Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::::: {{ping|Roman Spinner}} thanks for you reply. Btw just noticed: yesterday, on August 14th 2019, Bloomberg announced that it was also following suit with Associate Press and switching its Style Guide to use Kyiv spelling <small>(via AP's columnist ]'s update</small> and first )--] (]) 08:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
::::: {{ping|Roman Spinner}} thanks for you reply. Btw just noticed: yesterday, on August 14th 2019, Bloomberg announced that it was also following suit with Associate Press and switching its Style Guide to use Kyiv spelling <small>(via AP's columnist ]'s update</small> and first )--] (]) 08:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
::::::AP changing is '''''not''''' the same thing as "hundreds of media sources have already switched". While the style guide may have changed, that still doesn't mean that articles written for the AP will actually switch. And again, your use of international sources is a false representation of English usage, which is only relevant to English-speaking countries. We will see soon enough if the AP switch actually affects ]. It might change, it might not. But just projecting your own wishes is not evidence and it is certainly a false claim to say that "hundreds of media sources have already switched". --] (]) 08:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
::::::AP changing is '''''not''''' the same thing as "hundreds of media sources have already switched". While the style guide may have changed, that still doesn't mean that articles written for the AP will actually switch. And again, your use of international sources is a false representation of English usage, which is only relevant to English-speaking countries. We will see soon enough if the AP switch actually affects ]. It might change, it might not. But just projecting your own wishes is not evidence and it is certainly a false claim to say that "hundreds of media sources have already switched". --] (]) 08:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
::::::: Hello Taivo. Your statement {{tq| While the style guide may have changed, that still doesn't mean that articles written for the AP will actually switch}} is factually incorrect, e.g., false: all AP journalists have to follow AP's Stylebook and if they don't - they get fired. In other words, if you were an AP journalist and you told your boss on Aug 15 (e.g., on the 2nd day when Kyiv spelling was introduced) that you were not going to write Kyiv due to your person beliefs and such, and instead will continue using Kiev , your AP boss would've simply fired you for that. Media outlets in the US are no joke and require strict journalistic standards.--] (]) 09:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Revision as of 09:45, 15 August 2019
This is a subpage of Talk:Kiev for discussing the name of the article Kiev. Please take all discussion of the name here, reserving the regular talkpage for other matters. I hope that this division will benefit both the regular talkpage and the name discussion itself. Happy editing. Bishonen | talk.
Please note that due to technical reasons any actual move requests need to be made on Talk:Kiev, but should be moved here after they are listed on WP:RMC.
Also, please note that in addition to the formal requested moves listed below, there have also been a considerable number of other proposals, requests for comment, etc. suggesting a change of name from Kiev to Kyiv, all of which have ended in keeping the current name, Kiev. Proposals can be found in the archives.
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Requested move 9 July 2019
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Comment: That link is not a request from the Ukrainian government, but is a non-government promotional site. --Taivo (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Nope, Olia Borsuk, per the section above this, countless previous discussions and almost a dozen requested moves, that have all resulted in the article not being moved (see archives listed at the top of this page). - Tom | Thomas.W16:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Even the website that the proposer links to says: "Nevertheless, KIEV is more often used worldwide.... Therefore, the international community decided at the UN level that both KIEV or KYIV are acceptable. This decision is officially fixed in the standards of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)". Contradicts the whole purpose of using that link. --Taivo (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Just discovered Google Trends. This is the result for Kiev/Kyiv over the last 12 months. You'll notice that there is absolutely no change in relation of Kyiv to Kiev over that time. Nothing has changed, in other words--it's "Kiev" by an overwhelming margin. --Taivo (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. Still overwhelmingly the common name in English-language sources. Ukrainian government requests hold no water with Misplaced Pages. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
@Blindlynx: Because Astana is in a part of Central Asia that for a very long time was a quiet Russian/Soviet backwater, wasn't founded until well into the 19th century, and on top of that didn't become capital of Kazakhstan until 1997, and because of that is almost totally unknown among native English speakers, while Kiev is in Europe and has been well known among native English speakers for several hundred years, making Kiev a long since established common name among English speakers. Which is what we per Misplaced Pages policy have to go by. - Tom | Thomas.W16:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
