Talk:Kiev/naming/archive 003

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Request for Comment 2 Request for move 2.1 Support 2.2 Oppose 2.3 Section break 1 3 Wrapping this up 4 "...because, I, the closing admin, deemed it, erm, closeable." : El-C 5 Jehochman's point of view 5.1 Silly story 6 The debate continues 7 Continuing debate 8 Indenting 9 Commonality 10 Kishinev example 11 Hypothetical Scenario 12 Guidelines - How to make a Choice between controversial names 13 English encyclopedia, English desired by Ukraine? 14 Why does it matter 15 Soviet Nostalgia 16 Summary attempt of the "IRL" name situation 16.1 Kiev vs Kyiv by the Google numbers, 1998 to Today 17 Filters and Screenshots 18 False claims about English googles during the last year in .ua 19 When talking about Ukrainian places... 20 Commonality part II 21 The BBC and Current Usage 22 Are there any serious arguments against the move? 23 IATA? 24 Step 2 25 Step 3

Request for Comment

Request for move

In order to allow greater readability, a separate page has been created for discussion by anyone other than Horlo, Irpen or Reginmund. No decisions will be made on that page. Any decisions will be made only on this page. 199.125.109.35 21:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Section break 1

RFC Response. I am here as a result of the RFC request. I have done a Nexis search and find that Kiev seems to be the predominant spelling at the moment bu Kyiv is also being used. Given that language and spellings can and do change I think we need to be prepared to change as well. Given that this is the English wiki I would keep Kiev for now and revisit this in 6 months or so. A redirect can certainly be created but given the enormity of the change I would like to see a very strong consensus before any change is made. At present, I'm not sure that consensus exists. Once the change is made I would create a redirect for the old name too. The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Associated Press, the Daily Telegraph of Australia and of London, Chinadaily.com, Daily Record of Scotland, The Guardian of London and on and on all use Kiev at the moment. A similat search on Kyiv shows some rare usage even in some of the papers listed above, but Kiev is the most common. --JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 19:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, while it is true that US media uses Kiev, in Canada and Australia, Kyiv is more common, or at least equally as common.

However, among non-media institutions, Kyiv is used almost exclusively. For example the UN,[2], the Red Cross [3], the European Union [4], NATO [5], and OSCE [6], and the World Bank [7].

People who deal with these organizations would use Kyiv.

Also, all official English government agencies also use Kyiv.

The discussion is to determine which of these two names is more common according to all of these criteria, especially since an advanced google search is inconclusive.

Of course, I agree that there should be a re-direct for the old name to Kyiv.

Thanks, Horlo 20:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ignore the troll. He claims that the Google test is inconclusive because it consistently shows Kiev to be %25 more popular than Kyiv which goes against his POV. Reginmund 20:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

Reginmund, one more reminder - here are actual screenshots of google searches that show a higher count for Kyiv. http://www.freewebs.com/horlo/kyiv1.htm

Do you have any proof that Kiev is ever 25% higher?

If you do not, please stop the name-calling.

Thanks, Horlo 21:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I ask anyone who considers the Google test to check it independently. With every other tactic Horlo has used to push his POV, I wouldn't be surprised if he took those photographs to Photoshop. Again, perform the Google test on your own. I think you might find that the results are decisively different than Horlo's bowdlerised "proof". Reginmund 21:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I would remind you of the discussion here: [8] where others also did not see the results that you did on a google test.

If you have nothing to show, please allow other people to speak, and have their own opinions. Thanks, Horlo 23:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not consider the "Google test" to be necessarily reliable. I have never heard "Kyiv" instead of "Kiev," even for a time living in England. A user pointed out above that the Oxford English Dictionary uses Kiev. That's actually enough for me-- the OED is a definitive source, IMO. I believe common usage is on the side of using "Kiev."--Gloriamarie 22:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

Yes, the OED uses Kiev, but according to the same OED, Wikipedia doesn't exist. (please note that in that dictionary, there is an entry for "wiki"). Please keep that in mind when you consider that to be the definitive source.

Thanks, Horlo 23:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you actually read my argument? I asked for anyone searching points to conduct the search independently. I never stated that my results are legitimate and according to that discussion, neither are yours. Next time you post another filibuster, do your research as to what you are actually writing about. You can start with ceasing to discredit a publisher that not only puts less emphasis on Internet phenomena and more on toponyms, but is also a vital source in Wikipedia's unrelated citations. Reginmund 01:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Google results

• Kyiv - 5 million hits
• Kiev - 37 million hits

I for one do not appreciate all the sock puppetry, meat puppetry, dissembling, and disruption involved in Horlo's endless crusade. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Advanced Google Search results: Kyiv - 1,950,000 Kiev - 2,220,000

Please note that WP guidelines clearly state to use the advanced search, and a raw search should be avoided.

It is a fact that new people are always joining Wikipedia. If you do not appreciate that, there's nothing I can do.

Who are the sockpuppets here? Would you be so kind as to support that accusation?

Thanks, Horlo 19:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yet, even your results still show Kiev to be higher for once. I've already made clear before that every random Toronto IP (at least five) that had little to no other contriibutions to any other articles and every newly registered user that made little to no other contributions to any other articles, all of which came right after the polls were closed because when Horlo realised that consensus was greater for keeping the page, he needed to make some sockpuppets to push his agenda. Reginmund 22:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

I have never said that the google test is always in favour of Kyiv. I have said that the difference is not great enough to make a decision based on that. You are the one who claims it is always 25% higher for Kiev.

I repeat my question - who are the sockpuppets here?

Thanks, 67.71.177.230 22:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You are not a judge to say that a %25 difference is disregardable and I am saying this taking the test independently. I also never said that you stated that Kyiv was always higher. I have already made clear the sockpuppets. Until you actually make enough to get the page moved, that is when I'll identify them but thanks to bureaucratic elections such as the one that kept Kiev where it belongs, you are not an administrator, so I don't have to go on a wild goose-chase for you. Reginmund 23:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

A simple Google search is not very meaningful because there is no way to examine all 42 million links to see why they used one spelling or the other. For example, one link is for a book titled "Kiev: A Portrait, 1800-1917", long before Kyiv came into use. Is anyone else amused that http://www.uazone.net/Kiev.html the "KYIV CITY GUIDE" uses Kiev for the filename yet has a subpage called "Kiev?, Kyiv?" which says that Kyiv is correct? http://www.uazone.net/Kiev_Kyiv.html However what is clearly significant is that Kyiv is used a lot. 199.125.109.19 05:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• The web page that you gave actually gives more examples of Kyiv while it still legitimately acknowledges Kiev. I also fail to see why "Kiev: A Portrait" should be discluded form the count. Reginmund 05:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Because it is a portrait for the years 1800-1917, and is logically titled by whatever the city was called during those years. 199.125.109.19 06:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• The spelling "Kiev" is of course still used. That wouldn't exactly make the book outdated, therefore it wouldn't exactly make the book discredible. The fact that there is knowledge of its existence goes to show that young or old, it is still merit in the Russian transliteration of Kiev's spelling. Reginmund 07:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

The book is outdated because it does not reflect what is the common name. It reflects what was the common name almost one hundred years ago.

Thanks, 67.71.177.230 22:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? What was used a century ago is still used today. it still has a substantial effect today. Reginmund 01:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman, a very extensive list of evidence has been presented on this talk page, with contributions from many editors. Please read through all evidence presented before making an informed decision. Cyclically restating evidence that has since been successfully rebutted (and many times too), without any challenge of the rebuttal, does not help.

Nor do accusations of sock puppetry; unless there are black Concorde flights, how is Horlo flying to Australia, making comments with my IP address, and then flying back to Canada to make a comment with Toronto IP addresses? Why is Horlo constantly being singled out for attack; because out of the "support" group he appears to have the most time for this, and since he has provided so much evidence in support of a move to Kyiv, which some pro-Kiev editors are appearing to ignore? If you are against the move, read the last summary posted by Horlo and provide valid evidence against each point raised (make sure it isn't an old argument as well) - don't just cry sock puppet in the stead of evidence or a credible argument.

If you are for the move, please read the summary in support too, and also read through the arguments raised by those opposed to the move, so that you also make an informed comment. Of course I appreciate your support, but it is important that this be informed support based on evidence. Whatever your position, it would be of benifit to you if you can make and defend comments with knowledge of the evidence accumulated on the talk page. Those opposing, please consider making a concise summary of the evidence in favour of your position to date, so we know where we disagree.

I strongly support the move in light of all of the evidence presented thus far. Should I make this comment elsewhere? I have never been involved in such a disagreement before.

Thanks, 60.242.0.245 06:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be making up most of these points as you go along. Especially because nobody ever claimed that you were Horlo's sockpuppet, that no points against the move have been disproven, that Horlo continues to go in circles with his arguments despite being disproven on numerous occasions, that the accusations of sockpuppetry are an excuse to digress from the point. It appears that you have neither regarded any of the arguments opposing the move with the slightest bit of seriousness, otherwise you would actually get your facts right. I'm quite surprised that these editors (and their sockpuppets) are still trying to get the page moved after all of the resistance. The fact that they have not accepted consensus goes to show that their intentions are not to improve this encyclopaedia, but to push their nationalist agendas. Reginmund 07:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"Nationalist agendas"? You really need to take a break from this debate. Ostap 01:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

With Horlo's refusal to accept the poll and his speculation that some of the opposers of the move are Russian, shows that he has an ulterior motive and since I can't think of any other besides nationalism, then maybe you can. Why don't you start right now? Reginmund 01:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to take part, but I actually have better things to do, like improve this encyclopedia. Have fun crusading,Ostap 01:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that you care about this encyclopaedia more than you care about me "taking a break" let alone that you assume that my "crusading" is recreational, you might need to take a break. Seriously. Reginmund 01:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, whatever. I don't really understand your accusations, but you're actually right that I could care less about you taking a break. Cheers Reginmund, lets work together to make this a better encyclopedia. Ostap 01:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Now what exactly am I accusing you of? At least what did I say that you do not understand? Reginmund 01:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Advanced Google Search: Kyiv vs Kiev= Reginmund, do you accuse me likewise of doctoring my screenshots? Horlo's appear unedited to me. You never responded with any of your own, or disputed Horlo's shots during the considerable period of time in which we stalled debate on this issue just to give those against the move time to come up with countering evidence of your own.

I have always assumed good faith, and believed that you were getting the Advanced Google Search results you were claiming. Horlo's results are different to my results. Your results are very different to my results. I thus assumed that the test results must fluctuate, instead of questioning the credibility of your evidence.

What is important is that not only were the _percentage_ differences between Horlo's results and my results different, but that the _absolute_ differences were significantly so. The total number of results for the tests Horlo undertook were greater, thus my tests weren't as accurate: websites might have been inaccessible at the times of day I tested; my population size was incorrectly small. Would you like to inform us of the absolute number of hits you recieve for both Kyiv and Kiev, rather than the percentage difference?

Also, the last posted summary in support of the move from Kiev to Kyiv did not mention the Advanced Google Search alone as proof that Kyiv is the more common usage. In fact, it may be too mild as it says the result is hung, were it might really be additional proof that Kyiv is more common. And what of the other arguments presented for the move? 60.242.0.245 07:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you actually read my post? I said that other users should make the search independently without regarding Horlo's shots as legitimate simply because his crusading the talk page may show evidence of an ulterior motive and tampering with evidence of which spelling is more popular. So, it would be in turn ironic if I posted my own shots, yet I encourage other users to do the search on their own. I would really reccommend you read my filibuster before actually interpereting them before you make claims irrelevant to the point. Reginmund 07:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember all of Horlo's argument, all of my arguments, all of Eduvalko's arguments or other people's arguments being disproven. Perhaps all of your arguments haven't really been disproven either. This is again getting messy; I don't know much about editing, so could Reginmund or somebody else perhaps start a new section please, where we can yet again restate every item of evidence for either side? I was under the impression that we had covered all that you were arguing, Reginmund, and I didn't think anything had been missed or left unchallenged. This would not be fair if I was ignoring your evidence at the same time as urging others not to do the same, and I apologise if I have done so. Perhaps opposing and supporting evidence, and the discussion surrounding each point of evidence, is lost in the quagmire above. Should we just restate the whole lot for each side again?60.242.0.245 07:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Reginmund, it appears that I'm trying to post at the same time as you; I'm out of sync with your posts.

After Horlo posted his shots, I suggested (and he agreed) that we take the Google Test as hung rather than trumpeting a win for Kyiv. As this was a while ago, and you had made several posts since, I just assumed you weren't debating this, so was suprised when you mentioned the 25% again.

If what you suggest is that we make up a table of what every editor says they see - absolute number of hits for Kyiv and for Kiev, and UTC time at which the searches were run - then it is something I suggested might be necessary before, and I would be happy to do so. Either way we will conclude something.

Sorry, that was my post60.242.0.245 07:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

If you skim the archives, you may see that laying down the arguments has already been tried. The fact of the matter is, both sides cannot be disproven because both side's arguments are perfectly legitimate. That made the final authority the consensus among the voters. After the vote was closed, Horlo continued to make the same arguments which led to a dilemna of going round in circles. Since both arguments are legitimate, what matters now is consensus and right now, there isn't enough to move the page to Kyiv. Reginmund 07:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou, Reginmund. I came across this article well after the poll, wondered at the spelling, and found this lengthy talkpage. I have already read through the entirety, though reading the whole lot until my first post as one big discussion from the past (and ignoring timestamps) might have made me miss the significance of it.

JodyB suggested that we wait for six months. It appears that there will soon be parliamentary elections in Ukraine. As this could potentially lead to increased English language reporting, commentary, discussion and the likes which involve the name of Ukraine's capital (I have no proof that it will), perhaps we should wait until after the election period and see how commonly each spelling is used afterwards? We could see a significantly increased use of Kyiv, or a significant resurgance of Kiev; either could help clarify matters here.

Also, do you think that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiev#City_name_evolution should be updated in light of this lengthy debate?

Thanks,60.242.0.245 08:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

If there is anything else in that section that needs updating besides the parliamentary actions, that may be necessary but we can't speculate in the article that the use of Kyiv may increase rapidly until it actually does and if it actually does. Reginmund 18:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Wrapping this up

Clearly, consensus to move the article to Kyiv does not appear likely to be crystallizing in the foreseeable future (which is, for our purposes, many months). Several dictionaries I consulted all depict Kiev as the primary name and Kyiv as the Ukrainian one. I note that Britannica and Encarta are split on the issue (with the former favouring Kiev and the latter Kyiv). A google scholar result give Kiev ten times more results than Kyiv. It goes on, but it does appear that Kiev is the common English name, and it is probably not productive going over the matter seemingly indefinitely, and increasingly circularly. Let's wait and see in, say, six months to a year (perhaps at that time kmv.gov.ua/en/index.asp will be back online), if there's been any changes that increase the prevalence of Kyiv — Wikipedia cannot become part of the process, however. Thx. El_C 23:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

And before Holro responds to this with his usual "Hello, thank you for comments but..." usual flood, I would like to add that I removed the WP:RM box from Talk:Kiev and if it is added in the immediate future "(which is, for our purposes, many months)", it will be reverted on sight. I call upon all parties to leave this page to Horlo and resume productive mainspace editing. --Irpen 23:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• I did take that road until I thought that I could get Horlo's attention by explaining why there is enough consensus against the move. Well, that didn't work so I guess I'll just take your advice and shun him. Reginmund 23:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"...because, I, the closing admin, deemed it, erm, closeable." : El-C

(The subject line is a quote from El C's in response to Horlo's question why not give the RfC the time as announced.)

I guess I'm was wrong in hoping for more thoughtful guidance out of this impasse. What I saw 199.125.109.19 trying to do was to let us see the whole Wiki editor landscape on the naming issue. This is what is this naming issue needs, a full venting of opinions, a poll of all the editors who have made contributions in this subject area, or as many that can be asked to provide an contribution. Comments and endless counterrebuttals should only be listed further down the page or on user talk pages. It's easier to compromise and negotiate if one can see/read opinions from a large number of editors. Let them/us knock themselves/ourselves out.

Arbitrarily shutting down the RfC because the discussion has become rowdy (see "Gordian knot" @ User talk:El C) only frustrates particants and really wont make the issue go away. El C would have helped if he (forgive me if he is not really a he) limited his observations to what is the landscape amongst editors and worked on negotiating through the impasse. Instead describing his own Google searches and opinion has the affect of reducing his mediation to one more "oppose" contribution. I expect that Wiki editors behaving like other normal adults will know when they are summarily and needlessly shut down/out and it is expected and normal that they will not accept this. So much for closure. 74.121.238.102 03:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)As suspected. I took too long formulating my response and was logged out but the above is really my comment. Eduvalko 03:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

My own cursory overview is just an aside; you may take it to be as revealing as you wish. El_C 03:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear, and if so I again apologise. I suggested that this debate be kept open, not removed or ignored, until after the parliamentary elections are held so that we can check the usage of Kyiv vs Kiev after this period.

The only part of the Wikipedia article on the capital of Ukraine that I suggested changing was the section on the evolution of the name. At the very least, this debate has demonstrated that _this section_ of the article is in need of an update in light of evidence presented.

Why close things now? And even if clear consensus won't be reached by the end of the week, why should this discussion be abandoned? Despite its torturous (and at times personal) nature, I am of the opinion that it is (albeit slowly) going somewhere. The title of this article is important. And there is a section on the article on the evolution on the name because it is significant.

Not long from now, there might be an intensification in the printed/typed/written use of the name of Ukraine's capital in English, due to the upcoming elections. Shall we check which spelling is used by whom, how frequently and how commonly after the election period?

60.242.0.245 03:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I too cannot understand the rush to close this discussion. Let the sides vent, however I do welcome the idea of reoppening the discussion after the elections. Certainly the media will reflect the current trend in naming the city and it may give us a better indication of which term to use. Bandurist 13:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

As a newcomer to this discussion I would like to make two quick points: (i) it seems to me that there is no clear consensus to end this conversation. (ii) As a historian of modern Europe I frequently have to deal with this type of question and it seems to me that over time the name of a city becomes that which the country decides, ie Mumbai, St Petersburg, etc. Why should this case be any different?Ab2004 18:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Because the English language doesn't have an academy. All of the aforementioned toponyms have been adopted to be the more common name in English. No foreign government should have to tell us Anglophones how to use our language. Reginmund 22:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman's point of view

This is a talk page. We can discuss the naming of Kiev until the cows come home. However, we don't want activity like recruiting newcomers with a specific POV, or registering multiple accounts, or using IP accounts, to be used as tactics for creating "consensus". That sort of nonsense is what I'm concerned about, Horlo, in response to this message you left on my talk page.

As to the substance, if Ukraine's official English spelling of the city is "Kyiv", that's what we should use. Google counts should be represented accurately, but I don't care if 7X as many web pages have "Kiev". Many web pages are historical, not current, so that measure is irrelevant. In general, people, groups, and places with governments should be able to choose whatever name they like, as long as use that name consistently, and in good faith, Wikipedia should follow their precident. If the official governments of Ukraine and Kyiv call the city "Kyiv", so should we. It's easy enough to redirect Kiev in case people get confused. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No foreign government tells us how to use our language. Discluding the Google test, the consensus can be determined by polling and it is the voters' choice which one is more common. For now, Kiev appears to be. Reginmund 22:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

What poppycock. I guess your next step will be to change the spelling of "foreign" to "fooreign" by consensus. Bandurist 22:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking a typographical error so seriously, but this isn't the issue to be discussed. The fact that a foreign government changes their city's name in a different language is irrelevant because an official policy on Wikipedia, which just so happes to make your argument of "poppycock" to be poppycock. Please cease to be incivil by suggesting that I would do something based on consensus that doesn't even exist because of a typo. It shows that you have no other arguments other than ridicule. It would be easier if you just admitted that you are wrong. Reginmund 22:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

What piffle !!! You mean to say that the name change by the Indian government of Bombay (a British creation) to Mumai, or Madras to Chennai, or Transvaal Province to Gauteng Province (South Africa) or Stalingrad to Volgograd, or Leningrad to St Petersburg or Peking to Beijing, or Canton to Guandong, or Dahomey to Benin, or Ivory Coast deciding its international name is Cote d'Ivorie, or Burma to Myanmar, is irrelevant???

