Talk:Kyiv/naming/Archive 2

Please check the past discussions of the issue before raising it!
I would like to suggest that users who want to raise this completely legitimate issue in the talk pages make sure to read a couple of previous discussions on this. They occurred at this talk page, also some are archived with the link at the very top. A couple of other talk pages where similar discussion took place relatively recently are: Talk:National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, Talk:History of Christianity in Ukraine, Talk:Ukraine,Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ukrainian subdivisions (chapter On WP naming conventions and on). Please don't bring havoc to those pages by responding everywhere. Also, please exercise some restraint also here. Once I already suggested to create an article entitled something like Spellings of the Name of the Capital of Ukraine. The article would be devoted to how the city name was written, particularly in English, and why. It could also say about introduction of Kyiv spelling and how well (or badly) it succeeds. Its talk page Talk:Spellings of the Name of the Capital of Ukraine would relieve all other talk pages from this topic and, possibly, allow to reach some conclusion. We do need a conclusion. Opinions of the editors are strong and different and the WP needs consistency. If someone can write such an article, I would try my best to help. -Irpen 23:12, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * The arguments for using Kiev and Kyiv are both unasaillable. Kiev remains the article title because it's the most-used in English, which has been reinforced by a large Wikipedia poll.  Kyiv shouldn't be characterized as succeeding or failing; its nature and usage should merely be documented.


 * Because of the changing nature of language usage, and because of the simple impracitability of new users' becoming familiar with all the previous discussion, I don't think we'll ever reach a conclusion (although such an article may limit the debate). Complete consistency is unlikely, and I would say undesirable.  Look at the usage of Kharkiv/Kharkov, Dnieper/Dniepr/Dnepr/Dnipro, Vladimir/Volodymyr, Khmelnytsky/Chmielnitsky, etc., on Wikipedia.  The use of each of these is appropriate in some places, and debatable in most of those.


 * The nature of the beast will continue to be fluid. We'll keep discussing these issues.  But Wikipedia has great tracts of fallow fields, so for now let's try to focus more of our energy on writing good new material than on batting back and forth the finer points of particular names.  &mdash;Michael Z. 2005-06-4 07:25 Z 

However impractical it is for the users who want to dive into this topic to read EVERYTHING said on this previously, it is desirable that they read at least some of the previous discussions. We recently had several examples of, probably good willing but gullible, editors who just discovered how easy it is to edit the WP and just rushed into this "obvious" correcting. It only caused disruption and time of other editors that could be better spent on other improvements than on "calm down" calls and repetitive arguments. A separate article would not only limit the debate to a single place, but if well written, would help steer the debate by presenting some authoritative sources of information. The main problem is how to write it. Personally, I have no idea even where to start.

Consistency does not necessarily mean the universal usage everywhere in WP. A context dependent rule like Gdansk/Danzig is also a consistency. Now, personally I think that unlike Kharkov/Kharkiv (the former established in WW2 literature, the latter established in today's media) and Gdansk/Danzig there is no context to use Kyiv as the main name in most if not all articles, while introducing it in parentheses next to Kiev is often desirable, as I did before. But again, this is just my opinion and I am open to reaching a consensus which can be done only through a serious research and good will of all participants. The majority of those involved into this do have such a good will and a rule seems reachable to me. On the other hand, I simply don't see any positive side in what was happening recently is several Ukrainian related pages zealously edited towards so called "pro-Ukrainian" POV. They ended up restored to earlier versions already achieved through a long compromise. While a separate article does not exist yet, at least getting familiar with the debate beforing entering it would be a good thing to do. I would very much like to find a productive way to avoid such disruption, not to limit this legitimate debate. -Irpen 18:12, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

November 2004 Media usage review
I just wanted to note that, six months on from the debate, the spelling "Kyiv" has gained little if any ground. Kiev has been in the news lately, and I wanted to see how prevalent the new spelling was in the major English-language mass media. Results:

American newsmedia

 * CNN uses 'Kiev'
 * The New York Times uses 'Kiev'
 * MSNBC uses 'Kiev'
 * The Washington Post uses 'Kiev'
 * Also CBS News, Bloomberg, Reuters all use 'Kiev'

British newsmedia

 * BBC News uses 'Kiev'
 * The Guardian uses 'Kiev'

Other English-language newsmedia

 * The Globe and Mail (Canada) uses 'Kiev'
 * The Times of India uses 'Kiev'
 * International Herald Tribune uses 'Kiev'
 * The Australian uses 'Kiev'

Indeed, the use of 'Kyiv' seems limited to CBC News, Radio Free Europe of the Czech Republic, Interfax of Russia, The Kyiv Post, and a handful of other minor players in the English-language newsmedia. CBC News is probably the most significant of the bunch, and the impact of their decision should be monitored. I note, however, that they are inconsistent. Google searches of cbc.ca shows 300 hits for "Kyiv" and 150 hits for "Kiev", giving the new spelling only a 2:1 majority.  

