Talk:Kyiv/naming/Archive 7

Naming Conventions
Hello,

Thank you for the tidbits. However, that doesn't answer the question - what in the Wikipedia naming conventions claims that the name should stay Kiev, rather than Kyiv?

Again, I bring to the fore the section which reads: ''A city, country or people, by contrast, is a self-identifying entity: it has a preferred name for itself. The city formerly called Danzig now calls itself Gdańsk. The country formerly called Burma now calls itself Myanmar. These names are not simply arbitrary terms but are key statements of an entity's own identity. This should always be borne in mind when dealing with controversies involving self-identifying names.''

This section alone gives reason enough to move the page.

Please, let's stick to this question, and no more name-calling.

Thanks, Horlo 01:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no rule that states for every article that it should be name whatever. We assemble various rules to determine that. We go by the common name. Kiev has already proven to be the more common name not only through the Google test, but through consensus. We didn't select those toponyms because the countries use them but because the Anglophones use them more. In this case, more Anglophones use "Kiev". And where did you get that quote anyway? If that isn't Wikipedian, that is original research. Reginmund 01:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you for your comment.

Kiev is not a more common name.

1)The google test has proven inconclusive. Again, the results of Google advanced search http://www.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en, as stated in Wikipedia naming conflict resolutions here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Dealing_with_self-identifying_terms

2)Consensus shows what people here use. That would be original research.

The quote above is from the Wikipedia naming conventions, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Resolving_disputed_names_within_articles, the same source which describes the steps in resolving a conflict It is under the category "other considerations", sub-category "types of entities".

As the other ways of determining "common name", ie. International Organizations, Major English-language media outlets, Reference Works, Geographic name servers (as described in the page I would be grateful if somebody could put up a link to a video for those outside Australia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Resolving_disputed_names_within_articles, category "Other Considerations", sub-category "Identification of common names using external references") has also proven inconclusive, I refer again to the page Wikipedia:Naming Conventions, Category Ukrainian Names, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Ukrainian_names. That clearly states: ''For geographic names in Ukraine, the Ukrainian National system is used. For historic reasons, many names are also presented in Russian, Polish, etc''. I would be grateful if somebody could put up a link to a video for those outside Australia. Why is there so much resistance to Wikipedia rules?

Thanks, Horlo 02:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Kyiv is in common usage in Australia.

The Federal Government of the Commonwealth of Australia uses Kyiv: http://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/ukraine/ukraine_brief.html http://www.dfat.gov.au/missions/countries/ua.html http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/zw-cgi/view/Advice/Ukraine The lengthy country profile does include "Kiev" in brackets after "Kyiv". The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's travel advice only gives "Kyiv", as with the Consulate website.

The government's two broadcasting services - the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) use Kyiv when displaying the country's name on free-to-air television. News, sports and other broadcasts are also available for viewing over the internet, yet last I checked they must be viewed from within Australia; if this is now incorrect or someone obtains permission to upload excerpts for international viewing then please post something concerning that here.

My university, the University of Queensland, uses Kyiv. Methods for contacting the University can be found at http://www.uq.edu.au/contacts/. If somebody wishes to run web searches, the University website's URL is http://www.uq.edu.au ; no hits were returned for Kiev when I searched. While I have no supporting statistics, atlases and textbooks being used in secondary school classrooms that I had seen in the past ten years have predominantly used Kyiv, with Kiev in some cases included along with and secondary to Kyiv.

I have seen other spellings in use, including Kyev and Kijow in Russian and Polish publications. Officially and in the media, though, the use of Kyiv seems by far to be the most predominant.

60.242.0.245 07:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * We've been through this already, goverment institutions don't make a difference here only on Google. Now you're saying that consensus is original research? Did you even read the original research page? Obviously not. I'm not going to keep repeating myself. Do some more research on the rules and you will understand why Kiev has retained its more common name. I'll tell you one more time. CONSENSUS REFLECTS COMMON NAME... FULL STOP. And consensus says that the page stays so the page stays. No other country is going to tell us Anglophones how to use our language and that is implemented in Wikipedia's rules. I'm done with this now. Reginmund 08:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Reginmund, The last vote was obtained when it was widely believed that "Kiev" is 9 times more popular than Kyiv in Google search. Now that it has been shown that the difference is a statistically negligible ~5%, we must have another vote. You obvously put a lot of weight on the Wikipedia consensus and are very passionate about it. Why then are you insisting on keeping vote results obtained with incorrect dara? Mykyta 15:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Which vote? I don't see a single oppositioner that uses the "9x more" information? Reginmund 19:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia consensus definitions
Hello,

Reginmund, thank you for the advice. I looked into the Wikipedia consensus definitions. I think a very important point on that page is this: ''A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision, but when the article gains wider attention, others may then disagree. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision.''

Again, I would like to point out that in the Archives, the number of people who want to change the name is 33, while the number of those who want to keep it is 21.

Why is it difficult to believe that many other people, not just me, want to change the name?

Look through this discussion, and please tell me where I have not assumed good faith, and put forth fact-based arguments to support my decision. This is not a question of emotion, but one of fact.

Kiev is pejorative, you cannot tell me not to be offended by it, just as I cannot tell you not to be offended by racism. However, the focus has not been that point, but the commonality of Kyiv.

The only objective arguments are that other Encyclopedia use Kiev, and the US media. Governments, media outside the US, and major international organizations use Kyiv. Therefore, the name should change.

Thanks, Horlo 15:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Horlo, you are cherry-picking your "objective arguments". You are ignoring inconvenient facts already mentioned here.


 * The Dictionary uses "Kiev", and indicates that "Kyiv" is little used. Details at my note regarding the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, above.  Information about other dictionaries is welcome, especially the OED, which may have more detailed notes.  These dictionaries are based on descriptive research; they indicate how the English language is actually used.
 * English-language media outside the US use "Kyiv"? Please provide evidence.  A quick search of theglobeandmail.com, canada.com (including the National Post), cbc.ca, bbc.co.uk, timesonline.co.uk, guardian.co.uk indicates that they all use "Kiev" more often.
 * Kiev is pejorative to most Anglophones? I think not, judging by my list of important authors writing about Ukraine, above.  That you are personally offended by it is not in question, and the comparison to racism is hardly an objective argument.


 * You show up here on a patriotic mission to change a single title which offends you, but almost no one else.  You have made zero contributions to Wikipedia which are not aimed directly at changing this one word.  You stimulate the production of 30,000 words of chatter, and all you can offer as a summary is a completely one-sided list of the "only objective arguments": is there any wonder no established editors are listening?


 * This is an issue I care about, so I have actually taken the time to read through this whole page. But I see nothing here to justify anyone else taking the effort.


 * Really, constructive work is always welcome. There's a lot you can do here, especially if you don't just leap into controversy.  And then you can approach issues like this with more experience in Wikipedia and more contributions to your credit. —Michael Z. 2007-08-06 18:19 Z 


 * This is getting silly. It would be most useful if some who feel they own WP stop attacking, baselessly, anyone who dares challenge their POV.  Why is someone who legitimately questions the use of a term anymore "patriotic" and any less objective than you?  Your haughty pretence is not helping the discussion.  And BTW, I am and will remain offended by the triumphalist use of the term Kiev, for like the unnecessary definitive article the once "commonly used" before Ukraine it is, at its heart, intended to belittle and even dismiss.  Dear contributors, if you can't see that then maybe you are the phobes here. With respect - --Volodia Tatlin 01:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am certainly not attacking an editor, but merely his misleading statement about "objective arguments", pointedly ignoring factual information already presented on this page. I have tried to be constructive, in offering a suggestion on how a patriotic Ukrainian can actually accomplish something around here, based on my editing and some significant results accomplished during the last three years, and even during the ineffectual discussions taking place on this page.


 * You think Wikipedia just appeared overnight without hundreds of references to "the Ukraine" all over it? You think no one has volunteered hours of their time discussing these issues and bringing things up to the standard you see now?  There are hundreds of editors responsible for all of this, and you would do better to emulate them than to just show up and noisily express your displeasure.


 * But you are quite right that this is getting silly. As I wrote before, good luck. —Michael Z. 2007-08-07 03:04 Z 


 * We've already been over why Kiev is not pejorative but I'll repeat myself onece again. Just because a group of Russophobes find a foreign spelling of their city pejorative (especially when it isn't meant to be), doesn't make it universally accepted to be pejorative, especially on the level of "nigger". Some Holocaust deniers may find it offensive that Wikipedia doesn't deny the Holocaust. That doesn't make it so. I never said that there weren't a lot of people that want this page to be moved but there are more that want to keep it where it is and that is what counts the most. Reginmund 19:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

-

Wow! What a thread! Much thanks to the folks who are working hard here to hash out a difficult consensus. But please avoid the ad hominem arguments (personal attacks).

Even those Ukrainian-Americans who don't consider the old spelling "Kiev" to be pejorative will certainly be eager to tell you that it is at least quaintly archaic.

The more modern form is "Kyiv", and for those who would like to view some useful and fairly definitive North American online sources on things Ukrainian, go to:

* http://www.ukrweekly.com (English-language newspaper about Ukraine)

* http://www.brama.com (a popular web portal for all things Ukrainian)

* http://www.houseofukraine.com (San Diego museum cottage in Balboa Park)

* http://www.yevshan.com (commercial source for dictionaries and music)

* http://www.svoboda-news.com (bilingual newspaper for Ukrainian-Americans)

The webmasters of all of these websites would doubtless be happy to provide further corroboration for the use of "Kyiv" as the more modern correct form, per their style guides. The North American Ukrainian community is fairly close-knit, and this spelling change has already propagated throughout.

The English language evolves. In my twenty-five years as a computer-industry technical writer I have watched one important technical term move through three variants, from "data base" to "data-base" to "database", but most folks now consider the first two variants to be archaic, even though I remember heated arguments among technical copyeditors during each of these transitions.

My vote is to use a redirector from the familiar but obsolete (pre-1990s) form "Kiev" to the more modern and canonical form (at least among North American Ukrainians) of "Kyiv".

User:shmorhay

-


 * Nope, you'll have to do better than that. See, "Kiev" is not considered archaic considering is widespread usage throughout the Anglosphere, especially (already determined) more than "Kiev". Reginmund 22:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

-

To offer a respectful rebuttal, a fairly definitive US source for geographic information is the CIA World Factbook --

* https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/

which uses "Kyiv" as the preferred spelling when you look up the country of Ukraine.

And to inject a bit of humor here -- Hey, if you can't trust the CIA, who can you trust?

Seriously though, after the fall of the Berlin Wall on November 9, 1989, much changed in terms of linguistics and geographic naming throughout Eastern Europe as the regional power situation shifted.

Key question -- what evidence would you find unequivocally persuasive that Ukrainians who are expert in both English and Ukrainian and knowledgeable about history and world events have shifted over to the newer spelling, and find the older form "Kiev" as quaintly old school as "thee" and "thou"?

I suspect it harms Wikipedia credibility among English-speaking Ukrainians to see Soviet-era spelling still the norm in 2007. This has nothing to do with Russia-bashing or any other such chauvinistic nonsense. And aren't such knowledgeable people precisely those who you want contributing to Wikipedia articles?

Look also at the converse -- does it harm Wikipedia credibility to have articles on Ukraine use the more modern spelling "Kyiv"? Again, I guess the key question is -- what would convince folks that, in the 21st Century, those who are solidly knowlegeable in Eastern European affairs nowadays use the form "Kyiv"?

I first encountered this discussion thread when I looked up some data on the Ukrainian soccer team Dynamo Kyiv and discovered this copyediting backwater problem. While I appreciate a conservative approach to copyediting, there is a tipping point at which a new spelling takes hold.

Again, I want to commend the people here for their interest and efforts in maintaining the credibility of Wikipedia. Being watchful to avoid articles with political agendas is important. But language (and spelling) evolve based on how the native speakers use it, and hence based on all modern web and journalistic usage in the Ukrainian-American, Ukrainian-Canadian, and Ukrainian-Australian linguistic communities the spelling "Kyiv" is solidly preferred.

And if you understand how diverse hyphenated American Ukrainians can be when it comes to their political and religious opinions, the pervasiveness of such a spelling consensus is pretty darn impressive, and offers compelling evidence for "Kyiv".

User:shmorhay

-


 * The CIA isn't the all knowing and the all seeing supreme deity here. I can name you numerous, more prestigious (and less corrupt) institutions that use "Kiev", including the BBC, the largest media outlet in the world. However, these institutions are not to be followed when deciding these matters. The rules are that the most common name is enforced and concluded by a Google test and most importantly, a vote, "Kiev" is the most common name. Reginmund 01:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

-


 * With all due respect, you keep suggesting you "could" name numerous, prestigious institutions that use Kiev, but keep giving the same slim and short list. In earlier posts I have provided many, many international organizations, not chained by convenience and convention, who use Kyiv: UN, UNESCO, NATO, OESC, OECD, EBRD, EU, European Parliament, English-language governments such as Canada, the US, Great Britain, Australia, and international English-language service clubs like Lions International and Rotary International, and significant NGO's like the International Committee of the Red Cross, National Geographic Society, universities, and publishing houses.  And of course the major English-language publications in Kyiv and Ukraine: Kyiv Post and Kyiv Weekly.  Why do wish to pretend this weight of evidence does not exist?  Why the deep resistance? With respect - --Volodia Tatlin 01:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

-


 * The point I have been trying to make here is that the usage by these organisations is irrelevant. If you want be to go on, I could but it is pointless considering the rule that Wikipedia states to use the most common name and not necessarily the name used by governments and organisations. Kiev has already been proven to be the more common name. That is why it stays. You can name all of the organisations that you want but it is still just dead weight on this debate. Reginmund 02:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You have been trying to make a many points and claims, including your ability to provide some vast list (as yet unproduced) that challenges those partial lists provided countless times here in these pages that demonstrate the common usage of Kyiv. As the veracity of the "broad" Google test, as opposed to an "advanced" search, is questionable and as the authority of leading English-language international organizations will always have some weight and resonance, it seems these are worth putting on the table in this discussion.  With respect - --Volodia Tatlin 13:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

i have been following this discussion and am frankly baffled. wikipedia positions itself as being cutting edge in the information market, yet for some reason continues to use the outdated 'kiev' when refering to the capital of ukraine rather than 'kyiv.' this certainly was the norm in the past, but has not been the case for many years. the fact that some individuals, groups and institutions continue to use the old 'kiev' is their choice, but indicates a backward looking not forward looking perspective. during my lifetime the 1 july holiday in canada was renamed 'canada day,' and although i occasionally hear people refer to it as 'dominion day,' canada is no longer a dominion, and calling 1 july 'dominion day' is no longer accurate. similarly, ukraine used to be part of the russian empire and then the soviet union, and its capital was then designated as 'kiev,' by those who ruled. in 1991 ukraine became an independent state, and renamed its capital 'kyiv,' so although many continued to use the old term (i suspect mainly from inertia) it is no longer accurate. the trend over the past 16 years has been for 'kyiv' to become the norm, and although there are still individuals, groups and institutions using the old 'kiev,' they remind me of those who still say 'dominion day.' i would have thought that wikipedia should be striving for accuracy and reflecting contemporary trends rather than using outdated terminology and looking backward.

regards

marta ps

the reference to the ukrainian government decision designating 'kyiv' as the official spelling of their capital city is provided at the bottom of the wikipedia page

Martauwo 04:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Defining Commonality
Hello,

Thank you for your comments. It seems that the discussion is now about what is the "common name". This is a difficult question to answer, so there are steps outlined on the wikipedia: naming conflict resolution page.

Just a reminder, that the naming convention states Generally, article naming should prefer 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.

Note that this accounts for the fact that most people don't know the answer to what they are looking for - that's why they are looking. Hence the statement on ambiguity.

This leaves the question of what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize. This can be a tricky topic, and therefore a series of steps was established to act as a guideline for determining commonality.

First, a Google test. However, the naming conflict resolutions page clearly states that the test should be an advanced search, because of "false positives": "Raw Google searches using www.google.com will find Wikipedia and its mirrors. These are not reliable sources, especially for what we should use. Avoid raw google searches as far as possible", as stated here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28geographic_names%29#False_positives

An advance google search of Kyiv vs Kiev shows 1,820,000 hits for Kyiv, with 1,900,000 hits for Kiev. This is a difference of 80,000. According to: www.aegis.com/pubs/cria/2003/CR030902.html and www.amfar.org/cgi-bin/iowa/bridge.html, that is a statistically insignificant number. Therefore, according to the Google test, the number of people using Kyiv and the number of people using Kiev is the same. Therefore, Kyiv is just as common as Kiev.

Second, major English-language media. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation uses Kyiv. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation uses Kyiv. When identifying itself, the British Broadcasting Corporation uses Kyiv. In the US, National Geographic Magazine uses Kyiv. When you are checking this, please keep in mind that there are very many old links on all of these outlets, which are most likely not changed because there is no time or money (one of the reasons why a "raw" google search should not be used); However, US media outlets use Kiev. Therefore, again, no decision.

Third, look for major organizations. The United Nations uses Kyiv. The CSCE (Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, not the Connecticut Society of Civil Engineers) uses Kyiv. The World Bank uses Kyiv. The World Trade Organization uses Kyiv. The World Health Organization uses Kyiv. The International Monetary Fund uses Kiev. Oh, I forgot - NATO uses Kyiv.

So far, Kyiv looks more widespread.

Fourth, look at other encyclopedia. Major English-language encyclopedia use Kiev. So, one for Kyiv, and one for Kiev. They are again tied.

Fifth, look at government use. The government of every English-speaking country - the UK, Canada, the US, Australia, and New Zealand, and even India, use Kyiv.

Kyiv wins.

It appears that there is no objective test which shows that Kyiv is not more widespread than Kiev.

Let's extrapolate from this (now I am admittedly moving into original research) and look through maps: Rand McNally uses Kyiv. Mapquest uses Kyiv. Yahoo Maps uses Kiev, and so does Google.

Again, no decision So the results for this test cancel each other out, and therefore Kyiv wins.

Please show me why Kyiv is not more widespread.

Now, again a review of Wikipedia naming policy on Ukrainian names: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Ukrainian_names in a nutshell, ''For geographic names in Ukraine, the Ukrainian National system is used. For historic reasons, many names are also presented in Russian, Polish, etc.''. Again, this discussion does not want to state that only the Ukrainian name should be used, but it should be first.

I am very grateful to those editors who have accepted that people who want the page to be called Kyiv are not sockpuppets. With respects to polls and consensus, please remember that I personally sent everybody who had some input in the Archives of the Kyiv/Kiev discussion an invitation, not only people who agreed with me. However, the poll was closed "admittedly ... outside established procedure", and it was clearly stated in the preceding discussion: You can try starting a new poll but it sure would be closed even sooner than the last one.

Let's stay civil, avoid POV, emotions, and focus on facts. And the facts point to Kyiv.

Thank you, Horlo 05:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ermmm... how do two websites about diseases determine that Kiev is more common? That doesn't make the use of Kiev and Kyiv the same. The Google test determines that Kiev is six per cent more common. Yes, it's small, but it seems to reflect on the consensus. Now, as you said that the raw Google test might catch Wikipedia and its mirrors... well, won't it catch such mirrors as FC Dynamo Kyiv, HC Sokil Kyiv, FC Arsenal Kyiv, FC Obolon Kyiv, Kyiv Classic Orchestra, Kyiv Post, FC Dynamo-2 Kyiv, List of Major Archbishops of Kyiv-Halych, etc.. In this case, that argument is dubious, because if one were to cancel out Wikipedia and its mirrors, the ratio would undoubtedly be the same, or even possibly more in favour of Kiev due to the influx of Ukranian transliterations on Wikipedia Besides this, Wikipedia doesn't significantly affect the Internet by even whole number percentage points. Now the use of Google searches is discouraged and the default alternative is, of course consensus. Now, consensus is the most important objective in determining commonality, and as you can see, that is what it has done.


 * The citations of organisations is... again... useless in this discussion. It doesn't determine the popular name. Unless there is some Wikipedia guideline that you can find that says it has some weight on here, we'll go on a wild goose chase and toss names into a hat. Otherwise, it is a waste of glyphs.


 * For geographic names in Ukraine, the Ukrainian National system is used. For historic reasons, many names are also presented in Russian, Polish, etc.


 * It does not say that Ukranian names come first! Where did you get that idea?


 * BTW checking the usage of the toponym by other organisations is not original research. Reginmund 07:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I wrote the naming convention. Your interpretation is too narrow.  The guideline has been in need of review for a while, but that aside, if you read the first couple of paragraphs on that page, you'll see that the language-specific guidleine is subordinate to Wikipedia's general convention, Naming conventions (use English).


 * "The Australian Broadcasting Corporation uses Kyiv. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation uses Kyiv. When identifying itself, the British Broadcasting Corporation uses Kyiv."


 * This seems to be false. According to Google, of pages first seen in the last twelve months:


 * ABC: Kiev: 1,060, Kyiv: 3
 * CBC: Kiev: 208, Kyiv: 82 (also, the CBC's own word: "CBC News ... ruled that all its journalists should spell Ukraine's capital Kiev".)
 * BBC: Kiev: 7,590, Kyiv: 221 (The BBC's own word: "we spell the Ukrainian capital "Kiev" rather than the more authentically Ukrainian 'Kyiv'")

Hello,

I have to disagree with your statistics. As the links for the ABC have already been put forth, I will look at the BBC and CBC.

When the BBC introduces its office in Ukraine, it uses Kyiv. http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/trust/aboutthetrust/story/2005/07/050711_regionaloffices.shtml When BBC reporters are used, Kyiv appears more prevalent. When other reporters are used, Kiev appears more common. That's what I've said all along. With respect to the quote, that was only for the England office. Internationally, Kyiv is more common. Just as an aside, when you search Kiev in the BBC, the first two and a half pages are recipies for various poultry.

The CBC highlights the problems with the google search, and internet search engines in general. When I searched for Kiev 2007, there were three old articles on the first page, and six older articles (ie. not from 2007) on the second page. Six out of ten. I didn't check more than four pages deep into Kyiv, but all of the articles there seemed to have the number 2007 in them.

"The CBC's own words" were actually not that at all. One reporter said that once. If you look at the site, you will find Kyiv is much more common.


 * "It seems that the discussion is now about what is the 'common name'. This is a difficult question to answer"


 * Sorry, it's actually easy to answer. The authority on the living language, the Oxford Dictionary, says that "Kiev" is the most common name. —Michael Z. 2007-08-07 06:53 Z 

One more thing. According to the authority on the living language, Wikipedia doesn't exist.

