Talk:Kyiv/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Kiev's name

I support the idea to move the content of this article back. It seems totally logical. What I object to, is the move of an old version of the "Name of Kiev" article, which contained misinterpretation of sources and unsourced text labelled with the "cn" tag for more than a year. That edit seems to be biased, which is hardly appropriate.

I re-added missing content, and moved the etymology related content to this section. I further modified the text to get rid of synthesis and to make it more neutral.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to label this sentence "and is associated with Kyi (Ukrainian: Кий, Russian: Кий), the legendary eponymous founder of the city." with a "cn" template, but the text would look more beautiful if a reference to some secondary source (not to chronicles) will be added. Can anybody do that please? By the way, I have a feeling that the old Latin transcription was derived from the Polonised version of the name. Is that true? If yes, and if the sources are available, it makes sense to add that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure if I understand this statement:

"In English, Kiev was used in print as early as in 1804 in John Cary's "New map of Europe, from the latest authorities" "

How can the word be used in 1804 if the book was published in 1823?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

That was two different sources. I’ve cleaned it up. Dunno if both need to remain, and we can antedate that to 1792: see wikt:Citations:Kiev. —Michael Z. 00:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Ops. That was probably my fault. Thanks. Yes, the oldest mention would be quite sufficient and easier readable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

For some reason, my edit summary was not added to this edit. My summary is as follows: "all three Medieval spellings found in chronicles were added".--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Looking at your source Trubachev (1987), v. 13, in the last line on p 256, I clearly read “др.-русск. Kыѥвъ” and in the first two lines of p 257 “ст.-укр. Києвъ (1433 г.).” I would romanize these as OES. Kyjevŭ and Ruthenian or Old Ukr. Kyjev (I think the ъ should be omitted and not rendered as ŭ for post-OES text, but not 100% sure).

By the way, let’s romanize ъ=ŭ and ь=ĭ for Proto-Slavic and Old East Slavic, because they are easier for non-specialists to read and type. —Michael Z. 01:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I reproduced spelling from the cited source (Etymology dictionary). Maybe, it makes sense not to romanise them, but to preserve Cyrillic spelling and supplement them with romanisation? I am not sure if it is “др.-русск. Kыѥвъ” or “др.-русск. Kыєвъ”: the scan quality is not good enough. But it seems these are two spellings of the same word, for Urkainian "и" reads like Old Russian/Slavic "ы". Regarding omission of ŭ and ь=ĭ, they were vowels, so I don't know if they can be omitted. We can ask Taivo, who, judging by his nickname, is more knowledgeable in that.

By the way, since you moved the content back, maybe, it makes sense to delete the "Name ..." article?--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The scan is quite high res. Try zooming in, or maybe use a different app. Definitely K ы ѥ в ъ. I could upload a clear screenshot somewhere ...

See yer for the short vowels. They were present in PSl, and disappeared afterwards. Retained in OCS, I guess. I have never heard of them being present in Ruthenian/Old Ukrainian post Kyivan Rus. Anyway, Old Ukrainian belongs to Ukrainian, not to Old East Slavic, so it makes sense to romanize it as such unless we find contrary specific advice in sources.

Which reminds me, we are using a mix of romanization systems based on conflicting principles (“international system” ch c č š je ju ja, and Anglo-American kh ts ch sh ye/ie yu/iu ya/ia). Something to think about. Since this is not a linguistics article, maybe we should consider romanizing all languages in the Ukrainian system style. I am starting to think that ALA-LC and “modified Library of Congress” is much more compatible with Wikipedia’s normal Ukrainian and Russian romanization, readable by many more readers, but still offering the precision needed in articles like this one (cf. ALA-LC Romanization Tables, Romanization of Ukrainian § Library of Congress system) —Michael Z. 03:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

used the spellings Києвъ, Къıєвъ, or Кїєвъ: this passage and citation are odd. Why the three specific links and one very long quotation? Only one of the named spellings is found in these links. A statement like this would be better supported by a secondary source, rather than Wikipedians conducting a survey of the corpus.

By the way, I think some of those transcriptions predate Unicode adopting some old Cyrillic characters. For example, “сЂде въ Кие— uses the modern letter dje and is properly сѣде въ Киевѣ with the yat, and “Къıєвъ” with separate letters ъ-ı can now be transcribed with the digraph ꙑ, yeru with back yer.

I cannot tell if it says K ы ѥ в ъ or К ъı є в ъ, but if you are sure you can see it, I see no reason not to trust you.

I see no problem with usage of the Ukrainian system if it differs from modern Russian. However, if there is some specific system for Old East Slavic (a.k.a. Old Russian), it would be preferable.

For romanization of modern Ukrainian names, including modern official Ukrainian Kiev's name, the Ukrainian system is obviously preferable, but not for old English names, such as Kievan Rus' (just compare a frequency of that. By the way, as I predicted, the ratio "Kyivan Rus'"/"Kievan Rus'" was growing, but it started to decline during last few years. Probably, it follows the common trend (see the "Premature RM" talk page section).

Not one, but two (Києвъ and Къıєвъ). "Кїєвъ" is much more rare. I provided a long quote to show relative abundance of these two forms. Yes, a secondary source would be better, if you can find it, that would be good. By the way, I used it to support a neutral and descriptive statement supported by the quote. Your criticism sounds a little bit odd, because you yourself supplemented the references to English dictionaries with your own survey of statistics of word usage. I think your edits are inconsistent with your criticism.

I just copypasted the words from the source, so that is the transcription that was used by that Ukrainian site.

"сѣде въ Киевѣ" is a prepositional case ("sat in Kiev"). In nominativus, yat becomes yer.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Old East Slavic can be romanized according to the table in early Cyrillic alphabet. In linguistic contexts, use the scholarly international system. But as I mentioned, when it’s being mixed with modern and historical Ukrainian and Russian names in non-linguistic articles, maybe we should consider using modified ALA-LC so everything is consistent. We currently have a sentence using the name “Kyi” to explain the names “Kyjev” and “ Kyjevŭ.” In case it’s not obvious, the English consonant letter j and vowel letter i are used to represent the same semivowel sound. Meanwhile, the lead uses y in “Kiyev.” This is not the epitome of consistency and clarity.

Old East Slavic chronicles, such as Laurentian Codex and Novgorod Chronicle, used the spellings Києвъ, Къıєвъ, or Кїєвъ.[30] What is this based on? Neither the string Києв* nor Кїєв* is found at any of the three links cited nor in the long quotation. —Michael Z. 19:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Michael, I looked through the whole Laurentian codex (up to Suzdal chronicles), take a look at the statistics. You probably use different characters for your search.

With regard to the long quotation, look at the words in bold:

"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"

--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Two of the three words in the statement do not appear in the three links provided, nor do inflections of them, so it still makes no sense. Why those three links? Those links do not help verify the statement.

Cite the source. If the source for these words is your compiled statistics on the corpus of the Suzdal Chronicle, then link to the analysis of the compiled statistics, with an explanation of the method by which, for example, *Кїевъ was reconstructed from “Кїева” and other inflected spellings. Need I mention that along the way you should address WP:NOR? —Michael Z. 21:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Again, please, check the texts before making such claims. I randomly picked one page from Larentian codex (No 6) checked again, and both "Києв*" and "Къıєв*" are found there. "Кїєв" also can be found at first pages. There are several pages on that web site, and a reader can easily browse it.

With regard to the analysis, I see no reason to discuss the last letter of that word. Similar to modern Russian/Ukrainian words: nominativus, genetivus or accusativus are different forms of the same word, so it makes no sense to discuss that, especially keeping in mind that yer, yer', or yat have to relation neither to English word "Kiev", nor to the Ukrainian word "Kyiv".

I don't want to show my analysis, because that would be OR. However, to say that all three words are found in the chronicles would not be original research, because that is a neutral and descriptive statement (in contrast to your analysis of English dictionaries).--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Again, I did check the links cited in the article text. They don’t contain all three mentioned spellings. So please add supporting citations, instead of picking one page “randomly,” and expecting readers to take the hint they must duplicate your “comprehensive analysis.” I am also sceptical of your readings: in some places you seem to be confusing Cyrillic е and є, and ь and ъ.

OR is OR, whether you show your work or not. Including names that are based on your statistical survey and grammatical reconstructions cannot be verified from a RS, but only by seeing your research project or recreating it.

Even expert lexicographers generally quote exact text and name the inflection, or they indicate any reconstruction with an asterisk, like *Києвъ, because doing otherwise is unverifiable. This discretion is why we rely on RS.

Anyway, this conversation is repetitive and clearly unhelpful. Why don’t you fix it, and save the trouble of getting some more opinions to have it removed? —Michael Z. 15:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I am not going to "fix" anything, because (i) you haven't explained properly what should be fixed, and (ii) what you are saying contradicts to what I found in the Laurential codex. Let's check (ii). Go to each page shown below and, using the browser search, check the frequency of each words exactly as they are spelled below. Use ctrl-c/ctrl-v.

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

I obtained these numbers by copying "Къıєв" to a clipboard using a magic combination of the ctrl key (bottom left) and the key "c". Then I went to [1], I pressed ctrl-f (the same magic button + the "f" key), and then "ctrl-v". I found zero words containing "Къıєв*". I repeated the same operation with "Києв", and I found 11 words at that page. By the way, I found also "Киев" (exactly as it is written in modern Russian: "...городище Киевець. Киеви ..." although "Киеви" refers not to the city, but to Kyi ("Киеви же пришедшю въ свои градъ Києвъ ту животъ свои сконча", "Kyi came to Kiev and died"). Note, if I were really confusing Cyrillic е and є, and ь and ъ, or if I were incapable of taking into account the context, I would include "Киев" in my search results (which would please Russian nationalists). However, I perfectly understand that "Киев*" is used in a context of Kyi, and do not refer to the city.

Check my search results by using exactly the same procedure that I described, and if you get different results, explain each step of your search procedure. If I made some mistake, I'll apologize. If you made some mistake during your search, I expect you to apologize. That would be fair.

P.S. I may be possible that the Ukrainian website uses some non-canonical transiteration, and that is why your keywords do not work. Use exactly the same keywords that I used. Do not type them in, just copypaste. I obtained my keywords by reading several first pages of the codex, and by copypasting the keywords from the very same document for a comprehensive search. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The statement says “Old East Slavic chronicles . . . used the spellings Києвъ . . . ,” but you searched for the word fragment “Києв—,” so that’s not the whole story. How many occurrences of the word Києвъ are there actually? Why did you choose these three spellings? —Michael Z. 02:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't understand your logic. If you know the difference between yer and yer', you are expected to know the difference between nominativus, accusativus and genetivus. And, it seems you forgot to apologize...

Re: "how many occurrences of the word Києвъ are there actually? Why did you choose these three spellings?" You seem to be very knowledgeable in that subject, so I have some reason to suspect you perfectly know the answer, and, therefore, your question was not a good faith question. However, I am explaining: "Києвъ" is a nominative case, and, obviously, this word is more frequently found in other cases, where yer is replaced with something else. That does not mean other "Києв*" words refer to something else. That is an elementary rule known to everybody who is even superficially familiar with East Slavic languages. I selected these three words because these three words were found in the manuscript. Originally, the reference to these two manuscripts were used to support the claim that "Къıєв" was used in Old Slavic sources. I decided to check that, and I found that that was wrong: three different forms were used in the same primary source. I didn't pick some specific primary source to support any idea that I may allegedly be advocating: I took the very same source that have already been used in this article, but cited incorrectly, and I performed an exhaustive search to demonstrate which forms of the word "Kiev" are used in this source in reality.

