Talk:Battle of Kiev (1918)

Requested move 21 September 2020

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus. After an extended period of time for discussion, there is nothing resembling a consensus here. It is apparent from the uncontroversial existence of titles using archaic spellings such as Peking and Tientsin that it is permissible to use an archaic spelling to describe a event that occurred when that spelling prevailed, and since both possible titles are permissible, a clear consensus is needed to support a move. I note that one !vote to "snowclose" is counted as opposing, and one !vote in support by a very new editor is given slightly reduced weight, although neither of these determinations affects the outcome here. BD2412 T 21:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Kiev (1918) → Battle of Kyiv (1918) – Please refer to the closing rationale in the recent move of the main article about Ukraine’s capital at talk:Kyiv#Requested move 28 August 2020. In addition to the important guidelines that led to the move there, WP:CONSISTENT and WP:TITLECON are important here.  —Michael Z. 12:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. SITH (talk) 13:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I see nothing in the closing rationale about historical events and such. And CONSISTENT and TITLECON can also be used to support not moving, if the topic or field generally uses this form.--Khajidha (talk) 14:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:MODERNPLACENAME specifically notes that "we have articles called Istanbul, Dubrovnik, Volgograd, and Saint Petersburg, these being the current names of these cities, although former names (Constantinople, Ragusa, Stalingrad, and Leningrad) are also used when referring to appropriate historical periods (if any), including such article names as Battle of Stalingrad and Sieges of Constantinople". --Khajidha (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

This isn’t a different name. It’s a different spelling. We don’t have an article for the nineteenth-century spelling Reikiavik, and the proposal doesn’t have any integrity unless you intend to use Kiow, Kiovia, and Kief in articles about the period before 1840. —Michael Z. 18:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

That's funny, 'cause where I'm from different spellings make for different words. I intend to use the spelling used in the sources, be it Kiow, Kiovia, Kief, Kiev, or Kyiv. --Khajidha (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Which is what MODERNPLACENAME says to do: " Older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts when a substantial majority of reliable modern sources do the same". --Khajidha (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

We just spent two and a half months establishing that a substantial majority of reliable modern sources use Kyiv. I suggest you read the very well-written closing statement for the RM at talk:Kyiv. —Michael Z. 19:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

We spent that time establishing what the modern name of the city itself is in modern contexts, NOT what it should be referred to in past contexts.--Khajidha (talk) 22:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

No. We picked a preferred spelling of the name, with no such restrictions. Ask me again and I’ll tell you the same. —Michael Z. 21:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I have read the move request multiple times. I see nothing in there about historical names. As should be blindingly obvious to you by now, most people understood the discussion to be about the specific name of the specific city at this specific time. Similar to how many other name changes have been handled. And before you mention it, we all know that you somehow don't see how Kyiv is a change from Kiev. Remember, we are NOT talking about the Ukrainian name. The ENGLISH name has changed from Kiev to Kyiv. But name changes are not necessarily retroactive. --Khajidha (talk) 00:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The move request dealt with the name of the city, period. Not “historical names,” not “non-historical names,” nor any other categorization “some people” might come up with to resist implementing the consensus article title change. What is blindingly obvious is that your position does not have any authority nor sound basis in Wikipedia’s guidelines, but only the momentum of previous use (plus some understandable but completely unselfconscious resistance to change – but I am optimistic for you, because bargaining shows that you have moved past stages one and two).

Kyiv has not been renamed in 1500 years. Kyiv and Kiev are two valid English spellings of the same name: we chose to use one before, now we have chosen the other. This is nothing like the names Istanbul and Constantinople. Do tell us, how have other spelling changes been handled? —Michael Z. 16:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Update: I can’t find a single English-Language reference to this as the “Battle of Kiev” (more help is welcome), only one lowercased usage of the city’s name in “The battle for Kiev was taking place now in Kiev itself,” in Allen (1940), The Ukraine: A History, Cambridge University Press. Most sources merely say something like “Soviet troops occupied Kyiv” (more citations in discussion below). This article’s name is a description, not a formal title, and should just use the city’s name according to Wikipedia’s guidelines. I suggest this RM remain open until some of these questions are settled at talk:Kyiv.  —Michael Z. 19:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Update update: we have been able to find only two references to the 1918 “(B/b)attle of Kiev”: one refers to the city’s February bombardment and the other to a four-month phase of the Ukrainian–Soviet War. This is not an established name for this event, but a usage of the city’s name, so no version of battle of K**v is supported by wp:commonname. This should be spelled per the normal name for the city (barring exceptions for “historical articles” currently being discussed).