The Ukrainians didn't change the name of their capital. They just want the name of their capital to reflect the manner in which it is pronounced in Ukrainian rather than Russian, the country and culture which has subjugated them for the past 350 years. If the official language of Ukraine is Ukrainian, and the Ukrainian people have struggled for self determination for most of their history, it seems fair IMHO to honour their small wishes. They are not making any demands to rename cities or countries outside of their borders but within, and IMHO they are within their rights. I remember a few years ago when I was in University in Australia and one of the lecturers showed us an Indonesian map of Australia with Australia marked as Southern Irianjia - a part of southern Indonesia. I always wondered what sort of person would think in that manner. Your stance somehow reminds me of such nonsense. Bandurist 03:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No I did not say that all of the aforementioned toponyms should be disregarded because the names have been changed by the countries. I said that governments do not regulate our language, Anglophones do. And fortunately, Mumbai, Chennai, Gautenf Province, Volgograd, Saint Petersburg, Bejing, Guangdong, Benin, Côte d'Ivoire, and Myanmar all are the most common name as determined by Anglophones. However, "Kyiv" is not. Please refrain from putting words into my mouth as it shows that you haven't been paying attention to what I have been actually saying. If you did pay attention, you would have saved yourself from writing an irrelevant paragraph about Ukranian nationalism.

Please also refrain from being incivil as to calling my filibusters "nonsense". It makes your argument especially daft because you seem to put more emphasis on ridiculing me than actually proving a sensible point. In the end, your rhetoric actually appears to be nonsense. Reginmund 04:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't be talking about rhetoric and incivility. I could go back and get the diff where you call Horlo a filthy liar if you want. Ostap 04:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe because Horlo was a filthy liar unless you didn't read the excerps from two of his posts which I compared in which he blatantly accuses me of saying that every person that didn't agree with me was his sockpuppet, and then in a second post, says that he never made such a remark. I think that the same applies to you. You seem to be so entangled in ridiculing me that you actually miss the point of what I was saying. Reginmund 04:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to ridicule you. If you think Horlo lied, then by all means say it. Adding the adjective "filthy" is an example of rhetoric and incivility, and creates a very un-collaborative atmosphere. Ostap 04:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Adding the adjective "filthy" was the last adjective I needed for him to stop lying after "liar" alone didn't do it. An un-collaborative atmosphere I already am aware of, especially when Wikipedians such as yourself and Bandurist seem to put more emphasis on me than the actual content, especially when in the process, points are misinterpreted. The "filthy liar" part was actually undeniably true. Reginmund 05:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

Jehochman, thank you for your comment. That has been one of my arguments all along. Unfortunately, you will see that along the way, I became a sock puppet master, meat puppet master, and liar. The only thing I will add to that is that this article is about the name of a capital city. I think it is natural that many people take part in this discussion. There is actually a history of editors being blocked and taken to arbitration for trying to change the names of Ukrainian historical figures from Russian to Ukrainian (I am not talking about things like the Kiev Offensive, but rather people like Ivan Bohun, who have no realistic Common Name in English).

Now, even some people who disagree with me in this discussion have realized that I have not created any new accounts since the end of July, and the "sock puppet master" tag has been removed from my talk page.

It is exactly people like you, who come into this discussion with an open mind and good faith, that I was hoping to invite into this discussion with the Request for Comment.

Thanks, Horlo 02:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Bandurist, your analogy with Stalingrad/Volgograd is incorrect. The situation when the city is actually renamed is markedly different from what we have here. When the city is renamed, the new name comes into force: Stalino->Donetsk, Voroshilovgrad->Luhansk. It is certainly within the national government purview to rename its cities. Kiev has not been renamed. It's name remains Київ in Ukrainian. Now, the Ukrainian law recommends all the UA-gov bodies to transcribe the latter into English as Kyiv. This is what it can do. It cannot prescribe how the name should be spelled in other languages. It may equally change the spelling in the ru-lang documents produced by the ua-governmental organizations from Киев to Кыйив. If this does, the Russian Wikipedia, as not such organization, has no reason to obey. What it would do, if it has its naming conventions similar to ours, is wait and see whether the prevailing spelling used in Russian changes. If it does, the encyclopedia should follow suit. This is exactly what we are doing here. We do not change the spelling until the English language usage changes significantly enough. This has not happened yet. This is not the Volgograd/Luhansk-type case. This is more like CherkaSy, LvIv, KharkIv case. The names did not change. The prevailing English spelling did change. So, even though there are plenty of Kharkov in the books and we still use Kharkov in the WW2 context as all major WW2 literature does to this day, the articles are named Kharkiv, Cherkasy and Lviv.

Now, Horlo frequently said that the prevailing English usage is in fact Kyiv. This is the only valid argument in this discussion. Unfortunately, he was substituting facts by his wishful thinking as it was repeatedly demonstrated above by other users (see eg. the latest entry by MZajac [9].) I stepped in shortly for a second to only address the flawed comparison with Stalingrad, the city that was renamed. --Irpen 03:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

Actually, I showed MZajac how each of the points that he listed were, in fact, incorrect. Or, to use another outdated term, hooey.

Also, what of all of the other examples that Bandurist mentioned? Those may be more appropriate here: Bombay -> Mumbai, Peking -> Beijing, Burma -> Myanmar?

Thanks, Horlo 04:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Re these other cities, the wikipedia naming follows the modern prevailing usage. If Kyiv becomes one, the article will be moved. You repeated claims that you showed that this had already happened is the substitution of facts by your wishful thinking. --Irpen 04:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

How exactly do we definitively deternime prevailing usage? Is there a set process? Ostap 04:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no "single definite" way. But common sense plus the application of WP:NC(GN) give some good guidance. --Irpen 05:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Another difference between Bombay and Kiev. "Ukraine's official English spelling of the city". The problem with that one is that English is not an official language of Ukraine, but is an official language of India. So, if India decides to change Indian place names, that will have an immediate effect on the use of the "old" and "new" name. Recently, the regional government of Flanders decided to do away with all non-Dutch names for place names in Flanders. IF we give up on Kiev, we will also have to give up on Bruges, Ostend, Ghent, Antwerp ... and replace them with Brugge, Oostende, Gent, Antwerpen. Though it has been argued that because the Flemish government derives its powers from the Belgian one, it may only have the power to rule over the French versions of the name (whether their decision also affects German versions like Ostende and Löwen, is a sticky legal question). In other words, if British officials and firms want to go on referring to Bruges etc... the Flemish/Belgian government cannot stop them, not even under EU rules. The Académie Française may actually intervene and tell the Walloon government and French Wikipedians to stick to Bruges etc. German Wikipedia, however will probably obey the Flemish order (with anyone who reverts to Löwen being branded a nazi, trust me). In other words, gentlemen, if we do not stick to the "form most prevalent in English" we are in for a lot of trouble. And by the way, for the nationalist warriors: an encyclopaedia should RECORD usage, it should not PRESCRIBE it. --Pan Gerwazy 10:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Actually, there are clear guidelines which were established on a page called, interestingly enough, WP:naming conflict. The specific locations are here: [10] and here: [11].

Also, as much as some want to deny it, WP guidelines state that For geographic names in Ukraine, the Ukrainian National system is used. For historic reasons, many names are also presented in Russian, Polish, etc. That is clearly stated here: [12]

Irpen, which points do you think that I did not clarify? Please let me know, or stop using words like "wishful thinking".

Thanks, Horlo 05:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Silly story

"Hello, Johnathan, how are you today?"
"Well, thank you. By the way, my name is 'Jonathan', not 'Johnathan'."
"That's not the way we do things. Most people spell your name 'Johnathan', so that's what we use."
"But that's wrong. It's my name, and I'm sure how to spell it."
"Yes, but per our guidelines, we use the most common spelling. We see that 66% of the time, people spell your name with that extra 'h' and we wouldn't want to confuse them."

- Jehochman ^Talk 12:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice anecdote, although I have to say that is a bit irrelevant. "People" differ from places being as "Johnathan" was never needed to be named by anyone but his mother. However, cities are large enough to put on a map, not Johnathans. Reginmund 14:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

"What is your problem, sir?" (in Ukrainian)

"This wedding certificate. You wrote that my name is Pienieznü, but it is Pieniezny." (in Russian)

"I am sorry, sir. But we have followed the law: we transliterated your German name according to Ukrainian law into Пинизню, and thence back into English as Pienieznü." (in English, like everything that follows)

"But it is not a German name, and no German would ever pronounce it like that. It should be transliterated as Пенезни."

"No, Sir, Ukrainian law decides how Ukrainian embassies will transliterate German names. We all have received a disc to do that on our computer. But if you go to a notary and come back with an affidavit saying that the Cyrillic version of your name is Пенезни, we will ask the Ministry what to do, and it will probably accept the affidavit."

"And will I then get a wedding certificate saying that my name is Pieniezny?"

"Well, sir, I will have to look at what our computer makes of it. No, according to Ukrainian law, we will then transliterate your name back into Pyenyezny."

Seriously: the Ukrainian government has no power to change the English language (or the German one). And since there is no Académie Anglaise, we have to depend on prevalent usage. If we have an article on the Christian name Jonathan, well, according to prevalent usage, it should be at Jonathan, though the article should also mention divergent spellings, and if Johnathan occurs very often, there should be a (protected) redirect from it. --Pan Gerwazy 14:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about law. It's about self determination. I believe that Wikipedia should use the spelling that people and groups use to describe themselves. This is much more sensible than taking a vote!

If the people of Kyiv, acting through their official government, say they want to be called Kyiv instead of the Russian pronunciation (Kiev), that's their choice. The issue is easily decided by looking at the English language website published by the government of Ukraine. Somebody above mentioned Antwerp vs. Antwerpen as an example. In English, that city calls itself Antwerp, and so do we. Using the name that the subject uses itself is objective, and will help avoid endless debates. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, we use Mumbai and not Bombay, Myanmar and not Burma, etc. El_C 14:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Although Gypsy is slightly more popular in common usage, our article is correctly titled Romani people. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, very soon the people of Antwerp may be forbidden by the Flemish government to use "Antwerp". In any case, it does look like they are going to be forbidden to use "Anvers". Basically, you are going to get into trouble if you let non-English governments decide what the English version of an important town should be(important-> will be used often, may be considered part of the language). According to the town council of Ypers/Ypres the place name (famous from World war I) should be pronounced as "wipers"in English. I doubt that many English-speaking people do so. And as I said, the Bombay-Mumbai example does certainly not apply because English happens to be one of the national languages of India (India may be the second English-speaking country now, soon to become the first one) and any decision by its government has an immediate repercussion on the way English speakers around the world call that town. By the way, if you really think that the people of Odessa want their town to be called Odesa in English (because that is also part of the same Ukrainization drive, and spelled in the "Russian" way here), you should have a look at election results for that town: the politicians behind that drive are not very popular in Odessa (understatement). Any Odessan website saying "Odesa" in English says so because of Ukrainian law, not because the people of Odessa say so. The gypsy-Romani parallel is irrelevant, because it gets us into the niggers-negroes-black-African argument. Interestingly, "Muscovy" was never a self-name, but "negroes" was, and so was "pola(c)k". --Pan Gerwazy 15:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you show any recent evidence of people in "Kyiv" calling their own city "Kiev"? - Jehochman ^Talk 16:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, for a number of years now you need to be courageous (not very courageous, it is not as naughty as that) to state your address in English on the Internet as Kiev. But if you google "Kiev site .ua" in English you will still find a milion sites mentioning Kiev and some ARE recent. Conferences by big multinationals. This one is nice, because at this moment it is advertising a trade fair in Kiev from 25 to 29 September 2007. Cannot be more recent than that, right? But the Ministry of Industrial Policy is involved, so small wonder that when they give the address of the venue, we find ... Kyiv. This site shows what is going on: the site itself is always mentioning "Kiev" but when it gives the address of interesting places (bars, restaurants), the address used suddenly includes "Kyiv" almost everywhere. --Pan Gerwazy 22:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Guess what, have a look at the discussion on the talk page of Odessa. The renamers do not care a jot what the local people think. Because they know that if that were taken into account, there never would have been any discussion on Gomel, and they would even lose Kharkiv and many Ukrainian towns in the South of Ukraine. The big prize they are hoping for, by the way, is not even Kiev, but this one. That is no joke. People who have been dead for manyy years have been renamed according to the new rules. During all the years he was the leading player of the Latvian chess team, Vladimir Petrov never felt the need to make his name more Latvian, but fifty years after his death, his name was changed into Vladimirs Petrovs, and he was even declared a "Soviet defector", all of this on English Wikipedia. Pardon my French, the guy actually fled Latvia when the nazis invaded, but was killed by Stalin anyway. I suppose that death was why he is now worthy enough to be claimed by the nationalists. (If you do not believe that the international chess database www.chessbase.com gives the correct spelling of the day like at [13] have a look at Isakas Vistaneckis's matches quoted there - with a few exceptions, i.e. matches played in inner Russia after 1945 and before 1956, they give Vistaneckis, the name he chose over Vistinietzki and Alekhine is almost always quoted as Alexander, which is indeed what he himself wrote, while Western newspapers wrote Alexandre) "These people conscribe even the dead", an American journalist said when pointing out the Rodina Mat' Zovyot statue.--Pan Gerwazy 10:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

People in Kiev call their city as either Киев or Київ. And the preferred name in the non-English language is nowhere in the naming conventions. People in Moscow call their city Москва. So what? --Irpen 17:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether Irpen deliberately didn't want to answer the question which pointedly asks what English spelling the locals use to name themselves in the Angloworld. All city (road) signage is "Kyiv". Some/most/all universities use "Kyiv" in their English literature if their title carries the city name, FC Dynamo Kyiv and so on. Eduvalko 18:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

"Some/Most/All" universities in Ukraine are state enterprises and comply with the government instructions. So do the authorities who install signs. Besides, they don't. If you ever driven on the Odessa-Kiev highway, you see all sorts of spellings, including KYYIV, KYJIV, etc. But the most important thing is that the choice of the transliteration preferred by the local authorities of the non-English speaking country has little effect on the prevailing usage in the angloworld as most of it comes from the English-speaking countries as we can see from the fact that despite the documents that originate from Ukraine use Kyiv, most major English language media, CNN, BBC, AP, Reuters, Fox, use Kiev and many indicated their intent to continue to stick to it, at leas for now. --Irpen 18:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The US government now uses "Kyiv" exclusively. Maybe there's something to it? - Jehochman ^Talk 19:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is. It matters a whole lot more than what the UA-gov uses because the US-gov's choice may actually have an impact on the English language media. So far it did not. --Irpen 19:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

Irpen, why do you think that the media is the only factor in determining what is important?

Thanks, Horlo 02:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The debate continues

• 1) The list of city name changes is quite large. Here are some more:

Konigsburg to Kaliningrad Danzig to Gdansk (Danzig looks more English to me) Breslau to Wroclaw In fact almost all the towns in the German lands given to Poland after WWII had name changes. You can’t tell me that they are easier to pronounce in their Polish spellings? But by not using the contemporary Polish spellings you are offending the Poles. Regarding Mumbai aparently this is the pronounciation of Bombay in one of the Indian languages.

• 2) Since the break up of the USSR many former Soviet cities have had their spelling changed back to the non-russian pronounciation. This is despite the fact that in some cities the population may be made up of 90% Russians.

Here is but a short list:

Alma-Ata to Almaty, Gomel to Homel or Homiel, Grodno to Hrodna , Mogilev to Mahilyow, Kishinev to Chisinau.

In particular I turn Mr Reginmund's attention to Kishinev - Chisinau. (As an aside - My grandmother, a native of Murom (ie ethnically Russian) lived there and in fact was buried there, and being the typical Great Russian chauvinist she was brought up to be saw nothing wrong in never learning the language of the local population.) Kishinev is easy on the eye and easy to pronounce. Chisinau (please look) with all its diacritical marks looks ugly - yet Chisinau is the name used in Wiki.

• 3) Latin alphabet spellings of Kyiv in the highway from Odessa are in the process of being standardized. One of the reasons for the commission to choose Kyiv was to standardize the spellings used in Ukraine. This however, will take some time as the economy cannot pay for instantaneous replacement of highway signs.

• 4) The double SS in Odessa is not a problem IMHO. Russian used the double letters on borrowed words. Ukrainian didn’t. I will continue to use the word "Address" in English with a double SS.

• 5 Incivility. - Mr Reginmund - Please look over your posts. In the space of one page you have written:

You and your puppets don't count. self-professed teacher. everyone that disagrees with me is your sockpuppet which is a blatant filthy lie, the influx of newly registered users and anonymous IPs from Toronto that came directly after the polls closed are probably Horlo's sock puppets you blatantly lie to push your crusading POV. With every other tactic Horlo has used to push his POV, I wouldn't be surprised if he took those photographs to Photoshop. the results are decisively different than Horlo's bowdlerised "proof". I have already made clear the sockpuppets. Especially because nobody ever claimed that you were Horlo's sockpuppet,

Uncivil - I truely think that you don’t really understand the term.

• 6 Mr Reginmund - Your English :

We've already been over this anyway. We're would just be repeating arguments. What was used a century ago is still used today. it still has a substantial effect today.

Ahh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Painful

• 7 I wish to also note that the Kyiv Post is an English language daily published in Kyiv by native English speakers.

Bandurist 20:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Re 1: Konigsburg to Kaliningrad is an actual renaming, so this is irrelevant. In case of the others, the local govs changed the way it spells the cities and the major media happened to pick up. If they do the same wrt to Kiev, we will rename the article. Until they do, we won't.

Re 2: same as 1, the international media picked the spelling change. This affects things. They also picked Lviv and Kharkiv. They did not pick Kiev and Odessa.

Re 7: the influence of Kyiv Post as well as the The Ukrainian Weekly and other similar UA-cented English language publications is noted but it is incomparable to that of the real media giants that establish trends in English. --Irpen 21:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not the purpose of a media giant to establish trends anymore than it the purpose of Wikipedia to establish trends. Both report trends, not establish them. 199.125.109.35 02:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Media simply reflect trends, they do not establish them. And restricting the analysis to major media is useful simply because unlike small-time internet blogs big media tend to have style manuals and dedicated editor's staff that ensure the compliance. --Irpen 02:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Madame Bandurist, I think that it is unecessary to add appendages to others' usernames. "Reginmund" will do just fine. While your at it, try not to cherry-pick my arguments and splatter all of the fragments into the same sentences. Then, while your doing that, if you do take the full honest sentences and sepetate them, you will notice that everything that I have said is true. Horlo did lie, Horlo did use sockpuppets. Horlo did crusade three archives worth of talk pages and refuse to submit to consensus. Then you will find that not one oof those accusations is incivil in that situation. Now you can go over all of them with me piece by piece, but I doubt that you will get anywhere seeing as you have consistenly proven your own points wrong by misinterpreting them incorrectly. You appear to be more focused on every elementary particle of my text and will do anyting to misinterpret it for reasons that I doubt you fully understand. Assuming the countless links that I gave you to show you what civility is, I doubt that you have taken any effort to understand what civility is. Hence, you wouldn't be crusading the talk page either. Now can you clarify what is wrong with the following sentences in a civilised manner?

We've already been over this anyway. We're would just be repeating arguments. What was used a century ago is still used today. it still has a substantial effect today.

Now that Bandurist has hopefully decided not to behave like a two-year old, I think that we can move onto business. I think that I should give another example of foreign naming disputes because my previous didn't seem to get the message past.

When certain Latin letters such as "H" are transliterated into Cyrillic, they tend to be changed. In this case, "H" is usually changed to sound like a "G". Now if I were to be speaking English or writing on English Wikipedia, I would write "Harry Potter". However, if I were to be writing on Russian Wikipedia, I would write "Гарри Поттер" (Garry Potter). Now I doubt there will be much dispute in naming the books in English but I don't think we should dictate to the Russians how to interpret a title that us Anglophones would never even read in the first place. I honestly don't care if they call him Jason Voorhees over there, as long as they don't dictate to us how to use our language. That is why we should implement this policy. Reginmund 23:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

When you say Cyrillic what you are talking about is Russian, and that in my opinion is one of your problems. You are Russo-centric. Of the East-Slavic languages Russian is the only one that does not have the letter h. (There are words which are exceptions in Russian where the g is pronounced as an h but most Russians today don't know them). Both Ukrainian and Belarusan have "h" and "g" (as well as "kh"), as do all the Western-Slavic languages such as Polish and Slovak etc. - and guess what - so does English. Russian language has its own problems. It is the odd man out. (Basically the only people that can speak and spell it properly seem to be Ukrainians). Why should names and other words have to be transformed via Russian orthography, an orthography that cannot cope with certain sounds that do exist in English????? Bandurist 23:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hm, the program that Ukrainian embassies legally have to use to transliterate English, German, Dutch "h" changes that "h" into "x", which is then turned into "kh" when transliterated back into the Latin alphabet. This too is causing problems in expatriate families in the West who face the silly problem of a brother and a sister with different family names... Just had a look at Belarusian Gomel, by the way. So, there seems to be a problem in the Cyrillic alphabet... --Pan Gerwazy 09:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

In my experience the Russians are pretty faithful at trying to duplicate the pronunciation of proper names. But there are limitations any time we are translating them. I tried to explain to my girlfriend that his name was Harry Potter in English. To which she replied, "Kherry Potter?, KHHerry Potter?" So I'm guessing that somebody decided Garry Potter was the best translation possible, and at least it would sound like a proper name in English. For what it's worth, "Kyiv" isn't a perfect duplication of the phonetic for the Ukrainian capital either. But somebody probably decided it is as close as English can get. There are other instances, such as when a word sounds vulgar, that a slightly different pronunciation is appropriate. I agree that non-English speakers should not dictate to us how to use our language, but I do believe that we should take it upon ourselves to duplicate the phonetics of a proper name as accurately as possible. Again here my contention is that Ukraine has essentially changed the name of their city from "Kiev" to "Kyiv". It's important that people unfamiliar with the cultural situation in Ukraine understand that they are two different words in two different languages), even though they sound similar. 75.66.91.10 23:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No I am not Russo-centric. Please do not state other people's belief, especially when you are unaware of them. As far as I know, Russian does have a letter in Cyrillic that is pronounced similarly to the "H" and that is Х (Kha). So Russian orthography can cope with English. Reginmund 23:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

Actually, Russian does not have an "h" sound. That's why they say "Khokkey" when saying hockey.