Thanks, Horlo 00:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and Australia's Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) use Kyiv for their free-to-air television broadcasts, as I have stated earlier. Anyone in Australia can go to http://abc.com.au and view videos of news and sports broadcasts and search for appearances of "Kyiv" versus "Kiev" or other spellings. Unfortunately Google cannot do this for you...ABC television and radio are seen as authorities in Australia, but I am not certain that its website is, nor do I know how many would read online radio transcripts.

Since I may be misinterpreting the Wikipedia rules, can somebody please clarify for me the official hierarchy between atlases, dictionaries, encyclopaedias, websites and other sources if such a hierarchy exists? For city names would atlases, globes and maps have considerable clout when one is trying to establish "common usage"? Also, how recent must a source be in order to be considered in a "common usage" debate?

Michael Z, I know that the Oxford dictionary is an established and respected source, but why is it the overriding authority on the common usage of the English language around the world? I apologise if this has been covered somewhere else already. 60.242.0.245 13:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

One should respect the will of the Ukrainian government and the people who live there, or call themeselves Ukrainian. Kyiv is a Ukrainian city (despite claims by some Imperialist Russian sources) and when one lands at Ukraine's main airport - the biggest signs on Boryspil read: КИЇВ and then KYIV. The case should be closed - it is Kyiv, not Kiev. No-one says Peking when referring to the capital of China, Siam has been replaced with Thailand, so why are certain perople trying to live in the past and retain an antiquated spelling such as Kiev?!?


 * Because other countries don't tell us Anglophones how to use our language. There is no hierarchy with atlases, encyclopaedias, and media outlets. The unquestioned lord and master of naming Wikipedia articles (pardon the hyperbole) is consensus. It is the best way to establish the most common name. As you can see, it has established that Kiev is predominant in the Anglosphere loooong ago. Kiev is nowhere near old. Don't get so anachronistic. It likely won't be outdated for another thirty years or so. But, until then, hold your breath when this article's name gets changed. Reginmund 16:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Reginmund, your continuous mispelling of the word "organization" (you spell it "organisation") in the pages you have contributed to, including "Wikipedia:Naming conflict", which I edited with the correct spelling, might cast a shadow on your credibility as an authority on how to spell anything ,let alone a city in Ukraine.Bosska 04:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)bosska


 * bosska, organization vs. organisation it's all about British English vs. American English. World is huge and there is no single point of view on that is right and that is not. This can serve as additional example to show that something you feel is correct for you (Kyiv) - can be still incorrect for others (Kiev) - as result both points of views should be listed. --TAG 05:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

TAG, I'll accept the British English vs American English explanation of " organisation".Bosska 05:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Reginmund, if Wikipedia is strictly using British English, then I apologize for the "organisation" comments and editing. note: perhaps the articles should state which "English" it is written in.Bosska 05:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your apology. Fortunately, I didn't check Wikipedia in time to see your edit before your mistake was subsequently corrected. Wikipedia uses the dialect that coincides with what country the article is most commonly associated with. If it is neutral (e.g. Earth) then the dialect of the first contributor should be respected. By skimming the article, it looks as if it is written in American English, so lets keep it that way. Also note that the division of usage of Kiev and Kyiv between these two dialects has the same ratio. Reginmund 06:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Achieving Consensus
Hello,

It seems that the situation has come full circle. This is where it all began a few weeks ago - with my request for a "straw poll".

Before, continuing, however, please let me first say this: being a grammar teacher, I have developed a certain manner of speaking, which may come across aggressive. I would like to state that there was no intention to thrust my wishes on anybody else, nor try to dictate how anybody should speak. If that's what has come across, please accept my apologies. Also, I don't think this is a question of anybody telling anybody how to use a language, or "us" vs "you". Most people here are native English speakers. I submit that the passion that you are seeing in this discussion is that feeling of offense which many Ukrainians feel at the name "Kiev". That's not for the discussion, just some background as to where we are coming from.

Two weeks ago, I wanted to open a poll, and re-open discussion about the name Kyiv. I sent out invitations to many people from the archives who contributed to this article - even people who disagreed with me. However, it was suggested to me by an administrator that I open a Request to Move at the same time.

I opened a Poll/Request to Move on Sunday evening, hoping to get 5 days' worth of discussion. Much to my surprise, it was closed within 18 hours, admittedly outside usual procedure.

Therefore, I ask: How exactly is consensus achieved on Wikipedia? What is "normal procedure" with respect to a poll? Is it unreasonable to expect that people who are busy in real life also want to contribute? Can a minimum time limit be set?

Thanks, Horlo 02:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Horlo. I would certainly like to see a poll run its full course. I am most interested in reading responses from respondents that actually work/live in an English speaking environment to gauge how common the Kyiv spelling has become. 74.100.166.97 03:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC) Sorry folk's the above text is my commentEduvalko 03:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

To the administrators of Wikipedia: I have been following the discussions on the Kiev/Kyiv spelling issue. Horlo, Volodia Tatin and others have presented facts supporting the usage of KYIV instead of Kiev....and don't accuse me of "original research" again.. I don't see the need to repeat what they have so eloquently,respectfully and patiently stated numerous times. Aren't you concerned about Wikipedia's reputation, or that school children will use Wikipedia as a research tool for homework and receive outdated information ("Kiev") with mispelled words ("organisation" as per Reginmund)? Bosska 05:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)bosska

Organisation is not misspelled. We've been over that at the previous tab. We have also been over how Wikipedia's reputation could be equally harmed when the pupils find that Wikipedia uses the less common name. Kiev is not outdated. With is widespread usage, it has yet to become retro, but until it does, Kiev stays where it is. If you were accused of original research, there must be some reason for it. If you feel that it was an unjust accusation, copy and paste the argument here. To Horlo, if you are curious as to why the poll was closed so early, you may ask the administrator that closed it, Stemonitis. Reginmund 06:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you. I did contact the administrator, and explained my position. The reply was that it is against Wikipedia policy to call people racist. Your guess is as good as mine on that one.

My question now is how can this be avoided in a future poll?

Thanks, Horlo 15:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to chime in in support of "Kyiv" as naming convention for the capital of Ukraine in English. "Kiev" is merely Russian pronunciation of the city's name, albeit widely used in Ukraine itself. I won't delve here into reasons of such widespread usage of the name "Kiev", but since Ukraine is an independent state now with Ukrainian language being the only official language of the country, I believe, the city's Ukrainian name - Kyiv - would have more appropriate place than "Kiev" as naming convention in English.

Thanks, FlintOlly, born and raised in Kyiv.


 * We've already been through this. Wikipedia doesn't decide on the English lexicon and neither does the Ukranian government. Reginmund 19:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to give my two cents, I'm a Canadian living in Alberta (we do have a fairly large Ukrainian community here) and I've honestly never seen it references as Kyiv other than on maps that also spell the capital of Italy as Roma. And before you call me ignorant, I pretty much watch the news every night and read newspapers and the such. Also, I did quick search in some humanities databases (Wilson Web, EBSCO Host, etc.) and Kiev is by far the more commonly used version in academic papers (including the recent ones). Honestly, I think Kyiv might slowly replace Kiev as the more common spelling but it definitely is not the case at the present in the English speaking world. If you check Google News, you'd also find the majority of major English news outlets do spell it Kiev. Anyways, that's just my two cents. I would support a move in the future should I see more references to it in the English-speaking media but definitely not for now... Sasquatch t|c 21:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you for your comments. Please don't worry - nobody will call you ignorant. If you look through the archives, you will see that it is I who am called ignorant.

With respect to news, I have stated all along that the US news media use Kiev. However, the Canadian Press uses Kyiv, CBC now once more uses Kyiv, CTV uses Kyiv, and the Globe and Mail uses Kyiv. Again, a caveat on that - when they run stories from Reuters or other US-based media, they sometimes change it to Kyiv, but sometimes don't.

All government publications - and this includes textbooks - use Kyiv. With respect to maps, I don't know which ones you have, but Rand McNally uses Kyiv (I have one in my classroom).

With respect to other sources, many large institutions are often the last to change, for various reasons. Oxford University Press last year published books using "Bombay" in the title. Is that more common? No. Is it correct? No. Do they do it? Yes.

Also, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, there is no Wikipedia.

Academia is a bit of a vicious cycle - professors don't want to change, because that takes time away from research. They order books with old forms. Publishing companies sell them what they want.

I think that academia and google tests are only two ways to look for a very broad idea, commonality - sports, religion, culture, and other aspects of society should also be considered.

Thanks, Horlo 00:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Off topic. Point to discuss... how Kiev is more common than Kyiv. This is not determined by institutions or original research. Reginmund 01:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Reginmund, I disagree that it is off topic. Everybody has an opinion which is just as valid, and should be respected. Everybody has an opinion on a topic, then there is discussion, then there is a poll, and then consensus can be determined.

I submit that it is counter productive to say that only consensus can dictate what is common, when people arrive at consensus by analyzing the information they see around them, and information presented by such sources as media and organizations.

If there is no free exchange of ideas, no fair consensus can be reached.

Thanks, Horlo 01:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * We've already been over and over and OVER why we shouldn't go on a quixotic, foohardy wild goose-chase naming various institutions, determining which ones use which spelling, which institution is more prestigious, how commonly they use those spellings, who in the institution uses those spellings, which editor of the institutions websites is superior to thee other editors when using those spellings, and why. That will lead to a four-dimensional labyrinth that will never be solved. As you can see, its going off the beaten path. That is why it has no merit as a policy on Wikipedia. The simplest way to determine this usage is not by the media's usage, but every Anglophone that is aware of the city's existence's usage. That way has already been proven with a vote and a Google test. Now, can you tell me what is flawed about those two or should we try some other go-nowhere route. Otherwise, if this doesn't work, I suggest we all get a musket, jump inside of a dustbin in an alleyway in Pandaemonium and go to sleep with the muzzle of the musket in our mouth. When we wake up, if there are more people that favour keeping this article where it is with their cranium still intact, then we stick with "Kiev". Cheers! Reginmund 02:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, The reason people keep bringing up various institutions is that those institutions affect your point of view, and affect what you call a city. If you have lived your whole life in a country where every newspaper uses Kyiv, you will only know it as Kyiv. People are trying to put forth arguments to convince people who may not have an opinion, but are willing to listen.

Now, you asked about the flaws with the vote and google test.

First, the google test shows that Kyiv and Kiev are equal. The reason I put the two links in the previous note was that when you google define:statistically significant, those two websites showed that 5% is not statistically significant. 1,820,000 vs 1,900,000 is not an overwhelming number. Statistically equal. Therefore, the results of the google test are no basis for judgement.

Second, the vote - opinions change, people change, everything changes. A vote that was held long ago may not be valid anymore. A vote that was cut short should not be valid. I had asked about the proper protocol for establishing a new vote, and I haven't been able to find any further information on the Wikipedia site.

If you have any suggestions about one, I would be happy to hear them.

Thanks, Horlo 02:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

And where is the basis to draw the line on where the percentage should be? And what country (in the Anglosphere) uses only one spelling? And where did you get the idea that we must take a vote ever so often just because the people that voted against are still pissed about the results? Do you think that it will change the results? There were reasons for cutting the vote. Otherwise an admin wouldn't do it. You have been looking for proper protocol but can't seem to find it. There is a reason. Because there isn't any. Reginmund 02:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is another North American provider of information, The Weather Network, that feels that the Kyiv spelling is common enough that they don't even bother with the old spelling when giving the city's weather reports (http://www.theweathernetwork.com/weather/UAXX0001). This debate should also look at the increasing number of commercial entities that have switched to the new spelling. Their switch is less motivated by linguistics/political nuances but by the simple awareness that to reach your public use the name that is recognisable and in this case Kyiv it is.Eduvalko 03:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment 30 July 2007
A request has been made to move this page to Kyiv, to reflect the increasingly more common name. All comments welcome 03:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am removing this RFC from the list of RFCs. If it is still active then please resubmit. --

Hello, What is this? Who did this?

Any advice on establishing parameters of a poll?

Thanks, Horlo 20:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me reiterate what has been stated by some previous commentators. The country in which a city/region/geographical location etc finds itself should have primacy in determining spelling both in its own language and in English, which is the globe's lingua franca. We have accorded this principle consistently (e.g. India - Mumbai, China - Beijing, etc.). Since the state of Ukraine uses Kyiv as the anglicized version of its capital, so should we. Mo3okJaskiw

Thankyou to all that have contributed to this debate. I have learnt so much from all of you even those that have continued to slander and name call without giving any constructive arguments. I guess it is hard to comment further on what has been said as it is clear to see that the arguments that have been presented for Wikipedia changing its main reference from Kiev to Kyiv in my opinion are logical and current. Some of my own points constructed from the above arguments. - Kyiv is a Ukrainian city in Ukraine and that is how its government spells it so wikipedia should recognise this. - Kyiv is the traditional name of the capital that was only known as Kiev because of a Russified domination during the growth of its English use in the 20th century. Governments, international organisations, and the English speaking Ukrainian community from all corners of the world are re-adopting Kyiv as the pronunciation and spelling of the capital in support of the positive democratic Ukrainian situations in Ukraine that have occurred since 1991. I believe Wikipedia, a global resource should be at the forefront of communication and come to the realisation of the change which has already occurred world wide.Kyivukraine 14:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Correction in the 20th century; re-adopting what are you on about, find an English atlas from the 19th century and I can tell you the version that will be written there, it will not be Kyiv. --Kuban Cossack 16:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Kyivukraine, somehow I doubt you have read much of any arguments. Otherwise you wouldn't miss the umpteen times that I said that no foreign government tells us how to use our language. We rely on the common name and the common name has already been proven to be "Kiev". Reginmund 16:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The "foreign governments" of United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, United States (representing a significant part of the English speaking world) aren't telling you how to use their language either. They have calmly adapted the Kyiv spelling and have moved on. Anyone doing business with their embassies,consulate or other parts of the foreign offices will see the Kyiv spelling and probably not be confused because the usage is widespread.

As for the government of Ukraine, they simply stated how they are going to use the English language to spell the name of their capital. No claim to the English language was implied.

However both of the above nmentioned instances have a significant impact on the number of "common" uses of the new Kyiv spelling. Hence the increased commonality of the Kyiv and time for Wikipedia to reflect this. Regards74.100.166.97 Eduvalko 19:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC) 17:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope, you'll have to do better than that. Governments don't make up a competetive number to their population. Reginmund 17:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody have a reasoned explanation why a government bureaucracy's decision to use the modern spelling of Kyiv is invalid for our discussion? Eduvalko 19:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:COMMONNAME says to rely on the most common name, not necessarily used by the government but by civilians. It has already been proven that more civilians use "Kiev". Reginmund 20:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"Not neccessarily used by governments" means that this use can be included in our discussion and not arbitrarily excluded. Also, where is this "proof" that "more" "civilians" this or that spelling. 74.100.166.97 23:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Grrrr... I didn't say that the goverment was gexluded. They will be included in the Google counter obviously, along with the other enterprises that use "Kiev".. Kiev is actually 72% more used than "Kyiv". Reginmund 23:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

- An excellent counter-argument to the conservative, monolingual, Anglophone-centric spelling "Kiev" is provided in the Wikipedia entry on countering systemic bias within Wikipedia --

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CSB (countering systemic bias)]

In essence, maintaining that 'the Anglophone world has always spelled it this way' does not impress anyone who is bilingual and bicultural. Such a position is (correctly) seen as narrowly provincial by the rest of the world, and often mocked.

Also, as Wikipedia's influence grows, its spelling choices become ever more influential, and thus recursive in their feedback with respect to Google and other search engines -- many people will choose to spell the city name based on what they find on Wikipedia. Thus it turns into a self-perpetuating problem.

The more modern post-Soviet-era spelling, per the bilingual English-Ukrainian community and per academic and government Eastern Europe experts, is "Kyiv". I am not sure how to go about overruling (re-counting?) the current "consensus" on this particular article title -- a "consensus" which may be questionable, given the number of postings just on this page alone.

user:shmorhay -


 * Ahhhh... so you think that the use of "Kyiv" is extravagantly larger outside of the Anglosphere? Well, the reason that we have been using the Google search that limits only to English speaking pages is because Horlo had an argument against counting how other languages use the toponym. Apparently because "Kiev" was significantly larger. Either way, if you exclude or include foreign languages, Kiev is still the predominant spelling.


 * Now you have some pseudohistorical argument fueled by {{WP:NOR|original research]] that the Anglosphere is often mocked by the fact that it uses different words... errrrr... YEAH! It's sorta... kinda... a different language. But in a nutshell, this argument is void seeing as Wikipedia actually embraces the spelling not only used predominantly by Anglophones but also by other languages too. Reginmund 23:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

{{discussion-bottom}}

The Anglosphere and Kyiv
Hello,

It seems that the discussion has moved slightly from the original topic. Before we shift back, please allow me to state one thing.

I am from the Anglosphere. I was born in it. I grew up, and went to school in it. I went through higher academia in it. I have published books about English Grammar.

As much as this may come as a surprise to some, I am as much a member of the Anglosphere as anybody. Please don't tell me how "we", "in the Anglosphere" do it. I know. I probably do it more than others.

Actually, looking back throughout this discussion, it appears that most of the rational arguments from "the Anglosphere", which don't degenerate into rants after one or two disagreements, prefer Kyiv. People from "foreign countries" for some reason insist on Kiev, and somehow claim to know what "English world" says. My argument all along has been that "the Anglosphere" is using Kyiv, and therefore so should Wikipedia.

Now, back to the original topic. Reginmund, with respect to Google searches, you asked why 5% is insignificant. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) says so.

Once again, a question asked in Good Faith. What is the best way to resolve this issue?

Thanks, Horlo 01:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I never said how "we" in the "Anglosphere" do it. And who judged wich arguments about the Angloshpere are rational? Which arguments are these anyhow? I think that I am the only one talking about this. Most of the other discussions are about what major institutions use. You argument that the Anglosphere is using Kyiv has not been sourced whatsoever, although mine has. In fact, it is actually higher than five per cent... try 72%. Reginmund 02:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

You are correct - you never said "We" in the "anglosphere". You said "tell us how to use our language".

With respect to irrational arguments, please see comments by Deaconofdpdziem, or David Lauder.

Again, returning to the Google test, "the raw google test should be avoided". Wikipedia Naming Conflict guidelines say to use the Google Advanced search. This does not give you the 9 times greater response, but 1,820,000 for Kyiv, and 1,900,000 for Kiev. 80,000, or 4.2%. Hardly an overwhelming number

Thanks, Horlo 02:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Horlo, here are some thoughts on those that permit their anti Kyiv naming arguments to live or die by the raw Google test.

Earlier anti change arguments cite that the old spelling was 10 times more prevalent than the emerging Kyiv spelling based on their Google searches (or 91%).

Now we are emphatically informed that this number of dominance is 72% which works out to just 3 times more prevalent. What's happening? Is it that the new spelling is gaining acceptance? One may be forced to conclude that uncomfortable truth.

Seriously though, looking over the last week raw data showed that the Kyiv hits increased at a faster rate than the old spelling. The world is changing with the times. Can Wikipedia?

Regards   Eduvalko 04:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually I was wrong. On the advanced Google search, Kiev is 72% more common than Kyiv. Reginmund 06:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC).


 * Since we are talking about the English language you have to use English-language websites. When I went to the pages you referenced above and limited the search to English-language webpages, the result was 1,970,000  for Kiev and 2,040,000 for Kyiv .  Apparently the algorithm is is slightly different on different googles, because when I go to google (rather than your British google.co.uk) the number of Kyiv sites is smaller, 1,890,000 .  Either way, according to google Kiev and Kyiv are about equally represented on the web.  The discrepancy grows when one looks at books - in that case it's 14,400 for Kiev  versus only 856 for Kyiv .  Books published in the last 5 years show Kiev leading Kyiv 1452 to 544.  So everything depends on the different criteria.Faustian 17:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't see how your numbers match up. As they say on math tests : Show your work. Regards Eduvalko 12:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

72% more English language websites use "Kiev" Reginmund 18:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The links you provided actually show more hits for Kyiv than for Kiev - 2,040,000 vs. 1,970,000. As I wrote earlier: "Apparently the algorithm is is slightly different on different googles, because when I go to google (rather than your British google.co.uk) the number of Kyiv sites is smaller, 1,890,000 .  Either way, according to google Kiev and Kyiv are about equally represented on the web.  The discrepancy grows when one looks at books - in that case it's 14,400 for Kiev  versus only 856 for Kyiv .  Books published in the last 5 years show Kiev leading Kyiv 1452 to 544.  So everything depends on the different criteria."Faustian 18:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No it isn't. Kiev is the first link anbd Kyiv is the second. Kiev is obviously 72% larger. Find me a Google test that shows Kyiv to be larger than Kyiv. Reginmund 20:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This time, Kiev showed a little over 2 million and Kyiv about 1,900,000. How is 2 million "72% larger" than 1,900,000?  It seems the numbers fluctuate a bit but that generally they are about the same.Faustian 21:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, they seem to fluctuate but Kiev is always higher. Reginmund 21:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * When I checked this morning Kyiv had been higher by a little. Despite fluctuations they are always about the same, a far cry from your claims of Kiev being "72% higher".Faustian 22:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually it was a day ago. But doesn't it strike you that Kiev is always the most popular. I mean, it never fluctuates between Kiev being more popular then Kyiv being more popular. It is always Kiev is a little bit more popular and then Kiev is much more popular. Doesn't that tell you that Kiev is more "popular"? Reginmund 22:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said, just this morning Kyiv was slightly more popular. I find it hard to believe that it would fluctuate from a consistant 3% difference to a huge 72% difference.  As for popularity - I don't think I ever claimed that Kyiv was more popular (I don't think it is among the general public, although I am not a populist who think the mob should determine things), just that the differences are not as great as you have stated.  Personally I think Kiev is better and I use it, although given the decisions of most governments and especially most geographers (i.e., the National Geographic Society) I feel that Kyiv might be more appropriate. Faustian 22:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It was %72 when I checked yesterday. Now Kiev is 77% more popular 1,900,000 vs. 2,490,000. Yes, the differences are as great as I have stated. Reginmund 01:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you need to brush up on mathematics. 1,900,000 is about 77% of 2,490,000.  That is not the same as 2,490,000 being 77% more popular than 1,900,000.  Rather, it is about 23% more popular.  Remember, for Kiev to be 100% more popular it would be double the Kyiv's figure, 3,800,000.  So being 77% more popular would mean approximately 3,200,000 or so.  BTW, right now the figures are about even again (1,900,000 Kyiv vs. 2,020,000 Kiev).  I've checked a few times today and it seems the comparison is mostly a tiny Kiev advantage, with rare tiny Kyiv advantage and rare moderate Kiev advantage.  At most it has been a ratio of 1.25:1, very far from figures like nine to one or even two to one.  Well, I learned something in this conversation - that the number of google hits vary hour by hour.Faustian

02:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Faustian for politely demonstrating the mathematical flaw of the "72% is more than " statement.