• “This likely happened in February 1918 during the Battle of Kiev, when the Red detachments under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Muravyov bombarded the city from across the Dnieper for several days. The anti-Bolshevik Ukrainian government was driven out and the city fell to the Reds.” (Alexandra Popoff, Grossman and the Soviet Century, 2019)
• “During the decisive battle of Kiev in 1917–1918 when the Soviets first invaded Ukraine, a paradoxical situation arose that reflected Rada’s military condition at the time.” (Ihor Kamenetsky, “Hrushevsky and Ukrainian Foreign Policy 1917–1918,” Український історик v 21 (1984), p 86)

 —Michael Z. 15:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• Snowclose. I can't recall the exact page, but there's a policy stating that pages for historical events should remain at the city's historical name. This is clearly an attempt to capitalize on the recent page move for the city itself without looking at actual policy. O.N.R. ^(talk) 14:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

  Please recall it if it exists. The name isn’t changed. Our spelling of it is. The historical names before 1840 were Kiow, Kiovia, and Kief. —Michael Z. 18:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• "Kiev" is certainly the more common form of the name. Here is an ngram. Merriam Webster, Oxford, and American Heritage all give Kiev. 3K008P9 (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Not with historical articles. It's why articles such as British rule in Burma, Burma Railway, and China Burma India Theater, didn't move when Burma was changed to Myanmar. Modern things like railways and banks, sure... but not things like this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. In English, this historical event is clearly known as the "Battle of Kiev" in reliable English-language sources. There are essentially no reliable English sources that refer to it as "Battle of Kyiv". "Battle of Kyiv" doesn't even show up on the Google Ngrams.[1] Rreagan007 (talk) 00:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: "Battle of Kiev" (of various years) is the common name for these battles. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: "Battle of Kiev" is the common name. What Wikipedia chooses to call the modern city has no affect on this any more than we're now going to change the Battle of Peking (1900). To name a few other examples: Treaty of Pressburg, Battle of Austerlitz, Treaty_of_Aix-la-Chapelle_(1668) and Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle (1748). All of these are named after places whose modern name is different, but, as Michael.Z. keeps pointing out, the name of the place didn't actually change except for Pressburg, just how we refer to it in English. Will he for consistency's sake support moves to Siege of Beijing (1900), Treaty of Bratislava, Battle of Slavkov u Brna, and Treaty of Aaachen (1668) and Treaty of Aachen (1748)?--Ermenrich (talk) 13:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Historical events should stick with historical names, per Fyunck(click) above. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

  Something tells me you wouldn’t be voting to move articles to the contemporary historical names Kief pogrom (1881) and Kiow Governorate (1708–1764). —Michael Z. 18:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

  Do not confuse WP:RS with WP:PRIMARY. This argument is a red herring, as WP:RS use Kiev, not Kief or Kiow.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

  I listed a few RS on Ukrainian history that use Kyiv at talk:Kyiv#Related articles. —Michael Z. 21:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

  No one disputes that SOME RS use Kyiv. The majority nevertheless has Kiev and “Battle of Kiev” in particular. You haven’t offered a convincing reason why we should ignore that.—-Ermenrich (talk) 22:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

  I believe that in the field of Ukrainian history, adoption of Kyiv is likely well above the level that was sufficient for us to move the article Kyiv. I think some actually did dispute that, and many seem determined to ignore this. The recent successful RM is a compelling reason to give consideration. —Michael Z. 22:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

  1) this isn’t just Ukrainian history, scholars are more likely to write about it as part of the Russian civil war and its surrounding wars; 2) it’s been demonstrated several times that most sources use Kiev in this context. What you seem to be doing is special pleading.—Ermenrich (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

