Am I the only person who sees a logical fallacy in the statement "Whilst the standard transliteration of the Ukrainian name of the city with special status also known as Kiev in the English language is Kyiv, this form was less commonly used in English until recently"?
It literally says ""Kyiv" was not in use in the past, it is a recent phenomenon, but it IS a standard transliteration". How can the transliteration that is still less frequently be a "standard"? Paul Siebert (talk) 17:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
This data ends in 2019, and doesn't reflect the very recent and sharp shift in usage. Regardless, this was decided on when the Wikipedia article was moved from Kiev to Kyiv back in September 2020. You can read the many arguements that were raised in the archives at Talk:Kyiv/naming. Hope this helps answer your question. Hecseur (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
The decision was made about the article's title. It was not a decision on what name is standard. Any statements in Wikipedia (except talk pages) must be supported by RS and reflect what majority RS say.
WRT ngram, we cannot predict future. Let's wait how the events will develop. So far, I see no evidence that "Kyiv" has bacome a standard spelling. Paul Siebert (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
These two reverts and edit summaries may be understood as a total ignorance of our policy.
[1] Hecseur, if you look at the top of the page, the banner says that in is neither a policy or guidelines.
[2] Mzajac, you are an admin, you are supposed to know our policy: do you really think consensus is needed to place the "cn" tag? Paul Siebert (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't see how putting a "cn" tag makes any sense in a naming convention in the first place. The purpose of the information here is to guideline edits to the Wiki according to consensus. Template:Citation needed reads: "The citation needed template is intended for use when there is a general question of the verifiability of a statement, or when an editor believes that a reference verifying the statement should be provided." The specific issue here isn't that "there isn't proof that Kyiv is a standard romanisation of Київ from Ukrainian, it requires a citation for verification", the issue is that this specific message is poorly communicated. A purpose of the "cn" tag is also that it automatically adds the page to maintenance categories, and there is no category for "WP-space articles with unsourced statements", so I highly doubt this is appropriate usage. Hecseur (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
"The purpose of the information here is to guideline edits to the Wiki according to consensus" Actually, no. This page by no means reflects any consensus. It is not a policy, and even not guidelines. If you claim that "Kyiv" is a standard English word, and "Kiev" is not, you are supposed to provide some source. Paul Siebert (talk) 05:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
This page has 8 years worth of various discussions; It reflects the consensus achieved by them. As of today, both "Kiev" and "Kyiv" are used as English words, Kyiv being used predominantly in recent coverage. There is no such claim here that "Kiev is not a standard English word", that is a strawman arguement. The current phrasing reads, as everyone here has already mentioned, that Kyiv is the standard romanisation of this city's name in the accepted transliteration system for Ukrainian (which applies to all things transliterated from Ukrainian, cities included).
As for your question regarding the difference between "spelling" and "transliteration" I had ChatGPT write an excellent explanation:
"Transliteration is the process of representing the characters or sounds of one writing system in another writing system. It involves converting the letters or characters of one language into equivalent or similar letters or characters in another language. Transliteration is commonly used when dealing with languages that have different writing systems or when trying to represent names or terms from one language in another language. The goal of transliteration is to capture the pronunciation or phonetics of the original language as accurately as possible in the target language.
Spelling, on the other hand, refers to the arrangement of letters and the sequence of characters used to represent the words and sounds of a particular language. It involves following the accepted rules and conventions of a language to represent words correctly. Spelling encompasses the correct choice and arrangement of letters, including the use of diacritics, accent marks, and other orthographic symbols, to accurately represent the pronunciation and meaning of words within a specific language."
In this specific case, the accepted rules and conventions of English have changed; While in the past "Kiev" was the only accepted word for the name of the city, nowadays the standard transliteration from Ukrainian, "Kyiv", has become predominant in its usage in media coverage. "Kiev" is still an English word, and on Wikipedia is used extensively to refer to the city in historical contexts. Any modern coverage uses the much more common "Kyiv", which is the standard Ukranian transliteration. The guidelines established in the Kiev/Kyiv section of the page (which mind you, are not OFFICIAL Wikipedia guidelines, but are guidelines of the accepted consensus) clearly define when you should use the name "Kyiv" and when you should use the name "Kiev" on Wikipedia. Outside of Wikipedia "Kiev" can absolutely be used to refer to the city in whichever context you would like, as it is an English word that refers to this same city, but on Wikipedia the usage of either of the terms is decided by the current consensus. Hecseur (talk) 10:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Why do you believe the Ukrainians have an exclusive right to change English spelling? What about Czech (Praha/Prague), Polish (Warzawa/Warsaw), Italian (Roma/Rome), Portugese (Lisboa/Lisbon), Serbian (Београд (Beograd)/Belgrde), Russian (Москва(Moskva)/Moscow)?
