![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
It is clear to me that the name should be Kyiv, as it conforms official Ukrainian legislation, as well as the established usage by mere simple googling proves that even though Kiev prevails over Kyiv in English speaking sources, it does so very slightly, may be 5%. -- Moldopodo ( talk) 13:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Kyiv Ukraine - 673 000
Kiev Ukraine - 688 000
So KIEV definitely does not lead KYIV with 2:1. The ratio is rather 1:1.-- Moldopodo ( talk) 11:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Moldopodo. I get:
+kiev -wikipedia -site:*.ua = 569,000 +kyiv -wikipedia -site:*.ua = 226,000
I should have mentioned the specific search I entered. For your search, unless you put in the "+", "Kyiv Ukraine" (for example) will also return related pages which don't necessarily contain the word Kyiv. — PētersV ( talk) 19:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
+kiev -wikipedia -site:*.ru 476,000
Re: Illythr's 4 million and odd results:
Kyiv = 4,070,000 +Kyiv = same +Kyiv -site:*.ua = 4,820,000 (!) -site:*.ua +Kyiv = 1,950,000 -site:*.ua Kyiv = 4,820,000 (!)
When I specify the search, it's exactly as I typed, now that said (and this should not be construed as a character flaw either regarding myself or Illythr...), those are numbers with SAFESEARCH off. With SAFESEARCH on, we get...
Kyiv = 8,000,000 +Kyiv = 2,170,000 +Kyiv -site:*.ua = 244,000 -site:*.ua +Kyiv = 240,000 -site:*.ua Kyiv = 244,000
So, SAFESEARCH makes a huge difference. Also, it appears it changes results regarding required (+) or not (no +). Now a term might only appear on a page that LINKS to a page returned and Google returns that linked-to page, so that likely explains the jump to 8,000,000 for SAFESEARCH for Kyiv, no "+". I'm still disturbed by the non-transitive nature of the explicit (+) include and (-) exclude, but that's likely the result of queries going to different search engines with different caches. — PētersV ( talk) 23:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I haven't read all the opinions here, nor do I know whether it should be Kiev or Kyiv. However, I've noticed a lot of talk of googling for the two names which I thought was irrelevant for gathering consensus. I mean if people are saying that calling it Kiev is a fallacy, and it actually turns out to be so, then of course Kiev will have more google hits than Kyiv since more people believe it to be Kiev though incorrectly so. Also, I don't know about in other countries, but here in England we have a meal called "Chicken Kiev" so surely part of the googles for Kiev will contain info on the chicken variety rather than the city variety. I have no idea if its name is Kyiv or Kiev but surely there are better arguments for one or the other then google? Deamon138 ( talk) 22:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
You're right; Google results don't seem to have settled anything for certain. Part of the problem is the lack of consensus on what we should be using... 60.242.0.245 ( talk) 13:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=u27&q=kyiv+-*.ru&btnG=Search&meta= (kyiv) http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=f27&q=kiev+-*.ru&btnG=Search&meta= (kiev) -- Yakym ( talk) 22:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
However unfortunate it may seem to some Ukrainian names have become more common in English than former Polish or Russian names. Horlo ( talk) 07:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
For those who are too lazy to read older discussions here is a quick summary. Polish names probably exist for every city of Ukraine. There are three ways how they can apply.
The same rule of thumb applies to Russian names. However unfortunate it may seem for some, many Ukrainian cities are mentioned in English by their Russian names occasionally even today ( Kharkiv/ Battle of Kharkov, Chornobyl/ Chernobyl accident), etc. So, there are more Russian names than Polish ones in the first lines. I hope I captured everything. Do read archives, if interested. -- Irpen
There are two applicable naming conventions, WP:NC#UA which clearly states as Wikipedia official policy, "For geographic names in Ukraine, the Ukrainian National system is used. For historic reasons, many names are also presented in Russian, Polish, etc." The second is WP:UE, which states "These guidelines are under development", and clearly states "use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works". These two naming conventions conflict with each other, but one is established, the other is under development. Much of the discussion has focused on just how common Kiev and Kyiv are. -- 199.125.109.35
Go on http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2008/1/1/69342.htm, wait until it fully loads, and look at the picture of the first letter, and its spelling, Kyiv. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pazan.ua ( talk • contribs) 15:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
1) Only official country's position is relevant to naming any city in that country.
2) If some alternative name has been created by another country, and it is objected/contradicted by the country in question - than the prevalence is given to the official naming by the country in question.
This is the most basic international etiquette, ignoring which could only mean disrespect.
[**In connection to this - I request names of the individuals responsible for this disrespect, through locking of the page and refusal to use official terms and names, for further action of possible removal of the person(s) from eiting/controlling the content of Ukrainian pages(whether in Ukrainian and/or in the International section).**]
3) Official names of all Ukrainian cities in both the native official language of Ukraine, according to Ukrainian constitution(being Ukrainian), and official transliterations of those names into Latin Alphabet (intended for international usage in all official manners) can be found on almost all high level official governmental sites (designated with .gov.ua), such as:
Therefore - The only name that should be even mentioned on the page is 'Kyiv' - anything else would simply be a sign of disrespect by those who actively oppose the usage of one and only official transliterated name of Ukraine's capital.
As for 'Kiev' - it can be used in the disambiguation page for such things as: former name during the Soviet Union, Photocamera, Kiev Chicken and so on. But should not be mentioned on the main Kyiv page simply for the reason that there are so many other foreign names.
The only consensus I could possibly think of in favor of leaving a mention of 'Kiev'- is to leave it for a few months with description:
'Before Independence also known as Kiev'
Vvolodymyr ( talk) 10:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Please - to avoid unnecessary deviations from the topic - only the people directly in control over the content in the article at the moment are encouraged to respond (those who have taken it upon themselves to lock the article). What I have put in previous comment - is an official information, not a speculation or a personal opinion - but official evidence.
All Ukrainian governmental bodies insist on using those names of cities - including Kyiv - and not the former names, over which the people of Ukraine had not control before freedom of choice - before independence. Consider them as the only reliable source - which towers over the faceless mass of speculation and rhetoric. Using something else despite what is given by official sources - would be a gross undermining of a country's right to name itself and it's cities.
Your kind and swift action would be greatly appreciated.
Vvolodymyr ( talk) 13:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
A country has a right to name itself. Ukrainian government hold the power vested to it by it's people - naturally.
Before Ukrainian Independence - Ukrainian cities were named in Russian manner - Kiev - is a Russian way of calling Ukrainian capital. After gaining independence - people of Ukraine have the right to announce to the world what their country and cities are called.
One could post their desires and personal opinions - but all that would mean is denial of people of Ukraine to name their country and cities.
Now - please let us all refrain from posting personal opinions, desires, speculation and rhetoric. There is a simple and clean answer to all that - official sources. In such way all arguments will simply stop. It is so hard to find something concrete, conclusive, definitive and final - pertaining the usage of 'Kiev'- no officially recognized sources, not even sources that could be consensually trusted.
Now - Ukrainian government unequivocally expresses the desire of its people to call their capital Kyiv. Similarly all the other cities of Ukraine.
That is a great solution.
I will get around to changing the article and links, as well as disambiguation page according to official sources, as well as updated information on the city.
Meanwhile - whoever holds administrative authority, please kindly put a banner/marker stating that this article has disputes and in process of completing. Again non-administrators, or those who harbor passionate beliefs and feeling of possessiveness over a neighboring country(being Ukraine) - please refrain to interfere with articles describing or relating to Ukraine, particularly this one.
Sincerely, Volodymyr —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvolodymyr ( talk • contribs) 15:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
1) I don't see any countrymen from countries with official English language denying the right to people of Ukraine to name it's cities and country.
2) For many years I only see one persistent person - a single person - who denies a whole country its free right to name it's country and cities.
3) Wikipedia is a project which provides truthful information to its visitors. It is only right for those visitors to know the official name of a capital of a country - alongside with former names - but current truthful name is a must.
4) Governmental sources which are up-to-date are the closest thing to a credible source one could find.
5) There is no one authority on English language for a long time now. Moreover there is no one authority on Latin Alphabet neither. Sources which give preference to other names to the capital of Ukraine - are often contradicting each other and are not conclusive.
6) Please refrain from denying Ukraine to name its cities. You stand alone - and your opinion does not approach the credibility of an official source of a body that has the power to represent the people of Ukraine.
Do not forget to put up a marker that this article has serious disputes - parties being Kuban Cossack vs. Government of Ukraine. Vvolodymyr ( talk) 15:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from calling other people's valuable contributions with undisputable sources as nonsense. Name is what one calls oneself. wikipedia informs visitors on what are things and what they are called.
A right to name a person is reserved by ones parents, and that person. A right to name a country, region, city is reserved by the representative body of the people of that country - i.e. government; and not a group of random individuals on the internet. Again - please refrain from denying that right.
1) number of hits of Kyiv is greater than the number of hits for Kiev (excluding such terms as "chicken Kiev" or the brand of photo camera "Kiev" and other such names not describing the city itself.) - yet this number is lower for google books simply because this former name (being Kiev) was longer in use (than new name Kyiv).
2) Now the capital of Ukraine is called Kyiv - it has been announced 17 years ago - and is maintained by undisputed sources - such as government sites.
This is the way of people of Ukraine (through their representatives) let the people of the World know - what their new free name is - in terms of country and city names. For the last 17 years the World is finding this out - and the usage of the new proper official name (Kyiv) is in use more and more often.
3) Which is very similar to the name change of the city of Kolkata(formerly known as Calcutta).
Because according to common sense and international etiquette - people of the World, me included, pay attention to this name change and start calling it so - out of simple politeness and respect.
To continue to call it by old name - would simply mean disrespect.
4) This is the sort of disrespect seen here - by simply refusing to acknowledge the name change from old 'Kiev' to new 'Kyiv'.
The reason the sources and reiteration of those sources are written here by me - instead of simple edit - is to politely urge you and the great many like you, to respect a country's decision to rename itself from Ukrainian Soviet Sosialist Repblic to simply Ukraine, and to politely urge you and the great many like you, to respect a country's decision to rename its cities including its capital from Kiev to Kyiv.
I urge you reverently, no! i BEG YOU - please show some respect - and simply do not interfere in this tiny little expression of freedom of the people of Ukraine on this free and unowned fountain of information.
With all respect to all participants of this wonderful project!
Vvolodymyr ( talk) 16:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was No move: far more opposes than supports, arguments don't justify renaming the article in accordance with the relevant naming convention guidelines WP:UE and WP:NCGN. Parsecboy ( talk) 03:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
It has been proposed that Kiev be renamed and moved to Kyiv.
as per official sources - the Government of Ukraine insists that its capital is called Kyiv - who has a right to deny?
3) Official names of all Ukrainian cities in both the native official language of Ukraine, according to Ukrainian constitution(being Ukrainian), and official transliterations of those names into Latin Alphabet (intended for international usage in all official manners) can be found on almost all high level official governmental sites (designated with .gov.ua), such as:
Vvolodymyr ( talk) 21:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC) (keep forgetting to sign)
Partial list of previous duplicate requests (only recent ones):
-- Irpen 21:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
But we're not talking about Ukrainian government having authority over English language. For that matter no single government or group of persons have authority over English language - On International Arena. It is now unofficially a language of international conversation.
So... Since no government has authority over English language on International Arena (and Internet and wikipedia in particular IS an International Arena), then no single country or a group of persons has a right to dictate their name to a city that belongs to a nation of people.
But - since a country belongs to it's people they have a right to name cities in their country. But if that country happens to use other alphabet then Latin - they can Romanize (Latinize, Transliterate into Latin) the names of cities, of people - so that THAT name could be used in (for example) English language - on International Arena.
It would be a pity if some other country or some unrelated group of people chose to completely diregard that name and impose/dictate their own. Would those others have an upper hand over the people, to whome that city belongs? No they wouldn't.
