration, "Kiev" is the correct English word. Such decrees from the Ukrainian government go beyond the valid point of explaining transliteration to the invalid point of attempting to control usage in another language. Again, when an English speaker uses "Kiev" he or she is not transliterating anything, only using an established term. --Khajidha (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
But the point is that it's no longer an established term. As examples, when the governments of Russia, Poland or Denmark use English, whether for diplomatic or tourist purposes, they do not refer to their capitals by their native names, Moskva, Warszawa and København, but by their English exonyms Moscow, Warsaw and Copenhagen, a practice that is followed by the English-language media in those countries, as well as by the United Nations and the governments, media and all other entities throughout the English-speaking world, including Google, Yahoo, Bing and Encarta maps, Lonely Planet, etc, etc.
None of those examples are analogous to Ukraine. Almost all nations accept their English exonyms and use those exonyms themselves. Ukraine, on the other hand, does not accept that "Kiev" and "Odessa" are the English exonyms for its cities and, in a unique step for any nation, the English-language output emanating from Ukraine uses the forms "Kyiv" (Kyiv Post) and "Odesa".
"Kyiv" has already been widely accepted and used in the English-speaking world, although the majority of English-language media outlets still use "Kiev". Ultimately, those English speakers who have had occasion to pronounce the name of the Ukrainian capital, or of the chicken dish that includes its name, may continue to pronounce it in the same manner, but its written form in English will be inevitably "Kyiv". —Roman Spinner(talk • contribs)05:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
1) "no longer an established term" All the maps I see and news I hear disagree with your assertion. You even contradict yourself later on ("the majority of English-language media outlets still use Kiev") 2) "Ukraine, on the other hand, does not accept that "Kiev" and "Odessa" are the English exonyms for its cities" That is exactly the rudeness I mentioned. "We don't accept the idea that you can choose the words of your own language, you have to do things our way." 3) "English-language output emanating from Ukraine uses Kyiv" Usage of English as a secondary language is secondary. It does not and cannot set norms. This also applies to your mention of other languages and cities. 3) "its written form in English will be inevitably" So you can see the future now? --Khajidha (talk) 09:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
While I don't find Ukraine's request offensive, I agree with Khajidha's remarks that Ukraine is not attempting to change "the transliteration" of a Ukrainian name, but is attempting to change an English exonym. The fact that style guides like that of the New York Times explicitly says "Use Kiev and not Kyiv", shows that English exonyms aren't subject to the whims of non-native speakers. And whether or not those non-native speakers in Ukraine choose to use "Kyiv" in English language documents is immaterial to the usage of hundreds of millions of native speakers. --Taivo (talk) 09:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
No, it's not offensive. I understand why they've said it. Given their history, I understand why Ukrainians don't like what they see as a Russian version of the city's name. But it can never be any more than a request; making it a demand would be unacceptable. The English language is based on usage, not on rules laid down by any national or international body. And as long as common usage in English is Kiev then Ukrainians have no right to get arsey with native English-speakers using that name, which we've used for centuries. English Wikipedia works in exactly the same way. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@Pixov: "Wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia, it's an encyclopedia". Since I'm British, I use the British spelling, which is entirely correct. See WP:ENGVAR. Are you trying to claim that Kiev vs Kyiv is an ENGVAR issue? I think not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Vitaliyf261 (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)The US Council on Geographical Names unanimously decided to replace the official name of the capital of Ukraine from "Kiev" to "Kyiv" in an international base. Appropriate changes to the US Geographic Names Council's official bases will be made on June 17.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
an explanation
Hello
This is a note, an explanation for users as to why Kiev will be preferred on Wikipedia over Kyiv.
When the Wikipedia users refer to the "Common name, " they are referring to the name that is most recognizable to the general public. It doesn't matter what academic or governmental sources use, if the general public recognizes "Kiev" and not "Kyiv, " then Kiev has to be used.
The commonly cited example of Mumbay vs. Bombay, Mumbay has become extremely common, hence why the article for the Indian city is now Mumbay.
You guys are right in saying that change is possible, but unfortunately for the Ukraine nationalists, Kiev is still more recognized than Kyiv, and therefore because more people know what Kiev is as opposed to Kyiv, the article must stay as Kiev.
As for it being a Russian transliteration, it is not.
The name Jennifer has roots in the Cornish language, but is considered an English name. In the same way, the English exonym (name given to a place by another nation/group of nations/outside language), is Kiev, which may have roots in Russian but that does not mean it is Russian, no more than jennife ris a Cornish name.
It is important to understand that the common name policy is not meant to perpetuate offensive names, but rather to reflect the most recognizable names.
thank you.
PS, to any who question why I wrote this, it is because for those like me who don't like reading long-ass policy pages, and want a more condensed version.
thanks.
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Comment: That link is not a request from the Ukrainian government, but is a non-government promotional site. --Taivo (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Nope, Olia Borsuk, per the section above this, countless previous discussions and almost a dozen requested moves, that have all resulted in the article not being moved (see archives listed at the top of this page). - Tom | Thomas.W talk16:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Even the website that the proposer links to says: "Nevertheless, KIEV is more often used worldwide.... Therefore, the international community decided at the UN level that both KIEV or KYIV are acceptable. This decision is officially fixed in the standards of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)". Contradicts the whole purpose of using that link. --Taivo (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Just discovered Google Trends. This is the result for Kiev/Kyiv over the last 12 months. You'll notice that there is absolutely no change in relation of Kyiv to Kiev over that time. Nothing has changed, in other words--it's "Kiev" by an overwhelming margin. --Taivo (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. Still overwhelmingly the common name in English-language sources. Ukrainian government requests hold no water with Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
@Blindlynx: Because Astana is in a part of Central Asia that for a very long time was a quiet Russian/Soviet backwater, wasn't founded until well into the 19th century, and on top of that didn't become capital of Kazakhstan until 1997, and because of that is almost totally unknown among native English speakers, while Kiev is in Europe and has been well known among native English speakers for several hundred years, making Kiev a long since established common name among English speakers. Which is what we per Wikipedia policy have to go by. - Tom | Thomas.W talk16:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
@Thomas.W: Why does obscurity make a difference? Astana is still much more widely used by those who know what it is (based on a quick google trends check). Blindlynx (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Among those few who knew Astana existed, yes (and many/most of those probably knew "Astana" only as the name of a professional cycling team, not as the name of the capital of Kazakhstan; a team that is still named Astana, BTW...), but it wasn't well known among English-speakers in general, the way Kiev is. - Tom | Thomas.W talk16:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I guess my question is why does obscurity impact what the common name is, shouldn't usage between people who talk about the topic be the criteria? For example wiki uses the common name "Benacerraf's identification problem" to talk about the relatively obscure paper "What Numbers Could Not Be". It just seems like a arbitrary application of the policy to change some places to official names but not others. Blindlynx (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
You have answered your own question: "common" is the opposite of "obscure". "Kiev" is common, it is a known name among a large percentage of the English-speaking world. And in that commonness, the name "Kiev" is the English word of choice. "Astana" is obscure. It is so obscure that I, who have an undergraduate degree in geography from the 1970s (but a graduate degree and job in another field), didn't even know that the capital of Kazakhstan wasn't "Alma Ata" anymore until this moment. In other words, there is no "common name" for the capital of Kazakhstan simply because it is itself not common. --Taivo (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
They refer to different tings, you can still have a common name for an obscure topic. "Benacerraf's identification problem" is the common name for an obscure philosophical problem, "Astana" is the common name for an obscure capital. Blindlynx (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Google Trends (searches in the US only): Kiev vs Kyiv (showing that "Kiev" is much more common than "Kyiv; an interesting trend there is that the difference in searches between "Kiev" and "Kyiv" has increased over the past year, showing that fewer and fewer search for "Kyiv"...), "Kiev" vs "Astana" (showing that Kiev is a common name in English while Astana isn't), and "Astana -cycl" vs "Astana +cycl" (showing that the majority of searches for "Astana" in the previous comparison were related to the cycle team, and thus had nothing to do with the capital of Kazakhstan...). - Tom | Thomas.W talk19:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
More specifically: 1) Ukrainian names are transliterated when there is no existing common English form. That doesn't apply here, as "Kiev" has been established for at least 200 years. 2) The modern place name convention applies when the article is "about a place whose name has changed over time". Kiev has not changed its name. The Ukrainian government uses the form that Ukrainians have used for centuries. 3) Even if the name had changed, the new name must still be shown to be more common in sources published after the change. Kiev has remained more common than Kyiv in English usage. --Khajidha (talk) 11:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