The number of english page Google hits between the Kyiv spelling and the old form seem to be fairly close (within 5-10%). At face value this certainly negates the assertion that the old form is predominantly used. Not good for the statist argument.

Alternatively we can suspect (or question) the Google algorithm that produces over 2 million hits in a split second. Does it group the old and new version together as interchangable search terms thus giving us a similiar count? Are parts of the search already prepackaged or given a greater valuation in order to speed things up? Are all the web sites really searched every time we ask for a Kyiv/Kiev list? This is something that only the good people at Google can tell us if they are willing to divulge some of their proprietory algorithm secrets. Or this could be a nice project for anybody who stakes a lot of faith on Google searches to claim that the old spelling is overwhelmingly in greater use. Compare the two lists of Google hits, set aside the hits that appear on both lists and count up the discreet hits. Repeat the following day to guarantee consistency.

Personally, I think we should encourage Wikepedia to take note what other established institutions and governments are doing re the Kyiv spelling. I am not a fan of surrendering my will to Big Brother but in the case of the new Kyiv spelling I don't see any threat or harm in Wikipedia adopting a similiar naming policy. Eduvalko 04:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, did you forget that it is %23 more popular? News Flash! We answer to common parlance, not government naming schemes as I have already pointed out WP:COMMONNAME. Reginmund 05:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Right now, 9:15 Eastern Time, Kyiv is about 1% more popular than Kiev. Anyways, in general Kiev seems to be slightly more popular, because the ratio varies over time from 2% Kyiv advantage to 23% Kiev advantage, with usually a 4-5% advantage for Kiev.  If popularity is the criterium for naming than Kiev ought to be the name.  If we want to follow not the mob but the official pronounciation, used not only by governments but also by geographers and cartographers, than Kyiv is correct.  I don't know what wiki policy is and frankly I'm not interested in such legalistic arguments and will defer to others.  At any rate, I don't agree with those claiming that Kiev is somehow insulting - it was the way the city was pronounced in the Ukrainian language until 100 years ago.  Taras Shevchenko called in Kiev.Faustian 13:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

hello

quick questions:

1) reginmund - who is this 'we' that you keep referring to? apologies of you have explained earlier 2) faustian - what records exist on pronunciation of the ukrainian language in the 19th century? did shevchenko know english?

thanks

marta

Martauwo 14:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I was going by the words of the late Canadian-Ukrainian linguist Edward Burstynsky of the University of Toronto, probably the most renowned expert on the Ukrainian language, who claimed that Kiev was the proper pronounciation of the city in Ukrainian until only 100 years ago. Therefore, all Ukrainians who lived prior to about the year 1900 pronounced that city "Kiev."  More info can be found here: .Faustian 15:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Give me a sentence in which I use we and I'll clarify it. To Faustian, Kiev is also quite common in the fields of cartography. It is best not to limit research to only certain sources. That is what the Google test is for. It encompasses all institutions that use Kiev. Right now, 19:22 GMT, Kiev gets 600,000 more hits. I'm not seeing fluctuate to %1 as you said. Reginmund 18:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The Topic at Hand
Hello,

Thank you for your comments. The late Dr. Burstynsky was a great man and accomplished in many things, but he was not the world's definitive authority on the Ukrainian language.

Also, the question here is not whether 100 years ago people in Kyiv called it Kyiv. At that time in Ukraine, official government policy as dictated by the Valuev circular was to discourage or destroy anybody using the Ukrainian language. There is no written proof of what Ukrainian people said at this time, because it was illegal to even own any books in Ukrainian, much less write anything in Ukrainian.

The question here is what to name this page. There are established procedures at Wikipedia, which, in a nutshell, state call the page what most people would recognize, with a minimum amount of ambiguity.

I submit that when most people search for the capital of Ukraine, they don't google the name of the city, because they frankly don't know. They google "capital of Ukraine", and then follow the links.

That, however, is original research, so according to Wikipedia guidelines for naming conflict resolution:

one - the google test. This is inconclusive. Again, the advanced search, not the raw search. The average difference is 4%, which is statistically insignificant, or by no means clear;

two - major organizations. Every major organization, with the exception of the IMF, uses Kyiv - CSCE, NATO, UN, WTO, WHO, World Bank, etc;

three - other media. Outside the US, most media (CBC, ABC, BBC, Canadian Press, The Globe and Mail) use Kyiv. For those who are searching media archives by keyword, please look through the results, for as I said before, when I checked the CBC for Kiev, the first two pages were recipes for the chicken. Also, please check for dates of publication. You will see that now, Kyiv is more popular. In the US, the primary geography resource, National Geographic, uses Kyiv;

four - other encyclopedia. They use Kiev. One interesting aside - the Oxford Dictionary of the English Language states that the capital is Kiev. However, according to this source, Wikipedia doesn't exist, but "wiki" does, so I submit that these sources hardly reflect the real language;

five - governments. The governments of every English-speaking country (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the US, and the UK) use Kyiv.

However, Wikipedia rules also say "ignore all rules". The common factor in this change is that Kyiv has been steadily building, and Kyiv is recognized as the "real" name, as that is the official spelling that people see in all official sources. CNN is not an official source. It is how the Ukrainian government identifies its capital city. Kyiv is widely recognized as the correct name, and therefore the name of the page should be Kyiv.

Perhaps it may be time for another poll, as "that is what the consensus shows" is now the only argument against the move to Kyiv.

Thanks, Horlo 17:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * ahem... NOT THE TOPIC AT HAND! We used the advanced search and it gets 23-27 per cent more hits thatn Kyiv. Did you read the previous filibusters? For the last time, you are using a limited amount of institutions which is completely irrelevant as I have already told you the means of solving this and you keep repeating and repeating and REPEATING a foolhardy scheme that will go nowhere. Reginmund 18:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

The topic at hand is what people in the Anglosphere call Kyiv now, not what it was called 100 years ago in Ukraine.

The google advanced search does not get 27% more hits for Kiev than Kyiv. It did once, but there are many times when it didn't. Overall, the difference is between 4 and 5 percent, which is not a significant number. Please note: this is not an arbitrary statement by me, but generally accepted by the accounting and polling community. Please see here http://www.statsoft.com/textbook/esc.html#What%20is%20%22statistical%20significance%22%20(p-level) for a detailed explanation of statistical significance.

With respect to institutions, why do you say that they are irrelevant when those are the actual institutions named on the Wikipedia naming conflict resolutions page?

You have repeatedly stated that the means of solving this is consensus, and that it was decided long ago. I submit that the consensus you refer to does not exist anymore, or perhaps never existed, as a) the number of people in the page archives (not including the current discussion) who suggested the article be named Kyiv is 33, while the number of people in the page archives (not including the current discussion) who wanted the page to remain at Kiev was 21.

b) the most recent poll was closed "outside standard procedure". The only explanation that I was given was "it is against Wikipedia policy to call people racist, even if it's true". Please explain that to me.

c) languages and opinions change.

No, polling is not a foolhardy scheme. It is a measure of consensus. With the internet, polling became so much easier, and free, that there is no reason to accept what was decided long ago as valid now.

Thanks, Horlo 19:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Because we can go on a wild goose chase naming various institutions that use Kyiv/Kiev bleh. If we went on counting the people that vote for or against Kiev/Kyiv, we have to include all of them, and then check for sockpuppets among the anonymous editors with six of whiich reside in Toronto, give the same arguments blatantly, and disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. The reason we have polls is to determine the amount of people that support or oppose the move. We don't go on a wild goose chase counting what he said/she said. I can't explain to you why the poll was closed early. Take that up with the admin that closed it. Sysops are responsible enough to make those descisions. If you feel that he is abusing his powers, report him. It is still at 27%. Obviously this is significantly larger, and by the way, this is a way to determine the amount of institutions that use Kiev as opposed to Kyiv. Reginmund 21:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

So Horlo, ready to start another poll? I agree with you in that it's time to dispel the notion that there is a consensus on the current Kiev/Kyiv name scheme. Maybe there was once but, then again, there was once consensus that the earth was flat, that women were not allowed to vote, that cigarettes were good for you and that asbestos was a wonderful product. There was extreme resistance to changing these notions but we can understand why the detractors resisted change. They had power and wealth invested in these old notions.

I just can't understand why the sometimes vehement resistance in accepting the Kyiv name. There is no power or wealth awarded to the proponents of the old version. Wikipedia has nothing to "lose" by accepting the Kyiv name and, with points you list, there is enough momentum in usage to give this renaming a try in order to regain consensus on the name.

Now a promise to the naysayers. If after a few months the renaming to Kyiv proves as disasterous as they predicted, I will support a move back to the old form and eat my keyboard. Eduvalko 04:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you are blowing this out of proportion. Toponym spellings are not the cause of ignorance, segregation, or cancer. Nor are there behind-the-scenes lexicon tycoons squandering money and cackling sinisterly at the dismay of an alternative spelling while the fascist predominant spelling prevails. Let me make this clear... KIEV... is... NOT... wrong. Wikipedia also has nothing to lose by keeping the popular spelling. It is the spelling most commonly used by the general public as concluded by the Google test (27% more). Nobody ever said here that the results of this move will conclude to be catastrophic. Nice try, Nostradamus. Please grow up or [insert profanity here] off. Reginmund 05:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Reginmund, are you 95 years old, that you are so resistant to change? Why can't you see that accepting "Kyiv" as the updated spelling is a progressive and enlightened move for Wikipedia?Bosska 14:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

Reginmund, I absolutely agree with you that all steps should be taken to preserve the validity of the poll.

Checks must be made for sockpuppets.

However, people who have demonstrated an inability to maintain NPOV, as well as people from outside the Anglosphere must also be discounted.

Thanks,

Horlo 17:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Bosska, not that you have actually read any of my arguments, but I have said that I personally use "Kyiv" and never "Kiev" because since it is a Ukranian city, I feel that it should retain the spelling transliterated from the language of the country. However, I am enforcing the rules of Wikipedia and they state to use the most common name. Remember this: KIEV IS NOT ARCHAIC. If 27% more Anglophones use Kiev, than it is not old at all. Don't expect 2,350,000 people to be outdated so don't give me that rubbish about how only 95 year-olds use the spelling because it is irrelevant and unconstructive to this debate.


 * To Horlo, it isn't wise to discount people because they are out of the Anglosphere. The important principle is that they speak English. I'm not sure exactly if it is but it may be considered a ppersoinal attack to discount them. Reginmund 19:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm not discounting anybody. I have welcomed everybody - even invited people who disagree with me to this discussion - and answered all questions with equal courtesy since the beginning of this debate.

Looking through this page, I have been the target of more personal attacks than anybody.

I welcome everybody's good faith opinion.

Thanks, Horlo 01:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you show which personal attacks were directed to you? Reginmund 02:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Bosska, please be kind to the 95 year olds. The ones I know are not the stereotypical inflexible dinousaurs. In fact they are the ones who know how to to deal with changes, what we sometimes call progress and have lived long enough to know that regimes, notions and fashions come and eventually go. There once was a Soviet Union, a fascist Italy, a harmonious Jugoslavia - but no more. They have seen tha map redrawn and renamed more than once. What they once called Bombay is now Mumbai, Peking has become Bejing, Ceylon is now Sri Lanka. In the past a gay man could light up a fag but now its not allowed unless its consentual between both homosexuals or alternative lifestyle citizens.

You see our almost centeganarians have seen a lot of the world change and some of the language "evolve". I don't believe that they would waste their energy protesting an evolvement of languge such as the growing usage of Kyiv as the name for the Ukrainian capital. What was once an unknown spelling is now an equally recognisable and acceptable version. Things change. May we be so wise to what we can change or accept in our old age. Regards.Eduvalko 04:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Reginmund, please see the discussion sections:"Support Changing Kiev to Kyiv Throughout", "Sockpuppetry suspicion", "Wikipedia Consensus Definitions", and basically everything Deacon of Dndapetzim and the third contribution by David Lauder to see what personal attacks were directed to me. Horlo 05:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * To Horlo,

It seems that David Lauder has an aggressive point that he is making although there is no personal attack I can find. Accusations of sockpuppetry are not considered personal attacks simply because anyone could cry "personal attack" whenever they are accused rendering the policy against sockpuppets useless.


 * Now I am seeing a repetetive argument that Kiev is an old and decrepit spelling that pigeon-holes anyone that uses it as retro. Now I would like to make a rebuttal with hope that I shouldn't have to encounter this silliness again. Kiev is alive and well. Its usage is compareably more than its soon-to-be successor. Even then, I doubt it will be deemed as anachronistic, let alone for now it is certainly has not lost its rank as a primary usage. It is quite visible that Kyiv is gaining usage but let us not get ahead of ourselves. Kiev is still a modern name and only until it is successed, it should be changed. See again, WP:COMMONNNAME. Reginmund 05:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Regimund, Yes, I have read all your arguments and comments. You are very eloquent and polite, except when you responded to Eduvalko with "Please grow up or [insert profanity here] off. Reginmund 05:07, 12 August 2007 "

Back to Kyiv: Please see: Ukraine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Modern History section...........there you will find "Kyiv" used more than once. This appears to be part of the original text....which leads me to believe that this is the modern spelling of the city. Unfortunately, the sections following do use "Kiev" again.

I would also submit that you consider, for a patient and clear moment, that when one, i.e. a schoolaged child or uninformed individual, enters "Kyiv" in the search box and gets redirected to "Kiev" by Wikipedia, that, that person may believe that he/she may have been mistaken with "Kyiv" and will thereafter use "Kiev" because Wikipedia does. This is an example of how Wikipedia can influence the "common usage".....impeding the natural progression of familiarizing people with the prefered and updated spelling of the capital of Ukraine.

Rules can tweaked and exceptions can be made. There are many exceptions listed in WP:COMMONNNAME, so why can't the issue of "Kyiv vs Kiev" be treated as a more serious matter and be reviewed by all of the administrators? Bosska 06:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It is much unhelpful to the debate when Eduvalko dramatises the point that is trying to be made here. It is absolutely necessary to be mature when discussing this matter.


 * It is however, unorthodox to actually cite Wikipedia because it can be edited by anyone. This is why we need to cite our sources outside of the wiki. The problem of a pupil being redirected to Kiev from Kyiv is quite easily solved by the first three words in bold: ''"Kiev or Kyiv". Even if this was a problem, the student that searches for "Kiev" may be confused if the search redirects to Kyiv. Either way, the student may choose the spelling of his preference.


 * I must agree that Wikipedia has some effect on common usage but not a large substantial amount. Wikipedia is not supposed to (for a lack of better words) revolutionise the English lexicon. Even if Wikipedia didn't exist, the pupil may encounter another source that uses Kiev (since it is more common) thus contributing to the usage of Kiev. At least on Wikipedia, they will have the option of choosing the variant of their preference. If you feel that this is something that should have the attention of an administrator, then that is no problem. Reginmund 17:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The Civilization Test
Sid Meier's Civilization games call the city Kiev. Damn, I love those games. Ante lan  talk  04:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Antelan would you still play the game knowing that sometimes the city is called Kyiv? BTW did you ever play pinball at the PJ pub on N. Charles near JHU Homewood in "Baa-more", MD? Regards Eduvalko 05:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey - that might even merit putting out a new version of the game, which would make everyone happy. I haven't played pinball at the PJ pub, but it sounds like a good way to spend some time in "Baa-more, hon". Cheers, Ante  lan  talk  05:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * But in all seriousness, an English-language Google News search, which was already discussed to some extent above, reveals (1) There are about 4x the references to Kiev vis-a-vis Kyiv, which is simply indicative of (2) American & British media generally use Kiev, while many of the Kyiv references are not from natively English-speaking places. Is there any way to avoid the normative battle that is going on here and find some way to compromise on the description of the two names? Ante  lan  talk  17:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Antelan,

Thank you for joining this discussion.

My arguments have been all along that the google test is but one way of establishing common name. In the google advanced search searching only in English, Kyiv and Kiev are in a virtual tie. These numbers seem to change every hour, with a slight advantage going to Kiev.

However, by many other criteria, Kyiv is more popular - governments of all English countries officially use Kyiv, as do most international organizations such as NATO, the UN, the CSCE, WHO, and World Bank. Only the IMF uses Kiev. Encyclopedia use Kiev, but Encarta uses Kyiv.

National Geographic uses Kyiv, as do media in Canada and Australia.

This is why it is difficult for me to understand why the consensus from either long ago or a greatly shortened poll is considered binding, and some other editors do not even want to put forth any arguments, but say that it was so decided and so it must be.

Thanks,

Horlo 21:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I must point out that between media institutions, the usage is split. However, the English usage of Kiev fluctuates hourly on Google at approximately 23% higher than Kyiv. Reginmund 23:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I remember not so long ago when in America we commonly referred to Torino as Turin. I imagine that the same will be the case for Kyiv/Kiev. I see your points and think they help form a good part of the complete picture. It strikes me that this could be a useful starting point for generating a policy discussion regarding naming on Wikipedia, not just of Kiev but of all place-names. Ante  lan  talk  23:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello,

My point here has been that changing the name to Kyiv would actually bring this page in line with other Wikipedia pages. For example Mumbai, Myanmar, Beijing, and St Petersburg. When those names changed, they just became the new names. People didn't walk around confused. I submit the same is happening with Kyiv. Thanks, Horlo 23:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * We don't privilege "official" usages over those in common usage. Noticing one of your earlier assertions, I looked at the BBC's usage:  overwhelmingly, they tend towards "Kiev".  Polls are just one way to judge consensus, and repeated polls on the same topic are rarely an enlightening exercise.  I think this seems likely to be a case where you might have to wait for "facts on the ground" in the English-speaking media to catch up with your preference.  Alai 23:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello,

I know that there is no official group controlling English, as there is in other countries. My question is how does Wikipedia establish commonality? Thanks, Horlo 23:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I ran a Google Labs search, which shows search volume based upon how commonly a given word is searched for (not how many results come up when you search for it) to compare the popularity of searches for Kiev vs Kyiv. The results surprised me, especially considering the geographic origins of the searches: http://www.google.com/trends?q=kiev%2C+kyiv&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0 I still have no preference. Ante  lan  talk  23:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, The latest google result: Kyiv: 1,910,000 http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enCA234CA234&as_qdr=all&q=kyiv&btnG=Search&lr=lang_en Kiev: 1,940,000 http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enCA234CA234&as_qdr=all&q=kiev&btnG=Search&lr=lang_en

Horlo 01:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What luck, you changed the page just before I did. It seems that differs on the U.K. Google Reginmund 01:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Reginmund, I got a result of 1,960,000 for Kyiv, and 1,940,000 for Kiev on the links you provided. Horlo 01:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting 2,420,000 vs. 1,960,0000. Reginmund 01:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I just checked again, and got the same results I did the first time. What do you think could be causing that? Horlo 01:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it must be picking up on some uses of "Kiev", then it doesn't. The Kyiv number doesn't seem to change. I figure since they are there, even though Google loses track of them, they should count. Reginmund 01:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, but I don't see how it could lose track of 20% of the sites. Is there any way you know of to stabilize it?

Horlo 01:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't a clue. I'm no interweb expert. Reginmund 01:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I think the problem is that sometimes it filters out more sites, and other times it allows them through. I looked through some pages on both searches a bit and found sites from non-English speaking countries, and other instances where the name of the page had Kyiv, but the URL had Kiev.

I even found Wikipedia sites on both searches.

There has to be a better way.

Thanks, Horlo 03:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

On Yahoo! search, Kiev gets 6,610,000 hits and Kyiv gets 2,150,000 hits (these are English language pages). That makes Kiev approximately three times more popular than Kyiv. On Dogpile, Kiev gets 2,006,350 hits and Kyiv gets 628,374 hits. That still makes Kiev approximately three times more popular than Kyiv. On Ask, Kiev gets 2,382,000 hits and Kyiv gets 464,500. That makes Kiev approximately five times more popular than Kyiv. So basically it seems to vary but the end result shows Kiev to be more popular by a longshot. Reginmund 04:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

So now that the most popular search engine ( see table at []) has begun to show that Kyiv and Kiev are becoming equally recognizable in the English language we instead get to look at the engine lightwieghts such as Dogpile.

My understanding of why we are using search engines as this is a means of gauging how most people are spelling Kyiv. More than half of web searches are carried out on Google probably because Google provides the most thorough and the most trusted results. Why would the results of the smaller engines be as valid as the grandaddy of them all?Eduvalko 05:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * NO because the most popular search engine is fluctuating more than NASDAQ. The most popular search engine has also never shown Kyiv to be more popular than Kyiv. The most popular search engine is now showing Kiev to be 25% more popular than Kyiv. Reginmund 06:31, 14 August 2007

(UTC)


 * 9pm, EST, Kyiv: 1,930,000, Kiev: 1.920,000. Links provided by Reginmund above.

Horlo 00:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Given that google finds 33m+ "Kiev" usages with no language restrictions (as against 5m+ "Kyiv"), I'm inclined to believe that the above related to flakiness in the language-tagging. (Otherwise, we'd be forced to conclude that only 1/15 of the pages on Kiev are in English, and google finds only a third as many such pages as Yahoo...)  Alai 06:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I posted this link earlier but it got lost in the shuffle: http://www.google.com/trends?q=kiev%2C+kyiv&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0 . Unlike search results, this is a search of keyword popularity at Google. That is, this is a search that shows you how often Google users use a particular term when searching. This is probably a better indicator of general usage than simply comparing pagecount. Visual inspection suggests that Kiev is about 5-10x as popular of a search term as is Kyiv. Ante  lan  talk  13:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Questions about Search engines
Hello,

I have a few questions about the search engines on the internet, and their use in establishing commonality of use.

I followed the links that were provided, and noticed these points: First, on the google, I think that it is not unbelievable that most - even 14/15 pages about Kyiv - are not in English, as the city is not as famous in the Anglosphere as it is in Europe (soccer, Eurovision, chess, trade, etc.)