Interestingly, to demonstrate you a difference between a transliteration of a Russian name and the English word, I canremind you the Russian military ship sank during the Ukrainian-Russian war. The name of the ship is Москва (it was named after the Russian capital Москва). However, in English, the word is transcribed as "Moskva", not "Moscow".
That is a difference between the Russian word "Москва" and the English name "Moscow".
Furthermore, as you probably know, in the Moscow dialect, they pronounce it like "Maskva". Imagine that Russian orthography reform will change the rules, and "Москва" becomes "Масква". Will it have any effect on the English word "Moscow"? Absolutely not. Paul Siebert (talk) 16:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Ops, I forgot another capital, Sofia. According to romanization of Bulgarian rules, a correct spelling of the name "София" should be "Sofiya", not "Sofia".
By having said that, I fully agree with you that a correct romanisation of the Ukrainian name Київ should be "Kyiv". And that is what Wikipedia should say: the city that is known under its English name "Kiev" is called "Kyiv" in Ukrainian. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
I’ll try again, from the beginning.
Am I the only person who sees a logical fallacy. . . ? Apparently yes.
It literally says ""Kyiv" was not in use in the past. it literally does not. It literally says what Paul Siebert quoted just before that: “this form was less commonly used.” It refers to a form, meaning a particular spelling.
How can the transliteration that is still less frequently be a "standard”? “Standard transliteration from Ukrainian” does not mean “most commonly used form.” The concepts aren’t even comparable.
There are various standards. Some are little used. This is the chief standard romanizing Ukrainian names in Ukraine (according to the 2010 Ukrainian National system), internationally (according to the United Nations GEGN), and in Wikipedia (according to WP:UKR).
But the form Kiev is not a transliteration from Ukrainian, standard or non-standard. It is a spelling derived from a Russian name. The sentence refers to apples and oranges, but it does not compare them.
There is no contradiction nor logical fallacy in the sentence that Paul Siebert insists on tagging. He writes as if he were demanding absolutely disciplined logic in the convention, but actually analyzes it with no logic or discipline at all, and demands answers nonsensical, unanswerable questions. He refuses to listen to explanations that don’t lead to meeting his demands (for what exactly, removal of the sentence? Some unspecified change to the entire romanization convention?).
What is a difference between "transliteration" and "spelling"?
Are, the word "pogrom", "gulag", "sputnik" etc, English words or transliterations of Russian words? It is hard to tell, but we have serious reason to conclude they became English words. Thus, I frequently see something like "in the gulags". This form (plural) is never used in Russian, so it is an indication that this word became the English word. Similar to that, "Kiev" (like "Belgrade", "Sofia", "Moscow", "Prague", "Rome" etc) are English words. It doesn't matter from which language each of them came to English: they all are English words, and they will change only if these cities will be renamed (e.g. "Moscow" -> "Putingrad", "Kiev" -> "Zelensk", etc).
Yes, Kyiv is an official Ukrainian name of the capital of Ukraine (transliterated according to the Ukrainian romanisation rules), and in English we call it "Kiev". Because we call София "Sophia" (not "Sofiya"), and we call Москва "Moscow" (not "Moskva"). Paul Siebert (talk) 05:12, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
But the form Kiev is not a transliteration from Ukrainian, standard or non-standard. It is a spelling derived from a Russian name. I am sure "Prague" was derived not from modern Czech, "Cologne", "Vienna" or "Munich" was derived not from modern German, and the Hague not from Dutch. So what? Paul Siebert (talk) 05:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Language changes. It used to be true that in English we call it "Kiev" – it isn't any more. Time to move on. – Joe (talk) 06:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
I would like to see the proof. So far, I got nothing. By 2019, "Kiev" was used much more frequently according to ngram. Even if today's statistics will be published, and it shows that "Kyiv" started to dominate, that may be just a local fluctuation. Some reasonably long time need to pass to make sure this transition has occurred.