In connection to that, I cannot understand two things: first, what exactly causes your objections? and, second, why haven't you apologized yet? --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• БЦ Парус як вітрило розсікає міські вулиці.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 1 Верховна Рада України VADIM CHUPRINA ©.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

"Keev" as alternative US pronunciation

The NYT source which is used to justify "Keev" as an alternative pronunciation for the city merely says that this is how US lawmakers sounded when they were trying to approximate the Ukrainian pronunciation of Kyiv, not that this actually *is* a pronunciation of the city in US English. It should be removed. – Bangalamania (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

There is a difference between "correct" Ukrainian pronunciation and how Americans actually produce it. In Wikipedia, we can, indeed, comment on American pronunciation from native speakers of English (this being the English Wikipedia) as well as including what a native speaker of Ukrainian would produce in the streets of Kyiv. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The Keev pronunciation exists and is a direct result of spelling the city Kyiv instead of Kiev. As it exists, it should continue to be noted in the article. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

"Approximate the Ukranian pronunciation" is wrong. If they had listened to the Ukrainian pronunciation once, they would have noticed that the V is hardly a consonant. What they probably did was trying to pronounce the written transcription "Kyiv".--89.246.121.221 (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter. In English whether it's spelled Kiev or Kyiv, it is pronounced Key-EV. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 April 2021

Dear Sir or Madam, I would like to ask you to correct the mistake that I saw on the beginning of this article. "Kyiv (Ukrainian: Київ)[a] or Kiev[b]" — I would be grateful if you could remove the variant "Kiev" from this line. If you do not understand why it is a mistake, there is an explanation and evidence: To begin with, Kyiv(Київ) is the only acceptable variant, because it is an Ukrainian city, not Russian. "Kiev" is a russian version of the name and Russia is another country, so that it is wrong to call it that way. Nobody writes Chinese variant of French city name in English-language article about it, so what is the purpose to write Russian variant of Ukrainian city name? Also, when Wikipedia suggests the second[russian] variant of Ukrainian city name it is almost the same thing if it was written that USA or any other former colony is still a part of Great Britain. We, Ukrainians, try to assert Ukrainian identity and shed linguistic relics of Soviet and imperial Russia in international perceptions by promoting the use of Ukrainian-language transliterations for Ukrainian place names. And that is the reason why I am writing this letter and asking you to change the article. Moreover, there is an article, where you can find more information about this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/KyivNotKiev . Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. Yours faithfully, Ukrainian nationalist. Agent Mothman(Ukrainian nationalist) (talk) 11:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. There has been more discussion into this than you would ever imagine. Please seek a consensus to change before requesting an edit. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

"Kiev" is not the Russian name, it is the longstanding English form of the name. Yes, it was derived from Russian, but so what? Lots of words (including names) are derived from many different languages. In the same manner, "Kyiv" is not the Ukrainian name, it is a newer English form derived from Ukrainian. While it was recently decided that English usage had shifted from the Russian-derived form to the Ukrainian-derived form, the form Kiev is still common enough in English to require its mention in the intro. The question of Kiev vs Kyiv has never been about Russian vs Ukrainian, it is and has always been about English usage. --Khajidha (talk) 12:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 May 2021

Hello. I think this part needs to be removed: "Other historians suggest that Magyar tribes ruled the city between 840 and 878, before migrating with some Khazar tribes to the Carpathian Basin. The Primary Chronicles also mention movement of Hungarians pass Kyiv. To this day in Kyiv exists a place known as "Uhorske urochyshche" (Hungarian place),[76] which is better known as Askold's Grave. According to the aforementioned scholars the building of the fortress of Kyiv was finished in 840 under the leadership of Keő (Keve), Csák and Geréb, the three brothers, possibly members of the Tarján tribe. The three names appear in the Kyiv Chronicle Kyi, Shchek and Khoryv may be not of Slavic origin as Russian historians have always struggled to account for their meanings and origins. According to Hungarian historian Viktor Padányi, their names were put into the Kyiv Chronicle in the 12th century, and they were identified as old-Russian mythological heroes.[77]" Because, In the chronicles there is not a single mention of the capture of Kiev by the Hungarians. There is also no archaeological evidence for this. In general, this part of the article is just Hungarian folk history. Is there a place on Wikipedia for folk history? And also this part is also very chauvinistic and expresses a subjective opinion: "as Russian historians have always struggled to account for their meanings and origins" 178.205.61.73 (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Run n Fly (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 May 2021

Please note, this is not an attempt to restart a discussion on Kyiv vs Kiev. This is a change request to correct outdated and duplicated sources as well as providing new ones.

Change "Kyiv is the romanized Ukrainian name for the city,[25] and it is used for legislative and official acts.[26] Kiev is the English name for the city.[27][28][25][29][30][31]" to "Kyiv is the romanized official Ukrainian name for the city,[25][27][USGS] and it is used for legislative and official acts.[26] Kiev is still the more commonly used English name for the city.[28][25][29]"

Rationale: Source [31] is a duplicate of source [25] (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/kiev) Source [27] actually lists "Kyiv" as the city name thus cannot be used as a supporting point for "Kiev" name. Also source description says "Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary. Merriam-Webster. Retrieved 14 November 2020. Merriam–Webster's online dictionary entry has the headword Kiev" which is outdated. It uses word "Kyiv" as the headword. Source [30] cannot be used as a proof for "Kiev", since it lists both names and doesn't state any preference. Source [USGS] is the UK, US and UN official unified source for geographical names, and it lists "Kyiv" as a single approved name. Other spellings are listed as variants: https://geonames.nga.mil/gns/html/index.html and https://www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/ngp/board-on-geographic-names/foreign-names Antti.inkivaari (talk) 06:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done (Diff) although the links to the USGS list do not provide any direct information so it was not added. Is there a permalink or a web archive link you can provide? TGHL ↗ 🍁 15:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, if we state either "Kiev is the English name for the city" or that "Kiev is still the more commonly used English name for the city", then we are admitting that the title of this page is incorrect. I think that a more neutral phrasing would be "Kiev is the traditional English name for the city." --Khajidha (talk) 16:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's no permalink available for [USGS] since it's a live database that one needs to search/query every time from this URL: https://geonames.nga.mil/namesgaz/ But I still think it's worth mentioning it, so ones reading the article can check it out themselves. I agree with Khajidha's point, however, I don't think there's a need to change anything from what's currently already published. Antti.inkivaari (talk) 06:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 July 2020

}} 186.124.160.236 (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Bad translation

Translation error under Kyiv city anthem section. Says: "(Ukrainian: Як тебе не любити, Києве мій!, roughly "How one cannot love you, Kyiv, my dear!")." Bad translation, suggests the subject cannot love the city. Should be "How can I not love you, my Kyiv?". 42.200.10.248 (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The GDP and GDP per capita updates

According to UkrStat the GDP of Kyiv in 2019 is 949,566,000,000 UAH (36,733,000,000 USD) and 320,897 UAH (12,413 USD) per capita[2]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tauri-ori (talk • contribs) 09:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Salaries updates

The "Economy" section of the article should be updated with new data. The sentence "As of July 2019, the average monthly net salary in Kyiv reached 16,249 UAH (€560 / US$ 630)" should be rewritten to "As of October 2021, the average monthly net salary in Kyiv reached 16,487 UAH (€538 / US$ 609) [3]". The new salary is almost the same because there was an error in the previous version of the sentence. 16,249 UAH in July 2019 is gross, not a net salary. You can check it here - https://index.minfin.com.ua/labour/salary/average/2019/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tauri-ori (talk • contribs) 10:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Please add to notable people list

• Yury Gelman (born 1955), Ukrainian-born American Olympic fencing coach

--2603:7000:2143:8500:5153:26CB:DD94:CAD6 (talk) 09:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 February 2022

Paradox NiteOwl (Discussion?) 17:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Add "alternatively spelled Kiev" to the end of ([kiːv] or [kiˈɛv]; Ukrainian: Київ, pronounced [ˈkɪjiu̯])

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. This is a whole thing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Correct phonetic respelling/incorrect citations

KEEV or KEE-ev, is not a form of standardized phonetic transcription; the correct phonetic respelling is \ ˈki-yē-ü , ˈkēv \ or \ ‘kē-ef, -ev \ this phonic respelling is used by Merriam-Webster,* American Oxford Dictionary is /kēyif/, the majority of other major collegiate dictionary’s use \ kē-ef, -ev \ Only one IPA transcription for Kyiv and Kiev is correct, the transliteration of Ukrainian Cyrillic to English Latin is Kyiv, while Russian Cyrillic to English is Kiev. Kē-ef, -ev, is the primary pronunciation of Kyiv used by English speakers without an Indo-European/Slavic accent.

The current citation sources are also incorrect.

• Merriam-Webster is the primary reference dictionary of the United States Government.

JtLea7 (talk) 13:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Very interesting info. Keep in mind, though, that the English Wikipedia is for the entire English-speaking world, not just the U.S. Also, this topic (article) is not U.S.-based. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses its own phonetic respelling system, which is linked from the respelling, see Help:Pronunciation respelling key. Kahastok talk 17:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2022

85.254.75.158 (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

KYEV NOT KIEV

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Kahastok talk 21:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Picture: Hungarians at Kyiv in 830

This is a picture of a modern painter (Pál Vágó), it should be writed below the picture. (The image does not reflect reality.) --Milei.vencel (talk) 08:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Please protect all Ukraine related articles

Thank you ThanOther (talk) 06:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

--- Hello, The changes has been done over the years, not just recently. Tonnes of misinformation. We try to correct it I guess. MiroslavGlavic (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

So what is the neutrality issue?

There's a big banner on the article saying that the article's neutrality is disputed and directing readers here for more information. But I can't see anything relevant here (unless the neutrality issue is the pronunciation of the name? It seems a bit disproportionate to tag the entire article over that). I get the current event, but that doesn't seem itself to call neutrality into question and the main Ukraine article isn't similarly tagged for neutrality. So what's it all about? 217.28.13.237 (talk) 12:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The article is pro-West nd anti-Russia. 2402:3A80:E08:ED02:D8AA:9960:B695:399F (talk) 13:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

You need to elaborate. Otherwise, the response is simply "No, it's not" 2600:8800:2C01:C700:1C6D:4D35:2D9D:7B4B (talk) 13:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Fyunck(click) placed the {{POV}} tag a few hours ago because "[w]e have a POV lead now with and [sic] editor changing the status quo pronunciation." So I think this really is about the controversy discussed above under § Pronunciations this long should not be in the lead. I also think the tagging is unjustified, and a naive reader might understand it to be insinuating something else. Fyunck, would you care to respond? Rebbing 14:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Sure. The lead has been bouncing around like a ping pong ball. we've had short ones like "Kyiv (Ukrainian: Київ) or Kiev", medium length ones like "Kyiv or Kiev (Ukrainian: Київ, romanized: Kyiv; Russian: Киев, romanized: Kiyev)", and massive ones that were hard to read, "Kyiv ([kiːv] or [kiˈɛv]) (Ukrainian: Київ, romanized: Kyiv, pronounced [ˈkɪjiu̯]), also known as Kiev (Russian: Киев, romanized: Kiyev, pronounced [ˈkʲi(j)ɪf])". I even started a thread above on the length. But suddenly we have editor "IvanScrooge98" changing it with a single pronunciation to KEEV in the very lead using a source from Websters whose pronunciation is Key-U. I still here most English users using Key-ev regardless of spelling but some in the news in the last couple days have certainly been using Keev. I reverted his single English pronunciation twice and I wasn't going to do it again. It is POV. It can be roved completely like it was before this started but if pronunciation in English is given in must show multiple versions, not just mislead and show one. All of that should be in the Etymology section and not necessarily the lead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm a little confused as to how this represents a POV issue, which at its core is a question of neutrality. Not all factual disputes are issues of neutrality, and that the entire article is hit with an NPOV tag based on that alone — implying the entire article does not fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources per the documentation for the POV template — seems very disproportionate to me. I think the tag should be removed. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 22:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Having a POV tag here because we are quibbling over the ORDER of how to present information in the first sentence of the lead is nonsense. POV is for differences in points-of-view of substantial content, not for how to order minutiae. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Arguing over whether to spell the synonym of "tint" color or colour is barely POV, but to label an entire article on Renaissance painters as "POV" because of the spelling difference is irresponsible. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