Second, when I looked at the Ask.com page, I noticed that on the Kiev search, in the "related searches" column on the left of the page, only three out of nine suggestions were about the city. The others were "kiev women", "kiev brothels", "kiev 35mm camera", and "kiev dynamo" (I forgot the rest). On the Kyiv search, on the other hand, six out of nine were directly related to the city. I think that this shows trends of what people are looking for under these two names. People who are looking for the city are using Kyiv. (just as an aside, on the BBC Kiev search, most of the first page, and some of the second page also, were recipes for chicken).

Third, searches show old pages. For example, a British government body, DEFRA, which apparently has regular dealings with Kyiv, used to use Kiev but now uses Kyiv.

Fourth, many pages use Kyiv as the name, and then Kiev in brackets. These sites are counted for both. However, pages that use Kiev often do not have Kyiv as a second name. This could lead to an inaccurate count, as Kiev is counted for both sites, even though it is not the name

Fifth, when I looked at the graph comparing the two names, and I tried switching the order of the names, no graph was generated - it said that there was not enough data.

I think that there is no way to objectively grade points one and two.

Is there a way to add dates to searches to eliminate the old pages? I tried doing this with the advanced google search by adding the number 2007, but it still showed hits from 2001 and before - for both Kyiv and Kiev.

I suggest that Google has the best filters that help overcome point four. Is there any other way of narrowing this down on other search engines? Would it be helpful to search by words such as "Capital of Ukraine"?

Thanks, Horlo 00:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The recipes and irrelevant uses etc. take up very little bandwith and are only sponsored links. Google must use different links to diversify and show which for example which company is beiing represented. In that case, Google can't represent 10 travel sites. Almost all of the other uses of Kiev refer to the city. Reginmund 01:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's pretty unbelievable that 14/15 pages using the spelling "Kiev" aren't in English, in the light of the other numbers presented. There's a couple of million in Russian, a couple of million in Ukrainian (hilariously enough): what language do you imagine the remaining 28-million-odd are in?  I submit it's predominantly likely to be undetected English (or mixed-language but mostly-English) pages.  Your observation that most of the BBC's hits are on chicken do not accord with my naked-eye observation of the first page of results, nor with repeating the search as 'kiev -chicken', which only excludes ~200 out of 9000+.  So while it's true that there's about as many hits for "chicken kiev" as for "kyiv", there's 30x as many hits for non-chicken Kiev as either.  (That's even including things like message board comments from "Andriy in Kyiv", attached to an item using only the spelling "Kiev" in BBC-generated text.)  The rest of your observations seems to essentially be anecdotal, or to be frank, cherry-picking.  We can't sensibly trump the BBC and the Guardian (or pick any other major English-speaking news organisation) with DEFRA, just because you feel their position is better-informed or more enlightened.  Alai 02:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

Here is a link to the page to which I was referring on BBC, and all of the items on this page are recipes: http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?tab=all&go=homepage&q=kiev&Search.x=32&Search.y=3&Search=Search&scope=all Here is the second page, with the same results: http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?Search.x=32&Search.y=3&go=homepage&Search=Search&tab=all&q=kiev&scope=all&start=2 Links directly connected to the city begin on the third.

I am not suggesting trumping any source with any other source. I have always suggested taking a more holistic approach to determining commonality: the internet, major organizations, other encyclopedia, media, and governments. I have even suggested looking at businesses and cultural/sports/religious organizations for a more inclusive count.

I do not want to come across as a cherry-picker, but establishing the validity of such tests is important when determining how much weight to give them.

Thanks, Horlo 03:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oops, my bad: I didn't realize you meant the BBC's internal search engine (I think that proves mainly that the BBC is better at content than search).  Compare what google search with a site: restriction to bbc.co.uk produces, which is what I was going by.  I saw similar results on the Guardian's web site, on the same basis, selecting these on no particular basis than "English-speaking news organisations whose URL I could recall (and successfully type)".  Doesn't that seem strongly indicative that it's a good deal easier to find such with a strong practice of using "Kiev" over "Kyiv", than vice versa?  Alai 03:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I'm not sure what you meant in that last sentence, but I do agree that on the general google test, Kiev is more popular. Do you know how the "advanced search" filters? It's something that nobody here has been able to figure out, and which leads to frustration as the results there seem to change hourly.

However, that's just one standard. You mentioned other media - the CBC uses Kyiv, in line with Canadian Press guidelines(there's no Canadian Press manual online - for free - so I can't give you a link). The Globe and Mail uses Kyiv (another example of the weakness of search engines: in their internal search page for Kiev, if you look at the articles, they are just prints from US media sources; however, if you look at what The Globe and Mail prints, it's usually Kyiv). There are links above to AustralianBC, and other major media in Australia which use Kyiv. In the US, the largest and most widely-read geography publication, National Geographic, uses Kyiv. CNN, well, is CNN.

I think that Kyiv is the name that most people are associating with the city.

Even if there is ambiguity in the media, look at things like sports: everybody who follows soccer would know Kyiv.

Again, I think that search engines are not the only way of judging the commonness of a name, and other things should be considered.

Thanks, Horlo 04:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The "advanced" search is more than a little opaque to me. (Come to that, the behaviour of "basic" search is not without its mysteries, either.)  In particular, if I could work out why most of the "Kiev" hits were apparently "languageless", or even find a way to enumerate some of them, I'd feel somewhat better informed.  By-organisation is probably more meaningful, but is obviously going to be much more time-consuming to get anything meaningful out of.  (I have to say that the chances of being doing much in the way of off-line searches on this small:  bear in mind I'm only commenting here at all due to being "canvassed".)  But as you mention CBC...  If I do a google site-search on cbc.ca, for either spelling, the top hit is this article.  Most interesting.  They observe, inter alia, that "But most major media outlets in the West have stuck with Kiev[...]".  (Kiev also gets more hits on that site overall, btw.)  Alai 05:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you for continuing to participate in this discussion. The article you mention was written over three years ago, and since then Kyiv has predominated. At the bottom of the article, it states that the policy of using Kiev would be re-examined in six months. By that time, most governments had switched, so they went with Kyiv. The only other thing that I can tell you is that the CBC follows the Canadian Press style guidelines, which unfortunately is not available on-line for free.

I echo Antelan's suggestion above that this is a good time to establish Wikipedia conventions for naming cities, not just for Kyiv. There seem to be conventions, but is there a way to reduce them into a formula?

Again, I submit that this move would simply bring Kyiv in line with names such as Mumbai and Beijing.

Thanks, Horlo 00:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What is your source for "Kyiv has predominated" and "they went with Kyiv"? Google finds "Kiev" about twice as often as "Kyiv" on cbc.ca in general, and about twenty times as often when limiting the search to pages appearing within the last three months.


 * Since the CP style guideline is not online, can you quote the relevant passage? —Michael Z. 2007-08-16 05:20 Z 


 * It's misleading to talk about the Mumbai and Beijing examples as if there were a single over-arching principle at work that would cover all three. (Well, "always use the official version" would, but that's not the practice Wikipedia follows.)  Beijing just out-and-out "wins" on current usage of that transliteration.  For Indian cities, there's the consideration of "national variety of English", where it's possible to assess usage in that variety, as distinct from non-English-speaking countries issuing directives as to what English users "ought" to say.  Neither of these really covers the Kiev/Kyiv case.  Alai 10:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

What is the naming principle that Wikipedia follows? If it is "use the common name", how is the common name actually determined?

Personally, I think that one of the strengths of Wikipedia is that there is no standard, and that every case can be judged and discussed individually.

I have some questions about the two examples of Beijing and Mumbai. With respect to Beijing, when was the name officially changed? When was the Wikipedia page made? What was the usage at the time? How was commonality decided then? I was actually living outside the world wide web at the time the change was made, so I just started saying Beijing, and stopped thinking about it.

With respect to Mumbai, I have two questions. First, there have been suggestions made here that the locals don't actually call it Mumbai, and well-intentioned tourists get strange looks when they refer to it as such. Same thing with Kolkuta. If that is the case, how was commonality determined? (I guess that's the same question, but with a different slant). Second, does the fact that English speakers in India use it really influence what English speakers outside of India call it? I submit that there are more English speakers outside India than in India, yet the requests of the Indian government were honored.

Thanks, Horlo 05:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, My source for saying that Kyiv has predominated is the CBC internal search engine. I searched for Kyiv and Kiev, and then counted how many hits each got for 2007. Kyiv: 56 Kiev: 33 and that included a few for "The Great Gate of Kiev" on CBC radio.

Do you have any suggestions for putting the naming conflict guidelines into a formula? Search engines are just too full of irregularities. The Advanced Google Search fluctuates madly. Right now, Kyiv sits at 1,950,000, while Kiev sits at an even 2,000,000. 24 hours ago, the results were flipped. These differences are insignificant, so some other criteria should also be considered.

Thanks, Horlo 06:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hm, a Google search of English-language pages at CBC appearing within the last year finds
 * Kiev202
 * Kyiv92
 * Limiting it to the last 3 months finds
 * Kiev212
 * Kyiv9
 * I think the figures Google presents are estimates, because they simply can't count all of the actual pages in a search result quickly enough to present the number immediately.


 * I think Google and other search engine counts should be taken with a lot of salt anyway. Besides being subject to the whims of their technical implementation and secret algorithms, skewed by possibly irrelevant results like chicken Kiev, trademark names in catalogues, duplication and syndication, etc.  They may give an idea that a word is overwhelmingly more used than another, but when the results are closer together then the usefulness is reduced.


 * One can't put the naming conflict guidelines into a deterministic formula. They are guidelines, subject to the details of any specific situation, and ultimately decided by consensus (not necessarily a majority vote).


 * What does the Canadian Press say about Kiev/Kyiv? —Michael Z. 2007-08-16 18:45 Z 


 * Google seems to have quite a number of glitches. I would suggest using a few other search engines unless we can find a glitch in them. Reginmund 06:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that the same glitches will happen in any search engine. They are looking through billions of bytes of information in .2 seconds or something crazy like that, and regardless of the power of a computer, they will make mistakes. Keep in mind also that the sites themselves are made by people, who make mistakes with things like language tagging.

I think outside of Google, the only other search engine that has enough scope would be Yahoo! Thanks, Horlo 00:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, MichaelZ,

Don't you find it interesting that the Google results for Kiev for the last three months are greater than the results for the last year? Did you look at the CBC page?

With respect to consensus, how is that established? How long do polls usually run? What is the difference between consensus and majority vote?

I'm looking for my copy of the Canadian Press style guide. As soon as I find it, I'll post the section.

Thanks, Horlo 22:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Definition of consensus
Hello,

Could somebody please provide a definition of consensus?

I have looked through all of the Wikipedia guidelines, and there is no explanation of what consensus means.

It appears that consensus is the only argument left as to why the page should stay "Kiev".

Thanks, Horlo 03:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

in a sense, has the unanimous approval of the community Reginmund 06:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Judging by the number of archived pages, the length of this talk page and the arguments put forth by the numerous discussants its not possible to say that there is unanimous consensus. Eduvalko 12:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, then we'll have to go through these objectives piece by piece until there is. Reginmund 15:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Which objective do you feel still needs to be gone through?

One: The google test is inconclusive (9:30pm EST, Kyiv, 2,170,000; Kiev, 1,990,000, a statistically insignificant difference)

Two: The media is split

Three: Every major English-speaking international organization uses Kyiv

Four: Encyclopedia, with the exception of Encarta, use Kiev.

Five: Every English-speaking government uses Kyiv.

It seems the majority of tests suggested on the naming conflict resolution page suggests Kyiv.

Thanks, Horlo 01:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

One: All other search engine tests that do not fluctuate show Kiev being three to five times more popular than Kyiv

Two: The media is split.

Three: Organisations are part of the media, therefore, it is split.

Four: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, and Encarta.

Five: The people, not the government, make the English lexicon what it is.

Reginmund 03:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

Reginmund, for weeks you were saying that the way naming is verified on Wikipedia is the Google test. Now, you want to look at other search engines, because google no longer shows the 9x majority for Kiev.

As to point three, how do you equate NATO, the UN, the World Health Organization, and the World Bank with media?

Four, Encarta uses Kyiv. It redirects a Kiev search. Here is the link: http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/search.aspx?q=kiev

Five: Unless you want to go and ask everybody in the Anglosphere which word they use, you have to accept other criteria. I submit that governments do not make language, they reflect it.

These are not arbitrary criteria invented by me. They are on the Wikipedia:naming conflict resolution page.

Thanks, Horlo 05:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I wanted to look at the other search engines because google was fluctuating. Didn't you read what I said before?

How is NATO, World Health Organization, and World Bank not a part of the media?

Your assumption that they the governments reflect the usage of the people is pure original research. That is something you have to cite. Otherwise, it has no merit here. Kiev has reigned superior on all of the English language searches I have tried. It is somewhat obvious that the common name is Kiev. Reginmund 06:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

Reginmund, I have been reading what you have been saying for quite some time now. The question of google number fluctuation was never an issue before, because it was always in the range of "a majestic 9x that of Kyiv". Have you actually checked other search engines for fluctuation? I have. A Yahoo! search fluctuates between

a)a Canada-based "web" search (ie. not only pages from Canada) brings a count of 29,100,000 pages for Kiev, and

b)a UK-based "web" search (ie. not only pages from the UK) brings a count of 19,600,000. A difference of 10 million, or 30%, of the same search term, same search engine, but the computers are stationed in another country.

According to the Wikipedia definition, media is: Media (the plural of "medium") is a term referring to those organized means of dissemination of fact, opinion, entertainment, and other information, such as newspapers, magazines, out-of-home advertising, cinema films, radio, television, the World Wide Web, books, CDs, DVDs, videocassettes, video games and other forms of publishing. (from the Wikipedia definition of media)

On the other hand, ''NATO... [is] a collective defence whereby its member states agree to a mutual defence in response to an attack by an external party'' (Wikipedia definition of NATO);

The World Health Organization is is a specialized agency of the United Nations (UN) that acts as a coordinating authority on international public health;

The World Bank is a family of five international organizations responsible for providing finance and advice to countries for the purposes of economic development and eliminating poverty..

That's why NATO, the WHO, and the World Bank are not media. If it's still not clear, please let me know. That's why, on the naming conflict resolution page, they are in a separate category.

Your statement "it is obvious that the common name is Kiev" is pure original research, and has no place here unless you can cite it. Throughout this discussion, I have been trying to establish what the common name is. If you have any suggestions, please let me know.

Thanks, Horlo 15:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

And notice it all fluctuates in the vicinity of higher than Kyiv and never lower? That makes the fluctuation argument irrelevant. You brought it up anyway. Note that NATO and WHO are both part of the media. I never said that they were media outlets but as you are sourcing yourself from the world wide web, it has a substantial effect of the media. Did you read what I said before that? No it can't be original research considering the fact that I am basing off of the considerably higher hits on all search engines, regardless of fluctuation. Next time you use my point as an example, don't cherry pick examples of my text. Reginmund 00:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

First, the search engines - I think that there are enough examples of Kyiv getting more hits than Kiev presented in the discussion above. I am not cherry picking your arguments, as from the start of this discussion to August 4th, you were claiming that Wikipedia only follows the common name, as shown by the google test, and that has been proven to be Kiev.

However, Wikipedia does not suggest using a raw google search, but rather an advanced google search. And on that, Kyiv does get more hits than Kiev. Not always, but regularly enough to show that the test is inconclusive, and other methods of determining common name should be considered.

Second, could you please explain how NATO and the WHO are media?

Thanks, Horlo 01:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You said that my quote of Kiev being obviously more common than Kyiv is original research, despite the fact that I wrote because of the Google search. You left that out. Therefore, you are cherry picking my arguments. I see no proof of Kyiv ever getting more hits. Note that this is also based off of the advanced google search which makes it more accurate. Just because Wikipedia doesn't instruct to use the Google search, doesn't mean that it can't be used. We don't even need to bring up the Google search either. It has been shown at the polls that Kiev is more popular. We don't need to consider any other ways because the advanced Google test and polling are both suitable enough to determine that Kiev is substanitally more common than Kyiv. End of. If you repeat another argument I covered, I won't bother to respond. That includes the NATO and WHO argument. I already said that since you received information from the WWW (part of the media) it is substantial media assets. Reginmund 01:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Reginmund, if you want to see proof of google showing more hits for Kyiv, just scroll up this discussion a bit, and you will find figures posted not only by me, but also by other editors.

I am still a bit unclear about how you equate NATO with the media. Are you saying that because I got information about it from the WorldWideWeb, NATO and the WHO should be considered media?

If you want to move the discussion away from the google test, I will be very happy. From the beginning, I have said that the google test is only one way of judging commonality, and that other things should be considered. I am very willing to discuss any other suggestions that you may have about this, including sports, cultural, and religious associations, off-line resources, and any other criteria that you would like to suggest.

Thanks, Horlo 02:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing any reference to the point that Kyiv was ever more common. NATO is not a media outlet itself but its website, since it is part of the WWW, makes it part of the media. As for another determination, limiting to sports, cultural, and religious associatons may induce bias from them and start another foolhardy trip off the beaten path. that is what the search engine tests are for. to sum them up. Never mind that anyway. The most important part of this discussion is polling and it has already determined that Kiev is more popular. Reginmund 03:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

If you look at the entries of August 10th, 14th, 15th, and probably others (these were just a quick look on my part - original research, so please verify that), you will see actual dates and numbers when Kyiv was more popular.

Second, being on the world wide web does not make something part of the media. Media exists to transmit information to a (large) group of people. NATO exists to militarily protect its member states. The WHO exists to help sick people, and to help healthy people stay healthy, and not become sick people. Three completely different things. Again, that's why they are mentioned in different categories on the Wikipedia naming conflict resolution site.

But back to the question at hand.

Third, I have never said limit the discussion. On the contrary, I think that to find true common use, every source should be considered valid, as that is what people use. It is impossible to eliminate bias, because everybody has an opinion, and those opinions are based on the sum of acquired knowledge that a person possesses. If you possess different knowledge than I, your opinion will be different from mine, and you will consider me biased, and I will consider you biased.

Please note that I asked for any suggestions on your part. A search of Internet sites is one measure, but that induces a bias on people who make internet sites. How about all of the people who don't make internet sites? As of February, 2007, there are only 108 million-odd internet sites in the entire world (as of here: http://www.boutell.com/newfaq/misc/sizeofweb.html ), and over 5 billion people. According to Bill Bryson, in Mother Tongue, "Over one billion people in the world speak English, and the rest are trying to learn."

Searches of off-line searches is another measure, organizations (of English speakers) another, as well as anything you can add.

Fourth, could you please explain the process of polling on Wikipedia? Is it always only 15 or 16 hours long? Does the spirit of Wikipedia mean that one poll should be considered binding forever? Could you suggest a way to poll as many people as possible, to make the result the most inclusive that it could be?

Thanks, Horlo 04:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

In the most unusual circumstances, the internet will be flooded with those dirty little pet peeves. They squander, say a certain ratio of the search. umpteen out of 100 should be ignored, with search B, the same applies. The elimination of bias is not conclusive when removing all sources. It is only enforced when limited sources are available. That is what the search is for. That is why it is possible to eliminate bias, in this context. To sum up the inevitable Internet. As for NATO, it is not a media outlet itself but it has substantial effect on the media as it plays a part in it (WWW). Reginmund 05:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

What does that mean?

Thanks Horlo 05:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment: Change the name of the article Kiev to Kyiv
Remove RFChist

There has been some debate, including the interpretation of the Wikipedia rules of naming conflict resolution and Wikipedia naming guidelines, as to whether title of the page Kiev should be changed to Kyiv.

Naming discussion results
Hello,

The discussion on the naming page has gone through roughly 50,000 words, with basically the following results:

One, the google test is inconclusive; Two, major English media is split between Kyiv and Kiev; Three, all major English-speaking international organizations use Kyiv, except for the IMF; Four, Encyclopedia Britannica and Columbia use Kiev, but Encarta uses Kyiv; Five, all English-speaking governments use Kyiv.

There is also a Request for Comment open at the bottom.

If there are any other objections to moving the page to Kyiv, please add them. Otherwise, it seems apparent that Kyiv is more common, and the page should be moved.

Thanks, Horlo 18:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This has been gone over point by point long ago. Stop using those superfluous obnoxious weasel words "it seems". We have not concluded the Google test as inconclusive, you fail to mention the other search engine tests with five times more hits for Kiev, and you use irrelevant facts which has already been discussed. You seem to have a problem with repeating the same arguments. It has already been decided by a poll which is the final authority. KIEV stays where it is. Reginmund 01:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Please see the discussion on the naming page which shows numerical data as to why the google test is inconclusive. Again, clear directions, dates, and test results are provided in the final section, definition of consensus.

Again, please see WP:naming conflict to see why the other facts/arguments that I put forth are not irrelevant.

Please stop making statements like "Kiev stays where it is", as you have no authority to make such statements.

Thanks, Horlo 04:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Horlo, your one issue account is wasting its time. Name is not going to get changed anytime soon. If you must waste your time on this, go back to the naming page and write whatever you want there to your heart's content. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 05:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Horlo, this wasn't decided by me, it was decided by the Wikipedians. I won't be discouraged to say it just because you don't like it but it is true. Kiev stays where it is. If you have any arguments to put forth, bring them to me. Don't expect me to go on a wild goose-chase looking for them. Reginmund 06:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Deacon, if you have some facts to add to the discussion, please add them. Otherwise, please refrain from POV statements like "won't change anytime soon" and "waste your time".

Reginmund, there was an interesting discussion going on, until you stopped paying attention to numbers, started stating that NATO is media, and making comments like your last comment in the "definition of consensus" section.

Consensus changes, and a poll is not the final solution forever. Other editors also pointed out that polls are not binding.

If you have any other arguments, please put them forward. If you just want to keep hammering that there was a poll and the discussion is over, please understand that this will not lead anywhere.

Thanks, Horlo 20:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You made no counter to the fact that a website (such as NATO's) can't be considered part of the media. In your entirety, you have ignored the substantial numbers regarding the search engines. What I am stating are guidelines on Wikipedia and by you disregarding them, goes to show why this argument is a pandaemonic mess. If you want to start making sense, drop the weasel words. The reason that the argument isn't going anywhere is because you keep repeating the same conflict that has already been discussed. When it has been proven against you, you go to another until you cycle around back to where you started. There's no wonder why we're at a cul-de-sac. You haven't countered a single argument last that I have of yours which leads you to think that there must be some existentialist alternative solution only because you are driven only to find and exploit any irrelevant possibility as to why this article should be renamed while ignoring the common name and polling rules in lieu to making up your own. Reginmund 21:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

Reginmund, let's take your points one at a time.