@Thomas.W: Why does obscurity make a difference? Astana is still much more widely used by those who know what it is (based on a quick google trends check). Blindlynx (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Among those few who knew Astana existed, yes (and many/most of those probably knew "Astana" only as the name of a professional cycling team, not as the name of the capital of Kazakhstan; a team that is still named Astana, BTW...), but it wasn't well known among English-speakers in general, the way Kiev is. - Tom | Thomas.W16:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I guess my question is why does obscurity impact what the common name is, shouldn't usage between people who talk about the topic be the criteria? For example wiki uses the common name "Benacerraf's identification problem" to talk about the relatively obscure paper "What Numbers Could Not Be". It just seems like a arbitrary application of the policy to change some places to official names but not others. Blindlynx (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
You have answered your own question: "common" is the opposite of "obscure". "Kiev" is common, it is a known name among a large percentage of the English-speaking world. And in that commonness, the name "Kiev" is the English word of choice. "Astana" is obscure. It is so obscure that I, who have an undergraduate degree in geography from the 1970s (but a graduate degree and job in another field), didn't even know that the capital of Kazakhstan wasn't "Alma Ata" anymore until this moment. In other words, there is no "common name" for the capital of Kazakhstan simply because it is itself not common. --Taivo (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
They refer to different tings, you can still have a common name for an obscure topic. "Benacerraf's identification problem" is the common name for an obscure philosophical problem, "Astana" is the common name for an obscure capital. Blindlynx (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Google Trends (searches in the US only): Kiev vs Kyiv (showing that "Kiev" is much more common than "Kyiv; an interesting trend there is that the difference in searches between "Kiev" and "Kyiv" has increased over the past year, showing that fewer and fewer search for "Kyiv"...), "Kiev" vs "Astana" (showing that Kiev is a common name in English while Astana isn't), and "Astana -cycl" vs "Astana +cycl" (showing that the majority of searches for "Astana" in the previous comparison were related to the cycle team, and thus had nothing to do with the capital of Kazakhstan...). - Tom | Thomas.W19:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
More specifically: 1) Ukrainian names are transliterated when there is no existing common English form. That doesn't apply here, as "Kiev" has been established for at least 200 years. 2) The modern place name convention applies when the article is "about a place whose name has changed over time". Kiev has not changed its name. The Ukrainian government uses the form that Ukrainians have used for centuries. 3) Even if the name had changed, the new name must still be shown to be more common in sources published after the change. Kiev has remained more common than Kyiv in English usage. --Khajidha (talk) 11:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
The overwhelming majority of wiki articles use new names/spellings for places in Ukraine (List of renamed cities in Ukraine) the only notable exceptions are Kyiv, Chornobyl and Odesa. Other well know cities like Kharkiv and Dnipro use Ukrainian derived spelling or names as well.Blindlynx (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blindlynx (talk • contribs) 19:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
You are seriously overestimating the level of recognition of Kharkiv and Dnipro in the Anglosphere. Kiev, Chernobyl, and Odessa are pretty much the only places in Ukraine that are really well known. Thus, they are the ones that have actual English exonyms. --Khajidha (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
That's just the way English is.Some places use the same name as the native language, some use a similar one, others are completely different. Misplaced Pages makes no statement as to what should be done, we simply follow the actual usage. --Khajidha (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Nothing to forgive. The public is fickle. One day it's "Bombay", the next day it's "Mumbai". One day it's "Odessa", the next day it's "Odesa". English reliable sources, which pretty much tell us what common name to use for any notable city, can seem arbitrary; however, those sources are the building blocks of a reference work that struggles to remain as neutral as it possibly can. Paine Ellsworth, ed.20:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I mean what gets the more widely used name and what doesn't on wiki seems arbitrary, I have no problems with natural language. Blindlynx (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Exactly which article do you think is not at its most widely used name? Because the name of this article has consistently been found to follow common English usage every time the question has been brought up for over a decade. --Khajidha (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Most places in