Talk:Kyiv/naming/Archive 1

Untitled
'''DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.'''

This archive page covers approximately the dates between August 2003 and December 2004.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See How to archive a talk page.)

Please add new archivals to Talk:Kiev/Archive02. Thank you. &mdash;Michael Z. 2005-03-15 22:47 Z 

Danapirstadir
Are you sure about the original name "Danapirstadir"? I searched for it on Google and came up with nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.60.81 (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2003 (UTC)

Kiev/Kyiv
According to the Ukrainian government, the official spelling of the city in English is "Kyiv". So, I propose moving the page to "Kyiv", and putting a redirect at "Kiev", the opposite of how it is now. "Kiev" is a romanisation of the name of the city in Russian, and as Ukrainian is the sole official language of Ukraine, keeping it like this is somewhat offensive. See how the Bombay - Mumbai issue was resolved. - Kricxjo 15:20, 8 March 2003 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've moved the page, as I proposed some months ago. There's a redirect. This makes the entry conform to other cities whose names changed after independence. Kricxjo 10:56, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Well if I had seen your proposal I would have strenuously objected. There are 10 times the number of Google hits for the Kiev spelling as there are are for Kyiv and the US embassy in Kiev has its website at http://kiev.usembassy.gov/ . I'm moving the page back to the correct English spelling (which is a matter of usage, not decree). Furthermore I just did a spell check on this and "Kyiv" came up as incorrect which Kiev did not. --mav 21:26, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter how many web hits there are. Look at Mumbai. That is the official name of the city, even though many people around the world still say "Bombay". Wikipedians decided to put the page at Mumbai and include a redirect at Bombay. The fairest solution is to put the page at the official name (according to the government of the country in which the city is located). As I said before, "Kiev" is from Russian, which is offensive to many Ukrainians because Russian is not an official language of Ukraine. I shall be moving this page back, so that it conforms with the Bombay - Mumbai decision, since the Wikipedia is better when it is coherent. It's not as if we lose anything, since Kiev will still be a redirect. Kricxjo 09:23, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I should add that occasionally the Wikipedia does decree spelling, instead of letting usage decide. For this reason the spelling "Rumanian" was taken out of the article Romania, since it was perceived as archaic, though many people still use it. Because all documents issued by the Ukrainian government in English contain the spelling "Kyiv", guidebooks to Ukraine now use "Kyiv", scholarly works on the region in antiquity now tend to say "Kyiv Rus", it is entirely fair to believe "Kiev" unsatisfactory. And yeah, the US Embassy uses it, but they are criticized heavily for it (I lived in the city for a couple of years) and perceived as insensitive to the locals post-independence, as few members of the embassy staff speak Ukrainian, and will speak with visitors only in English or Russian. Kricxjo 09:32, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * OK. I didn't read the "offensive" part. "Kyiv" is therefore in conformance with Naming conventions (common names) due to that. But it was outrageous to remove every single reference to the spelling "Kiev" as was done with your first move. Presented with that version of the article an English speaker may not have known this page was about the Kiev they were taught about in school. --mav


 * He's got a point. If we have the articles on Bombay & Calcutta at Mumbai & Kolkata, we should have the one on Kiev at Kyiv. - Efghij 09:29, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well I don't think those should be there either. I've never heard of Mumbai & Kolkata. -- Tarquin 10:32, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

This is the English wiki. I'm moving it back to Kiev. RickK 02:59, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I agree with RickK & Efghij. Kiev is the proper english name. For example, Germany is also listed under Germany and not Deutschland, Japan is Japan and not Nihon, Austria is not Oesterreich. Nobody knows Mumbai & Kolkata. Chris_73 12:03, 4 Nov 2003 (JapanTime)


 * I think Mumbai is alright...but maybe that's because I had a friend as a kid whose family was from Bombay, and they always called it Mumbai. I guess everyone else knows it as Bombay though... Adam Bishop 03:09, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Mumbai and Kolkata actually have currency in modern English language publications. Such is not the case however (as far as I know) with Kiev (or Mecca). - Hephaestos 03:11, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Not so. Travel guides use "Kyiv", some wire services use "Kyiv", scholarly works on the region use "Kyiv". The English-language newspapers in Kyiv (edited by expatriate English-soeakers) use "Kyiv". The new name is here to stay. In fact, I'd say it's even more common than "Kolkata". Kricxjo 03:18, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * That is as may be, it's still not the name by which the city is known to English speakers. RickK 03:22, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)~


 * English-language travel guides use "Kyiv", English-language histories of Ukraine use "Kyiv". Why can you not understand that? Kricxjo 03:23, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I have no doubt that the Kyiv transliteration will be widely accepted in English someday. But it is not now. Our function on Wikipedia is not to set trends, it is to report on trends that have already been set, and as of yet this one has not been set. What matters here is not Ukra[i]nian wire services or travel guides translated into English, what matters here is UK, US, Australian etc. wire services and, more important, published scholarly works in the English-speaking world. - Hephaestos 03:27, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * What? Travel-guides using the form aren't translated into English. The Lonely Planet series, which uses the form, is written mostly by people from Britain or Australia. And works on Ukrainian history by *English-speaking* scholars, from America and Britain, use "Kyiv". This has nothing to do with what Ukrainians call their city (though I guess that should be respected if "Kiev" distresses them), but rather with what is used in educated circles in the English-speaking world. I've recommended to RickK that this be brought up on the mailing list, since otherwise it will be an endless series of moving the article to and fro. Kricxjo 03:31, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Jimbo Wales has requested that such discussions remain on the appropriate article Talk pages, not on the mailing list. RickK 03:34, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Note: On the online Merriam Webster [] the main entriy is Kiev. Variant(s) or Ukrainian Kyiv or Kyyiv. So i agree with Kiev. However, i have no problem at all with the redirect of Kyiv to Kiev.Chris_73 12:35, 4 Nov 2003 (JapanTime)

Regardless of where the article is, it needs to discuss the polemics over the current name of the city. Kricxjo 03:37, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with that whatsoever. RickK 03:41, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

How about using Kiev / Kyiv until the old name drops out of use? ( 13:54, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Can somebody provide the local Ukranian name for the city? E.g. we say "Kiev, from the Russian [...] ...", so can we also say "It is increasingly called Kyiv, from the Ukranian [...] ..."? --Delirium 23:22, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)

IMO the city should be refered to as Kyiv, and the header should say something like the russified name of Kiev (Russian &#1050;&#1080;&#1077;&#1074;) is also used. Due to political reasons all cities in former USSR were refered to internationally with their Russian names. Fortunately, this policy is discontinued and I think wikipedia should use the traditional, reintroduced name.Halibutt 12:46, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Any new comments? I'd rather we moved this page to where it should be. Otherwise we could move New York to New Amsterdam which was also in use some time ago...Halibutt
 * We don't name articles on what was in use some time ago, we name them based on what is currently in use in English. Right now that's Kiev in this case. - Hephaestos|&#167; 20:05, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Just like most people still use Stalingrad for Volgograd and Leningrad for St Petersburg. Yet, nobody proposes to move the pages to the former names... Halibutt 07:06, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Here is the metric.
One.

Two.

When the number of hits at "two" is greater than or equal to the number of hits at "one", then the page is moved to Kyiv. Facts are not negotiable. Re-read Naming conventions (use English) until it sinks in.

