Jump to content

Talk:Kyiv/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

Fully protected edit request on 16 September 2020

A protected redirect, Kiev, needs a redirect category (rcat) template altered. Please modify it as follows:

  • from this:
#REDIRECT [[Kyiv]]

{{Redirect category shell|
{{R from move}}
{{R from alternative spelling}}
{{R printworthy}}
}}
  • to this:
#REDIRECT [[Kyiv]]

{{Redirect category shell|
{{R from move}}
{{R from alternative language|ru|uk}}
{{R printworthy}}
}}
  • This situation is a bit more than an alternative spelling; it is the Russian language spelling of "Kiev" that targets the Ukrainian language spelling of "Kyiv". Please edit the categorization as shown above to reflect this.
  • Also, IF YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE SKIPPED LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.

The {{Redirect category shell}} template is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. When {{pp-protected}} and/or {{pp-move}} suffice, the Redirect category shell template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (Also, the categories will be automatically removed or changed when and if protection is lifted, raised or lowered.) Thank you in advance for your help! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 07:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Martin! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 13:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Please reinstate {{R from alternative spelling}}.

The implication from the above that Kiev is not even an alternate spelling in English - when it has been used as the English name for the city for hundreds of years - goes much farther than the RM close or most contributors to the RM went. In other cases, such as at Danzig, we include both templates. Kahastok talk 16:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I would agree that {{R from alternative spelling}} is proper here (in addition to {{R from alternative language|ru|uk}}). Carter (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Moving Kiev Oblast to Kyiv Oblast

There is resistance to a speedy move of that article. I’m holding a straw poll to try to convince any opposing editors that an RM is not necessary or desirable. Please just leave your opinion at talk:Kiev Oblast#Straw poll: how to move Kiev Oblast → Kyiv Oblast. Thanks. —Michael Z. 16:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't support a mass movement of everything "Kiev" to "Kyiv" with regard to historical entries, but changing the oblast name (and anything contemporary except Chicken Kiev) should be a no-brainer. Do I get an "I Voted" sticker now? --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

A straw poll was not convincing, so there is now a formal RM. Let’s please quickly identify the consensus at talk:Kiev Oblast#Requested move 19 September 2020. Thank you. —Michael Z. 16:27, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Now resolved. —Michael Z. 03:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Is it necessary to have a touristic logo along with the city symbols? I haven’t noticed anything like this on any other page about a European capital. I believe it was important when the article wasn’t renamed to Kyiv, but now it can be removed or placed outside of the infobox, I suppose? EricLewan (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree, and boldly removed it. Lev!vich 19:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Moving naming dispute section?

Do we really need an entirely new article on Kiev/Kyiv naming dispute? It seemed fine where it was. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Ugh. Well the etymology section shouldn’t be completely removed from this article. If it is too long, then it should be moved to Name of Kyiv. A new article about a dispute with whatever scope can be written as such. —Michael Z. 22:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
If we look at Macedonian naming dispute, it's about a real-world conflict between nations. The Kiev/Kyiv naming dispute has no such real-world effects. While it might have seemed earth-shaking to Wikipedia editors, its effect in the real world has been virtually nil. It's a PR campaign. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 03:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
The Kyiv#Name etymology section was a stable part of this article for a very long time. I don’t think it should just be relabelled “naming dispute section,” associated with a Wikipedia debate that’s over, and then blown away. I would like to restore it, so it can be carefully edited or forked according to editors’ consensus. —Michael Z. 13:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
There is an article about the ministry for foreign affairs campaign: KyivNotKiev. --Base (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Mzajac is quite right and I agree with him with regards to the need for a separate "dispute" article because this was always a dispute within Wikipedia and not the real world (which has been "disputelessly" switching slowly from Kiev to Kyiv for a couple of decades). In its current state, where all those individual data points have been moved to footnotes, it could easily be returned here, its original home (with a hatnote pointing to KyivNotKiev). --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
No. Let’s restore the section and edit it in this article’s history, instead of using Kiev/Kyiv naming dispute/Name of Kyiv as a sandbox. —Michael Z. 15:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
That doesn't make sense, sorry. The article is in good shape over there and can simply be copied over here as is. People copy stuff from sandboxes into main articles all the time ;) --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
It makes sense (and sometimes edits copied from sandboxes get reverted). Edits to “Kyiv” should be made in the article Kyiv where they will appear on interested editors’ watchlists and in the history, and discussion of those edits should reach consensus on talk:Kyiv, not in talk:Kyiv/Kiev naming debate where they remain controversial and unresolved. That other article has already changed its title and subject matter, and had an edit war about the inclusion of a substantial portion. —Michael Z. 16:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Notable people

Igor Sikorsky (1889, Kyiv - 1972, Easton, Conn.)

Please, add to section Kyiv#Notable people from Kyiv: — Yuri V (t•c) 05:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC).

IMO, having this section in the article is a bad idea. It's better to just add Category:People from Kiev to their articles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Examples

— Yuri V (t•c) 15:27, 15:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC).

So, I ask to add the next text:

[[File:Igor Sikorsky-TIME-1953.jpg|thumb|right|150px|[[Igor Sikorsky]] (1889, Kyiv - 1972, [[Easton]], [[Connecticut|Conn.]])]]

— Yuri V (t•c) 15:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC).

  • I agree with GGS about not having a "notable people" list for this article (and I also think they should be removed from other city articles). Reminds of the old "in pop culture" sections. There are too many notable people from any major city to bother listing them in an encyclopedia article about the city. The category serves the same purpose and does it better. Lev!vich 16:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Add another voice to the votes to remove these here, there, and everywhere. If even my city (Hickory, NC) can drum up a list like that, these sections are obviously just bloat.--Khajidha (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Some related move requests. Please add and update. —Michael Z. 20:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Moved

No consensus to move

In progress

  • –

also in progress are RfC's:

