Talk:Kyiv

Are you sure about the original name "Danapirstadir"? I searched for it on Google and came up with nothing.

According to the Ukrainian government, the official spelling of the city in English is "Kyiv". So, I propose moving the page to "Kyiv", and putting a redirect at "Kiev", the opposite of how it is now. "Kiev" is a romanisation of the name of the city in Russian, and as Ukrainian is the sole official language of Ukraine, keeping it like this is somewhat offensive. See how the Bombay - Mumbai issue was resolved. - Kricxjo

Okay, I've moved the page, as I proposed some months ago. There's a redirect. This makes the entry conform to other cities whose names changed after independence. Kricxjo 10:56, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well if I had seen your proposal I would have strenuously objected. There are 10 times the number of Google hits for the Kiev spelling as there are are for Kyiv and the US embassy in Kiev has its website at http://kiev.usembassy.gov/ . I'm moving the page back to the correct English spelling (which is a matter of usage, not decree). Furthermore I just did a spell check on this and "Kyiv" came up as incorrect which Kiev did not. --mav 21:26, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many web hits there are. Look at Mumbai. That is the official name of the city, even though many people around the world still say "Bombay". Wikipedians decided to put the page at Mumbai and include a redirect at Bombay. The fairest solution is to put the page at the official name (according to the government of the country in which the city is located). As I said before, "Kiev" is from Russian, which is offensive to many Ukrainians because Russian is not an official language of Ukraine. I shall be moving this page back, so that it conforms with the Bombay - Mumbai decision, since the Wikipedia is better when it is coherent. It's not as if we lose anything, since Kiev will still be a redirect. Kricxjo 09:23, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I should add that occasionally the Wikipedia does decree spelling, instead of letting usage decide. For this reason the spelling "Rumanian" was taken out of the article Romania, since it was perceived as archaic, though many people still use it. Because all documents issued by the Ukrainian government in English contain the spelling "Kyiv", guidebooks to Ukraine now use "Kyiv", scholarly works on the region in antiquity now tend to say "Kyiv Rus", it is entirely fair to believe "Kiev" unsatisfactory. And yeah, the US Embassy uses it, but they are criticized heavily for it (I lived in the city for a couple of years) and perceived as insensitive to the locals post-independence, as few members of the embassy staff speak Ukrainian, and will speak with visitors only in English or Russian. Kricxjo 09:32, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

OK. I didn't read the "offensive" part. "Kyiv" is therefore in conformance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) due to that. But it was outrageous to remove every single reference to the spelling "Kiev" as was done with your first move. Presented with that version of the article an English speaker may not have known this page was about the Kiev they were taught about in school. --mav

He's got a point. If we have the articles on Bombay & Calcutta at Mumbai & Kolkata, we should have the one on Kiev at Kyiv. - Efghij 09:29, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well I don't think those should be there either. I've never heard of Mumbai & Kolkata. -- Tarquin 10:32, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

This is the English wiki. I'm moving it back to Kiev. RickK 02:59, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I agree with RickK & Efghij. Kiev is the proper english name. For example, Germany is also listed under Germany and not Deutschland, Japan is Japan and not Nihon, Austria is not Oesterreich. Nobody knows Mumbai & Kolkata. Chris_73 12:03, 4 Nov 2003 (JapanTime)

I think Mumbai is alright...but maybe that's because I had a friend as a kid whose family was from Bombay, and they always called it Mumbai. I guess everyone else knows it as Bombay though... Adam Bishop 03:09, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Mumbai and Kolkata actually have currency in modern English language publications. Such is not the case however (as far as I know) with Kiev (or Mecca). - Hephaestos 03:11, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Not so. Travel guides use "Kyiv", some wire services use "Kyiv", scholarly works on the region use "Kyiv". The English-language newspapers in Kyiv (edited by expatriate English-soeakers) use "Kyiv". The new name is here to stay. In fact, I'd say it's even more common than "Kolkata". Kricxjo 03:18, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