-Hephaestos|&#167; 14:44, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * If we went solely by google hits, we'd also have to move "urine" to "piss", "vagina" to "pussy" and "anus" to "asshole". But we don't; we have a preference for non-offensive terms that should apply here also. I see no need for us to use a spelling that most Ukrainians consider offensive just because it persists in old web documents. Mkweise 16:18, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Unless "Kyiv" and "Kiev" start showing up as terms on porn sites, I don't really think this analogy applies. What we are attempting here at (the English) Wikipedia is to record general knowledge as reported in the English-speaking world.  If Ukrainians find the term offensive, the offense lies not with Wikipedia's reporting, but with the English language in general.  This should be noted and explained in the body of the article. - Hephaestos|&#167; 16:57, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * So what's your plan, then&mdash;to keep the article protected until your google test allows us to recognize the name change? Mkweise 18:50, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

302,000 English pages for Danzig

286,000 English pages for Gdansk

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gdansk

2,450,000 English pages for Torino

1,180,000 English pages for Turin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turin

2 Hephaestos|§

So what will be redirected: Gdansk to Danzig or Kiev to Kyiv ?--Inhvar 17:49, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with you 100% that the article should be at Kyiv, but please don't move articles by cutting and pasting&mdash;that breaks the edit history. Wait a while for others to comment on the matter, or if you can't wait at least use the move this page function rather than cutting and pasting the entire article. Mkweise 18:15, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * official Ukrainian-English transliteration system

"Transliteration should be made directly between Ukrainian and English without the use of any intermediary languages"

[http://www.uazone.net/Kiev_Kyiv.html Kiev?, Kyiv?! Which is right?] On the basis of expert analysis by the Ukrainian Language Institute under the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine regarding the Roman-letter correspondence to the Ukrainian language geographic name of Kiev, taking into account that the spelling Kyiv is indeed in the modern practice of Ukraine’s international communication, proceeding from the urgent need to standardize the recreation of Ukrainian proper names through Roman letters tn the context of Ukraine’s integration into the world legal realm, based on point 6 part 4(b) of the Provision on the Ukrainian Commission for Legal Terminology approved by decree No 796 of the President of Ukraine on August 23, 1995 "Regarding the Provision on the Committee for Legislative Initiatives under the President of Ukraine, on the Ukrainian Codification Commission and on the Ukrainian Commission for Legal Terminology", the Commission HAS APPROVED:

1. To acknowledge that the Roman spelling of Kiev does not recreate the phonetic and scriptural features of the Ukrainian language geographical name.

2. To confirm that spelling of Kyiv as standardized Roman-letter correspondence to the Ukrainian language geographical name of Київ.

Precedent
There's precedent for going either way. Mumbia Mumbai was the official language version, and Bombay is what everyone else called it - Wikipedia used Mumbia Mumbai. By the same token, Makkah is the official version, but Mecca is what everyone else calls it - we use Mecca. I've initiated talk on the villagepump to standarize our practice. We'll probably end up having a long, bloody poll somewhere. &rarr;Raul654 17:42, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * There's also the fact that the names of other pages are also decided by the debates that happen on those pages. Such decisions depend on whether there are any particularly forceful defenders of either form at the time, and which name was used by the first writers of the article - if there is a long article and lots of cross-links at an old version of a name, people will not be keen to move it, *and* try to update all the links.  If there are two relatively new articles, the reasonable editors will likely decide between themselves which is best and merge.  Also, if one person who strongly disagrees with where the page is, or doesn't know about discussing major changes, it will get moved anyway.  C'mon, guys, we know this is how things work at Wikipedia, so some inconsitencies are only to be expected.


 * Incidentally, on this particular issue I feel a preference for "Kiev" - but that is because I've only just heard that it should be called "Kyiv". I think the way the article handles it, with all the alternative transliterations at the top, is excellent.  On Mumbai, that change has been publicized for several years now, so English speakers are starting to get used to it.  Probably the same will happen to Kyiv/Kiev after a few years, then the page should be moved.  Incidentally, the Mumbai-based film industry is still called Bollywood (not "Mollywood"), and Salman Rusdie in Midnight's Children (a native of India) has characters saying things like "Back to Bomb" on their return to Bombay  PaulHammond 16:27, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * On a related point, I'm very unsure about retrospectively changing historical names, like Kiev Rus PaulHammond 16:27, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm really baffled by why things like this cause such controversy. What is the problem with having the article located at Kyiv, out of respect for the express request by the locality and have a redirect at Kiev. Either way gets you to the same page and anyone reading the first line will understand why it is titled "Kyiv" and not "Kiev". Really, what is the big deal? Bkonrad | Talk 18:35, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * For the record, official wikipedia policy says we should go with Mecca, Bombay, and Kiev
 * "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." (Naming conventions) &rarr;Raul654 18:41, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm with Raul. If a majority of English speakers (not English speakers who write travel guides) know the cities as Bombay, Kiev, and Mecca, we really ought to have the articles there. There is no reason we can't have a whole paragraph right at the front of each article talking about the name issues, but the article proper should live at the COMMON USAGE name. This isn't an issue like piss/urine, as that is slang usage issue. This is the case of politics being reflected in place names and how the English speaking world takes some time to accomodate what some politicians would like people to accept immediately. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:03, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree. As an encyclopedia, accuracy is (or should be) important. If the official name of a place is X, then there should be an article about X. We can have any number of redirects to that article based on whatever popular usage is. People will be able to find the article whether they are looking for the official name or an alternative. But IMO the article should give preference to the official name not the whims of current usage. Bkonrad | Talk 19:09, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Bkonrad, that's a reasonable perspective... but it's not in line with Wikipedia policy. What people seem to be losing sight of here is that this really isn't about what any of us WANT, it's about Wikipedia policy. Now, if people want to go and have a poll about changing policy, that's all well and good, but as long as we HAVE an ESTABLISHED policy, we probably ought to follow it. P.S. Care to support my ages-old effor to move Occam's Razor back to Ockham's Razor? ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:28, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with Dante, but I'd also like to point something out. Quite to the contrary of what Bkonrad says - "official" names tend to change with much greater frequency what the majority of english speakers call something. Makkah has been the official name for decades, but they've made almost no inroads in getting people to call it that. Ditto for Cambodia (er, "Kampuchea" - but the article is still called Cambodia) and a multitude of other places. So more accurately, we could say that Wikipedia calls places what the majority of speakers call them, and is not subject to the whims of politicians. &rarr;Raul654 19:29, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * And that's a very good point. We could also ask, what right have countries in which English has no official standing to regulate the speaking of English outside their borders? That's what this case is about. There's no question about the Ukranian spelling, nor the spelling in English brochures and other documents produced in the Ukraine, nor even the spelling used in UN documents which use a special, artificially regulated dialect of English. Food for thought?


 * IMO there is no wrong answer to this one (well, not of the two proposals, anyway). So long as we have the redirect from whichever we choose not to use, and acknowledge both spellings in the first paragraph of the article, I am as happy as I can be, and willing to sadly acknowledge that we can't please everyone. The important thing is, people who wish to learn from Wikipedia will find the information they want. Andrewa 20:02, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I think the appeal to "established policy" is somewhat amusing in a wiki. The policies are not laws, they are guidelines and they are quite flexible (at least as far as I have seen). The specific policy that Raul654 cited above is a general naming policy. The policies on city names and places are still in the formative stages. So the appeal to authority doesn't get you very far in this case IMO. Yes, official names change. But so what. If the people living in a place expressly and explicitly want something to be known in a specific manner, we should respect that. The popular usage should be in redirects to the "official" name. Trying to gauge what the popular reference should be is problematic. An awful lot of people refer to NYC as the Big Apple. By your criteria perhaps the article should be at "Big Apple" and not NYC. Simply because official usage changes is really irrelevant. When it changes, the article can reflect that change and be moved if necessary. And I don't think this is not about dictating usage. People are free to refer to something however they like and can set up redirects accordingly.