Other informal discussions

Comments

Sorry, but I find it a little concerning that when we started discussing (on the 16th) the fact that historical articles may not fit the move to Kyiv that you said "We can discuss historical names, because I’m sure there will be pushback and objections." Not concerning because you said it, but concerning because two days later you up and went ahead and moved these articles without discussion or during discussion. Kyiv Oblast was fine since it wasn't a recipe or historical article, but the other two are historical. I would expect an anon IP do do that, but not an administrator. It is best if the historical articles are discussed as a whole instead of item by item. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
You said they should be discussed while you lamented chasing after other editors. I suggested you do it centrally to save you some trouble. I’m still waiting to see if you will. In the meantime, I am moving article that I didn’t think would be controversial. Since some editors have ownership issues, I've mainly stayed out of their way and moved ones within the scope of modern Ukraine, including the Ukrainian People’s Republic, Ukrainian SSR, and independent Ukraine. Of course I knew people would be upset, because even Euromaidan is now “historical,” and some editors will chafe at any acknowledgment that this article has been renamed. Even Kyiv Oblast was not “fine”—have you seen its talk page?
Well if you’d like to discuss it, then I’ll ask again where you’d like to do that: new section here, WP:WikiProject Ukraine, WP:WikiProject history, or WP:WikiProject European history, or somewhere else? —Michael Z. 22:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
And I answered before since he brought up the historic articles, "If ProcrastinatingReader wants to start a new topic here, it would be much better than having it all over Wikipedia." Then right after that was this by Lev!vich... "There is a list of articles and categories with "Kiev" in the titles at Talk:Kyiv/cleanup. There are probably more to be added to this list, and then we should divide it into no-brainers that can be moved boldly, no-brainers that should stay where they are, and those that need further discussion" to which I answered "That is probably the best (and easiest) way to do it." At which point it looks like you went ahead and moved controversial articles. I understand some will be upset with changes, yes I saw Kyiv Oblast. As you said, some will always complain. But that's not what this is about. When Ukraine was part of the USSR and prior, spellings were very different and we have to be careful what we move and change. We all have your back when you move a Kyiv railway station, but maybe not so when it comes to a Russian ruler from the 11th century or a famous battle from WW1. Those types of pages should not be moved and then if someone notices, discussed. They should be lumped and discussed or at least discussed on the article's talk page, BEFORE we move them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Fyunck. Please clarify what you’re accusing me of. I don’t recall moving any articles about rulers of Russia or its eleventh-century predecessor, nor even obscure battles of WWI. —Michael Z. 12:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm not Fyunck(click), but perhaps [1] and [2] are relevant.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
St. Anthony of the Caves was a Kyivan monk, who established the Kyiv Pechersk Lavra. He was not Russian, as there was no Russia nor Ukraine then, but he was born in territory of today’s Ukraine and died in Kyiv. The February 1918 Battle of Kyiv was part of the Ukrainian–Soviet War, shortly after the Ukrainian People’s Republic declared independence from the Bolsheviks in Petrograd in January, and before it was internationally recognized in March. I’m going to say this is not a prejudice, but WP:systemic bias which makes it seem okay to so many Wikipedians insist on continuing to apply the Russian name to Kyiv, after the main article’s move, without even bothering to read the intro paragraph of the articles in question. I wonder if you’d get familiar with the basic facts, and then briefly consider the valid point of view of an underrepresented minority in the interest of balance? —Michael Z. 13:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
You still don't get it. Kiev is not and was not the "Russian name". It was the ENGLISH name at the time of the battle. It is neither prejudice, nor systemic bias, it is USING ENGLISH. Unless English language scholarship changes its usage with respect to that battle, it should remain "Kiev". --Khajidha (talk) 13:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
It is the Russian name according to reliable sources. We are discussing the English name at the time of right now. It is systemic balance that a Russian colonial name is not recognized as such by much of the Wikipedia community. —Michael Z. 14:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
In addition, why prioritize a Ukrainian-originated spelling over Russian-originated spelling for event of February 1918? The Ukrainian People's Republic had declared independence just a few days earlier, which was not reciprocally recognized by Russia, and Kiev very much a 'Russian' city (not used here as a solely ethnic marker) at the time. Whilst the Ukrainian Bloc won a landslide victory in the Kiev Governorate in the 1917 Constituent Assembly election, it won only 25.6% of the vote in Kiev city itself, followed by a whopping 20.5% for the Black Hundredish Russian monarchist rightwing, 35.6%+ for various All-Russian parties (Kadets, Bolsheviks, Mensheviks etc), 11% for Jewish parties and 6.1% for the Polish list. --Soman (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Soman, this is why I am asking editors to consider the effect of WP:systemic bias. As we have now adopted the English spelling Kyiv for the city, shouldn’t someone work to convince us why every one of those articles should not be moved? Why are you insisting that the Russian imperial name is still the default, and this event in Ukrainian history is not Ukrainian enough to deserve our normal name? The territory of Ukraine was inhabited by Ukrainian-speaking Ukrainians in February 1918, and the two states that were established after the civil war were both called Ukraine. Over these circumstances, I don’t see how the details of that particular vote (in which you give privilege to the urban population, for some reason) among tens of thousands of other events should override common sense. —Michael Z. 14:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Because the move was about the article on the city. The current city. We were asked what the name for this city is now. NOT what it was in 1917. What it is now does not necessarily matter to what it will be called when discussing 1917. --Khajidha (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
No, I don’t believe you can show me where we agreed on any such restriction. We were asked what the name is now, of the city. Not of some city that exists now and not in the past. —Michael Z. 18:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
We were asked about the current common name. I cannot see how "current common name" would apply to 1917.--Khajidha (talk) 19:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
General practice on articles of historical events is that the names used in English at the time are retained for article names it seems: Battle of Madras, Siege of Trichinopoly (1743), Siege of Nundydroog, Battle of Philippeville, Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, Carlsbad 1923 chess tournament, Battle of Petsamo (1939), and... Battle of Stalingrad. --Soman (talk) 19:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
@Khajidha: In 1917, World War I was called "The Great War"; it wasn't called "World War I" until decades later, after World War II. But we don't call it The Great War, we call it World War I, because we use the modern common name for a historical event. The only question (in my view) is whether the modern common names for these historical events have changed along with the name of the city. FWIW I don't see evidence that they have changed, for most of the examples I've looked at, and I think as a default position, historical titles should stay where they are ("Kiev") until/unless a case for a change in common name can be shown. But it should be the current common name, not the common name at the time of the event. Lev!vich 20:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Which is exactly the point I have been making... --Khajidha (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
(ec) You said you didn't recall moving these articles - please assume good faith.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
No. I said I don’t recall doing what I was accused of, moving any article about a “Russian ruler“ or a “battle from WW1,” and I thought I’d just explained pretty clearly why that’s so. I assume you are missing both Fyunck(click)’s implication and my point in good faith. —Michael Z. 14:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
As it is clear that the opinions of anyone who is not directly involved in this dispute is not wanted and that anyone who posts here is liable to be attacked, then I will withdraw and unwatch the article and all unrelated articles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigel Ish (talk • contribs)
I'd like to assume good faith, but it is difficult when you go ahead and keep changing historical articles without discussion, when you know for a fact the matter is controversial. Walrasiad (talk) 23:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
What are you talking about Mzajac in terms of Kyiv Oblast? That was completely uncontroversial. One editor wondered about the name of the oblast during the Soviet Era, but it was hardly controversial, with not a single solitary editor expressing anything other than "Speedy move" for it. The only "controversy" (quickly corrected) was the notion that the article couldn't be moved without a formal move request. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 14:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Intransigence required me to file an RFC and then a formal RM. I showed the editor the respect of using procedure instead of intimidation. This is what had to happen in the biggest no-brainer followup move. Other reasonable moves are now being completely reverted and stalled with a whole variety of tactics and reasoning largely based on systemic bias that no one will for one moment stop to consider, plus reasons not based on guidelines, and circular discussions where editors switch their reasoning every time fallacies or incorrect facts are pointed out. It is very frustrating. —Michael Z. 14:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm not following the "followup" moves so I wasn't aware how much of a battle was going on. My philosophy in this case is "The only thing worse than not getting your way, is getting your way". Good luck. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 15:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Is that reverse WP:ownership? I still like to think we are all working together and making it better. Sincerely, I am sorry if you feel bad. —Michael Z. 18:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't feel bad at all. I feel like I don't have to watch the train wreck anymore and can watch other things in Wikipedia. The Wikipedia community made its decision, it wasn't the decision I was supporting, but I accept it and work on other stuff. (You'll note that I was the editor who changed the infobox here and voted for speedy move at Talk:Kyiv Oblast.) I'm just marginally amused at all the problems that proponents now have to deal with beyond just the move of Kiev to Kyiv. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I keep seeing this "systemic bias" baloney being thrown around by Mzajac. That's a phrase that seems very popular these days and is tossed around like candy on Halloween (well maybe not this Halloween). For or against the Kyiv/Kiev debate, I think most editors have taken the result with the grace you would hope for at Wikipedia. Most articles and terminology will change to Kyiv with no issues. There will always be a couple of knuckleheads though. Controversial Historical items like battles, wars, religious items, food, 500 year old leaders, etc... will have to be looked at BEFORE moving. This was brought up very early on this talk page. Some of those items might move but many likely won't. They can be looked at individually or looked at in groups for ease of determination. One editor noted that while they !voted for the change to Kyiv they had no idea it would also affect historical articles. Someone mentioned that there is a cleanup page with a list of items that can be looked at. That might help here. To be honest I don't care a whole bunch where these controversial articles finally wind up (except Chicken Kiev)... historians, theologians, and military experts have a better feel for this debate on where these articles should be located. As long as it's a group effort all will be well in my book. But procedure is paramount here. If we can group the entities in question we can ask for help from the appropriate WikiProject(s). But at this point, considering the discussions here, it is disruptive to move controversial Kyiv items without input from others. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Well, yes I have found the limits of “controversial.” As to systemic bias, which Wikipedia has creditably managed to define as a problem, by its very nature, the majority of Wikipedians will discount it as a problem when it is pointed out to them. I have found the limits of that too. —Michael Z. 20:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

RM cited in the article

We now have a sentence that reads, "In September 2020 the English Wikipedia switched from using Kiev to Kyiv." Wikipedia is not a style authority. IMO, it would make more sense to cite the BGN decision. 3K008P9 (talk) 06:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I’m not sure why we mention Wikipedia switching either - there’s no reason to single out another authority though.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Ermenrich. Wikipedia (or any other single source) should only be mentioned if there is significant coverage in independent reliable sources about that source's choice of spelling. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I've actually gone ahead and removed the reference to Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Now that I look, it seems both Kyiv#Name and Name of Kyiv have too much OR and not enough secondary sources (e.g. the CJR and Atlantic articles). Lev!vich 16:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Levivich, agreed, they're both in need of a cleanup. The etymology isn't even really explained in this article except sort of in the flowing text. This article needs a lot of improvement, most of which have probably been ignored in favor of arguing about Kiev vs. Kyiv for the past 20 years.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
The entire “Name” section was deleted shortly after the article was renamed. Let’s restore it. —Michael Z. 19:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Parking some secondary sources here for now: Why Kiev is now Kyiv - Columbia Journalism Review, Kiev, Kyiv, How Do You Pronounce (and Spell) It? - The New York Times, Kyiv not Kiev: Why spelling matters in Ukraine’s quest for an independent identity - Atlantic Council, Kiev or Kyiv?: why is the question of what to call Ukraine’s capital so hard to answer? — The Calvert Journal, Kiev Or Kyiv? - Business Insider, Spellcheck beware: Ukraine’s capital is #KyivNotKiev - PRI's The World Ukraine and the politics of transliteration - CSMonitor.com. Lev!vich 20:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Here’s a cite list with those and a couple more, sorted by date. Anyone please expand or re-format. —Michael Z. 22:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Honestly, I think this article should handle things like etymology and history of the name (in Ukrainian, Russian, and English) more than we need to display why the form has changed in the West. That can be handled very briefly here and in more detail over at Name of Kyiv if desired.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
One hundred percent agreement. I would be in favour of restoring the deleted “Name” section and improving it. —Michael Z. 03:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

It is probably worth establishing consensus around names of related articles, since there has been some drama. As a rule of thumb, I think I am right in considering that the following is appropriate:

  • For unambiguously current topics (e.g. Kyiv Metro), articles should be renamed
  • For unambiguously historical topics (e.g. Kiev Offensive), articles should not be renamed
  • For any edge cases, an RfC or move request debate is recommended
  • Current should probably be viewed in the context of October 1995
    • Articles on events pre-1995 should be Kiev
    • Is post-1995 the "modern" cutoff or is there a grey zone?

