Talk:Kyiv/naming/Archive 9

message: In England we use centre, honour, labour.
In the US we use Center, honor, labor.
Which is right , which is wrong.
From the information given it looks like there are currently two common ways of spelling Kyiv. Bandurist 19:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But center and centre are two different spellings of the same word, in the same language, with the same pronunciation.  Kyiv and Kiev have different pronunciations and represent the translation of two different words in two different languages.  I've stopped arguing for one or the other, I just believe it's important for people to realize that this is not a spelling issue.  For what it's worth, on my most recent visit to Kyiv/Kiev (September), I noticed that not a single Ukrainian corrected my pronunciation, no matter which pronunciation I used (Russian or Ukrainian), when speaking English.  However, I have been corrected twice so far by native English speakers living in Kiev/Kyiv for using the Russian pronunciation.  Not sure what is driving that.  Also of note, I saw a sign in a bookstore, in Ukrainian, that referred to the capital as Київ/Киев.  Interesting to note that the word Киев does exist as an exact duplicate of the Russian word in the Ukrainian language. I suppose this is similar to some words from the French language that are spelled and pronounced exactly (barring accents) the same in English.Srilm 23:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: Why is it so difficult to figure out what even a single organization uses?  Why are all of the Google searches so mixed up? (They're not so unclear, in my opinion.)  Why do organizations' manuals say one thing or another, yet on many cases they use the other, or the one?
The simple answer is that most people don't care.  They just don't care as much as we do.  Not due to carelessness, but merely because they've never had a reason to be asked the question.
Most folks on the street, Wikipedia readers and editors, reporters, writers, even chief editors and agency heads are very pragmatic.  They will write whatever they've read before.  When they see "Kyiv" for the first time, they may wonder what that is about, or they may just not care about spelling (yes, even some journalists!).  Or they might just decide to check a reference, and most likely it will confirm the old way of spelling "Kiev".
This is the natural momentum and conservatism that the adoption of new ways faces.  Until it has been overcome, the new ways cannot be considered to have been adopted.
So has the spelling "Kyiv" been adopted in English?  
Where it is to someone's advantage to adopt the new spelling, generally for political or diplomatic, or sometimes editorial reasons, it has.  And where it isn't, it has not.
The UN, a body run democratically by its members, uses what its member Ukraine has suggested it use.  All of its web sites in Ukraine, where the staff is constantly aware of Ukrainian relations, use "Kyiv".  Outside of Ukraine, the high-profile pages may use "Kyiv", but many more, including recent ones, just use whatever the writer was used to: often "Kiev".  
Many international agencies follow suit. The WHO's official references all indicate "Kiev".  But on their web site, a substantial minority of pages uses "Kyiv".  Where does that come from?  It's because someone there who cares is trying to use "Kyiv", but the organization as a whole does not care all that much.  Maybe it is their official policy, but it's not important enough for them to enforce it across the board or to update their style manual.
Various countries' diplomatic services, in the interests of diplomacy, use "Kyiv".  Some governments too, like the US State department, and apparently the Canadian Foreign Service.
National Geographic, when publishing exciting feature articles about the Orange Revolution, made the editorial decision to use "Kyiv".  The following year, when they covered the anniversary of the disaster in "Chernobyl" [sic], they used a mix of Kyiv and Kiev.  But their online references, the Ukraine Facts page and their map server still say "Kiev", and the 2006 edition of their authoritative atlas says "Kyyiv (Kiev)".  Recent pages on their web site still show a mix.
Some media (especially in Canada, where there is a vocal Ukrainian minority) started using "Kyiv" in the heady days of the Orange revolution, but since then, it has not been quite so obvious. (does anyone have a 2006 CP Stylebook?).
This is my overall impression, after looking at this question in more detail than ever.  In places where change is fast or where people are aware of Ukraine, in international organizations and the press, "Kyiv" is seen in a scattering of official usage, but it has not been generally adopted where there isn't a specific incentive to do so.  In other places which are more conservative or slow-moving, in reference books and amongst the general public, there is some consciousness of "Kyiv", but the established usage is clearly "Kiev".
We may be around the tipping point of adoption, but we can't know that until we have passed it.  Based on Wikipedia's naming policy and my understanding of the facts, I can't justify moving the article today. —Michael Z. 2007-10-19 07:03 Z
:That's my take also. Since I tend to prefer a reader-focused encyclopedia, my criterion would be, "is this where people would expect to find the article?" I think today it isn't quite---having it at Kyiv wouldn't be ridiculous, but it would be somewhat surprising to most readers, whereas having it at Kiev would be expected by most native English speakers except some ethnic Ukrainians and academics. The trend is clearly towards Kyiv, though, so that may not be true in a few years. --Delirium 00:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My take 