Ukraine, Eswatini, North Macedonia... Generally local names and official changes are followed. I realize it's likely just a matter of variance in how much time it takes things to change, that some have changed and some haven't. Blindlynx (talk) 14:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Most of those places don't actually have a widely used name in English. They aren't talked about much, so when the local government changes their spelling it is much easier for that to take hold. --Khajidha (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I wonder if Bombay moved before Mumbai was more common? Just wondering. I still call the towns Bombay and Calcutta but I'm an older generation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm the same. The new names are probably more common now, but I'm not sure they were when the moves were made. --Khajidha (talk) 01:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
There will always be cases where WP:OTHERSTUFF is the guide. We cannot get ourselves into a tailspin over what other articles do or don't do. What if the editors at Mumbai started citing Kiev as an example? Then the editors at Kiev cited Mumbai, etc. The whole thing becomes a Mobius strip. No. We purposely do not base our decisions in any particular article on what other editors did elsewhere. Can consistency be a guide? Of course, in non-controversial places. But when controversy arises (as here), then other factors must prevail based on a WP:CONSENSUS of interested editors, the facts based on WP:RS, and the evidence of WP:COMMON. --Taivo (talk) 10:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
The consensus here is a snowball rejection of an article move (again and again and again). The reliable sources use "Kiev" overwhelmingly. The evidence of Google searches show that the English common name for Ukraine's capital is "Kiev". --Taivo (talk) 10:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Note on "Odessa". It is unlike all other Ukrainian examples because there are so many American and other Anglophone place names of that form. It won't change in English because of Odessa, Texas et al. --Taivo (talk) 10:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I didn't say that the American place name would change, but the spelling of these names influences the way that foreign names are presented. There was one small North Dakota town influencing the spelling of "Kiev". But with Odessa there are many larger towns throughout the Anglophone world that are well-known. Add to that the thousands of restaurants, hotels, and other businesses named "Odessa"; the communities in larger cities with Ukrainian expat populations known as "Little Odessa" (not "Little Kiev"); streets, rivers, etc. And there is a difference between changing Breslau to Wroclaw and a minor spelling change from Odessa to Odesa. The former is actually easier to do in English usage (Bombay to Mumbai) than the latter (Odessa to Odesa), because of the magnitude of the change. Small changes are much more difficult to make in English usage than radical ones. But there is no need to prolong this discussion of Odessa since it's only marginally relevant to Kiev. --Taivo (talk) 15:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
"transliterations change" just illustrates that you still have zero understanding of what an exonym is and that Kiev, Odessa, etc. are not transliterations, but English words, exonyms, names for commonly-referenced foreign places that are no longer tied to the foreign language (Copenhagen, Prague, Warsaw, etc.). You also mistakenly think that our evidence relies entirely on dumb Google searches without any consideration for context, date, etc. I suggest that you reread every single previous request for move and examine that our evidence is wide and very finely tuned to weed out "Kiev, Russia", etc. --Taivo (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
One other mistake that you make is that you don't seem to realize that every article that says "Kiev (now known as Kyiv)" and "Kyiv (formerly known as Kiev)" is counted in BOTH Google searches for "Kiev" and "Kyiv" and is, therefore worthless. You should search, like I do, for "Kiev -Kyiv" and "Kyiv -Kiev" if you want a better indication of how often each is occurring as the sole name for Ukraine's capital in any given article. --Taivo (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
There appears to have been zero understanding regarding the central point of my comment. I did not intend to intimate that search engines were sloppily configured and / or conducted with regard to the terms "Kiev" and "Kyiv", but merely to demonstrate that simple, dumb Google searches through easily available old documents confirm that in the decades or even centuries before Ukraine's 1991 independence, the names of Ukrainian places, as well as people, were being routinely transliterated into English using Russian forms and, more specifically, the existence of Ukraine as a geographiocal and linguistic entity was routely overlooked.
As for the relationship between transliterations and exonyms, obviously English exonyms rendered in Latin alphabet, such as (Copenhagen, Prague, Warsaw, etc.) are not transliterations. Some English exonyms (Paris, Amsterdam) copy the originals, others (Florence — Firenze, Cologne — Köln) differ widely. English transliterations, on the other hand, are never exact and even the ones closest to the original, (Minsk, Sofia) could be rendered in English as "Mynsk" / "Meensk" or "Sofya" / "Sofiya".