 * All that said, I really don't care all that strongly. Name it one way or the other and I would never have even noticed. But since you asked for opinions.... Bkonrad | Talk 20:05, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Just a few replies here.
 * "If the people living in a place expressly and explicitly want something to be known in a specific manner, we should respect that."
 * Why? I tend to be overtly hostile to political correctness, and these cases most definitely fall into that catagory. Who are they to regulate what english speakers call their cities?
 * It's not about dictating usage. You are free to continue to refer to the place however you see fit (within the bounds of NPOV). It's about respect for self-determination. BK
 * Trying to gauge what the popular reference should be is problematic.
 * That's what the google test is for.
 * The Google test is unreliable. It is relatively easy to manipulate Google rankings (see Googlebombing). And further Google rankings do not accurately reflect usage among all speakers of English. That's not Google's intent and I don't think we should be relying on it in that way. It overrepresents entities with a web presence. Believe it or not, most people don't have their own web pages to be included in Google's tally and many stilll don't have web access at all. It also overrepresents U.S. speakers of English, simply because there is a larger web presence here. I suspect there are more English speakers in India than in the U.S.--is there usage taken into consideration? Unless you want Wikipedia to be the "U.S. and Web-centric" encyclopedia, I think we have to be respectful of how others refer to themselves. BK
 * "An awful lot of people refer to NYC as the Big Apple. By your criteria perhaps the article should be at "Big Apple" and not NYC."
 * "Big apple" - 1,080,000 hits. "New York City" - 8,610,000 hits.
 * I gave an obviously facetious example to illustrate an extreme. But again, Google should not be the final authority. BK
 * "Microsoft" gets 107,000,000 hits. Obviously, the name of NYC should be Microsoft. -AnonymousCoward


 * But as was said above, I can live with it eitehr way. &rarr;Raul654 20:18, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * I think the bottom line is that all of those who cannot live with either spelling consider the Russian transliteration ("Kiev") offensive. Thus, from a practical standpoint, we have two choices: (1) agree to adopt the English spelling desired by the people who live there; or (2) stubbornly stick to a policy that serves no real purpose and either (a) keep the article protected indefinitely, (b) ban a whole bunch of well-meaning Wikipedians, or (c) live with the resulting edit wars. Given those options, it seems obvious to me which choice is preferable. Mkweise 21:05, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Given the choices you list, I say we ban them. I see no problem banning a group of people who can't get past some silly offense at the name of a city in a foreign language. If they really can't help themselves from engaging in edit wars over such a trivial issue, then why do we need them here? Why exactly are we pandering to them just because they can't live with the alternate spelling when everyone else can deal with both? Are we to now encourage intolerance and an unwillingness to compromise --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:07, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

Is there any way we could duplicate the content--have two pages, Kyiv and Kiev, with the exact same text and intro except for "Kiev, also known as Kyiv" and "Kyiv, also known as Kiev"? Meelar 21:01, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Shh...don't give the Gdansk/Danzig combatants any ideas...I just recently got rid of sevaral competing article pairs differing only in s/Gdansk/Danzig. Such duplication of articles under competing names reflects even more poorly on us than edit wars, IMO. Mkweise 21:09, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, it might not be a bad idea, if all else fails (as it certainly seemed to there). Why would it necessarily reflect badly? Sure, it's a little ridiculous, but there's no practical reason, and most readers wouldn't even know that two articles existed. Meelar 23:55, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Meelar - nothing personal, but I think that's the worst idea I've heard in a very long time. Please just do us all a favor and forget you ever thought it. (I don't want anyone else getting any ideas) &rarr;Raul654 05:52, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * I think it's an extremely bad idea to set a precedent of allowing two versions of the same article to exist. Next thing we know, we'll have two or more articles on most every controversial subject. Mkweise 05:34, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Agreed, talk about your slippery slopes... --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:07, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * One strategy related to the one Meelar suggested that I thought worked (although it won't work for the Kiev article) was done with one of the articles on Finnish History. (I don't remember which one it was, but it stuck in my memory because I was unaware that Finnish history could be so controversial.) This strategy was to have the competing versions of the article in parallel columns on the same page. I felt it worked because it helped to focus attention on the specific points where the contributors disagreed about content, rather than allow one or both sides to complain heatedly albeit vaguely about the other version. -- llywrch 04:33, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * You're thinking of Continuation War? and such an arrangement made the article look ridiculous, and encourages the edit warriors to walk away rather than working things out; someone who knew nothing of the dispute or the underlying facts had to fix the mess. However if one were to set up that kind of table on a temporary page, it would, as Llywrch says, be helpful in highlighting and (possibly) resolving the most contentious points. &mdash;No-One Jones 04:44, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * That arrangement is totally off the wall and completely against the manual of style. &rarr;Raul654 04:46, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia
Repeat after me. "This is the English Wikipedia." The majority of English speakers use Kiev, not Kyiv. RickK 02:46, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Just to add to that - not just "the majority", but the "vast, vast, vast majority" &rarr;Raul654 03:08, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

"As fundamental to the need for global standardization of geographical names, UNGEGN promotes the recording of locally-used names reflecting the languages and traditions of a country. UNGEGN's goal is for every country to decide on its own nationally standardized names through the creation of national names authorities or recognized administrative processes."

Naming_conventions_(use_English) Convention: Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly used in English than the anglicized form. ... "There is a trend in part of the modern news media and maps to use native names of places and people, even if there is a long-accepted English name...One should use judgment in such cases as to what would be the least surprising to a user finding the article. However, whichever is chosen, one should place a redirect at the other title." Ukrainian government decision: "Transliteration should be made directly between Ukrainian and English without the use of any intermediary languages" "...spelling Kyiv is indeed in the modern practice of Ukraine&rsquo;s international communication..."

From what I have seen on Wikipedia "anglicized forms" that reflect names from (mostly) colonial times are redirected to "native or official forms" (in English or Roman alphabeth). In cases where anglicized forms are not similar/identical to (or taken from) languages of foreign rule period there is no problem (Rome, Munich, Copenhagen, Turin, Prague, Lisbon, Moscow, Athens etc... ). Not foreign/colonial but official/native forms are used for Gdansk/Danzig, Mumbai/Bombay, Kolkata/Calcutta,Guangzhou/Canton. Traditional english (and western) Peking is also redirected to official form Beijing. Also some governments don't want names of their countries to be translated to other language like Côte d'Ivoire, so Ivory Coast is also redirected to main page named by offical version in French..Official (new) names also - Belarus/White Russia or Byelorussia Myanmar/Burma. United Nations also promote native/offical forms, so my proposition is to add paragraph in Naming_conventions_(use_English): " If country's government has adopted decraration on how its native names should be written in English or internationaly then these forms should be used for main page and other forms should redirect to them."

Who cares about the United Nations or the Ukrainian government? Google search is the key! But seriously, unfortunately there can be no compromise here. As shown above all big cities with colonial past have their former names dropped in wikipedia. It seems to me that Kiev is the last stand. What for? Halibutt 02:05, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Indeed, Naming_conventions_(use_English) needs to be updated to reflect the current de-facto standard of respecting peoples' right to nomenclative self-determination. Mkweise 20:58, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Except that that many of us (myself included) do not agree with that standard. Before anyone goes mucking around with the manual of style, I think this needs to be decided by a poll. &rarr;Raul654 21:43, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * No it doesn't. We need to enforce the rule more consistently. --mav 06:36, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is no standard
Just wanted to add that there isn't a consistent way of handling this issue on Wikipedia (yet). First of all, here's a quote from Google test: It should be stressed that none of these applications is conclusive evidence, but simply a first-pass heuristic. We should bear this in mind. Then, I don't think it's easy to resolve these disagreements. The city is called Ки́їв. Now what we actually argue about is whether a romanization has actually become an English word. Now we enter the realm of authority... can a government decide how we spell words? does the UN have a say? the OED/M-W? Yes, we have a naming convention (Use English), but what is English? Kokiri 15:33, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * The rules say it point blank - call it what most people would call it. Most ennglish speakers call it Kiev. Period. Therefore, either change the rules or follow them. &rarr;Raul654 17:27, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia should reflect overall standards of usage, not set them
Wikipedia's naming conventions should reflect the overall standards used in the English-writing world.


 * Beijing is more commonly used than Peking, therefore the Wikipedia article should be called "Beijing"
 * Mumbai is more commonly used than Bombay, therefore the Wikipedia article should be called "Mumbai"
 * Calcutta is more commonly used than Kolkata, therefore the Wikipedia article should be called "Calcutta" * note: this is not currently the case
 * Hangul is more commonly used than Hangeul, therefore the Wikipedia article should be called "Hangul".

and


 * Kiev is more commonly used than Kyiv, therefore the Wikipedia article should be called "Kiev".

It is interesting to note that for each of these cases, the US Department of State uses the more common name. 
 * Interesting: "Kiev" is used on the list of links, but their Embassy in Ukraine uses "Kyiv" on their home page. The UK Foreign Office sites follow the same pattern, but Canadian Foreign Affairs only uses "Kyiv".
 * Anyway, what's that got to do with what's most commonly used? --Michael Z.

