Talk:Kyiv/sources/comments

Structure

@Mzajac and Levivich: I see that you created 4 buckets for Kyiv:

Academic (Kyiv)
Press (Kyiv)
Style guides (Kyiv)
Other (Kyiv)

However Press & Style guides are essentially "Media" -> so I propose merging them into one "Media". Also something to point out, what you labled as "Style guides", is in 90% not styleguides (e.g., Toronto Star doesn't have a sytle guide, they just follow one of the well-known style guides, Canadian Press; and that's true with most media publications, they don't have their own styleguides, they just follow some well known stylebook like AP Stylebook or any other dozens of journalist stylebooks)

Also, @Levivich:, I hate deleting your work, but the way you're presenting media that have switched to Kyiv spelling by just giving a link to an article from that newspaper that uses Kyiv is not very convincing: even prior to 2019 you could find articles on the BBC, The Wall Street Journal, NYT etc. that used Kyiv, but that wasn't very indicative of the newspaper, since it didn't really represent the recommendation from their stylebook on how their articles should spell Kyiv. A much more useful and practical thing to do is to provide the information on media in the following way: 1) name of the media. 2) date that the media announced it switched to using Kyiv. 3) official quote from the media outlet during the announcement to switch to Kyiv 4) sources.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my work is really just building on your work, so feel free to delete or change it. :-) But one of the objections raised to the style guides is that those are prescriptive and do not show actual common usage. I don't think highly of that objection, but the idea behind the "Press" category was to provide examples of actual usage, really to supplement the style guide. So, to share my thinking, "Style guide" is where I copied and pasted the examples from your move request. "Press" is where I stuck usage examples to answer the aforementioned objection. Another objection I read was that media examples are altogether unconvincing because they don't come from academia. So "Academic" is where I've been gathering usage examples from journals. "Other" is stuff I found along the way that didn't fit into one of those three categories. So, I didn't really give a whole lot of thought to the names of the categories or the presentation... really it's more like a notebook or sandbox. So, please feel free to re-organize it for whatever presentation you think will be most convincing to editors who will (hopefully) read this when they consider voting in the next move request. The only thing is that I think we should include usage examples from the media in addition to style guides, although perhaps that should be merged and it should be appended to the four other items you lay out? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TLDR yes merge press and style guides into media, but append usage examples, so it would be 1) name of the media. 2) date that the media announced it switched to using Kyiv. 3) official quote from the media outlet during the announcement to switch to Kyiv 4) sources/usage examples Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. The office of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine maintains a list of media/institutions etc. that have switched to Kyiv on its CorrectUA FB page. It's not an ideal structure, so I don't recommend following it, but it has some logic to it (however, many things in it are super-micro level, e.g., list of every airport that switched to Kyiv airport, when in fact all that's needed is the link to the statement from IATA from Oct 2019 that announced their switch to Kyiv spelling).--73.75.115.5 (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of any other published "list of organizations that have switched to 'Kyiv'"? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few comments.

Be careful citing “examples of actual usage,” because it gives the wrong impression. This phrase sounds like the most popular usage in the wild and can be determined by Google search result counts. But WP:COMMONNAME asks for “prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources,” which is a bit different. I think style guides are an indicator of this. Yes, some undisciplined journalists won’t follow their own style guides, and some entities don’t edit material coming from other sources, but these are anomalies. Intent expressed in style guides leads to prevalence, if not 100% universal usage. This is key in article naming and widely misunderstood by editors.

If it was me, I would list style guides documents in a separate bibliographically formatted section, but I don't want to make more work for anyone (and I have limited time). References and data sources might warrant a separate section, because they are used differently, including dictionaries, encyclopedias, gazetteers, atlases, and geographic names databases.

Thanks, everyone. —Michael Z. 2020-07-03 15:59 z

@Mzajac: we're on the same page. I agree fully with everything you said. My only observation: I would still list sort of list styleguides twice, at least for styleguides that are so huge, that they are used by others (and not just by the newspaper that produces it; case in point: The New York Times Styleguide is used by NYT, but also by some other newspapers. So for all media-outlets that have a widely used styleguide, I would still list them twice: once in the "Media" section (in the form of 1) name of the media. 2) date that the media announced it switched to using Kyiv. 3) official quote from the media outlet during the announcement to switch to Kyiv 4) sources.) and once in the 'Styleguides' section (e.g., 1) name of the styleguide (e.g., AP Stylebook), 2) link to the styleguide mentioning Kyiv )--73.75.115.5 (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right, one list of organizations and one list of style guides. Each organization’s entry can mention a style guide if it uses one, typically but not necessarily its own. —Michael Z. 2020-07-03 19:02 z