What do others think? Guy (help! - typo?) 16:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Pretty good guidelines, though I would go back to the dissolution of the USSR for the beginning of "modern". --Khajidha (talk) 17:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I also would use the USSR breakup as the beginning of modern. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • JzG, that is an excellent summary of criteria, but I would also agree on the dissolution of the USSR as the beginning of uncontested "Kyiv". It's a clearer moment in time for most readers. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Seems like good idea. I'd choose 2018 as the cut-off, since it matches the launch of the KyivNotKiev campaign, i.e. the point when Ukrainian government authorities actively began campaigning internationally to replace 'Kiev' with 'Kyiv'. --Soman (talk) 19:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree with the first three bullets, but I think the cut-off should be dissolution of the USSR (1991). BTW if it helps, most (but not all) of these articles are listed at Talk:Kyiv/cleanup#Pre-21st century. Lev!vich 20:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Subsequent discussion below has changed my mind. I no longer think the best default rule is one based on dates; the name of the city hasn't changed, only the English spelling of a Ukrainian word has changed. We shouldn't use the spelling that was in use at the time we are referring to, but rather the spelling that is in use today, even when we are referring to things in the past.
      The Chinese philosopher 老子 had his name spelled "Lao Tzu" for a very long time (and his work was known as the "Tao Te Ching"), using Wade–Giles romanization. In the 1980s, Pinyin was adopted as an international standard, and the Pinyin romanizations of Laozi and Daode Jing became more popular (ngram). People either use the W-G or the Pinyin, regardless of what time period they're referring to. Nobody uses W-G when referring to stuff before the 1980s and Pinyin when referring to stuff after the 1980s. They either adopted the change in transliteration, or they didn't. "老子" is transliterated either as "Lao Tzu" or "Laozi".
      Similarly, we should be consistently transliterating "Київ" the same way in English in every instance in which we're transliterating that word. It's inconsistent to use two different transliterations for the same word, and so using one transliteration for events before a certain date, and another transliteration for events after a certain date, would be inconsistent and confusing. People will think that Kiev and Kyiv are two different places. Referring to things like, "Levivich of Kiev (1580)" and "Levivich of Kyiv (2020)" is confusing because it suggests those Leviviches (Levivichi?) came from two different places.
      PS: When you read the paragraph about Laozi, did you notice that Wikipedia uses the W-D for Tao Te Ching and the Pinyin for Laozi as titles, and did you ask yourself why we have that inconsistency? If you did, perhaps you see my point: our readers will ask the same thing when they read that the Battle of Kiev occurred in Kyiv, or they read that the Battle of Kiev occurred in Kiev but when they click on the link, they're taken to Kyiv. Lev!vich 19:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Levivich, I feel you're ignoring the fact that Kiev and Kyiv are transliterating two different languages. No disputes that the name in Ukrainian hasn't changed, but the change of Kiev to Kyiv is not just a change in transliteration strategies like Pinyin from Wade-Giles, it's more akin to Danzig vs. Gdansk or Lwow vs. Lviv vs. Lemberg (all three of which are used in History of Lviv. Given that the whole reason for changing from Kiev is that this is the "Russian name" I find the current argument that we should now use Kyiv in all contexts because its the same as Kiev rather confusing.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Ermenrich, that's true, they are transliterations from two different languages, which makes it not exactly the same as the change to Pinyin. Here comes the "but": In 1918, Lviv was called Lwow, so we have Lwów pogrom (1918) and Lviv pogroms (1941), yet I had no trouble finding academic publishers (because they were cited in our article) calling it the Lviv (or "L'viv") pogrom of 1918: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. These five were all published in the last five years; they themselves rely on older sources that call it the "Lwow pogrom", but yet they still call it the Lviv pogrom. We should move Lwów pogrom (1918) to Lviv pogrom (1918) ... and History of Lviv is a mess, using various different names for the same city. You find some academic publishers call it "Lwow/Lviv" or "Lviv (then called Lwow)" or something like that, but I don't think many books will call it Lwow in Chapter 1 and Lviv in Chapter 10. Lev!vich 02:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
I object to the whole idea of an arbitrary cut-off date. We moved the main article to Kyiv because that is the name of the city. Not the name of some city built in 1995. (And what to do, for example, about survey articles that deal with Territorial evolution of Russia, 1533–2020, or History of Kyiv, 482–2020?)
All of the discussion surrounding the “historical name” is a mass of different ideas based around resistance to change and the same wp:systemic bias by which many people in the West still routinely refer to the multinational Soviet Union as “Russia,” and before 1991 had no idea Ukrainians existed and inhabited the largest country inside Europe.
As Kyiv is our main article, and both Kyiv and Kiev are used in academic and popular literature about all periods, to me it would make sense to justify on an individual basis why articles should not be moved. Obviously, this would never find consensus, due to the general conservatism of editors in my view.
But sorry, the name is already in use in the majority of respected reliable sources on Ukrainian history, and obviously is only going to remain prevalent from now. For example these searchable books use the spellings Kyiv and Kyivan Rus.
Mzajac, it's not an arbitrary cutoff date, as the discussion shows, it's anything but arbitrary, and it's not a mandatory cutoff date, it's just a guide to reduce churn and drama. It doesn't prejudge whether earlier transliterations should be used for other periods. It's just about an orderly transition right now. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I have posted a link to this conversation at wt:Ukraine, wt:History, wt:Geog, and wt:Title. —Michael Z. 20:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I added links to wikiprojects Former countries, Russia, Military history. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I have posted a link to this conversation at wt:Poland and wt:Lithuania.--67.175.201.50 (talk) 04:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Considering that Yekelchyk explicitly says that he is not using the established English forms and that Subtelny says that he is following Ukrainian usage, I fail to see how those have any bearing on English usage.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Khajidha (talk • contribs)
That is not what he said. Thirteen years ago, he referred to some names that had established forms derived from Russian. Since, as many have pointed out in the RM discussion above, Wikipedia is a follower, the recent move shows that Kyiv has since become established. —Michael Z. 21:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Kyiv everywhere in general phrases (Buildings in Kyiv, Sport in Kyiv, Transport in Kyiv). RfC in other cases - when Kyiv/Kiev is part of undeniable compound term. Year - not relevant. PS: Surprised that the move happened, finally :) Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Support 1991 cut off date as the easiest solution. As I've said elsewhere, no one disputes that some scholars use Kyiv for earlier periods, but they clearly are not in the majority. That could change, but Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support 1995 cut off date, since that's when the Ukrainian government proposed to standardize and use the new transliteration itself. So 1995 is the official domestic name change date, like "Constantinople" to "Istanbul" in 1923. I wouldn't set it at time of dissolution (1991), since that is an arbitrary date, the Ukranian government itself used "Kiev" then and for several years after. Official date name change date of 1995 should be the cut-off date in usage, both in article title and inside articles. Just like in articles about late Ottoman Turkey or early Turkish Republic articles (e.g. Turkish War of Independence) doesn't switch to Istanbul until new transliteration is officially adopted in 1923. Naturally, long articles that cover both eras can retain modern spelling for title, just like History of Istanbul, Timeline of Istanbul, etc.
"Kyiv" has no more "always been" the name of Kiev, than "Istanbul" has always been the name of Constantinople, or "Mumbai" always been the name of Bombay. These name are all of the same quality, i.e. they are long-held local pronunciations of old cities (in Ukrainian, Turkish and Marathi languages respectively), which have been given new English transliterations to reflect the local pronunciation better. As far as English is concerned, these are name changes, and name changes which have a certain date.
As the official date of name-change - 1995 - is the only clear and unassailable date, whereas all other dates are ambiguous and debatable, that should be the one adopted here for cut off.
Should usage change over time we can revisit. Adoption of a cut-off date does not mean conventional Wikipedia rules are suspended. Wikipedia has to remember its obligation to its readers, rely on its criteria of recognizability, common name, etc. The cut-off date just trumps the consistency argument, if that is the only argument that is brought to bear.
As a more general point, I would like to remind editors that Wikipedia should not get involved, unwarily or not, in promoting nationalist programs to rewrite or push history in any direction. Ukrainian transliterations are no more special than Turkish or Marathi transliterations. It would set a dangerous precedent and encourage disruptive surges of other nationalists keen on rewriting history articles in the hope of doing the same thing, and end up with unrecognizable articles about Siege of Istanbul or the Mumbai Presidency. Walrasiad (talk) 05:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Not correct examples. Kyiv - it is not different (ukrainian) naming. It is the case of english transliteration same as another old versions: Kiou, Kiow, Kiew, Kiovia. We don't use each of these old version for relevant periods, but use only modern name. --Geohem (talk) 06:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
It is the new official English transliteration adopted by the Ukrainian government in 1995. As far as English usage is concerned, it is a name change as much as Istanbul or Mumbai. And exactly the same reason and procedure. (Those places too have other old spellings, e.g. Stamboul or Bombaim) Walrasiad (talk) 07:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it is only about transliteration, the cities name didn't changed. So we didn't use the another different transliteration like Kiou, Kiow, Kiew, Kiovia event if they were used in English previously. Same as we didn't use Stamboul instead of Istanbul −−Geohem (talk) 08:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
People keep confusing "transliteration" with "English name". Wikipedia only cares about English name, not about transliteration. If English still used "Kiovia" for the name of Ukraine's capital, it wouldn't matter whether it is an accurate transliteration of either Russian or Ukrainian. That would be its name. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 10:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Exactly. The English name was considered to be Kiev, it is now considered to be Kyiv. As those are two different letter sequences, that makes it a name change in English. What the name is, was, or will be in Ukrainian, Russian, Swahili, Japanese, Navajo, or Klingon is totally irrelevant to the point at hand. --Khajidha (talk) 11:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

They are two spellings of one name. Both are valid, but one is preferred and the other dated. If one quotes a speech, or TV or radio report heard, they have to choose a spelling of the name. This is an editorial decision. In published books, it is standard to quote written sources and apply editorial style, like American or British spelling, punctuation, and spelling—for example, changing spelling to Kyiv to match publisher’s house style. —Michael Z. 14:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