First, I gave you exact definitions, actually from Wikipedia, about what the media is, and what NATO is. Just in case, here they are again:

Media: The news media refers to the section of the mass media that focuses on presenting current news to the public.

NATO: ''The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO; French: Organisation du Traité de l'Atlantique Nord ("OTAN"); also called the North Atlantic Alliance, the Atlantic Alliance, or the Western Alliance) is a military alliance, established by the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty on 4 April 1949. With headquarters in Brussels, Belgium,[2] the organisation established a system of collective defence whereby its member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party.''

In other words: Media = people giving information;

NATO = good people with guns stopping bad people with guns.

If you can't see the difference, there is nothing I can say to help you.

Next, your reliance on search engines. Where in the Wikipedia guidelines does it say to use only search engines and ignore every other facet of society? Please point that out to me.

You seem to ignore the entire Wikipedia: naming conflict resolution section. You can find it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Naming_conflict

The other categories which I presented, which you have claimed are find irrelevant, are listed in black and white on the above page, in the category "Identification of Common Names using External References"

Another point, also from the above page, states ''A city, country or people, by contrast, is a self-identifying entity: it has a preferred name for itself. The city formerly called Danzig now calls itself Gdańsk. The country formerly called Burma now calls itself Myanmar. These names are not simply arbitrary terms but are key statements of an entity's own identity. This should always be borne in mind when dealing with controversies involving self-identifying names.''

This is clearly written in the "Other Considerations, Types of entities" section.

Why do you think that Dogpile.com is more important that Wikipedia guidelines?

Finally, the reason that I haven't addressed some of your final arguments is that they are not coherent. Could you please explain to me this paragraph:

''In the most unusual circumstances, the internet will be flooded with those dirty little pet peeves. They squander, say a certain ratio of the search. umpteen out of 100 should be ignored, with search B, the same applies. The elimination of bias is not conclusive when removing all sources. It is only enforced when limited sources are available. That is what the search is for. That is why it is possible to eliminate bias, in this context. To sum up the inevitable Internet. As for NATO, it is not a media outlet itself but it has substantial effect on the media as it plays a part in it (WWW). Reginmund 05:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)''

You will notice that I asked for an explanation of this paragraph after you made it, but you have not said anything.

If it's not too much to ask, please separate your points into separate paragraphs, as sometimes it becomes difficult to differentiate where one idea ends and the next begins.

By the way, 7:20pm EST, on the Google Advanced search, Kyiv gets 2,050,000 hits, while Kiev gets 1,940,000. Please note this time and date, as I may refer to it in a following example. I would not like you to get lost in all of the information presented here.

And you still have no authority to say that Kiev stays where it is.

Please let me know if there is anything that is still unclear.

Thanks, Horlo 23:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

1. You argue that I said that NATO is part of the media. I don't think you understand me. Since the WWW is part of the media and NATO contributes to the WWW, it contributes to the media, although it is not a media outlet itself.

2. You say that I rely on search engines. What you fail to point out that the prime factor in determining the name is polling which has already been done.

3. You want me to search a topic on naming conflicts. Again you are sending me on a wild goose-chase. I do not know the point that you are trying to make, therefore, I cannot combat it.

4. You claim that the categories that you present I say have no merit. If I haven't already explained why, bring them up again, but make sure that I haven't otherwise you would just be repeating another argument.

5. You make the point that the city is the institution in self-identification. Here is something that you may have missed:

''A distinction should be drawn between a self-identifying entity and an inanimate entity. An inanimate geographical feature such as a sea or mountain does not have its own name for itself (obviously). Thus the English name Mount Everest is just as arbitrary as the local name, Qomolangma. The use of "Mount Everest" as the definitive term in Wikipedia is simply a matter of convenience, as the mountain is far more widely known by the English name than by its native Tibetan one.''

Now substitute "Mount Everest" with "Kiev" and "Qomolangma" with "Kyiv".

6. You had previously expressed disdain for Google due to its fluctuations. To combat this, I researched several other search engines (not only Dogpile) and summed their average ratio of hits (including Google). Again, you expressed disdain for Google.

7. My point being in the text is that you consistently want to cherrypick certain organisations using a certain spelling. However, a search engine has the utter convenience of pileing all of those organisations into a single sum which can be determined by observation of a number.

8. I took the liberty of checking my watchlist every five minutes until you would come up with another example of how Kyiv has supposedly reached more hits then Kiev. Right after your post, I immediately checked the search and as chance would have it, I concluded that you were either wrong, or you just exploited Google's weakness and blew it out of proportion, or in other words, you lied. Kiev is once again at 2,480,000 and Kyiv is at 1,980,000. Reginmund 23:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you for organizing your arguments.

First, I am glad that you agree that NATO should not be considered part of the media, and therefore should be in a different category.

So far, we agree.

Second, your main argument against the name change for the first 8 days of this discussion was that the only thing that counts on Wikipedia is the google test. I have always stated that the google test should only be one part of the discussion. Then, when I pointed out that there is ambiguity in the google test, you started claiming that there was a poll, and there is consensus. I have two arguments about this. First, consensus means that everybody agrees (your definition). Please show me one part of this discussion where everybody agrees about keeping the name Kiev. Second, there was a poll, and by wikipedia guidelines, a poll should not be considered binding, much less binding forever.

Third, here are the Wikipedia naming conflict conventions. This is taken directly from the Wikipedia:naming conflict page. However, it is very difficult for you to actually go to that page, I will cut and paste it for you here:

''Identification of common names using external references

A number of methods can be used to identify which of a pair (or more) conflicting names is the most prevalent in English.

* The Google test. Using Google's advanced search option, search for each conflicting name and confine the results to pages written in English; also exclude the word "Wikipedia" (as we want to see what other people are using, not our own usage). Note which is the most commonly used term. * International organisations. Search for the conflicting names on the websites of organisations such as the United Nations, NATO, OSCE, IMF, etc. * Major English-language media outlets. Use Google News and, where possible, the archives of major outlets such as BBC News and CNN to identify common usages. Some media organisations have established style guides covering naming issues, which can provide useful guidance (e.g. The Guardian's style guide says use Ukraine, not the Ukraine). * Reference works. Check other encyclopedias. If there is general agreement on the use of a name (as there often will be), that is usually a good sign of the name being the preferred term in English. * Geographic name servers. Check geographic name servers such as the NGIA GNS server at http://gnswww.nga.mil/geonames/GNS/index.jsp. * Scientific nomenclature. Check usage by international bodies like CIPM, IUPAP, IUPAC, and other scientific bodies concerned with nomenclature; consider also the national standards agencies NIST and NPL. Consult style guides of scientific journals.''

Fourth: These are the categories which I present, and you claim are invalid. Please take a look at them, and see where I was incorrect. The only one I did not mention is scientific nomenclature, because we are talking about a city name, not a new molecule.

Fifth, let me offer more explanations: According to Wikipedia, ''A mountain is a landform that extends above the surrounding terrain in a limited area. A mountain is generally steeper than a hill, but there is no universally accepted standard definition for the height of a mountain or a hill although a mountain usually has an identifiable summit.''

On the other hand, ''A city is an urban settlement with a particularly important status which differentiates it from a town. ''

Please let me know if that is clear, of if you would like some more help in differentiating between mountains and cities.

Sixth. I did not express disdain for Google, but from the beginning of this discussion, I have stated that it is only one criteria. Search engines have to scan billions of bytes of information in .15 seconds, and although they may provide a good starting point, they should not be considered the conclusive source for everything. That is why there are other criteria listed in the conventions above.

Seventh. Please show me where I have said that certain organizations should be excluded, according to Wikipedia guidelines, as noted above. You can see that I have always said, and will say again, examine everything. In all fairness, I have said that places like "Kievbrides.com" should be excluded, but that is because they do not refer to the city.

Eigth. Personal attacks have no place here. I can just as easily say that you blow the results out of proportion, or lie.

Please see if you can agree with this statement: search engines are unpredictable, and should not be the only criteria in judging a name.

I hope that this helped.

Horlo 00:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

1. I never said that the only thing that counts is the Google test. That is untrue. I said that Google is a secondary way of determining the common name and polling is the primary. Then you wanted to know what the definition of consensus was and I copied the definition form Wikipedia's consensus guideline. I never said that people unanimously agreed on the topic.

2. We have already been over the various organisations that either use Kiev or they do not. This is also only an alternative to determining the common name which is only justified when the common name is ambiguous since the primary means of determining the name are WP:COMMONNAME. Due to the polling and testing, it is not ambiguous.

3. You are steering away from the subject when you distinguish between mountains and cities. The mountain is just an example of how to resolve a naming conflict. It is not meant to have relation with the city. The point it is trying to get across is that regardless if an entity is a mountain or a city, it should be named in regards to the most commonly regonised English usage and not primarily how it is identified by the nationality that identifies it.

4. I never said that search engines should be the conclusive source for all means of determination. I made it clear that polling is the primary means of determination. Search engines are not perfect but can express substantial merit, especially when their results are unanimous, as they all point form Kiev being 5x more popular to 3x more popular. This also makes them more reliable in this debate considering that since the agreement between media outlets is nowhere near unanimous, in common parlance, it is much closer.

5. I have described the circumstances under which you either lied or were misinformed. This is not a personal attack. In any case, you were wrong about the Kyiv being more popular than Kiev at the time. That makes your explanations of the Google searches fluctuating rather vague. Reginmund 00:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

1.  From a quick scan, I found that on August 2, you stated that the most precise way of determining the common usage is the google test. And kiev is 9x more popular.

There are probably more times, but that is one I found with a quick glance.

2.  The criteria listed show how to establish common name. You cannot ignore them because of an old poll, or a test which by no means is unambiguous.

3.  I am not steering away from the subject, you are. The item clearly states: ''A city, country or people, by contrast, is a self-identifying entity: it has a preferred name for itself. The city formerly called Danzig now calls itself Gdańsk. The country formerly called Burma now calls itself Myanmar. These names are not simply arbitrary terms but are key statements of an entity's own identity. This should always be borne in mind when dealing with controversies involving self-identifying names.''

Please not the use of the term "by contrast". That means that cities are different from mountains. It is a different paragraph.

Please notice the statement: "These names are not simply arbitrary terms but are key statements of an entity's own identity."

Do you know what Mount Everest calls itself?

4.  I am happy that you agree that search engines are not the only criteria. Referring to the poll, there was actually quite a bit of support for the move, and much more expressed after it was closed.

Actually, about the polling and consensus, I counted the contributors to the discussion here. The number of editors who support using Kyiv is 17. Those in favour of Kiev:8. By your own definition, the name should change.

5.  You clearly said "you lied". Stop saying things like that, they are not very ambiguous. I was not wrong, the results were the ones I posted. Name-calling doesn't help anybody, so it must end now.

In conclusion, going by the numbers of editors on this page (people to whom this is important enough to actually contribute something to the discussion), the name of the page, as a product of consensus, should be Kyiv.

Thank you for your support,

Horlo 01:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

1. And now we've found an even more precise way, the advanced Google test. If you can think of another way, I'd like to hear it.

2. The criteria listed do not actually cancel out the poll or the test, they are alternatives to them. FYI, polls don't "expire".

3. The different paragraph deals with the same subject. The message is that regardless of the identity of Mount Everest, whatever the natives call it doesn't make it the primary usage. The same applies to Kiev.

4. Note the considerable sockpuppetry that this debate has generated due to POV. We only go by legitimate polls, not de facto. Therefore, the name shouldn't change by my definition. You need not try to put words in my mouth, especially when you aren't sure whether or not I would agree with them. As you can see, I don't.

5. Yes, I blatantly said that either you lied or you were misinformed. Apperently you have a habit of cherrypicking not only from media organisations, but my quotes. You also seem to pigeon-hole my arguments as if this was name calling. Now answer this... if a person is proven to have committed perjury, does he shout to the court, "name caller"? You seem to be taking these arguments to personally and emotion should never speak for one's actions. In this case, you seem to be unsuitable for debate.

6. See answer four. Reginmund 01:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

1.  Are you again saying that search engines, and the advanced google test is the best way to judge commonality?

2.  The criteria do not cancel each other out, nor are they alternatives to each other. They are all equal. FYI, polls do expire, according to Wikipedia policy, on the WP:Naming Conflict page. Again, to save you the great difficulty of actually going there, here is the information:

''Equally, the prospects for achieving long-term consensus can be complicated by the fact that contributors change over time. At one point, a certain group of contributors may agree to use one name, but this group only represents the view of the particular sub-community of editors that exists at that time. When new contributors arrive, they are faced with the choice of reopening the discussion (thus diminishing the weight of the opinions of their predecessors), or sticking to the old consensus (which deprives the new contributors of a chance to have their say). In short, no consensus represents the voices of all the contributors to a given article. Following a permanently established objective procedure that does not rely on a fleeting consensus gets around this problem.''

The permanently established objective procedure is outlined in the five points in the section: Identification of common names Using External References, above. I can re-copy it here for you again, if you like.

3.  The two items are different. That's why they're in different paragraphs, with different examples and guidelines. Where do you think names come from? They are made by people, not mountains or rivers. People who got the name Kiev got it from Russian, but as more and more people started realizing that it is not Russia, they are calling it Kyiv.

4.  Where is the sockpuppetry? Who are the sockpuppets?

I was not putting any words in your mouth.

Let's stick to the issue at hand - which point here still show not to move the page? Thanks, Horlo 02:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

1. I am saying that besides polling, search engines are the best way. If you can think of another, I'd like to hear it.

2. It says nothing about the poll actually expiring. After the close, there was an influx of sockpuppetry that can only be a Wikipedian taking this issue to seriously. This poll is less than a month old. That's no expiration date or enough time to generate an influx of Russophobes coincidentially after the polls closed. That can only be sockpuppetry.

3. Now you are saying that the reason the name should be changed is that people suddenly realised that Kiev is not in Russia? This isn't archaeology or astronomy. It is irrelevant that Kiev is in Ukraine. What is relevant is the most common usage and the spelling has nothing to do with misinformation.

4. For one, you are suspected of sockpuppetry and not just by me, the six Toronto IPs (judging by you mistakingly signing a post without being logged in and resigning it with your user name, you are all of them). then there's the random usernames that appear to have little to no contributions to other articles.

5. By your own definition, the name should change - Horlo You appear to be saying that I would say something that I don't actually agree with. That is putting words into my mouth.

6. Hmmm... try the fact that the polls are in favour of keeping the page and Kiev is three to five times more popular on AOL, Dogpile, Yahoo!, Ask.com, Alexa, and 20% more popular on Google. That's enough to end this conversation. Reginmund 02:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

It appears that I am not the only one taking this personally. Everybody who disagrees with you is my sockpuppet. Hmmm...

But back to the issue of naming, I have been proposing four other ways of judging commonality, but examining Wikipedia policy was a wild goose chase for you. I have pasted the information from other pages onto this page, but you think they are not useful.

Again, the reason that I propose the name be changed is not because suddenly people realize that Kyiv is in Ukraine, it is because people use the name Kyiv.

It's too bad that you want this conversation to end.

Horlo 03:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There you go again, now you're not only cherrypicking but misconstruing what I am saying. I never said that the people that disagree with me are your sockpuppet. I said that Wikipedians that influxed immediately after the poll was lost and appeared to have little to no other edits on any other pages were your sockpuppets. Now are you insinuating that I am the one taking this personally?

Now what part of my argument says that analysing Wikipedia's policy is a wild goose-chase? I assure you, no guideline that you pasted I have referred to as a wild goose-chase.

Now you are proposing that you want to change the name because people use the name Kyiv? Hmmm... according to Alexa, Ask.com, Yahoo!, AOL, and Dogpile, people use "Kiev" more.

If you think that it is too bad that I want this convo to end, I think that it is worse that you have an excessive habit of repeating the same arguments. Now lets see if you do it again... Reginmund 03:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Earlier today you said: You want me to search a topic on naming conflicts. Again you are sending me on a wild goose-chase. I do not know the point that you are trying to make, therefore, I cannot combat it.. I am not putting words in your mouth, nor misconstruing what you say. I am just pointing it out to you.

It's too bad that you have this attitude "the poll was lost", us vs. them. This is not a war, this is a discussion.

Yes, more people use Kyiv. NATO (the non-media one), the UN, the World Bank, the OSCE, the government of the UK, Canada, the government of Australia, New Zealand, the US, and Encarta use Kyiv. Why do you think that is? And a lot of media use Kyiv.

There is life outside the internet. Search engines should only be one method of judging.

Thanks, Horlo 04:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Yes, you are putting worlds into my mouth. You say that due to the overwhelming influx of Wikipedians that agree with the name "Kyiv" have topped the ones that agree with Kyiv and that I would agree for the page to be moved to Kyiv because of that. Well, I wouldn't agree as I have already previously stated after you put the wrong words into my mouth and misconstrued what I wrote. To keep it showrt, you are spinning my arguments.

2. I never said that the poll was "lost", nor did I make any statements or implications that this is a war. There you go again spinning my arguments. If you think that I am being incivil, then point it out to me; don't pull some POV out of your hat.

3. I knew that you would repeat the same argument. Well, I guess I will have to repeat myself once again. This is what the search engine tests are for. To sum up all of those organisations (and civilians) and by that, determine how much more of them use which toponym. It goes to show that this statement was made out of stubbornness:

Yes, more people use Kyiv.

...right after I showed you the results by six different search engines determining that Kiev is with no doubt, still the most popular English toponym for that city.

4. More spin! I never said that there is no life outside of the Internet! Now obviously you are also taunting me which is incivility on Wikipedia and is not tolerated. As for the actual argument you are making, you seem to think that there may be a way of proving the usage outside of the Internet. Well, I'm all ears here. Reginmund 05:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

quick question

it seems that there are two arguments here and two people who are convinced that their argument is correct

how does wikipedia resolve such a situation?

thanks

marta

64.228.89.172 19:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yet, another random Toronto IP with only two contributions to his name. Nice try Horlo. Reginmund 01:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Reginmund, you're being uncivil. You wanted me to point that out to you, so I did. I was hoping some time off would help you cool down.

I will now re-post my argument which I made before asking others to contribute on the talk page.

The reason Wikipedia guidelines recommend looking at criteria other than the internet is that the internet does not represent all humanity. It represents the people who make websites. As per this search engine, http://www.boutell.com/newfaq/misc/sizeofweb.html, there are only about 108 million odd internet sites in the world (as of February, 2007). However, there are five billion people. According to Bill Bryson, "...one billion speak English, and the rest are trying to learn"(Mother Tongue).

Not everybody makes internet sites, so you have to look outside internet search engines to find what people are using. Hence the suggestions to look at things like organizations, other encyclopedia, news, and governments.

Thanks, Horlo 02:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that sockpuppetry accusations are not incivility which goes to show that you didn't even read the page.


 * Now for your new argument, does this somehow change the ratio of how many people use Kiev as opposed to how many people use Kyiv? Remember that organisations have websites. Reginmund 02:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, The point is that the internet does not represent all the people in the world, or even the Anglosphere, so cannot be the only determinant for the commonality of a term.

I think what you meant in your previous reply to that argument (and I am speculating here) was that introducing organizations into the measurement introduces bias. I said that depending only on the internet introduces bias on the part of people who use the internet.

If NATO uses Kyiv, it influences all of the people deal with NATO. Same goes with the UN.

Just because an organization has a website, doesn't mean that everybody in the world uses that website. When the internet was first becoming big, everybody predicted the imminent collapse of print media, TV, radio, brick-and-mortar schools and brick-and-mortar stores. That hasn't happened.

The internet is not the only thing that people pay attention to. Therefore, the internet should not be the only measuring stick for commonality.

Judging by non internet-based criteria, yes, more people use Kyiv.

Thanks, Horlo 02:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope, you're making judgements based on original research. Show me why the ratio between how many people use Kiev/Kyiv would be any different from the Internet than common parlance. Reginmund 05:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Nope, I'm not. Why do you think there are other criteria listed? Horlo 05:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You still haven't answered my question. Reginmund 05:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have been following what was a debate on the name of a city, and now appears to be something else, for a few weeks now. It is unfortunate that either malice or unchecked and unhelpful irritation is seeping into this discussion. I have tried to stay abreast of this discussion, and to read over and consider everyone's comments, in order to contribute properly to this debate. Now that I have finally read all since my last post, I must say that due to the souring of the debate it has become very daunting to post anything.

Horlo and Reginmund, I appeal to you both: please put any annoyance or animosity behind yourselves, regardless of cause. As the two main contributors to this debate, your comments will set the tone for what follows.

My judgement, based on all of the points made above, leads me to conclude that Kyiv should be the name for the article. I don't think all will agree or disagree without further discussion, if at all; if this issue can be moved forward through more debate here, then the issue at hand must be debated civilly and objectively.

My IP address is provided. 60.242.0.245 16:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Soooooooooo, what made you decide this? Reginmund 18:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Reginmund, here is the answer to your question. There are approximately 108 million websites.

There are over 1 billion English speakers.

As I personally run 3 websites, we can deduce that one website does not correspond to one person.

108 million is roughly ten percent of one billion. Ten percent is not a representative number when determining a relative cross-section of a population. That's not original research, that's here:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/evaluation/glossary/glossary_r.htm.

However, one website does not represent one person. Therefore, the internet represents less than ten percent of the Anglosphere.

That's why Wikipedia has alternatives to internet search engines listed on the naming conflict resolutions page.

Now, would you kindly answer my question: why are you ignoring all of the other criteria in the guidelines?

Thanks, Horlo 21:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll answer your question. What makes you think that the guideline to use the Google test is inferior to the guideline to use what the organisations use? The reason we use the Google test the most is because it is most compatible with the common name policy. Now before you bring up the obstacle that one website doesn't represent one person, answer me this, what makes you think that the ratio would change depending on if you count every person's usage as opposed to every Internet user's usage? Reginmund 04:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Reginmund, I was stating my bias after appealing for civility. I would like to have something reclarified please: do people who use the English language, but not as a domestic or primary tongue (e.g. business, diplomatic, academic use etc. or in a polylinguistic situation), contribue to "common usage" with the same weight as those who solely use the English language? 60.242.0.245 13:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That is an irrelevant argument. Wikipedia doesn't put "proper" usage before common usage. That is what WP:COMMONNAME is about. Reginmund 21:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Burden of Proof
Hello,

Reginmund, I have never said that the Google test is inferior. I have said all along that it is only one test among others that should be used. It is common because it is easy, and that's why we use it most. That does not make it most compatible.