That is totally wrong and you know it. Right now we have Kyiv listed with one pronunciation. That is wrong. That is incorrect. Plus the source used says Key-U anyway. That is why we have a POV tag. Because and editor just up and removed a pronunciation that is heavily used in English for Kyiv, not just Kiev. Right now as I write, this article is giving our readers false information. Until that is fixed it should remain a POV issue. I can't believe that we would let incorrect info stand in an article whose subject in in the news today. I would put a section POV if it was a section.... but it's the lead and I can't do that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

You could put it this way and it would be more correct and not POV, Kyiv or Kiev (/ˈkiːɛv/ KEE-ev or (/kiːv/ KEEV) Ukrainian: Київ, romanized: Kyïv, pronounced [ˈkɪjiu̯] ^ⓘ). But otherwise it infers something incorrect and that websters source needs to go unless you decide to incorporate the Key-U pronunciation which I'm not in favor of. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC) Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I’m so aggravated, I just spent 2 hours gathering the correct sources/citations and typing out the argument for the correct usuage and Wikipedia said it posted but it disappeared. Very simply Kyiv is the only correct usage, used at the colligiate, academic and legal level around the English speaking world, Kiev is obsolete. Kē-ef -ev is the most widely used pronunciation of the English speaking world. KEEV and KEE-Ve are completely erroneous and made up. I will provide a full statement/argument with sources if needed after I shovel some snow....sigh.. JtLea7 (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The notion that there is ever a "correct" English pronunciation over and above all others, whether commonly used or virtually unknown, is a fallacy. There are dozens of English dialects and subdialects in the US, dozens more on those two little islands north of France, then you factor in South Africa, Australia, Singapore, etc., etc., etc. and you get the point. Websters is "advisory" only, not a one-size-fits-all marker of actual usage. You'd need to include a dozen different major dictionaries and then take the most common entries. But that's unnecessary to list all those references here in Wikipedia. We, as (mostly) native speakers of English know what is in use and don't need twelve dictionary references in the lead. [ki:v] and [kiˈɛv] are the only two pronunications that have any traction, with the latter still being more common. If you haven't been listening to 24-hour news for the last few days, then I suggest you do to get a feel for usage. No one is saying a two-syllable based on Ukrainian. I've noted a couple who were thinking as they spoke and trying something closer to Ukrainian, but it kept coming out as [ˈkiɛv] or [kiˈɛv] (with final partial, but not complete, devoicing of [v]). But that's still not a POV issue, it's minutiae. It's also not "giving our readers false information". No, it's not because most of the back and forth is about how to arrange the minutiae, not whether it's factual or not. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

It is absolutely non-factual and POV. It is not minutia. I can't believe an editor added incorrect info and it is still there and being protected by other editors. This is a disservice to our readers. You have Kyiv with one pronunciation and a bad link, and then Kiev with a pronunciation. There seems to be some bias against English by the edit. It should go back to the way it was before the incorrect info was placed and discussed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

What the heck is "non-factual and POV"? Kyiv is pronounced [ki:v] in English and Kiev is pronounced [kiˈɛv]. The "bad link" isn't relevant and can be fixed and the references are irrelevant. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 06:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Non-factual, incorrect, purposely misleading... WRONG. An editor changed it to his interpretation of English use and it's WRONG. A source like The Guardian is much closer to English usage... Kee-yiv, two syllables. Is Keev also used... sure, but making it the only choice is not a fact and is POV of the editor that added it and you for keeping it. I can't be more clear than that. If you know a way for me to mark it so that is clear then by all means tell me. Websters first choice is Key-U and that got shoved away for Keev. So that source does not match the pronunciation. How can I be more clear. Instead of berating and reverting please tell me how to bring my point into sharper focus. If you don't understand then it must be my fault in not being clear enough, because I'm not wrong on this issue. It misleads our readers into thinking that Kyiv in English is pronounce Keev when it has multiple pronunciations in English, where Keev is not the first choice. There are multiple ways to do it... put both pronunciations after Kyiv and put none for Kiev. Add the Kee-if -ev pronunciation to Kyiv and leave the pronunciation also for Kiev. And change/remove the source for Keev since it really doesn't match. I've tried all to no avail and the wrong POV item is still there, still misleading our readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you are wrong. Here's a basic point where you are wrong. Your repeated claim, Websters first choice is Key-U, is 100% unquestionably unambiguously false, as discussed in some detail here. And the fact that you are still making that claim rather implies that you aren't reading the responses to your messages. Kahastok talk 10:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Of course I read your response and it is wrong. Websters tells us right off the bat. (Ky·​iv | \ ˈki-yē-ü , ˈkēv \). It shows us two syllables, then ki-yē-ü (which gets pronounced as Key-U which I keep using since my keyboard is in English, and finally one syllable kēv. What gets put in this article? kiːv/ pronounced as Keev. That is not what Websters is telling us so that source is wrong for what we have. Plus it is more common in English to have Key-if and Key-ev as pronunciation for the spelling Kyiv. Why only one choice? That's a POV edit in the very least and blatant misinformation at the worst. I have no idea why this is an issue in an English wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

ˈki-yē-ü cannot reasonably be parsed as Key-U. If we accept that - despite the pronunciation key clearly indicating three syllables - it intends to indicate two syllables, then the syllable break is in between the full syllables ki and yē, and not between full syllable yē and short syllable ü. Kahastok talk 10:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Let me retract my easy spelling. Websters tells us for Kyiv, two syllables, then ki-yē-ü, then kēv. What was our article changed to by an editor... a pronunciation of Keev. That's it. Websters is not a source for that alone. There are also sources for Key-if and Key-ev but those more popular long standing terms have been removed from the lead with only KEEV left. Why? Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

They haven't been removed from the lede. Here, let me quote the current lede for you, with those particular pronunciations bolded.

Kyiv (/kiːv/ KEEV) or Kiev (/ˈkiːɛv/ KEE-ev, Ukrainian: Київ, romanized: Kyïv, pronounced [ˈkɪjiu̯] ^ⓘ)

/ˈkiːɛv/ is what you describe as Key-ev. [ˈkɪjiu̯] is what Websters describes as ki-yē-ü.

I haven't yet seen a good reason to include them each twice. Kahastok talk 11:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

What you just put up there for all our readers is Kyiv (in italics pronounced as Keev), Kiev (in italics pronounced as Key-ev). That is not true. Kyiv has multiple pronunciations, not just Keev... and Keev is down the sourcing list of best choices anyway (including the Websters sources). Even Kiev has two standard pronunciations Key-ev and Key-ef, yet only one was cherry-picked for some reason. Why the cherry picking. It would be best to not list the pronunciations in the lead and leave that to the etymology section to talk about. But if they are to remain in the lead (wikipedia does not use a lede) then you can't simply throw ones away you simply don't like... because that misleads our readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

You keep working under the impression that Websters represents "correct" or even "most common" pronunciation. Websters is not the imprimatur of English, or even just American, pronunciation. The final devoiced consonant is not standard, but is a poor attempt to represent final consonant devoicing in some dialects (certainly not all and certainly not the majority) that affects most, if not all, voiced obstruents phrase-finally. You are confusing English dialectal phonotactics with "standard" or "correct" pronunciation just because it happens to coincide with Slavic phonotactics. The vast majority of English speakers look at the spelling of the word (and have always looked at the spelling) and put a final [v] there. "Kiev" has always been pronounced by the vast majority of English speakers with a final [v] despite the fact that it is not pronounced that way in Russian. There is no difference between the way that English speakers have historically pronounced "Kiev" and the way that they pronounce the final consonant in "Kyiv" (if they aren't still saying [kiˈɛv]. And if you're going to discuss pronunciations, please actually use phonetic notation because it's silly to think that there is a difference in English pronunciation between "KEE-ev" and "Key-ev" (as I have seen in some published sources). "KEE" and "Key" are both [ki:]. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 03:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

There is a lot of Russian propaganda, pro-Russia content on the here. Like before it was Kiev instead of Kyiv. The article should be neutral not pro-Russia, it isn't anti-Russia. For years Ukrainian articles were being changed. Like City names. Things in Ukraine should be Ukrainian, things in Italy should be Italian, etc... MiroslavGlavic (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Really? So Ukrainian doesn't make any changes to place names from other countries where they speak other languages? I find that hard to believe. In any article, in any language, the words used should be those of the language it is written in. Even if that differs from the language spoken in the area being written about. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 00:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Pronounciation

Kyiv is not pronounced "Keev" or "kooyv" as I've seen in a few areas.

It's pronounced as Ki-yee-v

I get why folks are saying "Keev" but they're skipping the middle bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.154.10 (talk) 14:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

"It's pronounced as Ki-yee-v" is already listed as an alternate pronunciation: [kiˈɛv]. You seem to think that pure Ukrainian pronunciation is possible given English phonotactics and the English vowel system. You are wrong. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

[citation needed] —Michael Z. 18:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Please add under notable people ...

• Vadim Gutzeit (born 1971), Olympic champion fencer and Ukraine's Youth and Sport Minister.

--2603:7000:2143:8500:340E:C11:3062:AB6F (talk) 02:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2022

Please DELETE Kiev from your article. The ONLY possible translation is Kyiv! Please CHANGE Dnieper to Dnipro. Please DELETE any mentions of Dnieper.

Thanks! Olutkkk (talk) 08:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please get consensus for your changes before using the edit protected template. CMD (talk) 08:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Erroneous citation regarding migration of ethnic Ukranians

In the introduction to this article, fifth paragraph, there appears this sentence: "Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and Ukrainian independence in 1991, Kyiv remained Ukraine's capital and experienced a steady influx of ethnic Ukrainian migrants from other regions of the country.[17]" The citation is for a well regarded history of Ukraine, and the footnote even provides a page number and link to Google Books for that page. However the page in question discusses Galician-Ukrainian politics and the Austro-Hungarian Empire in the 19th century. I happen to have a pdf of that book and did some searching for keywords to find something to substantiate the claim in the article, but couldn't find anything. So we'll need a new source for this claim. Anyone have any knowledge about whether it's a commonly acknowledged fact or more contentious?

Toadchavay (talk) 08:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Inconsistency

The article says "Kiev is the traditional English name for the city, but because of its historical derivation from the Russian name..."

However, the preceding paragraphs state that the name came from Old East Slavonic, not from Russian. Ukrainian and Russian are both modern dialects of Old East Slavonic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C55:6500:A38:65AA:7B57:1BF6:B503 (talk) 12:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

SHHHH!!!!!!!!!!! You'll upset all the editors who lobbied to move it from the "Russian form" to the "Ukrainian form" if you keep making sensible points like that one. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The moratorium is long up. Why don’t you RM it back to the “sensible” title, instead of squeezing your WP:GRAPES in front of anon editors? —Michael Z. 19:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The name is first attested in Old East Slavic, but that language was gone by the time it entered English. See Ruthenian language (some sources used to call it “Russian”), which was used in Ukraine, and Polish and German may have been influences. Other spellings like Kiou, Kiow, Kiovia, and Kieff were used for centuries before Kiev is attested in the late eighteenth c. See also Name of Kyiv. I don’t know of a source that has studied the English forms and their origins in detail. —Michael Z. 19:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Note [a] explains how to say Kiev, not Kyiv. How do we now say Kyiv in English? 99.229.116.186 (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The sources suggest that it should be pronounced precisely as in Ukrainian, i.e. as [ˈkɪjiu̯]. For a monoglot English speaker this is very difficult, as it breaks the rules of English phonology in several different ways. English does not allow an unpalatalised [k] before [ɪ], and does not allow the [u̯] (or its near relative [w]) at the end of a syllable. The sound sequence [ˈɪji] cannot occur in English as two syllables, even across a word boundary (though it is close to a common British English realisation of /iː/ as [ɪ͡i]).