We changed the primary spelling to Kyiv when we moved the article, with reference to many publishers’ style manuals. We should follow, and just like all of them update our style manual, to recommend spelling consistently with current standards. This will serve our readers. —Michael Z. 14:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
What evidence do you have that one is dated? Doesn't look that way to me.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
The contents and result of the two-and-a-half month move request, above. The title of the article Kyiv. —Michael Z. 14:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
That doesn't mean what you say it does. It means a consensus of editors said that the currently most common name of the city is Kyiv, not that Kiev is "outdated". You're interpreting things that are not said anywhere.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Ermenrich, I opposed the move to "Kyiv", but the move was debated for three months, then decided by an uninvolved admin. It's over, Wikipedia recognizes "Kyiv" as the English name of Ukraine's capital to be used in Wikipedia ("spelling" and "transliteration" are red herrings, what Wikipedia cares about is the English name). We are not going to relitigate the English name used in Wikipedia again. What is being decided in this section is how to deal with articles on historical topics where the common English name of the topic uses "Kiev". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
TaivoLinguist, That’s precisely what I’m talking about. All this talk of “outdated” is just an excuse to impose the spelling Kyiv on historical articles where it runs counter to usage. I have no interest in arguing about modern topics, that’s been decided.—Ermenrich (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Ermenrich My apologies then. I misunderstood your intent. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Ermenrich, please stop misleadingly using quotation marks to imply that I used that word. When we elevate a spelling to the primary one, then the former main one can be described as dated. It is no longer the preferred or recommended one. Its use dates the writing. Seems self-evident to me.
Insisting on an exemption to use it in titles and text of some set of articles arbitrarily labelled as “historical,” or “pre Ukrainian independence,” or whatever seems to be exactly what you called special pleading, no? It is re-arguing the same question, to apply to a subset of the precious nineteenth-century usage. They’re destroying history when they knock these spellings off their plinths!
At least it’s progress. I thing “bargaining” is the third stage. —Michael Z. 15:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
You keep just ignoring the actual policies in question. If you're right why is it Battle of Peking (1900). Beijing didn't change its name. And I'm using quotation marks because that's the word you used, I'm not implying anything.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Where did I use “outdated”? Please don’t use quotation marks to argue against something I didn’t say.
As I’ve already argued, Kyiv and Kiev are different spellings of a single spoken name. There is no reason to use the dated spelling in arbitrarily selected contexts except stubborn attachment. —Michael Z. 16:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Are you really denying having said outdated? [8], [9]. Are you arguing under some sort of technicality because you used the synonym "dated?" I don't have time to look through every post you've made everywhere, but this does not strike me as arguing in good faith to claim you're not using a word you clearly used, or a near synonym.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Please don’t use the English convention for direct quotations to present as things I wrote things I had not written. I am requesting that you respect a normal requirement in polite discussion and public writing. Being argumentative about it is not going to achieve anything. And yes, I am denying I said “outdated,” and your own diff links seem to support that fact. —Michael Z. 20:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Mzajac I find it a bit confusing that you argued for three months that "Kiev" and "Kyiv" are different Russian and Ukrainian names, but then above you wrote that "Kiev" and "Kyiv" are two versions of the same spoken name (presumably in Ukrainian). Which is it? Are they from two different languages (Russian and Ukrainian) or from one language, just spelled differently? You can't have it both ways. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Let me clarify. The city has one name in English. It is generally pronounced /ˈkiːɛv/ in English. Today there are two commonly used English spelling variants of this name, one derived from a transliteration from Russian, the other from Ukrainian. I hope this is helpful. —Michael Z. 21:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I dispute the notion that "Kiev" and "Kyiv" are pronounced the same way in English. That's like saying "Calcutta" and "Kolkata" are pronounced the same way in English. They are pretty clearly not meant to be pronounced the same way, so if an English speaker is spelling it "Kyiv" but pronouncing it /ˈkiːɛv/, then he is either misspelling it or mispronouncing it. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
The sources are quite clear that the intended pronunciation of Kyiv is exactly as in Ukrainian. This runs into the fairly basic problem that the Ukrainian pronunciation breaks several rules of English phonology. As a result, the word is nigh-on unpronounceable for a monoglot English-speaker. But, if the sources say that the intended pronunciation is as in Ukrainian, then the intended pronounciation is as in Ukrainian.
OTOH, if the city's name is generally pronounced /ˈkiːɛv/ then that is evidence that the common name is still Kiev and thus that the conclusion reached at the RM was wrong. Kahastok talk 20:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Please cite some of the sources about “the intended pronunciation of Kyiv.” But it would be even more fun if you reopened the RM instead of just whining about the sour grapes. —Michael Z. 03:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
As far as the English language is concerned, they are two different names, spelled and pronounced differently. Much like Bombay/Mumbai, etc. It is not arbitrary - the official name change was adopted by the Ukrainian government in 1995. You anachronistically imposing it backwards and making historical articles unrecognizable and outside common use in English language sources. Walrasiad (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Not so. It is one name, usually pronounced one way (despite a couple of articles about “Keeve,” heard or misheard during the Trump impeachment trial), with two common spelling variants. It is usually shown as such in references. The current spelling was a minority usage since at least 1937. As the current spelling is adopted, we would find legacy article titles that diverge from the main article’s and common global usage becoming gradually less recognizable, which is why we have the guidelines at wp:consistency. Re-litigating the RM. —Michael Z. 21:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
You may want it to be pronounced the same way in English as "Kiev" traditionally is, but if native English speakers reading "Kyiv" start pronouncing it something like "Keeve", then that is very likely going to become the standard English language pronunciation over time. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
That's a big if. Right now pretty much everyone pronounces it Key-ev no matter the spelling and that may not change at all. We've been told Quebek is pronounce Kebek but everyone still says Kwebek. Plus the fact that Kyiv is not actually pronounce Keeve at all, but with two sylables ki-yeeve. Americans tend to pronounce things as the combination of letters is pronounce in English which may someday be more like Key-iv rather than Key-ev. But who knows how long that will take. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Considering all of these articles, some of which say things such as According to Polack, the correct way to pronounce the capital city of Ukraine is KEE-yiv This is compared to the Russian pronunciation of KEE-yev. [10], I'm certain Ukrainians do not intend for English speakers to just go on saying Kee-yev. The "Keeve" pronunciation is also widely noted, because, as any English speaker will tell you, Kee-yiv is extremely weird for an English speaker [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. Some dictionaries continue to list "Kee-yev" as the way "Kyiv" should be pronounced, but this seems unlikely to last. Otherwise the "spelling change" is simply idiotic. Why would Ukrainians force us to adopt a less phonetic way to write Kee-yev? That would be like if Ireland insisted we wrote Cork (city) "Corcaigh" but still said "Cork."--Ermenrich (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for jumping in late. 'Let me clarify. 'Kyiv and Kiev are not different spellings of the same name. The first one is the transliteration from Ukrainian, the second one is the transliteration from Russian. And this is the major reason of the Ukrainians push for renaming. They look similar because the languages are similar. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