If (and when) the newer spellings become more common, that is when the Wikipedia articles should change their spellings, and not before. In the English language, the only arbiter of usage is usage itself. Foreign governments can scream at us until they're blue in the face about the "correct" way to spell their city name, language name, or whatever, but unless that spelling is taken up and used by a majority of English writers, then it doesn't mean anything. It is not Wikipedia's responsibility to capitulate to the spelling whims every foreign government deigns to throw our way. Our spellings should reflect standard spellings inasmuch that standard spellings are defined by usage, as measured by Google or whoever. We can always change the spelling if it becomes more common to use the new spelling. Remember, Wikipedia is not paper, so we can change the spellings whenever we want.

I sympathize with the Ukrainians in their desire to remove the Russian influence on their perception abroad. I wish them luck in making "Kyiv" a more common spelling than "Kiev". However, Wikipedia is an inappropriate place for them to wage their campaign, and insisting on the spelling "Kyiv" is pushing a POV as much any other kind of biased writing.

In the meantime, this article should indicate that "Kyiv" is an alternative spelling pushed by the Ukrainians, but that "Kiev" remains most common in English, and the article should exclusively use "Kiev" to refer to the city. Also, it should note that the English pronunciation "kee-EV" or "kee-EF" is much more common than "kee-IF". Nohat 21:37, 2004 Apr 21 (UTC)


 * Exactly. --mav 21:56, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't we change Ho Chi Minh City to Saigon then, I've never heard the former used?


 * No. "Ho Chi Minh City" is more common than "Saigon" . Do your research before making uninformed suggestions. Nohat 01:32, 2004 Apr 22 (UTC)


 * Okay, aside from the continualy stated invalidity of using the google test, how does this googlefight search doing a normal english only google search I get ] around 670,000 - 704,000 English pages for saigon ] 578,000 English pages for ho chi minh city .


 * Sorry it's me agaian http://www.googlefight.com/cgi-bin/compare.pl?q1=saigon&q2=%22ho+chi+minh+city%22&B1=Make+a+fight%21&compare=1&langue=us

Also, I wanted to note that the Google test refers to using Google to determine whether or not something is worth writing about, NOT about determining standard spellings in English. Nohat 21:44, 2004 Apr 21 (UTC)


 * Yes, I wish this would be emphasized in policy docs. Too many times I've seen the Google Test misused in this way. 1) Google results can be manipulated and 2)Google was not designed for that use and we should not be assuming the results are reliable. Bkonrad | Talk 22:35, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * The order of results can easily be influenced but the number of results is not something easily manipulated, especially when the number of results is in the millions. The sheer number of results in a Google search is a good measure of usage because the Google search engine represents the largest corpus of English texts searchable by ordinary people. There is no other valid method for defining English usage other than researching actual English in actual Engish texts. We don't have access to proprietary English corpora used by for example dictionary makers to tell us what usages are more common, so we have to rely on the tools we do have, and by far the best and most unbiased source for determining frequency of usage is Google. If a Google search shows that the spelling "Kiev" occurs more than 7 times more often than "Kyiv" that is an indication that "Kiev" is the standard spelling and that "Kyiv" is an alternate spelling. There is nothing else, not decrees by Ukrainian governments, not listings on British embassy web sites, not accusations of Russo-centrism, not the contents of a few English-language travel guidebooks, nothing, that changes the fact that right now "Kiev" is the standard spelling of the city. If anyone can show us data that contradicts Google in that it shows that in a large broad-based corpus of English texts of many different kinds that "Kiev" is more common that "Kyiv", then fine, go ahead and move it, but until then all we have is Google. Nohat 01:09, 2004 Apr 22 (UTC)


 * No, I have to disagree. The number of results can definitely be manipulated. Try Googling for any small town in the U.S. You'll probably get hundreds of results, but very, very few of them actually have any substantial content pertaining to the town. They are just companies trolling for eyeballs. I also disagree that the results are "a good measure of usage because the Google search engine represents the largest corpus of English texts searchable by ordinary people". Rather the Google corpus disproportionately represent U.S. interests because of the disproportionately large web presence. There may also be a class stratification as well, as the poor generally do not have web access or not as readily, and companies with web-presence are generally not as interested in trying to capture their eyeballs either. Finally, without examining at least cursorily a large sampling of the hits, you cannot be certain that all of your millions of hits are really for what you think. For example, look at how many of the hits for Danzig were actually for some band. I stand by my argument that the Google test is only appropriate as a sort of reality check to see if a subject worth including in WP. Google was not designed for using it to verify usage. Relying on it for that purpose is much like the GIGO method of data processing. And, BTW, have you reversed your opinion? I thought that earlier you were saying not to use the Google Test to decide a name and now it looks like you are. Bkonrad | Talk 01:37, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Google isn't perfect, that is granted, but do you have anything better? And even if you did, do you really believe that "Kyiv" is more common than "Kiev"? Unless you can show some real evidence that Google is in fact wrong and that most people use "Kyiv", I don't see any reason to go against what I might term the "GoogleFight test". The Google test is something completely different.... Nohat 01:48, 2004 Apr 22 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying that Kyiv is more common. It's the actual name of the place. We can have whatever redirects are appropriate, and if someone is writing an article and whether they put a link to Kiev or to Kyiv it will get to the same place. If you type either in the search box, you get to the same place. What's the big deal about showing a little respect for what a people want to be known as by titling the article accordingly? Bkonrad | Talk 01:57, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, I've just noticed the distinction between googlefight.com and google.com. Same problems, only compounded. Not only do we not really know how Google compiles it's results list, we have an intermediary about whose methods we know even less. Purely for entertainment value. Bkonrad | Talk 02:32, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Information on Wikipedia should be updated to present nowdays conditions. Anyone interested in subject knows that Kyiv is present day name. Look at British embassy site: The British Embassy in Kyiv is the official representation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Ukraine. http://www.britemb-ukraine.net --Inhvar 00:02, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Sure, but the American Embassy is in "Kiev", so why should we use the spelling the British use but not the spelling the Americans use? Nohat 00:55, 2004 Apr 22 (UTC)


 * So are you claiming this as the "American" (i.e. U.S.) Wikipedia? Maybe Britain and Canada and NZ and Australia and all the rest of the english-speaking wolrd will need to get their own Wikipedia? Bkonrad | Talk 01:04, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Don't turn this into an American vs British debate. That's not the point and it's a red herring. The fact is that "Kiev" is used more commonly by English writers everywhere, and the American Embassy is one of those people. The Brits apparently have capitulated to the foreign demands to change how their language is spelled. You don't see Americans telling Japanese people how to spell English words in Japanese do you? What gives Ukrainians the right to tell English writers how to spell Ukrainian words in English? Nohat 01:26, 2004 Apr 22 (UTC)
 * What arrogance do we have to write an article about a Ukrainian city and call it by a name they have expressly indicated they do not want to be known by? Bkonrad | Talk 01:57, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * It's not our place to say, "hey guys, the Ukrainians want us to call it 'Kyiv' not 'Kiev', so we're going to call it that and you should too". As the title of this section says "Wikipedia should reflect overall standards of usage, not set them". It is far more arrogant to dictate to foreigners how to spell things in their own language. Like I said before, we don't tell the Japanese how to spell things in Japanese. We don't tell the Slovenians that they have to call our country the "United States of America" and not "Zdru&#382;ene dr&#382;ave Amerike" (see Slovene language). We don't tell Spanish-speaking countries the proper way to abbreviate our country's name is "USA" or "US", not "EE.UU." The Germans don't demand that we call their country "Deutchland". Why should the Ukrainians be able to dictate how we spell things in our own language? The most common English spelling is "Kiev", and I don't see any legitimate reason why political changes in Ukraine should have any effect on how English is spelled. Nohat 02:14, 2004 Apr 22 (UTC)
 * It's not about dictating anything, it's about respect. You can continue to refer to Kyiv however you like. It's about a silly Title of the article. No one's stopping you from refering to it as Kiev. Bkonrad | Talk 02:32, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Exactly--it's about the title of the article, and the title of the article should follow Wikipedia policy, and it is Wikipedia policy to use the most common English name for something as the title, and the most common English name for the city in question is "Kiev". Therefore, the title of this article should be "Kiev". Is there anything left here that is still disputed, other than the purported bias of the Google test? Nohat 03:20, 2004 Apr 22 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, Canada uses Kyiv: . Adam Bishop 01:34, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * What you mean is the Canadian Government uses "Kyiv". The Canada-wide web prefers "Kiev" to "Kyiv" by a factor of more than 3 to 1 . Nohat 01:40, 2004 Apr 22 (UTC)
 * Four months later, and it's only 2.8 to 1. I think that those who actually know about Ukraine and Ukrainians use the official spelling "Kyiv". People who aren't familiar with the subject will continue to use the historical spelling "Kiev", possibly for a long time.  Which category does Wikipedia fall into?  --Michael Z. 04:45, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