In a search on Google News (which archives only current news stories), a search for "Kiev" revealed 7,350 results, and a search for "Kyiv" revelaed only 683 results, giving a ratio of more than 10 to 1 in favor of 'Kiev'.

Conclusion: The tide of change in favor of the spelling 'Kyiv' has not budged in English-language newsmedia over the course of 6 months. However, we should continue to monitor the change to see if use of 'Kyiv' by relatively minor players in the market has any impact. The current world standing of Ukraine-related news should have an accelerating effect on any trends that may be afoot. I will revisit these results in a month or two. Nohat 18:11, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Christian Science Monitor recently published an editorial on the use of Kyiv in journalism. Interesting perspective, but the writer is confused about the sound of the Ukrainian letter &#1048;. &mdash;Michael Z. 17:08, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)
 * Why we're still chicken on 'Kyiv', Ruth Walker, 2004-12-09.


 * Update February 23, 2005: Kiev still has a more than 10 to 1 lead over Kyiv  at Google News. (4310 to 394 hits). Google web hits have a smaller proportional advantage for "Kiev +Ukraine" vs "Kyiv +Ukraine" at 4.6 to 1 (2880000 to 621000 hits), but still a commanding lead. Nohat 02:48, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * March 2005: Kiev is this year's host of the Eurovision Song Contest. Their site,, their liturature, and the official posters for the event use Kiev not Kyiv. Dmn / &#1332;&#1396;&#1398; 15:17, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

''In April 2005, it was announced that the official host city of the 2005 Eurovision Song Contest was to be known as Kyiv, not Kiev. Previously, it was being advertised as "Kiev 2005", but is now being advertised as "Kyiv 2005".''


 * April 2005: With regards to the above comment about Eurovision Song Contest, their site, after consultation with many bodies including the European Broadcasting Union, has been changed to use Kyiv instead of Kiev. I personally support a move to show the article as Kyiv, with Kiev being used as a redirect. jw 00:40, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Surely you don't expect the policy to be changed on the basis of the Eurovision Song Contest's choice of spelling, do you? Nohat 01:48, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course not, no. The point I was trying to get across is that if one of the largest musical events in Europe have changed from Kiev to Kyiv, then it shows that Kyiv is becoming the more widely accepted name. jw 01:46, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How to introduce Kiev/Kyiv spellings in the intro
There is much said elswhere not only about titling the article but also about usage, so I will not go into this now. Most who have interest in this have already heard each other. If anyone is new to this discussion, leave me a message at my talk page and I will give references to earlier discussions. Now, to the issue at hand, which is how to start the article and introduce both names in the beginning. After my last change the article starts as follows:
 * Kiev (&#1050;&#1080;&#1077;&#1074;, Kiev), also Kyiv, is the capital and largest city of Ukraine...

Two issues were subject to editing recently: If anon or others disagree, please raise your objections at this page. Irpen 21:46, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1. Why would the Russian version be there just next to Ukrainian, and why then not put also other versions inserted by anon (Czech, Polish, Finnish, etc.)? There are several reasons for that. One: Russian version happen to coinside with conventional English spelling. Whether the latter was simply derived from the former or whether it was derived from older historical spellings is a matter of debate, but the fact is still noteworthy. Two: Kiev for the most of the last 350 years or so was a part of the Russian Empire or the Soviet Union which called it &#1050;&#1080;&#1077;&#1074; Three: one may argue what percentage of Kievans consider Russian their first mother tongue and the estimates vary between one third and three quaters (my personal opinion is that it is closer to the second number but never mind this), but in this range it is significant anyway and it also increases the relevance of the Russian name. This above is not about whether to call the town Kiev or Kyiv (which is more or less agreed). This is about whether to mention or not &#1050;&#1080;&#1077;&#1074; right next to &#1050;&#1080;&#1111;&#1074;.
 * 2. How do we introduce "Kyiv" spelling to the reader for the first time? I changed. "Kiev or Kyiv..." to "Kiev, also Kyiv, ..." because the latter variant seems to better reflect the reality. Kyiv has become an alternative English spelling, but still used rather infrequently in English media, with Canadian Broadcasting Corp. being so far the only major player who uses it. So, "also" seems to reflect this better than "or".