The overwhelming majority of wiki articles use new names/spellings for places in Ukraine (List of renamed cities in Ukraine) the only notable exceptions are Kyiv, Chornobyl and Odesa. Other well know cities like Kharkiv and Dnipro use Ukrainian derived spelling or names as well.Blindlynx (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blindlynx (talk • contribs) 19:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
You are seriously overestimating the level of recognition of Kharkiv and Dnipro in the Anglosphere. Kiev, Chernobyl, and Odessa are pretty much the only places in Ukraine that are really well known. Thus, they are the ones that have actual English exonyms. --Khajidha (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
That's just the way English is.Some places use the same name as the native language, some use a similar one, others are completely different. Wikipedia makes no statement as to what should be done, we simply follow the actual usage. --Khajidha (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Nothing to forgive. The public is fickle. One day it's "Bombay", the next day it's "Mumbai". One day it's "Odessa", the next day it's "Odesa". English reliable sources, which pretty much tell us what common name to use for any notable city, can seem arbitrary; however, those sources are the building blocks of a reference work that struggles to remain as neutral as it possibly can. Paine Ellsworth, ed.put'r there20:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I mean what gets the more widely used name and what doesn't on wiki seems arbitrary, I have no problems with natural language. Blindlynx (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Exactly which article do you think is not at its most widely used name? Because the name of this article has consistently been found to follow common English usage every time the question has been brought up for over a decade. --Khajidha (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Most places in Ukraine, Eswatini, North Macedonia... Generally local names and official changes are followed. I realize it's likely just a matter of variance in how much time it takes things to change, that some have changed and some haven't. Blindlynx (talk) 14:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Most of those places don't actually have a widely used name in English. They aren't talked about much, so when the local government changes their spelling it is much easier for that to take hold. --Khajidha (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I wonder if Bombay moved before Mumbai was more common? Just wondering. I still call the towns Bombay and Calcutta but I'm an older generation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm the same. The new names are probably more common now, but I'm not sure they were when the moves were made. --Khajidha (talk) 01:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
There will always be cases where WP:OTHERSTUFF is the guide. We cannot get ourselves into a tailspin over what other articles do or don't do. What if the editors at Mumbai started citing Kiev as an example? Then the editors at Kiev cited Mumbai, etc. The whole thing becomes a Mobius strip. No. We purposely do not base our decisions in any particular article on what other editors did elsewhere. Can consistency be a guide? Of course, in non-controversial places. But when controversy arises (as here), then other factors must prevail based on a WP:CONSENSUS of interested editors, the facts based on WP:RS, and the evidence of WP:COMMON. --Taivo (talk) 10:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
The consensus here is a snowball rejection of an article move (again and again and again). The reliable sources use "Kiev" overwhelmingly. The evidence of Google searches show that the English common name for Ukraine's capital is "Kiev". --Taivo (talk) 10:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Note on "Odessa". It is unlike all other Ukrainian examples because there are so many American and other Anglophone place names of that form. It won't change in English because of Odessa, Texas et al. --Taivo (talk) 10:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I didn't say that the American place name would change, but the spelling of these names influences the way that foreign names are presented. There was one small North Dakota town influencing the spelling of "Kiev". But with Odessa there are many larger towns throughout the Anglophone world that are well-known. Add to that the thousands of restaurants, hotels, and other businesses named "Odessa"; the communities in larger cities with Ukrainian expat populations known as "Little Odessa" (not "Little Kiev"); streets, rivers, etc. And there is a difference between changing Breslau to Wroclaw and a minor spelling change from Odessa to Odesa. The former is actually easier to do in English usage (Bombay to Mumbai) than the latter (Odessa to Odesa), because of the magnitude of the change. Small changes are much more difficult to make in English usage than radical ones. But there is no need to prolong this discussion of Odessa since it's only marginally relevant to Kiev. --Taivo (talk) 15:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
"transliterations change" just illustrates that you still have zero understanding of what an exonym is and that Kiev, Odessa, etc. are not transliterations, but English words, exonyms, names for commonly-referenced foreign places that are no longer tied to the foreign language (Copenhagen, Prague, Warsaw, etc.). You also mistakenly think that our evidence relies entirely on dumb Google searches without any consideration for context, date, etc. I suggest that you reread every single previous request for move and examine that our evidence is wide and very finely tuned to weed out "Kiev, Russia", etc. --Taivo (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
One other mistake that you make is that you don't seem to realize that every article that says "Kiev (now known as Kyiv)" and "Kyiv (formerly known as Kiev)" is counted in BOTH Google searches for "Kiev" and "Kyiv" and is, therefore worthless. You should search, like I do, for "Kiev -Kyiv" and "Kyiv -Kiev" if you want a better indication of how often each is occurring as the sole name for Ukraine's capital in any given article. --Taivo (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
There appears to have been zero understanding regarding the central point of my comment. I did not intend to intimate that search engines were sloppily configured and / or conducted with regard to the terms "Kiev" and "Kyiv", but merely to demonstrate that simple, dumb Google searches through easily available old documents confirm that in the decades or even centuries before Ukraine's 1991 independence, the names of Ukrainian places, as well as people, were being routinely transliterated into English using Russian forms and, more specifically, the existence of Ukraine as a geographiocal and linguistic entity was routely overlooked.
As for the relationship between transliterations and exonyms, obviously English exonyms rendered in Latin alphabet, such as (Copenhagen, Prague, Warsaw, etc.) are not transliterations. Some English exonyms (Paris, Amsterdam) copy the originals, others (Florence — Firenze, Cologne — Köln) differ widely. English transliterations, on the other hand, are never exact and even the ones closest to the original, (Minsk, Sofia) could be rendered in English as "Mynsk" / "Meensk" or "Sofya" / "Sofiya".
Some transliterated exonyms that differ from the originals (Moscow, Saint Petersburg) are specifically English, while another (Belgrade) is French. Finally, as far as can be determined, all English exonyms have the explicit approval of the countries in question which use them in their own English-language texts. The only exception is Ukraine which objects to using English transliterations of Russian names pertaining to Ukrainian entities. —Roman Spinner(talk • contribs)18:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
"were being routinely transliterated into English using Russian forms" Citation needed here. Prove that these were conscious transliterations each time they were used. You can't do it. And that's the big problem with your argument. These are not transliterations and have not been since soon after they were first used. They are fully adopted exonyms. As for your point about Ukraine not accepting these exonyms, too bad for them. It's none of their business. --Khajidha (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
@Roman Spinner: To put it bluntly (since I'm extremely fed up with your endless regurgitation of the same nonsense arguments in RM after RM after RM after RM...): The vast majority of all native English-speakers don't give a sh*te about the Ukrainian governments views on which words/transliterations English-speakers should be allowed to use, since the Ukrainian government has zero authority over the English language. Period. - Tom | Thomas.W talk19:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Roman Spinner's argument that an exonym is not an exonym when it happens to be spelled like a transliteration is pure baloney. Peking and Beijing are equally exonyms even though both of them follow the transliteration rules of their respective times. What makes them exonyms? Because 99.99% of all English speakers use them without a thought of "they are written this way in the original language, so I must now transliterate them into the Roman alphabet." If every English speaker went through that mental process every time that they wrote "Peking" or "Beijing" or "Kiev", then your "transliteration" argument would make sense. But hundreds of millions of English speakers don't even know Chinese or Russian or Ukrainian, so when they write, easily and quickly, "Peking" or "Beijing" or "Kiev" without a second's hesitation, they are obviously not transliterating, but are writing the universally accepted English exonyms. Paris is an exonym, as is Rome and Prague and Warsaw and Kiev and Moscow and Florence, etc. Spinner's argument is simply POV-pushing nonlinguistic sophistry. --Taivo (talk) 02:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
@Thomas.W: I regret that my endless regurgitation has caused you dyspepsia. Nevertheless, you keep returning to further partake of the leftovers. A few additional chunks from past meals are appropriate apropos your comments. Both China and India sent notices around the English-speaking world regarding the proper English transliterations of the cities formerly known in English as Peking, Bombay and Calcutta. The Indian notices were sent in the late 1990s and early 2000s, after Ukraine's early 1990s announcements that the English transliteration of its capital is "Kyiv", not "Kiev". The Chinese and Indian notices were, for the most part, respectfully accepted by English-language media outlets as examples of China and India freeing themselves from colonial baggage. There has been considerable foot dragging by news outlets, however, regarding Ukraine's announcements.