However, that's not really the discussion here. The topic is the name of the capital of Ukraine.

There seem to be two trains of thought here - the first accepts that the language changes, and that people won't really go falling off chairs and go into conniptions when the name of a city far away starts being spelled differently, especially when that is what the freely elected government of the country asks. (No, nobody tells us Anglos how to use our language. I am telling you how to use our language.)

The second rests on the question - "what is more common". There was a discussion roughly twenty hours ago on the same topic, and the question was posed "how is commonality determined?". An answer was "there is no one way", however, I pointed out the WP:naming conflict page, and the items: dealing with self-identifying terms, and using external sources.

Again, please tell me which of the points listed there point to the use of Kiev.

I do have one question about the validity of a book published about what was happening over 100 years ago, however: did a book like that also affect the naming of the pages about Siam?

Thanks, Horlo 00:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Russian has a sound very similar to the "H" (Kha) which can easily be substituted for the "G" sound (Ghe).

As for the "naming conflict", here's a snip of this page:

Some cases are less clear-cut. There is a trend in part of the modern news media and maps to use native names of places and people, even if there is a long-accepted English name. For example, US newspapers generally refer to the Olympics in Torino even though most English texts still call the city Turin. However, newspapers in other parts of the English speaking world still use Turin. One should use judgment in such cases as to what would be the least surprising to a user finding the article. Whichever is chosen, one should place a redirect at the other title and mention both forms in the lead. At the same time, when there is no long-established history of usage of the term, more consideration should be given to the correctness of translation, rather than frequency of usage (in a typical example of testing the usage by counting Google hits, if one version gets 92 hits, while another one gets 194 hits, it can hardly be decisive).

Well, It seems that some newspapers say "Kyiv" and some say "Kiev". I guess all that is left is the Google test. To avoid confusion, I think that we should all take it independently.

As for your question about Thailand, I'm sure that some people may have taken "Siam" to be the name of Thailand. However, it didn't stick, yet "Kiev" did. Reginmund 00:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

Actually, there are many more criteria listed on the page. I'm not sure how you could miss them. I will, however, take the liberty of adding them here, to make it easier for you:

First, the google test: however, an Advanced google test, with filters set for English, and look at the results, don't just count them. Please note that in the quote above, a two-time (200%) difference is not considered decisive;

Second, major organizations. Please do not try to google what an organization uses, please go to the organizations' sites and look how they present themselves in English when discussing Ukraine. If this is difficult for you, please tell me and I can paste direct links for you;

Third, other encyclopedia. Encyclopedia Brittanica and Colliers use Kiev, while Encarta uses Kyiv.

Fourth, media organizations. This is split. Again, please don't google what the organization uses, go to their sites and use their internal search engines. Again, look at the results, don't just count them;

Fifth, government sources. Please see what the governments of EVERY English speaking country use when describing the name of the capital of Ukraine.

Sixth, scientific literature. I don't think that applies here, because it suggests magazines/organizations that deal with pure and applied sciences.

This goes in concert with the "dealing with self-identifying terms" entry. Reginmund, please don't say that Kyiv is more like Mt. Everest than it is like Gdansk again.

This goes in concert with However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception (by the way, that is from the top of the [WP:naming conflict] page, not original research).

Thanks, Horlo 01:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I knew that I couldn't confront you again without you interpreting my words incorrectly. I never said anything about Gdansk. Nor did I say that Kiev is like Mount Everest. That was just an example used in the text.

Did you actually open the page? That is from a completely different guideline! This is not going to go anywhere if you just keep repeating arguments that have been covered. All of these alternatives are substitute to the common name conflict and by that, the common name should be taken seriously first. (Hence the Google test) Which shows Kiev to be %25 more popular.

One more thing, stop twisting my words incorrectly. if you are actually going to make a statement on my text, do it correctly.

Reginmund 02:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

Which words did I interpret incorrectly? You compared Kyiv to Mt. Everest here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kiev/naming/archive_002#Naming_discussion_results

Your exact quote was : 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".

(Please note that this quote is not the first thing in that category, and you have to scroll down a bit.)

All of these alternatives are substitute to the common name conflict and by that, the common name should be taken seriously first. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but that sounds like you think that Kiev is more common.

If you can live with that interpretation, we can continue. Please let me know if I am twisting your words.

Now, I think that Kyiv is more common. Therefore, we have a naming conflict. Therefore, we need to look at all of the other measuring sticks. Hence, the suggestions on the naming conflict resolution page.

Again, did you notice that in the quote you provided, a 200% difference "can hardly be decisive"?

By the way, do you have any comment about: However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception?

Thanks, Horlo 02:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You said that I made a comparison that "Kiev is more like Mount Everest than Gdansk". I never said that. I was trying to make the point that 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 and to substitlute the toponyms.

The guideline that notes "it can hardly be decisive" notes that the name can hardly be decisive if it is not correct (which is earlier in the text). Now, Kiev is correct, so the Google test is actually decisive in this case.

However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception

Now, do you have any reasons for exceptions? Reginmund 03:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

Reginmund, please stop cherry picking. In that section, I said that Kyiv is a self-identifying term, and that should be taken into consideration when choosing the name. That is clearly outlined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Naming_conflict#Types_of_entities. I was quoting the second paragraph, which deals with city, country, or people. You thought that the first paragraph, which deals with mountains and rivers, was more appropriate. If you don't remember that discussion, please go back and re-read it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kiev/naming/archive_002#Naming_discussion_results

About the quote that you provided, here it is again: At the same time, when there is no long-established history of usage of the term, more consideration should be given to the correctness of translation, rather than frequency of usage (in a typical example of testing the usage by counting Google hits, if one version gets 92 hits, while another one gets 194 hits, it can hardly be decisive). Where does it mention what is "correct"? Wikipedia does not judge what is "correct".

What does this sentence: "Now, Kiev is incorrect, so the Google test is actually decisive in this case." mean? I would hate to misinterpret it.

However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. Here is a good reason: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kiev/naming#Jehochman.27s_point_of_view

Thanks, Horlo 03:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't cherry-pick it. I am telling you what I meant by that comparison and by you saying that I meant that Kiev is a mountain, that is cherry picking. I already toold you my point and I outlined it there to.

Read right before that sentence. it mentions that if the name is incorrect, it can hardly be considered superior on the Google test.

"Now, Kiev is incorrect, so the Google test is actually decisive in this case."

-Now this is just a typo, a double negative I actually meant correct, hence the argument is that since Google tests shouldn't be taken seriously for an incorrect name, that is irrelevant with Kiev since it is not incorrect. Reginmund 03:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Continuing debate

Hello,

Actually, I said that it was a city, you said "Now substitute "Mount Everest" with "Kiev" and "Qomolangma" with "Kyiv". What exactly is your point in that sentence? Perhaps I am misenterpreting that you want to compare the city to the mountain, when you said that. Perhaps, on the other hand, you missed the entire point of that entire section, which says that cities are inherently different from mountains, and even though the mountain's preferred name for itself can be ignored, the city's preferred name for itself should be considered when making a decision.

Here is the rest of the quote you provided: Some cases are less clear-cut. There is a trend in part of the modern news media and maps to use native names of places and people, even if there is a long-accepted English name. For example, US newspapers generally refer to the Olympics in Torino even though most English texts still call the city Turin. However, newspapers in other parts of the English speaking world still use Turin. One should use judgment in such cases as to what would be the least surprising to a user finding the article. Whichever is chosen, one should place a redirect at the other title and mention both forms in the lead. Please show me where it talks about "incorrect" names.

It says "one should use judgment in such cases as to what would be the least surprising". It mentions nothing of correct or incorrect. It goes on to give a typical example of testing the usage by google hits. It says nothing of google being the only, or even the best criterion.

Do you have anything else about: However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception?

Thanks, Horlo 04:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

My point is that no matter what it is, a city, a mountain, a flying saucer, or a rogue cryptid, we should classify these things as our language does, not as a foreign language prescribes for us. Perhaps I should have been more specific and used this policy.

At the same time, when there is no long-established history of usage of the term, more consideration should be given to the correctness of translation, rather than frequency of usage

...which immediately goes to how the Google test is irrelevant in the case of the name being incorrect. In this case, "Kiev" is not incorrect so the Google test is legitimate.

Now I don't know what you want be to say about this:

However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception

...but do you have any comments about this exception? Because you brought it up. Reginmund 04:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

Apparently you did miss the entire point of the section. It says that the wishes of everybody should be considered. Nobody's prescribing anything to you. Nobody's forcing you to say anything. However, you apparently also missed the point here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kiev/naming#Silly_story. Nobody can force anybody to say anything. But what does it say about you that your answer to that person is "You want to be called Johnathan, but I don't care, I'll call you what I want to call you?" Believe it or not, this entire section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Naming_conflict#Types_of_entities says that cities can also choose their own names.

Thank you for pointing out that there are correct, and by association, incorrect translations. Perhaps other users would also like to hear about that. In that case, how do you determine the "correct" translation? Perhaps at what, say, governments use, seeing as they are the ones in charge of printing school textbooks?

The reason that I brought up this quote However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception is that sometimes some editors just cannot accept that a name change has happened, and just keep saying "we've always done it this way".

Thanks, Horlo 05:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean when you say that "nobody's forcing you to say anything"?

I have already gone over the "silly story". If Russians want to call Harry Potter "Garry Potter", then I can't stop them and I have no reason to stop them. However, Russians shouldn't be complaining if I want to call Peter the Great Peter and not Pyotr. It is not their language. They don't dictate how it should be used. The same applies to Kiev. Ukranians don't dictate to Anglophones how to use our language and we don't dictate to Russians how to use theirs, regardless if the subject is foreign.

English does not have an academy. The British or U.S. governemnt does not decide how the language should be used. Also not that companies completely unassociated with the government print textbooks. Not the governemnt.

To your argument that "some editors cannot accept the name change". That is merely a point of view. Those editors think that there is no academy that changes the name and that is a perfectly legitimate argument in this case. Reginmund 05:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Indenting

Could we all try to use indenting because that makes it easier to follow who's responding to whom.

Responding.

Responding to response.

Replying to first comment, but not the next two. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Commonality

Hello,

I'm sorry about the lack of indentation.

Reginmund, I said that "nobody is prescribing anything to you". When I say nobody is forcing you to say anything, I mean nobody is forcing you to say anything. Say anything you want.

Now you seem to be mixing up "silly story" and Harry Potter. Silly story says that when somebody directly asks you to call them something, you should. When a piece of literature is translated into a foreign language, it will be changed to reflect that language, so the translators and publishers can make a lot of money. There is no connection between those two items. If you meet somebody who says please call me "Jorge" and you say "Mm, no, I will call you George", you're being rude. Not much good faith happening there.

You're right, English does not have an academy. However, there are schools in the Anglosphere. Schools use books, which are made for the government. Pearson, the company that your link led to, is indeed a very large printing company, as are Thopmson and Longman, but they do not write textbooks. People from the government tell them what they need, then the publishing companies find somebody who can write it, then they write it, then it goes to the government for approval, then it goes back to the writer for revision, then back to the government for approval, then again other people in the government look at it, then requisitions for funds are made, then the funds are advanced, then the books get published, and distributed to schools. Thank you, but you don't need to teach me how/by whom textbooks are written. The funds are directly controlled by governments, so the books are made exactly how the governments want them to be made. That is why the decisions by governments do directly influence common usage, and should be considered when determining what is popular. Every government uses Kyiv.

Finally, your arguments about there being no academy and commonality have worn thin. That's why I brought up the point of "the occasional exception" and "common sense". If the best argument that you can legitimately put forth is "there is no academy", backed up by "no foreign government can tell us in the anglosphere how to use our language" and "What was used a century ago is still used today. it still has a substantial effect today", it shows a distinct lack of good faith on your part.

Thanks, Horlo 06:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

One capital city which has also gone through a transcription change, which has not been commented on and IMO is similar to that of Kyiv is [[Kishinev] which is now known as Chişinău (IPA: [ki.ʃi.'nəw]; Moldovan Cyrillic: Кишинэу), formerly known as Kishinev (Russian: Кишинёв/Kishinyov).

Here IMO I think the sensible thing has been done. When you go for Kishinev you are immediately redirected to [[Chişinău]] despite the various diacritical marks (which definitely are not English).

I cannot understand why this cannot be done with the term Kiev. Bandurist 11:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Because Moldovan language uses a Latin alpabet, and for not-well known names it is fully acceptable to name them in their respective language (unlike Bucharest or Munich). The word Kishinev was never popular in English, unlike Kiev, due to the small profile of that city. Now Ukrainian uses Cyrillic. So we either change our guideline WP:NC(UE) and thus also move Munich, Warsaw, Moscow to their respective titular names/transliterations (no one is going to make an exception for Kiev). Or we leave it as it is and wait when (or shall I say if) at some point Kyiv will, like Beijing which took over Peking, become the English word for the city. Until then...this is a waste of wikispace to continue this discussion. Which is why the big flaw is that formerly known as Kishinev. Kiev is still known as Kiev, and not otherwise. --Kuban Cossack 11:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

We have already reached the point where Kyiv is an acceptable English spelling. We are now just exploring whether we are at the "tipping point" in usage. Eduvalko 13:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll say this again, the US federal government today exclusively uses "Kyiv" because the government of Ukraine asked for that. I think it is polite to call people and groups of people (such as a city) what they ask to be called. There's no benefit in offending people by ignoring them. We can set up a redirect so anybody typing Kiev will find the right page. I do not see the downside in accommodating the self-expressed desire (consistent followed and conceived in good faith) of the city's inhabitants to say and spell their city name a certain way. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Eduvalko, I fully agree. The issue at hand is where is a tipping point. This was discussed ad naseum and our WP:NCGN specifically mention checking major media. If we see major media changing their usage, than there would be time to seriously look at it. We should follow the trends best reflected by those who really matter: Britannica, Oxford, major English papers [14] and international media like BBC, CNN, Fox, AP, Reuters, AFP. So far all of them use Kiev. Literally all. So, this "discussion" is a waste of time at this point. --Irpen 16:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The beauty and wonder of Wikipedia is that it allows editors to persue topics and discussions as their interests and inclinations take them. Subject and article contributions, deadlines, due dates, are all self imposed. One editor's waste of time may be another's prefferred field of toil. Rejoice in this freedom.Eduvalko 16:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. I write articles. Horlo operates a one purpose account. Some run around with block buttons. Tastes differ. --Irpen 18:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Irpen, three things are very telling from your comment. First, you ignore things that you don't like, such as the comment by Jehochman, because you know there is no argument that you can make in good faith against it. Second, you completely ignore things that you do not agree with, as nowhere does it say to follow only Encyclopedia and media (even though Encarta uses Kyiv with a redirect from Kiev, something that you overlooked). Actually, there are other recommendations, such as major organizations, for example the UN, NATO, WHO, and the Red Cross (all of which use Kyiv) and English-speaking governments (all of which use Kyiv). Perhaps you do not understand the influence these organizations and governments have on the population in the English speaking world. Third, you do not actually check the information you provide: the list of major English papers includes things like Asian Wall Street Journal, The Daily Yomiuri, the Jerusalem Post, and Singapore English times. Please explain how you consider these to be trend setters in the English language. Also, please see the discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kiev/naming#Are_there_any_arguments_against_the_move.3F why media is split. Even Reginmund agrees that media is split. Please do not make statements like "all of them use Kiev. Literally all.", when in fact they do not.

Please comment on why you think it is worth ignoring people's wishes on how they want to be called.

Thanks, Horlo 17:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Horlo, I did not comment on Jehochman's post not because I have nothing to answer but because I am not in the habit of answering repeated questions I asnwered earlier. His entry has several faulty premises which were addressed before. First, the respect to the decisions of the foreign governments how something should be called in English language is not anywhere in the naming conventions of Wikipedia or style manuals of any other publisher. Second, there is absolutely no indication that the Ukrainian people prefer Kyiv. There is simply no relevant study. Most people don't care. I, a Ukrainian person, have no such preference and I know many Ukrainian people who don't either. Now, I am not entitled to bring in my personal observations into Wikipedia. But so is anyone who claim to know the Ukrainian people preference. However, even if those where true, which they are not, still there is no such mention (preference of non-English speakers, in the naming convention. Now, as for choosing which media are more representative, there is no clear-cut rule. We need some common sense. It is difficult to argue that the most widely read and listened to English language media companies that set trends in the news business are (not necessarily in that order) CNN, BBC, Fox, AP and Reuters. How exactly Lexis chose these particular papers is spelled out at the top of their page. You are free to show a respected media search engine that define such list differently. I ran an analysis of these papers through Lexis some months ago and the advantage of Kiev was overwhelming. So it is for BBC, CNN, Fox, AP and Reuters. The latter 5 you can google. If you want the results of the Lexis major papers search (you would need subscription to their premium service) I can do that and produce their latest statistics. You won't like the results, I assure you, but feel free to ask. Major media, Britannica, OED seem to agree with each other. You don't. Fine, type a dozen of more screens on this page. Since your rabid activity does not disrupt the main talk page, I have no problem with that. --Irpen 18:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Irpen, there is a page on Wikipedia of which you may not be aware. It is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Naming_conflict#Types_of_entities. It 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 means that what a foreign government says should be considered. Especially if every English-speaking government uses that name, also. There is another sentence, Bear in mind that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is. What is the name of the capital of Ukraine? Kyiv. Who chooses the name of the capital of Ukraine? Please see the first half of this paragraph.

Second, when you spoke about the Ukrainian people wanting Kyiv, perhaps you misunderstood the difference between "people in Ukraine" and "the people of Ukraine". The democratically-elected government speaks for the people of Ukraine, and it has clearly stated that it prefers the name Kyiv. That is why "Kyiv" has become so popular.

Third, nobody is arguing that Fox and CNN are the big boys of the news industry in the US, and BBC is the source in the UK. I don't think many people in Canada or Australia trust CNN or Fox more than they trust the CBC or the ABC, but that's just my opinion. When I want to know what the CBC or the BBC uses, I go to the CBC or the BBC website and look. I don't google what BBC uses. That is bad research - going to a secondary source, when the primary source is equally available.

What I am saying is that news organizations are not the only things that influence language. Many other things influence how people speak, also. For example schooling (see: what governments use), hobbies (see what FIFA and the Red Cross use), and work (see what major organizations use).

Fourth, please avoid words like "rabid activity". That is just not nice.

Thanks, Horlo 20:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Horlo, there's no need to press Irpin to respond. And Irpin, calling another editor "rabid" isn't a good idea. Please strike that and choose a better phrase. Thanks. Let's keep it civil.