Actually, the burden of proof shifts to you: can you show me that a 10% sample of a population is a correct representation of the remaining 90%? Please keep in mind that we are discussing the entire Anglosphere, not just one country.

Thanks, Horlo 21:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't answered my question. Why would the ratio be any different? Keep in mind that "Kiev" is not Internet slang. Reginmund 21:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

Consider this example: Which of these statements are true? a) All people in the United Kingdom are originally from India.

b) All people in the United Kingdom are women.

c) Ten percent is not enough of a sample.

Thanks, Horlo 22:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

What? Give me your point in a nutshell, not a labyrinth. Reginmund 22:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

Ten percent cannot be considered an absolute measure of the whole. It may be, but it cannot be assumed that it is. If you say that it is, you have to show why.

Thanks, Horlo 22:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't answered my question. Reginmund 22:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

Which question haven't I answered?

Thanks, Horlo 23:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

How would the ratio of the usage of the Kyiv/Kiev spelling be any different on the Internet as opposed to the real world? Reginmund 23:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, There are many different types of people in the world.

How would the ration of the usage of Kyiv/Kiev be the same in the real world as opposed to the internet?

Thanks, Horlo 23:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Many different types of people use the Internet. Now how would it be any different? Reginmund 00:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

Google, or any other search engine, is not counting the people using the internet. It only counts websites. Therefore, every search engine is biased towards people who make websites.

Second, not everybody uses the internet. According to this article (from the Guardian) http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2102517,00.html, only 60 million people in the US had broadband access. However, there are over 300 million people in the US http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html. That's only 1 in 5.

Again, not really enough to get a picture of everybody, especially considering the inequity in internet access still prevalent around the world.

So, how can this small group represent everybody? Thanks, Horlo 01:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, why would the ratio be any different? Reginmund 01:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Because it's not a representative number.

Thanks, Horlo 01:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You'll have to do better than that. You have no proof that the ratio would be any different. Reginmund 01:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

Actually, you're the one claiming that it would be the same. You have to prove that it would.

Thanks, Horlo 01:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No, you still haven't answered my question. What exactly would alter the ratio of people? See, by predicting that the ratio would be different, you are engaging in original research. If the Google test was unreliable, then Wikipedia would not implement it to determine the common name. Reginmund 07:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

Actually, I'm not predicting anything. I am stating a fact. You do not know that it will be the same.

You are predicting that a 10% sample would be representative, and all other criteria should be ignored. That is the original research.

That is why you have to show proof that the results would be the same.

Once again, I have never said that the Google test is unreliable. I have never said that it is bad. I have never said that it should be ignored. I have always said that it is a great starting point. If the Google test were all that is necessary, however, there would be no naming conflict resolution page, or other criteria that we use.

Thanks, Horlo 13:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, you are predicting that it would be different. It's not a fact. Predicting that the ratio would be differnt is original research. Especially when you have nothing to back that claim up. You would know if you read the page. Say if Wikipedia writes an article about a current event and the source is the BBC. Then you say that the BBC is too inaccurate to trust and you don't back up your claim. Its the same principle. The BBC is trusted enough by Wikipedia to implement its usage in the encyclopaedia as much as Google is and unless you don't have any prooof whatsoever to determine that the ratio of usage would be different outside of the Internet, your argument has no merit. It seems that the argument that you have that stands out most is the fact that all Anglophonic governments and internationalk organisations use Kyiv. Now this is emphasis on the subject but it doesn't overlap the common name policy. The policy to use this alternative is only enforced when the common name of an article is questionable. Let me remind you that the common name is not determined just by you, but by all Wikipedians who vote. They assess the information of the search engine test and the usage of media outlets, governments, and international organisations and they decide the commonality and if they follow the Google test, that is perfectly legitimate. Reginmund 17:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

I am not predicting anything. I am saying that it may be different, and it may be the same. You are stating emphatically that it will be the same.

I'm not sure what you mean with your BBC example. One media organization is quantifiable and verifiable. When you quote the BBC, you are not quoting everybody who reads the BBC, nor are you saying that everybody who reads the BBC website will agree with what they read.

Back to commonality, if you look through the archives, you will see that 33 people were in favour of the name Kyiv, but 21 were in favour of Kiev. This is not about the current discussion, because you are under the impression that everybody who disagrees with you is me in disguise.

In the old archives, the ratio of Kyiv:Kiev supporters is 3:2. Yet you claim that Wikipedians have decided in favour of Kyiv Kiev(sorry, edited by horlo).

How do you support/source that argument? Is that original research?

Thanks, Horlo 21:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

1. You say that it may be different. That is still original research. Therefore, your argument is irrelevant.

2. When I quote the BBC, I am quoting the BBC.

3. You cannot count the archives as votes. Only people who have voted in the poll. This is because most people opposing the move that see that it has not been executed have left the discussion. That is why a notice is put up at WP:RM.

4. Now if you're actually going to question me on original research, do it with some integrity and source yourself. Otherwise, stop enforcing a rule that you have little to know knowledge of. Reginmund 21:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

How is it original research to say that it may be different? How is it not original research to say that it will be the same? I am not stating anything - I am asking a question. You are stating that it will be the same.

I'm still not clear on how your BBC example relates here. Could you explain that again, please?

I am not counting anything as votes. I am saying that there is no consensus, and nothing has really been decided. How can you say that there is consensus?

Thanks, Horlo 22:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Disregarding the search engine test because you feel that it won't represent the majority of English speakers is original research because you have no proof of it. The reason I am using the BBC as a comparison to Google is because Wikipedia trusts them both legitimately because of their accuracies. That is why the Google test is implemented in order to determine the common name. Consensus has already been reached when the poll was closed. You can't count the users in favour that didn't even vote. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. Reginmund 22:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

I have never said disregard the Google test.

Here is what I am saying: The Google test is inconclusive, so other things should also be looked at.

Throughout this discussion, I have said that other things should be looked at also, not just the internet.

Besides Google and the BBC, there are many other things which Wikipedia trusts, such as major organizations and encyclopedia. Google shows Kyiv and Kiev in a statistical tie. The BBC uses Kyiv as well as Kiev. Therefore, other things should be considered, not just the internet and the media.

I was referring to other users who contributed BEFORE the poll. There has never been consensus. It is obvious from the discussion on the page that there are many other users who support the use of Kyiv, and there is no, nor has there ever been, consensus on this issue.

Wikipedia is always changing. That is one of the strengths of this medium, that when something new happens, Wikipedia can immediately reflect the change.

Kyiv is now more popular.

Therefore the page should be Kyiv.

Thanks, Horlo 23:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You are still using original research. You have no proof that the Google test is inconclusive. Until you can actually prove it without hypothesising, your argument is invalid. I'm going to stick to this argument for now. Reginmund 01:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

As of 22:00 EST, advanced Google search results: Kyiv, 2,160,000: http://www.google.com/search?as_q=kyiv&hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enCA234CA234&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images Kiev, 2,050,000: http://www.google.com/search?as_q=kiev&hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enCA234CA234&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images

If you would like to consider this result conclusive, great. However, statistically, it is tied.

I submit other criteria also be considered.

Thanks, Horlo 02:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe you seeing as your previous speculation was inaccurate. It seems that your argument now is the only thing in this discussion that can be exploited: time.

I won't continue with this discussion any more. There has already been consensus for very good reasons and you seem to be going in circles with your arguments. The Wikipedians have already voted and just because one Wikipedian thinks that it is unjust, doesn't mean that his opinion is any better than the oppositioners to the move; especially when he is using sockpuppets to prove a point. Reginmund 18:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Reginmund, did you actually look at the links that I provided? I know that you consider me genius enough to manipulate ISPs around the globe and create an army of evil undead sockpuppets against you, but even you can't think that I'm smart enough to create a fake Google test result. Or do you?

It's too bad that you don't want to continue with this discussion. It was quite entertaining, especially the last little while. Even now - how can I exploit time? Please explain that.

I hate to have to be the one to break this to you. "Just" and "unjust" have nothing to do with it. Proving how a name is used in the real English world, does.

Thanks, Horlo 16:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Resolving this dispute
I suggest consulting Resolving disputes before resorting to more serious methods for resolving a simple dispute. —Michael Z. 2007-08-25 14:12 Z 

Hello,

Not only I but also many other editors have tried. Some people just don't listen .Sorry, poor phrasing. I meant that some people don't listen to any opposing opinion or facts. Thanks, Horlo 18:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I don't really consider this a simple dispute. Horlo 18:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I was referring to your request for mediation, which was only about "whether the page should be moved to a page named Kyiv, with a redirect from Kiev"—you sought a simple yes or no result.


 * There are only two people actively participating in the lengthy discussion about this (horlo and Reginmund have each generated about 100 edits, other editors under 15). I don't see that the other steps suggested in Resolving disputes have been tried. And furthermore, I see no evidence that the Wikipedia community supports the article move.  This dispute certainly doesn't warrant the attention of the mediation committee at this time. —Michael Z. 2007-08-26 14:58 Z 

Hello,

Every dispute can be boiled down to a simple yes-no answer - regardless of the complexity of the dispute.

There has been discussion about the name of this article from the beginning. There have always been people who want to move it, and a group that doesn't. Right now, there is a small group who want to keep it at Kiev, and everybody who disagrees with them is labeled my sockpuppet.

There was a request for comment, two actually, but apparently the bot that handles that isn't working. Third party opinion is for a discussion between two editors only.

What other steps are there in the dispute resolution process?

Please read through the discussion, and notice how "assume good faith" has gone out of the window. Especially telling are the comments, not about the article, but about me personally, on the Request For Mediation discussion page. Actually, there are no facts about why the article should stay at Kiev at all, just attacks against me. Precisely because of that attitude, I sought outside mediation.

Thanks, Horlo 15:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Michael, much of the recent debate on this page has been between two people. However, I think my relatively low number of responses (I haven't counted, but <<15 I'm sure) ties in with something that Horlo said earlier - not every editor has the chance to read and edit this talk page regularly, or has constant internet access. It can also be difficult to take part in any discussion which exhibits incilivity or unproductive circular questioning. I will continue to contribute when I can in the hope of resolving this dispute via debate, however if a repeat of what one can read above will follow then I am of the opinion that outside mediation will be required.

One issue being circularly expounded relates to the Advanced Google Test. If one consults the Wikipedia page on statistical significance, then they can conclude that a 10% difference between two spellings would not be statistically significant - even if the one spelling was always more common than the other (\Delta p ≤ 0.10), which does not seem to be the case according to the evidence presented on this talk page.

If someone wishes to check IP addresses, they will see that I am not even from the same country as most other editors on this page. I would gladly prove my humanity or uniqueness to anyone who has evidence enough to question it, rather than debate-derailing accusations.

Thankyou, 60.242.0.245 12:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you misunderstand what statistical significance is. Percent difference has nothing to do with it.  Statistical significance has to do with the probability that a difference is caused by chance rather than really existing.  It can be set at different levels - for example, one can decide in a study that if there is only a 5% chance that the difference between two scores is caused by chance or random error, then that difference is significant.  However the actual numbers can be much smaller than 5%.  For example, IQ differences between older and younger siblings have been shown to be statistically significant although very small (about 1 point, or around 1%).  Generally, the greater the number of subjects or data points, the easier it is to establish significance and thus the smaller the difference it takes to be significant.  This is because with large numbers it's far less likely that differences are caused by random or unaccounted for factors than if using small number.  With respect to millions of google pages a very small consistant difference would still be significant.


 * As for this issue, it's difficult to take Horlo and friends seriously as they've made no contributions to any other articles. Please look at the 'meatpuppet' chapter on Sockpuppet (Internet). Faustian 15:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * People get "dragged into" Wikipedia for various reasons, sometimes they stay and contribute to other articles, other times they remain "single purpose" editors. In Horlo's case he relayed to me (see user talk:Horlo) that he was teaching a course and looked up Kyiv and was surprised to find that Wikipedia spelled it Kiev, and agressively tried to make the correction. His lack of experience with Wikipedia has not helped. However, the debate appears to predate his appearance by almost three years. 199.125.109.35 22:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

I think that statistical significance can mean different things in different situations. For example, when you are discussing a pre-election poll, a research company calls a few thousand people and then tries to predict how the rest of the population will vote according to those answers. Because that group may not be a representative cross-section of society, regardless of how much the polling company may try to eliminate bias, they cannot say for sure that the results will be the same. Because of that, there is a larger chance of error, so you need a wider "safety zone", and a larger number becomes "statistically significant percentage".

However, here we are trying to establish which name is more popular, and which name is more common in the English speaking world. In the case of the Kyiv/Kiev advanced google search, especially with fluctuations, I followed the standard GAAP in naming 5% a statistically significant amount. This was not an issue when people were claiming a "9 times greater" number, but with the current Kyiv: 1,940,000 http://www.google.com/search?as_q=kyiv&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images vs Kiev: 1,920,000 http://www.google.com/search?as_q=kiev&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images, I think that the two should be considered tied. A one percent difference does not establish either name as more common, especially if the results could be reversed in an hour, with more or less the same ratio. I think that this 5% also eliminates things like food and authors (like Ari Kiev, who counts for at least 100,000 hits on the advanced Google, more on Google Scholar).

That's why I submit that other criteria should be considered.

I can't speak for anybody but myself, but I learned long ago, the hard, expensive way, that it is better for me to focus on one issue at a time, rather than try to do many things at once. That's why I haven't done anything to other articles. With respect to this article, I find the name offensive, and therefore don't want to add anything to it at this time. I have, however, tried to discuss in good faith towards a resolution.

Please note that I have never objected to people "cherry-picking" anything in my arguments, as I think that this is important enough for every point to be clearly scrutinized.

Thanks, Horlo 01:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to warn Faustian of Horlo's tendencies to exploit the Google test. The test almost always shows Kiev at a consistent 20-25% advantage to Kyiv. However, Horlo claims that the results fluctuate with Kyiv being higher sometimes. As it has already been established that Horlo abuses sockpuppets, I can conclude that he will use any way to exploit Wikipedia's discussion on the subject matter, specifically time. In doing so, I took the liberty of checking my watchlist every five minutes at work. When I saw within a matter of minutes that he reported that Google showed Kyiv to have more hits than Kiev, I immediately checked the results. It turned out that Kiev was 25% more popular as it always was in the range of. Hence, he either lied, or is dyslexic. Horlo also refuses to accept the polls results as he/she thinks that it is inferior to his/her algorithm. Reginmund 01:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

Reginmund, did you check the links that I gave, or did you use your own?

By the way, if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything. Cherry picking my arguments is fine, personal attacks are not.

Thanks, Horlo 02:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I checked the exact links that you gave me. You need not accuse me of personal attacks, especially when you don't know what they are, judging by the assumption that you made about what I said. I am not trying to be mean, I am just warning other Wikipedians of your un-kosher tactics to push your agenda. Reginmund 05:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I checked the links that Horlo provided at 11:03 UTC (21:04 AEST), directly after I had read this page, and took a screenshot of the results:

http://users.tpg.com.au/kataryna/WP/Kyiv.png

http://users.tpg.com.au/kataryna/WP/Kiev.png

The difference is 1.5%, in favour of Kiev. I then waited half an hour and found:

http://users.tpg.com.au/kataryna/WP/Kyiv2.png

http://users.tpg.com.au/kataryna/WP/Kiev2.png

Kyiv and Kiev are pretty much tied. It is possible that in the future, such a test will consistantly have one spelling having more results associated with it than the other, by a statistically significant amount. Checking again just now, it was still almost a tie, and the evidence presented earlier on this talk page holds.

I do not understand this return to a debate on the Google test; other evidence had been debated for quite some time. This discussion now goes backwards.

Faustian, I have edited several other articles. I'm not sure how often my IP address is reset, so you may not be able to find other edits; it's a shared IP as well. This debate has become so prolonged and intense that I haven't had a chance to correct any other errors that I have come across in other articles recently. You can see this for yourself if you look through the above for evidence. Unproven conjecture: perhaps others find it daunting to contribute to this debate. I certainly did.

Could people from each side of the debate please let me know what they believe has changed since the last summaries of the debate were posted by Horlo and Reginmund? Some new ground has been covered, but I'm having some difficulty pulling out the evidence and arguments as they stand. Thanks,60.242.0.245 12:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

We seem to be labouring under the impression that because Google doesn't detect the hits at one point, doesn't mean they're there. Do they all of the sudden disappear off of the interweb and they show up again only to knock up the counter by %25? I don't think so. Reginmund 17:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, The issue is not whether the pages exist, the issue is whether they are English pages dealing with the city.

Please feel free to go through each one of them and eliminate those which don't belong. Just as an aside, on the same advance google search, I found that "aircraft Kiev" comes up with 401,000 hits. Here: http://www.google.com/search?as_q=kiev+aircraft&hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enCA234CA234&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images I realize that for some people this may appear as four hits, but for me it was 401,000.

I would take a screen shot, but don't know how to do it.

If anybody could teach me, I would be happy to post them next time I google the city names.

Thanks, Horlo 03:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Aircraft Kiev generates approx 283 hits Reginmund 05:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Summary so far
Hello,

Here are my arguments, in a nutshell: There is a set of criteria listed at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Naming_conflict#Identification_of_common_names_using_external_references page which describe how "common name" should be determined.

They are 1.  The Google test 2.  Major Organizations 3.  Other Encyclopedia 4.  Major Media Organizations 5.  Governments 6.  Scientific Organizations

According to these criteria,

1.  Google is inconclusive, as Kyiv and Kiev are in a tie; 2.  Major organizations (UN, WHO, OSCE, World Bank) all use Kyiv; 3.  Encyclopedia Britannica and Columbia Encyclopedia use Kiev, while Encarta uses Kyiv; 4.  Media organizations use both - media outside the US, while US media with the exception of National Geographic, uses Kiev; 5.  Governments all use Kyiv; 6.  I did not check any Scientific organizations, and I don't know if that applies here. If anything, the only one that may fit would be National Geographic, but I include that in Media. What do you think about this?

4. Media and 1. Google are inconclusive, 3. Encyclopedia go for Kiev, but 2. Organizations and 5. Governments go for Kyiv.

There is, however, on the page given above, also this section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Naming_conflict#Types_of_entities which states that when a self-identifying entity, such as a city, country, or people, has a preferred name for itself, that should also be considered when choosing the name.

Because of these points, I think the page should be called Kyiv.

Thanks, Horlo 05:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Google is not tied. Kiev is %25 higher. Within the encyclopaedia, media and organisations, there is a tie, although, these arguments are moot anyway considering that polling is the final authority. Reginmund 05:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Reginmund, how do you take a screenshot of a website? I would like to post them here. The current tallies are: Kiev at 2,550,000, and Kyiv at 2,280,000. What percent higher is Kiev than Kyiv?

Also, there is no tie with organizations, they all use Kyiv.

Also, there is no tie with governments, they all use Kyiv.

Please stop saying that other points are moot, or this discussion is over because of a poll, because you know that is wrong. Opinions change, and there were many people who did not see the Request until after it was closed.

Thanks, Horlo 05:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Horlo, thanks for providing that summary. The operating system's method for taking a screenshot varies with platform. Typically if you hit the Print Screen key then either a screenshot manager opens up or your window or screen are copied to the clipboard, ready to be pasted into a graphics program.

Reginmund, I have never seen Kiev score 25% higher than Kyiv with a Google test at all. If you are seeing such results, and I am seeing the results you can see with the links I provided above, then I don't think we can definitively decide on a name based on this test alone; all that it demonstrates is that both usages seem widespread. I did get a result where Kyiv had quite a few more hits than Kiev, but I can't use this as a trump card since I know that you see Kiev being 25% higher and I usually see them evenly matched. In this case, Google tests can successfully eliminate spellings such as Kiow and Kyyv, but you cannot say they conclusively put Kiev ahead of Kyiv when there is no constant, statistically significant difference between the two (and one isn't constantly more common than the other).

If somebody wishes to, we could take readings regularly for a whole day, time-average them and determine the statistical error in the results; the actual number of hits for each, rather than a percentage difference, would need to be recorded. Though unless the statistical error somehow ends up being low, or it can be shown that large numbers of websites favouring a certain spelling go offline at certain times, then I am not sure that this would clarify matters at all.

I don't know much about any polls on this issue. I do know that now there is what I would call a good case now for changing the article name from Kiev to Kyiv. In my opinion points 2, 4 and 5 on Horlo's summary, as well as the Wikipedia naming convention for self-identifying entities, demonstrate this clearly and have not been countered sufficiently for Kiev to remain as the main spelling.

Thanks,60.242.0.245 14:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I have already explained to Horlo why polling is the final authority but he continues to lie and twist my words. I am warning you, continue this crusade, and I'll have you reported. Wikipedia can't change just because you are pissed off at the results of the poll. Everyone that voted had perfectly good reasons they implemented and if you cannot accept that, go trolling on a message board. Your schtick is not welcome here. Reginmund 16:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I have two screenshots saved, but I'm not sure how to upload them. If somebody could explain that to me, I would appreciate it. I don't want to give any numbers, everybody can see them at their own convenience.

Reginmund, your story has changed from Google being the ultimate authority, to consensus being the ultimate authority, to a poll being the ultimate authority. I think that consensus is the final authority, and I have been working to build one.

If you want to invite other people to this discussion, please feel free. Please ask anybody to look over all of my comments here - administrator, checkuser, mediator, arbitrator, and even Jimbo Wales, and let them decide who should be "reported". This is a place for everybody, not just people who agree with you.