Google test
It has been alleged that the Google test is not a useful test and its results should be diregarded. However, the results of Google are supported by other search engines:


 * Update: on Google the ratio is now 6,800,000 to 1,840,000 (3.70). —Michael Z. 2005-10-21 13:02 Z 

What other methods would those who disagree with this test use for testing the frequency or commonness of any particular usage? Nohat 03:34, 2004 Apr 22 (UTC)


 * This, to me, shows very clearly that Kiev is the form most often used to refer to the city in English. Thus that is the form we should use minus any ambiguity (there is none) or unreasonable offensiveness (that point is highly debatable). Maybe in a few years the Ukrainian government will be rewarded for their efforts by changing the English language to conform to their spelling (It's already happened with the PRC's capital and several other examples). But we should not lead that charge - just follow along if and when Kyiv surpasses Kiev. --mav 04:28, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think we (quite rightly) moved on to a general discussion. Isn't the problem that we have no standardized convention how to determine popularity. Maybe we should establish that (for example) if both Google and Yahoo agree by a clear margin, then we should go with that? We should also define the parameters (e.g. only inlude English pages; I'm not sure GoogleFight does this...).

Oh, and when we change the spelling because the popularity is different, we must leave a note on the talk pages so that everyone knows what's going on. Also, changing a spelling means updating text, not only moving an article. Kokiri 10:15, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Well duh. I'm stunned. Did anyone really think that a survey of the various search engines, which all basically search the same info, would turn up dramatically different results. Google can be suggestive, but I strongly disagree that it should be regarded as the authoritative deciding factor. Bkonrad | Talk 11:22, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a fan of the Google test, but we need some kind of convention. Otherwise we'll have this discussion time and time again. Kokiri 13:04, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC) P.S. can we move this discussion to somewhere else ?


 * There is one section in the naming conventions that tells us what to do: The Wikipedia is not a place to advocate a title change in order to reflect recent scholarship. The articles themselves reflect recent scholarship but the titles should represent common usage. This is pretty clear. However, the same page tells us that: Also, some terms are in common usage but are commonly regarded as offensive to large groups of people (Eskimo, Black American and Mormon Church, for example). Now what has priority?


 * If we don't agree with the convention, we should suggest changes at the talk page. Kokiri 13:36, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

1. Some say that Kiev is an English word. Since when and for how long? English writter Joseph Marshall that visited city called him Kiovia in his book in English language, year 1770. Communist Soviet Union had rule that all names should be written trough Russian form internationaly, like Tallin (not Estonian Tallinn), Kishinev (not moldovan Chisinau) and Kiev (not Ukrainian Kyiv). Communism colapsed and today native form are prefered as seen on British Embassy site in Kyiv. So I just wanted to show that Kiev is not English "standard" word for city during all times and for all-times (like Peking/Beijing case).


 * I have written before on the criterion for whether a word is an English word. I have proposed a three-part test: Does the word occur in English texts with any regularity? Is it listed in any major English dictionaries? Is the word used by people who don't speak the foreign language? Kiev meets all three of these criteria, and one could therefore make the claim it's an English word. I will grant these are criteria that I have invented, but I think they are reasonable in that they are necessary and sufficient to qualify if a word is an English word or not. "Kiev" occurs in the Merriam-Webster dictionary and the American Heritage Dictionary. The Oxford English Dictionary doesn't have an entry for "Kiev"; however, it does have a quotation from 1883 using the spelling "Kiev": MORFILL Slavonic Lit. iii. 49 Kiev..was the first seat of the Russian nationality. Nohat 01:34, 2004 Apr 23 (UTC)


 * Also, I forgot to mention that Wikipedia is not paper, and if the predominant spelling becomes "Kyiv" (which it very well may), then we should change the spelling. But right now, the most common spelling is "Kiev". Nohat 01:38, 2004 Apr 23 (UTC)

2. As for Google counting method, there are other similar cases where present day native names are still less popular in English web BUT ARE USED ON WIKIPEDIA. Google English pages - Ho Chi Minh City 624,000 / Saigon 749,000 ,Gdansk 272,000 / Danzig 280,000 ,Kolkata305,000 / Calcutta 940,000, Guangzhou 628,000 / Canton 3,070,000, Côte d'Ivoire 742,000 / Ivory Coast 2,580,000 and I don-t see them removed to "English web prefered name" rule.


 * First, I would say that the results of this kind of Google test are only valid where there is a clear majority for one spelling. That is, if the difference in quantity of results is less than say 50%, then this test is not showing a clear preference for any, but that there there are two spellings or names that are in approximately equal distribution. In these cases some other criterion has to be used to determine which spelling or name to use. This appears to be the case for Gdansk/Danzig and Ho Chi Minh City/Saigon. Let's look at the other examples individually:
 * Kolkata/Calcutta: I already argued above that Kolkata should probably be moved back to Calcutta, but the difference is about 3 to 1, which is much less than for Kiev/Kyiv.
 * Guangzhou/Canton: Unfortunately, "Canton" is an English name used in many instances not to refer to the Chinese province. In fact, not one of the first 30 results on Google have anything to do with the Chinese province. If, however, you do a search for pages containing "Canton" and the word "China", then all of the first 30 results are about the Chinese province. If you compare to a search for pages containing "Guangzhou" and the word "China", you find that the results come out in favor of Guangzhou (but not by much) . This case then becomes like the others, where some other criterion has to be used.
 * Côte d'Ivoire/Ivory Coast: Here, if you adjust the search to search for both "Côte d'Ivoire" AND "Cote d'Ivoire" (without the circumflex on the 'o'), the results come out in favor of "Côte d'Ivoire": , in fact by a substantial margin: 2,200,000 + 1,530,000 = 3,730,000 vs 2,460,000
 * Therefore, these examples don't show what you claim they show. Nohat 01:34, 2004 Apr 23 (UTC)

3. I have already given my suggestion how to resolve conflict :

From what I have seen on Wikipedia "anglicized forms" that reflect names from (mostly) colonial times are redirected to "native or official forms" (in English or Roman alphabeth). In cases where anglicized forms are not similar/identical to (or taken from) languages of foreign rule period there is no problem (Rome, Munich, Copenhagen, Turin, Prague, Lisbon, Moscow, Athens etc... ). Not foreign/colonial but official/native forms are used for Gdansk/Danzig, Mumbai/Bombay, Kolkata/Calcutta,Guangzhou/Canton. Traditional english (and western) Peking is also redirected to official form Beijing. Also some governments don't want names of their countries to be translated to other language like Côte d'Ivoire, so Ivory Coast is also redirected to main page named by offical version in French..Official (new) names also - Belarus/White Russia or Byelorussia Myanmar/Burma. United Nations also promote native/offical forms, so my proposition is to add paragraph in Naming_conventions_(use_English): " If country's government has adopted decraration on how its native names should be written in English or internationaly then these forms should be used for main page and other forms should redirect to them." +Naming conventions (city names) --Inhvar 00:39, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * If you want to wage a campaign to change Wikipedia policy, please feel free to do so, but do it on the talk page for the policy. This is not the place. However, until the policy is changed, we must follow the policies that do exist. The current policy says "Use the most common name", and the evidence points overwhelmingly in favor of "Kiev" being the most common name. Nohat 01:34, 2004 Apr 23 (UTC)