So pronouncing as in Ukrainian, even if it's supposed to be the only correct form, is a non starter. In practice, you have two choices. One is to just say Kiev (as described here). The other is to simplify [ˈkɪjiu̯] to /kiːv/. Kahastok talk 19:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it would be written in IPA, but I could see someone pronouncing Kyiv like the word "key" followed by the sounds represented by "ive" in "give". Just continuing to pronounce it like Kiev is probably the most likely, though.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Ironically, the version you describe is actually very similar to the Russian pronunciation [ˈkʲi(j)ɪf]. The big difference is that the final sound in Russian is an unvoiced [f] (as in if) rather than a voiced [v] (as in give).

In Ukrainian the vowels are the other way around - a short i (as in kick) immediately followed by the yea as in yeast. As I say, English never puts these sounds together like this, and it's a very difficult combination for a monoglot English speaker to pronounce. Far too difficult to survive as the default pronunciation for a major city. Kahastok talk 21:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

There could be a big difference in maybe how it should be pronounced and how it is actually pronounced in English. I find it rare to be pronounced any differently than it always has been in English. Either Key-ev or Key-ef, just like the chicken dish, no matter how we spell it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The two references at the very end of the Kyiv#Etymology section discuss this, but the non-expert journalists aren’t exactly reliable on this, and the only thing perfectly clear is that there isn’t a single established English pronunciation that’s specific to the current spelling.

If anyone finds more sources on how English-language radio or TV is addressing this, please bring them here. —Michael Z. 22:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Currently i'm hearing on the BBC the old/"usual" pronunciation more, but also some speakers are using a "Keev" pronunciation, single syllable to closely rhyme with "heave". Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 17:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd say 'kay-eve' which is pretty close to how it's said in western Ukrainian dialects and more natural in english—blindlynx 02:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

All I ever hear on American public radio news broadcasts is [ki:v] "Keev". One syllable with an overtly long [i:]. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Here are some examples of "Kyiv" as [ki:v]. (There are still some that say [kiyev], such as Fox News and Al Jazeera):

• CBS News (although the announcer also pronounces Lviv [li:v])
• US State Department (pronunciation at 2:00 mark)
• language teaching company

Here is the correct pronunciation in Ukrainian, but, of course, it is unattainable in English phonology and phonotactics: [4]

--TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I meant more like, the radio and TV media’s pronunciation guides or instructions. I’ve never seen any of that published, except for the NPR item cited in the article. —Michael Z. 04:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Meanwhile, can we at least add the correct Ukrainian pronunciation, [ˈkɪjiu̯]? It's weird that there's the correct Russian pronunciation on the page, and not the Ukrainian one. And for what it's worth, it's easy enough for English speakers to say "KI-yeve" ("KI" as in "kid", "y" as in "ye", and "eve" as in "eve"). Etoombs (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

No. The pronunciation is for the pronunciation in English. The "correct Russian pronunciation" is not on the page. There are two English pronunciations that are more common than any others: [ˈki:v] and [kiˈɛv]. And it doesn't matter whether or not you (incorrectly) think that it's easy for Americans to pronounce Kyiv like Ukrainians do. Wikipedia doesn't prescribe what you think English speakers should do, it describes what English speakers actually do. And it's not mimic Ukrainian pronunciation. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 07:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I highlighted the English pronunciations and added Ukrainian. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 07:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Taivo, for the edition. BTW, the Russian pronunciation was on the page at the time I posted that. Someone must have taken it down by the time you looked. Anyway, it doesn't matter now. Thanks again. Etoombs (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems odd that the article sets out how to pronounce Kiev before it sets out how to pronounce Kyiv. EuroAgurbash (talk) 12:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The city is named Kiev in English. There is no Kyiv alternative and that is why there is no pronunciation for it. Progress for the sake of progress must be discouraged. 124.169.157.51 (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

To the contrary, this WP article is listed as "Kyiv", with a redirect from "Kiev". The cite for pronunciation as ˈ/kiːv/ KEEV gives Merriam-Webster -- but this is not M-W's preferred pronunciation; it's listed as an alternative. Copying from their website, they give \ˈki-yē-ü\ as their preference. (Pronouncing it as though spelled Kiev \ˈkē-​ˌef, -​ˌev, -​if \ is a lot easier for English speakers.) Many CNN speakers do seem to say KEEV. Milkunderwood (talk) 06:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Would the English approximation for Kyiv not be “kih-yeeve”(not bothered to put into IPA)?, I don’t know any sources but I’be heard people promote this pronunciation & its very doable for an English monoglot.(I’m not really sure how to use talk)

00:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.173.101 (talk)

The Khazar Origin of Ancient Kiev

In the history section of the article, the claim of historian Julius Brutzkus is included, which suggests that word Kyiv is Khazar origin and means lower settlement. I have two questions about that. Is it appropriate to include the historian's claim about etymology in the article, where we have sources written by actual linguists? If yes, why that information is not in the Etymology section of the article? AtheistGeorgian (talk) 11:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

The pronunciation audio clip

First, let me qualify myself properly. I’m American with only a couple months worth of studying Ukrainian. Second, the audio file for the pronunciation is not how I’ve ever heard it said before. While I’m not fluent I’m familiar in Ukrainian phonetics. This is not how at least most Ukrainians pronounce those letters. I can come up with 20 links of videos of Ukrainians saying Kyiv and it not sounding anything like this. 2601:282:102:CCF0:0:0:0:5FE1 (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but your "couple of months worth of studying Ukrainian" isn't a reliable source. I lived in Ukraine and this is, indeed, how most Ukrainians pronounce the name in isolation (suffixes with alter the pronunciation of the final consonant to make it more of a fricative). Some Ukrainians will pronounce the final glide as a partially devoiced [v] (not a full [f]), but the vowels are the same as in the posted pronunciation. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

It matches the IPA. To me, the first syllable sounds much more prominent/longer than the second one: [ˈkɪːjĭŭ̯] (although the second syllable is probably a bit too reduced for a citation form you'd expect to hear on a recording). I don't know whether Ukrainian is stress-timed like Russian or syllable-timed like Polish and Slovak. If it's the former, the audio is perfectly fine. The recordings in Help:IPA/Ukrainian sound more syllable-timed to my ears. Maybe Western Ukrainian dialects are influenced by Polish and/or Slovak? Sol505000 (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Kyiv is located on the Dnipro river not the Dnieper

Dnieper - is how the river is called in Russian language, however the official language of Ukraine, quite logically, is Ukrainian, not Russia (just as the official language in Russia is Russian, not Ukrainian). The correct pronunciation of the river Kyiv is located on is: Dnipro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.211.169.151 (talk) 08:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Just as Dnieper is how it's called in the English language, which is the language this Wikipedia is written in. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Fyunck - Wikipedia is not 100% correct, mistakes are made then corrected. Everything changes over time as new facts come to light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.108.51.34 (talk) 10:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

On the fact Wikipedia is not 100% correct we can agree. In fact it's an understatement. But that is not the point. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Also see WP:COMMONNAME; it is rather important which name is used in the english-language sources. Lectonar (talk) 10:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Commonly Recognized' does not justify continuing the use of an incorrect name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.108.51.34 (talk) 10:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not incorrect. It is English. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 10:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually yes it does. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

We don't translate German cities, rivers, etc. to English via Russian language, so it's completely illogical to translate Ukrainian cities, rivers, etc. to English via Russian language - therefore Dnieper in English is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.108.51.34 (talk) 12:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The correct place to take this up is Talk:Dnieper. We can't change the article name through a discussion here. CMD (talk) 12:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Kyiv was called Kiev in all English-language sources until several years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9180:BAE0:8486:BE4B:7341:A02B (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

That is untrue. Kyiv spelling is attested by 1929. Sees significant usage since the 1990s. —Michael Z. 19:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Dnieper is far far more common than Dnipro, it should stay Kind Regards, NotAnotherNameGuy (talk) 08:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not "Dnieper" in Russian, it's "Днепр" so "Dnepr" (or "Dnyepr" if you want to indicate palatalization) so, I think this entire debate is just obtuse. Keep neutral spelling. 93.103.223.236 (talk) 12:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Issue here is that the river spans several countries, and there are national differences between what they call if and how they want it spelled in English. It is confusing if we do not standardize what we call it on Wikipedia (readers might mistake the different names/spellings to be entirely different rivers), so there is a tricky balance in figuring out what we consider to be the “common name” we should use. SecretName101 (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

As a compromise, perhaps (as a suitable stopgap compromise to address this concern) in the first mention of the river in the lead and geopgraphy section, we can make note that Ukrainians refer to it differently like “(which Ukrainians call the “Dnipro”)”? Alternatively, we could contain it in an attached footnote after those mentions. SecretName101 (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Pronunciations this long should not be in the lead

The lead is really hard to read when the pronunciation guide takes up so much space. Our readers expect to see Kyiv also known as Kiev and instead all they see is Kyiv (English: /ˈkiːɛv, -ɛf, kiːˈɛv, -ˈɛf/ KEE-ev, -⁠ef, kee-EV, -⁠EF[10][11] US also /kiːv/ KEEV.[12]) (Ukrainian: Київ, romanized: Kyiv, pronounced [ˈkɪjiu̯]), also known as Kiev (Russian: Киев, romanized: Kiyev, pronounced [ˈkʲi(j)ɪf])... When it gets this ridiculously long with pronunciations they should all go in the Etymology section. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I shortened it down to the two main pronunciations that are occurring in English language media. All that detail wasn't actually proper pronunciation information, but options due to English phonotactics. It's irrelevant noise. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 07:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

That was too much shortening. I was looking for the Ukrainian name (Київ) and had to click on the link to the Russian article to find it. For a comparision, see the article on Moscow, which includes the Russian name for the city. I suggest restoring this to the lead: "Ukrainian: Київ". --50.39.99.70 (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

There is a whole guideline on the use of geographic names in articles: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). --50.39.99.70 (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The Ukrainian name is in the first sentence under Etymology. No need to go to Russian Wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

And if the anon really did have to look at a different language's page to find it, there's a very handy inter-wiki language link to the Ukrainian page in the left sidebar. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#General guidelines: “The lead . . . Relevant foreign language names . . . are permitted,” “a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be both in such separate section and in the lead.”

WP:LEADLANG: “If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence, usually in parentheses.” Above: “ Relevant foreign-language names . . . are encouraged. Separate languages should be divided by semicolons, and romanizations of non-Latin scripts by commas.”

Since we’ve discussed pronunciation, but not removing the native name, I’ll restore it to reflect the current consensus. —Michael Z. 19:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. That's perfect. --50.39.99.70 (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

This is not the standing consensus. The standing consensus is either this or this. Since you say you intended to revert to the consensus, I have reverted to the latter of these.

Wikipedia's preferred Romanisation system for Russian says that Киев is Romanised as Kiyev. We should not be in the business of coming up with our own separate Romansiations when we already have a consensus standard in place. If we are insisting on Kiev as the primary Romanisation of Киев, then there is no reason not to also allow Kyyiv as a primary Romansiation for "Київ". Kahastok talk 20:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I said I was reverting the undiscussed removal of the native name, to reflect the guideline’s recommendation to include it and the consensus to include it. I didn’t know there was a standing consensus version of the page.