Actually, I already wrote about that, but I repeat it again: English names of a majority of historically important European cities are different from their spelling in their local languages: Prague, Warsaw, Rome, Lisbon, Belgrade, Sofia, Vienna, Munich, Cologne, Moscow, Antwerp, Copenhagen, Naples, Athens, the Hague, Hamburg, Brussels (I am sure that list is by no means complete). And the fact that Kiev belongs to this "noble family" is an indication of its historical importance. Don't destroy that precious heritage. Paul Siebert (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Now I see why Paul Siebert’s 800 words request no actual change in the text. He is trying to WP:right great wrongs: a “precious heritage” of English language that sources tell us is a Russian colonial name.
I refer again to P. S.’s question number one: “am I the only person?” Yes, yes you are. There is no consensus or agreement to change this information page or tag it.
There is no movement in this discussion either. P. S. ought to leave it be if he can’t find any support for his views. —MichaelZ.15:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
It seems Mzajac implies that in XVIII century, Ukraine (as a nation) was a colony of Russia (as a nation-state). That view is a typical primordialism.
Actually, I am feeling that we need to specify the status of this page. It seems it reflects some local consensus that may be inconsistent with our policy. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
No, I’m not implying that, @Paul Siebert. I’ve asked you before to stop casting aspersions by falsely labelling me with that term. Please strike or remove it. —MichaelZ.18:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
No problem. I will gladly strike my words if you explain me what exactly did you mean under "Russian colonial name". So far I got not answer to this question, which I asked several times.
I decided to check if I am biased. This and this are exhaustive lists of sources that mention Kiev/Kyiv and the words "colonial name". It is easy to see that none of those sources mentions Kiev in the "colonial name" context.
From that, I conclude that would probably not be an exaggeration to call the views expressed by Mzajac as a primordialist POV, which is not supported by reliable sources. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
You've provided your own evidence: the ngram you posted above shows quite clearly that Kiev is no longer the only name for the city in English. Usage is split, and that is all this page says. And yes, I think we're all aware that exonyms are a thing. – Joe (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
@Joe Roe: the fact that usage is split is undeniable, and I cannot rule out a possibility that we are witnessing a transition from "Kiev" to "Kyiv". However, the text currently says:
"Whilst the standard transliteration of the Ukrainian name of the city with special status also known as Kiev in the English language is Kyiv, this form was less commonly used in English until recently, and "Kiev" was the longstanding title of Wikipedia's article on the subject."
In other words, the text implies that the standard transliteration is "Kyiv". In other words, it says that this transition has already occurred. This bold statement needs a confirmation. So far, I've seen no conformation. Until recently, my text editor was recognizing "Kyiv" as a typo. "Kyiv" has always been a less common version of this name: even before "Kiev" became a common name (in 1800s), various forms of the Polish version ("Kijow" etc) were common in English literature. That means "Kyiv" had never been a standard name, so it is obviously a neologism.
You correctly pointed out that "Kiev" (like Prague, Warsaw, Rome, Lisbon, Belgrade, Sofia, Vienna, Munich, Cologne, Moscow, Antwerp, Copenhagen, Naples, Athens, the Hague, Hamburg, Brussels) is an exonym, i.e. an established, non-native name for a geographical place. The difference between an exonym and a transliteration of an endonym is that the former is an English word (which obeys English rules), whereas the latter is a word of a local language.
Since English exonyms are English words, Ukrainians (Russians, Bulgarians, Czechs, Poles, Italians etc) have no authority over them. They can teach English speakers how to correctly transliterate their cities names, but they cannot tell us how should we spell our exonyms. Germans call themselves "Deutsch", Russians call themselves "Russky", Ukrainians call themselves "Ukrainets", etc. but English speakers do not care. We use exonyms instead of transliterations for almost every European nation names and for the name of almost every European capital or a historically important cities: why do me make an exception for the capital of Ukraine? Paul Siebert (talk) 01:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
This is simply due to WP:NAMECHANGES. As you would've seen in the many citations in the discussions at Talk:Kyiv/naming, recent media coverage as early as 3 years ago in independent, reliable English-language sources routinely and commonly used the name "Kyiv". I'd say it's highly likely even more sources use Kyiv now following the Russian invasion. Wikipedia article titles are not decided by the fact an English exonym exists, but by the relevant Wikipedia policy. See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Use English: If a native name is more often used in English sources than a corresponding traditional English name, then use the native name. Two examples are Livorno and Regensburg, which are now known more widely under their native names than under the traditional respective English names "Leghorn" and "Ratisbon". The reason the article was moved from Kiev to Kyiv in the first place was because the move abided the existing policy, and it is by no means an exception. Hecseur (talk) 05:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
As I already wrote, I agree that during the last year (already after the Kiev article had been renamed) teh word "Kyiv" is found much more frequently than "Kiev", and if that situation will not change during next years, we probably can conclude that the "Kiev -> Kyiv" transition has occurred.