1995 is meaningless date for English and Kyiv. Same as 2020 is (The Date Wikipedia Switched). How about an article describing pre-1995 and post-1995? Person "A" was born in Kiev and later he studied in Kyiv. Why? Same name, different spelling. Pick one! Color-colour type of situation. :) Chrzwzcz (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Support the proposal at the top of the thread, with suggested cutoff of 1991, the year of the dissolution of the Soviet Union. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. May I draw attention to the fact that Mzajac has continued changing Kiev to Kyiv in historical articles despite being fully aware that this is currently contested, e.g. [16], [17].—Ermenrich (talk) 00:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
    That is really sad. Those pages are not listed at Talk:Kyiv/cleanup because they don't have Kiev in the title, but considering the discussion here and in multiple other places where administrator Mzajac is fervently posting, that seems to be bad faith editing. Some changes were linked to places like Kyiv Oblast, so no issue there, but some were links to battles and other historical items and he should know better. I reverted those edits but there may be dozens more. This is very concerning, but remember there are a lot of articles and prose that need to be changed (far more than don't) and someone has to do it. At least Mzajac is taking the time to do it, you can't fault him there. He's just overzealous in his changes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
    Also Kish otaman was changed but now reverted. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
    This is behavior unbecoming of an administrator. They should be presented to ANI or AE, but I will not be the one doing this. I have already been accused in being an anti-Ukrainian editor, pro-Russian POV pusher, and a liar, merely for my insistence that WP:Consensus should be taken into account when edits are made, and I do not really enjoy it. In addition, I have already bothered the community with this Kyiv stuff for too much. I will not be acting at this point any further.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
    Not me either. It's tough enough to get the point across at ANI without everyone getting more upset, and this is an administrator. No thanks. And my heritage is Polish from Ukraine. We'll just plug along and revert if more historical articles change without consensus. And really that's my beef with this whole thing. If everyone wants to change all the historical and recipe and military articles to Kyiv, well, then that's what will happen. But it looks like there is a lot of pushback against full blanket changes. People who !voted for Kyiv didn't realize it could change every instance of the spelling. I changed a couple Kiev's to Kyiv today because they looked like a slam dunk, but historical ones are under heated discussion. Everyone commenting here should know that beyond any doubt. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, it will cause a lot of problems. Many people will be confused, because of factually the citie's name always was the same (Ukrainian: Київ). And nobody will understand why in one case we should use English name of city - Kyiv, and in another - the old version Kiev. ––Geohem (talk) 07:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
    We could try to make a helpful update to WP:KIEV. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
    Indeed, but the information page that contains WP:KYIV follows our conventions and guidelines. We can’t say too much there until we have agreed what they are. All we know is that Kyiv is now the main article’s name. —Michael Z. 14:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Given that vast majority of English-speaking people are more familiar with "Kiev" than "Kyiv", few will be surprised by Kiev. Simply do as is commonly done for articles where name changes have happened: editor puts a note in the article text in parenthesis if they feel it is needed, e.g. "Kiev (modern Kyiv)", "Calcutta (modern Kolkata)", "Bombay (modern Mumbai)", etc. Perfectly understandable. Walrasiad (talk) 11:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm only familiar with the literature on World War II in this context, and Kiev is always used. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I also support the proposal at the top of this thread.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I support 1995 as cut-off date. Hanberke (talk) 14:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
    First, I would object, and many will find it tone-deaf, if not outrightly offensive, to create a specific exception to the use of our main article’s name for the purpose of imposing a colonial spelling on articles that are clearly Ukrainian topics. For example, Ukrainian declaration of independence, 1991, Act of restoration of the Ukrainian state, 1941, or Fourth Universal of the Ukrainian Central Council, 1918. I have just updated all the articles on Ukraine’s heads of state and heads of government from 2020 back to 1917—is that really wrong? 2) What does that actually mean? Every article that mentions pre-1995 should use Kiev?—then we may as well move the city’s article back. If not, then what about, for example, the text of Territorial evolution of Russia which covers 1533 to 2020 and mentions the city? And 3) what about bibliographic references? Does the publication place of a single book appear as Kyiv in some articles and Kiev in others? This is inconsistent, confusing, and contrary to bibliographic standards. Should translated passages in those foreign-language references translate the name two different ways in different articles? Lots of comments like yours seem to be off-the-cuff reactions resisting change, but have not thought through the implications. —Michael Z. 14:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
    colonial spelling is extremely oriented. Kiev is an English-language spelling, not a Russian one, and last time I checked England never colonized Ukraine. From these discussions I have learned that the standard romanization of the Russian name of the city is actually Kijev. Place Clichy (talk) 15:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it is Kijev, not Kiev. Hanberke (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
It is Kiyev according to WP:RUS (which we are using on Wikipedia for Romanization if there is no established English name)--Ymblanter (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
It would have been nice if you three had addressed my actual arguments and questions, or said anything but reject one without considering it. You’ll tire me out and create a wall of text to bury my arguments, but I can just paste them again until it sounds like someone’s bothered to read them.
The tangent you’ve got off on is based on false premises and original research. Kiev is an English-language spelling, and it’s from a Russian name via transliteration from a Russian spelling. Are you really going to object and make me dig up some references, again? Our article on Romanization of Russian describes thirteen international standards. According to eleven of them the Russian name Киев is transliterated Kiev (by two it is transcribed Kiyev, but not “Kijev” by any of these, so I don’t even know where you got that). WP:romanization of Russian is not a standard, nor a Wikipedia policy nor guideline, but our own original-research essay. And that’s academic, because we don’t use WP:RUS, but WP:UKR for Ukrainian, and it refers to the standard, an actual standard, by which all Ukrainian place names are determined. —Michael Z. 20:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
It would have been nice if you started listening to what about a dozen editors are actually trying to tell you. We are trying to say two simple things. (1) We go by WP:COMMONNAME. Not by whatever arguments you cite, not for example by the sense of empathy to a new state which tries to get out of what it feels to be colonial oppression, but WP:COMMONNAME which is a Wikipedia policy. If a majority of academic sources refer to the 12th century polity as Kievan Rus' and not as Kyivan Rus the name of the article should be Kievan Rus'. If the majority refer to it as Kyivan Rus, the name of the article should be Kyivan Rus. (2) May be in the end this discussion would be closed in favor of moving everything, every instance from Kiev to Kyiv. May be it will not, but in two years there is consensus that Kiev is an outdated term in all contexts. This is possible. But as far as this discussion has not been closed you need to stop replacing Kiev with Kyiv in all historical contexts before 1995. The fact that you continue replacing it despite multiple objections and despite consensus not yet having been established is a textbook example of disruptive editing. I am sorry that you feel tired out, however, I am also tired out by this massive disruption in which you unfortunately participate - though you have been given the admin flag to stop disruption, not to increase it.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
You’ve settled on 1995 then, the date of, what is it, the enactment of a law by the Verkhovna Rada or something? I don’t think that date has any significant relationship to what defines “historical articles,” but I wonder if anyone will see this as symbolic if you insist on it. —Michael Z. 21:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
No, this is incorrect. In my !vote, I said 1991 (independence of Ukraine), but I would be also fine wit 1995 (standization of the spelling by the Ukrainian government) or even 1917 (end of the Russian Empire). However, what we are currently discussing here (what is in the proposal) is 1995.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
OK, your points are well explained. However, we need some point (or a range of points) in the past to differentiate these R-spelling and U-spelling. What do you or U-spelling supporters intend as an ultimate purpose? To entirely wipe out or lock down the word Kiev from English? A total destruction? I'm not familiar with RU-UA relations and dynamics in between regarding their common/joint history, but from neutral point of view, it seems a kind of revanchist approach against a word in a third-party language (in terms of EN historiography). No one can decide if a word is outdated ot not, course of time will show what will come out. We nned to find a way to keep both spellings up. Hanberke (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I thought we were all on the same side. The community chose the spelling Kyiv, now let’s work on the encyclopedia instead of drawing up battle lines and casting other editors as the enemy. —Michael Z. 20:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I support the proposal at the top of the thread, with no strong opinion about the cut-off date. It's important to recognise that this will simply be the default - if there is a particular reason why a particular article about a pre-cut-off topic should use "Kyiv" or vice versa then it can be explained in a requested move discussion for that article. Thryduulf (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support the proposition at the top of the thread, which I believe reflects current consensus both on and outside of Wikipedia. Both suggested dates of 1991 and 1995 have there merits. Clearly it should be acceptable for any good faith editor to use Kyiv any time after the Independence (which is not an arbitrary cut-off date in any way, it is the kind of era-changing moment that history provides). However in guidelines we may suggest using Kiev for events before the standardization of the use of this transliteration by the government in 1995. Time-independent articles such as History of Kyiv should use Kyiv in the title, Kiev about past events (such as Kiev Bolshevik Uprising) and depending on editor's judgment about geographical use (did the Nazis enter Kiev or Kyiv in 1943?). Anyway, it is out of the question to slice historical articles before and after the entry if force of the new transliteration. Place Clichy (talk) 15:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks for making a more concrete proposal than most. I see a few problems, but I’ll ask about one. I’ve already had my edits reverted in a “time-independent article,” Russia. The edit summary claimed the rationale that this is a “historical name.” How would you resolve this, keeping in mind that given the scope of the article it could well mention the city’s name when talking about political developments in the recent past or near future? —Michael Z. 21:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
    I know what I might do in this instance. I would want to be as consistent as possible within an article. So with articles that are more general, and cover a big time period I would tend to use Kyiv. If there is reference in the article to a historic battle, I would use "Battle of Kiev." It's a little like what we do with so many tennis articles. When we talk about a specific 1960 Wimbledon tournament we use the entry name of Margaret Smith. It's a specific historical article. If we are talking about a list of Grand Slam tournament winners with a huge list from 1870 to 2020 we use Margaret Court throughout and say that Margaret Court won 24 singles titles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks, Fyunck. Would you be interested in chiming in at talk:Russia?
    Regarding the cutoff date: in Court’s case, a living person changed her own name. Even she would still say that her name was Smith until 1967. The city’s name never changed, standards and references are adopting this spelling variant, and publishers and style guides have followed suit, without any confusing restrictions by context. —Michael Z. 15:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
    The issue with the Russia article is fairly easy to address. Instead of ...Oleg of Novgorod ventured south and conquered [[Kyiv]]..., one could write: ...ventured south and conquered [[Kiev]] (today Kyiv, [[Ukraine]])... Alternatively: ...ventured south and conquered Kiev (today [[Kyiv]], [[Ukraine]]).... And then continue on with "Kiev", "Kievan Rus'", etc. To me, this is a preferred approach where the modern place name is different from the historical one, since the reader would be aware of the alternate English spellings. Such cases are: Wrocław/Breslau; Lviv/Lwów; Kharkiv/Kharkov, etc. Or people just use Breslau, Lwów and Kharkov, if appropriate for the period. There are still a lot of incoming links to the historical names. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
    So Kiev is not just for historical article titles, and historical article text, in your view? You supported this proposal for a huge exception, but now you’re proposing further exception, with no rationale. Where do you draw the line? —Michael Z. 00:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
    No one is proposing a "huge exception", we are proposing following the normal process for dealing with name changes on English Wikipedia. You can keep claiming that Kyiv is the same as Kiev, but if that were true we wouldn't have changed the name.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
    The proposed exception covers an arbitrary ninety-nine percent of history, and editors like K.e.coffman and my reverter in Russia have expressed no intention to respect our consensus name in the rest. How about yourself? Will you support using Kyiv in the article Russia?
    And I’ll say it again. No has one changed the name since 482 AD. We have adopted a variant spelling of it. References attest to this (e.g., Merriam-Webster, Britannica). —Michael Z. 16:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose the proposal at the top of the thread.
Mumbai, Istanbul, and St. Petersburg are renamed by locals. Kyiv has not been renamed ever since it was founded. In 1995, the government did not rename the city, but approved its own transliteration table.(1)
We cannot rename Kyiv or any other city in any period of its history. If we do this, it will be an invention of a new historical concept or theory. Wikipedia is not the place for original research WP:ORIGINAL.
It is unacceptable to make it so that in different periods of history Kyiv was called differently. Because in this case we will rename the city, this is an incorrect and distorts the perception of history. It also violates the verifiability policy WP:VERIFY. Why? Because I have not seen any authoritative source in which different names of Kyiv are used in different periods of history. Why? Because Kyiv has not been renamed ever since it was founded. Therefore, it cannot be such that Kyiv in one period of history was named "Kiev", and in another "Kyiv" or "Kiow".
We do not change the name of the city, we change the spelling, the sequence of letters "Kiev" to the sequence of letters "Kyiv". Before there was "Kiow", then "Kiev", then "Kyiv". If we change the spelling, we change it in the overwhelming majority of the articles. It is incorrect to have a different spellings for the same reasons as to rename the city, which I wrote about above. Authoritative sources don't do that, it violates wikipedia policies and other reasons which we know about.
As for me, such articles as Chicken Kiev can be written with "Kiev" or discussed separately. Also write "Kiev" in quotes, cite titles and so on appropriate. And in the entire historical line since Kyiv was founded, including places, events and persons, we must write "Kyiv".
Then in any case we will have Kyiv, and if there is a need to emphasize the historical context, we can write like "in Soviet Kyiv". It is simple, consistent, without confusion, without distorting the historical context for those readers who do not have a Ph.D. in history. Sorry for my English. --AndriiDr (talk) 20:33, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support proposal on the top, with 1991 cutoff, concur with Ermenrich per arguments which is shared by many others or very similarly. Btw, the user directly above does not seem to properly cite/know our policies, no problem to use in different historical timelines contemporary names, it is a common everyday practise regarding many cities. As well we know and may decide easily when Danzig or Gdansk is more suitable, e.g.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC))

Wikipiping

I see people started massive "derussification" of Kyiv in wikipedia. However one kind of changes I see as incorrect: hiding article titles under the wikipipe: Kievan Rus -->> [[Kievan Rus|Kyivan Rus]] You have to request article renaming instead. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Now I see that a new user Olksder (talk · contribs) is doing this on a massive scale: [[Kiev|Kyiv]] I think all these edits must be reverted, because this is an improper use of wikipiping. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

You’re right. Let’s just link to the main article Kyiv with [[Kyiv]]. But then it will be awkward and potentially confusing when an article also links to [[Kievan Rus]]. —Michael Z. 20:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

First use of Kiev accompanied by explanatory (Kyiv)

According to wp:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Place names:

In general, other articles should refer to places by the names which are used in the articles on those places, according to the rules described at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). If a different name is appropriate in a given historical or other context, then that may be used instead, although it is normal to follow the first occurrence of such a name with the standard modern name in parentheses.