Besides - wikipedia - is NOT a loudspeaker for persistent people with ideas, or perpetuation of old habits - it is an informative system - it informs unsuspecting visitors about stuff. Like... names of Country capitals. It wouldn't be prudent to simply perpetuate a misconseption or an old/derelict name/term - simply because of habit. Nooo - it would be prudent to inform those visitors that the name has been changed - it is now Kyiv. But even if they look for Kiev - we put a redirect there to it's true name (Kyiv) - and put a little note about name change - and the visitors will be well informed.
After all we did change the name of the country - from Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Why did we do that? Well... maybe because Ukrainian government changed it by itself - because it has a right to? And it didn't dictate anything regarding the use of English language - did it? No - it simply changed it's own name.
-- Vvolodymyr ( talk) 22:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Here is a perfect example of Proper Use of Wikipedia as informative platform. It informs people about things - even about common misconceptions.
Grand_Central_Terminal Grand Central Terminal in NY is often mistakenly called Grand Central Station. Here are google results: GCStation - 1,310,000 GCTerminal - 816,000
Just because the wrong "station" is used more often - it is still WRONG. Why? Because a proper authority insists on calling it a Terminal - and wikipedia informs visitors about it in a short and sweet way.
Now Ukrainian government has announced what the names of ALL its cities are, in Latin Alphabet and thus English language. Luckily International Geographic organization and other organizations have confirmed those names... What stops wikipedia? a group of random people? Why should those random people hold the information ransom for who knows what reasons - with endless rhetoric, designed to stall the Truth from coming out for eternity? Why do they "have an authority on English language"? Additionally Why do they have an authority over city names - despite a clear statement about those city names by the government of people that own them?
You want legitimate conclusive sources? OK 1) All The government sites I have posted. 2) In the archives a link to that Geographic Authority
It's Kyiv in there everywhere. Also Odesa, Kharkiv, Lviv, and so on.
Anybody care to give sources that would have enough power and credibility to contest those of the above? Anybody? The Burden of Proof is on them.
-- Vvolodymyr ( talk) 22:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at these American official governmental sources. Although US does not hold authority over English language - noone does - it does have a majority of people with English as primary language....
[1] - US Depratment of State [2] - again Department of State [3] - CIA (not the most reliable source, but....)
But then again I completely expect someone finding official (governmental are as official as they get) sources of some country with English as official language - and they will have 'Kiev' in there, and in other they will have 'Kyiv'.
So - with all this confusion and speculation, or simply uncaring use of names - and the lack of authority on English language - especially on International Arena - which Credible Body do we give preference for naming a city to? and why?
-- Vvolodymyr ( talk) 23:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
OK. What just happened? User:JPG-GR has removed the move request without reason? What is this?
Vvolodymyr ( talk) 00:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Again
{{move|Kiev|Kyiv}}
Vvolodymyr ( talk) 00:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
P.S. You know - this is ridiculous - I'm not allowed to put a move request in the discussion page of the article (Kiev) - but when I do it here - it says "move Kiev/naming" etc. And there's nothing I can do to change that. It is clear that the move is intended from "Kiev" to "Kyiv".... I hope this imposed "technicality" does not cancel the request to move.
Vvolodymyr ( talk) 01:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
P.P.S. This time I DID add the thing onto the main page.
Vvolodymyr ( talk) 01:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Naming conventions#City names
Convention: In general, there are no special naming conventions for cities, unless multiple cities with the same name exist.
Discussion, rationale, and specifics: See: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names)
Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Ukrainian names
With the general naming conventions above in mind, it is still sometimes necessary to render Ukrainian names, normally written in Cyrillic, into the Latin alphabet (to romanize them).
See Romanization of Ukrainian for details of transliteration systems.
Most personal names have a conventional English spelling, rendered phonetically. This is usually very close to transcription by the BGN/PCGN system, which is quite intuitive for English speakers to pronounce. Some Ukrainian names have conventional spellings that come from other languages, like Polish, transcription from Russian, transcription into German, etc. For geographic names in Ukraine, the Ukrainian National system is used. For historic reasons, many names are also presented in Russian, Polish, etc. Linguistics topics often use "scholarly", or "scientific transliteration" within the text.
So if you go by that - we should not have this discussion.
Anyways - why is this a controversy? Why don't we establish that fact first - if no sufficient or firm proof and evidence is provided - then we should stick to the Official name (you can see it in the article itself By The Way). I don't see any proof or evidence from those who make it into "controversy". Sufficient information was provided to Prove that Kyiv is the new name, and official name, and in English and with sources. No conclusive information is seen from the deniers.
The whole "it is widely used at the moment" rhetoric - is neutralized by the simple fact of an establishment of a new term, which made old one obsolete. It doesn't mean that the old term should not be used - it will be mentioned as the former name - to inform the visitors. And the redirect - so when people type "Kiev" they are redirected to new valid name "Kyiv" and they learn that there was an act of renaming the city.
Calcutta was renamed Kolkata. Maybe it didn't have so many random internet personalities denying the change so persistently. In such view - we should put a question - what and who gives those persons a right over the official government of Ukraine to name its own cities? Vvolodymyr ( talk) 04:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Official naming has nothing to do with English usage
Just so everyone understands - we're not talking about different sets of alphabets - we're talking about the simple Latin alphabet used in international English (what you see on the keyboard) - not Turkish alphabet or Vietnamese, for example. Question about Kyiv - is not some internal issue - it's the name that was established by all branches of Ukrainian gov't to be used in communications with govt's of other countries, in international legal documents, agreements, international geographic societies. Refusal to use it - is a spit in a face.
The burden of proof lies on those who deny the use of Kyiv as the primary.
Vvolodymyr ( talk) 06:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
There have been requests to justify, provide conclusive evidence etc. on numerous questionable statements made in opposition to using Kyiv as a primary. Be noted - without any proof, conclusive evidence - those statements cannot be considered credible - and Wikipedia:COI If it is hard for someone to find those requests - please inform about it here, and we will compile a list for you. Meanwhile please provide sufficient evidence when making controversial statements, or they will be ignored.
So far none of the points have been confirmed - if you want your opinion to be a contribution - please hurry - otrherwise in a day the changes will be made as per request to move and rename.
Thank You. Vvolodymyr ( talk) 06:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
P.S. If anyone wishing to contribute but has trouble finding all the viable proof and evidence already presented, please request for a compilation before posting a comment. Thank You for your interest. Vvolodymyr ( talk) 07:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
This is regarding a comment on the very top of this page. Don't forget to take this into consideration when posting an opinion to be contributed to the discussion. Thank You Vvolodymyr ( talk) 08:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
The French call the City of London 'Londres'. That is their name in their language. It has been used for centuries and it is the absolute right of French-speakers to retain their word in their language for the City of London. I would insist that French Wikipedia continue to use 'Londres' until such time as francophone speakers themselves decide to change their pronunciation and spelling. (If they ever do). German speaking people call my country 'Kanada'. That's 'wrong'. It's not official. But they have every right, and I support that right.
Germans call Venice 'Venedig'. The Italians call it 'Venezia'. The Spanish call it 'Venecia'. The people of every language have the right to their words. User PetersV above makes excellent points.
Look at it this way: Kiev is so important a city, that English has developed its own name for the city. It is a mark of honour for a language to develop its own unique name for a place. Over time, as English speakers become more accustomed to seeing the official 'Kyiv' spelling, our usage of the word may evolve and change. English use of the word 'Turin', for example, seems to be switching increasingly to 'Torino' and 'Torino' may eventually become the standard. But for the time being please respect our right to find articles using titles that reflect the words we actually use when we come to an English-language encyclopedic resource. Thank you. Corlyon ( talk) 17:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
OK Guys. I'm having a soft moment and would like to call out to everyone to take a fresh friendly look (myself first).
Let's ease off, shake off the bad thoughts and speak plainly like human to human :)
First off I do apologize if my manner of speaking has offended anyone - in no way did I truly mean to offend the opponents - I was sucked in by ibserving how these sort of things were done before - and I guess I looked at the wrong examples.
So if I had to set aside all the bureaucracy, and so on and only left with one most crucial point it would be this:
Point) I do strongly believe in the right to self-determination. And the reason the gov't sources are always pointed out is in no way intended to say that some governments have control over the universal language of Earth communication - being English. In no way. English will remain English. The reason it's there is to simply show that the act of self-determination has indeed occurred - and the body that represents the people of Ukraine (by elections etc.) has legitimacy to establish the fact of self-determination (over, for example, simply asking a person on the street). That's the only reason I post those gov't sources.
Thought) So what would be your biggest "point"?
Vvolodymyr (
talk)
09:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I would ask that all parties currently involved in this dispute cease and desist for the moment and let the opinions of new, previously univolved editors be heard. Thank You. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
1) Pasting oppose template is not a valid opposition - Wikipedia policy. 2) There is a specific wikipedia official policy on Ukrainian names.
Until those rules are changed we should follow them and not speculate on why they are there. So according to rules - we put Kiev to Kyiv - and change Kiev to Kyiv in bodies of articles when pertaining Ukrainian capital.
Dispute that first, please - since there are administrators here who have strong personal opinions and throw their weight around by shutting people up, by closing discussions, by counting unarguemented opinions that happen to support their personal views - why aren't you following clear guideline? Why is it perfectly ok to count as a valid contribution, an opinion of a person who says - oh that rule about naming Ukrainian entities - "oh it's nothing - we'll just ignore it cos I don't like it, and I don't like the person who initiated the move request." ??? Is it not Unjust?
I will take it up with anybody I can - this sort of Tyrannical enforcement will not go unnoticed, if those individuals insist. This is an unjust denial of freedom of self-identification!
Vvolodymyr ( talk) 19:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Since Hillock65 brought it up again (U.S. official usage), this is not quite true. What we have is a representative of the State Department spelling out K-Y-I-V at a press session. When we check the U.S. official database of place names, we still have Kiev as the common usage term (U.S. Board on Geographic Names--BGN--Conventional), "Kyiv" does not exist at all as a variant, what is in the database is "Kyyiv" (BGN Standard) basically as the most appropriate transliteration, then a slew of variants. "K-Y-I-V" does not appear as a primary, secondary, or any other variant. It exists only in the State Department announcement. — PētersV ( talk) 01:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
As per WP:NCGN, we all seem convinced that the title should be translated into English. We must therefore decide which translation best fulfills: "a widely accepted English name" (from WP:NCGN}
We are not here to debate whether the Ukranian government can name their Capital what they will, as they clearly can. That is not the substance of the debate. As per WP:NCGN, we have to establish what the majority of people call it. Parenthetically, we see this with Burma/Myanmar, with the current preference for Burma.
So, I have based my next comments on WP:NCGN in the section: Dispute Resolution. This is an accepted guide to determining the acceptable title.
1. The first section suggests the consultation of notable encyclopedia. Britannica uses Kiev, Encarta uses Kyiv. The article says that Columbia uses Kiev, but I have no way of checking. Having failed to reach a consensus, let's move on.
2.There has been a lot of discussion about the relative merits of Google. There is some debate as to the accuracy of Google in such a matter. However, Google gives me a 10:1 ratio to Kiev, where as Google Books gives me 2:1.5. Google Scholar gives Kiev in a roughly 10:1 ratio. What I'd like to say is that these are not a source of themselves. Google Search gives us a rough indication as to normal use, but, as noted above, they are not sources unto themselves.
3. The third step is to apply dictionary sources to the search. I have access only to the OED, which doesn't mention it. The Library of Congress doesn't mention it either
4. News Sources. The BBC only uses Kiev. The Times Style Guide [7] uses only Kiev, and recommends against Kyiv. The New York Times mainly uses Kiev. The Herald Tribune uses Kiev only.
Having used some recommended sources, I have added some more on. The FCO uses Kiev in their country guide. The US Board of Geographic Names uses Kyiv and as per the Press Conferance, this is offical US Federal Usage.