Separately, I corrected a statement that the Russian name is romanized Kiyev, to reflect that the more common English-language romanization is Kiev. Nothing to do with “we are insisting” or Wikipedia’s “primary romanization.” If you want the article to state how Wikipedia’s original-research romanization system renders the Russian name, I am opposed to including that at all. —Michael Z. 21:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The lead is still a mess as far as pronunciation keys. It's one thing to have one item but this has several and should be in a separate section, not the lead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps the Russian one can be ditched now? News reports from Ukraine over the last few months have indicated that Russian speakers in Ukraine are switching in droves to Ukrainian. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 10:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree it’s less clear than after my edit. Guidelines I cited recommend one foreign language in the lead, regardless of local linguistic landscape. —Michael Z. 18:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Then again, the way things are going, it may soon go back to Kiev with no Ukraine at all. A fluid and dangerous situation in that part of the world. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Don't count on it. Russia doesn't have enough blood to take over Ukraine. In the streets of Kharkiv all you heard was Russian in 2013. Now you have to listen very hard to hear someone not speaking Ukrainian. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 11:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I hope you're right. Right now I fear a return to a time when only Russian will be allowed to be taught in schools. Back to a Tibet-like area where Ukraine is an area of Russia called "The Ukraine", not a country. I hope I'm wrong but I fear I'm right. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Whether or not there's a case for dropping the Russian - and the case made so far is 100% anecdotal - MOS:ALTNAME says that alternative English names should be included. Kiev is more widely searched than Kyiv in several major English-speaking countries, including the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, South Africa and Australia. Whatever we might think of the name of the article, it is indisputable that Kiev is a significant alternative name in English, that should be included per MOS:ALTNAME. Kahastok talk 18:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually, the "anecdotal" was a report from a correspondent in Kharkiv on NPR. But nevertheless, the Wikipedia guidance cited above argues for just one foreign language option following the English name(s) as the preferred norm. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

However you can't simply remove the English alternate "Kiev" from the lead as you did in this edit. It has since been added back but maybe that was a mistake on your part when you removed the foreign pronunciations? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

It was an inadvertent deletion because it was buried in the foreign versions rather than being correctly placed with the English name. It has a bad habit of being called "the Russian name" when it is not. It is simply the prior name in English that is still commonly encountered. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Only noticing this discussion now. I restored the pronunciations, since they were sourced and the source had been removed too, and moved them into a note. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 12:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Several problems with that. First, either we include the Russian or we don't. If we're including the Russian, it shouldn't be in a footnote. If we're not including the Russian, then it shouldn't be in a footnote. So why is it in a footnote?

Second, this then brings us back to the beginning of the thread, where we have a pronunciation section that is far too long.

Third, the word people can't pronounce is Kyiv, and this is not resolved by telling them in vast detail how to pronounce Kiev. Kahastok talk 18:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

First off, we need a source to provide English IPA for Kyiv, period; until then, readers are going to have to approximate the Ukrainian, it sucks but there’s no other way. Secondly, the problem with length was that it cluttered the lead section, an issue which is easily resolved with a footnote. And ultimately, why shouldn’t Russian be in a footnote? After all, it is a secondary language and the source of the Kiev spelling after which I placed the footnote. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 18:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Added /kiːv/ for Kyiv per Merriam-Webster. The other transcription is clearly an attempt at approximating the Ukrainian pronunciation, but English phonotactics do not allow /ˈkɪjiːuː/. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 18:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Etymology is not a good reason to put the Russian in the lede at all. In fact, MOS:LEADLANG is quite specific. Do not include foreign equivalents in the lead sentence just to show etymology. Also, while we can put foreign language names in footnotes, we should be doing it with all of them or none of them. We can't footnote one name and not the other. That's per MOS:ALTNAME.

And in the same way it makes no sense to footnote one pronunciation but not the other. We either put the whole lot in footnotes or none of it. Kahastok talk 18:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I've put a new version in. This removes most of the clutter by getting rid of minor variations of the same pronunciation, and by excluding the Russian entirely. Kahastok talk 18:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Sometimes these discussions devolve into one versus one. Just so Kahastok doesn't feel alone, I think he's right on target--two primary English variants and Ukrainian. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, just because it’s too cluttering to have all pronunciations in the lead doesn’t mean we get to decide which ones to remove. Also, please pay attention to punctuation because the lead ended up being a mess of semicolons and parentheses. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 22:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

And regarding the inclusion of the Russian name, it wasn’t just because it is the origin of the Kiev variant, but also because the language has been spoken in Ukraine to various extents. In other words, it’s not the same as if we included the French pronunciation for Naples. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 22:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Reverting back to a form that was cleaner, conformed to Wikipedia practice, and has more support. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Seriously, how does the current note bother you, how does it look any less “clean”? And again, how do we decide which pronunciation we should keep? 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 22:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

You don't seem to have read the comments here. The English forms and English pronunications must go first, then one foreign form following. Your edit makes a mess of things by mixing the English in amongst the foreign forms. Russian is not included because in a selection of one foreign form (the preferred Wikipedia number), Ukrainian has priority (since it's the official language naturally). --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

And I have put the English first for each separate spelling, which makes more sense. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 22:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

No, all the English goes first, then any foreign language forms. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Well of course, of you don’t take into account that each of the two English forms is based on each of two distinct languages. But nevermind, I inserted a transcription for Ukrainian so that readers understand. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 22:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

And in any case you chose to ignore my notes on punctuation and not to address my question as to what’s the criterion for keeping /ˈkiːɛv/ over /ˈkiːɛf/, /kiːˈɛv/ and /kiːˈɛf/. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 22:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Kyiv has multiple pronunciations in English. The most common is Key-ev(ef) and in some news sources they are using Keev. We don't just show one version in the lead if we are going to show it. Websters shows Key-u but I've never heard that to be honest. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I have heard exactly one native English speaker use "key-u" and that was the director of the Ukrainian Fulbright program at a Fulbright scholars orientation meeting in Washington in 2007 before leaving for a year in Ukraine. His parents were Ukrainian immigrants and he learned the language as a child so he was using a native Ukrainian pronunciation. No other English speaker that I have ever heard (either in the US or in Ukraine) has used "key-u" and while I live in the US, I've been in and out of Ukraine for years. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 10:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

But the source listed uses Key-u... so that Websters source should be removed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

User talk:TaivoLinguist can we please stop evaluating sources by their authors’ ancestry or personal history? There is no guideline that supports this. Thanks. —Michael Z. 19:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Right. Webster's - what, KIH-yee-oo? KIH-yee-w? With three syllables? - is clearly just an attempt to render the Ukrainian in English because that's how it's supposed to sound. Not necessarily what people actually say. We are not bots, and we are allowed to exercise judgement about how to use our sources. In this case, it makes sense to only list one variation on KEE-ev and to not include pronunciations that nobody uses. Kahastok talk 18:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Taking stock

I just want to be sure on what the remaining issues are at this stage. The questions at the moment I think are mostly resolved, but I think it's worth checking I have all of these correct. Because I'm not understanding why there's a POV tag on this article.

My understanding is that:

1. We have consensus to include both English variants and the Ukrainian word Київ, but not the Russian word Киев.
2. We have consensus to include the pronunciation /kiːv/ KEEV.
3. We have consensus to include a single pronunciation that is a variant on /ˈkiːɛv/ KEE-ev.
4. There is dispute as to whether to include /kɪjiːuː/ KIH-yee-oo as an English pronunciation?
5. We have consensus to include a Ukrainian pronunciation of Київ, either as [ˈkɪjiu̯] ^ⓘ or as Ukrainian: Київ, romanized: Kyiv.
6. There is dispute as to whether to include [ˈkɪjiu̯] ^ⓘ or Ukrainian: Київ, romanized: Kyiv (with transcription)?

Please could we start discussing the options here and work together on a text rather than continually changing the article? The fact that we're having this discussion demonstrates that the status quo is not necessarily the standing consensus per WP:WRONGVERSION.

My preferred choice is:

Kyiv or Kiev ((/kiːv/ KEEV; or /ˈkiːɛv/ KEE-ev); Ukrainian: Київ [ˈkɪjiu̯] ^ⓘ) is the capital...

but I am open to other options and won't insist on precisely this. IMO we should not include an English pronunciation based on [ˈkɪjiu̯] because no monoglot English-speakers actually say anything that sounds like that. And we are better off including the IPA and audio because it's more descriptive than just repeating the Ukrainian transcription (given that the point of including the Ukrainian is not to give the etymology of Kyiv in English).

Would other editors please make proposals in a similar manner, and explain them, and explain their objections to others' versions where they exist? Thanks, Kahastok talk 21:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

References

I agree with Kahastok's assessment and his version. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

This is how I would put it: Kyiv (/kiːv/ KEEV; Ukrainian: Київ [ˈkɪjiu̯] ^ⓘ) or Kiev (/ˈkiːɛv, -ɛf/ KEE-ev, -⁠ef; Russian: Киев [ˈkʲi(j)ɪf] ^ⓘ); pretty immediate, you easily get why the English has two variants and you don’t need to put additional transliterations since Kyiv and Kiev basically are transliterations of what comes just next. But seeing there is no consensus to keep Russian, simply Kyiv (/kiːv/ KEEV; Ukrainian: Київ [ˈkɪjiu̯] ^ⓘ) or Kiev (/ˈkiːɛv, -ɛf/ KEE-ev, -⁠ef) would be great. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 23:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Kahastok. And "why English has two variants" isn't really something that needs to be in the lead. That's what etymology sections are for. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 00:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I probably didn’t make my point clear. If it doesn’t make sense to put the Ukrainian spelling Київ next to the English form that stems from it, I don’t know what does. Because if we don’t, we need to make the lead more lengthy by providing a romanization for Київ, which I had to do to the current version which would otherwise be unclear. In other words, if the original problem of this discussion was “the lead is too long”, this is the only way to make it concise. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 07:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, that's what etymology sections are for. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with IvanScrooge98: we include the Ukrainian name Київ. If it is not clearly associated with the derived spelling Kyiv, then it has to have a romanization clearly associated with it. The former option is more efficient.

I am okay with putting the native Russian name Киев only in the “Etymology” section. But if it appears in the lead then it makes most sense to present it the same way as the Ukrainian. —Michael Z. 19:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• I disagree with one Point. #We have consensus to include the pronunciation /ˈkiːɛv/ KEE-ev and /kiːv/ KEEV for Kyiv in English. They are both used in English and I actually hear /ˈkiːɛv/ far more often. The POV tag is there because Kyiv in English has two or more different pronunciations in English, not one, and the source given for KEEV is Websters which actually says Key-U. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

OK, so let's start by pointing out that Websters does not give Key-U as a valid pronunciation. Websters gives a one-syllable pronunciation ˈkēv and a three-syllable pronunciation ˈki-yē-ü. Best guess, the two syllable Key-U is your attempt to represent the audio file's attempt to pronounce the three-syllable version.

By the looks of things, ˈki-yē-ü is Websters' attempt to represent the Ukrainian [ˈkɪjiu̯] using their respelling alphabet. That attempt is a failure, because [ˈkɪjiu̯] is basically unpronounceable in English. As you demonstrated when you interpreted it as Key-U.

What's more, I think we're all agreed that [ˈkɪjiu̯] will go into the article regardless, because it is the Ukrainian pronunciation. Those people who want to pronounce it precisely as in Ukrainian will have the information they need to do this.

So I think the question now becomes, do we have to list [ˈkɪjiu̯] twice, once as Ukrainian, once as English, even though we know that the vast majority of our readers won't be able to pronounce it as an English word? Bearing in mind that there is no way of representing [ˈkɪjiu̯] using our pronunciation respelling key because these are not valid English syllables? And is it non-neutral for us to fail to do so?

We are not bots. We don't have to just regurgitate our sources. We are allowed to use our intelligence. It is not intelligent to include something as an English pronunciation if we know that it is unpronounceable in English, particularly when it will already be included as a Ukrainian pronunciation. Kahastok talk 11:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

1) M-W’s pronunciation is not three syllables: the audio file makes that obvious. It is three sounds from their pronunciation guide separated by hyphens. I can find no evidence that hyphens are necessarily syllable breaks, so I don’t know if this is as intended or a kludge or a mistake.