User:TaivoLinguist: There appears to be continued zero understanding regarding my comments. I did not exclude the name of any city (in a country where the first language is not English) from being referenced as an English exonym. Examples: "Some English exonyms (Paris, Amsterdam)" or "Some transliterated exonyms that differ from the originals (Moscow, Saint Petersburg)".
My point was that when a city's native name is rendered in the Latin alphabet, the tweaking of that name (Cracow → Kraków) or the change of that name from its German form (Breslau, Danzig, Stettin) to its Polish form (Wrocław, Gdańsk, Szczecin) is straightforward.
The argument could have been that English speakers are used to the "easier" German names which continue to be used in German Wikipedia, therefore the German names are also English exonyms. That argument, however, was not advanced and the Polish forms are used throughout the English-speaking world. The same consideration, in comparison, has not been extended to the name of Ukraine's capital. —Roman Spinner(talk • contribs)04:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
You're still missing the most important point. It doesn't matter what is done with other cities. The question at hand is simply whether our page title matches common English usage in the world at large or if a change to Kyiv would be more in line with that criterion. That is all that matters. Not the source of the name Kiev, not parallels to other cities, not Russo-Ukrainian relations, not Ukrainian feelings, or any of a billion other things. The question is whether Kiev or Kyiv best reflects the bulk of English usage. And all the evidence points, once again, to Kiev. --Khajidha (talk) 05:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Roman Spinner, you are basically saying what you always say, although this time more succinctly. You feel like English-language media is disrespecting Ukraine by not abandoning the English exonym "Kiev" and adopting the one that Ukraine wants them to adopt, "Kyiv". You spend thousands of bytes of bandwidth complaining to us every time that this request for move comes up and get nowhere because you are talking to the wrong people. Wikipedia will never be prescriptive because it is descriptive. It is an encyclopedia. If you want change to happen, then you need to deal with the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, the Guardian, the Independent, the Economist, etc. As long as you keep talking to us, you're getting nothing done. We won't change as long as the most common English exonym for Ukraine's capital is "Kiev". Our job here is not to dictate, but to describe. --Taivo (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
User:TaivoLinguist, I'll try to remain as succinct as possible while continuing to say what I always say with, hopefully, additional evidence. There are two key factors at issue. The first is the obvious one that the majority of media outlets in the English-speaking are still using the form "Kiev", although a slight move forward has occurred in that at least one of your examples above, The Guardian, has switched five months ago to the form "Kyiv". Also, note that the below date and time screenshot which depicts the name "Kyiv", indicates all other English exonyms in standard fashion (Belgrade, not Beograd, Bucharest, not București, etc.)
The second key factor concerns the acceptance of the social and geopolitical basis for the English-language transliteration of the name as "Kyiv", rather than as "Kiev". It is an equally valid and relevant point to raise since in these discussions we continue seeing references to "Ukrainian nationalists" "arrogance of the Ukrainian Rada" in even making such requests or, more directly, "The vast majority of all native English-speakers don't give a sh*te about the Ukrainian governments views on which words/transliterations English-speakers should be allowed to use, since the Ukrainian government has zero authority over the English language.
Surely, if the Ukrainian government's request for the English transliteration of its capital's name as "Kyiv" was recognized as the handiwork of notorious nationalists, it would be quickly condemned and rejected by all impartial and fair-minded entities. Also, if the Ukrainian governmental and social entities did not make such requests, in the manner of the requests made by Chinese and Indian entities, it would be seized upon as proof that Ukraine is satisfied with the existing English exonyms and that the only elements pushing for the change are nationalists and various members of intolerant fringe groups. —Roman Spinner(talk • contribs)06:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
"the majority of media outlets in the English-speaking are still using the form "Kiev"" Which is why this entire conversation is pointless and irrelevant. English usage is the metric we base names on. English usage is heavily in favor of "Kiev". Thus, the article is at the correct title. --Khajidha (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose due to the fact that more people know what Kiev is than Kyiv, which is much less recognized. People like Roman Spinner need to understand that it is not an attack on The Ukraine to refer to the city as "Kiev, " no more than it is to refer to Copenhagen as Copenhagen an attack on Denmark. Also before I go because I know Ukrainian nationalists will bring it up, I refer to the country as "The Ukraine, " in order to differenciate it from a term in my native language for a star seen in the area my family is from near Rahayta. Anyway, appart from people actively looking up the Ukrainian name for the city, who's going to know what a "Kyiv" is, or even how "Kyiv" is pronounced. Even if it was a Russian transliteration (which it is not), more people know Kiev vs. Kyiv. I'm actually against the fact that Swaziland was renamed to Eswatini, if that means anything to you Ukrainian nationalists, but I guess Eswatini meat the commonname rules some how, don't know how but it must, i guess. thank you. 38.111.120.74 (talk) 01:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
There is no "bandwagon". While Google Maps may have Kyiv, Google Trends clearly shows that people are still searching for "Kiev" by about five to one. Buy a plane ticket recently? No matter what website you go to, you're going to buy a ticket to Kiev. If you insist on going to Kyiv, you'll be stuck and never get there. Want to read any major newspaper in this country (really any paper since they all get their international stories from the handful of major ones)? You won't find a story about Kyiv anywhere, but you'll find all Ukraine's news coming from Kiev. --Taivo (talk) 23:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
You are sadly misinformed about what constitutes common English usage. Microsoft and Google have no control over that. How often does the average American look at their time zone setup? Once? None? How often do they see the Kiev byline in the New York Times and virtually every single other newspaper in America? Hundreds of times more often than they look at that time zone. --Taivo (talk) 03:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps you're unaware that this is the English Wikipedia and we gauge common usage only in the English-speaking world. --Taivo (talk) 09:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
The Ukrainian foreign ministry does not seem to understand that Kiev IS correct in the English language. This insistence that they know how to write my language better than I do is, at best, amusing and, at worst, arrogant and insulting. --Khajidha (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@Serhii (Ukraine): How would you feel if the Danish Foreign Ministry tried to order all Ukrainian-speakers to stop using the German name for their capital, Копенгаген, because they felt insulted by it, and instead use the correct Danish name for that city, København? Because that would be an exact equivalent to the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry's attempts to order all English speakers to use Kyiv instead of Kiev. - Tom | Thomas.W talk16:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Not an exact equivalent at all, because variations upon the English exonym "Copenhagen" are also exonyms for the Danish capital in many other languages (since the Ukrainian alphabet has no "g", the Ukrainian exonym is transliterated as "Kopenhahen"). "Kyiv" and "Kiev", on the other hand, are not heavily-revised English exonyms, such as Firenze → Florence or Köln → Cologne, but close English transliterations, in the same manner as Minsk or Sofia, of the Ukrainian and Russian names for the Ukrainian capital.
Also, if comparisons are to be made, the letters sent out by Ukrainian governmental entities were not "orders" but polite requests in standard diplomatic language — equivalent to the equally, if not less, polite requests sent around the English-speaking world by Chinese and Indian governmental entities regarding revised English transliteration of Peking, Bombay and Calcutta. —Roman Spinner(talk • contribs)07:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Let me disabuse you of your utter misconception about the meaning of "exonym". It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "heavy revision", despite your repeated attempts to make it mean that. "Paris" is an exonym in English just as "Rome" and "Kiev" and "Copenhagen" are. "Kiev" is the exonym in English for Ukraine's capital by a wide margin. That's just the simple story and the only story that matters here. What is that city's exonym in English? Kiev. That's what Wikipedia will then use for this article. Your repeated attempts to bring up WP:OTHERSTUFF are also pointless. "Kiev" is what "Kiev" is--an exonym in common English usage among reliable sources and among English speakers doing searches on Google. --Taivo (talk) 10:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@Roman Spinner: It is a direct equivalent, even if you refuse to see it as such. Kiev/Kiew is the exonym for the capital of Ukraine in many other languages too (from all the Scandinavian languages and Dutch, German, Spanish, Italian and French, to Swahili, Hindi, Tagalog and Chinese...), not only in English, just like Copenhagen/Kopenhagen/Kopengagen is the exonym for the capital of Denmark in many languages other than Ukrainian. - Tom | Thomas.W talk11:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I know it’s going to come up, since Roman Spinner frequents this page, “Kiev” is not a Russian name no more than Jennifer is a Welsh or Cornish name. Kiev may have roots in Russian, just as Jennifer has roots in Cornish and Welsh, but that does not make Kiev a Russian name.