I think this should be uncontroversial (but I suppose I’ll soon learn of my foolishness). When an article uses the spelling Kiev in its text, the first occurrence should have the modern name for clarity, like “Kiev (Kyiv).” This formula should be repeated in a new section that is widely separated or likely to be referred to independently from the first occurrence. This should be implemented in articles whether their title includes the name Kiev or not. —Michael Z. 20:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Probably a good idea on first use. Not sure about subsequent use though. Once is usually enough unless the article is unusually large. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
WP:PLACE#General guidelines describes this, in point no. 3. I mention it because I have occasionally been frustrated when I refer to an article section to be baffled by an unfamiliar abbreviation or technical term, and finally hunt down its meaning way up in a barely related context in a very long article.
I don’t expect readers will be too confused by either spelling of Kyiv or the other, but I expect many will wonder what is the significance of or reason for intentionally using two different ones—there is virtually none, as they are exact synonyms. So I am concerned that the stated reason of using Kiev in some articles to prevent confusion is self-defeating. Certainly to use different spellings in different sections of one article, as a few editors have suggested, would be bad. —Michael Z. 03:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
@Mzajac: Number 3 does not cover this. This is backwards from #3. It says if a "widely accepted historical English name" is different than the article name, it should be in parenthesis on first use. The historical (and widely accepted) name is already Kiev. Point three tells us that when we use Kyiv in a Kyiv article, on first use it should be Kyiv (Kiev). I have no problem extrapolating that to say Kiev (Kyiv) in such articles with Kiev in their titles, but that's not what it says in point 3 of general guidelines. All the articles that have recently been changed to Kyiv should always say Kyiv (Kiev) on first use in the article. Did you do that, since you changed 100s of them? Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
This is not a hard issue. By the rules and the practise, at first occurence we mention both (order depending by context), and only after one version fitting the article. Or by all instance in brackets. These are generally applied most of the articles, lamentating more on this is useless and boring, I hope there won't be a new thread and lenghty debates of the number regarding occurences. However, in this online chatlist what this page have become, everything is possible :-) (KIENGIR (talk) 03:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC))
"I don’t expect readers will be too confused by either spelling of Kyiv or the other"? Mzajac, you've been advocating Kyiv since 2008; I would be somewhat surprised if you were to have any other stance. To you, this is obvious and clear, and has been for over 12 years. You need to step back from this and visualize it as someone who hasn't been soaking in Ukrainian -related articles for that long. You have to understand why others might not see you as a neutral advocate in this matter; its what you have been seeking for a very, very long time. The very fact that you - not liking the way the above RfC was going (wherein you were the only real dissenter) - began your own RfC that reframed the question to your benefit is a pretty clear indication that are not neutral in this matter, and the fact that you are also an admin might make it worrisome for those who might disagree with your viewpoint. I myself admit to a bit of trepidation. Please pull back; you are too deeply invested in this. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
If you like writing about me so much, why don’t you start an article on me? —Michael Z. 12:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Getting snarky (when someone else has defended you from that very same level of incivility) isn't going to serve you well; you might want to try another path. I would suggest the one where you read what I wrote and consider pulling back and cooling off. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 11:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree, makes sense. Lev!vich 15:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Clarification on historical usage

From some recent interactions with @Mzajac:, there seems to be some confusion as to the meaning of 'historical'. There's some historical articles (entirely historical), which are unambiguous, but there's also articles which use the term historically. In my understanding of the RfC above, the coverage is for historical use of the term. The particular case arose in reference to a Soviet-era painter who held exhibitions in "Kiev, Moscow, and Leningrad" in the 1950s through the 1980s. But because the artist died in 1994, it was felt it was not a historical article and thus justified to rewrite it and claim he had held exhibitions in "Kyiv, Moscow and St. Petersburg" (even though he didn't hold exhibitions in the 1990s). In his reading, it is not a historical article and so can be changed. In my reading, it is still historical use of the terms since it refers exclusively to Soviet-era exhibitions (so should be Kiev & Leningrad). Since this seems straightforward to me, but apparently confusing to some others, maybe it needs to be clarified and placed in the guidelines. Walrasiad (talk) 03:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I share the same understanding - that historical means in respect to the person/event which mentioned, not in respect in which article the term is used. HoweverI am consistently confronted with a different understanding, for example this edit a day before yesterday and the subsequent exchange was so stressful for me that I have decided to significantly reduce my meta-activity. This issue has to be written down clearly, and IDHT behavior related to the issue must be stopped by blocks and topic bans.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Walrasiad, let's apply the proposed guidance.
  • unambiguously current / ongoing topics: No
  • unambiguously historical topics (e.g. Kiev Offensive): probably yes, and definitely not no, so:
  • edge cases, or in case of doubt or dispute, an RfC or move request debate is recommended
Edge case, WP:BRD, RfC if disputed. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Articles about living people are clearly not in the category of “historical articles.” Articles about people who died pre-1991, apparently, are historical according to some. Do we know one hundred percent that Fyodor Zakharov did not have a retrospective exhibition or receive an award of merit in 1991-1995, and therefore was “historically” like a dead person? Do we update usage of Kyiv after arguing whether some local exhibition was historically significant for a week (and are we really that morbidly attached to our historical spelling)?

Just use the clear and simple measure of date of death to determine what meets the arbitrary cutoff. Please don’t create a category of “historical zombies of Kiev (Kyiv).” —Michael Z. 13:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Obviously historical refers to when something happened, not when the person died. Before 1995 Kiev, after 1995 Kyiv. This is not a difficult concept, and your battle against it is clearly influenced by your prejudice against the form Kiev.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi, can we discuss the question and can the personal criticism? Thanks. Okay. Ukrainian and Russian Wikipedia articles about Fyodor Zakharov tell us that this happened: memorial exhibitions of his work were held in 2003 and 2004, in 2005 in Kyiv, and in 2016. If I add these facts to the English article, does it become “current” and not “historical” per the proposal you supported above? Do we then change the spelling usage in the article, or just in the sentences about these facts? (His death also definitely happened, so I don’t under stand your objection, but whatever.) Simple but necessary details like these are not addressed by this proposal and its supporters. Sincerely hoping for input on what this is “obviously” before I get labelled as making bad-faith edits. —Michael Z. 22:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
You can certainly say there were memorial exhibitions in Kyiv and St. Petersburg in the 2000s. But that doesn't affect the fact that the original exhibitions were still in Kiev and Leningrad. Don't change historical uses of the term in their context. Is this really that difficult to understand? Walrasiad (talk) 00:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
You actually mean we should talk about, for example, “So-and-So held a 1990 exhibition in Kiev and a 1992 exhibition in Kyiv,” in the same article? No. That is bad English style. All it can do is confuse and distract readers. These are not different historical contexts. No reliable source does that, except, sometimes, in literal quotations. WP:MOS says “Spell a name consistently in the title and the text of an article.” —Michael Z. 00:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Bad English style? Nonsense. There are ways to word it less clumsily, but it is perfectly workable. Despite your bandying the word "colonialism" around, I take it you don't have much experience with articles about colonies or former colonies? We have to handle this all the time. And this particular example is very easy, since he was a Soviet era painter, exhibiting in Soviet cities, for all his career as a painter, so, if anything, the preponderance would favor use of Kiev everywhere. Allowing the use of Kyiv in an appendix note about some modern posthumous memorial is a harmless concession. Walrasiad (talk) 08:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I don’t think we should have to rewrite articles and add “appendix notes” (where’s that in the MOS?) to accommodate your inconsistent spelling recommendation. But please, show us examples of some reliable sources that do this with Kiev and Kyiv, so we can get the idea. —Michael Z. 13:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Mm. Maybe something got lost in translation. I am using "appendix" in its general sense. A posthumous exhibition is a retroactive addendum to someone's life, and would not belong to its main body describing his life and career. Alas, I don't have reliable sources at hand that use "Kyiv" at all, so I can't really help you there. But there are plenty of other examples, e.g. Peter Stuyvesant, governor of New Amsterdam, has a posthumous memorial in New York. Vasco da Gama lived and died in Cochin, and his tomb can still be visited in a church in Kochi, etc.
Things are pretty easy for this Zakharov fellow, since his entire career was spent in the Soviet era. More tricky will be the ones who have significant careers in overlapping eras. But again we do this all the time, e.g. Ian Smith had a prominent political career in a place that went through multiple name changes - Southern Rhodesia, Rhodesia and Zimbabwe. We use all three terms in his biographical article, each at different phases of his career. You are raising phantom problems which are not problems at all. Walrasiad (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
So in a list of all his exhibitions, including both during life and retrospectives, you would spell K**v two different ways? Or does your preference for two spellings require the list to be split between two article sections? I’m still calling this either bad English style, or worse, your idiosyncratic spelling choice forcing the restructuring of an article. —Michael Z. 16:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I can search a few of the references listed in Vasco da Gama. None uses Cochin/Kochi that way. This one, for example, uses Cochin throughout, and has an index entry for Cochin (Kochi). Are there examples that support your suggestion? —Michael Z. 17:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Yay, Subrahmanyam! Love this guy. Yes, he is using "Cochin" in its historical sense. Should he write about Cochin today, he would use "Kochi". But he is a historian, so he doesn't need to write about modern Kochi. But I do. I write a lot about the history of Cochin and like to link it up to the modern city. And in my articles I use both - Cochin historically, and Kochi if referring to the modern city and/or specific landmarks inside it. So I will write things like "traces of the old Portuguese Fort Manuel of Cochin can still be found in the Fort Kochi neighborhood of the modern city". It's a simple accommodation. It doesn't satisfy Indian nationalists fully, and they make exactly the same arguments you do, but it is a compromise that works well enough. You just have to take a little care when you write.
I've already recommended you look at any colonial/ex-colonial articles here as examples, but you still seem confused. If you still don't understand how it works, maybe you should refrain from editing articles for now, see how others do it first, and maybe you'll get the gist. Walrasiad (talk) 22:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
It seems to be senseless, when in same article we should to write that in one year smbd lived in Kiev, but next year he started to do smth in Kyiv. The article should be clear and consistent.--Geohem (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
+1. It makes no sense to say in 1994 Levivich lived in Kiev but in 1995 Levivich lived in Kyiv. We should spell the name of the city the same way every time we refer to it, regardless of the date. Lev!vich 14:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
You're welcome to vote in the RFC then Levivich, but clearly many users disagree.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
(ec) Sure. You take an article where there are no references to Kiev/Kyiv later than the 17th century, add a completely unnecessary reference to Kyiv in 2014, and then argue that the consistency requires that the 17th century references also become Kyiv. A very nice way to push the preferred spelling into the articles, isn't it? And who cares that the sources by far refer to the 17th century city as Kiev.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
You are also pushing your preferred spelling into articles, as am I. We are no different than each other or the people we disagree with about this issue; I wish you would accept this truth. Lev!vich 15:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
This is incorrect. I do not have a preferred spelling and I am not pushing anything. You can easily find my recent edits introducing Kyiv or replacing Kiev with Kyiv where appropriate. I am not a native English speaker and prefer not to teach the native speakers how they should speak. I have not voted on the Kiev/Kyiv RfC. I am just dead tired from this fucking disruption and IDHT behavior which does not stop because a handful of people are just not interested in listening to the consensus, even after they have been told dozens of times what the consensus currently is.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
You say you don't have a preferred spelling yet you complain almost daily about people changing it to "Kyiv", who you describe as disruptive and so forth. That you think consensus is established (and that it's "Kiev") also shows that "Kiev" is your preferred spelling. Maybe it's not your intention, but you have consistently come across to me as "pro-Kiev", even though you don't !vote. Frankly, I'd rather you just !voted instead of accusing editors of misconduct. Or just take it to ANI. Because while you're tired of disruption, I'm tired of reading your complaints about it day after day, as well as the complaints of others. Between you and a few others, these complaints have shown up in every discussion I've read, on every page, in every RM, in multiple AN and ANI threads, and so on and so on. I'm also very tired of it.
Let's figure out a way forward so that we're both less tired. My suggestion is: if you think I'm doing something wrong, tell me and I'll stop; if you think someone else is doing something wrong, tell them and if they don't stop, take them to a noticeboard; otherwise, don't mention it on article talk pages. (That goes for everyone.) Lev!vich 16:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I have to as well express you are incorrect with @Ymblanter:, he is not pushing anything, but acts sanely as many other editors (and just because he very politely wish to less involve and use his admin privilieges and necessarily avoid open cutting edge reports as well, but express his concerns of the talk is not to be critized in such case, and the phenomenon he draws the attention I also notice and see on several pages, highly concerning...). Back on the subject (far) above @Ermenrich:, yes such issues may be dealt easily - again per other article's practise - even if any article's timeline is running the present, no problem, because those parts/sections which has historical affiliations, are treated as discussed in the above section. E.g. In Transylvania related articles, Hungarian, German and Romanian names and others well co-exist in attributed relevance in some periods, so we don't need to reinvent the wheel.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC))
(ec) I have actually taken it to ANI (and this is why we have this discussion at all), a few times, I have taken it once or twice to the arbitration enforcement, and since the community as a whole does not care I do not want to take every single case to ANI. My feeling is that I have already wasted too much time of the community. In this particular case, for historical reasons, there is a group of people who pushed for Kyiv, and there is no users who are consistently pushing to Kyiv (at least have never seen anybody who after the closure of the RfC was replacing Kyiv with Kiev in a modern context). I see daily edits on my watchlist, even though I removed from there almost all Ukraine-related articles. But, indeed, I should just stop. I realized already a long time ago that Wikipedia is not perfect, will never be perfect, and there will always be topic areas where I absolutely should not trust it. I am not going to spend months trying to topic-ban Mzajac or get them desysopped. I do not think it will be a productive use of my time, and I do not think this would be good for my health. My conclusion is just that Wikipedia is too vulnerable against POV pushing of <courtesy blanked>. If the community thinks their activity is useful or at least not disruptive, let it be so. I am not going to spend my time on it anymore.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC) Striken off on request by Mzajac,--Ymblanter (talk) 21:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, whatever you decide to do, I hope it lowers your frustration level. Maybe this joke will help: A woman attends a football match. In the first half, the referee penalizes one of the home team's players, and the woman is on her feet, yelling at the referee: "What's the matter with you, ref? Are you blind?! You moron!" Later, the home team scores, and the crowd cheers, but the woman stays in her seat, totally silent. In the second half, the referee penalizes one of the visiting team's players. Again, the woman is on her feet, shouting loudly, "You stupid moron! That's not a foul! Do you even know the rules of the game?!" Later, the visiting team scores, but the woman stays in her seat, totally silent. Perplexed, a man sitting next to her asks, "I don't understand, which team are you here to support?" "Oh, I'm not permitted to support either team," the woman replies, "my husband is the referee." Lev!vich 17:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