See also Nohat 05:05, 2004 Apr 23 (UTC)

Archived from the village pump
We could use some more voices in the discussion currently at talk:Kiev. It's been argued that "Kiev" is appropriate because it returns more google hits, but that (Soviet-imposed) spelling is offensive to many Ukrainians. The Government of Ukraine has formally requested that their capitol be spelled "Kyiv" in English; a request that has been honored by the UN and the US State Department. While google hit counts are useful in many cases, I don't feel that we should allow them to enslave us when other important factors are involved. There is precedent for correctness overruling hit count, e.g. with Gdansk/Danzig and Mumbai/Bombay. Please chime in at talk:Kiev so we can reach a consensus one way or the other and get the article unprotected. Mkweise 17:28, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This issue seems to come up a lot. The "official" name is different than what everyone else calls it. Consider Mumbia vs Bombay, Kiev vs Kyiv, Makkah vs Mecca. I think we need to be consistent, and I think we need an official policy on this. &rarr;Raul654 17:36, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * A general policy will be more complicated than you might at first think. Consider for example Burma versus Myanmar, where there is significant doubt that the government edict is supported by the people. Wikipedia currently sides with the military government and the UN, and against the US government, the more common English usage and (probably) the people of the country. I don't think that's too strong a statement, and while obviously this decision is POV either way we need to jump one way or the other. Andrewa 19:27, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * For the record (and in case this comes up again), we already have a rule on the books for this - "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." (Naming conventions). &rarr;Raul654 19:31, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, that settles it, simply, clearly and unambiguously, in favor of Burma, Kiev, and Mecca. Danzig/Gdansk (keeping consistently to alphabetical order) is an interesting one: it's not so much figuring out what the average reader will recognize as making sure that the reader will realize that they're the same place. This is due, of course, to Lech Walesa and associates, who made Gdansk real to people all over the world who had neither known the history of the place nor very much cared. The moral: as Scoop Nisker used to say, if you don't like what's in the news, go make some of your own. Dandrake 00:37, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * It certainly will come up again. For the present, I think 'Kiev' is overploweringly more recognizable, and I'd never even heard of 'Kyiv' until reading this section.  But as long as we have redirects and have sufficient explanation in articles that use the names, we ought to be able to go by our own policy and not be too far afield.  ;Bear 20:40, 2004 Apr 11 (UTC)

Agreed with keeping Kiev. Many, if not places are different in English to their local name (think Munich vs Munchen). However, Myanmar is the accepted name for Burma now in the same way that Sri Lanka replaced Ceylon, and most up to date English reference materials seem to refer to Myanmar rather than Burma. Dainamo 11:18, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * "Myanmar" is most certainly not "the accepted name for Burma now in the same way that Sri Lanka replaced Ceylon." Ceylon was changed to Sri Lanka by a democratically elected government. Burma was renamed "Myanmar" by a gang of murderous thugs who have hijacked the country so they can loot it. The elected leader of Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi, opposes the change, which is why the governments of the US and Australia don't recognise it. If gangsters kidnapped your children and renamed them, would you recognise the new names? Adam 03:19, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Of course, one thing that makes Burma/Myanmar different to the rest is that they are completely seperate names, not merely alternative renderings. Even Danzig/Gdansk and Cologne/Köln are clearly variations on the same basic name, and there is therefore more scope for arguing that one of them is the "English version". Not that this rule can be applied universally either - Deutschland/Germany, for example... - IMSoP 14:57, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ending this discussion once and for all
Just to end this debate once and for all, I declare Naming policy poll open for buisness. Everyone please vote there. &rarr;Raul654 04:17, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

If -- when the China declared that Peking was now Beijing, and the world accepted -- what is the problem with accepting, with respect, KYIV? The Russian name for the city was used all these years because Ukraine was a colony, a subjugated part of the Russian/Soviet empire, and the language, culture, history and everything else was perverted. At one time the language was even forbideen (Ems Ukaz). Now that the country is free, and still struggling to reclaim its identity and life (empires are so hard to lose), respect and let the people have their own geographical names, transliterated into English from the UKRAINIAN language. Lviv, Dnipro, Dnister, Kyiv. Why should this be such a difficult thing? Sri Lanka, Beijing.... you can learn, and respect.


 * OK, the argument that Kiev is somehow more "Russian" than Kyiv is specious. Russian uses Cyrillic letter. "Kiev" is written in Latin letters. Therefore "Kiev" is not Russian. Nohat 15:35, 2004 Apr 24 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that's incorrect. "Kiev" reflects the Russian pronunciation. Crculver 19:07, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * No, it reflects the English pronunciation. The fact that originally the English pronunciation was borrowed from Russian is irrelevant and disputable. The name "Korea", for example, comes from the name Goryeo, which hasn't been used since 1394. The local name has changed, but the English name remains "Korea". The same is with Kiev. The Russians were in charge when English borrowed the name, and they're not in charge any more, but Ukrainians have no more say over what name English speakers use for their cities than the Koreans, the Italians, or the Germans do. Nohat 19:48, 2004 Apr 25 (UTC)


 * My point is not that the Ukrainians can't tell English-speakers what to say. They can and they will. My point is two-fold. First, just because someone announces a name is changed doesn't mean that everyone is going to suddenly fall into line and use the new name, and critically Wikipedia has no responsibility to obey the requests of foreign governments or whoever on what our articles should say. Our articles' names should reflect the most commonly used name in English. If Kyiv becomes more common than Kiev, then we'll change, but until it does, Wikipedia will be doing a disservice to its readers if it uses the spelling Kyiv, not only because people will be less likely to identify what "Kyiv" is, but because by using the new spelling Wikipedia will be implicitly endorsing the "official" spelling, which is clearly a violation of NPOV. Nohat 19:58, 2004 Apr 25 (UTC)


 * In any event, "Kyiv" is now more common than "Kiev" in guidebooks and wire-services. That's why I favour using it, not just because a foreign government insists on it. BTW, you aren't going to end this for once and for all, because there are multitudes of English-speaking Ukrainians who will fight as long as they have to, because the perception of their cultural and national independence is at stake. (However, please note that I am not Ukrainian, merely a person whose interest in Eastern European language politics brought him here.) Crculver 20:11, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * If the poll should end in favor of keeping policy as it is, then this article is going to be switched over to Kiev. Anyone persists in reverting it then will be treated like a vandal - in particular, I'm speaking of the anon who has reverted this article several times. &rarr;Raul654 20:17, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * Kiev, however, is still most common overall. Both AP and Reuters seem to use "Kiev". They are the biggest and most importnant wire services AFAIK. AP story Reuters story. For Wikipedia to rely on an external source as an authority on names would be tantamount to accepting the POV of the name authority, which is a violation of NPOV policy. Nohat 20:38, 2004 Apr 25 (UTC)