It’s also not about what The Ukraine wants or about what its government wants, it’s about which name is more recognizable to the general English-speaking populations in the world.
Even if it was a transliteration from Russian (which it’ sfreaking not, but let’s say it was), more people know “Kiev” over “Kyiv.” Also for the record, I was against the Wikipedia article for Swaziland being renamed to Eswatini, since Roman likes to bring up examples like Mumbai. Obviously Eswatini meets the common name policy, don’t know how but apparently it does, it doesn’t matter what I think, it matters what sources use and what more people will recognize.
38.111.120.74 (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Comment. It's been seven days and there is no change from the last time that this was presented. Please snow close this request as a "No". It's still not even close despite the proponents' same arguments from every other request over the past two years. Nothing at all has changed over the last five (or more) requests besides the date. --Taivo (talk) 06:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
a question from an IP user
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello
Just a little comment and question, based on the discussions I have listened to here and in the archives:
As an IP editor who is new to this discussion who has appeared here several times I wanted to ask a question to the many people who push for a rename. But first, some preamble:
It appears as if the bulk of the arguments for renaming Kiev to Kyiv are as follows:
The name reminds people of Russia.
If we changed the name for this country or city to a new name, why not do the same for Kiev?
common examples given for this are Mumbai, Kolkata, Beijing, and Eswatini.
This number of Google searches proves that Kyiv is more used than Kiev.
However I’ve noticed that three things are often times present in the arguments by many Ukrainian nationalists (not necessarily Ukrainians, let’s not paint all Ukrainians with a broad brush).
1. Russophobia – Anybody who disagrees with the Kiev naming is working for Russia, or working to show that The Ukraine is still a part of Russia.
2. They turn to government agencies both in The Ukraine and the U.S., citing them as rationale for switching the wiki article to Kyiv.
3. No evidence presented that Kyiv has become the dominant name in the English language.
My question to people like Roman Spinner and others is:
Alright so you want this name changed, you really are invested in this to the point where you push the lie that Kiev is a “Russian transliteration, “ But how are you going to prove that Kiev is no longer the name most people recognize?
We have archive after archive here dating back to 2006 with this issue; I was in high school in 2006 learning about British history and useless polynomials.
I had posted a reminder which was removed by a gatekeeper who doesn’t like IP editors, where I summed up the discussions, and I can’t find the edit because of its removal. (That’s sarcasm BTW)
However, I will ask a question this time, how are you guys (like Roman Spinner and others) going to show users like my arrogant self that Kyiv has overtaken Kiev? Now note the wording of the question, how it’s “taken over, “not “is taking over.” I choose these words because I feel that you have to show that it has taken over, that it has become the dominant one in common use in order for the name to change.
As per the argument about places like Mumbai and eSwatini (even though I was against the eSwatini article move), they are English speaking countries. I don’t know why Beijing changed, but I can speak for Mumbai and Kolkata. Mumbai and Kolkata are in India, a former British colonial possession that has English as an official language. Those changes took time.
So it comes back to my question, how will Roman Spinner and his ilk show us that Kiev is obsolete?
Where’s the beef?
Thank you.
38.111.120.74 (talk) 14:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Now in fairness to the other side, I am going to ask people like Khajidha and Taivo Linguist this question:
What would constitute proof enough that Kiev is indeed obsolete? Without linking to a long-ass policy page, name me what would constitute proof that Kyiv has eclipsed Kiev in terms of usage? I ask this because I had asked the same question about Eswatini, a name change I was against, and got no answer there.
How can we establish that the name change is indeed now needed should the time come?
I’m just asking in the interest of fairness.
Thanks.
Anon IP, you asked what evidence it would take for me to accept a renaming of this article to "Kyiv". One good piece of evidence would be for the blue line on this graph to reach the red line. That would indicate that as many as or more average English speakers are looking for "Kyiv" in Google searches rather than "Kiev". Second, when the New York Times and most other major English-language newspapers change their style guides to require "Kyiv" instead of "Kiev" in their articles. --Taivo (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
This graph shows the past 15 years of usage for both versions. Notice that enormous peak in February 2014? That was height of the 2014 Ukrainian revolution. Everybody was talking about the country in general and the city in particular. And there was a 50 to 1 ratio of Kiev to Kyiv (excluding false positives like Chicken Kiev, Dynamo Kyiv, and Kyiv Post). --Khajidha (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
In that case this graph shows eSwatini was premature and "Kyiv" supporters may find it unfair to have different conditions to meet. Chrzwzcz (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Newspaper, google trends, ... For Roman S.: Kyiv on Wikipedia would not help your effort anyway, it is just one more source "on board" or not. English language is not directed by Wikipedia. Campaign elsewhere. After successful adoption in English there will be time to tackle another languages ;) Chrzwzcz (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Alright so Khajidha and the others have presented what would work as proof just as I have asked.
Now it’s all up to Roman Spinner and the other pro Kyiv side to show where’s the beef.
While I did have to have my girlfriend read me the graphs during her lunch hour (due to me being blind), I understand the info from what she told me. Swaziland is used more than eSwatini/Eswatini (there’s an issue on where the capital letter goes), and Kiev is used more than Kyiv.
So Roman, and Kyiv crew, it’s all up to you now, show us some proof that reliable sources have switched to Kyiv and I’ll be fully on board, as will I’m sure Khajidha and all the others.
I’d like somebody to help me with a rename move from eSwatini/Eswatini to Swaziland if somebody can help me with it on the commonname grounds please.
Thanks. 38.111.120.74 (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The time has come: Welcome to Kyiv on English Wikipedia! #KyivNotKiev
This is devolving into conspiracy theories, hearsay, and covering the same ground as the last closed rm from 30 days ago. We'll see if AP has any affect in the weeks and years to come. I think it will but it will take time. This was closed Aug 20, 2019 but without this box attached. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Finally, the time has come. Millions of Ukrainophiles all over the world have been waiting for this day their whole life - and it's finally here. Yesterday's historic decision by Associated Press, whereby they announced on Twitter, that they were switching to spelling Kyiv correctly, marks a new dawn for all English speakers around the world. As described on the 14th of August 2019 in a detailed blog-post by John Daniszewski, Associate Press's VP of Standards, all Associated Press media outlets will start using Kyiv in all contexts, effective immediately (this is a reverse of Daniszewski's decision from 2014); the only exception will occur in certain contexts that use proper nouns (e.g., for proper nouns, AP will use the most-widely-used-in-English version at the moment, e.g. "Chicken Kiev", "Kievan Rus" but "Dynamo Kyiv" etc.). As further explained in Kyiv Post article on this news, Kiev no more: AP Stylebook changes spelling of Ukrainian capital to Kyiv, The AP Stylebook, one of the most prominent English-language style and usage guides created by American journalists, has changed its spelling of Ukraine’s capital from Kiev [sic] to Kyiv., which marks a new dawn for the usage of Kyiv in English-language media: thousands of national and local newspapers use 'The AP Stylebook' as their gold standard in English-language spelling, and this means that thousands of English-language media all over the world started using Kyiv spelling as of today. This has already been reflected in Google search trends: there's been a clear increase in the usage of Kyiv spelling in google search engine within the last 10 years as reflected in Google Trends, and AP's announcement will undoubtedly only add to the rise of Kyiv's usage.