More about Kyiv-Kiev
Indeed, "many cities have different names in English than in their native language, such as Moscow and Warsaw." But let's try not to forget that they came to English language directly. English-speaking travellers/researchers heard these names directly from the native-speakers of those lands and then simplified/changed them according to the phonetic rules/habits of their language/pronunciation. So, here we can observe a direct connection between the original name in the native language and its interpretation in English. Another example is London. In French it is Londres, in Latin it was called Londinium. But again it was a direct transfer of the name from one language to the other, without any "mediators". However, the situation with Kyiv is different. Native population of Ukraine spoke and still speaks Ukrainian. But for some reasons Englishmen use Russian pronunciation. It's strongly connected with the history of Ukraine. Our country was occupied by Russians for many centuries and didn't have its souvereignity and independence. This fact gave different researchers the reasons to use the official name of the city in the state language of the country to which it belonged. The state language of Russian Empire and Soviet Union was Russian that's why it was justified to use only Russian name of the city. But now the situation has changed. We've got independence and our state language, which is Ukrainian. So, it's time for the world to change its attitude to Ukraine and accept the new spelling. The world did it with other cities and countries, so why doesn't it do the same with Kyiv. I'll give you couple examples. Why don't English writers use the old German name of the used to be German city Keonigsberg? Right now it's called Kaliningrad. What's wrong with them? Why don't they use the old name? Or what about Lemberg, which is now Lviv (Ukraine)? Or what about Laibach, which is now Ljubliana (Slovenia)? Why don't the Germans use the old names of these cites? The answer is because the situation has changed and those who don't want to notice this are just blind and stubborn. Maybe these examples are not perfect, because the whole names were changed, not the way of the spelling. However, this can give you an idea of what I mean. Just imagine how it would feel for Englishmen if Russians, Germans, Ukrainians and so on started using the French spelling of their capital. London sounds as London in Ukrainian, Russian, German. People in these countries use their own pronunciation of the city's name, not the French "Londres". However they could use the tradition from the times of the Norman ivasion and use the French spelling, the spelling of the invadors. Sounds like nonsence? It is nonsence indeed! The same as using Russian "Kiev" for Ukrainian city of Kyiv. That's why everybody should start spelling the name of Ukrainian capital correctly. It is KYIV. (Unsigned by anon, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC))
 * By this time, I do not think anyone involved in the discussion here is not aware of the points you so vividly illustrated, yet alone is going try to prove you wrong (because, apart from some understandable POV, you are not). The one and only reason why "Kiev" is still being used over "Kyiv" is because Wikipedia follows the most accepted conventions, and the use of "Kiev" certainly is more common (people are stubborn, they resist changes).  Wikipedia's goal is not to promote now spellings, no matter how correct they are; it is to report on what's currently accepted as a norm.  When norms change, Wikipedia will adjust and change too.  "Kiev" is used as a title not because Wikipedia is run by evil Russian hegemonic occupants who try to tailor the English language according to their imperial view of the world, but simply because this spelling is (still) six times more common (according to a primitive Google search) than the one you want to see.  If the name offends you that much, chances are many others feel the same way as well, which will sooner or later lead the "Kyiv" spelling being more common than "Kiev".  When that happens, the article will be renamed.  Until then, please calm down.&mdash;Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:39, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Not to argue that we should use Kyiv over Kiev - I don't actually care too much. However, deep down, when one pronounces Kiev in English, it still sounds very Russianised. Ukrainian has very few soft e sound, while in the Russian language, the soft e predominates. When pronouncing Moscow in English, at best, it doesn't contain any strong clues as to whether the word is Russian or Ukrainian. This may be much more the reason why people fights strongly for Kyiv to become the more widely used way to spell the name over Kiev. mno 14:24, Jul 5, 2005 (EST)


 * On the same issue, interested parties, please look at Template talk:Infobox Kyiv. Thanks! --Irpen 20:57, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