That is as may be, it's still not the name by which the city is known to English speakers. RickK 03:22, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)~

English-language travel guides use "Kyiv", English-language histories of Ukraine use "Kyiv". Why can you not understand that? Kricxjo 03:23, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I have no doubt that the Kyiv transliteration will be widely accepted in English someday. But it is not now. Our function on Wikipedia is not to set trends, it is to report on trends that have already been set, and as of yet this one has not been set. What matters here is not Ukranian wire services or travel guides translated into English, what matters here is UK, US, Australian etc. wire services and, more important, published scholarly works in the English-speaking world. - Hephaestos 03:27, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What? Travel-guides using the form aren't translated into English. The Lonely Planet series, which uses the form, is written mostly by people from Britain or Australia. And works on Ukrainian history by *English-speaking* scholars, from America and Britain, use "Kyiv". This has nothing to do with what Ukrainians call their city (though I guess that should be respected if "Kiev" distresses them), but rather with what is used in educated circles in the English-speaking world. I've recommended to RickK that this be brought up on the mailing list, since otherwise it will be an endless series of moving the article to and fro. Kricxjo 03:31, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales has requested that such discussions remain on the appropriate article Talk pages, not on the mailing list. RickK 03:34, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Note: On the online Merriam Webster [[1]] the main entriy is Kiev. Variant(s) or Ukrainian Kyiv or Kyyiv. So i agree with Kiev. However, i have no problem at all with the redirect of Kyiv to Kiev.Chris_73 12:35, 4 Nov 2003 (JapanTime)

Regardless of where the article is, it needs to discuss the polemics over the current name of the city. Kricxjo 03:37, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I have no problem with that whatsoever. RickK 03:41, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

How about using Kiev / Kyiv until the old name drops out of use? ( 13:54, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Can somebody provide the local Ukranian name for the city? E.g. we say "Kiev, from the Russian [...] ...", so can we also say "It is increasingly called Kyiv, from the Ukranian [...] ..."? --Delirium 23:22, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)

IMO the city should be refered to as Kyiv, and the header should say something like the russified name of Kiev (Russian Киев) is also used. Due to political reasons all cities in former USSR were refered to internationally with their Russian names. Fortunately, this policy is discontinued and I think wikipedia should use the traditional, reintroduced name.Halibutt 12:46, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Any new comments? I'd rather we moved this page to where it should be. Otherwise we could move New York to New Amsterdam which was also in use some time ago...Halibutt

We don't name articles on what was in use some time ago, we name them based on what is currently in use in English. Right now that's Kiev in this case. - Hephaestos|§ 20:05, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Just like most people still use Stalingrad for Volgograd and Leningrad for St Petersburg. Yet, nobody proposes to move the pages to the former names... Halibutt 07:06, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Here is the metric.

One.

Two.

When the number of hits at "two" is greater than or equal to the number of hits at "one", then the page is moved to Kyiv. Facts are not negotiable. Re-read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) until it sinks in.

-Hephaestos|§ 14:44, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If we went solely by google hits, we'd also have to move "urine" to "piss", "vagina" to "pussy" and "anus" to "asshole". But we don't; we have a preference for non-offensive terms that should apply here also. I see no need for us to use a spelling that most Ukrainians consider offensive just because it persists in old web documents. Mkweise 16:18, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Unless "Kyiv" and "Kiev" start showing up as terms on porn sites, I don't really think this analogy applies. What we are attempting here at (the English) Wikipedia is to record general knowledge as reported in the English-speaking world. If Ukrainians find the term offensive, the offense lies not with Wikipedia's reporting, but with the English language in general. This should be noted and explained in the body of the article. - Hephaestos|§ 16:57, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

So what's your plan, then—to keep the article protected until your google test allows us to recognize the name change? Mkweise 18:50, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

302,000 English pages for Danzig

286,000 English pages for Gdansk

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gdansk

2,450,000 English pages for Torino

1,180,000 English pages for Turin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turin