Irpin, do you dispute the section on self-determination of geographic names that Horlo cited? Why worry about what a secondary source like the BBC says when we can check primary sources: the city of Kyiv, and the government of Ukraine. The US government and the UK government also agree, so it looks like the elected governments in Ukraine are legitimate and we should follow their lead. This looks like an open and shut case to me. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Please check WP:RS for the primary and secondary sources. Government write laws but they do not regulate languages, at least not English. If the Kravchuk's government renamed the city to say, Kravchukiv, that would have been a different story. It did not. All it did is issues an instruction to the governmental offices on how the name, which did not change, should be spelled in the governmental documents. The Ukrainian government has no authority to order anything else as far as the language is concerned. English language uses both and neither is wrong. But one of the two prevails by a wide margin while the other one trails badly. Therefore, most style manuals of respectable sources stick with the name they consider more appropriate to use. When and if the usage changes, Britannica, Oxford, CNN and Wikipedia would adjust to that. --Irpen 21:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Irpen, perhaps it was a lack of communication again. When I say "primary source", it means the person or thing which actually does it. In this example, the BBC produces news stories. When I say "secondary source", it means that somebody talks about it. In this case, google reports about BBC activity. That's why google is a secondary source, not a primary source. The WP:RS page that you provided a link to talks about looking for reputable sources.

Actually, Kyiv is different from Kiev. Kyiv is a translation from a Ukrainian word. Kiev is a translation from a Russian word. The fact that they are similar does not make them the same word. A similar example is the name of a city in Canada - the name changed from "Three Rivers" to "Trois Rivieres". The meaning is the same, but the languages are different. They both refer to the same place. The name in French never changed, but what people of good faith call it did. Thanks, Horlo 02:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Horlo, points don't "wear thin" and the "exception" isn't an argument winner. You can't mix a person's name and a toponym in a different language. They have no relation. It is just rude and arrogant for a foreign governemnt to change the name of their city in a language that isn't even theirs. That is why we don't call Peter the Great Pyotr. As for the books, you are wrong. The governemnt does not control the printing of Pearson's books. Pearson does. They own Prentic Hall which prints educational books for schools. All the government does is approve the books. Please don't get off topic. Reginmund 21:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Reginmud claims that "It is just rude and arrogant for a foreign governemnt to change the name of their city in a language that isn't even theirs."!!! (emphasis mine) I would also add that they(meaning this uppity foreign government) were also very impolite in not consulting Reginmund in this matter. I too would be very upset by this slight and work extra hard to negate this change in Wikipedia. Now I see the problem with too much discussion. Eduvalko 00:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to be sarcastic, I'm not going to waste my time with you. Reginmund 00:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Reginmund, a name is a name. They are not common nouns, they are, and I'm quoting here, key statements of an entity's own identity. This should always be borne in mind when dealing with controversies involving self-identifying names.. Everybody decides what they want to be called, and most people respect that. How annoying was it when somebody called you "Mr Reginmund". Would you like it if everybody called you Mr Reginmund, because nobody dictates what we should use in our language, and you don't count because that's original research?

About the books, you are wrong. Prentice Hall prints them and then the government pays for them. If the government doesn't approve something first, Prentice Hall - or any other printer - won't print it. That's why the government policy influences common use. Thanks, Horlo 02:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Kishinev example

Kuban kazak wrote: Because Moldovan language uses a Latin alpabet, and for not-well known names it is fully acceptable to name them in their respective language (unlike Bucharest or Munich).

Moldovan uses both Cyrillic and Latin. Most of the country has changed over to latin script but transdnistria and the areas that surround it continue to use cyrrilic script.

Kuban kazak wrote: The word Kishinev was never popular in English,

I don't know. Every one knows about the famous Kishinev pogrom of 1905 where the Russian population of the city did alot of damage to the large Jewish population of the city. In fat there are huindreds of sites dedicated to this event.

I still can't undertand why the Molodovan government can request the name of their capital Kishinev (Kishinef, Kishiniof, Kishiniov) can be changed to Chisinau with it's non English looking diacritical marks yet Kyiv cannot. What is holding the change over back. 00:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Because Moldovan uses the Latin alphabet and the name was taken directly from their version. Reginmund 01:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

And why is the principle/arguement of prevailing Anglophone usage of "Kishinev" not applied -as it is so vehemently applied for Kyiv? Eduvalko 02:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You have to ask professional editors who write style manuals why they changed Kishinev for Chisinau but did not change Kiev to Kyiv. My guess is that Kiev was a more widely used word in English simply because it is a larger and more important city. Relatively (to Kiev) obscure Lviv was also written in English books as Lwow, Lemberg and Lvov. It is still written such in historic context but not in the modern one. Kiev remains a prevailing usage both in historic and modern context and the article's title reflects the prevailing English name. We do not make judgments. We reflect the usage. --Irpen 02:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, actually, could you please show me which style manuals say to use all of the diacritical marks that are used in Wikipedia? Please don't say that that is the same alphabet as English, because they are very different. It is just the same as Ukrainian and Russian do not use the same alphabet - they are from the same root, but they are different.

Also, please stop saying that Kyiv is not as common as Kiev, unless you can provide proof. Just because it's in a newspaper, doesn't mean it's true, or common. Please refer to the criteria listed at the WP:Naming conflict page to see that according to those criteria, Kyiv is more common. If it is still unclear, please ask, and I will explain it to you. Again. Thanks, Horlo 03:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It is the Latin alphabet which is perfectly acceptabe on Wikipedia. Reginmund 06:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hypothetical Scenario

Suppose for a moment that the USA was taken over by a another country. In an attempt to impose their native language upon Americans they "rename" all they cities to their current translation of those cities' names. In this process, New York becomes "Nueva York." Over the years the countries of the world adopt various translations of this new name. After say, 100 years or so, the USA regains its independence and announces that "Nueva York" is once again New York, but the countries of the world retain their translations of "Nueva York" as they are in common usage. Would this be proper? Should the citizens of the USA be offended by this? Just wondering what everyone thinks about this, not speaking in support or opposition to Kiev vs. Kyiv here. I have done that elsewhere. Srilm 12:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well with respect to Kiev, it would be either Kiyev as in Киев, Kiyev as in Кiевъ, Kijow, or Кієвъ for the original East Slavic language. So if you want to impose the old Kievan Rus spelling that will still be rendered as Kiyev, be my guest. However I'd stick with the English Kiev. --Kuban Cossack 13:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This argument has been used so often by nationalist editors, that it is getting tiresome to refute it. The form Kiev is much older than Kyiv. And before "the Russians conquered Ukraine", the dominant non-Polish spelling of the town all over Western Europe was Kiew.For instance, the modern Dutch spelling Kiew (pronounced kiëf) was used for the first time by Jacob van Maerlant in "Ghosts of Alexander" in 1260. Not only was Kiev not conquered by Russians at the time (actually the place was no more than ruins, as a result of the Mongol conquest, but Jacob did not know yet at the time), most linguists agree that there was no diference between Russian and Ukrainian at that time. Odessa was the name chosen by the city's founders on the place of the ruins of the Turkish town of Khadjibey, a completely different town, like Köningsberg and Kaliningrad are not the same town. Odessa was only added to Ukraine in the 20th century.

Note that in the hypothetical case of New York becoming newly independent after ages of Spanish domination, I suppose that they would re-introduce English as official language, which like in the Bombay-Mumbai argument would mean that suddenly a high number of English speakers would use New York and English Wikipedia would take that into account. Yes, this is the ENGLISH wikipedia and that is why the only thing that should be taken into account is prevalent usage by English speakers. What is hapening in Ukraine may influence that prevalent usage, but I still haven't seen any refutation of the plain fact that even today, with such restrictions as "in the English language" and ".ua domain" Kiev gets more Googles than Kyiv and that, strangely, the proportion Kiev/Kyiv is HIGHER when you add "past year" than when you leave "anytime" (oh dear, seems like Kiev increased its lead during the last year, let's blame Yanukovich).

Actually what I was referring to here was the opposite of what we are discussing, so it would involve all other Wikipedias EXCEPT the English one. Suppose that the original interpretation of New York on the Whosit wikipedia was "noo yurk". After New York was changed to Nueva York, the Whosit wikipedia changed their interpretation to "nooeva yurk". When the city's name was changed back to New York, the Whosit wikipedia said, "nope, nooeva york is in common usage, so we're sticking with that." That is the scenario I am proposing. Srilm 16:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

As the occupation and liberation argument is also used by Flemish svidomy (look at Louvain), let me warn that like in the Ukrainian case, some of the names in contention are older than their Dutch version. E.g. Ypres is much older than Ieper (the local Dutch name used to be Yperen and Ypern for a long time).--Pan Gerwazy 14:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this example is that "Kyiv" was never used before twelve years ago. In the case of the U.S., New York is a historical name. However, this doesn't mean that it is the responsibility of the other countries to change their own spelling. It is up to the people if they want to start using "New York" again. Reginmund 15:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, now I will hop back in. It shouldn't be tiresome to discuss it. That's what this section is all about. If it's tiresome, don't discuss it. My opinion -- it doesn't matter what was used 12 years ago, or 800 years ago. What matters is what name do the people (not just a person, but the people through their elected government or representatives) use. And the "people" have chosen to reinstate the name of their native language, as opposed to the name in the language of a previous ruler. I think that the English-speaking world should set an example and acknowledge that the name of this city (it's not just a change of spelling of the same name, but a change of name in different languages) has changed. I chose New York for this very reason -- it's not a native American name, it's English! New York was not the name of New York 500 years ago, but if the natives ever take back over, I'd bet they'll change the name, and I would acknowledge th at. Srilm 16:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

English does not have an academy. English is determined by the consensus of its users, Not by any government, especially a governemnt that doesn't even use English as their official language. They have no business dictating for us how to use their language. Do we tell Pakistan how to spell "London" or "Chicago" in Punjabi? No, and we have no need to. Reginmund 16:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I see a lot of replies about the English language and no one being able to tell English-speakers how to use their language. I don't contest this. I don't see it as an issue. What I keep asking and no one contests is -- how should English-speakers respond to the fact that the elected government of Ukraine has changed the name of their capital city from Ки́ев to Київ -- two different words in two different languages? Srilm 16:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Most English speakers are unaware of this change, and in empirical fact continue to use "Kiev"; thus, Wikipedia does the same. If the ordinary useage in English shifts to Kyiv, then Wikipedia would do the same; but until this debate, I was unaware that anybody was seriously advocating changing English-language practice. Trnasliteration is so treacherous that shifts in fashion take a while to catch on. --Orange Mike 22:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, what do you base these statements on: "Most English speakers are unaware of this change", and "in empirical fact continue to use "Kiev""? Please google the two words in the advanced google search, with filters set for English, and look at the results. The two names are almost tied. Please do the search again, and you will see that the results have changed.

Thanks, Horlo 23:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that is a good point. I bet that most English speakers are unaware that the name of the city has changed. And of those that are aware, I bet that most think it is a change in the spelling of the name. But it is a change in the name -- from the Russian Ки́ев to the Urkainian Київ. And what I am asking is, how do we respond to a change in the name of a city, when it is a change in the name from one language to a name in another language? I wish that the Ukrainian name of their capital city was "Brunhilda", so that the Russian translation "Kiev" would sound very different. But it doesn't, and that is what I think leads to the confusion of this issue. Srilm 08:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record Kiev is not the Russian tranliteration. It would be Kiyev, based on the adopted BGN/PCGN romanization of Russian which you can find at WP:CYR. Kiev (no y) is the English name of the city, on par with Munich, Warsaw and Moscow. If, and only if, we change our WP:NC and thus fully dump WP:NC(UE) can we move those cities to Kyyiv, München, Warszawa and Moskva. Nobody is going to make an exception for Kiev. --Kuban Cossack 09:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Now we're talking about a spelling issue. I don't know why Moscow is the accepted English translation of "moskva" [please forgive that I don't have a cyrillic keyboard -- kind of weird for a guy with a Russian girlfriend, huh? :)], but it is. Even Russians use Moscow when speaking English. Kiev, Kiyev, Key-ev, could all be an English translation of the Russian-named city Ки́ев. As has been mentioned before (and I understand and am in total agreement), nobody tells English-speakers how to use English. We have decided that Ки́ев equals Kiev. The Russian-speakers of the world cannot tell the English-speakers that Ки́ев should be spelled "Kiyev" in English. What I am asking is how does English respond to the fact that in recent years the elected government of Ukraine has changed the name of their capital from Ки́ев to Київ? [no keyboard, but I do have cut-and-paste :)] Srilm 13:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

As a Russian-speaker, I am not telling the English-speakers to use Kiyev. I am telling them to use their English name Kiev (no -y-), which they have used for the past three centuries. No government, Russsian or Ukrainian can force the English speakers to change this, and as supported by numerous press evidence, encyclopedias, the English-speaking world (NOT the official diplomatic papers, please note) as in an av. Joe will use Kiev. So why should wikipedia be used as a political platform for the a government (for example Ukraine's) to change the spelling of English. If wikipedia becomes taken over by the Ukrainian government, then they, not us, will decide. Until then, the English-speaking world will decide. Does that make sense? --Kuban Cossack 13:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It does make sense, if we are discussing a request from the Urkainian government to change the English spelling of a word. Now it may be that Ukraine requested that the new city name be spelled "Kyiv" in English, to which I say "go pound sand, we will spell it however we like." But the Ukrainian government has essentially said, "The name of the city formerly known as Ки́ев (which was the name of this city in the then-official language of Russian) has been changed to Київ (the name of the city in the now-official language of Ukrainian)". Now it's a different story -- it's not just a request to change the spelling of the same word, it's a request to acknowledge that the official name of the city has changed. I do maintain that a government speaks for the country it governs, even when I don't agree with their politics, and I am absolutely not trying to inject politics into this argument -- that would really add to the counfusion. I really seem to have trouble getting this point across: How does the English-speaking world react to a change in the name of a city (notwithstanding that the name of the city is similar in sound to the old name)? Srilm 14:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

To Srilm, it is an issue. That is why we have a policy on it. Reginmund 23:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, to Orange Mike, a follow-up question: when you did find out that people wanted to change the name of their capital city, did it offend you? When you heard that China requested their capital be called Beijing, did you just say, whatever, it's your city?

To Reginmund, we also have a policy on self-identifying terms.

Thanks, Horlo 23:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the policy? It says that Commonly used English translations of self-identifying terms are usually preferred per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) guideline. For example: "Japanese" and not Nihon-jin. And what does the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) guideline say? English does not have an academy. Reginmund 23:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines - How to make a Choice between controversial names

Hello,

Just in case it was missed, here is the entire guideline: How to make a choice among controversial names

Article names

Wikipedia's technical and practical requirements mean that one particular name must be used as the definitive name of an article. If the particular name has negative connotations for a party, the decision can be controversial; some may perceive the choice as being one that promotes a POV with which they disagree.

Wikipedians should not seek to determine who is "right" or "wrong", nor to attempt to impose a particular name for POV reasons. They should instead follow the procedure below to determine common usage on an objective basis. By doing this, ideally, we can choose a name in a systematic manner without having to involve ourselves in a political dispute.

The procedure for determining article names differs somewhat between the two principal classes of names – proper nouns (e.g. George W. Bush, United Nations) or descriptive names (e.g. GNU/Linux naming controversy, 2005 Atlantic hurricane season).

Proper nouns

The three key principles are:

   * The most common use of a name takes precedence;
   * If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name except for conflicting scientific names;
   * If neither the common name nor the official name is prevalent, use the name (or a translation thereof) that the subject uses to describe itself or themselves.

A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or official usage:

   * Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations)
   * Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)
   * Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term)

Please note the last section, where it says that a number of objective criteria can be used to determine common usage. Also, please note that it does not say only Google, nor does it give a number/percentage which is considered decisive.

One more time: Google is, well, please look at it for yourself, with the Advanced Google Search filters for English pages. Media outside the US is split. Reference works are more difficult to judge, as Google Scholar has no filter for languages, and there is a very prolific American-Ukrainian psychologist, Ari Kiev, who has written literally thousands of works that show up there. All governments use Kyiv. All major organizations - UN [15], The World Bank [16], NATO, [17], and the OSCE [18].

Even if you consider that according to these criteria the two are tied/equal, the name should be Kyiv, according to the final point: if neither is prevalent, use the name that the subject uses for itself.

Thanks, Horlo 00:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

How are reference works difficult to judge? And now we're dumping on Google? They both show a significantly higher percentage for Kiev. The Google test consistently shows Kiev to be 25% higher. Plus, these obstacles are actually second choices to the common name rule. If the common name is indecisive, then that is when you turn to the organisations and gov'ts etc. Reginmund 01:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, reference works are difficult to judge because first, on Google Scholar there is no filter for languages or dates; second, more specifically for this case, there is a psychologist, Ari Kiev, who has written or co-written thousands of books and articles, and these appear many times. If you do a search on his name, you will see that there are thousands on his name, but if you look at the results of a regular scholar search, you will see that he often uses his first initial when co-authoring an article. If you run a scholar search on "A Kiev", you will see that it makes up most the hits for Kiev. Please look through those hits and make sure which ones are for the city, and which ones are for Drs Kiev (actually there are two Drs. Kiev - when you run the search Google very kindly offers suggested search terms, and you will have no problem finding the names of the scientists there).

Please show me where I am dumping on Google.

The advanced google does not consistently show Kiev to be 25% higher. It shows that the two names fluctuate, and both sometimes have higher results. That's why I asked everybody to look for themselves.

Let me explain this one more time. I say that Kyiv is a more common name. You say that Kiev is a more common name. That is called a "naming conflict". This is not the first time that this has happened on Wikipedia, so there is a special page called WP:Naming conflict which lists ways to determine objectively what the common name is. Here is the guideline for determining common usage: A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or official usage:

* Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations)

Please also note that is states "websites of media", and doesn't say run google searches of what the media organization uses.

Thanks, Horlo 01:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"use the name that the subject uses for itself." Since Google shows (see my figures above) that the proportion Kiev/Kyiv in English texts published in the .ua (ukraine) domain during the last year is actually higher than the proportion Kiev/Kyiv for texts published anytime , I claim that that name is Kiev. It does not matter what is causing it, Yanukovich being Prime Minister, or the free will of Ukrainians who write English on the Internet, the figures indicate that Kiev is actually increasing its lead there. --Pan Gerwazy 02:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by texts published in the .ua domain during the last year being high. Please explain that again.

You may have missed the 1995 declaration by the government of Ukraine about the official spelling of the name of the capital of Ukraine. It is here http://www.uazone.net/Kiev_Kyiv.html That is the name the entity uses for itself. Thanks, Horlo 02:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will repost the URLs I posted above. Compare Kiev to Kyiv. 5 to 1 proportion. Now go to advanced search in both cases, and change past year to anytime. Proportionately, the difference is then smaller, and drops to the 25% difference that was often mentioned here. "The subject" by the way, for an article on a town in English Wikipedia, would normally not be considered the government of the country, but the inhabitants of that town. Of course, I cannot split up the google results according to place, but Kiev is a big Internet using town and the difference is so great that it cannot have been caused by people from Odessa or Kharkiv.--Pan Gerwazy 02:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I'm still not really sure that I understand you, but this is what I think you are trying to say. More sites have been created using Kiev in the last year than were created anytime. Is that correct?

Also, because this is the English Wikipedia, we need to search all sites that are in English. If you search that, you get these results: Kyiv, 1,880,000 here: [19],

and Kiev, 2,130,000 here: [20] That is an 8.25% difference, not a 25% difference, and I guarantee that if you run the test in a few hours, the results will be different.

If you want to go ask everybody in Kyiv what they want to call their city on the Wikipedia, please feel free to commission a poll. However, I will use Wikipedia guidelines which talk about "official name": Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution). That is the official name, ie. what the subject calls itself. Thanks, 03:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Sorry, not logged in. Horlo 03:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The subject calls itself Київ, however, changing the name outside of the Latin alphabet is forbidden by Wikipedia. Reginmund 03:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Where? thanks, Horlo 03:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, sorry, I just re-read your statement. What I meant to ask was: What does that mean? Thanks, Horlo 03:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What he probably means, is that the name used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution, is Київ, not Kiev, not Kyiv, not Kiew. As far as I know, the constitution of Ukraine is not written in English. As for the poll, who will take it and what will the precise question be? You already confused that question by omitting the all-imporrtant word "English" before Wikipedia. The plain fact is that Ukrainians are already voting today by typing the names Kiev, Kyiv, ... on Internet pages, and the vote is 5 to 1 according to Google for the last year. As there is now also a campaign underway to change the spelling in German, I checked Kiew and Kyiv in German texts from ua in the recent year and get 15,800 to ... 90. In any case, you still have a long way to go to convince all Ukrainians who write and understand English (or German, for that matter) to use only "Kyiv". --Pan Gerwazy 08:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, please don't be so arrogant as to put words into Reginmund's mouth. He said what he said, and it is up to her/him to explain it.

The original constitution may not be in English, but there is an official release by the Ukrainian government in English concerning the name. Here is the link, again. http://www.uazone.net/Kiev_Kyiv.html . That is a description of a legal document in Ukraine. Also, there are translations of official documents into English. Also, every government of English speaking countries uses Kyiv.