However, that would be more like "Prague -> Praha", or "Belgrade -> Beograd", or "Sofia -> Sofiya" transitions: i.e. a replacement of an old English word with a neologism.
"...we probably can conclude that..." No, we (as in, the people discussing here) cannot conclude anything. This debate has already concluded in favour of changing usage from Kiev to Kyiv in non-historic circumstances as per Wikipedia policy regarding the transition in English usage. The discussion regarding this concluded back in September 2020. Your opinion on "replacements of old English words with neologisms" does not change policy or change consensus in a meaningful way (other than the one vote you can cast). If you insist on arguing this, you are more than welcome to open an RfC regarding the usage of Kyiv vs Kiev on Wikipedia. There's no more use in discussing this here, as the discussion here does not grant authority to undo existing consensus. Hecseur (talk) 08:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
In my post, we refers to the Wikipedia community that decided in 2020 (in my opinion, prematurely) that the article should be renamed. Due to my rl business, I didn't participate in that discussion, but I disagreed with that. Now I am seeing that the "Kiev -> Kyiv" transition is really occurring (although I would say that transition is still in progress), so if the next round of the renaming discussion will be initiated, I would probably support "Kyiv".
However, all of that doesn't change the fact that "Kiev" is the English word, and "Kyiv" was virtually not in use until recently (it was just a transliteration of the Ukrainian name, which occasionally appeared in English books).
Therefore,
We should clearly discriminate between "transliteration" and "English words". I already explained the difference: "Belgrade" is an English name for Serbia/SFRYu, and "Beograd" is a transliteration of the Serbian word from Cyrillic to Latin. "Sofia" is an English name, "Sofiya" is a transliteration. "Moscow" is the English name of the Russian/Soviet capital, and "Moskva" is a transliteration from Cyrillic to Latin. As you probably know, English sources use the word Moskva for the ship sank in 2022, and that perfectly demonstrates the difference between transliteration and English words.
The only problem with "Kiev" is the fact that this English word coincides with a transliteration of the Russian word. However, English "Kiev" is the English word, not a transliteration.
We cannot speak about "Kyiv" as a "standard transliteration. It is the transliteration of the Ukrainian name that is currently replacing "Kiev", which has been the English word for centuries.
On your first point: I'm curious on how you would apply this to the section. Please give an example on how you would rewrite the section to apply this.
On the second: You are correct that "Kiev" has been the standard in English for centuries, so perhaps "standard" is not the most intuitive way to describe it. Perhaps "modern" would fit better? Such that: Whilst the modern transliteration of the Ukrainian name of the city with special status also known as Kiev in the English language is Kyiv...Hecseur (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Why did you change your initial word set (Kyiv,Kiou,Kiow,Kiovia,Kioff,Kiof,Kiew,Kief,Kieff)? If we return to your original word set + Kyiv, we get this.
Moreover, other forms (as I already explained) were derived either from Polish (Kiou,Kiow,Kiovia,Kioff,Kiof) or from Russian (Kiew,Kief,Kieff), and virtually no "Kyiv" was found in literature.
Therefore, the situation was as follows: before 1800, English sources were using mostly Polish derived versions of this name, which was not stable (several forms were used in parallel). After that, the forms derived from Russian started to dominate. After 1900, the word became stable, and it became an English word.
What is especially important, "Kyiv" was not used at all: we must concede that the transliteration of this name from Ukrainian is gradually substituting the English word "Kiev".
I reiterate: majority of English names of European capitals and historically important cities: Prague, Warsaw, Moscow, Belgrade, Sofia, Lisbon, Cologne, Munich, the Hague, Rome, Lisbon etc are English names, they differ from the original spelling. Usually that happens because these names came from some foreign language, e.g. Cologne came from French. That has nothing in common with "colonialism". If, for some reason, the process of substitution of "Cologne" with "Koln" occurred, that would be not a return of some "correct name", just an introduction of a neologism.Paul Siebert (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
...that would be not a return of some "correct name" This is not discussion on a "correct" name, but merely on what name would be appropriate for Wikipedia in various scenarios. This discussion once again does not seem beneficial to improving existing guidelines. @Paul Siebert: If you could please specify the exact changes you would like to make to the phrasing of the section so we could discuss them, as that discussion would have merit and will be beneficial to improving this information page. Hecseur (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
As I explained, the words:
""Whilst the standard transliteration of the Ukrainian name of the city with special status also known as Kiev in the English language is Kyiv"
imply that there is a common name "Kyiv", which is also known under the name "Kiev".