I would now like to draw people's attention to this from WP:NCGN
In this example, I searched on GeoNet for Kiev and Kyiv. It acknowledges that Kiev is a 'conventional name' which PetersV just mentioned. According to WP:NCGN, "if it acknowledges a conventional name it is evidence of widespread English usage". IN this example, it does give Kiev as a 'conventional' name. Therefore, we must accept it as 'evidence of widespread English usage'.
To sum up what is an over-long comment, I think the situation is clear. Whilst the State Dept. are no longer using Kiev, the majority of the English-speaking world (as seen through Encyclopedias and Newspapers etc) are still using Kiev. As the point at issue is what is widespread English usage, I think it is clear that Kiev should be used; naturally with a redirect from Kyiv, as well as a note in the first line stressing the other possible English name. I would also recommend reviewing this again in the future, as these things will change.
I would also say to everyone involved that, at the end of the day, there are thousands and thousands of other things to do on Wikipedia. Perhaps we should all be doing them, rather than quibbling over semantics? Conclusion: Strongly Oppose Theone00 ( talk) 04:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Probably I will not add anything new. Nevertheless.
There are two competing spellings of the Ukrainian capital. One has a native Ukrainian origin - «Kyiv» (reads as Kyїv) another one is former colonial Russian «Kiev».
We have a newspaper http://www.kyivpost.com/ Jed Sunden is the Publisher and Brian Bonner is the Chief Editor. Both of them are native English speakers.
I do realize that this part of Wikipedia is English. But using of either Kiev or Kyiv - depends on the ideology. Those who use «Kyiv» - support the Ukrainian fight for the real independence. Those who use «Kiev» - vote for the return of the USSR or any other form of the Russian Empire. -- Perohanych ( talk) 05:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest we do this less frequently and if possible open again only in the event of a concrete change such as in the U.S. BGN conventional entry being updated to "Kyiv"? Or at least after the article makes GA (better use of collective efforts!). — PētersV ( talk) 04:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Probably a good idea. The discussion inevitably becomes a spelling discussion, rather than an acknowledgement of the change of the official name of the city from the Russian word (usually transliterated "Kiev") to the Ukrainian word (usually transliterated "Kyiv"). The Ukrainian government muddied the waters even further by suggesting a "spelling" in English of the new city name. The words are so close in pronunciation that everyone knows which city is being discussed. Not even Webster's is accurate 100% of the time. I do suggest that the first line of the article should say "Kiev, also KNOWN as Kyiv" rather than "SPELLED as Kyiv". Kiev is never spelled as Kyiv. Kiev is an english spelling of a Russian word. Kyiv is an english spelling of a different Ukrainian word. 75.66.91.10 ( talk) 17:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Kyiv, not Kiev. Maybe what some people on this site don't realize is how it's not just about common spellings; it's about the history between Ukraine and Russia that drives the importance for this name change. Ukraine is trying hard to rid itself of Russian influence (see Orange Revolution), and Russia has historically been terrible to Ukraine (see Holodomor). This name change is important because upholding the Russian spelling is offensive to Ukraine and to Ukrainians. What English speakers traditionally use is of no relevance. Russian influence on Ukraine is offensive. It's Kyiv, not Kiev. End of story. - Majk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.147.175 ( talk) 08:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but Wikipedia mods should surely know something about the site they moderate. What do people come to Wikipedia for? I'd say, they come here for facts. To learn things that are true. Here's a fact: The capital of Ukraine is called "Kyiv". Look at any English country's correspondence with Ukraine. They all say Kyiv. I thought Wikipedia was here to share knowledge that was true. If you allow the article to be misnamed "Kiev", all Wikipedia is doing is upholding recognition of the wrong name. And really, there is no way you can dispute that "Kiev" is wrong; you can say it's more common, but it's still wrong. "Kyiv" is correct, and that's what people should see if Wikipedia really is here to spread knowledge that is indeed true. - Majk Greszczuk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.147.175 ( talk • contribs) 07:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
So... let's get this straight. If all English speakers start calling the Internet the "vagina television", is Wikipedia going to change the name? Just wondering. I'm sure they'd keep the archaic "Internet" as the title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.147.175 ( talk • contribs) 07:19 - 07:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
In google maps we see the local name, which latinized is Kyiv. Live maps (windows) uses the same policy...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.43.124.203 ( talk) 23:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi again... just checked the CIA world factbook website, adn found that now they use Ukrainian to latinize the names: Kyiv, Lviv, Karhkiv... THEY NOW USE UKRAINIAN, NOT RUSSIAN... The section about the regions uses also Ukrainian names, not the russian ones Gumuhua ( talk) 22:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Another argument for move.
http://www.rada.gov.ua/const/conengl.htm - "CONSTITUTION OF UKRAINE" - Official English translation.
Article 20
- …
- The capital of Ukraine is the City of Kyiv. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
194.187.108.19 (
talk)
12:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
'Kyiv' shows up as 'BGN standard' in the BGN atabase. What else is required for the article to change its name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andriy155 ( talk • contribs) 22:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, well, as I have been assured by the "well-respected" wikipedia mods, whenver the majority decides that the name should be changed to Kyiv, it will be changed. On this page I see more comments in favour of Kyiv. Therefore, a question arises, what are you guys waiting for? A blessing from God? Can any of you, mods specify exactly and precisely the criteria for the change rather than stating that saying something like the name will change whenever people agree. This is very vague in nature. It seems to me that some of the mods are simply conducting pro-Russian revisionist campaign. -- Andriy155 ( talk) 22:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
You misunderstood. I was talking about the transition from Tallin to Tallinn, when it originally happened in the 1990-ies and the transition from Peking to Bejing in the 60-ies and 70-ies. At that time both of the older versions were conventional in English language, however, it does not seem that conversion to Tallinn actually caused any problem for English speakers (at least, it does not seem like you guys were writing to English language media in defence of Tallin). Of course, now both new forms are considered conventional and the problem has disappeared. PetersV: this is getting interesting. So, it turns out, that it is inappropriate to call the supporters of Kiev pro-Russian, but supporters of Kyiv are in "defence of all things Ukrainian". Nice one! And you are telling me about no bias :) I missed the part where I was defending "other ukrainian things". This debate is not to promote Ukrainian culture but rather recognise the transition that is currently occuring in the spelling of the Ukrainian capital in English language. Everyone except for you has been very vague about defending word Kiev so far. As for you, I am not convinced that "BGN Standard" cannot be interpreted as BGN preferred. Similar question exists for Odessa/Odesa case. How long will it take before Odessa article is moved to Odesa? Odessa now only shows up as BGN Variant. So what is Wikipedia waiting for in your opinion? This, has, obviously, nothing to do with Wikipedia's conservative moderators :))) -- Andriy155 ( talk) 14:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
US Board on Geographic Names
Statement on the Status of Kyiv
In October 2006 the Foreign Names Committee of the US Board on Geographic Names (USBGN) decided to approve the spelling Kyiv as one of the USBGN official standard forms of the name of Ukraine’s capital. Official US Government documents may continue to refer to the city using the conventional spelling Kiev when context calls for that spelling.
The Board based its decision on recommendations from the Department of State that Kyiv is the locally preferred Latin-alphabet rendering of the place-name and should be available for official use better to assist the people and Government of Ukraine to promote that country’s national identity.
Congress established the US Board on Geographic Names in its present form in 1947 with the express mandate to standardize geographic nomenclature for official US Government use.
By the way, it seems as though New York Times is considering using Kyiv: NY article. In all fairness, majority of their articles still use old spelling. -- Andriy155 ( talk) 15:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Using one of your examples: Peking somehow started to turn into Beijing long before (I suspect) most of us were born. I have no idea of the reasons why – and these reasons are almost immaterial in this context) – but it’s just something that happened. English was one of the languages that came to increasingly refer to the city as Beijing. However, that is still not the case in a majority of languages, and you will still find the city called Pékin, Pequim, Pechino, Pekín, Pekini, Pequín, etc). And no, that does not mean that French, Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, Turkish speakers have any love or hate for the communist regime or Chairman Mao or whatever other conspiracy theory is being bandied about. Kyiv is Kiev in English just like Beijing is Pequim in Portuguese and Mumbai is Bombay in French and Seoul is Seul in Turkish – that’s just the way it is. Jasepl ( talk) 12:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC) Fair enough - some of us were not born at the time. How about Tallinn/Tallin. why weren't you protesting the change in the media?-- Andriy155 ( talk) 01:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Dear Andriy155, you take offense incorrectly. I have already explained that for many reasons I personally support "Kyiv", but cannot (yet) as common English spelling. What I was addressing was the commentary that "Kiev" is being pushed by some anti-Ukrainian Russian-glorifying conspiritorial cabal. That did not belong in this discussion.
As you've corresponded with the USBGN, you will note, again, that there is only one "standard" and, if defined, one "conventional," name; again, "conventional" being defined when it
When USBGN deletes its "conventional" Kiev entry, then that will be fair and objective expert evidence that Kyiv has become the predominant English usage name for Київ.
P.S. Travel guides and maps are not indicators of common English language usage, they are indicators of the most likely transliterations a traveler is likely to find for non-Roman alphabet languages. You will note that Roman-alphabet place names are typically reproduced with all their diacritics and often in the native language—again, not necessarily representing the most common English language usage. PetersV TALK 02:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Supporting the change to change the article name to "Kyiv" and redirect from Kiev. Oh and how exactly is it relevant to give the Russian name of the city in the first line?... -- 98.227.38.196 ( talk) 02:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
First (as these seems to be relevant to other contributors) I am an Englishman who has worked throughout the former Soviet Union, presently living in Kyiv. I have no political axe to grind either for Russia or Ukraine.
We have on WP Beijing, Mumbai, etc. I cannot uderstand therefore why we have Kiev. The transliteration of the Ukrainian name of this Ukrainian city is Kyiv. This is used by English-language newspaprs in the city, by the Delegation of the European Commission, etc. It is the country's own preferred version of the city name in Latin script. Kiev is the transliteration of the city's name in a different language (Russian). It seems to me unreasonable and inconsistent to retain it as the article title. The argument of 'common usage' in these circumstances is highly debatable - and if it is highly debatable it canot per se be justified as 'common usage'. Where there is no clear open consensus - and I note the topic has been hotly debated - we should surely go the 'official' route, as WP has done with Mumbai etc.-- Smerus ( talk) 04:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
A bit of research - a quick trawl shows that the British Embassy, the French Embassy and the American Embassy all use 'Kyiv'. Even Terry Wogan uses Kyiv, saying ‘only the chicken is Kiev’. I think one can argue a strong case now even on common usage and unless anyone can show me any good reason, I will take this once again to AfR.-- Smerus ( talk) 14:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Kiev=>Kyiv move by Christian Science Monitor: [11] Good job, guys!-- Andriy155 ( talk) 10:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
It caught my attention that a change of the official city name to Kyiv has been reverted back to Kiev. I realise that given the mood on this forum it is very unlikely that this article will unlikely move to Kyiv any time soon. However, since when is the official name of the city Kiev? Isn't it something that the Ukrainian authorities should be able to figure out on their own? See article 20 of the Ukrainian consitution: http://www.rada.gov.ua/const/conengl.htm in its official translation. Notice that this issue has nothing to do with the English usage of the word. I am curious, who has higher authority to determine official names of cities in Ukraine than the Ukrainian consitution? Furthmore, in the entry for Milan the official city name is Milano. Hence, we should either adopt Kyiv as the official city name or set Milan as the official city name for Milan. Otherwise, there is no consistency. Again, in this part I do not propose to moce the article to Kyiv but simply to correct the opfficial name in the template.-- Andriy155 ( talk) 06:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
You neglect to note that there are few Great Pakastani chauvanists around to get in the way. Bandurist ( talk) 06:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia!