@Levivich:, can one of you help me improve the readability of these sources, particularly I think we should switch away from using italics to represent official quotes announcing a media-outlet's decision to switch from Kiev to Kyiv to using the tempalte {{tq|TBA}}. Particularly I could use your help in this section Talk:Kiev/sources#Media (Kyiv). Thanks everyone. --73.75.115.5 (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Is this what you meant? If so I can do it to the rest of the page as well. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Levivich:! I've updated "Style guides" section, so now all sections have official quotes from the publication via {{tq|TBA}}. --73.75.115.5 (talk) 03:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mzajac and Levivich: not sure if it's worth adding a seperate section for Journalistic Journals, but there's been already some ridicule of English Wikipedia among respected journalistic publications for not switching from Kiev to Kyiv like the rest of the world; case in point: Columbia Journalism Review ran an article entitled Why Kiev is now Kyiv in Dec 2019, saying, quote other outlets still use Kiev; Wikipedia’s entry for “Kyiv,” for example, redirects to “Kiev.”. If you think this would be a value-add, this article could be added under "Journalist academic journals".--73.75.115.5 (talk) 10:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a subsection for media journals under the academic section. I could see an int'l relations journals subsection possibly being valid too. I had read that Columbia Journalism Review piece. I was actually going to create a separate section for quotes and links from RSes that specifically discuss the name change and how prevalent each spelling is. I think the CJR piece is one example; I know I've seen others. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: I'm not really sure the subsection is really needed: in general these 'explainers' and 'opinion pieces' are not that valued in enwiki as WP:Reliable sources because they are essentially just opinions of certain journalists/academics. That said though, from the ones I saw in 2019-2020, I would rate these seven explainers as the most relevant and most eloquent at explaining why Kyiv spelling issue is not merely a matter of correct English grammar/spelling, but is about Ukrainian statehood as a whole (plus two bonus ones that provide the best source of how to pronounce Kyiv, maybe with the exception of Nov NYT article on the topic):

1) [Text] Oct 2019, Emerging Europe Kyiv vs. Kiev is not a fixture in the Ukrainian Premier League

2) [Text] Nov 2019, Atlantic Council Kyiv not Kiev: Why spelling matters in Ukraine’s quest for an independent identity

3) [Text] Dec 2019, Geographic Society of Chicago Is it Kiev or Kyiv?

4) [Text] Dec 2019, Columbia Journalism Review Why Kiev is now Kyiv

5) [Text] Jan 2020, Standford Politics Kyiv vs. Kiev: What Two Letters Mean For Ukrainian Independence

6) [Video] Feb 2020, KyivPost Kyiv, Not Kiev. Why Ukrainians care so much about their capital’s spelling

7) [Text] May 2020, Euronews In the fight against Russian influence in Ukraine, language matters. It’s Kyiv, not Kiev

-) [Audio] Aug 2019, Associated Press Stylebook AP Stylebook Pronunciation Guide: Kyiv (mp3 audio of Kyiv pronunciation: https://media.apstylebook.com/pronunciation/mp3s/ED_KYIV.MP3)

-) [Text/Audio] Nov 2019, Upenn Language Log Pronouncing Kiev / Kyiv (wav audio of Kyiv pronunciation: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/myl/ThreeKyiv.wav)

-) [Text/Audio] Dec 2019, Kansas University News Service How do you pronounce Kyiv, anyway? (youtube audio of Kyiv pronunciation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cE1f6GUvG5Y)

-) [Text/Audio] Dec 2019, New York Times Kiev, Kyiv, How Do You Pronounce (and Spell) It? (mp3 audio: https://static.nytimes.com/podcasts/2019/11/13/us/politics/13xp-kiev/Kyiv.mp3)

--73.75.115.5 (talk) 02:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters

The search link that TaivoLinguist added to represent “Reuters” is useless for that purpose. The results are polluted with foreign-language pages, non-media websites, user-generated content, etcetera. Results that do come from Reuters with Kiev have it in old embedded image captions: for example, the first and third result have this image caption written in February, this one in the second result is from May, the fourth is from January, the fifth is in French, the sixth is from 2019, the seventh has a caption that appears to be from January, the eighth is a job-search website, the ninth has another from May, and the tenth is someone's Facebook profile—all the Reuters results were written before Reuters updated their standard. —Michael Z.