Some transliterated exonyms that differ from the originals (Moscow, Saint Petersburg) are specifically English, while another (Belgrade) is French. Finally, as far as can be determined, all English exonyms have the explicit approval of the countries in question which use them in their own English-language texts. The only exception is Ukraine which objects to using English transliterations of Russian names pertaining to Ukrainian entities. —Roman Spinner(talk • contribs)18:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
"were being routinely transliterated into English using Russian forms" Citation needed here. Prove that these were conscious transliterations each time they were used. You can't do it. And that's the big problem with your argument. These are not transliterations and have not been since soon after they were first used. They are fully adopted exonyms. As for your point about Ukraine not accepting these exonyms, too bad for them. It's none of their business. --Khajidha (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
@Roman Spinner: To put it bluntly (since I'm extremely fed up with your endless regurgitation of the same nonsense arguments in RM after RM after RM after RM...): The vast majority of all native English-speakers don't give a sh*te about the Ukrainian governments views on which words/transliterations English-speakers should be allowed to use, since the Ukrainian government has zero authority over the English language. Period. - Tom | Thomas.W19:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Roman Spinner's argument that an exonym is not an exonym when it happens to be spelled like a transliteration is pure baloney. Peking and Beijing are equally exonyms even though both of them follow the transliteration rules of their respective times. What makes them exonyms? Because 99.99% of all English speakers use them without a thought of "they are written this way in the original language, so I must now transliterate them into the Roman alphabet." If every English speaker went through that mental process every time that they wrote "Peking" or "Beijing" or "Kiev", then your "transliteration" argument would make sense. But hundreds of millions of English speakers don't even know Chinese or Russian or Ukrainian, so when they write, easily and quickly, "Peking" or "Beijing" or "Kiev" without a second's hesitation, they are obviously not transliterating, but are writing the universally accepted English exonyms. Paris is an exonym, as is Rome and Prague and Warsaw and Kiev and Moscow and Florence, etc. Spinner's argument is simply POV-pushing nonlinguistic sophistry. --Taivo (talk) 02:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
@Thomas.W: I regret that my endless regurgitation has caused you dyspepsia. Nevertheless, you keep returning to further partake of the leftovers. A few additional chunks from past meals are appropriate apropos your comments. Both China and India sent notices around the English-speaking world regarding the proper English transliterations of the cities formerly known in English as Peking, Bombay and Calcutta. The Indian notices were sent in the late 1990s and early 2000s, after Ukraine's early 1990s announcements that the English transliteration of its capital is "Kyiv", not "Kiev". The Chinese and Indian notices were, for the most part, respectfully accepted by English-language media outlets as examples of China and India freeing themselves from colonial baggage. There has been considerable foot dragging by news outlets, however, regarding Ukraine's announcements.
User:TaivoLinguist: There appears to be continued zero understanding regarding my comments. I did not exclude the name of any city (in a country where the first language is not English) from being referenced as an English exonym. Examples: "Some English exonyms (Paris, Amsterdam)" or "Some transliterated exonyms that differ from the originals (Moscow, Saint Petersburg)".
My point was that when a city's native name is rendered in the Latin alphabet, the tweaking of that name (Cracow → Kraków) or the change of that name from its German form (Breslau, Danzig, Stettin) to its Polish form (Wrocław, Gdańsk, Szczecin) is straightforward.
The argument could have been that English speakers are used to the "easier" German names which continue to be used in German Misplaced Pages, therefore the German names are also English exonyms. That argument, however, was not advanced and the Polish forms are used throughout the English-speaking world. The same consideration, in comparison, has not been extended to the name of Ukraine's capital. —Roman Spinner(talk • contribs)04:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
You're still missing the most important point. It doesn't matter what is done with other cities. The question at hand is simply whether our page title matches common English usage in the world at large or if a change to Kyiv would be more in line with that criterion. That is all that matters. Not the source of the name Kiev, not parallels to other cities, not Russo-Ukrainian relations, not Ukrainian feelings, or any of a billion other things. The question is whether Kiev or Kyiv best reflects the bulk of English usage. And all the evidence points, once again, to Kiev. --Khajidha (talk) 05:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Roman Spinner, you are basically saying what you always say, although this time more succinctly. You feel like English-language media is disrespecting Ukraine by not abandoning the English exonym "Kiev" and adopting the one that Ukraine wants them to adopt, "Kyiv". You spend thousands of bytes of bandwidth complaining to us every time that this request for move comes up and get nowhere because you are talking to the wrong people. Misplaced Pages will never be prescriptive because it is descriptive. It is an encyclopedia. If you want change to happen, then you need to deal with the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, the Guardian, the Independent, the Economist, etc. As long as you keep talking to us, you're getting nothing done. We won't change as long as the most common English exonym for Ukraine's capital is "Kiev". Our job here is not to dictate, but to describe. --Taivo (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
User:TaivoLinguist, I'll try to remain as succinct as possible while continuing to say what I always say with, hopefully, additional evidence. There are two key factors at issue. The first is the obvious one that the majority of media outlets in the English-speaking are still using the form "Kiev", although a slight move forward has occurred in that at least one of your examples above, The Guardian, has switched five months ago to the form "Kyiv". Also, note that the below date and time screenshot which depicts the name "Kyiv", indicates all other English exonyms in standard fashion (Belgrade, not Beograd, Bucharest, not București, etc.)