Thanks, Horlo 22:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again you are lying. I said that consensus is the final authority. I never said that Google was. Google is a way to determine and vote on a common name. Consensus has already been built in the polls and just because you're pissed off at the result, doesn't give reason for the debate to continue. There is already enough consensus for whether or not the page should be moved and that includes the people that do not agree with me so you can put that argument in your pipe and smoke it. This is why we have polling. So we can determine what the majority of Wikipedians think is just and if you cannot accept that, than you are just a common POV crusader. Reginmund 23:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

dear 60.242.0.245 please don't be turned off by that rude tone, most of the contributors on this discussion are able to write in a respectful manner. And your contributions are welcome. Your points above add one more argument that there is no consensus to the English spelling of Kyiv. What might be able to safely say that the "Kyiv" spelling, relatively unheard of fifteen years ago, is gaining wider acceptancy and usage in the English speaking world. The English language evolves and Wikipedia might evolve with it. This might take more polls, discussions, and Internet searches. regardsEduvalko 23:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a section discussing how Kyiv is gaining usage rapidly. However, this doesn't mean that it is dominant in the English vernacular. Reginmund 00:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Atlas
Could someone check their atlas? In my Chinese-based version atlas, I could not see "Moskva", "Praha", "Wien", "Kyiv" or other cities, but "Moscow", "Prague", "Vienna", "Kiev" respectively. Raymond Giggs 17:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

How old is your atlas? National Geographic uses Kyiv. Does your atlas have Peking or Beijing? St. Petersburg or Leningrad? Thanks, Horlo 22:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, another question. I don't have encarta, so I can only see what they offer for free online. Do you have that service? Does encarta have an atlas? Thanks, Horlo 22:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

National Geographic uses Kiev Reginmund 23:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Newer articles in National Geographic use the Kyiv spelling especially post Orange Revolution ie. http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0603/feature1/map.html Eduvalko 23:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

In that case, it is not completely limited to National Geographic, it only depends on the editor. Reginmund 00:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, That is why I said that the media is split, and other things should be considered. Thanks, Horlo 00:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, With respect to atlases/maps, I know the Rand McNally map I have in my room uses Kyiv.

The Google map uses the Ukrainian name. Yahoo uses Kiev.

Any other suggestions? Thanks, Horlo 00:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The Randy McNally map also uses Roma, Moskva, Praha, München, etc.. I have it too. It translates the city names phoenetically and not lexically. That argument is irrelevant anyway. It is original research. Google Maps however uses Kiev.

I have a suggestion! Lets do what every other Wikipedian does and follow the results of the poll! Reginmund 01:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to leave you alone now to wallow in this pitiful argument. I have already explained to you why Kiev stays. I have already explained why we have polls and why we follow the outcome and don't repeat points. You have lied and used sockpuppets to push your POV. I'm not wasting any more time on this. I'd rather go stick my head in a microwave oven. Reginmund 01:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Took a stroll through our local Chapters bookstore and their atlas/world map section to see what was current in the printed world. A mixed bag really. One edition of Rand McNally atlas 2002 edition uses Kiev and a larger newer edition uses Kyiv. Both canadian and english editions of Oxford showed Kiev but several versions of National Geographic, Macmillan altases used Kyiv. several others listed the capital as Kyyiv, Kyiiv. No consensus among our mapmakers to indicate what form Wikipedia should adopt. Regards Eduvalko 03:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Official spelling
A long time ago I learned that the word official means "because I said so". If there is an official Ukranian preference then that is what the English title should be, and just because a bazillion internet users are wrong should not support Wikipedia being wrong as well. As far as goes, it appears that Kyiv became official 12 years ago, and not surprisingly it takes a long time for the rest of us to catch up. 199.125.109.26 02:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that a country's Commision on Legal Terminoligy has made and confirmed a resolution on a term in question...in this case Ukraine and Kyiv...as referenced by user 199.125.109.26 at http://www.uazone.net/Kiev_Kyiv.html, should be reason enough to rspect and accept the usage of the revised term. I, respectfully submit that Wikipedia use the official spelling of the capital of Ukraine, which is without a doubt Kyiv 1]. As far as "common usage" of "Kyiv"....internet encyclopedias, certain media groups and individuals who choose to ignore or simply don't see the relevance in the spelling change, block the path to the revised spelling becoming the more popular and commonly used version. thank you Bosska 04:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it is not reason enough. Read this. It says:

English does not have an Academy; English usage is determined by the consensus of its users, not by any government.


 * We've already been over this anyway. Reginmund 04:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Luckily, the rest of the world has 'caught up', and uses Kyiv.

Unluckily, I am still unsure as to how to upload the screenshots I took of the google search into Wikipedia, so that everybody can see what I see. I now have three sets (three each for Kyiv and Kiev), taken at very different times, as the results will show. Could anybody help me with this technical question?

Thanks, Horlo 04:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

hello

this is a very interesting discussion with two diametrically opposed perspectives not indicative of a consensus

may i suggest that the phrase at the beginning of the talk page,'an issue for which there is already consensus' be revised to 'an issue for which there is a renewed search for consensus'

also, how is consensus achieved if only one side of the discussion is willing to participate in an impartial third party mediation? for those of you who missed it, horlo requested a mediation, and those who disagree with his perspective refused to participate in the process. thus, in accordance with wikipedia rules, the mediation did not occur

how can consensus be achieved in such a case? this discussion, interesting as it is, does not seem to be moving towards a consensus

it seems that someone without a perspective on this issue should assess the arguments according to their validity

any suggestions from those of you who have participated in wikipedia discussions previously (i am a newcomer to wikipedia discussions)

thanks

Martauwo 05:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Horlo, as you are registered with Wikipedia it is possible that you can upload the images to the Wikipedia image repository; I don't know if this is permitted or good practice, as I'm not registered. If it is fine, then if you go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Upload you can upload them into the Wikipedia image collection. I don't know if there is a separate section for images that would only be used on talk pages, rather than in articles.

I had my screenshots uploaded to a private webspace, then just provided the links. I am not sure what is best for you to do here. Could somebody let Horlo know please if there is a simple way of just showing a picture for this discussion? Otherwise, there are many websites which offer free web space where you can upload your screenshots Horlo; just provide the links on this talk page.

60.242.0.245 12:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

That's beside the point. We're would just be repeating arguments. What matters most are the votes. If anyone read WP:POLL, they would know. Reginmund 17:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Reginmund, I think it's right on the point.

Thank you for the hint, four sets of Kyiv/Kiev pages can be viewed here: http://www.freewebs.com/horlo/kyiv1.htm Note that kyiv1 corresponds to kiev1, Kyiv2 to Kiev2, etc, but I think that any combination you make, Kyiv wins.

Reginmund, would you be so kind as to provide any proof of Kiev being 25% higher than Kyiv?

About the WP:POLL, I did look at that, and was really surprised to see that it is only a work in progress.

I would like to remind you of this section of the naming guidelines page: ''At one point, a certain group of contributors may agree to use one name, but this group only represents the view of the particular sub-community of editors that exists at that time. When new contributors arrive, they are faced with the choice of reopening the discussion (thus diminishing the weight of the opinions of their predecessors), or sticking to the old consensus (which deprives the new contributors of a chance to have their say). In short, no consensus represents the voices of all the contributors to a given article. Following a permanently established objective procedure that does not rely on a fleeting consensus gets around this problem.'' In other words, you cannot say that there was a poll, so everybody must agree with it. Especially if throughout not only this page, but throughout all of the talk page archives, the majority of editors want to call it Kyiv.

Now, Reginmund, could you please provide proof as to Google showing a steady 25% superiority for Kiev?

Thanks, Horlo 02:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You and your puppets don't count. Don't try to give me that schtick about how everyone that takes you side is automatically accused of being your puppet. Its not unlikely considering the influx of anons and user with little to no other contributions to any other article. Reginmund 20:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus Change precedent
Hello,

Yet another example of the wisdom of Wikipedia rules - that consensus can change when a bigger group of editors join the discussion. And I quote: ''A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision, but when the article gains wider attention, others may then disagree. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision. No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed, or that it is fixed and determined.''

The article goes on to say that negotiation should be carried out in good faith, an article can always be discussed again, and ''It is important that there is a way to challenge past decisions, however these decisions were reached. Decisions should therefore practically never be "binding" in the sense that the decision cannot be taken back.''

This is not original research, it is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus_can_change#Consensus_can_change

With all of the facts presented here, I think that it is time to make another request for comment.

Thanks, Horlo 05:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

A better suggestion

 * No, it's not time for another RfC. It is time to start writing content and stop talking out everyone's ear and wearing down the community patience. You are interested in K..v? Start Lypky? Not interesyed in Lypky? Start Chokolivka. Still not? Mykilska Slobidka. No again? Far Caves, Tereshchenkivska Street, Instytutska Street, Teremky, Shuliavka, Solomianka. You don't like the old stuff and more interested in modern developments? Here goes: Michael Archangel column. With so many boundless possibilities and redlinks you can really demonstrate your commitment to the city you seem to be so concerned about. --Irpen 06:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

Irpen, like I have said many times, I learned a long time ago that it is better to do one thing, finish that well, and then move on to the next thing.

Do not confuse lots of writing with good writing.

That's why there are two different words - quantity and quality.

Don't worry, once this issue is resolved, there will be lots of writing.

Thanks, Horlo 06:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I feel you are being mistaken on two counts. First, you don't want the issue resolved. It is resolved all right. You want it to be resolved to your liking. That's not gonna happen this year. Second, I have not seen a single WP:SPA to engage into productive writing ever. Perhaps some food for thought. --Irpen 06:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Could you please explain to me how the issue "is resolved all right"? In the archives of this talk page - not including the current discussion - there are 33 editors who support the use of Kyiv, and 21 who support Kiev. Yet the page is named Kiev, apparently against consensus.

You say that's not gonna happen this year. That's original research. Please site your sources.

Second, you have not seen a single WP:SPA to engage in productive writing ever. That's also original research. Just because you haven't seen something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Did you look at the arguments presented here, did you look at the screenshots of the Google test showing Kyiv ahead of Kiev?

Do you have anything productive to add to this discussion?

Thanks, Horlo 06:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It is OK to cite one's own observations at the talk pages. I am not using my opinion as a source in the article's space. If you prove to become a first former SPA/article writer, I would only be a happier Wikipedian. --Irpen 06:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Great, so what can you add to this discussion?

Thanks, Horlo 06:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I said all there is to it early on. Your mere repetition of your mantra did not bring any arguments. I won't start this again. I have articles to write. --Irpen 08:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Irpen, you said before that the WP convention is to use the English common name. We have shown that Kyiv is more common.

Then, you said that media is the best way to prove commonality. You are wrong, and WP lists six ways to establish commonality. According to Wikipedia's conventions, Kyiv should be used.

If you are busy doing other things, fine, but don't object to the results reached here, don't say that you are too busy, and then don't try to change the name back to Kiev when it is moved to Kyiv.

Also, please avoid weasel words such as "mere repetition" and "mantra". That has no place on our Wikipedia.

Thanks, Horlo 00:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Horlo, I have examined the screenshots you took and see that the results are quite interesting. One should not only note that Kyiv on average ahead of Kiev, but also realise that the _total number_ of hits for each spelling exceeds the number of hits for each showed in my screenshots (where Kyiv and Kiev were tied); this is quite significant. I think we should give those who hold the Kiev spelling to be more common additional time in which to present their own results, before making a final conclusion on how this fits with other measures of consensus.

Irpen, you are correct in that this matter is taking a significant amount of time to resolve. I have not edited an article for over a month due to the intensity of this debate. However, it appears to myself that quite a significant amount of evidence has been presented which strongly supports the changing of the spelling from Kiev to Kyiv. It seems that the burden of proof has now been shifted, at least for the moment, to the Kiev case.

Thankyou, 60.242.0.245 09:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Absolutely, take time to collect information. I have always been ready to examine any article put forth in good faith. The fluctuations of the google test are one of the reasons that I have submitted to not rely solely on that, but to take a more holistic approach.

Thanks, Horlo 00:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Archived Requested move redux

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Re-request per discussion. 199.125.109.19 05:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Another attempt of a single purpose account to force the move that just does not gain support. So, editors and admins now have to waste time again on the bogus "voting". Please remember that WP:RM is not a vote. If you don't make editors to agree by your arguments, collecting "votes" does not help. Also, noteworthy, is that the previous attempt was closed as bad faithed one and after talking our ear with a megabyte of repeated mantra, we now get this new so called "request" in only a month. All arguments against the move above and in the archives remain totally valid. The proposed name does not agree with WP:NC and blatantly contradicts it. The WP:SPA with so much time on its hands, could have helped making it a featured article instead. It appears, however, that the user is merely driven by a nationalist agenda, rather than the WP content. Oh, and it means oppose of course. --Irpen 06:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


 * No reasons have been given for the request, and certainly no evidence has been given why it should succeed now when it hasn't before. To avoid opening a can of worms, I have removed the request from WP:RM. If anyone wants to make a serious request based on new evidence, then that's another matter, but this one can only have reopened old wounds. --Stemonitis 06:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested move
Actually the discussion on this topic has gone on quite long enough, this page is up to 386,000 bytes. That is why it was re-opened to finally put it to bed. There is clear consensus for the move at the present moment. Bear in mind that I am saying this as a disinterested observer, and I can see that the editors involved could have put about 380,000 bytes to better use than flogging a dead horse. In addition, anyone who refuses to participate in mediation should recuse themselves from the survey. 199.125.109.19 08:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Survey
If there are no votes, the requested move will be closed one week from today. 199.125.109.26 15:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * As you evidently realise, this topic has already been discussed ad nauseam. What makes you think that this latest attempt will differ from any previous ones? Until you have something new to say, you should not be opening move requests. --Stemonitis 08:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please bear with me. The previous two requests were erroneously closed early. Reaching consensus can take time but it does not need to go on adnauseum. From my impartial point of view it appears that a consensus has already been reached, which is to change the name of the article. However, I would be happy to contribute that sensitivity to the millions of people who do not know that Kyiv is correct should be recognized, particularly in the lead paragraph. Come back in a week and see what has transpired.  I will be careful to review all responses. I can certainly posit that the phonetic pronounciation of Kyiv and Kiev are very close. 199.125.109.19 09:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know where you've been looking if you've seen consensus somewhere. All I can see is a bunfight, and no indication that anything will be different this time around. English usage has not changed significantly in the last few months, and you have presented no further evidence in favour of a move. Don't take this the wrong way, but your commitment to reviewing the responses and your certainty that the pronunciations are similar really don't count for anything if you can't show that "Kyiv" is the more common term in good English-language sources. The only reason you have given for the move so far is that there is already consensus. This is clearly not the case, or the previous move requests would not have failed. Please consider withdrawing your request (as an "impartial" outsider, this should not upset you too much) and save us from wasting everybody's time and unleashing another wave of acrimony (if you'll pardon the mixed metaphor). --Stemonitis 09:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Basically the consensus process is a procedure for seeking out the truth. Once whatever that truth is is revealed it is trivial to establish consensus.  It is important as elements in arriving at consensus to listen very carefully to every point of view to find out what truth it contains.  All comments are inherently directed to the discussion and never at one individual, other than to ask for clarification.  Consensus is most difficult to obtain if there are deeply held differing opinions that are not shared.  Personally I have about 40 years of experience with consensus decision making, and I do not see that this issue will be difficult to resolve. One research item I would like to see is how many news outlets such as AP/Reuters/BBC have a style manual which includes Kiev/Kyiv? So far I believe we have learned that the UN and all governments use Kyiv, and I confirmed that the US Embassy in the Ukraine uses Kyiv. WP:NC has a naming convention for Ukraine which states that "For geographic names in Ukraine, the Ukrainian National system is used." 199.125.109.78 05:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Just now, we are waiting for rebuttals from from those who hold Kiev as the proper article title, to counter the latest evidence which appears to support Kyiv being the article title. I would not say that there is yet a clear consensus, and that perhaps some more time should be allowed so that reasonable objections can be made. The last comment of any sort made against the Kyiv spelling was made on the 2nd of September.

As I have previously mentioned, this talk page is long and in my opinion contains several unconstructive comments. These have been made both by editors contributing with some regularity, as well as those who seem to disregard points made in their absence as they infrequently leave unhelpful comments; they have been made by those who appear to be 'for' one spelling, as well as those who appear to be 'for' the other. I agree that this can make it hard to find valid evidence and reasoning, hence my Spartan posting here - with so much clutter it can be hard to keep abreast of the relevant evidence and arguments, let alone contribute to the discussion. I believe that one should attempt be current with the debate as it stands before making strong judgments however.

If one wants to get a quick grasp of where the debate is at, I recommend starting from the most contemporary summaries posted for either side, and then reading from that point on.

I do not think that one can deny that a strong case has been made for Kyiv to be the spelling used for the article title. There has also been intense debate against such a move. One must judge on the evidence presented, and the relevant arguments made, which case is now the stronger and by what sort of margin. I believe that the evidence as it now stands strongly supports a move to Kyiv. However, the debate began to deteriorate in standard recently, recommenced properly after an appeal for calm, and now non-constructive comments are being fielded again. I had said earlier that I had hopes that this could be resolved by honest debate, yet believed mediation may be required if reason was rejected again by one or some. I had believed that a sense of finality seemed to have come into the debate and that things were coming closer to a conclusion. Though if 'bunfighting' becomes the best description for this discussion, then I would not only support but ask for outside mediation.

Thankyou, 60.242.0.245 11:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I have skimmed the debate. The only people involved in it are me and Horlo's sockpuppets. I can tell this by 1. They have little to no contributions to any other articles 2. The all go in a roundabout with their arguments 3. All seven IPs are based in Toronto. Reginmund 13:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Stemonitis, you are correct that, 'English usage has not changed significantly in the last few months.' However, when you write, 'you have presented no further evidence in favour of a move,' you may have missed some of the information which has been presented in this lengthy discussion, clouded as it has been at times with incivility and unsubstantiated allegations.

If you go back to the beginning, on 24 July Alex Bakharev wrote, 'The result was to use Kiev per WP:UE - it has 10 times of Internet usage of Kiev and the major news outlets still use Kiev.'

This has been questioned by Horlo, who on 2 September posted, screenshots which show that Kyiv and Kiev are in fact very close, with Kyiv slightly in the lead - see: 'four sets of Kyiv/Kiev pages can be viewed here: http://www.freewebs.com/horlo/kyiv1.htm Note that kyiv1 corresponds to kiev1, Kyiv2 to Kiev2, etc, but I think that any combination you make, Kyiv wins.'

As 60.242.0.245 has suggested, the burden of proof has now shifted to those who would like the name to remain Kiev, and that has not yet appeared.

What has appeared is new evidence which warrants an objective reconsideration of the issue in accordance with wikipedia regulations.

Martauwo 15:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Re-statement of arguments for the Move to Kyiv
Hello,

There was a question about the major arguments in favour of a move. Let me re-state them here.

According to Wikipedia Naming Conventions, there are steps in using outside sources to determine what is the common name. These steps are on the WP:naming conflict resolution page.

First, the google test. The advanced google test, with filters for English pages only, shows a statistical tie. I have posted screenshots where Kyiv actually has a higher hit-count than Kiev, but I think that they are statistically tied. This category is inconclusive.

Second, major organizations. The UN, World Bank, WHO, NATO, and Red Cross all use Kyiv.

Third, major media organizations. Media in the US use Kiev, with the exception of National Geographic, but outside the US, usage is split. This category is also inconclusive.

Fourth, other encyclopedia. Encyclopedia Britannica and Colliers use Kiev, but Encarta uses Kyiv.

Fifth, governments. The governments of all English-speaking countries use Kyiv.

There is a sixth criterion, using scientific journals, but all of the suggestions provided on the page state that this category is strictly for pure science, such as newly-discovered elements or stars.

The biggest difference from the beginning of this discussion is the result of the google test. Nobody noticed that the guidelines give a simple method of filtering out non-English websites, and suggest using the Advanced Google. On a "raw" google test, the results are one-sided in favour of Kiev, but on the Advanced Google, the two names are tied.

With respect to the Google test, I have been called a liar. However, I took screenshots of the results, and posted them here: http://www.freewebs.com/horlo/kyiv1.htm Nobody has yet apologized for the name-calling, nor backed up claims that Kiev consistently scores 25% higher than Kyiv on the advanced Google.

These are the arguments that I put forth. The big change from last month is the difference in Google results.

If there are any new arguments against a move, I would be very happy to read them. As I have said before, please feel free to cherry-pick any of my arguments, but please avoid the name-calling.

Thanks, Horlo 02:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Reading carefully through all the Talk:Kyiv pages the last completed poll on the Kyiv renaming naming issue occurred in April 2004 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_policy_poll. By completed I mean 1/ the question was posed, 2/ a time limit was announced 3/ a list of who participated and how they voted was clearly counted was published 4/ a list of whose vote was not counted and why was clearly provided and 5/ a copy of commentary is archived along with the results.

This was a simple, clear and open process and no administrator interference in the proceedings. This was the last almost properly run polling on the question of Kyiv/Kiev naming. I say "almost" because the same poll also discussed and tabulated votes/opinions on Calcutta/Kolkata Mecca / Makkah Gothenburg / Göteborg discussions. The results for the four city discussions were all lumped together so it is hard to tell how many of the respondents really had voted on keeping the Kiev name or how many clearly supported adopting the new spelling.

Over the last three and a almost half years the usage of the Kyiv spelling has spread extensively. This is partly due to the increased self identification with the Kyiv spelling within Ukraine and the subsequent reciprocating adoption of the new version amongst other governments, institutions, media and Internet. Ukraine has been in the world spotlight several times since 2004 so awarness of the new spelling has increased. Have we reached the tipping point? I don't know. Maybe a new poll will show some insight. Let's do the poll right this time. 69.156.126.137 04:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC) BTW These contributions are my own. I'm nobody's sockpuppet. Eduvalko 04:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Horlo's sockpuppet with an anonymous Toronto IP. Reginmund 05:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

During the debate, the following section of the naming conflict resolution page was pointed out in support of Kyiv: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Naming_conflict#Types_of_entities.

The following was referred to as a counter-argument: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Naming_conflict#Dealing_with_self-identifying_terms.

However if Kyiv is indeed the most common English spelling in contemporary use, as well as the spelling chosen by the city, then I believe that the article should reflect this in accordance with Wikipedia policy.

(Also, the IP address utilised by myself (and one or two other editors on our network) is true blue Australian, and my posts are generally made at far different times to those made by editors residing in the Northern Hemisphere.)

Thanks,60.242.0.245 10:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

Are there any other arguments against the move to Kyiv?

Thanks, Horlo 00:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Questions about the use of Kyiv by CNN
Hello,

I went to the CNN website and tried the internal search engine there. It came up with 223,000 hits for Kyiv, http://search.cnn.com/search?query=kyiv&type=web&sortBy=date&intl=false and 503,000 for Kiev. http://search.cnn.com/search.jsp?query=kiev&type=web&sortBy=date&intl=false

However, when I looked through these pages, I saw that on the "Kiev" page at least three sites per page (of ten) were with Kyiv also. On some pages, six sites had Kyiv and Kiev. On the Kyiv pages, there were very few that had both, maybe one per page, and the rest used Kyiv exclusively.

Does CNN have a style handbook, or does it change according to editor, like National Geographic?