In reality, a correct description of the situation is:
""Whilst "Kiev" has been the standard English name of the Ukrainian capital, the transliteration of the Ukrainian name ("Kyiv") is becoming more predominant in English sources during the last year." Paul Siebert (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
"During the last year (or in 2022)" (actually, after Russia attacked Ukraine) is important, because, as Michael's search results demonstrate, "Kiev" was dominating even by 2020, when the article was renamed (I reiterate, that renaming was premature). Paul Siebert (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
I will remind you once again that consensus was established back in September 2020, this is due to the fact that even by then reliable sources in English in the media have used Kyiv frequently and commonly, which is obviously not a change that is reflected by Google Ngram Viewer (another reminder that recent reliable media sources carry much more weight on name changes as per policy). Also using the words "during the last year" is probably not a good idea, considering these guidelines will live on for an extended period of time, and this is also not indicative of when consensus was decided, regardless of whether it was "premature". I'd also avoid the word "standard", as this discussion certainly shown that this word raises ambiguity. I'd suggest changing it more into something along the lines of: Whilst until recently Kiev has been the customary name of the city with special status, the modern transliteration of the Ukrainian name, namely Kyiv, has become more commonly used in English. "Kiev" was the longstanding title of Wikipedia's article on the subject. However, A move discussion closed on 16 September 2020 resulted in that article being moved to the title "Kyiv", following a documented shift in usage in English-language media.Hecseur (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
And I am reminding you that WP:CCC. I did not participate in the 2020 renaming discussion, and I have a feeling that my participation may have tipped the balance to "keep". By having said that, I agree that, because of the ongoing war, the balance is tipping to "Kyiv".
As I already noted in my previous post, I agree that "during the last year" is not a good wording, and that is why I added "in 2022".
I disagree with "which has become more commonly used in English". In reality, we are witnessing the transition that may occur (or not). I remember several examples when some new form became more predominant for a short period of time, but the situation quickly changed back.
We can claim that "Kyiv" has become more common only after several years, if this situation becomes stable. Therefore, "which is becoming more commonly used in English", would be more correct (although we have no unequivocal proof even for that soft statement: no ngram statistics is available for 2022-23 period yet). In connection to that, I would like to see what do you mean under "documented shift".
You are correct consensus can change, but that would require an RfC to supersede the existing one. While I lament the fact you couldn't participate in the prior discussion, speculating about what could have been if you had is not a helpful arguement. WP:NAMECHANGES is the relevant policy on giving far more weight to recent reliable sources, most of which tend to be from media as a consequence of difference in time and effort required to publish compared to books or academic works. The discussion from 2020, which I have already linked to you multiple times, presented a plethora of reliable sources which began using "Kyiv" rather than "Kiev", mostly beginning in 2019. Since then there have passed 4 years and Kyiv is unequivocally used more in recent reliable English-language sources than Kiev.
I remember several examples when some new form became more predominant for a short period of time, but the situation quickly changed back. I doubt a case existed where there has been consensus on Wikipedia regarding a name change for 3 years, in which a name change was later unequivocally adopted by virtually all established and reliable English-language sources, and then usage suddenly and inexplicably reverted to the previous name. Regardles of this, anecdotal predictions on what might happen in the future are irrelevant, the fact of the matter is that the move abided policy and was supported by consensus. If the future requires us to change policy on this naming, we will. As of today there is no arguement to be raised regarding Kyiv being more commonly, if not almost exclusively used by reliable English sources, this is simply a fact.
As you've seen, I'm more than willing to make compromises in order to achieve a new, clearer phrasing for the existing consensus. If your interest isn't in a simple rephrasing, but rather in any change to the core meaning of the section then there is no merit to discussing here; You would need to make an RfC to discuss superseding existing consensus achived by the previous RfC. Hecseur (talk) 08:14, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
"I doubt a case existed where there has been consensus on Wikipedia regarding a name change for 3 years"
I mean not Wikipedia, but transitions in ngram trends.