Kiyev spelling found
Not that I want to start ANOTHER edit war... ;) But I just wanted to point something out, purely informationally (and just for fun, not wanting to ruffle any feathers): I have a copy of a 1963 world atlas (the Reader's Digest Great World Atlas, to be exact). The two major contributing editors were a member of the American Geographic Society, and a Professor of Geography at Cambridge, England. And in their map, the city is spelled: Kiyev --JohnDBuell | Talk 02:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * In the faraway Soviet times (like early to mid-80's) I remember seeing Kiyev as well as Kijev on the road signs where sometimes Russian or Ukrainian text was duplicated with Latin letters. At those times, caring for foreign tourists was not something that was done much in the SU and even less anyone bothered about consistency in signs, tourist brochures, etc. The Kiyev variant is simply a phonetic transliteration of how the city name &#1050;&#1080;&#1077;&#1074; sounds in Russian. Since Kiyev is never used in modern English language media, this is nothing more than an interesting piece of trivia and not the material for this article. We can only guess why the authors of the Atlas referred above chose to apply a phonetic transliteration rather do a letter by letter Cyrillic to Latin conversion. -Irpen 05:27, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * I only brought it up to be a trivia point, I never had any intention of including it in the main article. Most of the contributors of this particular atlas were from the USA, several from London, UK, and it also gives credit to the USSR Academy of Science, Moscow, for unspecified contributions. If this was a Soviet-era Latin alphabet spelling, I can only surmise the Atlas's editors were just reprinting placenames from a Soviet source, not a native Ukranian one. --JohnDBuell | Talk 06:32, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * More interestingly, Google gives over 7000 matches on 'Kiyev' but suggests 'Kiev'. --JohnDBuell | Talk 06:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC).
 * ... and about 5000 hits on (Kijow OR Kijów) among ''English l. sites only :). Irpen

Kijów in Kiev article

 * Witkacy wrote: "The city was part of the Kijów Voivodship, Poland for 200 years, so what is your problem?--Witkacy 18:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)"

Hi Witkacy, I have absolutely no problem with this fact of the city's history as well as with its being covered in the history section of the Kiev article where the name Kijów belongs. (BTW, so far it got only little coverage there if at all and your contribution would be of help). All I mean is that this is inappropriate to have this name mentioned in the very first line of the article based on that. Kiev being the part of the Russian Empire and Soviet Union is only one of several reasons why the Russian name is there (see earlier talk). I see Kijów Voivodship entirely appropriate in its own context but not in the first line of the article where the names that introduce the city for the first time are listed. The recent mess with PL names being added for the cities in Germany has already generated enough controversy. Let's just be a little more careful. So, I will revert this, and I hope this sounds convincing. Please, no flames -Irpen 18:37, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * Having the Polish name for Kiev as the third piece of information in the article is ridiculous. We can include the Polish name in the section that discusses the Polish history of city. The Polish name is only marginally relevant, and having it in the first sentence is totally unnecessary clutter. (This is an agreement with Irpen) Nohat 18:43, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem with German names was completely different - the war started when some users around Chris 73 began to add German names in articles like Lechia Gdansk etc., its like someone would add the Polish name of Kiev to the FC Arsenal Kyiv article... All Polish articles with important cities, which belonged to Germany after the partitions of Poland, have the German in the first line of the article. As i already said Kiev was 200 years the seat of the Voivodship Governor of the Kijów Voivodship and part of Poland. Befor that, the city was part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania which was in personal union with Poland. So why should not the Polish name be mentioned in the first line? Especially in the context that - for an example - Rumia have the German name in the first line, but was a non important village populated by Poles in times when it was part of Germany.--Witkacy 19:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article has two names in the first line: Kiev as most commonly used English name (which also happen to coincide with the Russian name and the reasons for that is a separate issue being still hotly debated), and Kyiv a Ukrainian name used by the Urkainian government and, although infrequently but since recently somewhat more commonly, in English. Kijów is not used outside Poland, except for the part of the history when the city was under the PL or R-P. I am all for using Kijów in this context! Why won't you feel the gaps in the appropriate section of the article instead of fighting for Kijów in the first line? The deletion of Kijów from the first line was done through a consensus and it will simply not make it there as far as I can see. I don't even need to delete it myself, because then someone else will. Please understand, that this has nothing to do with anti-Polish sentiment of anyone. Actually, there is none in Kiev and among those who follow this article. There is a much stronger anti-Russian or "pro-Russian" sentiment in some UA-related articles and it causes enough trouble already. Let's not open another area for these fights. If you feel like writing about the Polish and Lithuanian period of the city history, I would be glad to help with sources and anything I can. I am not competent enough to write on this myself. Regards, -Irpen 19:48, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * Please visit Naming conventions/Vote on city naming. You may find this of interest. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