In conclusion, @Roman Spinner:, as an editor who has significantly more experience than me on English Wikipedia and knows its rules much better (including the name change policies), I would like to ask for your help to weigh in whether you consider it appropriate to finally change the name of this article to the correct English spelling of Kyiv. Thank you all, and God bless America!--Piznajko (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
p.s. Btw, even Hollywood has (finally!) started using Kyiv spelling (as is evident from all latest movies in 2019 that mention Kyiv, e.g, Creed 2 etc.) --Piznajko (talk) 00:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
@Piznajko:, as you well know, my single vote has always been cast in Support of the form "Kyiv" and, while these new developments may indeed change the votes of some Wikipedians in favor of moving this article's main title header, achieving indisputable consensus is still likely to run into opposition. I discussed this matter eight months ago with a (now indefinitely blocked) Wikipedian at User talk:Roman Spinner#I can not send you a message and the forecast in my final paragraph, "Time is indisputably on the side of Kyiv", seems to be progressing now at a faster-than-expected pace. —Roman Spinner(talk • contribs)00:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
User:Piznajko. These are still just isolated events. And all those international airports and international companies are irrelevant to usage in the Anglophone world. The common usage of English speakers is all that matters. No English speaker gives two cents about what happens in the airport at Frankfort. The only relevant piece of information is the change in the AP Style Guide. If media outlets actually begin to follow suit (including the New York Times, LA Times, and Washington Post), then it can be considered. But you're just wrong when you say that "hundreds of media outlets" have changed. You have zero evidence for that, you're just making up comments to try to push your POV. In other words, prove it. That will take at least 200 media outlets in the English speaking world that have changed with evidence of it. Fat chance. --Taivo (talk) 03:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
@Taivo. Well, as you probably knowAP's members include about 1,400 daily US newspapers and thousands of television and radio broadcasters.. And as you might also know, every day they reprint hundreds and hundreds of AP news articles word-to-word, in other words without changing a single word (e.g., so when AP uses Kyiv spelling, it automatically gets used by hundreds and hundreds of English-speaking newspapers around the world).--Piznajko (talk) 07:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
AP changing is not the same thing as "hundreds of media sources have already switched". While the style guide may have changed, that still doesn't mean that articles written for the AP will actually switch. And again, your use of international sources is a false representation of English usage, which is only relevant to English-speaking countries. We will see soon enough if the AP switch actually affects common English usage. It might change, it might not. But just projecting your own wishes is not evidence and it is certainly a false claim to say that "hundreds of media sources have already switched". --Taivo (talk) 08:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello Taivo. Your statement While the style guide may have changed, that still doesn't mean that articles written for the AP will actually switch is factually incorrect, e.g., false: all AP journalists have to follow AP's Stylebook and if they don't - they get fired. In other words, if you were an AP journalist and you told your boss on Aug 15 (e.g., on the 2nd day when Kyiv spelling was introduced) that you were not going to write Kyiv due to your person beliefs and such, and instead will continue using Kiev [sic], your AP boss would've simply fired you for that. Media outlets in the US are no joke and require strict journalistic standards.--Piznajko (talk) 09:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
As of right now, news sources are still 2:1 in favor of Kiev. While this announcement is obviously significant, it is still not clear that overall usage will swing to Kyiv. --Khajidha (talk) 11:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Also, the results I am seeing for Kiev are mostly from within the Anglosphere, while those for Kyiv are either 1) from non-English speaking countries or 2) produced within the Anglosphere for distribution to non-native speakers (like Radio Free Europe). Neither of those types of sources are normative for general English usage. --Khajidha (talk) 13:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeap, it's definitely time to change the soviet-style and russian-style name to a proper and the only-correct one - Kyiv. Goo3 (talk) 09:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
User:Goo3, you don't know what an exonym is. There is no such thing as a "proper and only-correct" one except for the name that speakers of English actually use. Khadija is correct, the trend is still for "Kiev" within the Anglosphere and Piznajko is wrong that writers could lose their jobs. The AP decision (which was made by a Ukrainian/Polish staff member even though it violates the history of AP exonym policies) may tip the balance, but the important thing to realize for all of you cheerleaders is that the balance has not tipped in favor of Kyiv yet. Until it does, Wikipedia retains the common English name for Ukraine's capital--Kiev. --Taivo (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
@Taivo The balance has indeed tipped in favor of Kyiv. Heartfelt congrats to everyone involved - this is a historic event, which millions of Ukrainophiles been waiting for for centuries!--Piznajko (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I actually think it will start to hasten the English spelling towards Kyiv. It may be a few years, but I do think it will happen. Not for me personally, but then I still use Bombay, Burma, Ceylon, Saigon, Calcutta, even sometimes Peking. You use them for so long that it's just natural. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Your joy is premature, User:Piznajko. When the scales actually do tip in favor of Kyiv, then you can celebrate and it will be time to change the title of this article. But as long as Kiev still prevails in English language sources, AP alone isn't enough of an argument. The facts must clearly demonstrate that English speakers have changed their habits. --Taivo (talk) 08:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
2:1 is impressive enough, still losing, but the growth is significant. Also important: momentum. But as you can see, traditionalists here will fight and Wikipedia will be 'last' to change, noone here will allow to switch based on evidence like momentum/trend/future projections. You will argue with outdated terms and current modern one, but I guess you will have to wait until the common usage actually changes.Chrzwzcz (talk) 07:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Sometimes it with this waiting means that Wikipedia is laughably behind, but it is what it is... - not trendy but veeeery conservative. In conclusion - the supporters can still bring add more and more evidence here, just for our information about the progress, but it can't result in move request... yet. But congrats on that AP thing, it may be huge in the future, no matter how you hear/read here that Ukrainians can't be so smug to tell English speakers what terms to use. Chrzwzcz (talk) 10:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Trends are subject to change. They can stall or even reverse. As for your "outdated" vs "modern" comment, if Kiev accounts for 2/3 of current usage, then it IS (by definition) the modern usage and is (also by definition) not outdated. --Khajidha (talk) 14:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
OK, seemingly "outdating" then. Sooner in was uncommon vs common, now it is less common vs more common, soon it is shaping to be battle between 2 equally common names. Chrzwzcz (talk) 07:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
You're still just crystal balling. Projections mean nothing. IF it changes, it changes. But it is far from a sure thing. --Khajidha (talk) 00:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Is style guide mandatory? In that case we will see Kyiv much more and Kiev less and less, it is just obvious, not far from a sure thing. We will wait and see it happen. Chrzwzcz (talk) 16:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
You do understand that there are OTHER news sources with OTHER style guides. Reuters. BBC. etc. AP alone does not define general English usage. Even if every AP article from now on uses Kyiv, that might or might not tip the scales.--Khajidha (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Heard through the grapevine :D that after AP's columnist Leonid Bershidskyleaked the news on Twitter two days ago on 8/15/2019, there will be also an official announcement shortly from Bloomberg's VP of Standards that effective immediately Bloomberg is to use Kyiv spelling; also the next 15th edition of their Style Guide "The Bloomberg Way" will include that too. This is an avalanche!--Piznajko (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
We're not viticulturists at Wikipedia, so the sounds you hear from the grapevine will buy you a cup of coffee only if you have $10 in your pocket to pay for it. --Taivo (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Again, and again, and again ... people keep looking for some authority to set some guideline that will change usage. But THAT'S NOT HOW ENGLISH WORKS. The only "guidelines" that are relevant to Wikipedia are our own policies. Our policy is to follow general English usage. Not the specific usage of the AP. Not the specific usage of the Rada. Not the specific usage of the US State Department. Not eleventy-billion other things. We follow the gestalt of general English usage. And general English usage is ALSO not set by any one of those specific usages. Maybe it's something to do with so many European (and especially Eastern European) languages having regulatory bodies that makes so many people unable to understand this. --Khajidha (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Who says Wiki must directly obey AP style guide? Is AP Eastern European regulatory body? AP styleguide -> more Kyivs in sources... more styleguides on board -> even more Kyivs -> then eventually Kyiv on Wiki, we'll see, we don't know now. It means it is not authority driven. No. It is driven by secondary effect on the sources. Is it a forced change? Maybe if you investigate why sources suddenly switched, but Wiki should follow the secondary sources regardless of the reason of the change. Chrzwzcz (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
1) Who says Wiki must directly obey AP style guide? -- Umm, YOU are. You and the others arguing that the change in the AP style guide means that we should change.
2) Is AP Eastern European regulatory body? -- No, but these disputes keep popping up in reference to Eastern European locations.
3) AP styleguide -> more Kyivs in sources -- No one is disputing that, only the idea that the increase from the AP alone is necessarily enough to shift general usage
4) more styleguides on board -> even more Kyivs -- You are assuming other styleguides will change, too
5) eventually Kyiv on Wiki -- Again, that will depend on what actually happens with the bulk of the sources.
6) It means it is not authority driven. No. It is driven by secondary effect on the sources. -- Again, YOU are the one who is arguing that the AP's change in style means that we should change. THAT's an appeal to authority. WE are the ones reminding you that the effect on the sources must be shown before any changes can be made here. . --Khajidha (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
1) I specifically wrote we should obey second hand effects (in the future), not directly the style guide (now).
2) Maybe these locations were just renamed lately. No need to make conspiracy theories.
1) Apparently I confused you with Plznajko. I apologize.
2) What conspiracy theories?
