Talk:KyivNotKiev

This is silly

Some Western news reporters may have been more familiar with the Russian language than Ukrainian, and therefore used a typical Russian-derived spelling, particularly if they did not speak Ukrainian and had to find Russian-speaking locals to interview. Some residents of Kyiv/Kiev do speak Russian even if Ukrainian is the official language -- regardless of their politics.

As Ukraine is more in the Western news these days, a spelling that better corresponds to local usage in the official language is likely to come into use with or without a campaign. 24.237.158.232 (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

It's hardly the use of "Russian derived spelling", it's just been called Kiev in English for centuries.

"Kiev" is as much derived from Russian as "Moscow" is derived from Ukrainian. Ironically, the new PC pronunciation in English-speaking media ("Keeve") is actually closer to Russian than Ukrainian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.203.66 (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Can't wait for MoskvaNotMoscow! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A442:581E:1:D810:9E4B:4D2:5C3D (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. This is so silly as to hardly merit a response, let alone a page in Wikipedia (however, it has been accepted by the UN, UNESCO, and quite a English speaking few media outlets). Not surprising that this gained traction from a campaign in social media, where any idea, regardless of merit, can get an exponential response. The idea can make more sense with the names of other cities where the difference is more obvious, but, in this case, deciding whether one or the other ENGLISH spelling is closer to Russian or Ukrainian is an almost impossible task (particularly for an English speaker).

One can very safely say that if the previously accepted spelling had been anything else, then this request would have been to change that spelling to Kiev (the very first spelling was most likely Кыѥвъ, which can be argued to be close to Kiev).

In any case, even for the cases with a more obvious difference (like Lviv versus Lvov), historically, it has been the authorities in the language the name is being translated (or transcribed) to that have made these decisions, not the governments or the residents of the city or country in question. For example, the names of many English places are spelled differently (and often pronounced differently) in Spanish (example Londres for London, Inglaterra for England, etc.), the same for Russian places in English (as pointed out in the start of this thread with Moscow for Москва), Paris is spelled Parizh (Париж) in Russian, the names of many Italian and German places in English are also not faithful to the original spelling or pronunciation, and so on. The list is too long. One can only hope that all those countries and cities will not start requesting similar changes, or we may have to re-print all our maps and geography textbooks.

It is worth noting that the spellings in other languages (including Slavic languages, where the speakers have a closer perception of the pronunciation) are essentially equivalent to Kiev (it is hard to tell what can really be considered equivalent to Kyiv, since an English speaker would normally not be sure how that should be pronounced), but it seems that there have been no requests to change the spelling in those languages. Apparently the only concern is how it is spelled in English.

If this reflects anything noteworthy is how politics keeps permeating all areas of our lives. We have just been given another word we should say differently to let people know we sympathize with yet another just cause. Except this time nobody seems to be sure how to PRONOUNCE it differently, so we can only express our sympathy in writing. 67.186.48.166 (talk) 04:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Is not uncommon for countries to ask to use different names of countries or capitals in English.

Example 1: Czech Republic => Czechia

Example 2: Birma => Myanmar

So we should allow Ukrainians to use for this change: Kiev => Kyiv

English is international language, so it is valid for countries to ask to modify their names in English.

You gave example with Lviv. Previous English name "Lvov" was coming from Polish name "Lwów". But now this city is in Ukraine. 68.134.39.97 (talk) 09:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTCHAT. If there are any proposals for concrete changes to the article, with sources to support them per WP:RS, please start a new talk section. —Michael Z. 23:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Carpatho Ruthenian here

Carpatho-Ruthenian here, "Kyiv" is not an accurate Latinisation of Київ. It is a travesty. Kiev is more accurate. This change in spelling is just politically correct Newspeak. 172.58.206.232 (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's "Newspeak" about the corrected spelling. Did you mean to use some other term? Snickerdoooodle (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

remove this complete article.

WP:PROMOTION this complete page is nothing but a publicity stunt. 2604:3D08:177D:9A00:CCD4:A59C:9492:B34E (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Are you Russian? 68.134.39.97 (talk) 08:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia vandalism

I think it should be mentioned that the proponent of the campaign is constantly trying to rename Wikipedia articles in different languages. 176.99.214.127 (talk) 09:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Names used by officials in China, Taiwan, ISO, the United Nations, etc.

Referring and linking to information that is already on other Wikipedia pages (where it has citations) is not original research. For example, Unified Korean sporting teams#Names saying that the team's native name is 코리아 Koria is not OR, because that sentence already links the reader toward the existing 2018 Winter Olympics Parade of Nations article, where the list of team names is backed up with citations.