2 Hephaestos|§

So what will be redirected: Gdansk to Danzig or Kiev to Kyiv ?--Inhvar 17:49, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you 100% that the article should be at Kyiv, but please don't move articles by cutting and pasting—that breaks the edit history. Wait a while for others to comment on the matter, or if you can't wait at least use the move this page function rather than cutting and pasting the entire article. Mkweise 18:15, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

official Ukrainian-English transliteration system

"Transliteration should be made directly between Ukrainian and English without the use of any intermediary languages"

Kiev?, Kyiv?! Which is right? On the basis of expert analysis by the Ukrainian Language Institute under the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine regarding the Roman-letter correspondence to the Ukrainian language geographic name of Kiev, taking into account that the spelling Kyiv is indeed in the modern practice of Ukraine’s international communication, proceeding from the urgent need to standardize the recreation of Ukrainian proper names through Roman letters tn the context of Ukraine’s integration into the world legal realm, based on point 6 part 4(b) of the Provision on the Ukrainian Commission for Legal Terminology approved by decree No 796 of the President of Ukraine on August 23, 1995 "Regarding the Provision on the Committee for Legislative Initiatives under the President of Ukraine, on the Ukrainian Codification Commission and on the Ukrainian Commission for Legal Terminology", the Commission HAS APPROVED:

1. To acknowledge that the Roman spelling of Kiev does not recreate the phonetic and scriptural features of the Ukrainian language geographical name.

2. To confirm that spelling of Kyiv as standardized Roman-letter correspondence to the Ukrainian language geographical name of Київ.

Precedent

There's precedent for going either way. ~~Mumbia~~ Mumbai was the official language version, and Bombay is what everyone else called it - Wikipedia used ~~Mumbia~~ Mumbai . By the same token, Makkah is the official version, but Mecca is what everyone else calls it - we use Mecca. I've initiated talk on the villagepump to standarize our practice. We'll probably end up having a long, bloody poll somewhere. →Raul654 17:42, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

I'm really baffled by why things like this cause such controversy. What is the problem with having the article located at Kyiv, out of respect for the express request by the locality and have a redirect at Kiev. Either way gets you to the same page and anyone reading the first line will understand why it is titled "Kyiv" and not "Kiev". Really, what is the big deal? Bkonrad | Talk 18:35, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

For the record, official wikipedia policy says we should go with Mecca, Bombay, and Kiev

"Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." (Wikipedia:Naming conventions) →Raul654 18:41, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

I'm with Raul. If a majority of English speakers (not English speakers who write travel guides) know the cities as Bombay, Kiev, and Mecca, we really ought to have the articles there. There is no reason we can't have a whole paragraph right at the front of each article talking about the name issues, but the article proper should live at the COMMON USAGE name. This isn't an issue like piss/urine, as that is slang usage issue. This is the case of politics being reflected in place names and how the English speaking world takes some time to accomodate what some politicians would like people to accept immediately. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:03, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

I have to disagree. As an encyclopedia, accuracy is (or should be) important. If the official name of a place is X, then there should be an article about X. We can have any number of redirects to that article based on whatever popular usage is. People will be able to find the article whether they are looking for the official name or an alternative. But IMO the article should give preference to the official name not the whims of current usage. Bkonrad | Talk 19:09, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Bkonrad, that's a reasonable perspective... but it's not in line with Wikipedia policy. What people seem to be losing sight of here is that this really isn't about what any of us WANT, it's about Wikipedia policy. Now, if people want to go and have a poll about changing policy, that's all well and good, but as long as we HAVE an ESTABLISHED policy, we probably ought to follow it. P.S. Care to support my ages-old effor to move Occam's Razor back to Ockham's Razor? ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:28, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Dante, but I'd also like to point something out. Quite to the contrary of what Bkonrad says - "official" names tend to change with much greater frequency what the majority of english speakers call something. Makkah has been the official name for decades, but they've made almost no inroads in getting people to call it that. Ditto for Cambodia (er, "Kampuchea" - but the article is still called Cambodia) and a multitude of other places. So more accurately, we could say that Wikipedia calls places what the majority of speakers call them, and is not subject to the whims of politicians. →Raul654 19:29, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

And that's a very good point. We could also ask, what right have countries in which English has no official standing to regulate the speaking of English outside their borders? That's what this case is about. There's no question about the Ukranian spelling, nor the spelling in English brochures and other documents produced in the Ukraine, nor even the spelling used in UN documents which use a special, artificially regulated dialect of English. Food for thought?

IMO there is no wrong answer to this one (well, not of the two proposals, anyway). So long as we have the redirect from whichever we choose not to use, and acknowledge both spellings in the first paragraph of the article, I am as happy as I can be, and willing to sadly acknowledge that we can't please everyone. The important thing is, people who wish to learn from Wikipedia will find the information they want. Andrewa 20:02, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think the appeal to "established policy" is somewhat amusing in a wiki. The policies are not laws, they are guidelines and they are quite flexible (at least as far as I have seen). The specific policy that Raul654 cited above is a general naming policy. The policies on city names and places are still in the formative stages. So the appeal to authority doesn't get you very far in this case IMO. Yes, official names change. But so what. If the people living in a place expressly and explicitly want something to be known in a specific manner, we should respect that. The popular usage should be in redirects to the "official" name. Trying to gauge what the popular reference should be is problematic. An awful lot of people refer to NYC as the Big Apple. By your criteria perhaps the article should be at "Big Apple" and not NYC. Simply because official usage changes is really irrelevant. When it changes, the article can reflect that change and be moved if necessary. And I don't think this is not about dictating usage. People are free to refer to something however they like and can set up redirects accordingly.

All that said, I really don't care all that strongly. Name it one way or the other and I would never have even noticed. But since you asked for opinions.... Bkonrad | Talk 20:05, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Just a few replies here.

"If the people living in a place expressly and explicitly want something to be known in a specific manner, we should respect that."
- Why? I tend to be overtly hostile to political correctness, and these cases most definitely fall into that catagory. Who are they to regulate what english speakers call their cities?
  - It's not about dictating usage. You are free to continue to refer to the place however you see fit (within the bounds of NPOV). It's about respect for self-determination. BK
Trying to gauge what the popular reference should be is problematic.
- That's what the google test is for.
  - The Google test is unreliable. It is relatively easy to manipulate Google rankings (see Googlebombing). And further Google rankings do not accurately reflect usage among all speakers of English. That's not Google's intent and I don't think we should be relying on it in that way. It overrepresents entities with a web presence. Believe it or not, most people don't have their own web pages to be included in Google's tally and many stilll don't have web access at all. It also overrepresents U.S. speakers of English, simply because there is a larger web presence here. I suspect there are more English speakers in India than in the U.S.--is there usage taken into consideration? Unless you want Wikipedia to be the "U.S. and Web-centric" encyclopedia, I think we have to be respectful of how others refer to themselves. BK
"An awful lot of people refer to NYC as the Big Apple. By your criteria perhaps the article should be at "Big Apple" and not NYC."
- "Big apple" - 1,080,000 hits. "New York City" - 8,610,000 hits.
  - I gave an obviously facetious example to illustrate an extreme. But again, Google should not be the final authority. BK

But as was said above, I can live with it eitehr way. →Raul654 20:18, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

I think the bottom line is that all of those who cannot live with either spelling consider the Russian transliteration ("Kiev") offensive. Thus, from a practical standpoint, we have two choices: (1) agree to adopt the English spelling desired by the people who live there; or (2) stubbornly stick to a policy that serves no real purpose and either (a) keep the article protected indefinitely, (b) ban a whole bunch of well-meaning Wikipedians, or (c) live with the resulting edit wars. Given those options, it seems obvious to me which choice is preferable. Mkweise 21:05, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Given the choices you list, I say we ban them. I see no problem banning a group of people who can't get past some silly offense at the name of a city in a foreign language. If they really can't help themselves from engaging in edit wars over such a trivial issue, then why do we need them here? Why exactly are we pandering to them just because they can't live with the alternate spelling when everyone else can deal with both? Are we to now encourage intolerance and an unwillingness to compromise --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:07, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

Is there any way we could duplicate the content--have two pages, Kyiv and Kiev, with the exact same text and intro except for "Kiev, also known as Kyiv" and "Kyiv, also known as Kiev"? Meelar 21:01, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Shh...don't give the Gdansk/Danzig combatants any ideas...I just recently got rid of sevaral competing article pairs differing only in s/Gdansk/Danzig. Such duplication of articles under competing names reflects even more poorly on us than edit wars, IMO. Mkweise 21:09, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Actually, it might not be a bad idea, if all else fails (as it certainly seemed to there). Why would it necessarily reflect badly? Sure, it's a little ridiculous, but there's no practical reason, and most readers wouldn't even know that two articles existed. Meelar 23:55, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Meelar - nothing personal, but I think that's the worst idea I've heard in a very long time. Please just do us all a favor and forget you ever thought it. (I don't want anyone else getting any ideas) →Raul654 05:52, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

I think it's an extremely bad idea to set a precedent of allowing two versions of the same article to exist. Next thing we know, we'll have two or more articles on most every controversial subject. Mkweise 05:34, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, talk about your slippery slopes... --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:07, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

One strategy related to the one Meelar suggested that I thought worked (although it won't work for the Kiev article) was done with one of the articles on Finnish History. (I don't remember which one it was, but it stuck in my memory because I was unaware that Finnish history could be so controversial.) This strategy was to have the competing versions of the article in parallel columns on the same page. I felt it worked because it helped to focus attention on the specific points where the contributors disagreed about content, rather than allow one or both sides to complain heatedly albeit vaguely about the other version. -- llywrch 04:33, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You're thinking of Continuation War? and such an arrangement made the article look ridiculous, and encourages the edit warriors to walk away rather than working things out; someone who knew nothing of the dispute or the underlying facts had to fix the mess. However if one were to set up that kind of table on a temporary page, it would, as Llywrch says, be helpful in highlighting and (possibly) resolving the most contentious points. —No-One Jones 04:44, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That arrangement is totally off the wall and completely against the manual of style. →Raul654 04:46, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia

Repeat after me. "This is the English Wikipedia." The majority of English speakers use Kiev, not Kyiv. RickK 02:46, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Just to add to that - not just "the majority", but the "vast, vast, vast majority" →Raul654 03:08, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

"As fundamental to the need for global standardization of geographical names, UNGEGN promotes the recording of locally-used names reflecting the languages and traditions of a country. UNGEGN's goal is for every country to decide on its own nationally standardized names through the creation of national names authorities or recognized administrative processes."

Wikipedia: Naming_conventions_(use_English) Convention: Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly used in English than the anglicized form. ... "There is a trend in part of the modern news media and maps to use native names of places and people, even if there is a long-accepted English name...One should use judgment in such cases as to what would be the least surprising to a user finding the article. However, whichever is chosen, one should place a redirect at the other title." Ukrainian government decision: "Transliteration should be made directly between Ukrainian and English without the use of any intermediary languages" "...spelling Kyiv is indeed in the modern practice of Ukraine’s international communication..."

From what I have seen on Wikipedia "anglicized forms" that reflect names from (mostly) colonial times are redirected to "native or official forms" (in English or Roman alphabeth). In cases where anglicized forms are not similar/identical to (or taken from) languages of foreign rule period there is no problem (Rome, Munich, Copenhagen, Turin, Prague, Lisbon, Moscow, Athens etc... ). Not foreign/colonial but official/native forms are used for Gdansk/Danzig, Mumbai/Bombay, Kolkata/Calcutta,Guangzhou/Canton. Traditional english (and western) Peking is also redirected to official form Beijing. Also some governments don't want names of their countries to be translated to other language like Côte d'Ivoire, so Ivory Coast is also redirected to main page named by offical version in French..Official (new) names also - Belarus/White Russia or Byelorussia Myanmar/Burma. United Nations also promote native/offical forms, so my proposition is to add paragraph in Wikipedia: Naming_conventions_(use_English): " If country's government has adopted decraration on how its native names should be written in English or internationaly then these forms should be used for main page and other forms should redirect to them."

Who cares about the United Nations or the Ukrainian government? Google search is the key! But seriously, unfortunately there can be no compromise here. As shown above all big cities with colonial past have their former names dropped in wikipedia. It seems to me that Kiev is the last stand. What for? Halibutt 02:05, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, Wikipedia: Naming_conventions_(use_English) needs to be updated to reflect the current de-facto standard of respecting peoples' right to nomenclative self-determination. Mkweise 20:58, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Except that that many of us (myself included) do not agree with that standard. Before anyone goes mucking around with the manual of style, I think this needs to be decided by a poll. →Raul654 21:43, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

No it doesn't. We need to enforce the rule more consistently. --mav 06:36, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is no standard

Just wanted to add that there isn't a consistent way of handling this issue on Wikipedia (yet). First of all, here's a quote from Google test: It should be stressed that none of these applications is conclusive evidence, but simply a first-pass heuristic. We should bear this in mind. Then, I don't think it's easy to resolve these disagreements. The city is called Ки́їв. Now what we actually argue about is whether a romanization has actually become an English word. Now we enter the realm of authority... can a government decide how we spell words? does the UN have a say? the OED/M-W? Yes, we have a naming convention (Use English), but what is English? Kokiri 15:33, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The rules say it point blank - call it what most people would call it. Most ennglish speakers call it Kiev. Period. Therefore, either change the rules or follow them. →Raul654 17:27, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia should reflect overall standards of usage, not set them

Wikipedia's naming conventions should reflect the overall standards used in the English-writing world.

Beijing is more commonly used than Peking, therefore the Wikipedia article should be called "Beijing" [2]
Mumbai is more commonly used than Bombay, therefore the Wikipedia article should be called "Mumbai" [3]
Calcutta is more commonly used than Kolkata, therefore the Wikipedia article should be called "Calcutta" [4] * note: this is not currently the case
Hangul is more commonly used than Hangeul, therefore the Wikipedia article should be called "Hangul". [5]

and

Kiev is more commonly used than Kyiv, therefore the Wikipedia article should be called "Kiev". [6]

It is interesting to note that for each of these cases, the US Department of State uses the more common name. [7]

If (and when) the newer spellings become more common, that is when the Wikipedia articles should change their spellings, and not before. In the English language, the only arbiter of usage is usage itself. Foreign governments can scream at us until they're blue in the face about the "correct" way to spell their city name, language name, or whatever, but unless that spelling is taken up and used by a majority of English writers, then it doesn't mean anything. It is not Wikipedia's responsibility to capitulate to the spelling whims every foreign government deigns to throw our way. Our spellings should reflect standard spellings inasmuch that standard spellings are defined by usage, as measured by Google or whoever. We can always change the spelling if it becomes more common to use the new spelling. Remember, Wikipedia is not paper, so we can change the spellings whenever we want.

I sympathize with the Ukrainians in their desire to remove the Russian influence on their perception abroad. I wish them luck in making "Kyiv" a more common spelling than "Kiev". However, Wikipedia is an inappropriate place for them to wage their campaign, and insisting on the spelling "Kyiv" is pushing a POV as much any other kind of biased writing.

In the meantime, this article should indicate that "Kyiv" is an alternative spelling pushed by the Ukrainians, but that "Kiev" remains most common in English, and the article should exclusively use "Kiev" to refer to the city. Also, it should note that the English pronunciation "kee-EV" or "kee-EF" is much more common than "kee-IF". Nohat 21:37, 2004 Apr 21 (UTC)

Exactly. --mav 21:56, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Also, I wanted to note that the Google test refers to using Google to determine whether or not something is worth writing about, NOT about determining standard spellings in English. Nohat 21:44, 2004 Apr 21 (UTC)