As for the poll, as you will be paying for it, I will leave the phrasing at your discretion. You understand that what you personally do is not acceptable on Wikipedia because it is original research. I stated that I will simply be following Wikipedia guidelines, and use "Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution).

Please don't confuse the issue at hand with statements like "People of Ukraine are voting" - they will, later this year, but that has nothing to do with this discussion. Also, German speakers have a completely different Wikipedia. Also, you seem to be focussed on people in Ukraine. However, as this is the English Wikipedia, please focus on everybody who speaks English. Thanks, Horlo 12:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No actually that was what I meant. Note that the documents aren't actually written in English. They are just translated. Reginmund 14:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

English encyclopedia, English desired by Ukraine?

What is there to do here? Ukraine = independent nation, wants names in English. Kiev = English version. en.wikipedia.org = English encyclopedia. Therefore, Kiev. I'd imagine then if someone forced a rename to some other format, it would be vandalism that needed admins, but otherwise, what is the point? Case settled, or am I incorrect? • Lawrence Cohen 13:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you mean Kyiv? Yes I know that this was posted yesterday but it seems to conflict with what you mean based on all of your other posts. It may be a situation that you may not be a native english speaker. However what it looks like you meant is that Ukraine wants Kyiv in English, therefore Kyiv. 199.125.109.35 05:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

When writing in English, the Ukrainian government prefers Kyiv because it helps English speakers pronounce the name of that city correctly. "Kiev" sounds like a Russian accent, which apparently they don't like. The US and British governments also use "Kyiv". In the naming conventions policy there's a distinction between places like Mount Everest that are unpopulated, and cities. Cities can choose their own names. Wikipedia respects self-determination. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Does the requirement to respect the naming convention of the city in question trump editor consensus? I would imagine the city's own stated desire is what is paramount over the wishes of any editors. Where does policy stand on this? • Lawrence Cohen 15:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What the city calls itself is objective. There's no basis for editors to suggest otherwise in the present case. Nobody has shown a single bit of evidence that the city calls itself anything by "Kyiv". - Jehochman ^Talk 15:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Commonly used English translations of self-identifying terms are usually preferred per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) guideline. For example: "Japanese" and not Nihon-jin.

That is how it instructs us to deal with self identifying terms. It doesn't actually instruct us to use the common name. Just another link to how we should use what the majority of English-speakers use and not what any governemnt decides. Reginmund 14:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The government in question is the one that represents the people of the city, not just any government. It's rude to call somebody, or a group of people, a different name than the one that they choose for themselves. The government of Japan uses "Japanese" not "Nihon-jin" when writing in English so your example reinforces my point that when writing about people and groups, we use the names that the people and groups use for themselves. Please read Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Types of entities again. The government of "Kyiv" as well as the government of the United States and the government of the United Kingdom all consistently use "Kyiv" when writing in English. Those opposing this change don't have any basis in policy or fact. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Evidence:

• British Embassy Kyiv
• United States Embassy in Ukraine

Common usage does not matter when an entity can self-determine its own name. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Agred, this should be renamed to the name the city chooses for itself based on it's officially elected government. Support that. • Lawrence Cohen 15:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Repeat, from the Wikipedia guidelines on this very topic: The most common use of a name takes precedence; [i]f the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name." Official versions take precedence only in a tiebreaker kind of situation. In a decade or two, things may be different; in the meantime, the common name takes precedence. --Orange Mike 16:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, Kiev is the most common usage in English of the name of the capital city of the old Ukrainian SSR, (again, not wanting to inject politics, just stating historical facts). Now that the official language of Ukraine has changed, and as a consequence, the government of Ukraine has chosen to change the official name of the capital city, how should English respond to that? Ukraine definitely muddied the waters on this one by requesting the use of a specific spelling of the new name in English. Change is not instantaneous. I would be willing to bet that a phone call to any of the media that use "Kiev" and asking them about the name change would yield a "what are you talking about?" kind of response most of the time. How many people who are not frequent visitors to Ukraine or who don't live there or who don't have interests there even realize this has happened?Srilm 16:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, again, the question is this: I say that Kyiv is a more common name. You say that Kiev is a more common name. That is a naming conflict. There are clear guidelines for determining common name on the WP:Naming conflict page. In a nutshell, the guidelines are: a google test (advanced test, with filters set for English); media websites (not google tests of what the media says); governments; major organizations. It does not state that one or other of these is more important, and the results should be looked at together.

Please run a google test and check the results. Media usage is split - outside the US, many organizations use Kyiv (again, please check the sites, not what google says those organizations say). All governments use Kyiv. All major organizations (UN, NATO, OSCE, Red Cross, World Bank) use Kyiv. According to the criteria listed there, the common name in English is Kyiv. Thanks, Horlo 16:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"It's rude to call somebody, or a group of people, a different name than the one that they choose for themselves." Have you had a look at the google numbers? In the past year, people in Ukraine used Kiev 5 times as often as Kyiv. However, in the Belgian case you want what the town council of Antwerp decides, to prevail over what the Flemish government decides about Antwerpen. Where is the consistency? --Pan Gerwazy 16:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If the government of a place officially selects a name, we simply follow their lead. Google results don't matter when we have an unambiguous official name for a self-identifying entity. Nonetheless, Horlo's list of governments and organizations shows that there really is something to the claim that Kyiv is the official name of the place. We can have a redirect for anyone who types Kiev. No harm done. - Jehochman ^Talk 17:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with what Jehochman just said. And, no one is saying that we get rid of Kiev. Have a redirect and then state that the city was formerly known as Kiev. Problem solved. Ostap 17:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like the best solution. • Lawrence Cohen 17:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I mean have Kiev redirect to Kyiv and mention that it was formerly known as Kiev. Ostap 17:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Any reasonable objections with reasons why, before I or someone else enacts such a move? Say, tomorrow? That is, Move Kiev -> to Kyiv, leaving the old Kiev as a redirect to Kyiv? • Lawrence Cohen 17:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you joking? The government can only decide what is the name of the city. It cannot decide how such name is to be rendered into a language over which it has no jurisdiction and which is not even official for the country. If the Ukrainian government renames the city from Kiev to Ukrainsk, yes, that would be a legal self-identifying name. Right now such name remains Київ and nothing changed.

The only thing it did was to issue a regulation that all documents issues in English by the UA-gov bodies are to use Kyiv. This so far had little effect on English as demonstrated by Google test with all filters of all kinds and by the major English media usage, modern books, scholarly works, etc.

WP:NC(UE) is explicit that when one is talking about a town, one should use "the most commonly used English version of the name for the article." You can't be serious to say that Kyiv is the most commonly used name even in the modern context. The UA-gov chooses to use a less common English name and makes a big deal out of it. Well, it makes itself a laughing stock as far as this issue is concerned but that's all there is to it. Unless it can be demonstratively shown that due to the UA-gov effort the English usage changed overall and Kyiv started to prevail, there is no issue as fas as our naming conventions are concerned. --Irpen 17:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That is true, but WP:NC(UE) also states "These guidelines are under development. Please discuss and improve." Also note that in this case NC(UE) conflicts with WP:NC which clearly states "This page documents an official policy on the English Wikipedia." Therefore I would suggest that we follow NC and update NC(UE) so that both say the same thing. 199.125.109.35 07:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Lawrence Cohen, while I agree that this article should be called Kyiv, this has been quite a long-running debate and I would not at all agree with hasty changes. Sometimes, arguments or evidence have remained unchallenged for three days before one or a number of objections to it are made. I would wait for other people to respond to any comments, and only make such a move after a longer period of silence.

Irpen, three minutes ago I conducted a Google test, and it resulted in circa 1,910,000 English pages for Kyiv, and c.2,660,000 English pages for Kiev. It is good that I lost connectivity last night, because I was about to make a post based on the c.2,100,000 English pages with Kyiv versus the c.1,990,000 English pages with Kiev that the exact same test resulted in. Currently we cannot use Google tests to claim that Kiev is far more dominant than Kyiv; if we all conducted tests for English pages and found that the maximum number ever obtained for Kiev was greater than the maximum number ever obtained for Kyiv by a statistically significant amount, or vice versa, then we would have a conclusive result. We are still disputing whether other evidence of common usage shows one spelling or the other to be dominant.

Again, there will be parliamentary elections in Ukraine soon. It is possible that Kyiv or Kiev (probably both) will be used somewhat more frequently around this time.60.242.0.245 20:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, whatever reasonable points you were trying to make have just been sidelined by your chestnut that the UA-gov "chooses to use a less common English name..and..makes itself a laughing stock as far as this issue is concerned." I wonder why western governments, the U.N., ect. are all going along with this "joke" and using the Kyiv spelling? It leaves the defense of the old noble name to the operators of "Meet easy Kiev women tonight" websites.

Jehochman and Lawrence Cohen thanks for the calm, soft approach on this contensious issue. It is certainly in the spirit of all the Wiki policies of dispute resolutions. Maybe your suggestion could also be forwarded to the editors helping in the GA review as something that would strengthen the article. Regards Eduvalko 20:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

When searching for Kiev and Kyiv on Google, you are searching for the English rendition of two different words. Should the most common English usage be the one listed at the top of this article? Absolutely, but the question is, what is the most common English version of the Ukrainian Київ? The user above notes that the "name remains Київ and nothing has changed." That's not true. Київ has only been the official name of the Ukrainian capital city for a few years. There may always be more entries in Google for "Kiev", because that city has years of history attached to it, but that city no longer exists by that name. I contend that searching for Kiev and Kyiv in google or whatever is pointless, because you're searching for two different words, not two spellings of the same word. The most common English usage would be determined by doing a search for Kyiv and Kyyiv, for example, as those are two common English spellings of the same word. Srilm 21:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Eduvalko, the fact that the UA-gov's choice affects the usage overall is a valid one and I never dispute that. What I dispute is that the mere UA-gov decision over the language over which it has no jurisdiction should be the reason why we change the name in the Wikipedia. So, all UA-gov bodies use Kyiv. This affects the overall usage statistics. UN uses Kyiv. Very well, duly noted. Britannica, Columbia, Oxford and Webster use Kiev though. Should we also take a note of the choice by the most authoritative reference books and dictionaries published in English? I think so.

Let's check the major media. They all use Kiev, at least practically all. This has much more effect on the usage then the governmental web-sites. --Irpen 21:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

As for the major media, I agree that they are and should be a powerful influence on what is determined to be the common English usage, but not when their usage stems from incorrect or outdated information. Change takes time, and few people can point to Ukraine on a map, much less realize that its government has changed the official name of its capital in recent years. Srilm 21:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Not only change takes time, change does not always make it. We have to sit and watch. If we see a significant change in major media, we should revisit the issue. As for "incorrect", I am sorry, but I consider the professional book editors who compile style manuals for the respected publishers and media agencies more of an authority in the English language to accept their view that this version is correct than the view of the pseudonymous Wikipedia user who thinks otherwise. ---Irpen 21:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

True enough about change. As for the media, their job is to know a little bit about everything, not a lot about one thing. Today it's a story on Ukraine, tommorrow a plane crash in California. It's up to us who know a lot about one thing to take care of the details. This is from an ABC news article -- "About half of Ukraine's 47 million people are Russian speakers, and Kiev is the Russian spelling". Now I could just accept that they are experts and professionals (which I'm sure they are) and trust everything that they say, or I could point out that Kiev is actually an English spelling, not a Russian one. This same article mentions that the spelling of the name of Ukraine's capital city has changed. Nowhere is it mentioned that the actual name of the city has changed, to another name in a different langauge. It makes me wonder if anyone at ABC even realizes that is what happened. Now, you don't know me from Jack, and I understand that. But you also don't know whether the decision to use "Kiev" on-air was the result of a 15-second glance at a map -- and who made that map, and where did they get their information, and so on and so forth. Someone has to break the chain, which is tough to do. Otherwise, everyone just keeps quoting each other, assuming that the information is accurate. I can tell you this, as an aviation expert in addition to spending several weeks a year in Ukraine -- virtually every international news report involving aviation and air traffic is full of inaccuracies that I have to explain every time I talk to a customer. The bottom line is that using Kiev vs. Kyiv is probably a non-issue at ABC because in the grand scheme of U.S. media, it's just not important. Srilm 21:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That actually reminds me of an anecdote that is probably relevant here. I was interviewing with a NATIONAL news agency in the USA, and the reporter asked me about the engines on an aircraft. At some point I stated that there were two turbofan engines on the aircraft. When the reporter asked what a turbofan was, I stated that it was an engine evolved from the turbojet. So he said that he would just write that it's a turbojet. When I stated that that would be inaccurate, he replied that people would not recognize turbofan, but they would recognize the word turbojet, and besides, it sounded better. Now, I'm not saying it has happened, but I can imagine a very similar conversation about Kiev/Kyiv in the dark corners of a news agency somewhere. Srilm 22:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Back to your earlier claim, Irpin where you called the UA-gov move was a "laughingstock" motion. How do you square your assesment( rather derision) of it with the decision of stable western governments to respect the move? Eduvalko 21:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Eduvalko, are you spelling my username that way to make a point? Anyway, if this pleases you... Why would western governments not agree to do something if it costs them nothing just to please the Ukrainian government and demonstrate their non-existing respect to the Ukraine in the issue that matters little to them? It's not like opening the European and US markets to the Ukrainian steal products, rescinding the visa requirements for the Ukrainian citizens or setting a roadmap for the acceptance to the EU. Those issue matter and would cost the Western government something to do. Changing the signs on the embassy buildings is easy, costs nothing and if one is asked to, why not? --Irpen 01:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree, but I think this is straying from the topic a little and is pretty much pointless. Ostap 01:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Irpen to use your words "Changing (the signs on the embassy buildings) is easy, costs nothing and if one is asked to, why not?" The same can be said to change the spelling of the article. Why aren't you willing to be so magnanimous, what will it cost you? Eduvalko 03:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Because unlike the governments that act purely, or mostly, upon cynical political considerations, we, the writers of the encyclopedia, have to cater to the readers. This is exactly why the media, who cater to their audience, keep the name public is used to as long as the name is "correct". As soon as the city becomes truly renamed, the name will seize being correct. You may notice that Voroshilovgrad was changed to Luhansk at once media-wide. --Irpen 04:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Why does it matter

I am afraid people are not realizing that this drive for name change is not triggered by some teenage nationalists but by a serious underlying issues. First of all you have to realize that millions of people in Ukraine now deal with Kyiv spelling in all foreign language media, including the major English language newspaper Kyiv Post. For them the Kiev spelling is a gross injustice, even though it is still current in many places. That's why it is not going away any time soon. Yes, the gov't of Ukraine has no business dictating what the English word should be, but neither did the Chinese gov't with Peking-Beijing issue. Moreover, there are a million and a half of ethnic Ukrainians in North America alone, for whom English is not a foreign language but their own and they also have been instrumental to bring the new spelling into use. Sweeping it under the rug and declaring it none of Ukrainians' business is wrong. By virtue of English being mother tongue of so many Ukrainians and of it being an international language it does matter what Ukrainians want their capital city be called. The problem is that unlike in Pekin-Beijing issue there was no powerful opposition to the name change, there were no other nation with imperialist dreams of preserving Peking as the only true name. Apart from lingustic issue it is deeply rooted into politics as well. For millions of people this has been a decided issue for almost a decade, it is just a matter of time until Wikipedia catches up. --Hillock65 21:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Bejing is the most common name in English, is it not? That sounds quite strange that the spelling is an injustice. It sounds like you are turning this into a political issue which it shouldn't be. It doesn't matter if they are Ukrainian, Russian, British, American, or Martian. Sure there may be Ukranian Americans that contribute to "Kyiv" but there are also other Anglophones who are no less important to count. Reginmund 22:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry you misunderstood, I am not turning it into anything. It already is. If it was a language issue only, it would have been solved years ago. --Hillock65 22:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are turning it into a political issue. It should be about why governemnts don't choose foreign spellings, not why governemnts should choose foreign spellings. Reginmund 22:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPA. Discuss the issue, not me. I didn't even claim the gov't should choose foreign spelling. Where did you find it in the above text? --Hillock65 00:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Please explain to me how it is a personal attack as I am obviously stating your actions. Reginmund 00:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, the topic of this discussion is not me. Please stay away from discussing what I caused and what I am turning something into. The topic of discussion is the name change or gov't role in it - so stick to it. --Hillock65 01:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not discussing you. I'm discussing why the government isn't a factor because it doesn't even implement the English language as an official language. Reginmund 01:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Soviet Nostalgia

Can somebody who is familiar with this situation explain why Soviet nostalgia would have anything to do with this renaming controversy? - Jehochman ^Talk 05:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a reference to preferring whatever spelling was used during the era of the USSR. So, really nothing. 199.125.109.35 05:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

All I can add here is that at one point somebody left a message on my talk page to the effect of: I don't know much about the current situation, but I have an extensive collection of Soviet history books, and they all use Kiev. Case closed. Some people want to cling to history and live in the past, and that's fine. Free country. However, I agree wit 199.125.109.35 that it should not affect the current discussion, and current events should be considered. Thanks, Horlo 05:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No one is disputing that there needs to be a redirect from Kiev and that Kiev needs to be bold in the first paragraph, because of its use in a historical context. As to the exact wording that can be worked out. 199.125.109.35 06:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations. You have just proven that is a political issue. Seriously, all your arguments have been refuted. It is not a name change, it is a transliteration system problem (which causes people in the West to have different family names while they are brother and sister). Therefore, it is for the users of the English language to decide, because the Ukrainian government (in fact the present one wants to do away with the compulsion to use this transliteration, but they will never find the huge majority they need to change this) has no power over the English language, and there is no Académie anglaise which they can apply to to have this changed. The assertion that today, the transliteration Kiev is offensive, is a damn lie, because if it were, Ukrainians themselves would not be using it in droves: 80% Kiev according to Google. i resent thE accusation that I am a neo-communist or neo-Russian imperialist, but I can live with that, since a few days ago Ghirlandajo and I were proclaimed compatriots in another thread. I have been branded a German nationalist a few months ago. On the Dutch Wikipedia, I have been branded a Polish nationalist. Some people put references to these accusations on their User Page, in order to prove that some animals are more neutral than others, if you get my drift, but I do not: no use to repeat other people's factual mistakes. And yes, when the transliteration Kyiv is used more than the transliteration Kiev, I will agree to change it over. But not now, and certainly not on the Google evidence for the last year.

On project Belgium someone has recently suggested turning "East Flanders" into "Oost-Vlaanderen" because English people think that East Flanders must be the East of Flanders anyway(it is not, it is in the Western half). This is not only an attempt to change the English language, it is even insulting to users of Wikipedia: as if a good, short, explanation of the historic origin of the name in the article on the subject will never be able to convince English speakers why and how this is so. Giving that kind of info is actually the main purpose of an encyclopedia, not teaching them how to write something that no one will find offensive. What is the end of this? Using "Provincie Oost-Vlaanderen" in the text (because the average English speaker has no idea what "province" means in the Belgian context - and do not forget, the Flemish government has ruled that there is no such thing as "the Province of East Flanders" anyway). Changing every occurrence of "Flemish" into "Vlaams"? Changing "Dutch" into "Netherlandic" or even "Nederlands"? Do not laugh, many if not most Dutch and Flemish people hate the use of the word "Dutch" in English which reminds them of their word for German, and which more than half of the time when it is used in English is meant as an insult.

Kiev is a transliteration problem. So, let us isolate it from the rest? That will not do either , for "Ghent" and "Ypres" are transliteration problems too. --Pan Gerwazy 07:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, now we are making progress. I agree that Wikipedia isn't going to take sides in political battles. Is there somebody here who speaks Ukrainian well enough to explain why, or why not, "Kiev" or "Kyiv" is a more accurate transliteration? I'd like to know if this attempted spelling change by these governments is simply meant to help Anglos pronounce the name properly, or if it's some sort of political move against the Russians. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"Kyiv" is a more faithful translation of the Ukrainian name. Cheers Eduvalko 14:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, here is an description: Ukrainian, Київ; Russian, Киев.

The first letters are pronounced the same way in both Ukrainian and Russian.

The second letter is written the same way, but pronounced differently in Ukrainian and Russian. In Ukrainian it is pronounced like a short i (as in kiss), but in Russian is pronounced as a long "E" (as in need).

The third letter in Ukrainian is ї, which is a diphthong, and pronounced "Yee" as in "what doest Ye here". The third letter in Russian is "e", which is pronounced like a short "e".

Finally, the last sound, в, in Ukrainian is a soft "v" while in Russian it is a hard "f".