2) M–W’s pronunciation is not a representation of Ukrainian. It is an English dictionary, gives an English spelling and pronunciation. (Some dictionaries include a “Ukrainian” subject label, meaning that pronunciation is common in a Ukrainian subject context, in English. Oxford now makes this clear with an “in English” heading.)[5]

“That attempt is a failure”: WP:OR. “[ˈkɪjiu̯] is basically unpronounceable in English”: WP:OR. —Michael Z. 19:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Pronunciation redux: Ukrainian name associated with Russian derivation

I can’t keep track of the various open discussions on this page, so here’s a new one. The current arrangement uses parentheses to associate the Ukrainian name with the Russian-derived English spelling. That is just misleading. Let’s move the native name to the first set of parens, and remove the “romanized” which becomes redundant, as mentioned above. —Michael Z. 01:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia practice is all English forms first, then foreign forms. The parens need to be corrected. Perhaps the anon IP who kept "fixing" the parens, has moved on and the correction will last. If you don't like the Ukrainian following all English forms then move it to the Etymology section and only the two English forms will be in the lead. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 05:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Can you point out where this practice is documented? I looked at WP:LEADLANG and do not see it there. I see prominent counter-examples, like Bern, Brussels and Istanbul. —Michael Z. 16:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Look again. Neither Brussels nor Istanbul is a parallel example because the alternate name for Brussels isn't a common English name, but the official Belgian name for the city as a region, and the alternate name for Istanbul isn't contemporary, but a historical term. Bern isn't really parallel either because there are multiple foreign names, which is a clear violation of WP:LEADLANG, which only allows one. If you look at Mumbai there aren't any foreign names. The closest form to what you want to put here is at Myanmar. But there was a consensus that developed here (before you arrived probably) to make the lead as simple and easy to read as possible. The problem here is that "Kyiv" and "Kiev" are still used about equally as often in English. Separating them by a long Ukrainian explanation is bad reading style. The Ukrainian form is not in the first sentence to explain "Kyiv", but to show what the local name is because there are two competing English forms. If you are looking for "Burma" and arrive at Myanmar, you don't know whether you're on the right page or not until the second line of text after a long string of Burmese script. That is not reader friendly, that's just trying to hide an alternate English form. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 07:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I don’t agree with you.

But the solution you’re now trying to impose in the edit war is unacceptable. MOS:BRACKETS: “Avoid adjacent sets of brackets. Either put the parenthetic phrases in one set separated by commas, or rewrite.” —Michael Z. 16:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2022

The form Kiew should be removed as it is a russian spelling, coming from russian cyrillic of the word and there is only one right form to call the city. The world should use only the form Kyiv. 193.174.122.76 (talk) 13:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Not done. There are almost countless discussions about the name above and in archives; read them and understand why we have the name presented as we do. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 13:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Name (Opening paragraph)

For the opening sentence should it say "Kyiv (pronunciations; Ukrainian: (spelling), (romanisation),(pronunciation)), formerly known as Kiev (pronunciation),…" rather than the way it is since Kiev isn’t official & is rapidly dying out in media, literature & general speech? & shouldn’t someone clean up this talk page it’s way to cluttered 78.16.173.101 (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely not. "Kyiv" has clearly become the most common spelling in English-language sources, but I am still seeking "Kiev" used in English-language sources. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

And that would be contemporary sources so perhaps the last 10 years or so. Not only the last 6 weeks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

We use names that are commonly encountered in English, whether of the last six weeks or the last six decades. Wikipedia doesn't just document the short-term memory or desire of its editors. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 March 2022

Kiev (whole ukraine) is not located in Europe. As a expart of Soviet Union and not a member of UE (nor having the full requirements met for beeing such) the info regarding beeing the "7th most populated city in Europe" is a pure logical mistake and false claim to treat this country as member of european heritage. 213.216.126.10 (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

All of Ukraine is in Europe. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I am quite curious as to just what the original poster thinks the limits of "Europe" are. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Very minor inconsistency (population density)

I feel silly bringing this up given current events, but I noticed that the population density in the info box isn't what one gets from population/area. I had assumed that was a computed value, but looking at the source I see it is a manually entered value. If the area of the 'Capital city and city with special status' is 839 square km and the population of same is 2962180, the density should be 3531. - Wikkiwonkk (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Kiangorod

Apparently another historical name for Kiyv was Kiangorod. Here are a few sources: https://www.google.com/search?q=Kiangorod&nfpr=1&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjCqvTevej2AhXyMewKHZBSDmIQ_AUoAXoECAIQCw&biw=1280&bih=913&dpr=1 --195.62.160.60 (talk) 09:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

KEE-iv not KEEV

It’s not pronounced KEEV in English but rather KEE-iv [ˈkiːɛf]. See these Ukrainians explaining how to pronounce it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9_dxwnVkOU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGSXq5CuqW4

So it should be corrected ASAP to prevent people mispronouncing the name.

--2A02:C7F:14B4:3400:813:5E72:BE5F:3C6D (talk) 11:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

You asserting so isn't good enough. See above for discussion about how it is pronounced in English ~ which is currently subject to variation and not the same as Ukrainian, as you can see. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 14:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but we're talking about English language pronunciations. Ukrainians demonstrating how it is pronounced in Ukrainian are irrelevant. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

There are no sources you have provided that state it’s supposed to be pronounced KEEV, there are multiple sources however that have been provided by me and referenced by other people here that it’s pronounced KEE-iv, the fact the people explaining how it should be pronounced in English are Ukrainians is not an argument against it being pronounced that way in English, because it’s the English translation. The Ukrainian pronunciation would be something more like “KREE-IVV”. So unless you can provide at least one legitimate source proving it’s pronounced how you assumed it was based on its spelling then theres not really any valid reason for this page to claim it’s pronounced that way, as per Wikipedia’s own rules. 2A02:C7F:14B4:3400:813:5E72:BE5F:3C6D (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Where does the R come from in KREE-IVV? What is the difference between one V and two? Why are both syllables in capital letters?

I suggest you use a conventional notation, such as the International Phonetic Alphabet or our pronunciation respelling key (for English), to explain pronunciations. Because otherwise it's difficult to know what you're talking about. Kahastok talk 21:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

To put it in ways you claim you’ll understand; Ukrainian pronunciation ([ˈkɪjiu̯] or /kiːɪv/), English pronunciation ([ˈkiːɛf] or /kiːɪv/), Fake pronunciation this page uses (/kiːv/). Even when you check then “source” provided for the KEEV ([/kiːv/] or) pronunciation you’ll see it never gives that as a pronunciation, see for yourself, go to the source, look at the phonetic spelling and click on the sounds to listen. KEEV is simply the wrong pronunciation, so wrong the very source used doesn’t even include KEEV. --2A02:C7F:14B4:3400:813:5E72:BE5F:3C6D (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The source does include \ˈkēv\, which corresponds to /kiːv/ KEEV in our system. \ˈki-yē-ü\, which we would render /ˈkɪjiuː/ KIH-yee-oo, is a phonotactically impossible sequence of sounds in English (as /ɪ/ is a checked vowel while /j/ is a glide, which cannot end a word), so it is unclear whether it is meant to be an actual pronunciation English speakers can pronounce rather than an attempt at mapping the original [ˈkɪjiu̯] using their set of symbols, especially when ⟨ɪj⟩ is a totally legitimate way of representing /iː/ (see e.g. [6]), which is a free, not checked, vowel, so if it was supposed to be an English notation, \ˈkē-ē-ü\ (/ˈkiːiuː/ KEE-yee-oo) or \ˈkē-yē-ü\ (/ˈkiːjiuː/ KEE-yee-oo) would make much more sense. I contacted Merriam-Webster and asked them to have their pronunciation editor take a look at the entry and clarify the matter ASAP a few days ago, but I haven't heard from them and the entry remains defective. Nardog (talk) 23:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Update: M-W now lists \ˈkēv\ first and \ˈki-yē-ü\ second. Still perplexing why they haven't gone with the phonotactically legal \ˈkē-ē-ü\ though. Nardog (talk) 07:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Another source is the Guardian a major national newspaper in the UK who specifically describes it as being pronounced “kee-yiv”. So it seems like every single English language source that can be found disproves the “keev” pronunciation beyond a reasonable doubt. --2A02:C7F:14B4:3400:813:5E72:BE5F:3C6D (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

That article doesn't assert that it is a pronunciation in English but specifically says "Ukrainians call their capital" that, while {{IPAc-en}} and {{Respell}} are specifically about English (see MOS:PRON#Other languages). The BBC recommendation I mentioned below is a much better source if we're going to add /ˈkiːjɪv/ KEE-yiv. Nardog (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

That’s an obviously incorrect interpretation of the Guardian article. Its theme is “how to pronounce” the name and the pronunciation is given after “the short answer is simple . . . ,” etcetera. —Michael Z. 15:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

It reads as an attempt at respelling Ukrainian pronunciation using English orthography, or at best the writer's opinion on how the Ukrainian pronunciation should be approximated in English. Even in your reading, the article doesn't assert that English speakers do in fact use that pronunciation (whereas we can be reasonably confident that at least some BBC hosts and anchors are going to follow the Pronunciation Unit's recommendation), so it's still a less desirable source to cite in an encyclopedia that strives for NPOV. Nardog (talk) 09:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

BBC doesn’t assert that “English speakers do in fact use that pronunciation” either, so your criteria is unclear and inconsistent. It is their experts’ “opinion,” exactly as the Guardian article quotes a named expert’s “opinion.” If you are interested in how English-speakers “do in fact” pronounce a name, stick to lexicography that relies on audible corpus,[7][8][9] but obviously, this name is in transition at the moment. —Michael Z. 19:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Both are English-language media. If your evaluation is that it is irrelevant because of its creator’s assumed citizenship or ancestry, then you are badly failing to perceive your own WP:BIAS against them.

Since there is no long-established English pronunciation, the Anglosphere is now formulating it from various sources, even including some Ukrainians (can you imagine!). —Michael Z. 15:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The poster identified them as Ukrainians. Last I checked, Ukraine wasn't an English speaking country. The only "bias" I have is that each language be allowed to control its own development. If the Anglosphere chooses to adopt the Ukrainian pronunciation, that is fine. But the fact that it is the Ukrainian pronunciation or that Ukrainians would like English speakers to adopt that pronunciation are not determinative. English can easily adopt spellings and pronunciations that differ greatly from the spellings and pronunciations of the people native to a place. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The sources are in English. You dismissed them, in part, explicitly because of their Ukrainian identity. We all have biases: you might understand that if you’d read the essay. They are unconscious racial bias, but if one starts argueing too hard that they’re special and immune, then it is not a good look.

Your own logic seems wrong. If you have appointed yourself a the defender of English, and “control its own development” means dismissing English-language sources by Ukrainians, then you also look like are trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by what you perceive as negative foreign influences. Criminy, just try to read what you just wrote.

I am not saying we should or should not cite those sources. I am saying your rationale for dismissing them is inappropriate, and I suggest you modify it.

Your opinion is just one opinion. Here, a university expert quoted in the Guardian: “it’s right to pronounce it ‘Kyiv’ as close to the Ukrainian as possible.”[10] —Michael Z. 16:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Hard for me to take it seriously when the description itself says Ukrainian sound of Kyiv in English "cay-veh". Say it right, as Ukrainians do - Ukrainian Lesson 1. Again, we have the purpose of describing things as they are, not as they should be. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 17:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

In English Kyiv is pronounced several ways. Keev is one of them. It's not the most common way as the article would try to force on us, but it is one way it is done in English. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

When I listen to that initially, I hear /kiːv/ or if you insist /kiːjiːv/ (i.e. roughly [kiːːv]). When she sounds out the syllables, it is obviously [kejiːv]. Well, given that English doesn't have an [e], but does have diphthong /eɪ/ it's clear where that's going. And sure enough, by the end she's clearly saying the English word cave.

I conclude from this source that English speakers should pronounce Kyiv exactly as they pronounce cave. Is that what the OP was expecting, do you think?