'Kyiv' before 1991?

I did a quick review of google books, of books published 1800-1991 using 'Kyiv' in English (or any other Latin-script language). Now Google books dating isn't always perfect, but still it gives an indication;

This is not a selection of the hits using 'Kyiv' published 1800-1990, but its all the hits using 'Kyiv' in Latin letters during this period. Effectively the sole publication where I found 'Kyiv' used in prose is Ukrainian Quarterly. I suspect the 'It was Ruce-Ukraine...' book might also contain 'Kyiv' in prose. It is clear by any means that it is impossible to claim that there was any widespread usage of the spelling 'Kyiv' in English or any other Western language prior to the 1990s. --Soman (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Missing the point, I think. But if you want to follow through in your logic that we should use contemporary spellings for things, please list all the sources that used Kiev before 1845. I’m afraid you’d have us use five different spellings in the article History of Kyiv. Oh, and start renaming articles about pre-1979 using Peking. Thanks. —Michael Z. 18:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Pre-1845 mentions of 'Kiev':

etc, etc... There is clearly more mentions of 'Kiev' pre-1845 in English than the 1-2 mentions of 'Kyiv' 1800-1990. Kiev appears to have been a common name in English before 1845, albeit not necessarily the sole English-language name used at the time. --Soman (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

No, Kiev was a minority spelling, not very common. See this Ngram. Only became a majority usage >50% in the 20th century. But that’s still missing the point. —Michael Z. 20:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
A common name is not the same as the common name. Arguably the proportion Kief/Kiev is far more even as of 1850-1920 than Kiev/Kyiv today, look at the size of the gap as of the 1860s. But sure, 'Kief' could be used in articles from 1800s, albeit I'd say that's just an archaic spelling of Kiev, see for example; "The Russians pronounce the v like an f at the end of words . Thus they call Romanov , Romanof ; Rostov , Rostof and Kiev , Kief .; hence these words will be found written in both ways in" ([22]), "On the English maps of Russia, you will find the names of rivers, provinces, and towns given in many different ways ; as, Kief, Kiev, and Kiew," ([23]), "Kief , Kiev , or Kieu , is an ancient city upon the Dnieper" ([24]), "The name of this town has been very variously written , Kiew , Kiev , Kief , Kioff , Kiow , Kiowia , Kiovia , & c . Kiev or Kief gives the real prounciation, though written Kiew by the Russians." ([25]) --Soman (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Do you realize in 1825 “the Russians” in a Ukrainian context referred to Ukrainians? This is why we use modern names, not dated, archaic, or obsolete ones. By the way, MOS:Identity says “When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, use the term that is most commonly used by recent reliable sources. If it is unclear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses.” The people of Kyiv are Kyivans. —Michael Z. 23:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Some of the version of Kyiv's spelling that I saw above are new to me (i.e., Kieu, Kiou), some I found to be typos (i.e., the 1819 The Cyclopaedia book cited above actually gives Kiof and not Kios) but I think I actually found a new spelling that hasn't been mentioned here before: Þiðreks saga written in 1300's mentions Kyiv as Kiu. Perhaps, those here who wish to use different spelling for Kyiv for different ages, should consider re-writing Wikipedia articles, so that the "historical period" of 1300s would use Kiu.--RogueRickC137 (talk) 05:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Kiev/Kyiv - cleaning up associated articles - historical vs non-historical vs cooking, etc

I guess associated articles like History of Kiev, Timeline of Kiev, Museums in Kiev should be moved per WP:CONSISTENT, but not Principality of Kiev, Kiev Metro, etc., because those are the official and common names ("Kiev"). Can we discuss these here, rather than have this prolonged over weeks/months on individual talk pages, where a quiet discussion may lead to an incorrect, hasty move (I've seen mistaken CONSISTENT moves happen before)? Further, article descriptions containing "Kiev", eg "rapid transit system in Kiev, Ukraine" should probably be fixed with AWB. Sidenote, does Kiev Police even exist? Website is dead, Google isn't showing anything, article has no sources. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good. It would be reasonable to move this down to a new main heading.
Most Ukrainian government and public organizations can certainly be moved, if they’re not correctly named already. That would include Kyiv Metro, whose website doesn’t include either English name, so its name can be simply translated into English, unless there’s some contra-indicating reference.
We can discuss historical names, because I’m sure there will be pushback and objections. But I see no reason not to update most of these that refer to the city, including the Principality of Kyiv, battle of Kyiv, and, gasp!, Kyivan Rus. One exception might be Chicken Kiev, which some style guides resist respelling along with Peking duck and Bombay mix. —Michael Z. 20:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Agreed that they should all change to Kyiv as was done with Burma to Myanmar. Chicken Kiev is not a "might be" an exception, it IS an exception. That should not change. There might be a couple more historical entities that are overwhelmingly spelled Kiev but I can't think of any off hand. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I think changing historical names is questionable. e.g. Principality of Kiev existed 1132–1471. If it was called that then, and books etc discussing it also call it "Principality of Kiev", I think that would remain the appropriate name for it. They'd certainly be more controversial than routine moves, like Museums in Kiev. Btw, do you know about the Kiev Police article we have? It seems like something made up to me, perhaps it has more results in the native language. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
It wasn’t called anything in English then, but later its names were Kiow, Kiof, Kiovia. Kiev wasn’t in use until still later, after the Russians took parts of Ukraine. See wikt:Citations:Kiev. Not that that determines how we title Wikipedia’s articles, because it’s written in modern English. But just read the opening paragraph of Principality of Kiev and imagine how it’s about to get edited. —Michael Z. 01:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
And of course we have some editor moving even the very questionable articles. They moved Chicken Kiev, Grand Prince of Kiev, Yaropolk I of Kyiv, Igor of Kiev, etc... Those are the historical articles that would need to be discussed before moving, And no way should Chicken Kiev be moved. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Heh. Where should we discuss the historical articles as a group. New section here? Or WP:WikiProject Ukraine, WP:WikiProject history, or WP:WikiProject European history? I had hoped more other moves and article updates would happen before someone started on those, because by then it would be much more self-evident that they should be moved. I wouldn’t sweat it too much, because Kyiv is Kyiv. But yes, it’s a good idea to get everyone yelling in a central location to save poor Fyunck the trouble of herding Kyivan cats. —Michael Z. 23:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
It was originally brought up here by @ProcrastinatingReader: and when I saw it I thought it made at least some sense with articles dealing with it's past Russian rulers. He said historical articles but not all historical articles of Kyiv should get that kind of grandfather clause. A lot of the source material of those rulers is probably from books that only ever used Kiev. But all I'm saying is because someone brought it up, we should at least look at it before doing a mass moving of historical articles. And I don't believe for a second that Chicken Kyiv is the preferred version of the recipe name in English. I'm not sure about Kiev Cake, but Chicken Kiev should not change unless all the recipe books change. If ProcrastinatingReader wants to start a new topic here, it would be much better than having it all over Wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Fyunck, I think there is no article about a ruler “of Kiev” about a Russian. Your assumption is based on WP:systemic bias: the colonial-era notion that Kyivan Rus was Russian. —Michael Z. 04:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Things with names that have only ever been Kiev - like the cameras and the aircraft carrier - should continue to use the Russian-style spelling.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