a Kijów/Kiev end note (hopefully)
Thanks to all for stopping this reversion cycle. Since WP:Point is a guideline and not a policy, I can see it might be acceptable under extreme circumstances. When pushed to an extreme stress in an unrelated DE-PL name dispute, several editors chose the Kiev article to make a point. Understandably, I was unhappy about it (I desperately want this to become a better article than it is) but I understand the "consistency and justice for all" logic. Since the intent of the effort was transparently given, I never saw this as foul play and I was simply requesting a cleanup. I was already unhappy about myself reverting the article more than once in a single day (and this was NOT vandalism which I revert comfortably). Approaching or not the 3RR limit I simply didn't want to continue this myself. Therefore I requested a self-reversion from the other side, but another user just went ahead and reverted even sooner. In any case, if we can get together and improve the city article, including the Kijów Voivodship period, I would be eager to give to it whatever time I have. Cheers, -Irpen 02:15, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Quote: Ukrainian &#1050;&#1080;&#1111;&#1074; is pronounced KY-yeev
 * Not very helpful. Exactly what pronunciation is "KY-yeev" meant to represent? Can we have it in IPA please? -- Picapica 12:47, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * or, if I got my IPA correct. These are variations in dialect or even just register; for the article I think it would be sufficient to put in the phonological transcription .  &mdash;Michael Z. 2005-03-24 14:56 Z 


 * Many thanks, Michael! If you could oblige with the IPA for the Russian pronunciation too, I'll add them to the article -- Picapica 22:02, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't speak Russian, so someone else should review this before it goes in the article. I understand it's something like  or .  &mdash;Michael Z. 2005-03-24 22:24 Z 


 * In most of the Slavonic languages, final consonants are unvoiced. Smirnoff's brand vodka was named after a follow named Smirnov, for example. As a result, is perhaps preferable.


 * Is that referring to the Russian? I've never heard any Ukrainian pronounce it that way.  &mdash;Michael Z. 2005-03-25 07:06 Z 


 * It's referring to the Ukrainian. I would imagine that Ukrainian follows the trend of devoicing final consonants, since many other Slavonic languages, such as Russian and Bulgarian, do the same. Crculver 09:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Ukrainians don't pronounce it that way. &mdash;Michael Z. 2005-03-25 17:33 Z 
 * Neither Belarussians. BTW IMO all these IPA & SAMPA are useless for plain folks. The best thing is to link a sound file. As for unvoiced final consonants, this is also a popular misocnception of simplification. If a word is followed by something voiced (I will not go into details), then the final consonant is not devoiced, so you must pronounce "Kiev is a nice place", not "Kieff is a nice place" or in russian: "Kiev rastyot", not "Kieff rastyot". There are quite a few sound interferences in east slavic languages,even if to forget about  dialectal ones. So  knowing a very detailed pronunciation of an isolated word will not always help you in a continuous speech. Mikkalai 19:23, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I deleted this sentence as misleading.
 * The Russian spelling is &#1050;&#1080;&#x301;&#1077;&#1074;, pronounced KEE-if; Ukrainian &#1050;&#1080;&#1111;&#1074; is pronounced KY-yeev.

A random English speaker will never guess how to pronounce "KY" here. There is no corresponding sound in English at all. Also, "-if" in Russian is very dubious too. The only thing can help is sound file. Mikkalai 23:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Problem solved, pronunciation file for Russian inserted. I've never actually heard Ukrainian before, but I tried a pronunciation based on the IPA above. I didn't insert it, so listen to it yourselves and insert it if it's good. If not, get back to me and I might be able to polish it up a bit. If you find a proper Ukrainian, even better.
 * Here's the Ukrainian file:
 * Peter Isotalo 14:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * If you can pronounce Beijing, so can you Kyiv - http://kyiv.of-cour.se/2008/09/20/how-to-pronounce-kyiv/ (Markiyan (talk) 11:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC))

Why Moscow instead of Moskwa?
''Note: Not sure how appropriate this is here - maybe it should go under the Moscow entry. I added it here becasue of the ending of the section 'Kiev or Kyiv?' where it mentions authors claiming that Moscow and Warsaw are also not correct but also used. Feel free to move/copy.''

My take on things (there's no backup for this theory, just my thoughts)

The reason behind these 'renamings' in the English language are due to the foreigness of sounds ending in long a in English names. The majority of native American speakers, when faced with a word such as Moskwa (or more correctly Moskva) would tend to shorten the o to an e sound. Just dropping the a would produce an even more unpronouceable word Moscw, so a vowel was added. Another reason for this is that English is a genderless language, while Russian is a gender-specific language. Moskva is a feminine word, hence the 'a' ending (if it were masculin, the ending would have been a variation of the 'i' prnounced 'ee' sound). Therefore, dropping the trailing a was seen as a better solution. Mno 5 July 2005 18:50 (UTC)


 * Is there a reference for this? —Michael Z. 2005-07-5 18:22 Z 


 * No, there isn't. Sorry, I didn't make it clear in my initial post. Sorry, I have corrected it to make it more clear. This observation comes from my understanding of English and attempts at teaching some Americans to properly pronounce some Ukrainian (hopeless :)) and Russian words. The second part about gender is a pure guess. -- mno July 6, 2005 15:58 (UTC)