 * And so it goes. As someone suggested earlier, we can use "Kiev" to reflect what we see as the most common spelling, using the highly imperfect guidance of Google and in the process piss off a bunch of natives. Or we can use "Kyiv" which NO ONE HAS REALLY DEMONSTRATED HOW THIS SPELLING WILL IN ANY WAY ADVERSELY AFFECT THE MAJORITY OF ENGLISH SPEAKERS and and the same time keep the natives happy. Seems an easy choice to me, but I guess I'm just an easy-going guy. I don't see much point in pissing people off if you don't have to (sometimes it is unavoidable, but in this case I think not). older &ne; wiser 20:21, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Very simply put - if someone looking for information on "Kiev", it is entirely possible (even likely) that if they find an article on "Kyiv" they'll simply ignore it thinking it's something different. I'm much more willing to piss a few people by spelling it the common way that to compromise the integrity of wikipedia in the process. &rarr;Raul654 20:55, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * That is such a phony reason. We redirect all the time and if anyone is confused after reading the first sentence, then they are probably incapable of understanding anything in an encyclopedia. There is no loss of integrity. That is a bogus and lame excuse. older &ne; wiser 20:59, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * The other problem is that it creates a precedent of obeying the wishes of a small group against the demonstrated wishes of a larger group. If the government of Kerplatchistan decides that henceforth its English name shall be "Supremia", we wouldn't remove all references to Kerplatchistan and replace them with Supremia. But if we change Kiev to Kyiv, then we really wouldn't have any reasonable argument to say no. Nohat 20:59, 2004 Apr 25 (UTC)
 * I have two problems with what you write. 1) "the demonstrated wishes of a larger group" - demonstrated? how?, through Google? This goes back to the REAL issue with the vote currently underway, which is that there isn't any foolproof way to gauge usage. But even so, to say that usage reflects "wishes" is vastly overstating things. If you said "demonstrated the usage of a larger group", we might have something to talk about. Most people using Kiev or any of the other controversial terms are probably completely unaware of any controversy over the name and so to say their continued usage represents "wishes" rather than simply habit is misleading. 2) If the government of some place officially changes its name and it is so recognized by international organizations like the UN and the embassies of other nations, then YES, I would hope that Wikipedia would indeed reflect that change. It's called keeping up with the times. Of course, the old names should still be mentioned and redirect to the new name. older &ne; wiser 21:11, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * "The times" is what your average Joe on the street calls it, not what the government or the UN calls it. It is not our place to help foster change, for the same reason the major news orgainizations don't do it either (see above). &rarr;Raul654 21:15, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

"Most people using Kiev or any of the other controversial terms are probably completely unaware of any controversy". Exactly, and their don't wish to know anything about the controversy or have to learn a new spelling. I want to be clear that I'm happy to keep up with the times, and as the post below indicates, more and more people are using Kyiv. But for now, "Kiev" still outnumbers "Kyiv" by a ratio of more than 5 to 1. When that gets to less than 2 to 1, then I'll be willing to entertaining proposals to change it to Kyiv. Until then, the vast majority of usage is "Kiev", and we should reflect that.Nohat 21:35, 2004 Apr 25 (UTC)


 * outnumbers "Kyiv" by a ratio of more than 5 to 1.  using the highly imperfect Google method I assume, which IIRC is not official policy. An encyclopedia is about knowledge, not about reinforcing people's lazy habits. It the official name of a place in English is X (and it is recognized as such by international entities such as the UN and the embassies of other nations), then Wikipedia whould refer to it as X and not Y. older &ne; wiser 21:51, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Incorrect - the google test is an accepted way of gauaging popularity. &rarr;Raul654 21:56, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * It should be stressed that none of these applications is conclusive evidence I.e., it is not the definitive method, only suggestive. older &ne; wiser 22:10, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

U.S. embassy is starting to use Kyiv spelling
I just noticed that the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv is starting to use that spelling. . It hasn't moved the DNS spelling for the site yet and it doesn't look like it has filtered up to the State Dept. yet though. older ≠ wiser 21:23, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

More on Unreliability of Google Test
OK, here some more evidence why we cannot rely on the Google Test as being the definitive test for naming disputes.


 * Currently I get 3,730,000 hits for "Kiev" without modification.
 * I noticed that many of these hits were actually about a model of camera. So if I add the qualifier -camera to the search I get 1,800,000 hits.
 * And what about the open source computer language compiler? If I add -compiler we are down to 1,720,000 hits
 * This is a ratio of just a bit more than 3 to 1 over Kyiv, with 509,000 hits

I don't think the evidence, even using this unreliable method, is quite so overwhelming anymore. older ≠ wiser 16:32, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

An addendum: Another reason I do not think the Google Test is appropriate as the definitive test for "current" usage is that Google also indexes a vast amount of historical documents. So the hit counts can not be taken to accurately represent current usage only, but rather a blending of current and historical usage. older ≠ wiser 16:38, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If you apply the same restrictions to your search for "Kyiv", you only get 300,000 hits, and the resulting ratio is 5.7 to 1. Nohat 16:48, 2004 Apr 26 (UTC)

Unprotected (for my birthday)
I just turned 45 years old, and to celebrate I thought I'd remove "protection" from the Kiev and Kyiv articles :-) --Uncle Ed 21:35, 6 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Just read with amusement almost the whole discussion on the spelling. My special interest stems from the fact that I was born in Kiev (and keep coming back often, while not living there anymore). I have a question to those who imagine that by using the traditional spelling, i.e. 'Kiev', you offend the local population:


 * Exactly what makes you think so?


 * The Ukrainian government is unable (OK, almost unable) to improve the people's living standards (and whatever improvements do come, for the most part, come despite the government's efforts and not thanks to them). So they resort to the well-known practice: Search for the culprits. An external enemy, is, for obvious reasons, the best possible culprit. In this particular situation, again quite obviously, Russia is by far the best candidate. So the government keeps whining about how Ukraine was colonized, tortured, raped, you name it. Makes a perfect excuse for just anything.


 * Granted, there were prolonged time periods when Russia did not exactly promote the Ukrainian cause. As well as periods when it did (but the whiners prefer not to recall this, because that just doesn't fit their model). That's not the point, however. Even if the enemy did not exist, it would have to be invented.


 * Now what do you do when you are unable to do anything for real? Well, repainting the signs is not such a bad idea: Signs are quite visible, after all. Hence all these linguistic discoveries, and ensuing "requests" to English speakers on how they should use their language. As already noted here, imagine Great Britain (or the US, or France, or Italy, or any other country for that matter) teaching Spain or Portugal how to write in Spanish or Portuguese. Or - for those who know - imagine Russia teaching Ukraine how to write Ukrainian. (For those who don't, Ukraine has, sure enough, done that to Russia - on the question of how to spell the name of the Ukrainian currency in Russian.)


 * Anyway, the point of this long discourse is that it is with the government, not the people, that the linguistic initiative originates. The people, unfortunately, tend to "go with the flow" without thinking too much. True, there are quite a few natives who regard the spelling of Kiev as offending. Guess what! - there are a few others (yours truly being one of them) who regard anything but "Kiev" as utterly inappropriate. No referendum has, to the best of my knowledge, been conducted in the city to find out what most people prefer. Lacking that, there is no ground under the statement that "using 'Kiev' offends the locals".


 * Finally, somehow it has never been mentioned here that "Kiev" is not the transliteration from Russian of the city's name. That would be "Kiyev" (cf. Yevtushenko, the well-known poet). Sure enough, "Kiev" is closer to the Russian version than to the Ukrainian one. So what? The Russian name "Nizza" actually coincides with the Italian name of that city, not the French one (Nice). When was the last time we heard the French complaining?


 * Guess my point is clear by now... let the alternative spelling(s) be there, but let's not change things that don't need to be changed. I.e., let's call Kiev by its proper English name.


 * SMashkevich 23:58, 6 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I think it doesn't matter that much what's "proper", but what people use. We're here to report, not dictate.  If in five years Kyiv becomes more common, then we should switch to using Kyiv, and mention Kiev as the former name.  As it stands, Kiev is quite a bit more common in English still.  And not only in informal usage: the major news sources all still use Kiev (see news.bbc.co.uk for just one example of many). --Delirium 10:00, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * And major news sources (including news.bbc.co.uk) routinely say The Ukraine instead of plain Ukraine. The thing is, people knowledgeable enough about Kyiv-related articles to do major edits on them would be used to the current trend of using the form "Kyiv" (in academia, etc.) and would be tempted to "correct" any instance of "Kiev". I actually think "Kiev" is a perfectly acceptable name for the city during the times of the Rus' principalities, and even perhaps for the Soviet period. But in recognition that it is now the capital of an independent Ukrainian state, "Kyiv" should be the form to use for the city. So I would prefer the article to be at "Kyiv", but I recognise that many people are not even aware of this form.