I see no conflict between Mzajac's Guardian source saying it's right to pronounce it 'Kyiv' as close to the Ukrainian as possible and the description of the English pronunciation as /kiːv/ (KEEV). For monoglot English speakers (or indeed almost any native English speakers who aren't also fluent in a Slavic language) anything closer to the Ukrainian than that is unlikely to survive first contact with a sentence. Kahastok talk 19:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

99.9% of all English speakers are pronouncing this by spelling and that's all they will ever do. They're not going to look it up on Wikipedia or any other website. They're going to see "Kyiv" (if they haven't already) and go [ki:v] (because they're thinking that "y" is palatalization and you can't do palatalization of [k] in English). Thus they think [kʲiv] but their mouths produce [ki:v]. They might go [kaj-ɪv], but then that will naturally slide (through a stage or two) back into [kiˈɛv] because that's a pronunciation already solidly established in English. It's just simple English spelling pronunciation combined with simple English phonotactics. Foreign words will always be made to sound like existing English words as much as possible. "Kyiv" is simply "key" with a "v" on the end. Easy-peasy. Correct Ukrainian pronunciation doesn't mean anything when it comes to how English speakers are going to and actually do pronounce "Kyiv". So get real and wake up to reality all of you who are trying to tell English speakers to approximate the Ukrainian pronunciation. Ukrainians should be happy with [ki:v] because it's not [kiˈɛv], which is the only other option in English. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of 99.9% of English speakers will pronounce it as it is spelled, but then you twisted it to something else. Most English speakers see Kyiv and do not pronounce it with "key" with a "v" on the end when they look at it. They see two syllables, "key" and "iv". Just like all they see and hear when they see Lviv is two syllables of "Li" and "viv". Of course neither of these is close to the Ukrainian pronunciation, but this isn't a Ukrainian Wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

FWIW the BBC recommends its announcers to pronounce it /ˈkiːjɪv/ KEE-yiv. We may add that to the lead or the footnotes. Only time will tell if it'll gain any ground, but I bet it's too early to say any pronunciation has been established among English speakers. Nardog (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Also listen to what the (apparent) author of the guideline said about the rationale: “please pronounce it the Ukrainian way.”[11] —Michael Z. 00:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

No, the author is the BBC Pronunciation Unit, which is made up of linguists and makes mere recommendations based on evidence and expertise. Nardog (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that all these "recommendations" are nothing more than variations on the Ukrainian word, which does not conform to English phonotactics. Since [kijɪv] is perceptually intermediate to the two most common English pronunciations, [ki:v] and [kiˈɛv], which do conform to English phonotactics, speakers will adjust in one direction or the other. The plain truth is that the majority of English speakers cannot hear the difference between [i] and [ɪ] when they are juxtaposed (the [j] is a slight adjustment of the tongue from [i] to [ɪ]). Remember that these suggestions, especially by linguists (I'm one of them and know very well that they think everyone is capable of hearing and reproducing subtle differences without the years of training that they have had), are nothing more than suggestions or recommendations, not descriptions of actual pronunciations by the majority of people who aren't linguists or phonetically trained. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 02:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The real issue is that we have three things going on here:

• [kiɛv] is, by far, still the most common pronunciation in English for the vast majority of native speakers. It's been [kiɛv] for, literally, a couple of centuries (at least) and isn't going to magically change.
• Ukrainian speakers, "linguists", and purists want English speakers to say [kijɪv] (or some similar variant that attempts to replicate the Ukrainian pronunciation as closely as possible).
• That same pesky majority of English speakers who know nothing about phonetics or Ukrainian and see the word spelled "Kyiv" or hear the word with their untrained ears and collapse the [ijɪ] into a long vowel [i:] as in [ki:v]. (Some will hear the second syllable pronounced a bit lower than [ɪ] and revert back to [kiɛv].) (Remember that perceptually and articulatorily, a [j] between two high front vowels is virtually inaudible as a full consonant.)

So is our goal to provide a phonetic form that is unproducible to an English speaker untrained in phonetics or to provide the majority of English speakers with something that they can actually say without working at it (and distinguish it from [kiɛv])? We can't necessarily rely on reliable sources in this case since "Kyiv" is so new in English, and its usage (until last week) was rare, that nothing reliable can be said with numbers and surveys. We have to use our brains on this one. Imagine that. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that the current version (Kyiv (/kiːv/ KEEV, /ˈkiːjɪv/ KEE-yiv[11]) or Kiev (/ˈkiːɛv/ KEE-ev;...) is the best way to balance all the considerations that I mentioned above. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

While I would still get rid of (i.e. move to the Etymology section) the "Ukrainian: Київ, romanized: Kyiv, pronounced [ˈkɪjiu̯] (audio speaker iconlisten)" because it has made the lead too long, and I would put the most common form (KEE-yiv) first, at least this is no longer a POV article where it was forcing only KEEV down our throats. This I can live with. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I would take serious issue with [kijɪv] being the "most common form". The most common form is still [kiɛv] and will be for some time because that's been the city's name in English for centuries. It takes time for the name to change in the language as a whole. And here at Wikipedia we are not in the business of giving "recommended pronunciations" priority. We report, we don't prescribe. But since "Kyiv" is the title of the article now, then either [ki:v] or [kijɪv] will be first. At this time, there simply is no data to indicate whether the few people who use the new name consistently say [ki:v] or [kijɪv] (I still see in print articles that have both "Kyiv" and "Kiev" and hear news reports where the speakers use [ki:v] and [kijɪv] and sometimes even [kiɛv]). Over the last two weeks IRL there have been enough examples of "Kyiv" uttered on video and audio to make even the most exacting OED editor happy so perhaps there will be good data published soon. The perceptual difference between the two forms is simply syllable count in normal speech. Only in careful, artificially-controlled speech can one distinguish [i] from [ɪ] in native speaker English and even then, other phonetic interference can prevent accuracy (such as the "i" in "sing" where nasalization often causes phonetics students to put [i] rather than [ɪ]). Whatever form we put first for "Kyiv", it will be a prescriptive and not a descriptive declaration since [kiɛv] is still the ruling form among English speakers as a whole. (And I don't remember who did it, but comparing the pronunciation issues with "Kyiv" to "Lviv" is utterly ridiculous. [lv] is a completely prohibited consonant cluster in English so "fixing" it with a vowel is mandatory. That's not the issue with "Kyiv" because [kj] is a perfectly permissible consonant cluster as in "cute" [kjut].) --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 11:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

With respect, several absolute statements in this discussion, like what is “permissible,” seem to be original research, and not something that should affect our editing. Somehow, anglophones have manages to make pizza, lasagne, and cappuccino part of their spoken language, and in anglophone Canada the nasalized vowels in franglais and canadien, so I don’t think we should peer into our own crystal balls and predict what else they will or will not pronounce. —Michael Z. 14:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

None of these examples violate English consonant cluster prohibitions and match other words with older pedigrees in English. *[lviv] is impossible in English because the initial consonant cluster is impossible. You can find this information in any of a thousand introductory texts in linguistics or phonology that are written in English. It's usually in the first half of the book where there's often a practical exercise where you have to describe in proper terminology the phonological conditions for permissible word-initial consonant clusters in English. If you notice in all your examples the features that you think are "impossible" are word-medial. But there's actually nothing whatsoever in any of your examples that violate English phonological contraints. There are all kinds of nasalized vowels in English--almost every vowel before a nasal is partially nasalized phonetically, but since it's perfectly predictable as a native phonetic feature we don't bother describing it or teaching it to non-native speakers. It just happens and if it doesn't it doesn't affect understanding. "Lasagna" has a nice palatalized "n" like we learned in the 11th century from the Normans--"onion", "union", etc. "Cappuccino" has absolutely nothing in it phonetically that hasn't been in English since Anglo-Saxon times. In other words, your comment is irrelevant to the question of "Lviv" or "Kyiv". Just because we borrow a word from another language and don't bother spelling it differently doesn't mean that it doesn't conform to English phonology. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 15:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The correct western English Pronunciation is "Key" "Ev" As in door 'key', Florida 'Key's Or Alisha 'Key's, and Ev as in 'Ev'an, and 'Ev'ergaldes. To say the American media popular KeeVe like peeve, sleeve, or Steve is simply revisionist favoring the Ukrainian dialect, which always fades with time, like Obama saying Pock-astan, or Uf-ghanistan. Popular then, and never again. But to oppose it is to give it strength through recognition. I personally descended from the Kiev family, including Yaroslav the Wise, Grand Prince of Kiev. But, I am not offended by their mispronunciation, as it helps identify people who just don't know any better, or those who are disseminating their own propaganda on this issue, like Wikipedia, who apparently does not know any better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.248.36 (talk) 05:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I for one thought the standard name was Kiev, pronounced key-ev (kind of like the Japanese iie, but with k and v). The change to Kyiv (pr. keev) seems to be of a political nature, because the former is associated with Russia, and the latter is preferred by Ukraine. Xcalibur (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Misc thoughts on the above:

[lv] is a completely prohibited consonant cluster in English – if so, how are we ever gonna "solve" a pronunciation dispute such as this one?  ;-)

"Cappuccino" has absolutely nothing in it phonetically that hasn't been in English since Anglo-Saxon times – except that your example of a word containing nothing phonetically un-English literally contains two geminated consonants in its original pronunciation: /kap.putˈt͡ʃi.no/. I'm no expert on Old English phonology, but geminated consonants are not exactly a feature of any system of modern English phonology I'm aware of. Nor, FWIW, do I find them especially hard to pronounce, although doing so does make me sound like I'm putting on a corny faux-Italian accent. Being altogether unable to pronounce phones not found in one's native tongue, and being unable to synthesize them into fluent speech in a way that a native speaker of a language in which they are used would not think sounded "a little foreign", are two quite different things.

FWIW I've never knowingly heard anyone pronounce the name of the Ukrainian capital as a monosyllable in any language, so this /ki:v/ business seems a bit odd to me. (It also reminds me of the fingernails-on-blackboards cringefest atrocity that is the American pronunciation of "kefir" as /ˈkiːfəɹ/). Archon 2488 (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Archon, perhaps you missed reading the entire post where I said that [lv] is an impermissible cluster in initial position. Read again. I'm not so stupid as to ignore the many examples of [lv] at the end of syllables (although in many dialects of English [lv] has lost the [l], as in "I [sa:v] or [saʊv] problems").

As far as "cappuccino" is concerned, Italian has two geminated consonants, but in English "cappuccino" has zero geminated consonants [kæpəˈtʃino]. Only dilettantes who give it an Italian pronunciation put geminate consonants in there, but stand in line at Starbucks for an hour and you will not hear a single geminate consonant, but hear many orders for [kæpəˈtʃino]. (And, BTW, Old English had geminate consonants, but they were completely lost in Middle English. English speakers are, of course, physically capable of producing any sound on the planet if they are trained and practice, but without conscious effort, they will not insert them into speech.)

And if you have listed to any English language 24-hour news channel over the last two weeks there are plenty of monosyllabic pronunciations of "Kyiv" to be heard. And thank you for insulting speakers of American dialects as being "an atrocity". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I gave three examples where completely foreign spelling conventions were wholly adopted – <zz> ~= /t͡s/, <gne> ~= /nʲə/, and <cci> ~= /t͡ʃi/ – to address the complaints about the vowel-letter combination <-yi->, and recognizing that native Ukrainian Kyiv can be pronounced using only phonemes present in English (like \KIH-yeew\). And two examples where foreign sounds have been adopted at least regionally. I have also many times heard anglophones pronouncing Lviv or Lvov as written, and not /ləviv/ or /elviv/ or something, so you should get after people for violating the rules in “English consonant cluster prohibitions.” I think this counters some of the absolute statements, which appear to be unfounded with any Wikipedia articles or references, and I’m not attempting to outline a comprehensive theory of English or anything.