3) agreed
4) As that one had been mentioned in the discussion before, I was not considering it here. I interpreted "more styleguides on board" to refer to ones not yet mentioned.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2019
moved from Talk:Kiev
This edit request to Kyiv has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
If you want the article to be renamed, the ONLY way to accomplish this is to start a WP:RM. Please note however that this has been done at least 10 times in the past 11 years, and the result has always been the same. The last RM was only two months ago; I suggest waiting until about a year from now, since nothing has substantially changed externally since the last RM. Softlavender (talk) 11:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Kyiv" is the correct spelling, as it is the latinized form of the Ukrainian name. "Kiev" comes from the Russian spelling, and it isn't even a proper latinized version of that, which is correctly latinized as "Kiyev". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vigilante Girl (talk • contribs) 17:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
@Vigilante Girl: Have you even read all the prior evidence in the past 11 requested moves (plus countless non-formal requests like this)? The last formal move request was only 2 months ago and was overwhelmingly in favor of Kiev! Your user page says "I'm a girl who joined to help out Wikipedia by stopping fights" yet your initial heading and post was as if you've never checked out all the prior fights and snowball closes in favor of Kiev. Read them over and you'll understand the complexities involved. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
By stop "fights", I mean stop vandals and rude people. Reasonable debates and requests aren't "fights". And why should I check edits from the past when my evidence is recent and correct? And what do you mean by "non-formal requests"? Is my language somehow not formal enough for you? PS: Your condescending attitude is extremely rud. I do not appreciate being talked down to, and I will not stand for it. Do not think that everyone you meet, online or offline, will bow down to you. --Vigilante Girl (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
"And the spelling has been changed to "Kyiv" in English, as well, at least in the US". That only applies to the government itself, it has no bearing on general English usage. Why is this so hard for people to understand? NO government, not that of the US, nor that of the UK, and most especially not that of Ukraine can dictate common English usage. Kiev is still used at approximately twice the frequency of Kyiv judging by most web searches. And many of the uses of Kyiv come from sources within Ukraine itself or otherwise outside of the Anglosphere. Do you really mean to suggest that the usage of secondary speakers is of primary importance? The "correct" English spelling is whatever the bulk of native English speaking sources say it is. Whether that is derived from Ukrainian, from Russian, from Japanese, from Arabic, from Navaho, from Klingon, or just from random letters pulled from a bag of Scrabble tiles. And the usage found most often (to an overwhelming degree) is "Kiev". This "debate" is the furthest thing from "reasonable" I can possibly imagine. The evidence is clear. The English name is "Kiev".--Khajidha (talk) 23:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Formal requests would be a formal RfC or listed RM. This was more an informal request... that's what I meant. As far as checking past discussions, that would be a normal thing to do to make sure your aren't spinning your wheels with pretty much the same arguments. It did not appear to me you did any checking before your request, and now you have confirmed it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
And just a hint: KyivPost is not a reliable source for English language usage. It's a Ukrainian paper for English speakers, it's not even from the Anglosphere. --Taivo (talk) 06:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
And why should we not listen to the Ukrainians and change our common usage? It's their city, and they clearly have a problem with the incorrect English spelling. Calling Kyiv "Kiev" is almost as disrespectful to them as calling their country "the Ukraine". --Vigilante Girl (talk) 09:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Because the English-speaking world hasn't changed its common usage. It's Wikipedia's job to report facts, not to change them. This is an encyclopaedia, not a soapbox or a vehicle for change. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I can't see how anyone is being rude and condescending. They're merely pointing out that this has all been discussed before many times and nothing has changed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thousands of US newspapers use AP style guide, so...
No consensus for movement in this monthly ritual. I suggest waiting until about a year from now, since there has been no demonstrable change in usage since the last RM. --Taivo (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Bloomberg News (the editor-in-chief John Micklethwait recently clarified that spelling of cities is not part of their Style Guidebook "The Bloomberg Way" and that in these instances they just follow AP Style book; e.g., now Bloomberg News uses Kyiv spelling per AP Styleguide; this was previously also confirmed by the Writing standards Editor for Americas Jennifer Sondag in 2017, quoteSondag said there’s more flexibility and that Bloomberg will often default to AP Style if there isn’t a specific rule outlined in “The Bloomberg Way.”)
Your own source says that it "is one of", not "it is the only". A significant change, but not the slam dunk you want it to be. Searches still show an average of 2:1 usage in favor of Kiev in news stories with many of the Kyiv uses coming from Ukrainian based sources like Kyiv Post, Unian, and Ukrinform. --Khajidha (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
It's not about some random comment that "papers use the AP Style Guide". Prove it. Show that Anglosphere news media (which doesn't include Ukrainian news outlets that cater to English speakers) have switched to "Kyiv" and that English speakers have switched their searches to "Kyiv" over "Kiev". Your assertions and assumptions are meaningless. Only facts on the ground count. --Taivo (talk) 22:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
@Piznajko: It is all a matter of time — and consensus. Major world cities Mumbai and Kolkata are not a part of Western culture in the same manner as Kyiv, but have been equally ingrained in the English-speaking world's consciousness due to their contribution to the legend and lore of the British Raj. Although Indian government's announcements of the revision of Bombay and Calcutta's English transliteration came in the late 1990s and early 2000s, after Ukrainian government's announcements regarding the English transliteration of Kyiv and Odesa, there was less opposition to the change of Indian names and the AP Stylebook took less time to revise its listing of those names. Now, finally, AP has taken the leap, at least for Kyiv, and all the other stylebooks are expected to follow — sooner rather than later — as the stylebooks followed regarding the Indian names — and as Wikipedia followed. —Roman Spinner(talk • contribs)23:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I am in agreement with User:Roman Spinner. Wikipedia is not proactive, but reactive. We don't predict the future or drive opinion, we simply reflect changes after they happen, not before. Kiev might soon change to Kiev in English. Odessa, on the other hand, will probably never change because of the many placenames in the Anglosphere that are spelled Odessa and will not change. --Taivo (talk) 00:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I'd say it was just proof that for most English speakers "Kiev" is the normal name. It takes effort for us to even type "Kyiv" in these discussions. "Kiev", however, flows readily. Showing that it is not a "transliteration" or a "Russian name" but a true English exonym. --Khajidha (talk) 01:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I think everyone live in his or her own "bubble" (which also includes "linguistic bubble"), cause I'm also a native speaker of English and Kyiv is as natural to me as 4am tweets are to Trump.--Piznajko (talk) 05:58, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
@Roman Spinner: just learned that NPR's VP of Standards Mark Memmott issued a statement today regarding spelling of Kyiv for NPR affiliated media outlets (~1000+ in the US, see the full list of NPR media outlets here; FYI they all also have their own local website (in addition to the central npr.org), so the Kyiv spelling is now used not only on npr.org, but on 1000+ local US media outlets's websites): New NPR Guidance: The Capital Of Ukraine Is Spelled 'Kyiv'.
p.s. Regarding Bloomberg, a similar public statement is expected shortly from their VP of Standards - please be patient.--Piznajko (talk) 01:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@Piznajko: it was to be expected. Whether it might be called the snowball effect or the floodgates opening, in the age of the Internet, changes happen faster than in the days of printed and revised stylebook editions when one stylebook's acceptance of the forms Beijing, Mumbai and Kolkata caused other stylebooks to alter their subsequent printings. Recent political events may well be playing a role in the accelerated pace, but the term "sooner rather than later" does appear to finally ring true for Kyiv. —Roman Spinner(talk • contribs)03:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@Roman Spinner: I agree, the term "sooner rather than later" does indeed appear to finally ring true for Kyiv.
Also, forgot to mention a few less influential institutions recently changed their spelling to Kyiv:
Please cease using the term "corrected". Nothing is being "corrected". "Kiev" is and has been for over a century the correct spelling of Ukraine's capital in English. The spelling may be "changing", but it is not being "corrected". Get it straight. --Taivo (talk) 04:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
And how many of those sources are Ukrainian based or are specifically advocating for the change? Most of the ones I've checked from your posts are extremely biased sources of that nature. --Khajidha (talk) 00:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Only Ukrainian sources, whose writers are not native speakers of English, misuse the term "corrected". Does the AP Style Guide use the term "corrected"? Of course not. "Kiev" is and always has been a correct English toponym. It is being replaced by "Kyiv". It is not "being corrected" because it was never wrong. --Taivo (talk) 03:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Here in the US there is a current scandal involving Trump, Biden, and Ukraine. People are talking about Ukraine and its capital more than they have in several years. If this change is occurring, I shoiuld be seeing lots and lots of uses of "Kyiv". Doing news searches for "Kiev" and "Kyiv" in the past week I find:
Using "Kiev": Philadelphia Inquirer, Washington Post, Roll Call, Connecticut Post, Newsweek, Business Insider, Reuters, and CounterPunch, all in the first page of results, along with a couple of sources from outside the Anglosphere
Using "Kyiv": NPR, a specific NPR station repeating the NPR position on name usage, Kyiv Post (x7), and UNIAN.