• WP:TRANSCRIPTION is not original research. Romanizing the old and new names used by South Korea and Japan was added as a visual aid to the reader. Why was this reverted?
• Following the above example of "we already have the cited 2018 Winter Olympics Parade of Nations article", the ISO part is "we already have the cited ISO 3166-2:UA and ISO 3166-2:AT articles".
• The Chinese transliterations of Kyiv and other cities are cited at zh:基辅 and the other cities.
• The fact that Singapore condemned the September 2022 referenda by name is already linked, quoted, and covered at 2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine, but I've added an explicit inline citation anyway.
• All of the names and dates used by Taiwan's various ministries are covered with citations and links to the relevant official sites' pages.
• The names used by the Chinese language version of Google Maps is explicitly cited with a link that is able to provide a timestamped screenshot of the otherwise non-static web page. Translation of the text on the page is not OR.
• The four United Nations documents mentioned are explicitly linked, and the reader is able to get the Chinese and Arabic language versions from there.

Reading through the article again as a whole, I guess the reader could incorrectly determine that "UA's social media campaign reached Taiwan, ISO, and the UN". To prevent this, I've pulled the section out of the "campaign" subheadings. Zowayix001 (talk) 09:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Except that you had added new info about Arabic terms and inconsistency, but where are the citations? Also that paragraph about "UN standards not affected by KyivNotKiev", where are the reputable source or scholary source that would conclude that. That is your conclusion which is an WP:OR original research. --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 10:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that if and when countries clearly switched from Russian to Ukrainian names for Ukrainian places is reasonable background material for this article. It would be better if secondary sources backed up the connection to Ukrainian independence. But some of the mentions that assign significance to individual exceptions like X country still spelled the name of Y Ukrainian town the Russian way in that one Z document are just WP:OR unless some RS says it’s meaningful.  —Michael Z. 17:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Wracking ^talk! 18:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

which as of now still without any reliable source/political expert/scholarly source to back up that purported "The standards used by the United Nations were unaffected by the campaign" (which is his conclusion / WP:OR, which I had remove Special:Diff/1194127913, and also cleanup (I can't looked away without cleaning up bloated paragraphs) --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Duplicate citations right next to each other are unnecessary - did you look at the sources? The four Arabic documents are right next to the four Chinese documents (they're different language versions of the exact same UN [draft] resolutions). The links are identical because they point to a language selector page on the UN site (because hotlinks to PDFs on that site don't work).

I take back some of the earlier additions because I've recently found out that e.g. Germany and Bulgaria still officially use Russian-derived names for Kyiv. This makes talking about other non-changes no longer relevant. You could have used this counter-argument on me earlier and avoided a dispute. Zowayix001 (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I've added an example involving Germany with citations, which makes several removed examples (Singapore, China, ISO) no longer important. Surely "the campaign sometimes didn't work" is relevant on an article about the campaign. Zowayix001 (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I previously thought that an organization using the name Kyiv would use other Ukrainian-derived names, and an organization using the name "Kiev" would use other Russian-derived names, but I've recently found out that e.g. the US government used "Kiev" and "Kharkiv" together in (say) 2013, and it appears that plenty of others (e.g. France) did the same. This makes other examples (such as the UN Arabic translation) no longer relevant. Zowayix001 (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Pointing to a single example of “the US government used” without a secondary source backing it is silly. The US government has tens or hundreds of thousands of people producing documents. Many people make mistakes, ignore style manuals, or lack guidance and just write what they know, so a single exemplary “used” is an anecdote of minuscule insignificance. When did the US missions to Ukraine and the UN, and the US State Department start using the spelling Kyiv? I suspect it was in 1991 or 1992.  —Michael Z. 03:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Which "single example" are you referring to? I'm referring to the same US government style guide already cited in this article that said "stop using Kiev". Zowayix001 (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I think there were a couple of examples that seem to be gone now.  —Michael Z. 23:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Zowayix001: can you stop doing again your own conclusion, Special:Diff/1194235990 can you stop doing again your own original research about "some EU countries"? --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 13:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The fact that more than one EU country other than Germany predominantly uses the Russian-derived name is not OR. It is also mentioned in both of the sources in that paragraph (use their own translate button). Zowayix001 (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Read WP:OR and WP:RS, that statement "Some EU countries continue to use Russian-derived names instead of Ukrainian-derived names." Special:Diff/1194235990 is not cited with reliable source and seemed to be your conclusion (and earlier even worse WP:OR "The standards used by the United Nations were unaffected by the campaign" Special:Diff/1193525580 --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The fact that more than one EU country other than Germany predominantly uses the Russian-derived name is not OR.

Not every sentence in a paragraph needs a citation mark especially when the sentence immediately after it does have a citation mark(s) backing up the previous sentence.

I already agree that the part about ISO from earlier is not relevant/no longer relevant to the article and there is no need to bring it up again on a different statement that is not OR. Zowayix001 (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes it's a known fact however you didn't cite any reliable source to be published in an encyclopedia about "Some EU countries continue to use Russian-derived names instead of Ukrainian-derived names." (provide a WP:RS about this topic or name all EU countries which still use Russian names with WP:RS source, or avoid this sentence), especially when it comes to those who still use Russian names for Ukrainian places which still didn't have any WP:RS citation, as discussed earlier here by an admin (which you argued with just now Special:Diff/1194368392) --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)