The second key factor concerns the acceptance of the social and geopolitical basis for the English-language transliteration of the name as "Kyiv", rather than as "Kiev". It is an equally valid and relevant point to raise since in these discussions we continue seeing references to "Ukrainian nationalists" "arrogance of the Ukrainian Rada" in even making such requests or, more directly, "The vast majority of all native English-speakers don't give a sh*te about the Ukrainian governments views on which words/transliterations English-speakers should be allowed to use, since the Ukrainian government has zero authority over the English language.
Surely, if the Ukrainian government's request for the English transliteration of its capital's name as "Kyiv" was recognized as the handiwork of notorious nationalists, it would be quickly condemned and rejected by all impartial and fair-minded entities. Also, if the Ukrainian governmental and social entities did not make such requests, in the manner of the requests made by Chinese and Indian entities, it would be seized upon as proof that Ukraine is satisfied with the existing English exonyms and that the only elements pushing for the change are nationalists and various members of intolerant fringe groups. —Roman Spinner(talk • contribs)06:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
"the majority of media outlets in the English-speaking are still using the form "Kiev"" Which is why this entire conversation is pointless and irrelevant. English usage is the metric we base names on. English usage is heavily in favor of "Kiev". Thus, the article is at the correct title. --Khajidha (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose due to the fact that more people know what Kiev is than Kyiv, which is much less recognized. People like Roman Spinner need to understand that it is not an attack on The Ukraine to refer to the city as "Kiev, " no more than it is to refer to Copenhagen as Copenhagen an attack on Denmark. Also before I go because I know Ukrainian nationalists will bring it up, I refer to the country as "The Ukraine, " in order to differenciate it from a term in my native language for a star seen in the area my family is from near Rahayta. Anyway, appart from people actively looking up the Ukrainian name for the city, who's going to know what a "Kyiv" is, or even how "Kyiv" is pronounced. Even if it was a Russian transliteration (which it is not), more people know Kiev vs. Kyiv. I'm actually against the fact that Swaziland was renamed to Eswatini, if that means anything to you Ukrainian nationalists, but I guess Eswatini meat the commonname rules some how, don't know how but it must, i guess. thank you. 38.111.120.74 (talk) 01:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
There is no "bandwagon". While Google Maps may have Kyiv, Google Trends clearly shows that people are still searching for "Kiev" by about five to one. Buy a plane ticket recently? No matter what website you go to, you're going to buy a ticket to Kiev. If you insist on going to Kyiv, you'll be stuck and never get there. Want to read any major newspaper in this country (really any paper since they all get their international stories from the handful of major ones)? You won't find a story about Kyiv anywhere, but you'll find all Ukraine's news coming from Kiev. --Taivo (talk) 23:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
You are sadly misinformed about what constitutes common English usage. Microsoft and Google have no control over that. How often does the average American look at their time zone setup? Once? None? How often do they see the Kiev byline in the New York Times and virtually every single other newspaper in America? Hundreds of times more often than they look at that time zone. --Taivo (talk) 03:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps you're unaware that this is the English Misplaced Pages and we gauge common usage only in the English-speaking world. --Taivo (talk) 09:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
The Ukrainian foreign ministry does not seem to understand that Kiev IS correct in the English language. This insistence that they know how to write my language better than I do is, at best, amusing and, at worst, arrogant and insulting. --Khajidha (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@Serhii (Ukraine): How would you feel if the Danish Foreign Ministry tried to order all Ukrainian-speakers to stop using the German name for their capital, Копенгаген, because they felt insulted by it, and instead use the correct Danish name for that city, København? Because that would be an exact equivalent to the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry's attempts to order all English speakers to use Kyiv instead of Kiev. - Tom | Thomas.W16:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Not an exact equivalent at all, because variations upon the English exonym "Copenhagen" are also exonyms for the Danish capital in many other languages (since the Ukrainian alphabet has no "g", the Ukrainian exonym is transliterated as "Kopenhahen"). "Kyiv" and "Kiev", on the other hand, are not heavily-revised English exonyms, such as Firenze → Florence or Köln → Cologne, but close English transliterations, in the same manner as Minsk or Sofia, of the Ukrainian and Russian names for the Ukrainian capital.