"... this is simply a fact." Yes, but it is a very recent fact, and even today we cannot speak about a stable transition.
As you probably noticed, I started this section specifically to challenge one concrete sentence. I am glad you are ready to discuss it. Let's continue. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
I, too, am glad to have a civil discussion regarding this. While I do agree we can't necessarily speak of a stable transition, there is no requirement by Wikipedia policy for such, just a proven transition. Should the accepted name in English ever transition back to "Kiev" or to a different name, policy would likely dictate a move in that direction just as well.
Lets return to discussing specific changes. Following is the draft change I introduced earlier. I am including only the first sentence as that is the only one I have changed, and is the focus of the discussion:
"Whilst until recently Kiev has been the customary name of the city with special status, the modern transliteration of the Ukrainian name, namely Kyiv, has become more commonly used in English."
I'm assuming your remaining issue with this phrasing is the part stating: "Kyiv...has become more commonly used in English." It is unclear whether this statement asserts that Kyiv is used in English more commonly than Kiev, or if Kyiv became more commonly used in English in general, though both are true at these recent times. While it may give further context to mention the stability of the change, I do find that mentioning this is rather difficult without it being read as shoehorned information (as the stability of the change isn't relevant to the name change policy). Even if you avoid simply shoehorning it in, I struggle to think of a phrasing that adds this information without it being unnecessarily awkward, which is much less than ideal.
I'm very curious to hear what specific phrasing you have in mind for this, as my mind is coming up blank. Hecseur (talk) 12:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
I checked this and that, and I am not sure we can speaks about a transition that has already occurred. It seems it is obvious that we can claim the transition has occurred only after "Kyiv" become significantly more popular, and that popularity is stable (at least, during several years).
I propose:
""Whilst until recently "Kiev" has been the customary English name of the city with special status, the modern transliteration of the Ukrainian name, namely Kyiv, is becoming commonly used in English."
"...has been the customary English name..." is a good and well spotted addition. However, I do find the phrasing "...is becoming commonly used in English." problematic, as it could be read as to imply that Kyiv is not yet commonly used in English, which is not true.
While we can't necessarily speak of a transition that has already occured according to every measurement, the transition has occured by enough measurements to meet the standards of Wikipedia policy. The Google Scholar links do show that Kyiv is more commonly used than Kiev in recent scholarly work, and if you take into account the fact that scholarly work is generally significantly less recent than standard published media on the web (as it takes more work to write and publish), it does support the transition being very extensive already.
I will be interested in other suggestions for phrasing. I still don't have an alternative to the existing "...has become more commonly used in English." However, I do personally find the existing phrasing suitable, although not necessarily ideal. Hecseur (talk) 21:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Well, what about "...has become more commonly used in English recently". That is really a very recent phenomenon. Thus, I noticed that even in 2022 "Kyiv" was recognized as a typo by our own Wikipedia text editor. That situation changed just few month ago. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
I think that's a great way to put it. I'll go with "...has recently become more commonly used in English", since I find it better connects to the rest of the sentence. Otherwise I believe we are done here! I will update the page. Hecseur (talk) 00:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
A clear majority of European capitals, 34 out of 50, have English names identical to a native name or to a reasonable transliteration (35 if you accept that Riga = Rīga). (And comparing longtime state capitals to a city distant from English-speaking countries and directly colonized until 1991 doesn’t prove any principle.) —MichaelZ.20:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
WRT "A clear majority...", I believe you excluded London and Dublin from that list, right? Furthermore, some capitals (like Berlin) are not the most historically important cities. Other capitals are spelled identically in their own language and in other European languages (or course, if we forget about diacritic symbols that are absent in a standard Latin alphabet). Thus, Riga has the same spelling in all major European languages (French, Italian, German), so it would be impossible to imagine a reason why the English word could be an exception.
With regard to your "directly colonized", this your position is a mixture of a weird primordialism and Soviet Marxist doctrine, and I refuse to discuss it anymore. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
I mean, if we count not capitals, but old and historically important cities (like Cologne, the Hague, Naples, etc) the ratio would be different. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
"Those old names of Kyiv are not from Polish" Really? The difference between Ukrainian, Polish and Russian pronunciation is that Ukrainians say "K yee v", Poles say "K eeyo v, and Russians say "K eeye ff".