Therefore, the name in Ukrainian is pronounced like Ki - YEEve (almost like cave with a eee sound before the v), while in Russian it is KEE-ef.

Hope that helped, Thanks, Horlo 15:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The question asked is about transliteration (romanization), not phonetic transcription. These are two different things. You can work it out yourself using the tables in romanization of Ukrainian and romanization of Russian

But the Kyiv/Kiev issue being discussed here is about the more common English usage, not merely transliteration. —Michael Z. 2007-09-21 17:21 Z

Actually, no. The discussion is about the correct spelling, and common spelling, for the name.

An addendum about the pronunciation. The change to Kyiv also brings into line the spelling of the capital. According to Ukrainian transliteration, the letter "i" is pronounced "ee". An example of this is "Lviv", pronounced "LvEEv". The letter "y" is pronounced like a short "i". An example of this is "Halych", pronounced 'Halitch'.

Therefore, the spelling KYIV reflects the Ukrainian spelling, when written in the English alphabet. Thanks, Horlo 17:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The native spelling of Ukrainian words is in the Cyrillic alphabet not the Latin. Latin "spelling" is determined by any of a number of transliteration schemes—some of which try to represent Ukrainian pronunciation, and not necessarily for English readers. Ukrainian Київ can be transliterated Kyjiv, Kyïv, Kyyiv, Kiïv, Kijiv or Kyiv, depending on the context and romanization scheme chosen. The last one represents the official Ukrainian system commonly used for place names.

According to Oxford, the English spelling of the city is either Kiev or Kyiv, which for historic reasons happen to correspond to specific transliterations from Russian and Ukrainian, respectively. —Michael Z. 2007-09-21 17:36 Z

Summary attempt of the "IRL" name situation

Let's try this...

If I'm following this correctly then; the legally elected Ukraine government dropped the Soviet imposed name which translated to English as "Kiev" to be Kyiv (translated) instead reflecting their chosen national language of Ukrainian; all English language world governments and major international organizations (United Nations, World Bank, etc.) now honor the Ukraine government's "Kyiv" usage; "Kyiv" is also the best or literal English-language translation of the Ukrainian language version of the word. On the still-using-Kiev side of the fence we have the Western (American) media and the Russians...? Internet usage shows that the preponderance of Kiev vs. Kyiv is roughly a 50%/50% split (keeping in mind that a lof the Kiev stuff is likely the legacy of the 20th century Soviet naming which is now redundant, as the Ukraine is now an independent nation.

Not getting into a question of wikipolicy or anything like that, is this a correct assessment of the basic situation overall in regards to the name? • Lawrence Cohen 17:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That's about it. Thanks, Horlo 17:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you evaluate the avalanche of repeated claims on this page more carefully. For example, horlo's assertion that the BBC has only 6 hits for "Kiev" in 2007 (see #Commonality part II, above), and many others. Also note that references like the Oxford English Dictionary say that "Kiev" is the more common name than "Kyiv" in English. —Michael Z. 2007-09-21 17:40 Z

Hello, please go to the BBC website and run a search of the internal database. Please exclude the hits for recipes, and look at when the articles were written. The number is correct. Thanks, Horlo 01:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say the allegation that internet usage is pretty much 50/50 would be disputed by some. Also, Internet usage is not necessarily a good source of evidence for anything but leet-speak! --Orange Mike 17:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Important to keep in mind here that a city called "Kiev" did exist for many years under that name. There will probably always be references to the "Kiev" that existed during the Chornobyl incident, Kiev during the Great Patriotic War, etc. "Kyiv" is a relatively new name that does not have a lot of history yet (as I recall, Old Ukrainian translated into English more like "Kiev" also, but don't quote me on that). This does not mean that because "Kyiv" appears less in media that it is less correct or less common than "Kiev". What we should be asking is "what is the most common English usage of the current name of the Ukrainian capital city?" In other words, not Kiev vs. Kyiv, but rather, Kyiv vs. Kyyiv. Srilm 18:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The spelling Kyiv has been used for decades before Ukrainian government formulated their new rules on Latin orthography, but only in a minority of English-language publications from the Ukrainian diaspora. I don't have any references at hand, but I'm guessing this must go back at least to the 1960s.

Note that these are not two different names, and the city has never been renamed. —Michael Z. 2007-09-21 18:23 Z

That's a matter of opinion and what is really being tested here. Ukraine has changed the name of its capital city from a Russian word to a Ukrainian one. Does this consitute a change of name? I contend that it does. If Spanish one day overtakes the USA as the predominant language (quite possible in a distant theoretical future), the name of New York will change to Nueva York. Would the rest of the world acknowledge that change? We're running that scenario now. Srilm 18:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know how this is a matter of opinion. Ukraine passed a law that made Ukrainian the official language, and another which mandated how it would transliterate names from Ukrainian "in legislative and official acts".[21]

I do not know of any statute changing the name of the city. As far as I know, the city has been called Kyiv in Ukrainian, Kiev in Russian, Kijów in Polish, and Kiev in English for the last century or more. In fact, I doubt the name has changed in at least a thousand years, allowing for changes in the languages (in early times it was written in neither Russian nor Ukrainian, but Old Church Slavonic). —Michael Z. 2007-09-21 19:12 Z

Clearly it's opinion, otherwise there wouldn't be such a long page here.  :) The name of the city "changed" from Ки́ев to Київ. Now, we can argue that Ки́ев is a translation of Київ, but also that they are two different words in two different languages. Changing the official language of a country does have the effect of changing the names of places within, whether explicitly decreed or not. One could even conjecture that the Ukrainian government just took this for granted. One parallel in American history would be the purchase of Louisiana. English-speaking America did not "change the name" of La Nouvelle-Orléans, they simply imposed English as the official language, thus renaming the city of New Orleans, and now the rest of the world bases their translation upon the new, official name. Srilm 19:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

They are the same word in different languages. In 1953 the name was already Київ in Ukrainian, and in 2007 it still remains Киев in Russian. Nor did the name of fr:La Nouvelle-Orléans change, in either English or French, I think, although since 1803 the English name has become more commonly known in other languages.

The debate here, is simply about whether "Kyiv" is now more commonly used in English. —Michael Z. 2007-09-21 20:09 Z

Which is exactly my point. We're agreeing on the mechanics of the situation, but disagreeing on the implications. New Orleans is the English translation of La Nouvelle-Orléans. This difference is that now "New Orleans" is the official name of the city, and when translating into a third language, New Orleans is the root from which those translations are derived, not La Nouvelle-Orléans. Kiev/Kyiv will always be "Kiev" in Russian, because that is the Russian word for the Ukrainian "Kyiv". It's not the Ukrainian word "Kyiv" that has changed, it's the official name of the city that has changed. To take it one step deeper, it's entirely appropriate to use La Nouvelle-Orleans as an English word (i.e. when speaking English) when referring to pre-American New Orleans, because that was the official name of the city at that time, and because it can be duplicated, not just translated, in English. It will even show up in an English language google search (although you have to wade through all of the French results to find them), but even if it were to have more counts than a search for New Orleans that doesn't mean it's the more proper or common name -- it would simply mean that the city was a lot more interesting when it was called La Nouvelle-Orléans than it is now. As to the debate being about whether "Kyiv" is more commonly used in English, I agree, but it has to be qualified. Does the source realize that the signs in Kiev/Kyiv now read Київ, and that a decade ago they read Ки́ев? Is the source referencing Kiev/Kyiv pre-USSR breakup, or present-day? etc. Common usage, yes, but only common usage based upon current and correct information. Srilm 20:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Lawrence. You've got it pretty close, but allow me to edit (and elaborate somewhat) your summation:

If I'm following this correctly then;

• 1)the legally elected Ukraine government dropped the Soviet imposed (Russian transliterated) name of "Kiev" to be Kyiv (Ukrainian transliterated) in order to reflect their chosen national language of Ukrainian;
• 2)All English language world governments and major international organizations (United Nations, World Bank, etc.) now honor the Ukraine government's "Kyiv" usage;
• 3)"Kyiv" is also the best or closest English-language transliteration of the Ukrainian language version of the term.
• 4) On the still-using-Kiev side of the fence we have (some of) the (more conservative) Western (American) media and the Russo-centric group (multi ethnic but Russian cultured)...?
• 5) Internet usage shows that the preponderance of Kiev vs. Kyiv is roughly a 50%/50% split (keeping in mind that a lof the Kiev stuff is likely the legacy of the previous Soviet usage which is now redundant, as the Ukraine is now an independent nation.

I would like to add that the "Kyiv" usage has been growing from virtually a zero in 1991 to a "significant percentage" and is expected to continue to grow as the prefered term for the city. Bandurist 18:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Good rewording of what I wrote. Does anyone dispute Bandurist's write up version of this summary for IRL status of the name (again, disregarding WP issues--just in "IRL" terms)? • Lawrence Cohen 19:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The web usage is not roughly 50-50. The numbers vary greatly depending on how and when you search, but I consistently get 1.4:1 to 2.4:1 (to 8:1 on English pages in the last month!) advantage for "Kiev" in different advanced searches with Google. Apparently Kyiv occasionally shows an advantage in some combination, but you'd better take a screenshot, because I've never seen it in dozens of searches. —Michael Z. 2007-09-21 19:20 Z

The characterization of "some", "conservative", and "American" media is incorrect. "Kiev" is used more frequently in media in English-language countries. I've demonstrated this repeatedly on this page in response to horlo's assertions.

And please don't pepper a summary of "facts" with hotwords like "Soviet imposed", "(more conservative) Western (American)", and "Russo-centric". This is not a fair summary of facts being presented by both sides of the discussion. —Michael Z. 2007-09-21 19:46 Z

Those were just my observations as a summary from all this reading, no harm nor malice intended in it. • Lawrence Cohen 20:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Bandurist's rewrite had a much more rhetorical tone. Above and beyond the disputed facts, I wouldn't consider it a neutral summary. —Michael Z. 2007-09-21 20:26 Z

Kiev vs Kyiv by the Google numbers, 1998 to Today

This all got me so curious I did a completely non-scientific test for frequency of usage for each term in English language Internet searches. Specific numbers may vary slightly by whatever Google farm you end up hitting.

Some search tests (unscientific):

• I see 40,300,000 hits for Kiev. Pure "kiev" search.
• Here, I see 5,670,000 hits for Kyiv. Pure "kyiv" search.
• If I exclude "2007" to limit to older pages: 3,650,000 for Kiev.
• If I exclude "2007" on searches for Kyiv I get 1,920,000 hits.

General search, then: roughly 7:1 in favor of "Kiev". Not overly scientific, but we see that when we exclude anything that says "2007" in the page, text, or title it changes drastically. This is to eliminate any possible instances from the past year, assuming the pages--and that would be all news sources, reasonably--to see what pops up. Then, Kiev only has a 1.9:1 advantage. If I search to include 2007, so that presumably only a majority of 'new' pages come up:

• Kiev: 3,450,000
• Kyiv: 2,000,000
• Winner: Kiev by 1.725:1

Now we're down to a 1.725:1 advantage for Kiev. So, lets try an experiment: (these are adjusted now with -wikipedia) • Lawrence Cohen 20:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

+2006

• Kiev: 3,480,000
• Kyiv: 2,140,000
• Winner: Kiev by +1,340,000 / 1.62 to 1

+2005

• Kiev: 3,380,000
• Kyiv: 1,840,000
• Winner: Kiev by +1,540,000 / 1.83 to 1

+2004

• Kiev: 2,950,000
• Kyiv: 1,550,000
• Winner: Kiev by +1,400,000 / 1.90 to 1

+2003

• Kiev: 2,840,000
• Kyiv: 1,280,000
• Winner: Kiev by +1,560,000 / 2.21 to 1

+2002

• Kiev: 2,670,000
• Kyiv: 1,130,000
• Winner: Kiev by +1,540,000 / 2.36 to 1

+2001

• Kiev: 2,750,000
• Kyiv: 1,080,000
• Winner: Kiev by +1,670,000 / 2.54 to 1

+2000

• Kiev: 2,980,000
• Kyiv: 1,110,000
• Winner: Kiev by +1,870,000 / 2.68 to 1

+1999

• Kiev: 2,350,000
• Kyiv: 721,000
• Winner: Kiev by +1,629,000 / 3.25 to 1

+1998

• Kiev: 2,120,000
• Kyiv: 625,000
• Winner: Kiev by +1,495,000 / 3.39 to 1

So, year by year ratio:

Summary: From 1998 to 2006, the prevalance of Kiev over Kyiv has been significantly dropping. From 3.34:1 in 1999, to 1.58:1 in 2006. For some reason it appears to spike this year, but darned if I can tell why (a statistics wizard may known an answer, but I take this an anomoly). Coupled with the fact that each year the usage of Kyiv in general rises dramatically from 657k in 1998 to 2,190,000 in 2006, I think it's a pretty clear barometer that the world is honoring the Ukraine's wishes, online. Note that the 2006 numbers almost do approach the mythic 50/50 split mentioned again and again. Thoughts? • Lawrence Cohen 20:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest adding -wikipedia to every search string, to eliminate skew from results in Wikipedia or the many mirrors of it.

I don't think searching for the string 2005 helps find pages written in 2005 so well. Many pages don't contain the date, and many may refer to past or future events, or even figures like "$20.05". Google's advanced search gives you the option of finding pages of a certain age, but its accuracy is disputed.

It's also a good idea to select Language: English in a Google advanced search. —Michael Z. 2007-09-21 20:20 Z

On the other hand, your results do indicate a clear trend. I suspect using "+2005" introduces a lot of noise into the results, but perhaps the current year on many pages stands above it. —Michael Z. 2007-09-21 20:32 Z

I updated it with -wikipedia exclusions. I don't think we should limit it to just English language searches, for purposes of this. We're trying to get an idea of what the world actually considers more common. Excluding Wikipedia from searches didn't make much difference, and the trend remains steady. The word "Kyiv" is going to completely bypass Kiev in total usage in a few years at this rate, and all notable bodies of authority besides some media are apparently already using the city's true name (translated) of Kyiv. • Lawrence Cohen 20:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, I did a search for just English as you suggested, Michael, on a string like this, and got:

• Kiev, 2006, English only, no wikipedia: 2,110,000
• Kyiv, 2006, English only, no wikipedia: 1,020,000
• Winner: Kiev by +1090000 / 2.06 to 1 (compared to 1.62 to 1 when not limiting to English only) • Lawrence Cohen 20:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

But for the question of titling the article in English-language Wikipedia, it is only English usage that we are talking about. "Kiev" is the city's name in Spanish, Danish, Welsh, and other languages, so those results will be skewed and may be subject to completely different trends. —Michael Z. 2007-09-21 20:53 Z

I can rerun them all again with the English flag, then, later on this weekend (unless someone wants to get it first). I'd imagine the ratio over the course of years is what is most valuable. • Lawrence Cohen 21:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the proportion has gone up in 2007, is not an anomaly. As I have shown, in the past year (and you can ask Google to give only texts from the last year), Ukrainians have been switching to "Kiev" in English texts. So that the proportion Kiev/Kyiv in Ukraine (precisely, in the domain .ua) has gone up from 1.15/1 to 4/1 or even 5/1. Now why would Ukrainians do that, what happened during the last year? Answer: they changed governments and now people again feel free to write "Kiev" again. Who was talking about "Kiev" being a slap in the face of the Ukrainian people?--Pan Gerwazy 22:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, you seem to be misunderstanding the situation. Unlike English, Ukrainian does have an academy. Therefore, the government sets the rules. If people want to write something else, they are free to do so (unlike, unfortunately, in many other countries in the world), but that is not correct.

Second, this is the English Wikipedia, so all advanced filters should be set to filter for sites in English. People from all over the world use Kyiv and Kiev, and they are all important in this discussion.

I was talking about Kiev being pejorative. Ask most Ukrainians in North America, Australia, and the UK, and they will tell you that the name Kiev represents oppression, the Holodomor, Shcherbytsky, and Chornobyl. Kyiv, however, represents the intent of a democratically elected government, and more accurately represents the current name of the city.

Thanks, Horlo 22:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that unless you cite it. Reginmund 23:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Filters and Screenshots

Hello,

First, could somebody please explain how the date filters work on a google search? For example, in a previous discussion, it was suggested that the CBC used Kiev 212 times in the last three months, but only 202 times in the last year (which includes the last three months). The entire last year is lower than only the last three months. I think that this casts doubt on how the filters work.

Second, I have posted screenshots of advanced google searches, here: http://www.freewebs.com/horlo/kyiv1.htm These were taken on or around September 2, 2007

There are sets. Kiev1 matches Kyiv1, Kiev2 matches Kyiv2, etc. On all the sets, Kyiv was higher than Kiev.

Thanks, Horlo 22:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen this happen again since September 2? —Michael Z. 2007-09-22 00:13 Z

Hello, Yes, I have, but I don't have any more pictures. My point is that it fluctuates, but the advantage is in the range of +/- 10%. I just ran the test again: Kyiv, 1,850,000; Kiev, 2,060,000.

Thanks, Horlo 01:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, a thought on filters: I ran the advanced test and added "-wiki". Kyiv, 1,840,000. Kiev, 2,070,000. If you remove a search term, the number of hits without the term is bigger than that the number with the term included. Thanks, Horlo 01:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

False claims about English googles during the last year in .ua

Above, Horlo made the claim that the google numbers I provided a few times before, concern texts in the Ukrainian language. Anyone who has had a look at them should immediately have seen that they concerned English (marked bold by Google!) pages only. Of course, google always misinterprets a few results wrong, because web masters all over the world sometimes unwittingly (because of the software they are using) mark texts as English language text, though they are not. In fact, anyone who thinks rationally, will understand that the presence in the google samples of a small number texts in the Ukrainian language, actually helps the Kyiv transliteration in the google fight, and not the Kiev one.

However, and because I have posted these two URLs often enough by now, I have refined the search, by adding the word "the" to the search string. As expected, both numbers go down, but the "Kyiv" one even more:

[22] :843,000

[23] :156,000

The proportion Kiev/Kyiv is now closer to 6/1. We have 84% transliteration to "Kiev", and 16% transliteration to "Kyiv".

Note that I filtered "wiki" out, and added the proviso that "Kiev" or "Kyiv" should be in the body of the page, and that the URL name of the page does not count. The first filter does not influence the result, but the second one does: it benefits "Kyiv" because of urls including the sequence "kiev.ua". I advise other googlers to take this into account as well when filtering their googles, since some of the marginal decrease over the years in the Kiev/Kyiv proportion reported above, may actually be due to the fast increasing number of English pages published in the kiev.ua domain.

These two numbers give a good picture of how Ukrainains themselves transliterated the Ukrainian name of their capital into English during the last year, because of the filter ".ua".

That the Ukrainians themeselves are primarily responsible for the recent rise of the Kiev/Kyiv proportion is clear from the following google number on Kyiv where I just dropped the .ua domain requirement:

[24] : 947,000

That last number is for "Kyiv the" in the body of the text of English language texts (though there may be some false ones here, since Google will also find "thé" which is "tea" in a number of languages) during the last year. As you see, this number is only marginally higher than Kiev in English language pages from the Ukraine ("Kiev the" in English all over the world goes up to 2,130,000).

Note that due to traffic restrictions, www.google.com is basically out of reach in Belgium. I used the English version of www.google.be, though I also had a look at www.google.fr, where I got the same results.

This false claim about my "Ukrainian" googles (I repeat: these are English-language texts written by Ukrainians) are part of a broader pattern of systematic misinterpretation by pro-change editors of what Irpen (a Ukrainian!) and others have said here. And because most Westerners have no clue about East European subtleties, they are getting away with it. --Pan Gerwazy 10:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Pan Gerwazy, I take it that you present the above to refute any move on the basis of the self-identifying entity policy.

One possible flaw is the underlying assumption behind your arguments: that the usage of Kyiv as opposed to Kiev in the .ua domain reflects the will of either English-speaking residents or all residents of Ukraine's capital. This appears to be based upon two other assumptions -

1) Those that publish statements on the internet within the city, or Ukraine, form a representative sample of the population

2) The usage of the .ua domain reflects the internet usage of either the residents of the city, or of Ukraine

I have come across no current statistics to support or refute either of the two. I have anecdotal evidence which is inapproriate to use to challenge them, yet has me wishing to see evidence before accepting them. (I have heard that internet access is not commonly and regularly available to all in the city, and rare in some areas. I have also heard anecdotally that not all groups use the .ua domain; this is true in my country, so it is easy for me to accept.)

If Pan Gerwazy's argument is indeed based on these assumptions and I am not misreading things, and somebody can find such statistics, could they please post or link to them here?

