Jump to content

Talk:Kyiv/naming

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Kyiv

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mykyta (talk | contribs) at 04:31, 14 September 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is a subpage of Talk:Kiev for discussing the name of the article Kiev. Please take all discussion of the name here, reserving the regular talkpage for other matters. I hope that this division will benefit both the regular talkpage and the name discussion itself. Happy editing. Bishonen | talk 19:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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 [1] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]


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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]


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)[reply]


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)[reply]


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)[reply]

Archived Requested move redux

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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)[reply]

  • 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 [2] 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)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]


Hello,

Are there any other arguments against the move to Kyiv?

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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#Dealing_with_self-identifying_terms, and WP:Naming_conflict#Identification_of_common_names_using_external_references 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)[reply]

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:

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.
Wikipedia: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)
National Geographic (anytime)
CBC (last year)
ABC (last year)
Globe and Mail (last year)
Globe and Mail (anytime)
BBC (last year)

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)
NATO (last year)
OSCE (last year)
IMF (last year)
World Bank (last year)
  • Kiev 163
  • Kyiv 202 (hey, one of these actually prefers "Kyiv", by 5 to 4!)
Red Cross (last year)
Red Cross (anytime)

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 Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Widely accepted name.

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)
The Toronto Star (anytime)
Apparently they also use "Kiev".
Note also that Wikipedia: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)[reply]


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" 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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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[3]).
Hello,

Where does it say Kiev? I couldn't find that. Thanks, Horlo 22:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

Request for Comment

Template:RFChist

Should the page be moved to a new page called Kyiv?

Absolutely, the change from Kiev to Kyiv should occur on Wikipedia, as it has in many other places already. Martauwo 01:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some Wiki editors insist that a more common English name - based on history, Google searches, personal intrangisence ect., for the geographic entity located at 50°27′00″N 30°31′24″E is Kiev; Therefore they argue that is the best title for the article about the city. However reading further into the article we see that just as prevalent is the new spelling used.

Like it or not, the Ukrainian government's decree of Ukrainian as the official language and policy of using the Kyiv spelling has significantly changed how the the city's name is commonly spelled in English.

Institutions (ie. city council, universities, metro) with the city's name in their proper title will use Ukrainian spelling Київ in their proper name. A faithful translation into English text (such as a Wikipedia reference) should translate using the Kyiv spelling ie Kyiv Metro, Kyiv City council. Moreover, some of these institutions have produced their own English language text where they have explicitely spelt their name using Kyiv.ie Kyiv-Mohyla Institute, Kyiv Polytechnical Insitute, Kyiv University etc. further confirming how the city name should be spelt in their proper name.

It does make more sense to change the article's to Kyiv name to reflect the usage in proper names cited in the body of the article. Eduvalko 03:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support New spelling is acceptable spelling in English, is as widely recognised as other spelling and becoming more common. New spelling is used in titles of other Wiki entries, notably proper names using Kyiv in title, and also in the body of article under discussion. Move will provide naming consistancy CheersEduvalko 19:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The Kiev spelling is acceptable, the Kiev spelling is wider recognised and still more common. The Kiev spelling is used in other titles in other articles. The keeping will provide naming consistency. Reginmund 19:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — I agree that the Kyiv spelling is probably more appropriate, but the spelling Kiev is far more recognized and is much more common. Using Kyiv instead of Kiev would degrade the utility of the article for people unfamiliar with the city, potentially causing confusion over which city is being discussed. JKBrooks85 20:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Both spellings Kyiv and Kiev are now in common usage. The rationale for proposing changing the name on Wikipedia seems to be that use of Kyiv increasing, and is becoming the common usage according to Wikipedia naming guidelines. (see discussion) A certain degree of confusion usually accompanies change (such as from Peking to Beijing, Leningrad back to St. Petersburg) but the confusion is usually temporary. I am left wondering why so many people are so resistant to this proposed change? The change is happening elsewhere, why not here? Discussion is not usually considered a bad thing.

Martauwo 21:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Kiev and Kyiv aren't 2 possible spellings of the same word, they are the phonetic approximations of a Russian word and an Ukrainian word. So the real issue, in my opinion, is whether the rest of the world is going to insist that Ukraine's official language is Russian or Ukrainian. I certainly don't believe that popular opinion makes something correct, and categorically reject any argument that supports either spelling because "CNN uses it" or "most people use it" (and "most people" certainly do not live in Ukraine). We English-speakers are some of the worst at butchering other languages' proper names. Moscow instead of Moskva? Kishinev instead of Chisinau? Let's get one right for a change, and show these people some respect.

75.66.91.10 23:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - This is why they are called "different languages". All languages "butcher" loanwords when they are translated (including Ukranian). Since when do Germans call their country "Nimechia"? However, it shouldn't be necessary to change every toponym phoenetically. In English, Kiev is perfectly correct and this is the English Wikipedia, not the Ukranian Wikipedia. Reginmund 00:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - in the interest of accuracy. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias are supposed to be committed to accuracy. Ostap 00:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Soooo... what are you saying? That "Kiev" is inaccurate? Reginmund 00:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying that Kyiv is more accurate. I really have no intention of debating you, seeing the personal attack you just made above. Ostap 00:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - And what is your evidence that Kyiv is more accurate? And where is my personal attack? Reginmund 00:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC) Comment - Reginmund, everybody has an opinion. If you want to discuss it, please do it at the talk page. Here, everybody is free to state whatever they want, for any reason they want. Horlo 00:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I support the move to Kyiv, because it’s becoming more popular - the momentum has shifted to Kyiv. The move will also resolve differences with other names such as Dynamo Kyiv. Mykyta 04:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kyiv/naming&oldid=157782662"