PS - of special note is that the Washington Post had published an AP story last week using "Kyiv", but has since published its own story using "Kiev". --Khajidha (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Old exonyms die hard. During President Nixon's February 1972 visit to China, various media outlets were still using the form "Peking", while others were alternating between "Peking" and "Beijing" along with explanations to readers about the unfamiliar name. Wikipedia's own entries for Mumbai (May 20, 2001) and Kolkata (February 25, 2002) started out as Bombay and Calcutta and had discussions during the early 2000s in which users insisted that "Bombay" and "Calcutta" were still the more-widely used names, even in India. By 2004, however, all such disputes appear to have ceased. Likewise, over the next couple of years, there will still be inevitable "Kiev" holdouts and "Kyiv" resisters, but the inevitable tide will prevail, no doubt accelerated by ongoing events. —Roman Spinner(talk • contribs)13:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
This is the same POV that we have seen since 2004. "Kiev" is not an "old exonym" in English. It is the current exonym. It is not an "incorrect" exonym in English. It is the correct exonym. This recurrent POV mistakes the Ukrainian language for English. We're talking English on the English Wikipedia, not Ukrainian. And the evidence that User:Khajidha presents above, that news media today in the US is overwhelmingly using "Kiev" is pretty clear. Yes, some day the English exonym may change, but that day is not this day. --Taivo (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Current general searches (not specifically news searches) are running ~210 million using Kiev to ~61 million Kyiv. This is the greatest discrepancy (roughly 3.5:1) that I have seen in the last several weeks, and it is in favor of the established spelling. --Khajidha (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Khajidha/Taivo I tried to reproduce the claim made by Khajidha above that over the past week only Ukrainian media were using Kyiv spelling and was not able to reproduce that. On the contrary, using Google News search (with locatino settings as USA, and language settings as English) produces:
So, to summarize, one style guide for American (not British) media uses "Kyiv". All the others use "Kiev", including the style guides for the most prestigious and influential papers in the US and Britain. --Taivo (talk) 02:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
That is not the conclusion i would make: at least 2 style guides (1 in the UK: The Guardian and Observer Style guide; and 1 in teh US: AP Style guide) changed to Kyiv spelling in the last few months. However, the relative importance of AP Style book is 99 to 1, e.g., AP Style book's used by 99.9% of all English media outlets worldwide, with only a few 'select' large UK/US media outlets having their own Style books (which are however used soley by their own publication, e.g., AP Style book is unique in that it's used by others).--Piznajko (talk) 03:04, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
In the end, when you look at what English speakers are actually searching for, it's "Kiev" by a wide margin. In other words, the media may be using "Kyiv" more than they used to (it's still questionable whether it's even half, let alone a majority), but English speakers are switching very slowly, if at all. --Taivo (talk) 04:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
WP:NCPLACE emphasises that it primarieis looks at "what ap place is called"; it does not give highest weight to what "English speakers search online": usage in English-languge media is equally if not more important for consideraton of what a place "is called" and Kyiv now (thanks to AP Style update) is becoming a prevalent method of spelling Ukraine's capital in English.--Piznajko (talk) 05:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
@Piznajko: Kudos for your tireless efforts in gathering the hard evidence needed for consensus. If I was not previously aware of the recent update, I am certainly aware of it now. The form "Kyiv" has finally achieved an inexorable momentum which makes the transition within the other stylebooks an inevitability. Old exonyms do indeed die hard and various English speakers had continued to use old forms, Peking, Bombay and Calcutta, insisting that those were not "old" forms, but continued to be currently used.
By now, however, such resisters have largely disappeared as will resisters to "Kyiv" once the other stylebooks come around, probably within less than a year. At that point, English speakers searching for "Kiev" will discover that they were actually searching for what is the current city of "Kyiv" in the same manner as those who may still be searching for the present-day capital of China, Peking, would discover that the object of their search is referenced by the English form "Beijing". —Roman Spinner(talk • contribs)06:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Let's actually look at some numbers instead of Piznajko's cherry-picked list:
Search for "Kyiv -Kiev -AP trump zelensky": 81,000. Why -AP? To remove the variable of a single article simply being copied and pasted without editing looking like all the copies are creations. But even without -AP, the results are 91,400
Search for "Kiev -Kyiv -AP trump zelensky": 189,000. Without -AP the results are 278,000.
So now let's compare Kiev/Kyiv's numbers (41,300/3870) with Bombay/Mumbai's numbers (1,510,000/5,080,000), Peking/Beijing's numbers (1,980,000/8,510,000), and Calcutta/Kolkota's numbers (156,000/4,160,000). In other words, the "winners" are clearly "Kiev", "Mumbai", "Beijing", and "Kolkota" over the last week. (The Kiev/Kyiv searches included "Trump" and "Zelensky" in the search criteria and the others did not, of course.) --Taivo (talk) 08:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
"it does not give highest weight to what "English speakers search online"" It doesn't say that because it is implicit in the guideline that we use English to write in. Non-native speakers cannot set the norms for English usage. That's just how languages work. Just as when you borrow someone's car you don't get to decide that it would be better with glasspacks and racing stripes, so too when you borrow someone else's language you don't get to decide that it should use or not use certain words. --Khajidha (talk) 10:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
And it's also important to remember that the results for Google News searches that both I and Piznajko made above aren't searches by English speakers, but the pages that came back based on asking the questions. It's what has been placed out there by English language media sources for English speakers to read during the last seven days. So it's a clear indication that English language media is still solidly in the "Kiev" camp. It may be changing, but Piznajko's and Roman Spinner's insistence that the change in the AP Style Guide is overwhelming is an exaggeration. During the last week, Anglophone news media put "Kiev" out there to read ten times more often than they put "Kyiv". --Taivo (talk) 13:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Taivo, your own methodology disapproves your claim that "During the last week, Anglophone news media put "Kiev" out there to read ten times more often than they put "Kyiv"" - on the contrary search kiev -kyiv trump zelensky ( http://google.com/search?q=kiev -kyiv trump zelensky ) produces 419 000 results, whereas kyiv -kiev trump zelensky ( http://google.com/search?q=kyiv -kiev trump zelensky ) produces 196 000 results (the whole include/exclude AP in search result is murky and should be avoided). In other words your own methodology produces only 1 to 2 in favor of Kyiv vs. Kiev (and nothing close to x10 claimed by your above).--Piznajko (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I just tried exactly the same searches (more exactly, pasted the above urls to my browser). The first one produces for me 297 000 results, whereas the second one produces 80 results, which is approximately 3000:1 ratio.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Ymblanter the answer lies in your Google search settings (the # of results will also depend on your location and language settings); however, while the exact number of search results will differ by individual (and will also differ for the same individual when performed on different days/times), the general ratio of results should still be the same. Ymblanter, please look for preferences in your Google search - your search results #'s for Kyiv seem way wrong.
Or may be your search results are way wrong. I believe 3000:1 is much closer to reality than 2:1. I am sure though Roman Spinner will find a way to explain us for the 1000th time that all English speakers will embrace the "correct" spelling Kyiv pretty soon, following the trend set by Miami Herald.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Using Plznajko's search terms I get 282000:102000 Kiev:Kyiv. On the first page of the Kiev results I see: Washington Post, CNBC, CBS, the Atlantic, the NY Times, Newsweek, the BBC, and the New Yorker along with a few foreign sources like Channel News Asia, DW News, and Vesti News. On the first page of Kyiv results I see: NBC News, USA Today, Politico, and the LA Times. There is also an article from Yale Global where the name only occurs as a mention of "Kyiv Post" and a CNN reported transcript where the only usage is in recording Zelensky's words. These two are ambiguous. There's also three links to Kyiv Post stories. --Khajidha (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
User:Piznajko, these are the 10 to 1 results: "Using Piznajko's time and news restrictions above, to just the last week, "Kyiv" = 3870 results, "Kiev" = 41,300 results." The previous numbers were not restricted to just the last week. I reran the numbers to just the last week and that resulted in the 10 to 1, Kiev over Kyiv, result. But to reiterate User:Khajidha's comment, there is no search combination that results in an equal or greater number of "Kyiv" results. All the searches that have been run have yielded 2 to 1 up to 10 to 1 Kiev over Kyiv. --Taivo (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
@Piznajko: You did not miss anything in your clarification to Ymblanter above and your clarification speaks positively for itself. There is no need to become bogged down in search engine results on September 28, 2019 since consensus is not yet ready to come around. However, with Kyiv in the news on a daily basis, it will almost certainly come around on or before September 28, 2020.