message: Hello,
Mzajac, I apologize if my tone has been snippy recently, but you can see that I'm carrying on two rather different discussions at once, and it is sometimes difficult to focus.
I do not suggest casting aside established naming conventions. On the contrary, I have been trying to get people to consider other conventions, outside media and Google for over a month now. I want to include as many things as possible, to get the widest possible picture. (Just as an aside, I put forth an article from a librarians' meeting where the letterhead said Kiev, but throughout the body of the letter they used Kyiv.) The only caveat I have is that a decision shouldn't be made quickly without considering many sources (including other fields, such as religion, sports, and culture). I think that the more sources that are included, the better the overall picture will be. 
The reason that I interpreted the fifth point in the naming conventions as government websites is actually two-fold: first, the link provided there leads to a US government site. Also, on the NCON page, there is a section for determining the name of the article, here , and that section suggests check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations. 
With respect to the UN, I think great care is needed here. The UN includes people from all over the world, and they may spell the word differently. However, if a high-ranking diplomat writes a word one way, it will stay that way, even if it is not the way the UN officially spells it. Like you said, it's not really that important to most people. 
With respect to history references, the reason I didn't look at them is that this article isn't about the history of Kyiv. There is a section about the history of Kyiv, but the majority of the article is about what's happening there now.
With respect to GoogleBooks, books such as this: , , and this: actually use "Kiev, Russia". 
Also, with Google scholar, the first 19 links for Kiev are either for A Kiev, J Kiev, or EP Kiev. (I assumed that U Kiev was the University of Kiev, and that was the 20th link).
Thanks, Horlo 06:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming Conventions in detail 

message: More reasons that an article name change to Kyiv is warranted. 
The .ua domain administrator (Hostmaster.net.ua) has announced ( http://www.hostmaster.net.ua/news/?pr20071017) that starting in 2008, the geographic domain "kyiv.ua" will be available both to new domain names userss as well as allowing existing domain names using the current "kiev.ua" designation to switch or to use both names using mirrors. The announcement cites growing demand and usage of "Kyiv" on the internet.  Cheers Eduvalko 17:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  kyiv.ua approved, to be used in 2008 

message: Hello,
In view of the above discussion about Google results, as well as the US State Department news conference quoted above - the speaker actually spells out the name of the city K-Y-I-V - I think it is once again time to open a discussion on whether the name should be changed. 
Any Objections?
Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: None from me 60.242.0.245 (talk) 10:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Are we having a discussion?60.242.0.245 (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It's going to be changed sooner or later anyway, I say go for it. Bogdan що? 16:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree, that is certainly a a symbol of current usage.  And I don't want to hear any cries of "politically motivated!" Ostap 06:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Curiously, for the Monopoly World Edition website: if one selected Australia as their country, the spelling used to be "Kiev", as opposed to "Kyiv" for the UK, USA and Canada (I didn't check New Zealand or others).  Now all has changed to "Kyiv".60.242.0.245 (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues with Google, Statements by governments ... 

message: Hello,
The discussion on the naming page seems to have reached the consensus that the name should be changed to Kyiv.
Therefore, once again, in order to bring Wikipedia in line with the common usage of the name of the city, as evidenced by the usage of the Governments of all English speaking countries, as the name of a self-identifying entity, as used by Encarta, and many media, I propose that the name of the article be changed to Kyiv.
Does anybody have any objections?
Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: It is funny that this discussion exists and certain individuals try to refute the error.  The name of the capital of Ukraine when spelled in Roman alphabet is KYIV.  If one wants to present otherwise that dispute should be taken at the Ukrainian government level which passed a naming resolution in 1995.  Please refer to the official document. [].  
The "other" name of Kiev is a direct Russian translation which was arrived through Russian being the national language of USSR.  Thus any past dictation or map printing was done based on that translation.  Since Ukraine's independence and resolution to official name being KYIV it would be completely inappropriate and inaccurate to keep presenting the name as Kiev.   
This is not a popularity nor a search result contest.  If the masses use Kiev and Kiev is still in publication they use the name incorrectly.  One can not dig through every book published and change the name.  Wikipedia is a great, dynamic and fast "encyclopedia".  It is a bylaw principle of Wikipedia to provide unbiased and correct information. Changing the article to KYIV is not only necessary but also the only correct action.  
-Orest(iridium7777@yahoo.com)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.36.3 (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of name 

message: The switch to Kyiv seems logical to me because of the inconsistent use of Kyiv/Kiev within WP articles. It seems to me the trend is toward increasing usage of Kyiv instead of Kiev (following the trend of increasing daily Google news citations of Kyiv).  The shift of Kyiv at this point seems inevitable, and usage of Kyiv is more scholarly than now antiquated Kiev.  Thoughts? --67.225.39.145 (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  
The result of the debate was  no consensus. -Andrew c [talk] 22:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matter of Style