Thankyou, 60.242.0.245 12:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

On the issue of internet usage in Ukraine, which is also only tangentially relevant to this discussion, the web publication Ukrainska Pravda on 13 September 2007 posted an article containing stats and trends. The estimates of regular internet users varies from 1.1 million (Government Statistics Committee- DerzhKomStat) to 1.5 - 2.5 million by the NGO Internet Association of Ukraine to 5.2 million by Miniwatts Marketing Group. The highest estimate puts regular internet usage in Ukraine at 11.5%, the lowest in Europe, but growing at the fastest rate. http://epravda.com.ua/news_print/2007/9/13/56806.htm

Those familiar with the internet will know that the discussion about google has more to do with the way search engines operate than any indication of common usage in any language. Perhaps this is not terribly useful for moving forward with this debate.

The issue at hand is about naming and language usage. The three languages involved are Ukrainian, English and Russian. Some names and geographic places have three versions, such as Petro (Ukrainian), Peter (English) and Piotr (Russian). There are no debates whether the correct English version is Piotr the Great, or Peter the Great, or Petro the Great. Other terms have only two versions, for example the major river in Ukraine, Dnipro (Ukrainian) and Dniepr (Russian). In these cases debates arise about the English usage. For historic and political reasons, the Russian version had been adopted in the past by the English language, and this was the case with the capital city. Political changes of 1991 prompted changes in the English language versions of places in Ukraine, as well as resistance, mainly from those upset with the change of the previous status quo. These debates are now playing out on the talk pages of Wikipedia. My reading of this debate is that the arguments against moving the page to Kyiv with a redirect to Kiev are looking back to the past rather than at the present reality. The question is whether Wikipedia follows its own rules and procedures on naming and is interested in accuracy.

As an aside, there is no need to insult the intelligence of people who are not native to Eastern Europe nor assume a false universality of ‘East European subtleties.’ Some ‘Westerners’ (whoever that is meant to represent) are more informed about events in Europe than those living there. Furthermore, despite certain commonalities, there are marked differences between Poles and Russians, for example, Czechs and Slovaks, not to mention Ukrainians.

Martauwo 16:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Pan Gerwazy, please read my comment before replying to it, and making accusations such as "false". The comment clearly stated two things:

First, Ukrainian, unlike English, does have an academy. It is very clear what is right and what is wrong. Unlike, unfortunately, some other countries, people in Ukraine are free to say what they want. However, that does not make it right. The government says what is right.

Second, the discussion here is about what is common in the Anglosphere, not in Ukraine. That is why the Google needs to be filtered for English pages, not just English pages in Ukraine.

Thanks, Horlo 18:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

When talking about Ukrainian places...

Should we use the Ukrainian name as commonly transliterated into English, or the Russian name as commonly transliterated into English? Is Ukrainian a provincial dialect of Russian, or a distinct language? - Jehochman ^Talk 17:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

We have compromises between the most common names. Some articles use the Ukranian transliteration (Lviv, Kharkiv) and some use the Russian transliteration (Odessa, Chernobyl). It depends on which name is more common. Reginmund 17:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ukrainian is a seperate language, one of the major languages belonging to the Eastern Slavs. Russian is related to it. There are greater differences between Polish and Czech, and Bulgarian and Slovak, or Dutch and English IMHO than between Russian and Ukrainian.

Ukrainian was considered a non-language by Russian intellectuals, a dialect of Russian in the 19th century. It was initially secretly prohibited by the Valuev Circular in 1863 and then banned by the Russian government in the Ems Ukaz of 1876. There has been a struggle to have the language recognised ever since.

Excerpts from the Ukaz:

1. The importation into the Russian Empire, without special permission of the Central Censorship over Printing, of all books and pamphlets in the Little Russian dialect, published abroad, is forbidden,
2. The printing and publishing in the Empire of original works and translations in this dialect is forbidden with the exception of (a) historical documents and monuments; (b) works of belles-lettres but with the provision that in the documents the orthography of the originals be retained; in works of belles-lettres no deviations from the accepted Russian orthography are permitted and permission for their printing may be given only by the Central Censorship over Printing.
3. All theatrical performances and lectures in the Little Russian dialect, as well as printing of text to musical notes, are forbidden.^[1]

It is still enforced today in Russia proper, particularly in the Kuban. Bandurist 18:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, There is a policy in the WP:Naming guidelines, For geographic names in Ukraine, the Ukrainian National system is used. For historic reasons, many names are also presented in Russian, Polish, etc.

There has not been any proof that Kiev is more common to the point where this policy should be ignored. I submit that Kyiv should be the name of the article, with a re-direct from Kiev. Thanks, Horlo 18:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes there has. Reginmund 18:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

He's right, Kiev is definitely used more than Kyiv. Even if Ukraine changed the city's name to something completely different tomorrow [Shevchenkograd :)], it would probably take many years for its usage to surpass that of Kiev, as there would still be pages, even current ones referencing the city under the old name, pages written by people who didn't know any better, etc. The city when it was phonetically called "Kiev" has a lot of history, a lot more than since it has officially been known as "Kyiv." Srilm 20:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, could you please show me why you think that Kiev is used more than Kyiv? Thanks, Horlo 21:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Does this mean that if an 800 year old city renames itself, we have to wait 800 years to update the encyclopedia? Aren't we supposed to reflect current usage, not historical usage? - Jehochman ^Talk 20:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course we are supposed to reflect current usage. That is why the article is called "Kiev". Reginmund 21:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, could you please show me where Kiev is more common, to the point that it should overrule self-identifying names? Just because you think BBC uses it more, doesn't mean that it's the current or more common name. Please see the topic below. Thanks, Horlo 21:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Google test 25% higher. I didn't say that I "think" that the BBC uses it more. Take your schtick to a publisher of alternative history novels because you're writing fiction. Reginmund 22:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Commonality part II

Hello,

Irpen, you have brought up two important points when determining commonality - media and reference works.

However, I would like to remind you of the other methods mentioned for determining commonality - namely, the ones on the WP:Naming conflict page. Here the are:

A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or official usage:

• Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media,

government and international organisations).

Please note that reference works and websites of media are mentioned, so are Governments and International Organizations.

With respect to Google, please look at that yourself. I have posted some screenshots, but have been accused of lying and doctoring them. It fluctuates to the point where it is not a valuable yardstick.

With respect to reference works, the majority use Kiev. However, let us not forget that Encarta, uses Kyiv. The people who make Microsoft are also quite professional and knowledgeable.

I have stated my arguments about using Google Scholar, so here, I will simply show the WP policy: False positives

Search engine tests should be used with care: in testing whether a name is widely accepted English usage, we are interested in hits which are in English, represent English usage, and mean the place in question. Search engine results can fail on all of these.

• Google Books has no filter for language; the filter on Google Scholar is often mistaken.

With respect to media, not mostly all use Kiev. If you actually follow the suggestions and go to the CBC website, for example, you will see that Kyiv appears in 26 articles from 2007, while Kiev appears in 4 (from 2007). This flows from the guideline: Always look at search results, don't just count them. For more, see the section on false positives below. On the BBC Website, Kyiv has 3 hits for 2007, while Kiev has 6. They do NOT only use Kiev. Please don't google CBC, go to CBC and count. Do the same for the Australian BC.

With respect to governments, they ALL use Kyiv.

With respect to organizations, they ALL use Kyiv.

Please don't say that because nobody you know uses Kyiv, it isn't common. That's what they said about Nixon once, too.

Thanks, Horlo 00:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)sorry, just a quick formatting change to make it more readable Horlo 01:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Horlo, who accused you of doctoring screenshots?

"On the BBC Website, Kyiv has 3 hits for 2007, while Kiev has 6."

How did you determine this? A 30-second search finds many more 2007 BBC articles with "Kiev": [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37].  —Michael Z. 2007-09-21 17:22 Z

Hello, did you actually look at those stories? Three are for sports teams, one is for ballet, and one is a summary of what other media is saying. This is exactly why it is important to look at the results, not just count them.

Thanks, Horlo 17:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about anyone else, but this is pretty convincing to me. I can't see an honest reason not to use Kyiv. From reading up on this, and forgive any ignorance on this; it appears primarily non-Ukrainians in Ukraine strongly prefer the non-Ukraine language version (their wishes have no relevance, as Ukraine is the national language), and all governments appear to now respect the Kyiv decision. Some media are lagging behind. I can't see why we wouldn't acknowledge their right to rename if the rest of the world has. • Lawrence Cohen 03:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

How would one ask for a rename on a protected page, by the way, if one were so inclined? • Lawrence Cohen 03:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Lawrence, there are several editors "gatekeeping" the article that would have to be convinced that a great deal of Wiki editors support the rename and they are in marginal minority. You may have in your readings come across several earlier attempts to rename this page. These have been either blocked, reverted; recent voting and polling attempts have been summarily aborted and Wiki policies really stretched thin to justify this. The nostalga of the old Soviet era name is very strong. I am hopeful the fact that we are well in a new era that renaming can happen soon. Eduvalko 04:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The process is to obtain consensus first. The reason the page is protected is to stop edit wars of people just changing the name without asking for a rename. So to ask for a rename is unaffected by the page being protected. You obtain consensus on this talk page. If it appears reasonable that consensus has been achieved, or can be achieved, the formal process is to propose the name change at WP:RM, and post a notice not on this page but on Talk:Kiev, at the top, {{move|Kyiv}}, with a notice that discussion is on this page, Talk:Kiev/naming, and not on Talk:Kiev. Also on this page you need to create a heading, a place for the discussion, such as Request for move, and make sure you change the name of any other heading on this page with the same title, so that the new one is properly linked. It is likely that this will be done some time early next year, as there is a block on completing the process at this time, as mentioned above. One thing to bear in mind is that it is possible that there are those who will never want to make the change, however if there is a clear reason for making the change it is likely that they will be respectfully overruled. Wikipedia attempts to use consensus, but the reason for someones position is more important than just counting votes. 199.125.109.35 04:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Is consensus in this case subject to overrule the proper name of a place? I will yield of course to the proper way of doing things. Can consensus change a simple fact like a legal place name? • Lawrence Cohen 05:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

A trick question. It implies one name is "incorrect". Your saying so, while Oxdord and Webster saying otherwise makes your opinion kind of unconvincing. --Irpen 05:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no. Encarta uses Kyiv, NATO, the UN, the Red Cross, World Bank, CBC, BBC, and Australian BC, use Kyiv, as does every English speaking government. Kyiv is the legitimate name. Please see above for the standard WP criteria, and how according to those criteria, Kyiv is more common. Thanks, Horlo 05:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Kyiv is a legitimate name, true, albeit a less common one. So is Kiev but a more comnon one. I am not saying that Kyiv is "incorrect". It is just a worse choice of the two for the article name for the legit reasons to which you will never agree. --Irpen 05:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no, Kyiv is more common. If you disagree, please show why. Kyiv is the better choice, as it is legitimate and common. Saying that it is not common does not make it so. The points above clearly show that Kyiv is the correct name. Thanks, Horlo 05:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, there is only one legitimate name for a city. You cannot say "a" legitimate name, it is only "the" legitimate name. If you want to say "alternate" or "another, previously-used" name, that's fine too. I agree that there should be a redirect from Kiev to Kyiv so that there is no confusion. Thanks, Horlo 05:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The legitimate name of that place is the name of that place, in that place's language. We are discussing how to head a Wikipedia article in English about a place which most people who speak English know by a particular name. Eduvalko: cheap shots about "nostalga of the old Soviet era name" are just plain vile, with loathsome and false implications. The old spelling in English predates the false Soviet regime and its policy of forced Russification. --Orange Mike 17:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The BBC and Current Usage

The homepage of the BBC, http://www.bbc.co.uk/?ok, has the lead story: Suu Kyi greets Burma protesters . Funnily enough, when I tried to find Burma on Wikipedia, I was re-directed to a page called Myanmar.

Interesting.

Thanks, Horlo 19:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

So what does this have to do with Kiev? Reginmund 21:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, it means that what BBC does doesn't have to be what Wikipedia does. There are many other things to consider, not only the media and reference works in determining what the name of an Wikipedia article should be. Thanks, Horlo 21:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

So then what governments do doesn't have to be what Wikipedia does. What other reason could a government change their "official" name of a foreign city. Diplomatic reasons. There's just too much political bias in that. However, the media doesn't need to base their MOS how a foreign government wants it. Reginmund 21:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, of course Wikipedia shouldn't follow anybody blindly. However, considering that governments and major international organizations and many media institutions (those which actually reflect what is happening) have changed, so should Wikipedia. Thanks, Horlo 22:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia should follow what its editors decide to use and they may decide this irrespectively how of some media approach this. Wiki policies on naming, conflicting names and disputes provides sometimes good sometimes conflicting guidance but do not dictate the result. In the end if the greater proportion of editors support a move then the article name will change. This happened in FC Dynamo Kyiv and can happen here.Eduvalko 23:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Kazakhstan was able to change the name of its capital in post-Soviet times from the Russian Alma-Ata to the Kazakh Almaty despite having a 50-60% Russian population in the city - and they didn't have latin characters either like Kishinev in Moldova. Maybe Borat helped with his movie (xoxoxo). I still can't understand why we can't do it with Kyiv. Recently they changed the name of the Bayqongyr (Baykonur) space launch facilities and also the city known as Shevchenko was been changed to (Aqtau which to me looks more difficult to pronounce than Shevchenko. Bandurist 02:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It is simple Kiev is more common. Almaty is more common. And no, Borat did not help the name change. It was already the popular name before the film. Reginmund 07:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

With regard to what Eduvalko said in the entry above about the greater proportion of editors supporting a move of the name change, and referencing Pan Gerwasy's entry from the previous section about Irpen's comments against the move and noting that he/she is Ukrainian.......I would like to submit again that several of the editors, including Irpen, are either ethnicaly Russian (regargless of being born in Ukraine), post that thier native mother tongue is Russian. That being said, I can understand their resistance ...for this has always been and still is an example of the those who were in charge not wanting to let go. Ukraine (not the Ukraine) is finally an independent country trying to overcome the ex-soviet mentality in all aspects concerning the country....and for this discussion, the language, the self identifying term - Kyiv. I submit that the editors who so strongly oppose the move ask themselves if it is really the wikipedia polocies that this so strongly believe in or is it something else? If they won't ask themselves that question, then the fair minded readers, editors and administrators of Wikipedia should.Bosska 14:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop turning this into a political issue. Just because one is either ethnically Russian or Ukranian, doesn't mean that they would either support or oppose the move because of anti-Russian/Ukranian sentiment. However, the ones that bring up the matter of the Wikipedians' nationalities seem to have their opinions driven by their anti-Russian sentiment. That includes Horlo, Eduvalko, Bandurist and possibly others, I haven't skimmed the entire discussion yet. Now you ask if the Wikipedians have an ulterior motive iin their politics (no pun intended). Well take it from a Wikipedian whom is neither Russian or Ukranian, I implement Wikipedia's policy and nothing else. Reginmund 15:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Reginmund, stop saying that Kiev is more common without ever supporting that. All you do is claim that the google shows 25% more hits for Kiev. First, I have never seen that, and you have never shown proof for that. I have shown proof when Kyiv was higher than Kiev, but you still call me a liar, and stated that I probably doctored the images in Photoshop. Now you expect me to take your word that Kiev is higher on good faith?

Second, google is only one part of the method of determining commonality. If you keep ignoring the other four, stop saying that you simply implement Wikipedia policy, or follow Wikipedia policy. By the way, did you notice the part on the WP:UE page that says: These guidelines are under development, and also, the part in the big square at the top that says However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.

Stop trying to make yourself out to be the defender of the Wikipedia policy, when you seem to miss policies you don't agree with.

Thanks, Horlo 16:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I've already told everyone to do the test themselves and see that Kiev is more common. I don't expect you to do anything but I wouldn't trust your images as you have refused to yield to consensus and use sockpupppets to prove your point. I wouldn't be surprised if you Photosop your images.

Don't think that the "common sense" alternative is the ultimate argument winner because it isn't. You say that yet you don't provide reasoning for common sense. You just say something that goes against another policy.

Ever wonder why I don't trust you? Because you lie. I have never skipped any policies whatsoever that you brought forth. You are just angry that your nationalist agenda has been proven wrong on all of these occassions. Obviously I won't trust anyone that crusades their nationalism on the talk page. Reginmund 16:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I also not motivated by nationalism. Frankly, I don't care so much about how this gets decided as long as the level of discourse here remains civil. Let's not ascribe motivations to other people, because they might take offense. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Reginmund, I have run the test, and I have never found it to be 25% higher for Kiev.

You have skipped the four points about choosing between controversial names on the naming conflict resolution page after the google test.

Even Irpen has accepted that I only do not use different accounts. It happened once, and that's all.

The reasoning I provided to use common sense is that this is a self-identifying name. A great example where common sense was used is the naming for the Myanmar article.

Please don't turn this into a political issue. And stop saying that Kiev is more common when the only thing that you can support that with is a google test result.

Thanks, Horlo 16:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You obviously haven't been reading what I have been writing when I specifically told you to stop turning it into a political issue. I have already been over the naming conflicts page and it states when dealing with self-identifying terms

Where self-identifying names are in use, they should be used within articles. Wikipedia does not take any position on whether a self-identifying entity has any right to use a name; this encyclopedia merely notes the fact that they do use that name. Commonly used English translations of self-identifying terms are usually preferred per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) guideline. For example: "Japanese" and not Nihon-jin.

Use English. Myanmar is English. Myanmar is the most common name. So is Kiev. Proven by the Google test. Now I know that you cannot accept that but here's some help. Stop turning this into a political issue. Reginmund 17:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, when Japanese people refer to themselves in English, they use "Japanese people".

Kyiv is the most common name. See, we can go on with this forever. However, WP has conventions to determine what is the most common name. Google is only one of them. However, when you look at all of those conventions, Kyiv is the more common name. Thanks, Horlo 18:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Kiev is the most common name. Already proven. Reginmund 18:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Reginmund, you seem to have forgotten our discussion on Google results earlier this month. Other people have also checked with Google, and while the results they report are not consistant, nobody else has come across a 25% difference in favour of Kiev. In light of your claims and others, Horlo is not trying to use his Google results to prove that Kyiv is more common; he has suggested we treat the matter as hung. I have already stated my findings repeatedly. And more people have tried than just Horlo, yourself and myself. If you wish to dispute contrary findings and are sure that your results are accurate, can you please inform us of the absolute number of hits for both Kiev and Kyiv, as well as the (UTC) time and date at which your tests were performed?

Also, you said above that the common usage had already been proven. You haven't been the only person to express such sentiments, but some like yourself say that Kiev has been proven to be the more common spelling, whilst others say that the same has been proven for Kyiv. On the 15th of September, you concluded that a complete restatement of the facts by either side would not solve matters. However in light of the current situation, would you be able to reconsider summarising the case for Kiev's commonality please? Yes, any user could look up such arguments by reading through all of the archives, but I think this would help people properly evaluate your position and to check if they've missed anything.

I don't want to have this debate mired in examples, but when I employed some of the tests for commonality that have been used for Kyiv, I found that Burma appeared in fact to be more common than Myanmar. Hence to me it seems that the naming of places by Wikipedia can at times be altered by factors other than common usage, or even despite it. So I would say that either a) the Kyiv/Kiev question can be resolved even if the common usage issue isn't settled, b) the wrong decision was made for the Myanmar/Burma article, or c) somehow this example doesn't apply here, rather than d) Myanmar is the article name because it is the common usage.

60.242.0.245 07:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually no, there hasn't been any serious discussion of the Google results by anyone except Horlo and I. That is why I told anyone that has an opinion on the google test to take it themselves. So, I need not forget any imaginary discussion about the Google test. Reginmund 17:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Please Reginmund, look up what you said on the 15th of September. I'd link to it here if I knew how to. It is possible to forget things perhaps, and looking up all that you posted on that day might refresh your memory. And I was the first to link to screenshots of Google Test results, which you completely failed to comment on; you only commented after Horlo uploaded screenshots, and only well after that too.

It's hard to keep abreast of the the mass of comments in this archive, and to remember everything. That is why I would greatly appreciate a summary of the evidence supporting Kiev as the most common spelling, as what I personally remember doesn't seem to counter the evidence for Kyiv at all.60.242.0.245 23:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I checked all of my contributions from 15 September and I can't find one in which I discuss the Google test with anyone besides Horlo. Reginmund 00:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link to a discussion about the google test with somebody other than you and I. Please take a look if this really happened. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kiev/naming/archive_002#The_Anglosphere_and_Kyiv. If it is difficult for you to do, I will be happy to cut and paste the entire discussion between you and Faustian here.