There is a list of articles and categories with "Kiev" in the titles at Talk:Kyiv/cleanup. There are probably more to be added to this list, and then we should divide it into no-brainers that can be moved boldly, no-brainers that should stay where they are, and those that need further discussion. Lev!vich 19:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

That is probably the best (and easiest) way to do it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:KIEV should be looked at. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:27, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Users hete may ne interested in discussions at Talk:Kievan Rus' and Talk:Territorial evolution of Russia where historical musage is being discussed.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Current entities should move to "Kyiv" by default. Historical entities should stay at "Kiev" by default. --Khajidha (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

What guideline supports this suggestion? —Michael Z. 21:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Common name. You have to establish that usage for these separate entities has changed in the same way that usage for the modern city has. Modern things directly connected to the modern city can be assumed to have changed, but the same cannot be said for usage about the past. As someone else said, we don't talk about the Free City of Gdansk. Same principle applies here.--Khajidha (talk) 12:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
WP:MODERNPLACENAME specifically notes that "we have articles called Istanbul, Dubrovnik, Volgograd, and Saint Petersburg, these being the current names of these cities, although former names (Constantinople, Ragusa, Stalingrad, and Leningrad) are also used when referring to appropriate historical periods (if any), including such article names as Battle of Stalingrad and Sieges of Constantinople". And nothing was mentioned in the move request about historical entities and events, only the modern city itself. --Khajidha (talk) 14:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


I note that this article has been moved. Not to get into the whole debate of the rationale of the move, but after the move was formalized I note a number of edits on historical articles, trying to impose the rarely used contemporary English spelling 'Kyiv' to articles dealing with historical subjects from the Russian imperial/early Soviet period, when 'Kiev' would have been the prevailing international standard (and COMMONNAME) by any means. It's a bit like imposing 'Istanbul' to every mention of Constantinople. --Soman (talk) 11:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Related discussion at Talk:Kyiv#Cleaning_up_associated_articles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Soman, please think this through. Before 1845, the most common name and prevailing international standard, such as it was, was Kiow and Kiovia. Our articles are all written in 2020 English, not ye olden middel Engliſhe. Yes, there are arguments to be made for both the nineteenth-century and twenty-first century spellings, but this is not one of them. —Michael Z. 16:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
If you look at any English-language Soviet publications, regardless of epoch, do you ever find the spelling 'Kyiv'? Is there any evidence that the spelling 'Kyiv' was used in English language mass media anywhere in the world (except possibly by Ukrainian diaspora publications) during the Soviet period? 'Kiev' is very much modern English, it's hardly a medieval spelling. --Soman (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
That suggests we call it Kyiv in the article Russo-Ukrainian War, Kiev in 1991 Ukrainian independence referendum, Kiow in Ivan Kotliarevsky, and Kiovia in Khmelnytsky Uprising. What do we call Kievan Rus, which name came about 700 years after the subject was gone, Рѹсьскаѧ землѧ? What should we call Ukraine’s capital city throughout the article History of Kyiv? Nope.
Our guidelines support current names for all subjects. Just look at three months of debate on this page and its result. —Michael Z. 19:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Current entities should move to "Kyiv" by default. Historical entities should stay at "Kiev" by default. --Khajidha (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Should we use the term 'Free City of Gdansk' rather than 'Free City of Danzig'? Should we use 'Mumbai Presidency' rather than 'Bombay Presidency'? Was the capital of the Byzantine Empire Istanbul? Etc, etc. Consistently throughout the Soviet period, 'Kiev' was used in Soviet English language media and was overwhelmingly (and still is...) the most common English-language naming worldwide. At the least, we cannot apply the neologism 'Kyiv' earlier than the moment that Ukrainian authorities began promoting this spelling for usage in non-Ukrainian languages. From what I can see 'Kiev' was common English-language usage in the 1800s (https://books.google.at/books?id=oCsUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA227, https://books.google.at/books?id=tjsBAAAAQAAJ&pg=PP8, https://books.google.at/books?id=8kVRAAAAcAAJ&pg=PP93 , although 'Kiow' etc also appears. --Soman (talk) 23:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Let me reiterate support for the two points above about usage in historical articles. I am copying-pasting a comment I made in another page, but realize it should perhaps best be replicated here:
I work primarily in historical articles, and did not follow (nor participate) in the modern Kiev/Kyiv article discussion (I know better than to wade into nationalist pissing contests). But the wave of disruptions has spilled over into historical articles, as some editors have tried imposing that spelling anachronistically. Many historical entities, events and figures (e.g. Kievan Rus, St. Anthony of Kiev, etc.) will be rendered unrecognizable with "Kyivan" or "Kyiv". For many (if not most) historical articles, the "Kiev" form is far and away the most common name in English-language history books and general reference works. Wikipedia criteria for an article doesn't end because another article happens to change its name. It seems to me that at least for historical articles, we're going to have to go on a case-by-case basis, via RMs, with reliable sources from general English-language resources.
I realize this can become tiresome. As a short-cut, perhaps a general rule can be introduced that considers Kiev -> Kyiv to be a name change, much like Constantinople -> Istanbul in 1923, and similarly adopt a boundary date when that change goes into effect (e.g. 1995), so that historical articles that refer to "Kiev" before that date don't get anachronistically affected. Walrasiad (talk) 13:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I didn't take part in the vote..... But I would appreciate it if people who voted for the change to Kyiv would invest a little of there time in changing Kiev to Kyiv in the thousands of English Wikipedia pages where this is appropriate. Although I get the feeling that most of them are just wanting a symbolic victory without wanting to do a little bit of work..... I did notice that R'n'B (I don't blame him because he seems to be a hard working Wikipedian) did move Lisova (Kyiv Metro) and 2014 Kyiv local election but except for the title of the article all the rest of the article only has Kiev..... It is time people start to realise that just voting is not enough to get a result..... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

PS I have been a busy Wikipedia editor for more then 10 years. So don't give me a "why don't you do it" excuses...... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
That might be more likely to happen once we figure out which articles will change and which will not. Once we have some guidelines as to what we leave alone, more might get involved with helping out. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Some people have been moving dozens of articles one right after the other without changing any of the text on any of the pages. If you move a page, you need to make some effort at changing the text, too.--Khajidha (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if people who voted for the change to Kyiv would invest a little of there time in changing Kiev to Kyiv - I disagree with this as a matter of logic. For any topic X, there is a group of editors working on that topic ("the regulars"). Whenever the regulars get deadlocked on a content dispute and cannot resolve it, the only way to resolve it is to solicit input from more editors, which means asking editors who do not work on X to comment about X. If we require such editors to then commit to working on X in addition to commenting on the issue in dispute, we will never get the wider input we need to resolve disputes among the regulars of X. We should welcome editors participating in RFCs without doing any additional work in the topic area, because doing otherwise would be counterproductive. Lev!vich 17:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • What has everyone else in academia been doing about the historical titles, e.g. "Levivich of Kiev" or "Levivich of Kyiv"? History journals, Britannica, university publishers? Surely we're not the first publication who have made the change and been faced with this issue? Lev!vich 04:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Which is why we changed it to Kyiv. Similar to what we did with Burma as it stayed at Burma for quite awhile. When we did change it to Myanmar, modern usage in related articles changed with it. However in articles such as British rule in Burma, Burma Railway, China Burma India Theater, etc... we kept the historical naming. With Kyiv, modern usage articles should be an easy change, but with food dishes or historical articles many may stay just where they are. And finding recent publishing on some of these obscure subjects may prove difficult. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Which is what I said above. Modern defaults to move, historical defaults to stay (relative to the status quo ante moving this page). However, it seems that many of the Kyiv supporters think that the name Kiev will just magically disappear from all usage in English in all circumstances. --Khajidha (talk) 10:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Fully support @Khajidha:. The change on the main page did not imply blind replacement all over, especially in historical context, such disruptions should be immedietaly stopped in many pages ongoing.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC))
  • I'd add Folkstsaytung (Kiev) to the list of articles being moved to 'Kyiv', against what appears to be the prevailing majority view to keep 'Kyiv' solely for present-day articles. --Soman (talk) 14:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
    Interesting case. The name is not article content, it is parenthetical disambiguation in the title, giving the “subject or context to which the topic applies,” to help readers find the right article. That means this is the Folkstsaytung which is in the context of “historical Kiev”; but that K**v falls within the broader context of just Kyiv. Which is the most widely recognizable context which disambiguates this Folkstsaytung from every other Folkstsaytung? The guidelines tell us when we disambiguate to “use the same disambiguating phrase already commonly used for other topics within the same class and context, if any,” and “use only as much additional detail as necessary.” See wp:DAB#Naming the specific topic articles and wp:Article titles#Disambiguation —Michael Z. 20:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

On a sidenote, it looks like (a) I turned out to be psychic & (b) JIP's concern of a "190 kilobytes" pagesize discussion has only been exemplified, it seems. With over 200k bytes on this page for related moves, and counting, plus > 400k bytes on the move discussion, I guess this really is one of Wikipedia's most heated move discussions ever. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, all. Category:Kyiv has now been renamed, including all of its branches except the contents of Category:History of Kyiv and a few strays.

I have nominated for full discussion at CFD:

Please chime in there. —Michael Z. 19:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Also nominated:

 —Michael Z. 20:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Finding more month-old nominations still opposed. —Michael Z. 22:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Moved contested speedies to full nomination. —Michael Z. 01:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kyiv/Archive_8&oldid=1255527592"