We noticed something interesting today. When we ventured to ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiev#City_name_evolution
... you very properly state, that:
“since the 1995 adoption of Kyiv by the Ukrainian government as a preferred spelling, the Ukrainianized version Kyiv is gaining usage”.
So, as you further state, it appears the name Kyiv is gaining usage by many notable entities, such as ...
“Ukrainian government, [...]
United Nations, all English-speaking foreign diplomatic missions, several international organizations, Encarta encyclopedia, and by some media, notably in Canada and Ukraine [...]
United States federal government, [...] Monopoly”
... EXCEPT you, Wikipedia, as we see in THE NAME of your article that describes the city of Kyiv.
Shame! Get it right - NOW, please ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyiv
... must be THE NAME of the article and ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiev must redirect to the article ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyiv
Sincerely, Mumbai & Beijing
(as told to Hokej ( talk) 01:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC))
The official name of the city, is Kyiv.... Ukrainians living in Ukraine as well as around the world make this common mistake since. Verkhovna Rada, the Ukrainian Parliament has made this decree... I feel that as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia it should reflect the CORRECT information not information that has made us complacent.
thank you
http://www.rada.gov.ua/const/conengl.htm
-- UkrNole 485 ( talk) 19:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
The official name of London is...London. However it appears in the Ukrainian Wikipedia as Лондон. Why? Because that's how Ukrainians spell it (just as the French spell it Londres, which is how it appears on French Wikipedia). The principle is no different with Kiev. English-speakers have always spelt it Kiev, just as they have always spelt Köln as Cologne and Venezia as Venice. It's a fact of life and no amount of bickering over name changes is going to make any difference. There is no earthly reason why English Wikipedia should be a special case - until every Wikipedia changes its spellings to the spellings in use in the country of origin I see no reason why English Wikipedia should be obliged to change spellings in long use in English-speaking countries just because a city happens to have changed its official name. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) In case you haven't read it, here is the discussion and result the last time the issue was thoroughly discussed (Sep 2008): [12]. Before you continue on, you should familiarize yourself with the issues and not repeat them here. ( Taivo ( talk) 03:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC))
It is spelled as Kyiv in English language because:
1) Ukrainian government insists on Kyiv spelling
2) The State Department of the U.S. issued a directive to write Kyiv
3) The Prime Minister of the U.K. calls the city Kyiv
4) United Nations Multilingual Terminology Database (the ultimate body on geographical names) approved it as Kyiv
5) Major English speaking governments worldwide switched to Kyiv spelling
6) CIA refers to the city as Kyiv
7) The name of the famous football club is Dynamo Kyiv
8) Many papers, e.g., British The Guardian, are already writing Kyiv
9) All major Canadian media already use the spelling of Kyiv
10) and many more reasons http://kyiv.of-cour.se/
( Markiyan ( talk) 10:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC))
The result of the proposal was consensus against move. Overwhelming and varied evidence provided that Kiev is currently the common English language name for the city.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 01:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Kiev → Kyiv — This issue has not been visited formally for a year (September 2008 as far as I recall). There is steady nationalistic pressure to change the title and a recent case of soliciting meat puppets was discovered. I don't really care one way or the other (I personally always use Kyiv outside Wikipedia), but simply want to gauge Wikipedia consensus (again). How common is the Kyiv spelling outside the government and official channels? How common is the Kiev spelling? Obviously anything written before 2004 or so is going to have Kiev, but how about during the past two or three years? Has there been a significant shift to Kyiv in non-governmental sources? Are English speakers shifting to Kyiv? Taivo ( talk) 11:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
This is the last time that the move issue was officially visited with a move request, discussion, and survey. The results of the survey were 11 Oppose, 1 Neutral, 2 Support. The arguments there almost entirely focused on three things: 1) Google hits, 2) Ukrainian official policy, and 3) Wikipedia's relation to governmental policies. There were no comprehensive surveys of English common usage at that time. ( Taivo ( talk) 04:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC))
I have, as promised, carefully replaced the survey results here that were added yesterday. ( Taivo ( talk) 11:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC))
I'd like to make a very strong suggestion in an attempt to get the most out of the following discussion - let's keep the discussion tightly focussed on reporting actual usage of each name in the English language.
All the arguments based on governmental decrees, transliteration systems, relative number of Ukranian/Russian speakers, the etymologies - we've heard it all before. These arguments are thoroughly documented in the previous discussions, and we don't need to waste time and kilobytes trawling through it all again - and most importantly none of these issues have changed since the previous discussions. The one thing which may have changed since the other discussions is actual usage in English-language texts, so if we focus on this we will use our time most productively.
I suggest collecting data from a wide-range sources that represent a selection of reliable English-language sources (i.e. not just crude Google counting, including any blog, raw data file and script-generated text that's been dumped on the net - see WP:NCGN#Search engine issues). With enough good-quality evidence, it will be far easier to come to a consensus on the strength of the case.
Please provide links for verification, and (if possible) an indication of the year the usage comes from. Knepflerle ( talk) 14:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
(This section was added later by a supporter to reflect official policy, not common usage. ( Taivo ( talk) 01:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)))
Governmental bodies in English-speaking countries. Also those of English-speaking countries acting in Ukraine.
At this point, the evidence shows:
So as of Friday morning, 30 October (Mountain Daylight Time), that's where we stand on gathering sources and examining the usage data. ( Taivo ( talk) 12:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC))
Reading Wikipedia policy (below) and considering the assembled data, the following points point unambiguously toward Kiev as the common English spelling of Ukraine's capital:
( Taivo ( talk) 04:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC))
We already knew that official policy of most countries doing business in Ukraine is to favor "Kyiv" in official documents. That has been documented ad infinitem before. What is new here is the definitive data demonstrating that common English usage is "Kiev". ( Taivo ( talk) 01:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC))
For those who may not be thoroughly familiar with relevant Wikipedia policy in this issue (and who may not like to click on links), these are the relevant points (from WP:NCGN):
( Taivo ( talk) 04:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC))
I agree that in time the change to Kyiv will happen, but Wikipedia is bound by the present, not the future. We are a descriptive encyclopedia, not a prescriptive one. Neither Kishenev nor Alma-Ata are referred to with any regularity in English sources. Neither are Uzhhorod nor Dnipropetrovsk. They are rarely encountered in English so "common usage" is not relevant to them. Compare this, however, with Bangkok, which is not its name in Thai, and Rome, which is not its name in Italian. And what about Moscow in the post-Soviet world? Why not "Moskva" (or "Warszawa" instead of Warsaw)? Indeed, if we want local names, then Dnepropetrovsk is the way that the inhabitants (who nearly all speak Russian) want their city known, not the Ukrainian Dnipropetrovsk. In the end, all we have is common English usage. We must not get caught up in WP:OTHERSTUFF. That is never a strong argument when it comes to deciding individual issues in Wikipedia. We don't tell people how things should be, but simply report how they are. ( Taivo ( talk) 00:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC))
User:Londain has been banned because he/she turned out to be a second account for banned User:Markiyan. The contributions of such second accounts are often deleted based on the reasoning that a banned user should not be editing under a new name. These secondary contributions are usually not productive. However, in this case, I'm not inclined to personally delete Londain's contributions for two reasons. First, they represent a minority point of view, and second, they are not inflammatory or otherwise uncivil. If you feel otherwise, then feel free to act accordingly. ( Taivo ( talk) 12:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC))
The result of the proposal was consensus against move. Overwhelming and varied evidence provided that Kiev is currently the common English language name for the city.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 01:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Kiev → Kyiv — This issue has not been visited formally for a year (September 2008 as far as I recall). There is steady nationalistic pressure to change the title and a recent case of soliciting meat puppets was discovered. I don't really care one way or the other (I personally always use Kyiv outside Wikipedia), but simply want to gauge Wikipedia consensus (again). How common is the Kyiv spelling outside the government and official channels? How common is the Kiev spelling? Obviously anything written before 2004 or so is going to have Kiev, but how about during the past two or three years? Has there been a significant shift to Kyiv in non-governmental sources? Are English speakers shifting to Kyiv? Taivo ( talk) 11:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
This is the last time that the move issue was officially visited with a move request, discussion, and survey. The results of the survey were 11 Oppose, 1 Neutral, 2 Support. The arguments there almost entirely focused on three things: 1) Google hits, 2) Ukrainian official policy, and 3) Wikipedia's relation to governmental policies. There were no comprehensive surveys of English common usage at that time. ( Taivo ( talk) 04:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC))
I have, as promised, carefully replaced the survey results here that were added yesterday. ( Taivo ( talk) 11:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC))
I'd like to make a very strong suggestion in an attempt to get the most out of the following discussion - let's keep the discussion tightly focussed on reporting actual usage of each name in the English language.
All the arguments based on governmental decrees, transliteration systems, relative number of Ukranian/Russian speakers, the etymologies - we've heard it all before. These arguments are thoroughly documented in the previous discussions, and we don't need to waste time and kilobytes trawling through it all again - and most importantly none of these issues have changed since the previous discussions. The one thing which may have changed since the other discussions is actual usage in English-language texts, so if we focus on this we will use our time most productively.
I suggest collecting data from a wide-range sources that represent a selection of reliable English-language sources (i.e. not just crude Google counting, including any blog, raw data file and script-generated text that's been dumped on the net - see WP:NCGN#Search engine issues). With enough good-quality evidence, it will be far easier to come to a consensus on the strength of the case.
Please provide links for verification, and (if possible) an indication of the year the usage comes from. Knepflerle ( talk) 14:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
(This section was added later by a supporter to reflect official policy, not common usage. ( Taivo ( talk) 01:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)))
Governmental bodies in English-speaking countries. Also those of English-speaking countries acting in Ukraine.
At this point, the evidence shows:
So as of Friday morning, 30 October (Mountain Daylight Time), that's where we stand on gathering sources and examining the usage data. ( Taivo ( talk) 12:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC))
Reading Wikipedia policy (below) and considering the assembled data, the following points point unambiguously toward Kiev as the common English spelling of Ukraine's capital:
( Taivo ( talk) 04:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC))
We already knew that official policy of most countries doing business in Ukraine is to favor "Kyiv" in official documents. That has been documented ad infinitem before. What is new here is the definitive data demonstrating that common English usage is "Kiev". ( Taivo ( talk) 01:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC))
For those who may not be thoroughly familiar with relevant Wikipedia policy in this issue (and who may not like to click on links), these are the relevant points (from WP:NCGN):
( Taivo ( talk) 04:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC))
I agree that in time the change to Kyiv will happen, but Wikipedia is bound by the present, not the future. We are a descriptive encyclopedia, not a prescriptive one. Neither Kishenev nor Alma-Ata are referred to with any regularity in English sources. Neither are Uzhhorod nor Dnipropetrovsk. They are rarely encountered in English so "common usage" is not relevant to them. Compare this, however, with Bangkok, which is not its name in Thai, and Rome, which is not its name in Italian. And what about Moscow in the post-Soviet world? Why not "Moskva" (or "Warszawa" instead of Warsaw)? Indeed, if we want local names, then Dnepropetrovsk is the way that the inhabitants (who nearly all speak Russian) want their city known, not the Ukrainian Dnipropetrovsk. In the end, all we have is common English usage. We must not get caught up in WP:OTHERSTUFF. That is never a strong argument when it comes to deciding individual issues in Wikipedia. We don't tell people how things should be, but simply report how they are. ( Taivo ( talk) 00:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC))
User:Londain has been banned because he/she turned out to be a second account for banned User:Markiyan. The contributions of such second accounts are often deleted based on the reasoning that a banned user should not be editing under a new name. These secondary contributions are usually not productive. However, in this case, I'm not inclined to personally delete Londain's contributions for two reasons. First, they represent a minority point of view, and second, they are not inflammatory or otherwise uncivil. If you feel otherwise, then feel free to act accordingly. ( Taivo ( talk) 12:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC))
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
It is clear to me that the name should be Kyiv, as it conforms official Ukrainian legislation, as well as the established usage by mere simple googling proves that even though Kiev prevails over Kyiv in English speaking sources, it does so very slightly, may be 5%. -- Moldopodo ( talk) 13:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Kyiv Ukraine - 673 000
Kiev Ukraine - 688 000
So KIEV definitely does not lead KYIV with 2:1. The ratio is rather 1:1.-- Moldopodo ( talk) 11:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Moldopodo. I get:
+kiev -wikipedia -site:*.ua = 569,000 +kyiv -wikipedia -site:*.ua = 226,000
I should have mentioned the specific search I entered. For your search, unless you put in the "+", "Kyiv Ukraine" (for example) will also return related pages which don't necessarily contain the word Kyiv. — PētersV ( talk) 19:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
+kiev -wikipedia -site:*.ru 476,000
Re: Illythr's 4 million and odd results:
Kyiv = 4,070,000 +Kyiv = same +Kyiv -site:*.ua = 4,820,000 (!) -site:*.ua +Kyiv = 1,950,000 -site:*.ua Kyiv = 4,820,000 (!)