Thanks, Horlo 01:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not what we're discussing. I asked for anyone else to do the Google test themselves to see how Kiev is 25% more common than Kyiv. The previous discussion convered how it was more common in the U.K.. See, this is why I have told anyone who has an opinion on the Google test to take it themselves, to avoid confusion like this which the three archives speak for themselves, is completely unnecessary. Reginmund 01:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, no, you said "Actually no, there hasn't been any serious discussion of the Google results by anyone except Horlo and I.", and "I need not forget any imaginary discussion about the Google test." The test fluctuates to the point where the results can go either way.

Here is another discussion, from the 15th of September: A simple Google search is not very meaningful because there is no way to examine all 42 million links to see why they used one spelling or the other. For example, one link is for a book titled "Kiev: A Portrait, 1800-1917", long before Kyiv came into use. Is anyone else amused that http://www.uazone.net/Kiev.html the "KYIV CITY GUIDE" uses Kiev for the filename yet has a subpage called "Kiev?, Kyiv?" which says that Kyiv is correct? http://www.uazone.net/Kiev_Kyiv.html However what is clearly significant is that Kyiv is used a lot. 199.125.109.19 05:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The web page that you gave actually gives more examples of Kyiv while it still legitimately acknowledges Kiev. I also fail to see why "Kiev: A Portrait" should be discluded form the count. Reginmund 05:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Because it is a portrait for the years 1800-1917, and is logically titled by whatever the city was called during those years. 199.125.109.19 06:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC) The spelling "Kiev" is of course still used. That wouldn't exactly make the book outdated, therefore it wouldn't exactly make the book discredible. The fact that there is knowledge of its existence goes to show that young or old, it is still merit in the Russian transliteration of Kiev's spelling. Reginmund 07:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)''

I apologize for taking up space, but Reginmund was unable to locate it himself, so I was just trying to help him find it in the large discussion. It looks like many other people consider the google test but one measure. Thanks, Horlo 01:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Reginmund does spend a lot of time deleteing or reverting other editors' contributions. Quite simply he has gotten confused and couldn't keep track of where the truth was. Thank goodness there are some records remaining to get the story straight. CheersEduvalko 02:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Eduvalko, please stop lying. I don't delete other users contributions, unless their contributions are vandalism.

Horlo, that is not a discussion of a Google search. It is the discussion of a "city guide". Please find me an actual discussion of the search between me and someone else. The search that I was blatanly discussing as Kiev was 25% higher and not something irrelevant.

Eduvalko, please cease lying. Maybe if I reminded you twice, you would listen. Reginmund 02:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Reginmund, perhaps you missed this part of the discussion: A simple Google search is not very meaningful because there is no way to examine all 42 million links to see why they used one spelling or the other and your answer: The web page that you gave actually gives more examples of Kyiv while it still legitimately acknowledges Kiev. That is a discussion about the result of a google test.

I had given you the link to a more detailed discussion above, but as it is apparently difficult for you to follow, I have cut and pasted it for you here. Please note that there is a discussion not only about the google test, but also about how the number 25% came about.

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 [9] for Kiev and 2,040,000 for Kyiv [10]. 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 [11]. 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 [12] versus only 856 for Kyiv [13]. 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"[14][15] 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 [16]. 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 [17] versus only 856 for Kyiv [18]. 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)

Please consider this a request to stop calling people names. Thanks, Horlo 03:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Please consider reading the discussion before you post it. The discussion was about Kiev being 72% larger, not 25% larger. Please consider your request denied. Eduvalko has posted an inane statement that I have been deleting other users' contributions which is a lie. Reginmund 03:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Reginmund, this is a comment from you: Actually no, there hasn't been any serious discussion of the Google results by anyone except Horlo and I. That is why I told anyone that has an opinion on the google test to take it themselves. So, I need not forget any imaginary discussion about the Google test. Reginmund 17:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC). Yet even the most cursory glance above will confirm that this discussion did indeed take place.

Either cool down, or take some time off from this discussion, because your attitude is not helping anybody. Thanks, Horlo 03:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, you didn't read my post as you always don't, or either interpret it incorrectly. I was clearly referring to how the Google test is 25% higher, yet you still haven't provided evidence of a previous discussion with another Wikipedian. Now your accusations of me having an unhelpful attitude show your weakness in participating in this discussion because you obviously have no other rebuttal to the point that I was making. Either stick to what you were saying or cease making frivolous accusations because they are inane and obnoxious. Reginmund 03:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I still stick to what I said earlier and would ask for example Smorhay and 199.125.109.19 whether their input wasn't deleted. Eduvalko 03:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Then I still stick to what I said when I called you a liar because I never deleted anyone's input. Reginmund 03:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, for the last time, Reginmund, this is what you said: "there hasn't been any serious discussion of the Google results by anyone except Horlo and I". I will not re-paste your discussion with Faustian here again. Please simply scroll up and read it.

In that very discussion, you learned that 2,490,000 is not 77% higher than 1,900,000, as you claimed, but rather 23%. That is why that discussion is relevant to your proclamations of Kiev consistently showing 25% higher than Kyiv. However, if you look closely, you will see that according to the very links you provided 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.. This is my rebuttal that the google test consistently shows a 25% higher score for Kiev.

If you would like to address any of the other points that I brought up, please feel free, but without words like "inane" and "obnoxious", because I am starting to tire of your name calling.

Thanks, Horlo 04:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yet for the umpteenth time, you have avoided the discussion that I made clear after I told anyone to take the Google test and find that the results were 25% higher. That wasn't the discussion about how the test results were 25% higher. That was irrelevant to what I was talking about as I have told you for the umpteenth time. I never mentioned 25% then or even any ratio in that vicinity and that wasn't discussed. this is why you are so inane and obnoxious. Because you cannot seem to read what I am saying correctly. Reginmund 05:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Reginmund, we had this discussion; I remember it well since our posts were out of sync by one; I hope all of this will somehow help:

Advanced Google Search: Kyiv vs Kiev= Reginmund, do you accuse me likewise of doctoring my screenshots? Horlo's appear unedited to me. You never responded with any of your own, or disputed Horlo's shots during the considerable period of time in which we stalled debate on this issue just to give those against the move time to come up with countering evidence of your own.

I have always assumed good faith, and believed that you were getting the Advanced Google Search results you were claiming. Horlo's results are different to my results. Your results are very different to my results. I thus assumed that the test results must fluctuate, instead of questioning the credibility of your evidence.

What is important is that not only were the _percentage_ differences between Horlo's results and my results different, but that the _absolute_ differences were significantly so. The total number of results for the tests Horlo undertook were greater, thus my tests weren't as accurate: websites might have been inaccessible at the times of day I tested; my population size was incorrectly small. Would you like to inform us of the absolute number of hits you recieve for both Kyiv and Kiev, rather than the percentage difference?

Also, the last posted summary in support of the move from Kiev to Kyiv did not mention the Advanced Google Search alone as proof that Kyiv is the more common usage. In fact, it may be too mild as it says the result is hung, were it might really be additional proof that Kyiv is more common. And what of the other arguments presented for the move? 60.242.0.245 07:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you actually read my post? I said that other users should make the search independently without regarding Horlo's shots as legitimate simply because his crusading the talk page may show evidence of an ulterior motive and tampering with evidence of which spelling is more popular. So, it would be in turn ironic if I posted my own shots, yet I encourage other users to do the search on their own. I would really reccommend you read my filibuster before actually interpereting them before you make claims irrelevant to the point. Reginmund 07:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember all of Horlo's argument, all of my arguments, all of Eduvalko's arguments or other people's arguments being disproven. Perhaps all of your arguments haven't really been disproven either. This is again getting messy; I don't know much about editing, so could Reginmund or somebody else perhaps start a new section please, where we can yet again restate every item of evidence for either side? I was under the impression that we had covered all that you were arguing, Reginmund, and I didn't think anything had been missed or left unchallenged. This would not be fair if I was ignoring your evidence at the same time as urging others not to do the same, and I apologise if I have done so. Perhaps opposing and supporting evidence, and the discussion surrounding each point of evidence, is lost in the quagmire above. Should we just restate the whole lot for each side again?60.242.0.245 07:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Reginmund, it appears that I'm trying to post at the same time as you; I'm out of sync with your posts.

After Horlo posted his shots, I suggested (and he agreed) that we take the Google Test as hung rather than trumpeting a win for Kyiv. As this was a while ago, and you had made several posts since, I just assumed you weren't debating this, so was suprised when you mentioned the 25% again.

If what you suggest is that we make up a table of what every editor says they see - absolute number of hits for Kyiv and for Kiev, and UTC time at which the searches were run - then it is something I suggested might be necessary before, and I would be happy to do so. Either way we will conclude something.

Sorry, that was my post60.242.0.245 07:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

If you skim the archives, you may see that laying down the arguments has already been tried. The fact of the matter is, both sides cannot be disproven because both side's arguments are perfectly legitimate. That made the final authority the consensus among the voters. After the vote was closed, Horlo continued to make the same arguments which led to a dilemna of going round in circles. Since both arguments are legitimate, what matters now is consensus and right now, there isn't enough to move the page to Kyiv. Reginmund 07:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

There was some more before and after, but I think this section includes enough on Google results, and also most of the discussion on summarising and restating proof. If you feel I have misinterpreted this or should have quoted more, then please correct me.

What is important is that we keep moving on in this discussion.60.242.0.245 07:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That part discusses the screenshots. A point that I have been trying to digress from since bringing up the advanced Google search. I asked if anyone had actually taken the test independently and it appears that not yet can I find one that I had even discussed it with. Reginmund 07:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Reginmund, I dug this out of Archive_002.

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.

[other discussion]

Thanks,60.242.0.245 12:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I neglected to mention the absolute number of hits for each in my post, and left it up to an editor to follow the links and check the screenshots. I recorded the date and time (UTC). The links are still active; I'll keep those up for the duration of the debate. And I ran several tests since, and reported on the results (not all where in posts addressed to you, but search through the archives for my IP address and you'll find them). Over time I did find evidence of fluctuations in the results, however at no time was one spelling consistantly more dominant by a statistically significant amount. It is possible that those figures, and the others I reported on, are now dated; we could all test again after the parliamentary elections in Ukraine, perhaps. However, testing now I find little statistical difference.

You continually mention that proper Google tests consistantly show 25% as many results for Kiev than for Kyiv. Have you retaken the test since you first mentioned it? Perhaps things have just changed. Or if you do consistantly find that Kiev is 25% ahead of Kyiv, right up to this day, then please provide us with the time and date you take your tests, as well as the absolute number of hits for both Kiev and Kyiv. Then we can look at what is going on.

It might be easy to miss or forget things, which is why I ask you please to tell us all how Kiev has already been proven to be the spelling in English common usage, even if you feel that we should find sufficient proof in the archives. Editors who hold that Kyiv has been proven to be more common, continually offer evidence and arguments in favour. You obviously are not convinced, so please tell (or remind) us why.60.242.0.245 12:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Every day... every time. Including the time that Horlo took the test and said that the results were different. Reginmund 17:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Are there any serious arguments against the move?

Hello,

Are there any serious arguments against the move left?

One request - if you offer facts based on a google search, please look at the results, don't just count them. (case in point - the links offered about BBC usage of Kiev were not all about the city - the number I posted was correct). Also, please keep in mind that there are other criteria on the WP:Naming conflict page, not just google or media, keeping in mind that the BBC uses Burma, while Wikipedia uses Myanmar.

Thanks, Horlo 03:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes,

Google shows Kiev to be 25% higher.

The media uses Kiev more significantly.

Which has been proven after you asked "Are there any more arguments against the move?".

And English doesn't have an academy. Reginmund 03:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Does this seem familiar to anyone?

IATA?

Which name is used for the airport of town in the international flight booking systems? --Soman 21:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Good point. IATA has an online book, which I don't have, but the closest I found was this: http://www.airodyssey.net/reference/airports.html, which uses Kyiv. Thanks, Horlo 00:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I found a spreadsheet that you can download directly from the iata website, here: http://www.iata.org/search.htm?q=airport+codes+for+ukraine&sc=all. The code for the airport itself is KBP. IATA also uses Kyiv. Thanks, Horlo 01:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Also Page 78 of this IATA doc [38] confirms that the use of "Kyiv" on the IATA list of city/airport pairs. Hope that helps Eduvalko 01:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The used to use IEV for Kyiv. Looks like they have changed over. I wonder when Wikipedia finally will? I feel like we are working with a bunch of dinosaurs. Bandurist 03:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this debate is taking a long time, and I'd like to see a change too! However, people look at things in different ways, and unfortunately some people might take offence at being called dinousaurs. I'm guilty of thinking less of a post if it appears to contain something I find offensive to myself.60.242.0.245 07:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for any offence I may have caused, but it is somewhat frustrating seeing a process that I would consider qute straitforward being slowed down so much. Bandurist 10:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

KBP was and remains the code of the Boryspil airport and IEV was and remains the code of Zhuliany. HTH, --Irpen 03:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I used to live down the road from Zuliany - on Sevastopolska Ploshcha. I totally forgot about this charming little airport and the numerous times I lost baggage there. Bandurist 10:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Expedia.com lists 'Kiev'. I reckon sites like that would get updated in case IATA naming would have been changed. --Soman 15:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Step 2

[Step one is admitting that we have a problem]

But seriously, this discussion is getting out of hand. There are thousands of words merely about determining just what had been discussed earlier. Some comments by several parties have been arguably uncivil or un-called for, and many of our comments have been on the borderline. This has been going on for a whole month, and there is still no consensus.

WP:DR suggests disengaging for a while. Let's. I'm calling a multilateral moratorium on this page. Nothing's been decided for about 30 days, so let's just go away for three days, and no harm will be done. Maybe we'll all gain a bit of perspective.

Please, don't add any more comments on this subject until September 29, 06:00 UT. Sincere thanks. —Michael Z. 2007-09-26 05:55 Z

Auto-archiving has been added today. 199.125.109.19 19:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I must congratulate all of the participants here. I am pleased and impressed that we could all just take a time-out following my impulsive suggestion. Regards. —Michael Z. 2007-09-30 17:33 Z

Step 3

Hello,

I think now that everybody has had a chance to sit back and think about it for a while, it may be a good idea to re-state some arguments.

I think that the name of the article should be Kyiv for the following reasons:

1. It is a self-identifying term. It is the name that Kyiv has chosen for itself through a statement by the democratically elected government.

2. It is more common in current usage. The google test is too close to call. Just now, the numbers are 1,950,000 for Kiev, [39] and 1,740,000 for Kyiv, [40] According to other criteria, as listed on the naming conflict page, ALL major international organizations use Kyiv (UN, NATO, OSCE, Red Cross, World Bank, etc.). Media use both, but it is important to remember that Wikipedia does not necessarily follow what media uses, as for example the Wikipedia page is Myanmar, while many media organizations use Burma. Other encyclopedia are split 2:1 (Britannica and Groliers use Kiev, while Encarta uses Kyiv). ALL English-speaking governments use Kyiv.

Because of that, I think the article should be moved to Kyiv. I would be happy to hear any arguments against.

Thanks, Horlo 01:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Now I would like to go over your arguments, piece by piece.

1. Wikipedia's guideline on self-identifying terms states:

Wikipedia does not take any position on whether a self-identifying entity has any right to use a name; this encyclopedia merely notes the fact that they do use that name.

This basically doesn't mean that we should change the name because the country wants us to. However we already do make note of the name. The guideline also states:

Commonly used English translations of self-identifying terms are usually preferred per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)

This guideline states that English does not have an academy.

2. Now I think that the Wikipedians should take the Google test for themselves. I don't know if it is a regional difference but I am receiving different results.

Kiev (39,700,000)[41]

Kyiv (5,370,000)[42]

I am finding that some other organisations use Kiev including the Red Cross[43], the UN uses Kiev more than it does Kyiv[44][45], OCSE[46], World Bank[47], DTRA[48],

Note that Wikipedia does necessarily follow the media. The reason that Myanmar is where it is is because of the Google test. Also now that you mention it, there is a vote in progress out to change Myanmar to Burma. Where did you get that assertation? Also, not all English-speaking governemnts use Kyiv. Her Majesty's Government (UK)[49] uses Kiev.

Then There's The Guardian[50], Time magazine[51], Raddisson Hotels[52], and Britannica[53]. Reginmund 02:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It was a very nice and quiet time on this page. I thought who would break the harmony first and I guessed right. Now, can we have some more quiet and use the time on Wikipedia content writing? --Irpen 02:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

Reginmund, I think that you misunderstood the quote that you cited. The quote deals with the right of the entity to use the name. For example, once upon a time, there was an East Germany and a West Germany. If one of those entities had decided to use the name "Germany", there would have been a debate, and WP would not and should not have taken sides. However, nobody here is denying Kyiv's right to call itself Kyiv.

The Use English page also states that These guidelines are under development. Please discuss and improve.. We are discussing, and hopefully improving them. These guidelines are not written in stone.

Now I also think that everybody should run the google test themselves. However, as this is the English Wikipedia, the ADVANCED google test, with filters set for English, should be used. I provided links to those very pages. I'm sure that everybody will get different results, because google fluctuates. It would be interesting to have 20 people from all around the world run the test at exactly the same second, and then compare results.

Your point about websites is very important, because it brings up the issue of what organizations are using, not what they used to use.

Red Cross: [54], OSCE: [55] World Bank: [56] NATO: [57] and the fact that the UN has used Kiev more than Kyiv simply supports my point that a simple google search is unreliable because it includes too much history and does not filter out past results well enough. The UN uses Kyiv: [58]. Now. Just like other organizations do.

Then, Reginmund, you state two facts that are completely unrelated and apparently contradictory. First, you say that Wikipedia "does" follow media. Yet media uses Burma. Immediately after that, you say that Myanmar is used, because that was because of the google test. Could you explain how those two sentences can be combined, please? As an aside, the only reason that I used Myanmar/Burma is that that is the example given in the "dealing with self-identifying entities". The government that requested the change to Myanmar was a military junta. However, the government which requested the change to Kyiv was a freely, democratically elected government.

All English-speaking governments use Kyiv. While it is true that DEFRA is a vital organization, perhaps the British Embassy may be a better indicator: [59].

It is true that Radisson Hotels are wonderful, and the room service is great, they are not really an indicator of commonality. There are many other organizations and businesses that use Kyiv, for example the IATA. Let's use the criteria provided here.

Irpen, this is a talk page. That means people are here to talk. Please feel free to contribute to this discussion.

Thanks, Horlo 04:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Be careful with Google tests. That may dredge up a lot of old pages. Perhaps we should run a Google News test, looking for references during the last 30 days, and see what's more prevalent. I don't know the result, but that seems like it could be more accurate. - Jehochman ^Talk 04:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it turns out that the meditation didn't work Horlo is up to his classic lying and twisting words again. Yes I said that Google follows the media and that Google also follows the Google test which are two of the many criteria in determining a name. How is this contradictory? Now you are going on about how the goverment was democratically elected, about how wonderful Radisson is, how my points are not indicators of commonality but yours are, I already made it clear that they also use both spellings. Governments or organisations don't have a manual of style. So, you are wrong. Kyiv is not limited to all English-speaking governemnts.They may use different names depending on the editor. I also don't understand how the fact that the U.N. uses Kyiv more shows that the Google test is unreliable. Those two criteria are completely irrelevant to each other. The fact that Kiev is six times more popular on Google (apparently when searching the American Google) goes to show something else. Organisations, goverments, thee media, and companies don't determine the common name, they only contribute to it. Reginmund 04:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Michael Z, thankyou for suggesting we all take a break from this. I respect you doing so, and think it was the right thing to do.

I think that things started well after that. Horlo began by restating what he saw as the case for his position thus far, and inviting those who disagreed to do the same; this was a good way to start. Reginmund responded by giving an itemised rebuttal of Horlo's summary. Again, good; I was very optimistic about what our break from discussion was resulting in...

Now, it appears that another argument is threatening to break out. Again, this seems to be the result of simple misunderstandings, and from people not seeing how others might interpret their choice of wording. Whatever anyone says - however incorrect, insulting or irritating you think or it was meant to be - it shouldn't change how you respond to things. Check that your replies match what you would have said if you were calm, and that they are worthy of you. This doesn't only apply to this particular incident and those involved in it - this happened many times before; I am guilty of posting comments before thinging over them too.

I can't believe I didn't see this before - all this time, people have been using different Google tests! So much arguing and bitterness for nothing. Let's work out what a proper test would be and agree on it, then we can all conduct it and report back with results. And then, our results actually should match up.

I hadn't even heard of a Google News search before, Jehochman; can you explain what it is please?

60.242.0.245 10:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)