 * The problem though, is that this question is not only about English language usage. I don't know how many of you realise that for many languages that do not use the latin alphabet (including my native Korean), the lesser known place names are often transliterated indirectly, from the English form. Even in languages that use the latin alphabet, say Finnish, if there is no established spelling for a place name in that language, the English spelling would be used. In Korean, the city is still called "&#53412;&#50696;&#54532;", as in Russian, and not "&#53412;&#51060;&#48652;" or "&#53412;&#51060;&#50864;" as in Ukrainian, mostly because the common English form is "Kiev" not "Kyiv". However, the Belarusian form "&#48296;&#46972;&#47336;&#49828;" is being used more and more for "Belarus" instead of the Russian form "&#48296;&#47196;&#47336;&#49884;", because "Belarus" has become the internationally accepted English spelling for the name of that country.


 * Because of the international status of the English language, the impact of which English spelling is widely chosen is quite huge. All this is to say that there is a reason various governments want to set official English spellings for city names, country names, etc. I see that Nohat keeps on saying that they have no authority to tell people how to spell words in English, asking at one point, "You don't see Americans telling Japanese people how to spell English words in Japanese do you?". It is simply not the same thing. The way the Japanese spell the name of an American city would not affect the way the entire world spells the same name. The Ukrainians are trying to establish a standard name internationally for their capital. Remember that in modern times, not counting a brief period in the 1920s, Kyiv has been the capital of an independent political entity for just a bit over a decade. It is still establishing itself as an important capital internationally, and is therefore promoting the name fitting the capital of an independent Ukrainian nation (not a component republic of the Russian-dominated USSR). To continue to use the outdated form to refer to today's city, defying this effort, seems almost perverse. Iceager 16 May, 2004

Well, IMHO this is a big discussion about really nothing in substance. The real purpose of Wikipedia is to give people insight about things and concepts they may come across of. Therefore the article should use the most commonly used name, but state here that there are some other versions of the same geographic name out there. Let’s name the page “Kiev (aka Kyiv)” and give a short paragraph about the different versions of naming. This could be used as a standard for most of the geographic articles as pretty much every geographic name has multiple versions to it. In fact IT DOES NOT MATTER which name we use a primary -- as soon as there are shortcuts and people are able to find what they are looking for.

Also about argument of local usage – this is English version of Wikipedia, therefore I believe we should use the names that were historically adopted in English: Germany rather than Deuchland, Moscow rather than Moskvah etc., while still offering readers other versions of spelling and have a short paragraph on their historical and cultural context. The same would be absolutely true about places like Bombei/Mumbai, Beijing/Peking, Calcutta/Kolkata and many others. And I guess we should suggest some changes to naming policy as the Google test not always work.

And last but not least – as someone who lived most of my life in Kiev, I would say that even local population uses both versions commonly. I published the text of that “Resolution of the Ukrainian commission for legal terminology” at my UA Zone web site long time ago as an example of how laughable could be an attempt of some local government to establish spelling standards in foreign language. In fact if Americans would try to tell us Ukrainians how we should spell the names of American cities in Ukrainian we would be insulted. --Uazone 07:28, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC) (Uazone)


 * No offense, but you're about 6 weeks too late - this argument has been settled for a long time. See Naming policy poll. &rarr;Raul654 07:30, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

One more note
I know the debate is settled, but just a thought...

If it's Gdansk today, it's Gdansk because it's a predominantly Polish city. To speak of Gdansk prior to 1945 is historically inaccurate in every way.


 * Comment. Indeed. And, therefore, in the history section about Gdansk it would (presumably) be correct to refer to Danzig instead.  Course, this is an issue being fought out at this very moment at Gdansk, I have no doubt... PaulHammond 16:51, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Now, with respect to the capital of (the) Ukraine. The fact that both Russia and Ukraine trace their history to Kievan Rus is a fact. It cannot be denied. It is correct in precisely the same way as to trace the both history of Austria and Hungary to the Austro-Hungarian empire. And yes, both Kievan Rus and the Austro-Hungarian empire have dates a statu condito.


 * Comment. Not true. Since early 1990s, Russian historians (even more conservative historians) have linked "Great Russian" origins to Novgorod, and moved away from Kiev. yakym Jan 22, 2006 (UTC)

Now: it remains a painful question for nationalists of both sides, but... the modern Ukrainian orthography was established in the nineteenth century. Prior to that, Ukrainian was an archaic one that preserved the old letter yat, usually latinized to ě. Which developed phonetically in different ways between Russian and Ukrainian. Thus Kiev was spelled something like Кіīьвъ, latinized Kiěv, in both languages (forgive the yat-approximation, it's not in the standard 8-bit encodings). And please don't tell me that's a Russian spelling. Remember: under the Russian Empire, written Ukrainian was not exactly encouraged. It's the Galicians, the Ukrainians under Austria-Hungary, who used that spelling in their newspapers and books.

The entire discussion could have been put on hold, if people's peculiar members were not forever engorged, by simply using the spelling Kiěv. I'm sure the intricacies of both the Ukrainian and the Russian vowels are irrelevant to reproduce exactly in English.

Be still, my throbbing tool.


 * I found my yat. Is the old spelling &#1050;&#1110;&#1123;&#1074;&#1098;?  &mdash;Michael Z. 01:32, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)


 * I applaud your search for peace and non-throbbingness, but I think this argument is circular (and literally academic).


 * Anyway, I believe &#1050;&#1110;&#1123;&#1074;&#1098; would be transliterated ki&#283;v&#468;. &mdash;Michael Z. 10:56, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)


 * As you point out, the letter Yat (or jat') ended up phonetically different in Ukrainian ("yi" or "i") and Russian ("ye"). Many would argue that the modern Ukrainian is closer to the ancient roots than modern Russian.  The scientific transliteration "&#283;" for Yat, codified in Prussia in the 1890s in Preußische Instruktionen,  was chosen on the basis of the Imperial Russian language, and its derivative ISO 9 (1986) transliteration influenced by the predominance of Russian in the Soviet Union.  In academic work, transliteration isn't always "internationalized", so &#1050;&#1110;&#1123;&#1074;&#1098; in a Ukrainian-language source might be rendered as "Kiïv", anyway.  In any case, the language of ancient Rus' is irrelevant to this question.


 * Diacritics or not, transliterated in the 19th or 21st centuries, "Kiev" is Russian. It's not an English word like "Moscow" or "Florence", it's a historically common transliteration of the city's name from Russian into English.  "Kyiv" is a conventional transliteration of the name from Ukrainian.  Danzig and Gdansk/Gda&#324;sk is a good parallel, although the source languages are more disparate.


 * "Kiev" is currently used for the heading in Wikipedia because of the popularity of this transliteration's usage in English. Let's not pretend that it's because the word is English, or "international", or "historically Ukrainian", none of which is true anyway.


 * &mdash;Michael Z. 22:26, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

Out-of-date naming conventions
I'm bringing this up again, because the current convention is wrong. If "most people" started spelling plural's with apostrophe's, would Wikipedia do it too?

All authorities are switching to using official spellings, like "Kyiv": anglophone diplomatic missions, atlases and dictionaries. By its nature, Wikipedia should be ahead of the curve, instead of bringing up the rear. This situation is just sad.

&mdash;Michael Z. 17:45, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia reflects usage, it does not try to influence it. Anything else is POV, and thus against policy. Anyway, this has been discussed extensively in the past, and bringing it up yet again is unlikely to change anyone's opinion. Proteus (Talk) 18:31, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree, Proteus; I think opinions can change over time.


 * but you are right that as an on-line encyclopedia, Wikipedia should reflect usage, and that is exactly my point. As an authority, it should reflect current correct usage.  Brontosaurus redirects to the correct term in palaeontology, Apatosaurus, even though "most people" know exactly what Brontosaurus is and have never heard of Apatosaurus.  Likewise "Kiev" should redirect to "Kyiv", the name currently used by the U.N., by Ukrainians, by other countries when dealing with Ukraine, in academia, and found in new atlases.


 * Oh, no again, please please please... Dr Bug (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 08:46, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I echo that sentiment. This has be beaten to death and way, way beyond. &rarr;Raul654 17:58, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Michael Z.: the rationale for the current policy can be found at Naming policy poll/FAQ. The current policy was decided on by a poll, and I would highly recommend against contesting it. If you want to change hearts and minds to your POV on what the policy should be, then you'll have to respond to all the points made on that page in an appropriate place. Nohat 23:01, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)