When I specify the search, it's exactly as I typed, now that said (and this should not be construed as a character flaw either regarding myself or Illythr...), those are numbers with SAFESEARCH off. With SAFESEARCH on, we get...
Kyiv = 8,000,000 +Kyiv = 2,170,000 +Kyiv -site:*.ua = 244,000 -site:*.ua +Kyiv = 240,000 -site:*.ua Kyiv = 244,000
So, SAFESEARCH makes a huge difference. Also, it appears it changes results regarding required (+) or not (no +). Now a term might only appear on a page that LINKS to a page returned and Google returns that linked-to page, so that likely explains the jump to 8,000,000 for SAFESEARCH for Kyiv, no "+". I'm still disturbed by the non-transitive nature of the explicit (+) include and (-) exclude, but that's likely the result of queries going to different search engines with different caches. — PētersV ( talk) 23:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I haven't read all the opinions here, nor do I know whether it should be Kiev or Kyiv. However, I've noticed a lot of talk of googling for the two names which I thought was irrelevant for gathering consensus. I mean if people are saying that calling it Kiev is a fallacy, and it actually turns out to be so, then of course Kiev will have more google hits than Kyiv since more people believe it to be Kiev though incorrectly so. Also, I don't know about in other countries, but here in England we have a meal called "Chicken Kiev" so surely part of the googles for Kiev will contain info on the chicken variety rather than the city variety. I have no idea if its name is Kyiv or Kiev but surely there are better arguments for one or the other then google? Deamon138 ( talk) 22:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
You're right; Google results don't seem to have settled anything for certain. Part of the problem is the lack of consensus on what we should be using... 60.242.0.245 ( talk) 13:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=u27&q=kyiv+-*.ru&btnG=Search&meta= (kyiv) http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=f27&q=kiev+-*.ru&btnG=Search&meta= (kiev) -- Yakym ( talk) 22:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
However unfortunate it may seem to some Ukrainian names have become more common in English than former Polish or Russian names. Horlo ( talk) 07:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
For those who are too lazy to read older discussions here is a quick summary. Polish names probably exist for every city of Ukraine. There are three ways how they can apply.
The same rule of thumb applies to Russian names. However unfortunate it may seem for some, many Ukrainian cities are mentioned in English by their Russian names occasionally even today ( Kharkiv/ Battle of Kharkov, Chornobyl/ Chernobyl accident), etc. So, there are more Russian names than Polish ones in the first lines. I hope I captured everything. Do read archives, if interested. -- Irpen
There are two applicable naming conventions, WP:NC#UA which clearly states as Wikipedia official policy, "For geographic names in Ukraine, the Ukrainian National system is used. For historic reasons, many names are also presented in Russian, Polish, etc." The second is WP:UE, which states "These guidelines are under development", and clearly states "use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works". These two naming conventions conflict with each other, but one is established, the other is under development. Much of the discussion has focused on just how common Kiev and Kyiv are. -- 199.125.109.35
Go on http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2008/1/1/69342.htm, wait until it fully loads, and look at the picture of the first letter, and its spelling, Kyiv. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pazan.ua ( talk • contribs) 15:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
1) Only official country's position is relevant to naming any city in that country.
2) If some alternative name has been created by another country, and it is objected/contradicted by the country in question - than the prevalence is given to the official naming by the country in question.
This is the most basic international etiquette, ignoring which could only mean disrespect.
[**In connection to this - I request names of the individuals responsible for this disrespect, through locking of the page and refusal to use official terms and names, for further action of possible removal of the person(s) from eiting/controlling the content of Ukrainian pages(whether in Ukrainian and/or in the International section).**]
3) Official names of all Ukrainian cities in both the native official language of Ukraine, according to Ukrainian constitution(being Ukrainian), and official transliterations of those names into Latin Alphabet (intended for international usage in all official manners) can be found on almost all high level official governmental sites (designated with .gov.ua), such as:
Therefore - The only name that should be even mentioned on the page is 'Kyiv' - anything else would simply be a sign of disrespect by those who actively oppose the usage of one and only official transliterated name of Ukraine's capital.
As for 'Kiev' - it can be used in the disambiguation page for such things as: former name during the Soviet Union, Photocamera, Kiev Chicken and so on. But should not be mentioned on the main Kyiv page simply for the reason that there are so many other foreign names.
The only consensus I could possibly think of in favor of leaving a mention of 'Kiev'- is to leave it for a few months with description:
'Before Independence also known as Kiev'
Vvolodymyr ( talk) 10:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Please - to avoid unnecessary deviations from the topic - only the people directly in control over the content in the article at the moment are encouraged to respond (those who have taken it upon themselves to lock the article). What I have put in previous comment - is an official information, not a speculation or a personal opinion - but official evidence.
All Ukrainian governmental bodies insist on using those names of cities - including Kyiv - and not the former names, over which the people of Ukraine had not control before freedom of choice - before independence. Consider them as the only reliable source - which towers over the faceless mass of speculation and rhetoric. Using something else despite what is given by official sources - would be a gross undermining of a country's right to name itself and it's cities.
Your kind and swift action would be greatly appreciated.
Vvolodymyr ( talk) 13:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
A country has a right to name itself. Ukrainian government hold the power vested to it by it's people - naturally.
Before Ukrainian Independence - Ukrainian cities were named in Russian manner - Kiev - is a Russian way of calling Ukrainian capital. After gaining independence - people of Ukraine have the right to announce to the world what their country and cities are called.
One could post their desires and personal opinions - but all that would mean is denial of people of Ukraine to name their country and cities.
Now - please let us all refrain from posting personal opinions, desires, speculation and rhetoric. There is a simple and clean answer to all that - official sources. In such way all arguments will simply stop. It is so hard to find something concrete, conclusive, definitive and final - pertaining the usage of 'Kiev'- no officially recognized sources, not even sources that could be consensually trusted.
Now - Ukrainian government unequivocally expresses the desire of its people to call their capital Kyiv. Similarly all the other cities of Ukraine.
That is a great solution.
I will get around to changing the article and links, as well as disambiguation page according to official sources, as well as updated information on the city.
Meanwhile - whoever holds administrative authority, please kindly put a banner/marker stating that this article has disputes and in process of completing. Again non-administrators, or those who harbor passionate beliefs and feeling of possessiveness over a neighboring country(being Ukraine) - please refrain to interfere with articles describing or relating to Ukraine, particularly this one.
Sincerely, Volodymyr —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvolodymyr ( talk • contribs) 15:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
1) I don't see any countrymen from countries with official English language denying the right to people of Ukraine to name it's cities and country.
2) For many years I only see one persistent person - a single person - who denies a whole country its free right to name it's country and cities.
3) Wikipedia is a project which provides truthful information to its visitors. It is only right for those visitors to know the official name of a capital of a country - alongside with former names - but current truthful name is a must.
4) Governmental sources which are up-to-date are the closest thing to a credible source one could find.
5) There is no one authority on English language for a long time now. Moreover there is no one authority on Latin Alphabet neither. Sources which give preference to other names to the capital of Ukraine - are often contradicting each other and are not conclusive.
6) Please refrain from denying Ukraine to name its cities. You stand alone - and your opinion does not approach the credibility of an official source of a body that has the power to represent the people of Ukraine.
Do not forget to put up a marker that this article has serious disputes - parties being Kuban Cossack vs. Government of Ukraine. Vvolodymyr ( talk) 15:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from calling other people's valuable contributions with undisputable sources as nonsense. Name is what one calls oneself. wikipedia informs visitors on what are things and what they are called.
A right to name a person is reserved by ones parents, and that person. A right to name a country, region, city is reserved by the representative body of the people of that country - i.e. government; and not a group of random individuals on the internet. Again - please refrain from denying that right.
1) number of hits of Kyiv is greater than the number of hits for Kiev (excluding such terms as "chicken Kiev" or the brand of photo camera "Kiev" and other such names not describing the city itself.) - yet this number is lower for google books simply because this former name (being Kiev) was longer in use (than new name Kyiv).
2) Now the capital of Ukraine is called Kyiv - it has been announced 17 years ago - and is maintained by undisputed sources - such as government sites.
This is the way of people of Ukraine (through their representatives) let the people of the World know - what their new free name is - in terms of country and city names. For the last 17 years the World is finding this out - and the usage of the new proper official name (Kyiv) is in use more and more often.
3) Which is very similar to the name change of the city of Kolkata(formerly known as Calcutta).
Because according to common sense and international etiquette - people of the World, me included, pay attention to this name change and start calling it so - out of simple politeness and respect.
To continue to call it by old name - would simply mean disrespect.
4) This is the sort of disrespect seen here - by simply refusing to acknowledge the name change from old 'Kiev' to new 'Kyiv'.
The reason the sources and reiteration of those sources are written here by me - instead of simple edit - is to politely urge you and the great many like you, to respect a country's decision to rename itself from Ukrainian Soviet Sosialist Repblic to simply Ukraine, and to politely urge you and the great many like you, to respect a country's decision to rename its cities including its capital from Kiev to Kyiv.
I urge you reverently, no! i BEG YOU - please show some respect - and simply do not interfere in this tiny little expression of freedom of the people of Ukraine on this free and unowned fountain of information.
With all respect to all participants of this wonderful project!
Vvolodymyr ( talk) 16:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was No move: far more opposes than supports, arguments don't justify renaming the article in accordance with the relevant naming convention guidelines WP:UE and WP:NCGN. Parsecboy ( talk) 03:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
It has been proposed that Kiev be renamed and moved to Kyiv.
as per official sources - the Government of Ukraine insists that its capital is called Kyiv - who has a right to deny?
3) Official names of all Ukrainian cities in both the native official language of Ukraine, according to Ukrainian constitution(being Ukrainian), and official transliterations of those names into Latin Alphabet (intended for international usage in all official manners) can be found on almost all high level official governmental sites (designated with .gov.ua), such as:
Vvolodymyr ( talk) 21:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC) (keep forgetting to sign)
Partial list of previous duplicate requests (only recent ones):
-- Irpen 21:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
But we're not talking about Ukrainian government having authority over English language. For that matter no single government or group of persons have authority over English language - On International Arena. It is now unofficially a language of international conversation.
So... Since no government has authority over English language on International Arena (and Internet and wikipedia in particular IS an International Arena), then no single country or a group of persons has a right to dictate their name to a city that belongs to a nation of people.
But - since a country belongs to it's people they have a right to name cities in their country. But if that country happens to use other alphabet then Latin - they can Romanize (Latinize, Transliterate into Latin) the names of cities, of people - so that THAT name could be used in (for example) English language - on International Arena.
It would be a pity if some other country or some unrelated group of people chose to completely diregard that name and impose/dictate their own. Would those others have an upper hand over the people, to whome that city belongs? No they wouldn't.