Thanks, Horlo 01:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Horlo, when I look at your CNN searches I see that they use a Google search engine. So part of your CNN exploration puts the issue back to the reliability of Google searches. Regards Eduvalko 01:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there a current discusion (September 2007)
An edit on ther mainpage suggests there is, but I can't find it, after some minutes looking. Any result may well be invalid if it has been hidden away, and not notified on the main page. Johnbod 16:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes there is, I will fix the link from the talk page. The discussion is on this page at this link. 199.125.109.26 16:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - but it is a) not on the main tage page, which it should be (before being moved off here), b) still not advertised properly, and c) not in the correct format. So I don't think any result will be valid. I am still against, needless to say, as nothing has changed in the ?6 weeks since the last vote. Johnbod 17:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to move it to the main talk page, it is not there because there is a well respected request to move all discussion of the name change to Talk/naming. If it is not advertised properly or not in the correct format, you will have to make the changes, I have done the best to the best of my ability and experience to do so. Please refer to the history for Talk:Kiev. Thanks for your help in advance. 199.125.109.26 18:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

Please see the summary sessions, for example here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kiev/naming#Re-statement_of_arguments_for_the_Move_to_Kyiv to see what has changed in the last 6 weeks.

It's difficult to miss in the whole discussion, but it turns out that the advanced google search, which apparently has filters for language, shows the two names in a statistical tie. For four sets of screenshots showing this, please see this: http://www.freewebs.com/horlo/kyiv1.htm. This is the search recommended on the naming conflict page, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Naming_conflict#Identification_of_common_names_using_external_references

Because of that ambiguity, other factors from the Naming Conflict Resolutions page should also be considered. In a nutshell:

Media is split: in the US, National Geographic is the only media that uses Kyiv, but outside the US, the CBC, Australian BC use mostly Kyiv, The Globe and Mail (Canada's national newspaper) uses Kyiv, and the BBC uses both (if you look at the BBC website, then check Kyiv and Kiev and look for items that were published in 2007, the two names are tied)

Major Organizations, such as the UN, NATO, the OSCE, the World Bank, and the Red Cross all use Kyiv.

The Encyclopedia Britannica uses Kiev, as does Colliers, but Encarta uses Kyiv.

All governments of English speaking countries use Kyiv.

Also, Wikipedia recommends to consider the importance of self-identifying names of countries and cities when considering the name of the article, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Naming_conflict#Dealing_with_self-identifying_terms

Also, Wikipedia recommends using Ukrainian names for geographic names, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Ukrainian_names

Because of these reasons, I support the move to Kyiv.

Thanks, Horlo 18:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

Just another major Canadian media outlet that uses Kyiv: The Toronto Star: http://www.thestar.com/article/254433

Thanks, Horlo 01:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Please archive!
Please do not mess up the older archives by adding late material to them. I restored the full content of this page deleted earlier preserving all the entries added after this. If Horlo and the 195 IP want to archive some sections, please indicate until what point and I will create a new archive page.

Alternatively we may set the bot to archive this page automatically, eg. all sections older than 14, 30 or 60 days (up to you) are automatically archived. Let me know what you want. --Irpen 02:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

So, from no response to the archiving question I take it that you don't see any archiving necessary. Fine by me either way. It's just that I do not want sloppy archiving to the archive structure. Please note here, when and what you want to archive a and I will cleanly archive the material. Regards, --Irpen 17:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please archive everything before September 1, 2007 (up to the section titled "Official spelling"). Please also put the August information in a separate archive from July so it can be referenced more easily (July ends with the section titled "Contrary to frequent assertions, the BBC actually still uses KIEV"). You can put all the up through July into the existing mid 2006 archive, as it is currently a very short archive. Since I am on dial up trying to view a 400 kB page is very difficult. I am hoping to resolve this issue quickly, so hopefully it will not be necessary to use MiszaBot. Please do not archive the paragraph at the top which begins with "This is a subpage of Talk:Kiev for discussing the name of the article Kiev." (Just delete the timestamp if you use MiszaBot) By the way, some of us do have a life outside of Wikipedia, so please wait at least 24 hrs for a response, and longer on weekends. Also, please make sure that the Request for move is properly advertised on the Talk:Kiev page. 199.125.109.35 19:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Are there any arguments against the move?
Hello,

Are there any more arguments against the move?

Please see WP:UE, as well as WP:Naming_conflict, and WP:Naming_conflict to see that according to Wikipedia guidelines and the facts presented in the summary above, the name of the page should be Kyiv.

Thanks, Horlo 14:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have an argument: your evidence appears to be completely full of hooey. Witness:

''It's difficult to miss in the whole discussion, but it turns out that the advanced google search, which apparently has filters for language, shows the two names in a statistical tie. For four sets of screenshots showing this, please see this: http://www.freewebs.com/horlo/kyiv1.htm.'' This is the search recommended on the naming conflict page, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Naming_conflict#Identification_of_common_names_using_external_references


 * Don't know where you got that. Google's advanced search varies depending on time and the country searched from, but it pretty consistently shows a strong advantage for Kiev in English-language pages updated in the last year:


 * Kiev -Wikipedia 2,510,000 results
 * Kyiv -Wikipedia 1,040,000

''Because of that ambiguity, other factors from the Naming Conflict Resolutions page should also be considered. In a nutshell:''


 * Yes, but contrary to what you say, they don't support your argument.


 * Naming conventions (geographic names) should also be given weight, because it is more specific to the topic at hand. It provides some more sources for determining the widely accepted name of a place, including Google Scholar, Google Books, and the Oxford Dictionary, which support "Kiev" as the most widely used name, and several others which I don't have access to.

Media is split: in the US, National Geographic is the only media that uses Kyiv, but outside the US, the CBC, Australian BC use mostly Kyiv, The Globe and Mail (Canada's national newspaper) uses Kyiv, and the BBC uses both (if you look at the BBC website, then check Kyiv and Kiev and look for items that were published in 2007, the two names are tied)


 * Double-plus untrue. See Google results for the last year, or for "anytime" when the sample is very small:


 * National Geographic (last year)
 * Kiev 3
 * Kyiv 0


 * National Geographic (anytime)
 * Kiev 24
 * Kyiv 9


 * CBC (last year)
 * Kiev 118
 * Kyiv 53


 * ABC (last year)
 * Kiev 117
 * Kyiv 0


 * Globe and Mail (last year)
 * Kiev 9
 * Kyiv 1


 * Globe and Mail (anytime)
 * Kiev 244
 * Kyiv 20


 * BBC (last year)
 * Kiev 1,340
 * Kyiv 62

Major Organizations, such as the UN, NATO, the OSCE, the World Bank, and the Red Cross all use Kyiv.


 * This only seems like complete falsehood when one considers that they use "Kiev" still more often.


 * United Nations (last year)
 * Kiev 119
 * Kyiv 40


 * NATO (last year)
 * Kiev 74
 * Kyiv 58


 * OSCE (last year)
 * Kiev 85
 * Kyiv 82


 * IMF (last year)
 * Kiev 4
 * Kyiv 3


 * World Bank (last year)
 * Kiev 163
 * Kyiv 202 (hey, one of these actually prefers "Kyiv", by 5 to 4!)


 * Red Cross (last year)
 * Kiev 0
 * Kyiv 0


 * Red Cross (anytime)
 * Kiev 9
 * Kyiv 0

The Encyclopedia Britannica uses Kiev, as does Colliers, but Encarta uses Kyiv.


 * Truth at last! But let's not leave out the Oxford dictionary, as recommended by Naming conventions (geographic names).

All governments of English speaking countries use Kyiv.


 * Most likely true, especially in the diplomatic services. But the US geographic nameserver still uses "Kiev"

Also, Wikipedia recommends to consider the importance of self-identifying names of countries and cities when considering the name of the article, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Naming_conflict#Dealing_with_self-identifying_terms


 * Yes, it should definitely be considered, but is slightly complicated by "Commonly used English translations of self-identifying terms are usually preferred". So the question of whether "Kiev" is the most common English name still has significant weight.

Also, Wikipedia recommends using Ukrainian names for geographic names, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Ukrainian_names


 * Mm, no it does not. This guideline is about how to romanize Ukrainian names, when there is no common English name.  If you can't tell from the wording, then I will clarify it.  I know this, because I wrote the guideline.

Because of these reasons, I support the move to Kyiv.

''Thanks, Horlo 18:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)''

Hello,

''Just another major Canadian media outlet that uses Kyiv: The Toronto Star: http://www.thestar.com/article/254433''

''Thanks, Horlo 01:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)''


 * The Toronto Star (last year)
 * Kiev 5
 * Kyiv 15


 * The Toronto Star (anytime)
 * Kiev 38
 * Kyiv 27


 * Apparently they also use "Kiev".


 * Note also that Naming conventions (common names) states "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," and "A term can only be considered offensive if a verifiable, authoritative source can be quoted as citing it as such."


 * It bothers me that a self-professed teacher would put forward what is an apparently completely misleading argument. —Michael Z. 2007-09-13 00:29 Z 

Hello, Thank you for the word "hooey". I haven't heard that for a thousand years.

I think that all of your arguments simply highlight the problem with relying solely on the internet and google for information.

First, let's take a look at the advanced google search. My whole argument is that it always fluctuates, and that there are - yes - times when Kyiv is more popular. I had been called a liar quite a few times, because somebody could not imagine that they were wrong, so I posted screenshots which I took from the results here:

http://www.freewebs.com/horlo/kyiv1.htm Please take a look and verify that they really do exist. By the way, one hit from the link which you provided for Kiev for this year led to a book published in 1993. (it is here: http://books.google.com/books?id=SpRa5ZPaZzwC&dq=kiev+-wikipedia&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=VufIPqA0Hf&sig=rJangkoul7BSLe8eWur1_pc3Q6k).


 * No, the hit led to a page which Google says "was first seen" within the last year, about a book published in 1993. —Michael Z. 2007-09-13 14:53 Z 


 * Hello,

Where on the page does is say "was first seen within the last year?" Thanks, Horlo 22:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Second, I agree that Geographic conventions should be followed. However, there is an important sentence in this section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28geographic_names%29#Widely_accepted_name

Please note that it states always look at search results, don't just count them.

Here is a great reason why:
 * A search on Google scholar shows the following results:

Kiev - 209,000

Kyiv - 15,500

However, if you actually look at the results, you will see that a famous American-Ukrainian psychologist, Ari Kiev, has written or co-written quite a few books on quite a few topics. If you run a search on A Kiev, you will see 203,000 hits. (please note that I didn't include U Kiev, as this refers to the University of Kyiv/Kiev, which is a relevant place name.) Simple math shows a result in favour of Kyiv, 15,500 to 6,000. However, I don't think that this is conclusive, because there is no filter for languages on the Google Scholar, and more importantly I think that more than 6000 books that include the name Kiev have been published. Therefore, the results of Google Scholar should be taken with a grain of salt.


 * Google Scholar:
 * "Kiev city" OR "City of Kiev" OR "Kiev, Ukraine" 13,200
 * "Kyiv city" OR "City of Kyiv" OR "Kyiv, Ukraine" 4,860


 * "Kiev" is still used more often for the city, almost three to one, even if you filter out Ari. —Michael Z. 2007-09-13 14:57 Z 


 * Hello,

Again, a reminder to look at what is happening, not what has happened. If you actually look at the results that come up on the link that you provided to Kiev on Google scholar, you will see that there are no results from 2007 until page 17, while results for Kyiv for 2007 start on page 3. How do you think that shows that Kiev is less common than Kyiv? Thanks, Horlo 22:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You mentioned the Oxford dictionary. According to the 2007 Oxford Dictionary of the English Language, the name of the capital is Kiev. However, according to the same book, Wikipedia doesn't exist. There is, however, an entry for "wiki". Therefore, this book should also not be treated as the all-knowing source of the current, common English language.


 * B.S. — Wikipedia is a proper noun, not a word in the language. This is a grammar teacher trying to discredit one of the most respected references on the planet.  You wonder why I have to resort to words like "hooey" to describe your arguments? —Michael Z. 2007-09-13 15:00 Z 


 * Hello,

Yet you want to use that as a source for determining the commonality of another proper noun, Kyiv.

The reason I mentioned "hooey" was that the last time I heard that word was from Colonel Sherman T. Potter.

Thanks, Horlo 22:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Third, let's talk about the links that you provided to various organizations and newspapers. You tried to filter them as much as possible by time, to show the most current results. Unfortunately, that does not work. That is evidenced by the link you provided to almost every organization and newspaper - if you go to the links, you will find that only a few are from 2007.

If you follow the CBC link, for example, you will see that all of the sites on the first page are from 2004, even though the search should be filtered for the past year. Another example is the UN link that you provided for this year, and although the filter is clearly set for this year, there is one link from 1994, two from 2003, three from 2005, one from 2006 and three from 2007. These searches do not show what is the common name, they show what people have used throughout history. To see what the organizations use, you need to go into their internal databases, examine the information there, and then make a decision. Google searching simply doesn't work.


 * These are pages which Google believes "appeared in" the last year (and who are we to argue?). I suspect that If CBC changed its site's URL structure but continued to show older articles, then they are in effect making these older articles pages "appear" again.  I didn't see a 1994 article at the UN, but I did find one written in 1993, but apparently published online in the last year.


 * Google does not believe anything. It is a series of commands set to search billions of bytes of information in .15 of a second and report what it finds. Computers make mistakes. That's why you should look at the results, not just count pages.


 * Nevertheless, these are still an excellent indicator of recent usage. If you don't like it, then use the pop-up to change the scope of the search to 6 months, 3 months,  1 month, or 1 week.  All of these results clearly demonstrate that when you wrote "outside the US, the CBC, Australian BC use mostly Kyiv, The Globe and Mail (Canada's national newspaper) uses Kyiv, and the BBC uses both (if you look at the BBC website, then check Kyiv and Kiev and look for items that were published in 2007, the two names are tied)", this was absolutely and categorically untrue. —Michael Z. 2007-09-13 15:11 Z 


 * Hello,

Actually, this is just a re-statement of your google argument. Once again - Google is a program which searches through billions of bytes of information in .15 of a second and then reports what it sees. Computers make mistakes. It is up to the user to interpret the results.

I tried to access the US government geographic nameserver, but I couldn't. There was one link put forth by TAG a few weeks ago which showed Kievka, but that was in Russia, not Ukraine. Because the US government officially uses Kyiv, all government organizations use Kyiv, and if they don't it's just a matter of time until they do.


 * I couldn't get the name search to work, but their Ukraine country file contains "Kiev" and not "Kyiv" (1.6-MB text file).


 * Hello,

Where does it say Kiev? I couldn't find that. Thanks, Horlo 22:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree: it's just a matter of time. —Michael Z. 2007-09-13 15:15 Z 

Fourth, my whole argument here has been to show that Kyiv has become more popular, and should therefore be used. I have always said that everybody has changed, or is changing, and so should Wikipedia. In 1994, Kiev was more popular. Now, however, according to WP criteria, Kyiv is.


 * Your whole argument here has been demonstrably fallacious. —Michael Z. 2007-09-13 15:28 Z 


 * Actually, no it isn't. All you have to do is look at the results, look outside of google. Kyiv is more common.

Finally, it bothers me that you feel the need to end your comments with a personal attack.


 * Not a personal attack. A factual observation and my personal feelings about it.  You can take it any way you like. —Michael Z. 2007-09-13 15:28 Z 

Please make sure to check any arguments that you put up here. Again, always look at search results, don't just count them. Links that show history are very interesting, but they don't show what the current common name is. If you look into it, you will see that the more common name is Kyiv.

Thanks, Horlo 02:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've looked into it. I see that you are wasting several editors' time by carrying on this discussion with little regard for the truth.  Although it doesn't have a wide impact, I think it is simply a disruption.  Please try your hand at contributing to some articles, rather than flogging your issue. —Michael Z. 2007-09-13 15:28 Z 


 * Hello,

I cannot waste other people's time. Your time is your time. You can do whatever you like with it. Some people consider the search for truth important. If you don't, fine. Consider it a waste.

Again, I have stated this many times before. It is better to do one thing well, then move on to another thing, than to do many things at the same time, but poorly, and then have to either go back and fix it, or waste other people's time.

Thanks, Horlo 22:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this argument has gone on long enough due to the extended lack of understanding. Skimming the votes oon the poll, all arguments for and against the move are perfectly legitimate, including Horlo's. However, we cannot say who's argument is better because every Wikipedian has voted while taking into consideration the supporting and opposing ideas and as I said, they are perfectly legitimate arguments. This is why Wikipedians must explain their vote. Now since there are more legitimate votes to keep the page where it is, that is why it stays where it is. I am not discussing the reasoning of the spelling any more but I am taking into consideration the reasoning of why the poll is the final authority. If Horlo has any comments on this, I would remind that he need not bring up any more statistics on which spelling is more popular because that is not what I am discussing. Horlo should also note that Michael Z.'s closing comments were not personal attacks. Reginmund 03:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Regimund please be so kind as to tell us which authoratative voting or poll on the Kyiv name change you are referring to. RegardsEduvalko 03:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

Reginmund, of course everybody has the right to an opinion. However, opinions change as new arguments are put forth. Six weeks ago, it was widely believed that Kiev was 9 times more popular than Kyiv. Now, we see that it is not.

I don't think that people should be required to explain their vote - everybody has the right to vote for whatever she or he chooses. However, people have discussions to explain positions, and perhaps to show why some points have more merit.

Statements like "self-professed teacher" and "apparently completely misleading" are not constructive, don't add any new information to the topic at hand, and simply try to discredit somebody who has an opposing opinion. That's why they are personal.

Consensus can change. It says so here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CON#Consensus_can_change To quote two sentences, ''A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision, but when the article gains wider attention, others may then disagree. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision.''

Again, please look into the archives of this page. Not including the current discussion, 33 editors were in favour of the name Kyiv, while 21 were in favour of Kiev. Please explain how that means that the name should be Kiev.

There was another request for Move last weekend, but that one was closed within a day. How is that consensus building?

There is a request for Comment open at the bottom of the page.

Thanks, Horlo 04:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, WP:VOTE and WP:POLL do encourage voters to provide an explanation to further the discourse, rather than just post one-word votes. The search for consensus is exactly why votes are considered non-binding, but merely occasionally useful to help further discussion.


 * Hello, there is a difference in continuing discourse, and justifying a position.

Thanks, Horlo 22:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Horlo, you cited your occupation as grammar teacher and writer more than once as facts directly pertinent to the issue of the usage of "Kiev" and "Kyiv". It's not your person which I am attacking here, it is the most unscholarly untruths which you've placed on these pages.


 * Hello, if you look at the discussion, you will see that I stated my occupation as a grammar teacher to show that I may be in a better position to comment on what is more widespread in the Anglosphere than people who do not reside in it or are not great English speakers, yet felt justified in making such comments as "English world uses an English name for the city which is Kiev!"

Thanks, Horlo 22:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "Apparently completely misleading" adds some critical information. You may state any opinion you want, but don't try to fool other Wikipedians with misleading expressions of "fact".


 * Hello,

Just stating numbers without actually explaining them is "completely misleading". I am not the one stating that "this is a waste of time" and "we should do something more useful". Thanks, Horlo 22:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Consensus can change, but by Horlo's own count of the opinions, there is no consensus to change the title of the article, and I don't see anything here which is likely to convince anyone. I think we should all go do something more useful. —Michael Z. 2007-09-13 15:45 Z 


 * Hello,

The point is that there is no consensus on keeping the page at Kiev, either. Actually, more people support the move to Kyiv.

Thanks, Horlo 22:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

To Eduvalko: I am referring to the most recent poll which was just over a month ago. To Horlo: No single vote opposing the move was casted based on the assumption that Kiev was nine times more popular than Kyiv. Now, skimming the archives, the consensus and arguments have been the same with the exception of an influx of newly registered user names and at least five anonymous IP addresses from Toronto, coincidentially from the city that you reside. Note that this happened right after the polls were closed. Besides these posts, the majority of the edits come from Horlo, and you obviously don't count as new consensus considering the fact that you were the one that started the poll. As for the "personal attack", if the information that you gave wasn't completely misleading, it is not a personal attack. Reginmund 06:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello,

Reginmund, your vote in the poll was cast based on the assumption that Kiev was nine times more popular than Kyiv on a Google search. At one point you even stated that you would change your vote when Kyiv became more popular on the Google search.

I have come to terms with the fact that you think that everybody in this discussion who disagrees with you is my sockpuppet. How do you explain the numbers in the archives from before this current discussion?

What do you mean by that last sentence? The information I gave was not completely misleading. It wasn't at all misleading.

Thanks,

Horlo 22:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the reason why you have been classified as "misleading". You consistently lie and spin words. You are telling me why I cast my own vote? I casted my vote because I believe that English doesn't have an academy and that Kiev was more common regardless of the Google test. Nor have I said that everyone that disagrees with me is your sockpuppet which is a blatant filthy lie on your behalf. I said that it should be taken into consideration the influx of newly registered users and anonymous IPs from Toronto that came directly after the polls closed are probably Horlo's sock puppets. I also stand by what I said about if Kyiv receives more hits on Google and from testing again and again, it still hasn't changed. If you want to give a legitimate argument, you can start with not spinning mine. Reginmund 00:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

Reginmund, for weeks, you were saying that internet polls are the only thing that matters when determining commonality. Even when I showed results that Kyiv and Kiev were tied on the advanced google, you started pointing to other search engines. I was saying that everything should be examined, and you said that everything is on the internet, all kinds of people use the internet, and therefore only internet search results should be considered. You even said that NATO was media because it is on the internet.

I said "you think that everybody in this discussion who disagrees with you is my sockpuppet". That's in black and white immediately above your statement. I did not say that everybody who disagrees with you is my sockpuppet. That's why I suggested the editors in the archive.

Do you have any constructive arguments to add to this debate?

Thanks, Horlo 00:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Once again you are spinning my words. You reported Google to be fluctuating and asked to consider other tools besides Google. So what did I do? I showed you other tools! I also never said that "everything is on the Internet". I asked how you can determine that the ratio of Internet users that use either spelling would be any different.

I did not say that everybody who disagrees with you is my sockpuppet. - Horlo

I have come to terms with the fact that you think that everybody in this discussion who disagrees with you is my sockpuppet. - Horlo


 * You ask me if I have any constructiive arguments, yet you blatantly lie to push your crusading POV. Take this filth to a message board. It is the only place it would be constructive. Reginmund 01:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Reginmund, Let's stop this.

Do you have anything which is not about me or internet search engines?

Thanks, Horlo 03:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it is downright useless to discuss the matter with you seeing as you have an ulterior motive other than improving this encyclopaedia. Reginmund 05:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)