The stylebooks associated with major media outlets in the English-speaking world do not feel professionally comfortable when conflict arises over key spelling and transliteration forms. As it happened two decades ago with Bombay and Calcutta, Kiev will quickly come to be viewed as an outdated form and, within less than a year, all the other stylebooks will follow governments, online maps, guidebooks and now AP to Kyiv. Hopefully, Wikipedia will not be the last straggler. —Roman Spinner(talk • contribs)00:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Talk:Roman Spinner "Hopefully, Wikipedia will not be the last straggler" simply illustrates your mistaken impression that Wikipedia is supposed to be a style guide, leading the way. That is the complete opposite of what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is descriptive and not prescriptive. It describes the state of affairs, it does not lead the way. It is an encyclopedia so it is supposed to "be the last staggler" once a change in usage has definitively been made. --Taivo (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Even after all the stylebooks do finally come around to specifying the use of "Kyiv", rather than "Kiev", there may well be continued opposition to moving the main title header of Wikipedia's entry from "Kiev" to "Kyiv" on the basis of contention that the majority of the English-speaking public persists in searching for "Kiev" or continues to use the form "Kiev".
As always, everything depends upon consensus, but "the last straggler" allusion was intended as a reference of measurement regarding the determination of the opposition to the move. —Roman Spinner(talk • contribs)19:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
You will note that my primary argument has nothing to do with what people are searching for (that was always just a minor point). My argument is based on how many web pages are being produced by news organizations, style guides be damned. In the last week, when Ukraine was heavily in the news, using searches of Google News in English where one or the other (but not both) spellings were being used, "Kiev" was being used ten times as often as "Kyiv". Excitement over the AP style guide, which is just one single data point, appears to be quite premature. --Taivo (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
This thread is not really about article improvement anymore (if it ever was). It's fallen into the same pattern as all the other closed discussions and is just puffery now. Let's wind this up and close it down because if someone doesn't, I will. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ukraine's Embassy Says It's “Kyiv, not Kiev.”
@Black Kite: The Ukrainian Embassy in Washington DC just tweeted this: “Let us kindly help you to use the words related to #Ukraine correctly,” Ukraine’s Embassy in the U.S. tweeted, noting that the country goes by “Ukraine, not ‘the’ Ukraine” and that its capital city should be spelled “Kyiv, not Kiev.” [1]Commenter8 (talk) 23:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Remind me again when the Ukrainian embassy was granted power to set correct English usage? Because my own government doesn't even have that power. --Khajidha (talk) 00:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can you please correct the spelling of Ukraine's capital to "Kyiv", not Kiev.
Kiev is the Russian transliteration, while Kyiv is the Ukrainian one. Using the Russian spelling affirms this “condescending view that Russians have” of the country. ChrisRaz16 (talk) 01:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
@Roman Spinner:, @Khajidha: You know, history makes changes. There are famous archaic English exonyms such as Byzantium and Constantinople. And here, in Wikipedia you write "Istanbul, formerly known as Byzantium and Constantinople, ..." Speaking of "Kyiv", our country brought back the ancient pronunciation of its capital Kyiv that's why the spelling was changed more presicely. We currently write "Kyiv", our schoolchildren learn it as the only correct spelling because in all international official documents it is "Kyiv", not "Kiev". Again, firstly, yes, Wikipedia carries an informative function but it cannot be opposite to the educational function. If a lot of US newspapers are still not aware of some changes, then something should be done about it - and I am sure it will happen one day. Secondly, if you refuse to omit "Kiev", could you please at least put it in the second place after "Kyiv" with the note "Kyiv" is currently used in all intenational official/state documents", "Kiev is just another English exonym which is yet used by some media and still historically well known all over the world"? btw. On Google Maps you will only find "Kyiv" not "Kiev". Thank you for your thorough work and discussion. 217.77.212.60 (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC) 217.77.212.60 (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)Tetiana
@Roman Spinner:@Khajidha: The Ukrainian Embassy in Washington DC just tweeted this: “Let us kindly help you to use the words related to #Ukraine correctly,” Ukraine’s Embassy in the U.S. tweeted, noting that the country goes by “Ukraine, not ‘the’ Ukraine” and that its capital city should be spelled “Kyiv, not Kiev.” Commenter8 (talk) 23:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Having this discussion on this talk page is pointless. Please take this to Talk:Kiev. Whatever spelling is the WP:COMMONNAME, as best supported by sources, is the one WP uses there; all articles linking Ukraine's capital in general will do likewise, as the same sources will apply equally to all articles. --A D Monroe III(talk)00:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
You all seem to be under the misapprehension that government statements and "official usage" hold some sort of control over the English language. They do not. The original poster tried to dismiss Kiev as "just another English exonym", not realizing that that is exactly why we use it. Actual English usage is paramount, and all sources show that actual English usage is overwhelmingly Kiev. And the Ukrainian embassy is not competent to make pronouncements on correct English. That is not even a power that English speaking governments have, let alone foreign ones.--Khajidha (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Okay, it looks as if there's been an attempt to 'enlist' me by this ChrisRaz16 WP:SPA on my talk page here. My immediate response on finding the missive can be found here, although thought it prudent to modify my response response slightly to this. I don't know where and when it became unclear that none of the arguments for change have changed, and that trying to re-zhuzh them doesn't make them new, improved, or any more valid than they were: in a nutshell, when the standard usage unequivocally becomes 'Kyiv' we'll have something to discuss. Until then, we're all truly sick to death of this periodical revival of the same old same old. Please, please, please read all of the archived talk with care before you post your arguments (apologies, but I'm actually feeling as if bolding isn't really enough to convey how tiring these resurrections have become). If they're new, the rest of us will know it and be marvelling over this incredible change. I promise it will be the talk of the town. Until then, just drop it. Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2019
moved from talk:Kiev
This edit request to Kiev has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change "Kiev City State Administration" to "Kyiv City State Administration" - correct spelling of referenced web-page
Change "Official Kiev tourism portal" to "Official Kyiv tourism portal" - correct spelling of referenced web-page Goodwinalex (talk) 07:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
This edit request to Kiev has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
To whom it may concern,
If "Kyiv", the capital city of Ukraine is the preferred spelling according to the Ukrainian government, why is "Kiev" still used as the standard spelling?
Are you sure this true about current usage in October 2019, User:Khajidha? I can show you some current style manuals that prefer Kyiv: the US Board on Geographic Names, The Economist Style Guide, the EU's Interinstitutional Style Guide, the Guardian and Observer Style Guide, the Associated Press’s AP Stylebook, the Wall Street Journal, and the Globe and Mail). Please let me know which ones prefer Kiev and not Kyiv.
Style manuals are not "usage". Only usage is usage, style manuals be damned. Right now, on a Google search, "Kiev -Kyiv -chicken" (last week) 12,900,000 results. "Kyiv -Kiev -dynamo" (last week) 7,730,000 results. That's "usage". Nearly two to one in favor of "Kiev". --Taivo (talk) 23:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Let's put it this way so that those editors pushing "but the the style manuals..." arguments can understand. 300 years ago, the style manuals decided that you could not split an infinitive in English. They said, "No split infinitives, ever". We were told for 300 years by the style guides and our English teachers to never, ever even think about wanting to brazenly and without thought split an infinitive. 'Nuff said about that failure of style manuals to even begin to actually change English usage. --Taivo (talk) 01:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
How many of those thirteen million hits represent current usage? More than half of that two-to-one? —MichaelZ. 2019-10-11 05:35 z
Perhaps you didn't read my search criteria properly. Those are all entries added in the last seven days. Current usage is crystal clear. --Taivo (talk) 06:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Ah, thanks User:TaivoLinguist. When I follow your search links above, click through to the last page, at the top I see “Page 14 of about 138 results” and “Page 12 of about 111 results,” a 55%/45% split. I believe that is more accurate than what’s reported on the first results page, which for me is 9.83M/7.00M, or 58%/42%. —MichaelZ. 2019-10-11 13:00 z
See Google: Appendix A: Estimated vs. Actual Number of Results: “if you have requested the last page of results, then you see the total number of filtered results, which is likely to be much smaller than the estimated total number of results.” —MichaelZ. 2019-10-11 13:16 z
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 21:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Not done per above response. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)