Besides - wikipedia - is NOT a loudspeaker for persistent people with ideas, or perpetuation of old habits - it is an informative system - it informs unsuspecting visitors about stuff. Like... names of Country capitals. It wouldn't be prudent to simply perpetuate a misconseption or an old/derelict name/term - simply because of habit. Nooo - it would be prudent to inform those visitors that the name has been changed - it is now Kyiv. But even if they look for Kiev - we put a redirect there to it's true name (Kyiv) - and put a little note about name change - and the visitors will be well informed.
After all we did change the name of the country - from Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Why did we do that? Well... maybe because Ukrainian government changed it by itself - because it has a right to? And it didn't dictate anything regarding the use of English language - did it? No - it simply changed it's own name.
-- Vvolodymyr ( talk) 22:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Here is a perfect example of Proper Use of Wikipedia as informative platform. It informs people about things - even about common misconceptions.
Grand_Central_Terminal Grand Central Terminal in NY is often mistakenly called Grand Central Station. Here are google results: GCStation - 1,310,000 GCTerminal - 816,000
Just because the wrong "station" is used more often - it is still WRONG. Why? Because a proper authority insists on calling it a Terminal - and wikipedia informs visitors about it in a short and sweet way.
Now Ukrainian government has announced what the names of ALL its cities are, in Latin Alphabet and thus English language. Luckily International Geographic organization and other organizations have confirmed those names... What stops wikipedia? a group of random people? Why should those random people hold the information ransom for who knows what reasons - with endless rhetoric, designed to stall the Truth from coming out for eternity? Why do they "have an authority on English language"? Additionally Why do they have an authority over city names - despite a clear statement about those city names by the government of people that own them?
You want legitimate conclusive sources? OK 1) All The government sites I have posted. 2) In the archives a link to that Geographic Authority
It's Kyiv in there everywhere. Also Odesa, Kharkiv, Lviv, and so on.
Anybody care to give sources that would have enough power and credibility to contest those of the above? Anybody? The Burden of Proof is on them.
-- Vvolodymyr ( talk) 22:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at these American official governmental sources. Although US does not hold authority over English language - noone does - it does have a majority of people with English as primary language....
[1] - US Depratment of State [2] - again Department of State [3] - CIA (not the most reliable source, but....)
But then again I completely expect someone finding official (governmental are as official as they get) sources of some country with English as official language - and they will have 'Kiev' in there, and in other they will have 'Kyiv'.
So - with all this confusion and speculation, or simply uncaring use of names - and the lack of authority on English language - especially on International Arena - which Credible Body do we give preference for naming a city to? and why?
-- Vvolodymyr ( talk) 23:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
OK. What just happened? User:JPG-GR has removed the move request without reason? What is this?
Vvolodymyr ( talk) 00:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Again
{{move|Kiev|Kyiv}}
Vvolodymyr ( talk) 00:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
P.S. You know - this is ridiculous - I'm not allowed to put a move request in the discussion page of the article (Kiev) - but when I do it here - it says "move Kiev/naming" etc. And there's nothing I can do to change that. It is clear that the move is intended from "Kiev" to "Kyiv".... I hope this imposed "technicality" does not cancel the request to move.
Vvolodymyr ( talk) 01:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
P.P.S. This time I DID add the thing onto the main page.
Vvolodymyr ( talk) 01:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Naming conventions#City names
Convention: In general, there are no special naming conventions for cities, unless multiple cities with the same name exist.
Discussion, rationale, and specifics: See: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names)
Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Ukrainian names
With the general naming conventions above in mind, it is still sometimes necessary to render Ukrainian names, normally written in Cyrillic, into the Latin alphabet (to romanize them).
See Romanization of Ukrainian for details of transliteration systems.
Most personal names have a conventional English spelling, rendered phonetically. This is usually very close to transcription by the BGN/PCGN system, which is quite intuitive for English speakers to pronounce. Some Ukrainian names have conventional spellings that come from other languages, like Polish, transcription from Russian, transcription into German, etc. For geographic names in Ukraine, the Ukrainian National system is used. For historic reasons, many names are also presented in Russian, Polish, etc. Linguistics topics often use "scholarly", or "scientific transliteration" within the text.
So if you go by that - we should not have this discussion.
Anyways - why is this a controversy? Why don't we establish that fact first - if no sufficient or firm proof and evidence is provided - then we should stick to the Official name (you can see it in the article itself By The Way). I don't see any proof or evidence from those who make it into "controversy". Sufficient information was provided to Prove that Kyiv is the new name, and official name, and in English and with sources. No conclusive information is seen from the deniers.
The whole "it is widely used at the moment" rhetoric - is neutralized by the simple fact of an establishment of a new term, which made old one obsolete. It doesn't mean that the old term should not be used - it will be mentioned as the former name - to inform the visitors. And the redirect - so when people type "Kiev" they are redirected to new valid name "Kyiv" and they learn that there was an act of renaming the city.
Calcutta was renamed Kolkata. Maybe it didn't have so many random internet personalities denying the change so persistently. In such view - we should put a question - what and who gives those persons a right over the official government of Ukraine to name its own cities? Vvolodymyr ( talk) 04:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Official naming has nothing to do with English usage
Just so everyone understands - we're not talking about different sets of alphabets - we're talking about the simple Latin alphabet used in international English (what you see on the keyboard) - not Turkish alphabet or Vietnamese, for example. Question about Kyiv - is not some internal issue - it's the name that was established by all branches of Ukrainian gov't to be used in communications with govt's of other countries, in international legal documents, agreements, international geographic societies. Refusal to use it - is a spit in a face.
The burden of proof lies on those who deny the use of Kyiv as the primary.
Vvolodymyr ( talk) 06:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
There have been requests to justify, provide conclusive evidence etc. on numerous questionable statements made in opposition to using Kyiv as a primary. Be noted - without any proof, conclusive evidence - those statements cannot be considered credible - and Wikipedia:COI If it is hard for someone to find those requests - please inform about it here, and we will compile a list for you. Meanwhile please provide sufficient evidence when making controversial statements, or they will be ignored.
So far none of the points have been confirmed - if you want your opinion to be a contribution - please hurry - otrherwise in a day the changes will be made as per request to move and rename.
Thank You. Vvolodymyr ( talk) 06:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
P.S. If anyone wishing to contribute but has trouble finding all the viable proof and evidence already presented, please request for a compilation before posting a comment. Thank You for your interest. Vvolodymyr ( talk) 07:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
This is regarding a comment on the very top of this page. Don't forget to take this into consideration when posting an opinion to be contributed to the discussion. Thank You Vvolodymyr ( talk) 08:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
The French call the City of London 'Londres'. That is their name in their language. It has been used for centuries and it is the absolute right of French-speakers to retain their word in their language for the City of London. I would insist that French Wikipedia continue to use 'Londres' until such time as francophone speakers themselves decide to change their pronunciation and spelling. (If they ever do). German speaking people call my country 'Kanada'. That's 'wrong'. It's not official. But they have every right, and I support that right.
Germans call Venice 'Venedig'. The Italians call it 'Venezia'. The Spanish call it 'Venecia'. The people of every language have the right to their words. User PetersV above makes excellent points.
Look at it this way: Kiev is so important a city, that English has developed its own name for the city. It is a mark of honour for a language to develop its own unique name for a place. Over time, as English speakers become more accustomed to seeing the official 'Kyiv' spelling, our usage of the word may evolve and change. English use of the word 'Turin', for example, seems to be switching increasingly to 'Torino' and 'Torino' may eventually become the standard. But for the time being please respect our right to find articles using titles that reflect the words we actually use when we come to an English-language encyclopedic resource. Thank you. Corlyon ( talk) 17:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
OK Guys. I'm having a soft moment and would like to call out to everyone to take a fresh friendly look (myself first).
Let's ease off, shake off the bad thoughts and speak plainly like human to human :)
First off I do apologize if my manner of speaking has offended anyone - in no way did I truly mean to offend the opponents - I was sucked in by ibserving how these sort of things were done before - and I guess I looked at the wrong examples.
So if I had to set aside all the bureaucracy, and so on and only left with one most crucial point it would be this:
Point) I do strongly believe in the right to self-determination. And the reason the gov't sources are always pointed out is in no way intended to say that some governments have control over the universal language of Earth communication - being English. In no way. English will remain English. The reason it's there is to simply show that the act of self-determination has indeed occurred - and the body that represents the people of Ukraine (by elections etc.) has legitimacy to establish the fact of self-determination (over, for example, simply asking a person on the street). That's the only reason I post those gov't sources.
Thought) So what would be your biggest "point"?
Vvolodymyr (
talk)
09:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I would ask that all parties currently involved in this dispute cease and desist for the moment and let the opinions of new, previously univolved editors be heard. Thank You. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
1) Pasting oppose template is not a valid opposition - Wikipedia policy. 2) There is a specific wikipedia official policy on Ukrainian names.
Until those rules are changed we should follow them and not speculate on why they are there. So according to rules - we put Kiev to Kyiv - and change Kiev to Kyiv in bodies of articles when pertaining Ukrainian capital.
Dispute that first, please - since there are administrators here who have strong personal opinions and throw their weight around by shutting people up, by closing discussions, by counting unarguemented opinions that happen to support their personal views - why aren't you following clear guideline? Why is it perfectly ok to count as a valid contribution, an opinion of a person who says - oh that rule about naming Ukrainian entities - "oh it's nothing - we'll just ignore it cos I don't like it, and I don't like the person who initiated the move request." ??? Is it not Unjust?
I will take it up with anybody I can - this sort of Tyrannical enforcement will not go unnoticed, if those individuals insist. This is an unjust denial of freedom of self-identification!
Vvolodymyr ( talk) 19:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Since Hillock65 brought it up again (U.S. official usage), this is not quite true. What we have is a representative of the State Department spelling out K-Y-I-V at a press session. When we check the U.S. official database of place names, we still have Kiev as the common usage term (U.S. Board on Geographic Names--BGN--Conventional), "Kyiv" does not exist at all as a variant, what is in the database is "Kyyiv" (BGN Standard) basically as the most appropriate transliteration, then a slew of variants. "K-Y-I-V" does not appear as a primary, secondary, or any other variant. It exists only in the State Department announcement. — PētersV ( talk) 01:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
As per WP:NCGN, we all seem convinced that the title should be translated into English. We must therefore decide which translation best fulfills: "a widely accepted English name" (from WP:NCGN}
We are not here to debate whether the Ukranian government can name their Capital what they will, as they clearly can. That is not the substance of the debate. As per WP:NCGN, we have to establish what the majority of people call it. Parenthetically, we see this with Burma/Myanmar, with the current preference for Burma.
So, I have based my next comments on WP:NCGN in the section: Dispute Resolution. This is an accepted guide to determining the acceptable title.
1. The first section suggests the consultation of notable encyclopedia. Britannica uses Kiev, Encarta uses Kyiv. The article says that Columbia uses Kiev, but I have no way of checking. Having failed to reach a consensus, let's move on.
2.There has been a lot of discussion about the relative merits of Google. There is some debate as to the accuracy of Google in such a matter. However, Google gives me a 10:1 ratio to Kiev, where as Google Books gives me 2:1.5. Google Scholar gives Kiev in a roughly 10:1 ratio. What I'd like to say is that these are not a source of themselves. Google Search gives us a rough indication as to normal use, but, as noted above, they are not sources unto themselves.
3. The third step is to apply dictionary sources to the search. I have access only to the OED, which doesn't mention it. The Library of Congress doesn't mention it either
4. News Sources. The BBC only uses Kiev. The Times Style Guide [7] uses only Kiev, and recommends against Kyiv. The New York Times mainly uses Kiev. The Herald Tribune uses Kiev only.
Having used some recommended sources, I have added some more on. The FCO uses Kiev in their country guide. The US Board of Geographic Names uses Kyiv and as per the Press Conferance, this is offical US Federal Usage.