We should link to examples, and not to search results. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 04:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. WP:COMMONNAME discourages it. —Michael Z.

TaivoLinguist has removed this addition. —Michael Z. 13:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they removed it with a comment "Sorry, but I didn't understand that this was a page where only the pro-Kyiv faction could contribute"--73.75.115.5 (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Google Trends

I believe the removal of clarification statement (comparison of user searches, not a reliable source) next to Google Trends that TaivoLinguist did diff is counterproductive. Google Trends represents users' searches, so it cannot serve as a WP:Reliable source to claim a specific spelling usage. And that's not even mentioning that Google uses a weird algorithm where it doesn't distinguish between when Kyiv is written in Latin alphabet vs. in Cyrillic alphabet (case in point: these days when I try searching 'Kiev' among recent news article, all I find is actually a bunch of non-English articles, usually Russian-language articles that use the word 'Киев'; so I guess Google transliterates Russian 'Киев' into 'Kiev' on the fly and counts all those Russian-language articles as if they were mentioning 'Kiev', and all those Russian-language search queries of 'Киев' as if they are 'Kiev'.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:GOOGLELIMITS and Wikipedia:Overreliance upon Google are very relevant in this case.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While Google Trends is not a perfect source, it is not the same as the unfiltered use of Google Searches. What Google Trends counts is the number of times that users search for these words, while Google Searches tries to count the number of webpages. They are apples and oranges. This is another hard data point (not a slippery one like Google Searches) that can be considered alongside other hard data points. It is a demonstration of what people using English as their mode of interacting with Google are calling Ukraine's capital city. Of course, the Cyrillic versions are not going to be used because the English Wikipedia doesn't care about Ukrainian or Russian speakers and their interactions with Google. It only cares about ENGLISH speakers. That's the meaning of WP:COMMONNAME. And I don't know how you did it, but you are not allowed to remove my edit from the edit history. Don't do it again. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMMONNAME and other pertinent guidelines ask us to consider usage in reliable sources. Google Trends and Google Search results are not indicators of these things. Including this on the page will reinforce the all too common misconceptions about our naming guidelines. I think it doesn’t belong here because it doesn’t contribute. —Michael Z. 23:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation answer RE Kyiv Council's request to change enwiki name for Ukraine's capital to Kyiv (Nov 2019)

Messaging on wikimediafoundation.org (May 11, 2020)

Place names may differ, depending on political or historical perspective, or changes over time. In 2019, the Ukrainian government ran a Twitter campaign and other efforts to encourage the world to update the spelling of the name of their capital city from Kiev to Kyiv. In November, they contacted us to request that Wikipedia articles include their preferred spelling. We explained how Wikipedia works, and referred them to volunteer editors, who were already discussing the topic. Both the previous and updated spellings are now used on English Wikipedia. Wikipedia relies on secondary sources to provide accurate information that volunteers can add to articles. As name and spelling changes gain acceptance in reputable third-party sources, Wikipedia will reflect that consensus.

Source: https://wikimediafoundation.org/story/spell-check/ (May 11, 2020)

Messaging on medium.com/@wikimediapolicy (July 16, 2020)

In November 2019, the Ukrainian government contacted us to ask about changing the spelling of their capital city on English Wikipedia, from Kiev to Kyiv. They were running a publicity campaign about the change, including on Twitter, and wanted the Foundation to make the change on Wikipedia. We explained how Wikipedia and the associated projects work, and directed them to volunteer editors who were already discussing whether or not to make the change. The English Wikipedia article about the city now features both spellings. Wikipedia draws upon third-party sources to provide neutral, accurate information. As name or spelling changes gain more acceptance, and that is reflected in those sources, Wikipedia will also reflect those changes.

Source: https://medium.com/@wikimediapolicy/we-get-requests-wikimedias-transparency-report-for-july-to-december-of-2019-94119dbfb5c0 (July 16, 2020)

--73.75.115.5 (talk) 05:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kyiv in arts

On March 25, 2020 Tom Misch & Yussef Dayes released a new hit song Kyiv (see Youtube: Tom Misch & Yussef Dayes - Kyiv (feat. Rocco Palladino) - (Live), Soundcloud: Tom Misch & Yussef Dayes - Kyiv (feat. Rocco Palladino) - (Live) --73.75.115.5 (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]