Therefore, all forms ending with "f" or "ff" and containing penultimate "e" were influenced by Russian, and the forms that have the second "i", penultimate "jo"/"yo" etc, and last "w" are definitely derived from Polish. Which would be quite logical to expect taking into account cultural dominance of Poland during those times. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Actually the Polish version would be "K ee yu ff". In Polish ó is correctly pronounced [u], and when w is the final letter of a word it is pronounced [f] rather than [v]. Hecseur (talk) 08:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
You may be right, but it is not easy to check, because Polish words do not need transliteration. Maybe, some users who are proficient in Polish, e.g. User:Piotrus may comment.
Anyway, my major point is that the form "Kyiv" is virtually not found before late XX century, and all evidences support it. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
That’s not how Ukrainian Київ is pronounced, according to Kyiv#Name. A normal English reading out loud of Kiow, Kiew, or Kiou sounds quite like the Ukrainian pronunciation [ˈkɪjiu̯]. Many of those spellings are Latinized. Plokhy in the chapter of Frontline on the Radvila map tells us that Ruthenian nobles influenced the map with their local knowledge. They were literate in Ruthenian (Middle Ukrainian), Polish, and Latin. The map labels Kyiv “Kijouia” and “lacus antiquæ Kiovie.”
Siebert’s speculation and survey of one Polish speaker gives no insight into the etymology of these earlier English spellings. —MichaelZ.04:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
It seems you are beating a dead horse, but...
First, to make sure we are talking about the same things, here Ukrainian and Russian pronunciations are compared, and the difference is that in Ukrainian the first "k" sounds more hard, whereas in Russian is more soft. The second difference is that in Ukrainian the last vowel sounds like "yi", whereas in Russian it is like "ye". The last difference is that in Russian the last "v" transforms to "ff", whereas in Ukrainian it is voiced. Therefore, I can agree that "w" or "u" sounds closer to modern Ukrainian, but the rest is closer to modern Russian. Actually, we are speaking about the times when no clear separation on Ukrainian or Russian languages had occurred yet, and these emerging languages were even closer to each other then they currently are.
You’re telling us that these English spellings definitely are from Polish (sources?), but there was no separate Ukrainian at the time (sources?). At which time exactly was that? —MichaelZ.05:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
No. I am not telling that. Frankly, I find this discussion senseless: in old East Slavic languages, phonetics was different from modern languages, and both in Kiev and Moscow a literary language was Old Church Slavonic.
Click at the link. However, I by no means am going to draw any far reaching conclusions from that. My point is that all theorising of that type are just a waste of our time. Let's stop it. Paul Siebert (talk) 06:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Paul Siebert’s submission is full of misinformation and bad original research. It totally ignores explanations that have been given above, and it’s a waste of time to continue to reply to the virtual monologue of this user who refuses to WP:hear. Things they insist on getting completely wrong:
The meaning of “standard transliteration of the Ukrainian name”
The false assertion that Kijow was ever common in English
The false assertion that Kyiv, in use for a century, is a “neologism”
The false assertion that Russian-derived Kiev, in use for about two, is an English exonym (it’s a transliteration of a Russian exonym, from a colonial language external to and imposed on Ukraine)
The nonsense about people from certain countries having “authority” over certain words of special status (and the implied conclusion that only the English have authority over the specially designated by Paul Siebert name Kiev)
The apples-and-oranges comparison of “English-speakers” vs “Ukrainians,” “Germans,” and “Russians”
The bad OR used to set up an emotional argument: “why do me make an exception for the capital of Ukraine?”
Please don’t dignify this by responding seriously to it. It’s wrong “facts” and bad “logic” meant to denigrate a neutral POV and privilege an extremely prejudiced one. —MichaelZ.13:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
WP:NPA says: Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links.
WP:NOR says: This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.
Michael accused me of OR. As far as I remember, I already informed him that NOR is not applicable to talk pages or similar pages, and now I am formally notifying him about that, and I am expecting he will refrain from throwing accusations of OR during .
He also accused me of lying (posting misinformation). Let's check if these accusations have any ground.
"The meaning of “standard transliteration of the Ukrainian name”" Transliteration " is a type of conversion of a text from one script to another". The Ukrainian name "Київ" is transliterated as "Kyiv". Does anybody disagrees with that?
"The false assertion that Kijow was ever common in English" This "false assertion" was based on the ngram search made by Michael. Actually, before Michael provided these results, I didn't pay attention to other forms of the word "Kiev". Now I see that the forms derived from Polish "Kijów" (i.e. Kiou+Kiow+Kiovia+Kioff+Kiof) were prevalent before 1800, the forms derived from "Kiev" (Kiew+Kief+Kieff) started to prevail after that, and "Kyiv" was virtually not used at all [5].