I would now like to draw people's attention to this from WP:NCGN
In this example, I searched on GeoNet for Kiev and Kyiv. It acknowledges that Kiev is a 'conventional name' which PetersV just mentioned. According to WP:NCGN, "if it acknowledges a conventional name it is evidence of widespread English usage". IN this example, it does give Kiev as a 'conventional' name. Therefore, we must accept it as 'evidence of widespread English usage'.
To sum up what is an over-long comment, I think the situation is clear. Whilst the State Dept. are no longer using Kiev, the majority of the English-speaking world (as seen through Encyclopedias and Newspapers etc) are still using Kiev. As the point at issue is what is widespread English usage, I think it is clear that Kiev should be used; naturally with a redirect from Kyiv, as well as a note in the first line stressing the other possible English name. I would also recommend reviewing this again in the future, as these things will change.
I would also say to everyone involved that, at the end of the day, there are thousands and thousands of other things to do on Wikipedia. Perhaps we should all be doing them, rather than quibbling over semantics? Conclusion: Strongly Oppose Theone00 ( talk) 04:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Probably I will not add anything new. Nevertheless.
There are two competing spellings of the Ukrainian capital. One has a native Ukrainian origin - «Kyiv» (reads as Kyїv) another one is former colonial Russian «Kiev».
We have a newspaper http://www.kyivpost.com/ Jed Sunden is the Publisher and Brian Bonner is the Chief Editor. Both of them are native English speakers.
I do realize that this part of Wikipedia is English. But using of either Kiev or Kyiv - depends on the ideology. Those who use «Kyiv» - support the Ukrainian fight for the real independence. Those who use «Kiev» - vote for the return of the USSR or any other form of the Russian Empire. -- Perohanych ( talk) 05:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest we do this less frequently and if possible open again only in the event of a concrete change such as in the U.S. BGN conventional entry being updated to "Kyiv"? Or at least after the article makes GA (better use of collective efforts!). — PētersV ( talk) 04:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Probably a good idea. The discussion inevitably becomes a spelling discussion, rather than an acknowledgement of the change of the official name of the city from the Russian word (usually transliterated "Kiev") to the Ukrainian word (usually transliterated "Kyiv"). The Ukrainian government muddied the waters even further by suggesting a "spelling" in English of the new city name. The words are so close in pronunciation that everyone knows which city is being discussed. Not even Webster's is accurate 100% of the time. I do suggest that the first line of the article should say "Kiev, also KNOWN as Kyiv" rather than "SPELLED as Kyiv". Kiev is never spelled as Kyiv. Kiev is an english spelling of a Russian word. Kyiv is an english spelling of a different Ukrainian word. 75.66.91.10 ( talk) 17:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Kyiv, not Kiev. Maybe what some people on this site don't realize is how it's not just about common spellings; it's about the history between Ukraine and Russia that drives the importance for this name change. Ukraine is trying hard to rid itself of Russian influence (see Orange Revolution), and Russia has historically been terrible to Ukraine (see Holodomor). This name change is important because upholding the Russian spelling is offensive to Ukraine and to Ukrainians. What English speakers traditionally use is of no relevance. Russian influence on Ukraine is offensive. It's Kyiv, not Kiev. End of story. - Majk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.147.175 ( talk) 08:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but Wikipedia mods should surely know something about the site they moderate. What do people come to Wikipedia for? I'd say, they come here for facts. To learn things that are true. Here's a fact: The capital of Ukraine is called "Kyiv". Look at any English country's correspondence with Ukraine. They all say Kyiv. I thought Wikipedia was here to share knowledge that was true. If you allow the article to be misnamed "Kiev", all Wikipedia is doing is upholding recognition of the wrong name. And really, there is no way you can dispute that "Kiev" is wrong; you can say it's more common, but it's still wrong. "Kyiv" is correct, and that's what people should see if Wikipedia really is here to spread knowledge that is indeed true. - Majk Greszczuk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.147.175 ( talk • contribs) 07:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
So... let's get this straight. If all English speakers start calling the Internet the "vagina television", is Wikipedia going to change the name? Just wondering. I'm sure they'd keep the archaic "Internet" as the title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.147.175 ( talk • contribs) 07:19 - 07:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
In google maps we see the local name, which latinized is Kyiv. Live maps (windows) uses the same policy...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.43.124.203 ( talk) 23:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi again... just checked the CIA world factbook website, adn found that now they use Ukrainian to latinize the names: Kyiv, Lviv, Karhkiv... THEY NOW USE UKRAINIAN, NOT RUSSIAN... The section about the regions uses also Ukrainian names, not the russian ones Gumuhua ( talk) 22:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Another argument for move.
http://www.rada.gov.ua/const/conengl.htm - "CONSTITUTION OF UKRAINE" - Official English translation.
Article 20
- …
- The capital of Ukraine is the City of Kyiv. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
194.187.108.19 (
talk)
12:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
'Kyiv' shows up as 'BGN standard' in the BGN atabase. What else is required for the article to change its name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andriy155 ( talk • contribs) 22:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, well, as I have been assured by the "well-respected" wikipedia mods, whenver the majority decides that the name should be changed to Kyiv, it will be changed. On this page I see more comments in favour of Kyiv. Therefore, a question arises, what are you guys waiting for? A blessing from God? Can any of you, mods specify exactly and precisely the criteria for the change rather than stating that saying something like the name will change whenever people agree. This is very vague in nature. It seems to me that some of the mods are simply conducting pro-Russian revisionist campaign. -- Andriy155 ( talk) 22:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
You misunderstood. I was talking about the transition from Tallin to Tallinn, when it originally happened in the 1990-ies and the transition from Peking to Bejing in the 60-ies and 70-ies. At that time both of the older versions were conventional in English language, however, it does not seem that conversion to Tallinn actually caused any problem for English speakers (at least, it does not seem like you guys were writing to English language media in defence of Tallin). Of course, now both new forms are considered conventional and the problem has disappeared. PetersV: this is getting interesting. So, it turns out, that it is inappropriate to call the supporters of Kiev pro-Russian, but supporters of Kyiv are in "defence of all things Ukrainian". Nice one! And you are telling me about no bias :) I missed the part where I was defending "other ukrainian things". This debate is not to promote Ukrainian culture but rather recognise the transition that is currently occuring in the spelling of the Ukrainian capital in English language. Everyone except for you has been very vague about defending word Kiev so far. As for you, I am not convinced that "BGN Standard" cannot be interpreted as BGN preferred. Similar question exists for Odessa/Odesa case. How long will it take before Odessa article is moved to Odesa? Odessa now only shows up as BGN Variant. So what is Wikipedia waiting for in your opinion? This, has, obviously, nothing to do with Wikipedia's conservative moderators :))) -- Andriy155 ( talk) 14:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
US Board on Geographic Names
Statement on the Status of Kyiv
In October 2006 the Foreign Names Committee of the US Board on Geographic Names (USBGN) decided to approve the spelling Kyiv as one of the USBGN official standard forms of the name of Ukraine’s capital. Official US Government documents may continue to refer to the city using the conventional spelling Kiev when context calls for that spelling.
The Board based its decision on recommendations from the Department of State that Kyiv is the locally preferred Latin-alphabet rendering of the place-name and should be available for official use better to assist the people and Government of Ukraine to promote that country’s national identity.
Congress established the US Board on Geographic Names in its present form in 1947 with the express mandate to standardize geographic nomenclature for official US Government use.
By the way, it seems as though New York Times is considering using Kyiv: NY article. In all fairness, majority of their articles still use old spelling. -- Andriy155 ( talk) 15:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Using one of your examples: Peking somehow started to turn into Beijing long before (I suspect) most of us were born. I have no idea of the reasons why – and these reasons are almost immaterial in this context) – but it’s just something that happened. English was one of the languages that came to increasingly refer to the city as Beijing. However, that is still not the case in a majority of languages, and you will still find the city called Pékin, Pequim, Pechino, Pekín, Pekini, Pequín, etc). And no, that does not mean that French, Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, Turkish speakers have any love or hate for the communist regime or Chairman Mao or whatever other conspiracy theory is being bandied about. Kyiv is Kiev in English just like Beijing is Pequim in Portuguese and Mumbai is Bombay in French and Seoul is Seul in Turkish – that’s just the way it is. Jasepl ( talk) 12:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC) Fair enough - some of us were not born at the time. How about Tallinn/Tallin. why weren't you protesting the change in the media?-- Andriy155 ( talk) 01:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Dear Andriy155, you take offense incorrectly. I have already explained that for many reasons I personally support "Kyiv", but cannot (yet) as common English spelling. What I was addressing was the commentary that "Kiev" is being pushed by some anti-Ukrainian Russian-glorifying conspiritorial cabal. That did not belong in this discussion.
As you've corresponded with the USBGN, you will note, again, that there is only one "standard" and, if defined, one "conventional," name; again, "conventional" being defined when it
When USBGN deletes its "conventional" Kiev entry, then that will be fair and objective expert evidence that Kyiv has become the predominant English usage name for Київ.
P.S. Travel guides and maps are not indicators of common English language usage, they are indicators of the most likely transliterations a traveler is likely to find for non-Roman alphabet languages. You will note that Roman-alphabet place names are typically reproduced with all their diacritics and often in the native language—again, not necessarily representing the most common English language usage. PetersV TALK 02:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Supporting the change to change the article name to "Kyiv" and redirect from Kiev. Oh and how exactly is it relevant to give the Russian name of the city in the first line?... -- 98.227.38.196 ( talk) 02:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
First (as these seems to be relevant to other contributors) I am an Englishman who has worked throughout the former Soviet Union, presently living in Kyiv. I have no political axe to grind either for Russia or Ukraine.
We have on WP Beijing, Mumbai, etc. I cannot uderstand therefore why we have Kiev. The transliteration of the Ukrainian name of this Ukrainian city is Kyiv. This is used by English-language newspaprs in the city, by the Delegation of the European Commission, etc. It is the country's own preferred version of the city name in Latin script. Kiev is the transliteration of the city's name in a different language (Russian). It seems to me unreasonable and inconsistent to retain it as the article title. The argument of 'common usage' in these circumstances is highly debatable - and if it is highly debatable it canot per se be justified as 'common usage'. Where there is no clear open consensus - and I note the topic has been hotly debated - we should surely go the 'official' route, as WP has done with Mumbai etc.-- Smerus ( talk) 04:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
A bit of research - a quick trawl shows that the British Embassy, the French Embassy and the American Embassy all use 'Kyiv'. Even Terry Wogan uses Kyiv, saying ‘only the chicken is Kiev’. I think one can argue a strong case now even on common usage and unless anyone can show me any good reason, I will take this once again to AfR.-- Smerus ( talk) 14:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Kiev=>Kyiv move by Christian Science Monitor: [11] Good job, guys!-- Andriy155 ( talk) 10:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
It caught my attention that a change of the official city name to Kyiv has been reverted back to Kiev. I realise that given the mood on this forum it is very unlikely that this article will unlikely move to Kyiv any time soon. However, since when is the official name of the city Kiev? Isn't it something that the Ukrainian authorities should be able to figure out on their own? See article 20 of the Ukrainian consitution: http://www.rada.gov.ua/const/conengl.htm in its official translation. Notice that this issue has nothing to do with the English usage of the word. I am curious, who has higher authority to determine official names of cities in Ukraine than the Ukrainian consitution? Furthmore, in the entry for Milan the official city name is Milano. Hence, we should either adopt Kyiv as the official city name or set Milan as the official city name for Milan. Otherwise, there is no consistency. Again, in this part I do not propose to moce the article to Kyiv but simply to correct the opfficial name in the template.-- Andriy155 ( talk) 06:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
You neglect to note that there are few Great Pakastani chauvanists around to get in the way. Bandurist ( talk) 06:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia!