Also, if comparisons are to be made, the letters sent out by Ukrainian governmental entities were not "orders" but polite requests in standard diplomatic language — equivalent to the equally, if not less, polite requests sent around the English-speaking world by Chinese and Indian governmental entities regarding revised English transliteration of Peking, Bombay and Calcutta. —Roman Spinner(talk • contribs)07:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Let me disabuse you of your utter misconception about the meaning of "exonym". It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "heavy revision", despite your repeated attempts to make it mean that. "Paris" is an exonym in English just as "Rome" and "Kiev" and "Copenhagen" are. "Kiev" is the exonym in English for Ukraine's capital by a wide margin. That's just the simple story and the only story that matters here. What is that city's exonym in English? Kiev. That's what Misplaced Pages will then use for this article. Your repeated attempts to bring up WP:OTHERSTUFF are also pointless. "Kiev" is what "Kiev" is--an exonym in common English usage among reliable sources and among English speakers doing searches on Google. --Taivo (talk) 10:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@Roman Spinner: It is a direct equivalent, even if you refuse to see it as such. Kiev/Kiew is the exonym for the capital of Ukraine in many other languages too (from all the Scandinavian languages and Dutch, German, Spanish, Italian and French, to Swahili, Hindi, Tagalog and Chinese...), not only in English, just like Copenhagen/Kopenhagen/Kopengagen is the exonym for the capital of Denmark in many languages other than Ukrainian. - Tom | Thomas.W11:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I know it’s going to come up, since Roman Spinner frequents this page, “Kiev” is not a Russian name no more than Jennifer is a Welsh or Cornish name. Kiev may have roots in Russian, just as Jennifer has roots in Cornish and Welsh, but that does not make Kiev a Russian name.
It’s also not about what The Ukraine wants or about what its government wants, it’s about which name is more recognizable to the general English-speaking populations in the world.
Even if it was a transliteration from Russian (which it’ sfreaking not, but let’s say it was), more people know “Kiev” over “Kyiv.” Also for the record, I was against the Misplaced Pages article for Swaziland being renamed to Eswatini, since Roman likes to bring up examples like Mumbai. Obviously Eswatini meets the common name policy, don’t know how but apparently it does, it doesn’t matter what I think, it matters what sources use and what more people will recognize.
38.111.120.74 (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Comment. It's been seven days and there is no change from the last time that this was presented. Please snow close this request as a "No". It's still not even close despite the proponents' same arguments from every other request over the past two years. Nothing at all has changed over the last five (or more) requests besides the date. --Taivo (talk) 06:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
a question from an IP user
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello
Just a little comment and question, based on the discussions I have listened to here and in the archives:
As an IP editor who is new to this discussion who has appeared here several times I wanted to ask a question to the many people who push for a rename. But first, some preamble:
It appears as if the bulk of the arguments for renaming Kiev to Kyiv are as follows:
The name reminds people of Russia.
If we changed the name for this country or city to a new name, why not do the same for Kiev?
common examples given for this are Mumbai, Kolkata, Beijing, and Eswatini.
This number of Google searches proves that Kyiv is more used than Kiev.
However I’ve noticed that three things are often times present in the arguments by many Ukrainian nationalists (not necessarily Ukrainians, let’s not paint all Ukrainians with a broad brush).
1. Russophobia – Anybody who disagrees with the Kiev naming is working for Russia, or working to show that The Ukraine is still a part of Russia.
2. They turn to government agencies both in The Ukraine and the U.S., citing them as rationale for switching the wiki article to Kyiv.