"The false assertion that Kyiv, in use for a century, is a “neologism”" As Michael's own ngram search show, "Kyiv" was very rarely found in English literature until recently, so it is definitely a neologism in English.
"The false assertion that Russian-derived Kiev, in use for about two, is an English exonym (it’s a transliteration of a Russian exonym, from a colonial language external to and imposed on Ukraine)" First, these two statements are not mutually exclusive. Many exonyms are transliterations of some foreign words. Polish "nemcy" is not a transliteration, but English "Dutch", or English "Germany", or Finnish "Saxsa" are transliterations.
In addition, the assertion that Russian is "a colonial language external to and imposed on Ukraine" seems to be a manifestation of an extreme ethnic nationalism (which is inconsistent with the modern nation-state concept). If you look at that, you may see that this subject is being studied mostly by S. Velychenko, who argues that the idea of Ukraine as "Russian colony"was proposed by Soviet Marxists, and it is not considered seriously by other authors.
"The nonsense about people from certain countries having “authority” over certain words". I think, it is obvious to any reasonable person that non-native speakers of some language cannot teach native speakers how to speak their mother tongue. That equally applicable to Ukrainians< Russians, Poles, etc.
"The apples-and-oranges comparison of “English-speakers” vs “Ukrainians,” “Germans,” and “Russians”" I think it should be obvious to any reasonable persons that I meant "native English speakers". WRT the rest, see above.
In summary, the above post made by Michael is full of false or poorly substantiated claims, and it contains a blatant accusation of bad faith. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Please don’t make up things I never said and then conclude it was “blatant.” Your accusations against me are as badly structured as your earlier arguments. I don’t have time to point out every single leap, contradiction, and solecism in the above. The title of this talk section will have to do. —MichaelZ.17:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
If you point me at the things that you believe have been "made up", and explain how have you came to this conclusion, I'll gladly cross it.
In my opinion, my posts are very well structured: I am disproving each your false statement one by one. Thus, you made a totally unsubstantiated claim that my assertion about Kijow was false. In response, I persuasively demonstrated, with diffs and links, that this my "false assertion" was based on your own ngram search: this search was initially made by you, and it was you who pointed my attention at the fact that not "Kiev", and not "Kyiv" were common before 1800 in English literature, but various forms derived from Polish "Kijów", as well as some variants of "Kiev" ((Kiew, Kief, Kieff). As you probably know, in Ukrainian (in contrast to Russian) the last voiced consonant is not devoiced, so the Russians pronounce, e.g. "Smirnov" like "Smirnoff", whereas the Ukrainians pronounce it like "Smirnou" (which is closer to Old Slavonic or Italian)..
In any event, instead of apologizing for throwing unsubstantiated false accusations, you throw more unsubstantiated allegations. Do you really want to continue this discussion at AE? Paul Siebert (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
I noticed that you removed the "cn" tag. Actually, I am not sure if I understand the status of this page: it seems it is neither a policy nor guidelines, does it mean it is just an essay? If that is correct, and it reflects a point of view of an unknown fraction of Wikipedians, that is probably ok.
Banner at the top indicates it's an information page: "Informative and instructional pages are typically edited by the community; while not policies or guidelines themselves, they are intended to supplement or clarify Wikipedia guidelines, policies, or other Wikipedia processes and practices that are communal norms. Where essay pages offer advice or opinions through viewpoints, information pages should supplement or clarify technical or factual information about Wikipedia impartially. In comparison to policies and guidelines, information pages, like essay pages, have a limited status, and can reflect varying levels of consensus and vetting."
In the case of this page, and more specifically in the case of the Kiev/Kyiv debate, there is a large consensus reflected; The specifc line that you are incessant about specifically notes the 16 archives worth of deliberating regarding this at Talk:Kyiv/naming. A single opinion is not enough to change this existing consensus, and if you do insist that there is a wrong being made here I highly suggest you read all of the relevant discussions before making wild assertions on existing cosensus. Further, WP:V states "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable.", which as defined by WP:MAINSPACE, does not include information pages, or WP: space pages in general. You will however find extensive citations of the factual claims made in this page in the discussions at Talk:Kyiv/naming, which again I must encourage you to read before further contribution to what is an established consensus. Hecseur (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