We noticed something interesting today. When we ventured to ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiev#City_name_evolution
... you very properly state, that:
“since the 1995 adoption of Kyiv by the Ukrainian government as a preferred spelling, the Ukrainianized version Kyiv is gaining usage”.
So, as you further state, it appears the name Kyiv is gaining usage by many notable entities, such as ...
“Ukrainian government, [...]
United Nations, all English-speaking foreign diplomatic missions, several international organizations, Encarta encyclopedia, and by some media, notably in Canada and Ukraine [...]
United States federal government, [...] Monopoly”
... EXCEPT you, Wikipedia, as we see in THE NAME of your article that describes the city of Kyiv.
Shame! Get it right - NOW, please ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyiv
... must be THE NAME of the article and ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiev must redirect to the article ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyiv
Sincerely, Mumbai & Beijing
(as told to Hokej ( talk) 01:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC))
The official name of the city, is Kyiv.... Ukrainians living in Ukraine as well as around the world make this common mistake since. Verkhovna Rada, the Ukrainian Parliament has made this decree... I feel that as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia it should reflect the CORRECT information not information that has made us complacent.
thank you
http://www.rada.gov.ua/const/conengl.htm
-- UkrNole 485 ( talk) 19:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
The official name of London is...London. However it appears in the Ukrainian Wikipedia as Лондон. Why? Because that's how Ukrainians spell it (just as the French spell it Londres, which is how it appears on French Wikipedia). The principle is no different with Kiev. English-speakers have always spelt it Kiev, just as they have always spelt Köln as Cologne and Venezia as Venice. It's a fact of life and no amount of bickering over name changes is going to make any difference. There is no earthly reason why English Wikipedia should be a special case - until every Wikipedia changes its spellings to the spellings in use in the country of origin I see no reason why English Wikipedia should be obliged to change spellings in long use in English-speaking countries just because a city happens to have changed its official name. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) In case you haven't read it, here is the discussion and result the last time the issue was thoroughly discussed (Sep 2008): [12]. Before you continue on, you should familiarize yourself with the issues and not repeat them here. ( Taivo ( talk) 03:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC))
It is spelled as Kyiv in English language because:
1) Ukrainian government insists on Kyiv spelling
2) The State Department of the U.S. issued a directive to write Kyiv
3) The Prime Minister of the U.K. calls the city Kyiv
4) United Nations Multilingual Terminology Database (the ultimate body on geographical names) approved it as Kyiv
5) Major English speaking governments worldwide switched to Kyiv spelling
6) CIA refers to the city as Kyiv
7) The name of the famous football club is Dynamo Kyiv
8) Many papers, e.g., British The Guardian, are already writing Kyiv
9) All major Canadian media already use the spelling of Kyiv
10) and many more reasons http://kyiv.of-cour.se/
( Markiyan ( talk) 10:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC))
The result of the proposal was consensus against move. Overwhelming and varied evidence provided that Kiev is currently the common English language name for the city.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 01:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Kiev → Kyiv — This issue has not been visited formally for a year (September 2008 as far as I recall). There is steady nationalistic pressure to change the title and a recent case of soliciting meat puppets was discovered. I don't really care one way or the other (I personally always use Kyiv outside Wikipedia), but simply want to gauge Wikipedia consensus (again). How common is the Kyiv spelling outside the government and official channels? How common is the Kiev spelling? Obviously anything written before 2004 or so is going to have Kiev, but how about during the past two or three years? Has there been a significant shift to Kyiv in non-governmental sources? Are English speakers shifting to Kyiv? Taivo ( talk) 11:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
This is the last time that the move issue was officially visited with a move request, discussion, and survey. The results of the survey were 11 Oppose, 1 Neutral, 2 Support. The arguments there almost entirely focused on three things: 1) Google hits, 2) Ukrainian official policy, and 3) Wikipedia's relation to governmental policies. There were no comprehensive surveys of English common usage at that time. ( Taivo ( talk) 04:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC))
I have, as promised, carefully replaced the survey results here that were added yesterday. ( Taivo ( talk) 11:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC))
I'd like to make a very strong suggestion in an attempt to get the most out of the following discussion - let's keep the discussion tightly focussed on reporting actual usage of each name in the English language.
All the arguments based on governmental decrees, transliteration systems, relative number of Ukranian/Russian speakers, the etymologies - we've heard it all before. These arguments are thoroughly documented in the previous discussions, and we don't need to waste time and kilobytes trawling through it all again - and most importantly none of these issues have changed since the previous discussions. The one thing which may have changed since the other discussions is actual usage in English-language texts, so if we focus on this we will use our time most productively.
I suggest collecting data from a wide-range sources that represent a selection of reliable English-language sources (i.e. not just crude Google counting, including any blog, raw data file and script-generated text that's been dumped on the net - see WP:NCGN#Search engine issues). With enough good-quality evidence, it will be far easier to come to a consensus on the strength of the case.
Please provide links for verification, and (if possible) an indication of the year the usage comes from. Knepflerle ( talk) 14:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
(This section was added later by a supporter to reflect official policy, not common usage. ( Taivo ( talk) 01:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)))
Governmental bodies in English-speaking countries. Also those of English-speaking countries acting in Ukraine.
At this point, the evidence shows:
So as of Friday morning, 30 October (Mountain Daylight Time), that's where we stand on gathering sources and examining the usage data. ( Taivo ( talk) 12:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC))
Reading Wikipedia policy (below) and considering the assembled data, the following points point unambiguously toward Kiev as the common English spelling of Ukraine's capital:
( Taivo ( talk) 04:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC))
We already knew that official policy of most countries doing business in Ukraine is to favor "Kyiv" in official documents. That has been documented ad infinitem before. What is new here is the definitive data demonstrating that common English usage is "Kiev". ( Taivo ( talk) 01:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC))
For those who may not be thoroughly familiar with relevant Wikipedia policy in this issue (and who may not like to click on links), these are the relevant points (from WP:NCGN):
( Taivo ( talk) 04:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC))
I agree that in time the change to Kyiv will happen, but Wikipedia is bound by the present, not the future. We are a descriptive encyclopedia, not a prescriptive one. Neither Kishenev nor Alma-Ata are referred to with any regularity in English sources. Neither are Uzhhorod nor Dnipropetrovsk. They are rarely encountered in English so "common usage" is not relevant to them. Compare this, however, with Bangkok, which is not its name in Thai, and Rome, which is not its name in Italian. And what about Moscow in the post-Soviet world? Why not "Moskva" (or "Warszawa" instead of Warsaw)? Indeed, if we want local names, then Dnepropetrovsk is the way that the inhabitants (who nearly all speak Russian) want their city known, not the Ukrainian Dnipropetrovsk. In the end, all we have is common English usage. We must not get caught up in WP:OTHERSTUFF. That is never a strong argument when it comes to deciding individual issues in Wikipedia. We don't tell people how things should be, but simply report how they are. ( Taivo ( talk) 00:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC))
User:Londain has been banned because he/she turned out to be a second account for banned User:Markiyan. The contributions of such second accounts are often deleted based on the reasoning that a banned user should not be editing under a new name. These secondary contributions are usually not productive. However, in this case, I'm not inclined to personally delete Londain's contributions for two reasons. First, they represent a minority point of view, and second, they are not inflammatory or otherwise uncivil. If you feel otherwise, then feel free to act accordingly. ( Taivo ( talk) 12:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC))
The result of the proposal was consensus against move. Overwhelming and varied evidence provided that Kiev is currently the common English language name for the city.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 01:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Kiev → Kyiv — This issue has not been visited formally for a year (September 2008 as far as I recall). There is steady nationalistic pressure to change the title and a recent case of soliciting meat puppets was discovered. I don't really care one way or the other (I personally always use Kyiv outside Wikipedia), but simply want to gauge Wikipedia consensus (again). How common is the Kyiv spelling outside the government and official channels? How common is the Kiev spelling? Obviously anything written before 2004 or so is going to have Kiev, but how about during the past two or three years? Has there been a significant shift to Kyiv in non-governmental sources? Are English speakers shifting to Kyiv? Taivo ( talk) 11:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
This is the last time that the move issue was officially visited with a move request, discussion, and survey. The results of the survey were 11 Oppose, 1 Neutral, 2 Support. The arguments there almost entirely focused on three things: 1) Google hits, 2) Ukrainian official policy, and 3) Wikipedia's relation to governmental policies. There were no comprehensive surveys of English common usage at that time. ( Taivo ( talk) 04:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC))
I have, as promised, carefully replaced the survey results here that were added yesterday. ( Taivo ( talk) 11:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC))
I'd like to make a very strong suggestion in an attempt to get the most out of the following discussion - let's keep the discussion tightly focussed on reporting actual usage of each name in the English language.
All the arguments based on governmental decrees, transliteration systems, relative number of Ukranian/Russian speakers, the etymologies - we've heard it all before. These arguments are thoroughly documented in the previous discussions, and we don't need to waste time and kilobytes trawling through it all again - and most importantly none of these issues have changed since the previous discussions. The one thing which may have changed since the other discussions is actual usage in English-language texts, so if we focus on this we will use our time most productively.
I suggest collecting data from a wide-range sources that represent a selection of reliable English-language sources (i.e. not just crude Google counting, including any blog, raw data file and script-generated text that's been dumped on the net - see WP:NCGN#Search engine issues). With enough good-quality evidence, it will be far easier to come to a consensus on the strength of the case.
Please provide links for verification, and (if possible) an indication of the year the usage comes from. Knepflerle ( talk) 14:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
(This section was added later by a supporter to reflect official policy, not common usage. ( Taivo ( talk) 01:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)))
Governmental bodies in English-speaking countries. Also those of English-speaking countries acting in Ukraine.
At this point, the evidence shows:
So as of Friday morning, 30 October (Mountain Daylight Time), that's where we stand on gathering sources and examining the usage data. ( Taivo ( talk) 12:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC))
Reading Wikipedia policy (below) and considering the assembled data, the following points point unambiguously toward Kiev as the common English spelling of Ukraine's capital:
( Taivo ( talk) 04:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC))
We already knew that official policy of most countries doing business in Ukraine is to favor "Kyiv" in official documents. That has been documented ad infinitem before. What is new here is the definitive data demonstrating that common English usage is "Kiev". ( Taivo ( talk) 01:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC))
For those who may not be thoroughly familiar with relevant Wikipedia policy in this issue (and who may not like to click on links), these are the relevant points (from WP:NCGN):
( Taivo ( talk) 04:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC))
I agree that in time the change to Kyiv will happen, but Wikipedia is bound by the present, not the future. We are a descriptive encyclopedia, not a prescriptive one. Neither Kishenev nor Alma-Ata are referred to with any regularity in English sources. Neither are Uzhhorod nor Dnipropetrovsk. They are rarely encountered in English so "common usage" is not relevant to them. Compare this, however, with Bangkok, which is not its name in Thai, and Rome, which is not its name in Italian. And what about Moscow in the post-Soviet world? Why not "Moskva" (or "Warszawa" instead of Warsaw)? Indeed, if we want local names, then Dnepropetrovsk is the way that the inhabitants (who nearly all speak Russian) want their city known, not the Ukrainian Dnipropetrovsk. In the end, all we have is common English usage. We must not get caught up in WP:OTHERSTUFF. That is never a strong argument when it comes to deciding individual issues in Wikipedia. We don't tell people how things should be, but simply report how they are. ( Taivo ( talk) 00:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC))
User:Londain has been banned because he/she turned out to be a second account for banned User:Markiyan. The contributions of such second accounts are often deleted based on the reasoning that a banned user should not be editing under a new name. These secondary contributions are usually not productive. However, in this case, I'm not inclined to personally delete Londain's contributions for two reasons. First, they represent a minority point of view, and second, they are not inflammatory or otherwise uncivil. If you feel otherwise, then feel free to act accordingly. ( Taivo ( talk) 12:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC))