Talk:Name of Kyiv

Article name

Shouldn't this article be named "Kyiv/Kiev naming dispute"? Usually we would want the current article name first. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Who is disputing what, and when? There is no explanation of a specific dispute based on reliable sources. In fact, usage of this name has been changing for centuries, and we are currently seeing a tipping point between two spellings (Google Books Ngram). I suggest we ename this article Name of Kyiv, consistent with Name of Ukraine, and maybe or maybe not a dispute section will grow out of it. And I would also restore the basic etymology and history of the name to the parent article. —Michael Z. 23:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

This article really doesn't need to exist. Just because Wikipedia editors spent a decade deciding to move the article doesn't mean that this "dispute" actually existed in the real world. Look at Macedonian naming dispute. That was a real world dispute that had major real world consequences for the two countries involved. This issue of what to call Ukraine's capital in the English Wikipedia doesn't even deserve the label "dispute" compared to that. It was a PR speed bump, nothing more. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 04:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with User:Mzajac that it is better to rename this new article to Name of Kyiv (consistent with Name of Ukraine). Also, in accordance with WP:CONTENTFORKING, we should restore the basic etymology and history of the name to the parent article Kyiv#name.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 04:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I see no reason for the existence of this article. Mikola22 (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Debate over the name in Wikipedia is OVER

Stop trying to turn this article into flogging a dead horse. The debate over the use of Kyiv versus Kiev in Wikipedia is now over and decided. The articles in Wikipedia should not be Talk Page discussions. They should be encyclopedic. The now-trivial and pointless detail that was formerly found in articles to try to argue the name change should be left on Talk Pages or deleted. That detail should no longer (actually should never have, but that's water under the bridge) be in the articles themselves. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 09:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry if the end of the Wikipedia name dispute ended too abruptly for some fighters, but please do not use these articles to work out your pent up aggression. It's time to move on, the name that Wikipedia will use from now on is Kyiv. If some editor shows up to work out their pro-Kiev aggression, then you have the force of Wikipedia policy to revert them. Twenty individually named media style guides in the text is pointless. If you actually want them in the article, then make them footnotes to the summary sentence that I wrote to explain simply and clearly to our readers who don't care about what Wikipedia went through to get there. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 09:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

8,800 characters of information were stable for a very long time in the larger article. Now that it is in a more specific article, arguably a more appropriate place for it, please don’t just nuke it without a real discussion. It is obviously a controversial move. And TL’s argument appears to be based on a renaming discussion that’s now over rather than referring to the actual article content. A certain comment comes to mind. —Michael Z. 13:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Mzajac OK, I get it. Taivo made the change so it can't be good, right? But at least I brought the debate to the Talk Page instead of User:Calton who just reverted without discussion. That "stable content" had one and only one purpose in the old article--to prove to the "Kiev" faction and any potential members of the "Kiev" faction why the name of the article should change. It was Talk Page content transferred to the article to demonstrate to readers why the article's name was "the wrong one". It was inappropriate then, but was "stable" in order to satisfy the "Kyiv" editors who were making a point. The point has been made, the article has been moved to "Kyiv". Since that has happened, it is no longer necessary to keep arguing the move because the article has been moved. I'm not "on the other side" anymore because the decision has been made and I've accepted it. I was the first editor at Kyiv to change the infobox. If you'll notice here, I wrote a summary sentence to replace the Talk Page argumentative content with a broad statement. This article doesn't need to be cluttered anymore with a detailed list of all the style guides, all the government websites, all the evidence that the "Kyiv" editors were using to make their point for a move. It's done. There is no more argument. Now let's move on to improve the encyclopedia. And one of the first things that we can do to improve the encyclopedia and make it more useful to readers is to make the content encyclopedic. Encyclopedic is not a minutely detailed and exhaustive laundry list of reasons why the article called "Kyiv" is called "Kyiv". All that "stable content" (which wasn't actually "stable for a very long time" because many of those references had been added to the article just in the last few months for the successful RM) can be relegated to a footnote if absolutely and positively necessary. But please just graciously accept your "victory". We don't need to keep litigating it since the verdict has been rendered. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 13:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

And we can legitimately ask, "Who is this Calton?" They were never involved in the dispute, just someone who saw a big, bold edit and came to revert it without bothering to read it. Please actually look at the content and ask yourself, "Why is this here, now that the argument it's making has been resolved? Does it really add anything of value? Or is it just going to be confusing to readers who know nothing of the Wikipedia dispute (which was never a real-world "dispute")?" --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 13:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

TaivoLinguist, enough with the personal remarks, already. And enough with justifying drastic article deletion by claiming a some shadowy “pro-Kyiv” conspiracy snuck a whole section in there over the course of years.

At a bare minimum, the parent article Kyiv should have a section covering etymology and the reason for multiple and changing naming in English. Since you seem to agree that it belongs there in some form, then I will restore the deletion and edits can be made in this article’s history.

If you want to just delete it and bring it back after it gets edited elsewhere, let’s see if there’s consensus for this strange process. —Michael Z. 15:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Let me understand what you're proposing. You want to revert all my edits, pass this over to Kyiv in its entirety, make the edits over there, and delete this article? Why not just pass this article as is over there? I agree that this article is not worth having separately. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Mzajac, since you and I seem to be the two editors most interested in this process, shall we consolidate our discussion in one place? Either here or over there at Talk:Kyiv? --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

No need to revert your edits. Let this new article become whatever it will become, with the participation of all the contributors. I assume it might grow, or diverge from the material from Kyiv, or maybe a consensus will form that it’s redundant and be deleted.

But at Kyiv#Name, changes should be reflected in diffs, and not teleported in from this article which has already changed its subject matter and suffered a revert-war over a significant portion of its text. I’d start by restoring the section over there, then editing it. If you want to reproduce your edits, of course you are welcome to.

I’d rather edit Kyiv at Kyiv and discuss it at talk:Kyiv. —Michael Z. 16:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I'll see you over at Talk:Kyiv. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

As an English speaker I would note that "Kyiv" is quite unpronounceable. Bad enough in the best of times but quite appalling when UK forces might be sent to Ukraine and can't pronounce the capital city of the country they are helping to defend... 86.191.229.173 (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

As an English speaker (with no knowledge of Ukrainian) I would note that a spelling Kyiv suggests the very easily pronunceable [kjiv]. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

My question is, I feel, a valid one. I was not aware that comments on talk pages could be reverted.86.191.229.173 (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a chat group. See WP:CHAT. It is not uncommon to remove comments that are not discussion about improvements to the article. Regardless of spelling, one can pronounce it the same way they always have, but some media, like NPR officially, and announcers elsewhere, are now changing their pronunciation to be closer to the Ukrainian. —Michael Z. 02:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Add this meta

You are famous :)

https://www.unian.info/kyiv/kyivnotkiev-wikipedia-changes-spelling-of-ukrainian-capital-news-kyiv-11150921.html

Kudos, and add this sourced meta tidbit.

Zezen (talk) 07:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Missing edit summary

I made this edit, but for some technical reason forgot to add an edit summary. Here I am explaining the changes. The source cited says "и нарекоша имѧ єму Києвъ", whereas the article said "The form Кꙑєвь (Kyiev) is used in old Rus' chronicles like Lavretian Chronicle". It seems the statement is not supported by the source cited. As far as I know, this text was moved from the main article, and I am going to check in the article's history who added that fake to it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Found it. here it is. Look at the edit summary. The edit was made 13 years ago, and noone bothered to check it. Meanwhile, the very same source uses "Києвъ" almost exclusively: "ѡстави в Києвѣ, первоє на Києвъ, и приде Ѡлегъ к̾ Києвү, Полѧне в Києвѣ и до сего дн҃е, Киеви же пришедшю въ свои градъ Києвъ. ту животъ свои сконча. а братъ єго Щекъ и Хоривъ и сестра их Лъıбедь ту скончашас.", and so on. Importantly, that is the manuscript taken from the Ukrainian web site, so it was not edited by evil Russian nationalists. Frankly speaking, I have seen this statement many years ago, and I trusted it. Actually, I am impressed how the primary source can be easily faked, and noone will notice it. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Starting on page 6, this chronicle uses the "Къıєвѣ" and "Къıєвъ" spellings. For example, here (link to original) or here (link). I think that you could easily find the answer to the question why this chronicle uses a different spelling, if you don’t waste time looking for a Ukrainian nationalist conspiracy everywhere. Here is youtube timecode to the Old East Slavic "Kyiv" pronunciation. --AndriiDr (talk) 13:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

First of all, that type discussion proceeds better when they are based of a comprehensive analysis. Below, I show the statistics of the first 14 pages (up to the Suzdal chronicle):

• Page 1:

Къıєв – 0; Києв – 11; Кїєв – 1

• Page 2:

Къıєв – 0; Києв – 6; Кїєв – 1

• Page 3:

Къıєв – 0; Києв – 16; Кїєв – 0

• Page 4:

Къıєв – 0; Києв – 8; Кїєв – 0

• Page 5:

Къıєв – 1; Києв – 6; Кїєв – 0

• Page 6:

Къıєв – 1; Києв – 19; Кїєв – 0

• Page 7:

Къıєв – 6; Києв – 0; Кїєв – 0

• Page 8:

Къıєв – 11; Києв – 0; Кїєв – 0

• Page 9:

Къıєв – 5; Києв – 3; Кїєв – 0

• Page 10:

Къıєв – 3; Києв – 0; Кїєв – 0

• Page 11:

Къıєв – 9; Києв – 3; Кїєв – 0

• Page 12:

Къıєв – 1; Києв – 0; Кїєв – 0

• Page 13:

Къıєв – 9; Києв – 2; Кїєв – 0

• Page 14:

Къıєв – 3; Києв – 2; Кїєв – 0

• In total:

Къıєв – 49; Києв – 76; Кїєв – 2

In other words, although "Къıєв" becomes more frequent in the second half of the document, "Києв" never disappears, and it (along with a more rare "Кїєв") is still used almost two times as frequently as "Къıєв".

Therefore, your statement is based on a superficial analysis of the primary source, and your edit violated WP:V and WP:NPOV.

In addition, the same footnote says, that Novgorod Chronicles uses "Къıєв". However, I was able to find just a singe word "Кыевьскыи" at the page 23, but the word "Киев" is found two times. More interestingly, the next page contains the following fragment:

"В лЂто 6743 [1235]. Не хотя исперва оканныи, всепагубныи диаволъ роду человЂческому добра, въздвиже крамолу межи рускыми князи да быша человЂци не жили мирно: о том бо ся злыи радуется кровопролитью крестияньскому. Поиде князь Володимиръ Рюриковиць с кыяны и Данило Романович с галицаны на Михаила /л.158./ Всеволодица Чермного къ Чернигову, а Изяславъ побЂжа в Половци; и много воева около Чернигова и посадъ пожьже, а Михаилъ выступи ис Чернигова; и много пустошивъ около Чернигова, поиде опять; и Михаилъ створивъ прелесть на ДанилЂ и много би галицанъ и бещисла, Данила же едва уиде; а Володимиръ пришедши опять, сЂде въ КиевЂ. И не ту бысть того до сыти зла, нь прииде Изяславъ с погаными Половци в силЂ тяжьцЂ и Михаилъ с черниговци под Киевъ, и взяша Кыевъ; а Володимера и княгыню его изымаша Половци, поведоша в землю свою, и много зла сътвориша кияномъ; а Михаилъ сЂде в ГалицЂ, а Изяславъ в КиевЂ; и опять пустиша Володимира Половци на искупЂ и жену его, и на НЂмцЂх имаша искупъ князи.

В лЂто 6744 [1236]. Поиде князь Ярославъ из Новаграда къ Киеву на столъ, понявши съ собою новгородцовъ болших муж: Судимира въ СлавнЂ, Якима Влунковица, Костя Вячеслалича, а новоторжець 100 муж; а в НовЂградЂ посади сына своего Александра; и, пришедши, сЂде в Кие†на столЂ; и державъ новгородцовъ и новоторжанъ одину недЂлю и, одаривъ, отпусти прочь; и приидоша вси здрави. Того же лЂта при/л.158об./шедше безбожныи Татарове, плениша всю землю Болгарьскую А и град их Великыи взяша, исЂкоша вся и жены и дЂти"

Therefore, the statement is not supported by the primary source used. Again, both WP:V and WP:NPOV are violated.

Second, it seems you mix phonetics and orthography. We are not discussing the old pronunciation of that word, for I myself know that it was equally close to modern Russian and modern Ukrainian: it was more like "Kyev", so the first syllabus was "Ukrainian", and the second was "Russian". However, we are discussing not pronunciation, but orthography, and, as my analysis demonstrates, I am more right than you (although, I concede, I was not 100% right).

Third, your statement "if you don’t waste time looking for a Ukrainian nationalist conspiracy everywhere" is not polite and offensive. Even worse, it is incorrect. I am looking not for Ukrainian conspiracy, but for misuse and misinterpretation of sources, and this concrete misinterpretation was supplemented with an edit summary de facto labeled me, in advance, as a Russian nationalist. It was that edit summary which made me especially irritated.

In summary, you AndriiDr were not right in three aspects, and you owe me an apology. I think, the best apology would be to self-revert and discuss the new, more precise version of this text. As you can see, I was not completely right either, so I am not 100% satisfied with my text. However, my version is still more precise, so it would be correct to restore if while we are discussing a possible imporevement.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven’t read through all of that, but up above in the first line Paul Siebert states “Києв – 11,” with a link to a page where the name does not appear even once with that spelling. Something seems wrong. Anyway, performing frequency studies on manuscripts in a dead language and drawing conclusions from them sounds like WP:original research to me. —Michael Z. 01:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Can somebody please add a note on pronunciation with IPA, and ideally also a sound recording. Since Kyiv is new to most of us, it is not immediately obvious how to say it. I noticed President Biden saying it today, which is what brought me here. Please: pronuniation for both English forms and also for the Ukrainian form. --Doric Loon (talk) 10:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I second that request. Spelling is good to know, but that's not a guide to speech. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)