I keep seeing assertions that are not sourced nor presumably source-able, which can’t go into any article, but keep being used to influence what should go into the article. It still looks like WP:OR or WP:SYNTH to me, because there is so much WP:CHAT above without any supporting WP:RS’s. —Michael Z. 19:25, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Mzajac, "spelling" is a ridiculous issue to raise when talking about English phonotactics. Of course we adapt words to English pronunciation rules. [ts] from "pizza" was already in English from words like "eats" [its] and "sits" [sɪts] so your assertion that it came from Italian is false. The sound [nʲ] was already in English words like "onion" [ˈʌnʲən] so your assertion that it came from Italian is also false. The sound [tʃ] was already in English from words like "church" [tʃərtʃ] so your assertion that it came from Italian is also false. The spelling of these words is immaterial and we don't "borrow" spelling, we borrow pronunciations. The science of English phonology doesn't care one whit about spelling, thus linguists don't care that [k] can be spelled "c" (cat), "k" (kiss), "ck" (back), "q" (quick), "que" (pique), "ch" (choir). It's just a [k] to us and spelling doesn't matter. I'm talking about the sounds [j] (IPA "y") and [i] next to one another and what happens in English when they are in conjunction. Your demand for "reliable sources" for linguistic statements that are on a par with "the earth is not flat, it is round" indicates that you don't have much linguistic training. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

And, sorry, Mzajac, but I simply don't believe that you've heard native English speakers, with no knowledge of a Slavic language, many times pronounce "Lviv" without an intervening vowel between [l] and [v]. People who have learned Ukrainian or Russian might be able to do it, but not English speakers without a knowledge of one of these languages. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Well then, maybe we’re getting somewhere. It doesn’t matter that you think I’m making that up, just as it doesn’t matter that I have, indeed, heard it. Just as it doesn’t matter when you insist it is impossible, and that we should draw some conclusion based on your assertion. Let’s stop trying to do original research and stick to what sources say. —Michael Z. 20:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I tend to skim-read discussions that I join late in the day. Yes, /lv/ might not occur word-initially in English, sure, but that's phonotactics rather than phonetics sensu stricto, surely? (I'll avow that I'm a mere dilettante when it comes to linguistics, tho a moderately well-read one). For example, neither /hiŋ/ nor /ŋih/ correspond to English words (at least in any dialect I'm aware of), but they are both combinations of sounds that English speakers are quite capable of uttering (in the sense that they are common English phonemes), tho one sounds like it might be an English word and the other doesn't. But that's a distinction without a difference, surely, when we are discussing something that is unambiguously not an English word, nor pretending to be. And there's no way you'll convince me that a proudly mongrel language such as English is anywhere near as purist or as precious as, say, Finnish, when it comes to "illegal" consonant clusters 😀

I don't (to belabour the absurdly obvious) think that anyone who speaks American English is ipso facto guilty of linguistic atrocities – for example, I consider the RP invocation of that strange goddess "Lauren Odda", to be at least as severely tooth-grinding a crime against tolerable pronunciation as the inexplicable American mangling of the name of a fermented dairy drink. It's more the casual contempt shown for cultures different from one's own, and their norms, that grates on me. Silly and illiterate hypercorrections (like the nastily middle-class Americanism "coo day gra" for "coup de grâce", or the pretentious and ridiculous British insistence on the long-exposed nonsensical spelling of "foetus", or even worse, the extreme faux-latinism "fœtus") are more grating yet. It's possibly one of the unwritten rules of the human cultural universe that people should be less invested in trying to force others' languages into the Procrustes' bed of trying to sound like their own. But, perhaps this is just my making the best the enemy of the good. Archon 2488 (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

While your statement about [hɪŋ] is correct ([i] does not ever occur before [ŋ]), that there is no reason why there cannot be an English word of this shape, you are utterly wrong about [ŋih] because [ŋ] is absolutely prohibited from being the first consonant of a word and [h] is absolutely prohibited from being the last consonant of a word. That's just English. And English is not a "mongrel language" in the sense that "anything goes". English fastidiously reshapes borrowed words into its particular phonotactics. You don't seem to understand the science of phonology if you think so. "Allah" ends in an [h] in Arabic, but not in the English form after we borrowed it. "Tsetse" begins with a [ts] in Swahili, but not in the English word [titsi] or [sitsi] after we borrowed it. Can some speakers of English produce [tsitsi]? Of course, but they have to practice it because no English words begin with [ts] for the vast majority of speakers. I use [tsitsi] and [tsar] because I'm a trained linguist and learned how to do it, but 99.99% of English speakers say [titsi]/[sitsi] and [zar]. So just because 0.0001% of English speakers insist on hypercorrection (or even just simple "authenticity") doesn't mean anything when talking about native English pronunciations in a linguistic sense. (And, by "linguistic" I mean actual linguists, not just people who happen to be bilingual.) --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

(Just for the sake of completeness, you are utterly wrong about [ŋih] because [ŋ] is absolutely prohibited from being the first consonant of a word and [h] is absolutely prohibited from being the last consonant of a word – yes I know, this was my entire point. Pedantic observations about particular sound combinations such as [i] does not ever occur before [ŋ] – which I'd actually not considered but isn't really relevant to my point – get us nowhere. Sure, this might be contingently true about any modern English dialect, or all of them, but it's hardly a law of the universe; it's just a pattern. Nor is there any strong reason why any such empirical "rule" should be binding on a loanword from another language.) Archon 2488 (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, /ˈkiːjɪv/ is hugely problematic because what is transcribed ⟨iː⟩ in English is actually [ɪj] in much of England (and Australia, too), i.e. a diphthong - see [12]. [iː] is Welsh/Scottish/South African (or increasingly non-Welsh, I think they're switching over to [ɪj] as well) and AFAIK American, where the sound is more monophthongal too. Thus, when they write /ˈkiːjɪv/, it actually stands for [ˈkɪjjɪv], which is quite a tongue twister, with a geminated [jj]. Aspiration of the initial /k/ aside, the first two sounds ([ɪj] counts as "one sound" in English) are almost the same as the first three sounds in the Ukrainian pronunciation (where [ɪj] counts as a sequence of two sounds). I don't know whether we should include /ˈkiːjɪv/ in the article, to be honest. If it were /ˈkiːəv/, [ˈkɪjəv] or /ˈkiːuː/, [ˈkɪjʉw], it'd be another story. These are far easier to pronounce (though the first one is almost the same as /ˈkiːɛv/). Sol505000 (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, you're absolutely right. The whole problem in English is a [high front vowel] + [palatal glide] + [high front vowel] sequence that ranges very widely depending on dialect all the way down to phonetic [i] or [ɪ] in rapid speech. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Davidson & Erker (2014) found that (contrary to the conventional wisdom) AmE speakers do not usually resolve vowel hiatus with glide insertion, so /iːɪ/ vs /iːjɪ/ is a potentially meaningful contrast at least for some speakers. I too normally omit the glide when transcribing words like beyond (which dictionaries don't agree on), but in no way would I characterize a transcription with a glide as "hugely problematic". Nardog (talk) 07:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, given the diphthongal nature of FLEECE in both BrE (at least excluding Scottish English and some other varieties) and AuE it is quite problematic. SSB is a major variety of English that is widely used in the media. I'd have no problem with /ˈkiːjɪv/ being labelled as strictly an American (or even Scottish or South African) pronunciation, but it's the Brits who came up with it - which is strange. Perhaps they can't hear the diphthongal nature of FLEECE in their speech. Sol505000 (talk) 09:41, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

The BrE FLEECE vowel /iː/ becomes [ɪ͡i] or [ɪj]. That means that the pronunciation [ˈkɪjiːv], advocated by some, is very difficult to distinguish from /kiːv/ ([ˈkɪ͡iv/]).

You're discussing /ˈkiː(j)ɪv/, with the interior vowels the other way around. That's similar to the vowel combination in seeing, /ˈsiːɪŋ/ and is thus less likely to get simplified in principle. But that's far closer to the Russian pronunciation than to the Ukrainian. Kahastok talk 11:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

[ˈkɪjiːv] is /ˈkiːiːv/ KEE-eev in English, where [ɪj] is either an allophone of /iː/ (as in English English or Australian English) or doesn't occur at all (as in Scottish English and South African English). /ɪj/ is an impossible sequence, if we're talking about KIT (the "ih" vowel) followed by an /j/ (the "y" consonant). Those who write it /ˈkɪjiːv/ are ignorant of English phonotactics. I mean sure, [ˈkɪjiːv] can occur phonetically as a surface form of /ˈkiːiːv/ (except for the fact that nobody pronounces the name as such), but it requires a deliberate use of diphthongal FLEECE in the first syllable and the corresponding close front monophthong in the final syllable. It's anything but a reasonable request, when you're talking about an average native speaker. Sol505000 (talk) 11:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree entirely.

But I see no reason to mark /ˈkiː(j)ɪv/ as American-only. It's fully achievable even in SSB (with the same vowel sequence as in seeing). Kahastok talk 12:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

That's out of question. We can't mark /ˈkiːjɪv/ as American-only if it's the BBC Pronunciation Unit (i.e. an authority on BrE pronunciations) that provides it. I doubt they ever bother to do their own research on AmE, apart from citing other authors. Sol505000 (talk) 12:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 March 2022

Please take out the word Kiev from the intro and above the picture. Kiev is the Russian pronunciation. Ivanlotter (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done That would be incorrect as the name has multiple English pronunciations and spellings. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Note that "Kiev" is a common English name for Ukraine's capital. The Russian name is "Киев". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 03:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

So what? 2A00:23C4:4EE0:A201:2C07:161B:7C6E:B141 (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Why are we using the Russian spelling of Kyiv (Russian = Kiev) in the lead sentence?

Why do we use the Russian spelling of Kyiv (Russian = Kiev) in the lead sentence without clarifying that it is merely a Russian language spelling? My understanding is that the colonialist Russians have been trying to change Ukrainian language spellings to Russian spellings for a few centuries; not unlike other colonial masters try to move their language forward at the expense of local languages.

Seems "Kiev" belongs in the article somewhere. But the main English Wikipedia spelling ought to be Kyiv from Ukranian, not from it's Russian/Soviet roots three decades earlier. The city is Kyiv; it has been in Ukraine for 30 years now, and out of the Soviet Union for the same amount of time. N2e (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

You are mistaken. There are two English spellings for the capital of Ukraine: "Kiev" (still the most common in English language sources published over the last few decades, but losing ground) and "Kyiv" (newer spelling becoming more common over the last decade). The "Russian" spelling of Ukraine's capital is Киев. I don't see that in the first sentence. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

To be fair, reliable sources cited in this article call this English spelling Russian. One calls it “Russian-rooted” and a “Russian-language transliteration,”[13], and another “a Russian transliteration,”[14] one talks about the preference for “Ukrainian spelling & pronunciation (not Russian)” in English and says Kiev “comes from Russian,”[15] one refers to it as “the Russian spelling,”[16], one “a Russian version,”[17] one “the Russian derivative,”[18][19], and another “the commonly used Russian variant.”[20] —Michael Z. 21:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Mzajac, all English placenames have an origin story that can be cited from somewhere. No one calls Paris "the French spelling" or Berlin "the German spelling". They do, however, call Warszawa and Praha "the Polish spelling" and "the Czech spelling" because neither is the English spelling. The same is true for Kiev. It is not "the Russian spelling", it is one of the English spellings that, like Paris and Berlin are based on French and German, is based on the Russian spelling historically, but is not the Russian spelling. The notion that Kiev is somehow more intimately linked to its source language than either Paris or Berlin is rather bigoted. And a note on your "reliable sources". They are all media and other news articles that are drawing comparisons between "Kyiv" and "Kiev", they are not reliable etymological sources based on linguistic science. It's like citing Popular Science instead of a scientific textbook written by an actual physicist as a reliable source for particle physics or quantum mechanics. And that's ignoring that two of your "reliable sources" are Twitter feeds! Perhaps you need a refresher on WP:RS. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Let me cite an actual reliable source on the matter: "Kiev or Russ Kiyev...or Ukrainian Kiyiv.... (Webster's New Geographical Dictionary, G. & C. Merriam Company, 1980, page 608). Note that "Kiev" isn't called Russian, but the Russian is transliterated separately (as is the Ukrainian). --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)