3. No evidence presented that Kyiv has become the dominant name in the English language.
My question to people like Roman Spinner and others is:
Alright so you want this name changed, you really are invested in this to the point where you push the lie that Kiev is a “Russian transliteration, “ But how are you going to prove that Kiev is no longer the name most people recognize?
We have archive after archive here dating back to 2006 with this issue; I was in high school in 2006 learning about British history and useless polynomials.
I had posted a reminder which was removed by a gatekeeper who doesn’t like IP editors, where I summed up the discussions, and I can’t find the edit because of its removal. (That’s sarcasm BTW)
However, I will ask a question this time, how are you guys (like Roman Spinner and others) going to show users like my arrogant self that Kyiv has overtaken Kiev? Now note the wording of the question, how it’s “taken over, “not “is taking over.” I choose these words because I feel that you have to show that it has taken over, that it has become the dominant one in common use in order for the name to change.
As per the argument about places like Mumbai and eSwatini (even though I was against the eSwatini article move), they are English speaking countries. I don’t know why Beijing changed, but I can speak for Mumbai and Kolkata. Mumbai and Kolkata are in India, a former British colonial possession that has English as an official language. Those changes took time.
So it comes back to my question, how will Roman Spinner and his ilk show us that Kiev is obsolete?
Where’s the beef?
Thank you.
38.111.120.74 (talk) 14:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Now in fairness to the other side, I am going to ask people like Khajidha and Taivo Linguist this question:
What would constitute proof enough that Kiev is indeed obsolete? Without linking to a long-ass policy page, name me what would constitute proof that Kyiv has eclipsed Kiev in terms of usage? I ask this because I had asked the same question about Eswatini, a name change I was against, and got no answer there.
How can we establish that the name change is indeed now needed should the time come?
I’m just asking in the interest of fairness.
Thanks.
Anon IP, you asked what evidence it would take for me to accept a renaming of this article to "Kyiv". One good piece of evidence would be for the blue line on this graph to reach the red line. That would indicate that as many as or more average English speakers are looking for "Kyiv" in Google searches rather than "Kiev". Second, when the New York Times and most other major English-language newspapers change their style guides to require "Kyiv" instead of "Kiev" in their articles. --Taivo (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
This graph shows the past 15 years of usage for both versions. Notice that enormous peak in February 2014? That was height of the 2014 Ukrainian revolution. Everybody was talking about the country in general and the city in particular. And there was a 50 to 1 ratio of Kiev to Kyiv (excluding false positives like Chicken Kiev, Dynamo Kyiv, and Kyiv Post). --Khajidha (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
In that case this graph shows eSwatini was premature and "Kyiv" supporters may find it unfair to have different conditions to meet. Chrzwzcz (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Newspaper, google trends, ... For Roman S.: Kyiv on Misplaced Pages would not help your effort anyway, it is just one more source "on board" or not. English language is not directed by Misplaced Pages. Campaign elsewhere. After successful adoption in English there will be time to tackle another languages ;) Chrzwzcz (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Alright so Khajidha and the others have presented what would work as proof just as I have asked.
Now it’s all up to Roman Spinner and the other pro Kyiv side to show where’s the beef.
While I did have to have my girlfriend read me the graphs during her lunch hour (due to me being blind), I understand the info from what she told me. Swaziland is used more than eSwatini/Eswatini (there’s an issue on where the capital letter goes), and Kiev is used more than Kyiv.
So Roman, and Kyiv crew, it’s all up to you now, show us some proof that reliable sources have switched to Kyiv and I’ll be fully on board, as will I’m sure Khajidha and all the others.
I’d like somebody to help me with a rename move from eSwatini/Eswatini to Swaziland if somebody can help me with it on the commonname grounds please.
Thanks. 38.111.120.74 (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The time has come: Welcome to Kyiv on English Misplaced Pages! #KyivNotKiev
Finally, the time has come. Millions of Ukrainophiles all over the world have been waiting for this day their whole life - and it's finally here. Yesterday's historic decision by Associated Press, whereby they announced on Twitter, that they were switching to spelling Kyiv correctly, marks a new dawn for all English speakers around the world. As described on the 14th of August 2019 in a detailed blog-post by John Daniszewski, Associate Press's VP of Standards, all Associated Press media outlets will start using Kyiv in all contexts, effective immediately; the only exception will occur in certain contexts that use proper nouns (e.g., for proper nouns, AP will use the most-widely-used-in-English version at the moment, e.g. "Chicken Kiev", "Kievan Rus" but "Dynamo Kyiv" etc.). As further explained in Kyiv Post article on this news, Kiev no more: AP Stylebook changes spelling of Ukrainian capital to Kyiv, The AP Stylebook, one of the most prominent English-language style and usage guides created by American journalists, has changed its spelling of Ukraine’s capital from Kiev to Kyiv., which marks a new dawn for the usage of Kyiv in English-language media: thousands of national and local newspapers use 'The AP Stylebook' as their gold standard in English-language spelling, and this means that thousands of English-language media all over the world started using Kyiv spelling as of today. This has already been reflected in Google search trends: there's been a clear increase in the usage of Kyiv spelling in google search engine within the last 10 years as reflected in Google Trends, and AP's announcement will undoubtedly only add to the rise of Kyiv's usage.
In conclusion, @Roman Spinner:, as an editor who has significantly more experience than me on English Misplaced Pages and knows its rules much better (including the name change policies), I would like to ask for your help to weigh in whether you consider it appropriate to finally change the name of this article to the correct English spelling of Kyiv. Thank you all, and God bless America!--Piznajko (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
p.s. Btw, even Hollywood has (finally!) started using Kyiv spelling (as is evident from all latest movies in 2019 that mention Kyiv, e.g, Creed 2 etc.) --Piznajko (talk) 00:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
@Piznajko:, as you well know, my single vote has always been cast in Support of the form "Kyiv" and, while these new developments may indeed change the votes of some Wikipedians in favor of moving this article's main title header, achieving indisputable consensus is still likely to run into opposition. I discussed this matter eight months ago with a (now indefinitely blocked) Wikipedian at User talk:Roman Spinner#I can not send you a message and the forecast in my final paragraph, "Time is indisputably on the side of Kyiv", seems to be progressing now at a faster-than-expected pace. —Roman Spinner(talk • contribs)00:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
User:Piznajko. These are still just isolated events. And all those international airports and international companies are irrelevant to usage in the Anglophone world. The common usage of English speakers is all that matters. No English speaker gives two cents about what happens in the airport at Frankfort. The only relevant piece of information is the change in the AP Style Guide. If media outlets actually begin to follow suit (including the New York Times, LA Times, and Washington Post), then it can be considered. But you're just wrong when you say that "hundreds of media outlets" have changed. You have zero evidence for that, you're just making up comments to try to push your POV. In other words, prove it. That will take at least 200 media outlets in the English speaking world that have changed with evidence of it. Fat chance. --Taivo (talk) 03:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
@Taivo. Well, as you probably knowAP's members include about 1,400 daily US newspapers and thousands of television and radio broadcasters.. And as you might also know, every day they reprint hundreds and hundreds of AP news articles word-to-word, in other words without changing a single word (e.g., so when AP uses Kyiv spelling, it automatically gets used by hundreds and hundreds of English-speaking newspapers around the world).--Piznajko (talk) 07:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
AP changing is not the same thing as "hundreds of media sources have already switched". While the style guide may have changed, that still doesn't mean that articles written for the AP will actually switch. And again, your use of international sources is a false representation of English usage, which is only relevant to English-speaking countries. We will see soon enough if the AP switch actually affects common English usage. It might change, it might not. But just projecting your own wishes is not evidence and it is certainly a false claim to say that "hundreds of media sources have already switched". --Taivo (talk) 08:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello Taivo. Your statement While the style guide may have changed, that still doesn't mean that articles written for the AP will actually switch is factually incorrect, e.g., false: all AP journalists have to follow AP's Stylebook and if they don't - they get fired. In other words, if you were an AP journalist and you told your boss on Aug 15 (e.g., on the 2nd day when Kyiv spelling was introduced) that you were not going to write Kyiv due to your person beliefs and such, and instead will continue using Kiev , your AP boss would've simply fired you for that. Media outlets in the US are no joke and require strict journalistic standards.--Piznajko (talk) 09:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Talk:Kyiv/naming: Difference between revisions
Add topic
Paine Ellsworth, ed. 21:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