  After the move of Kyiv, isn’t insisting on using Kiev in “historical articles” special pleading? —Michael Z. 22:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

  If arguing for using Kiev in historical instances is special pleading, then why does Wikipedia have a Battle of Peking (1900), Battle of Austerlitz, or Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle (1748)? Riddle me that. Why should we treat Kiev any differently?--Ermenrich (talk) 23:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

  Ermenrich, see the comment from Mzajac above to understand why, specifically where he says "This isn't a different name". [2]. Essentially your example above doesn't work because all those cities actually had their city name changed (rather than keeping the same name, but changing how it is transliterated/romanized over the years). In other words Kyiv has always been Kyiv, but it was transliterated/romanized into English in many different ways over the last few centuries, i.e., Kief, Kiev, Kiyev, Kijova, Kyiv etc. However, in the cases of cities you provided above, they all had an actual name change (rather than transliteration) or they had fully different names in different languages (and not just different spelling of the same name in different languages) .--67.175.201.50 (talk) 03:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

  Actually none of those cities’ names has changes. Aachen has always been Aachen, Austerlitz has always been Slavkov u Brna and Peking is just “another spelling” of Peking. What changed? What we call/how we spell the name in English. Kyiv is for most English speakers a new name and it is disingenuous to deny that as a way to explain away Wikipedia policy for over name changes.—-Ermenrich (talk) 11:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

  Those are examples of different names, not alternate spellings. Kyiv is not a new name (and not even a new spelling). When you speak the name “Slavkov u Brna” I won’t spell it A-u-s-t-e-r-l-i-t-z. —Michael Z. 15:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

  All of those are the native names. Which had been the native names even while English used other forms. Just like "Kyiv" is derived from the native form instead of from another language. When you speak "Kiev", I wouldn't spell it K-y-i-v either. And whether it is the native name or not, whether the native name has changed or not, is irrelevant. Forget Ukraine and the Ukrainian language, forget Russia and the Russian language, forget transliterarion. We aren't talking about any of that. We are discussing English. It should be obvious to anyone who has any knowledge of the English alphabet that K-I-E-V and K-Y-I-V are not the same. Therefor, the ENGLISH name has changed. --Khajidha (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

  Nonsense. The Ukrainian city has one name for at least eight centuries. No one speaks “K-Y-I-V”. When someone says the name typically pronounced /ˈkiːɛv/, editors transcribe it with the spelling Kyiv. When we cite a source with Київ, Киев, Киѣвъ, or 基輔, we translate it Kyiv. Wikipedia redirects Kiev to the article entitled Kyiv. You are trying to reopen a decision that followed a two-and-a-half-month requested move discussion. Try to accept it. —Michael Z. 18:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

  As I said, we aren't discussing the native name. We are discussing the English name. If Kyiv and Kiev are "the same name", then there was no reason for the entire discussion and you should be quite happy for us to return everything to how it was. Oh, you aren't okay with that? So, obviously, they aren't the same name. Since they are different, then that means the English name has changed (not the Ukrainian one, remember). And I am not trying to reopen anything. I am pointing out to you (as are several other people) that historical people and events don't always change to follow modern place name usage. The Battle of Kiev in 1918 may continue to be referred to as the Battle of Kiev for the next 500 years. Or it may switch to Battle of Kyiv next year. The point is, you don't know if or when it will change. So you have to prove that it has changed, separate from the change in usage for the city itself in a modern context. --Khajidha (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

  It is one English name. Never changed. Its un-distinguished spoken form is proof. It has variant spellings, like yogurt/yoghurt/yogourt. Wikipedia chose yogurt and Kyiv. Now some editors are just trying to delay and restrict the application of the decision. It’s just an extension of the July-to-September debate.

  Regarding the rest, battle of Kyiv (1918) isn’t even a formal name. It is just a usage of the city’s name. Without further explanation, it might refer to ten or more things. If you keep up this wasteful and inevitably futile argumentation, we’re going to have to start calling it the denouement of the Battle of Kyiv (2020). —Michael Z. 19:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• isn’t even a formal name. I think you might be confused about how the naming of battles works.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

  Don’t think so. Thanks. —Michael Z. 19:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

  How many authors take this “name” seriously enough to title their book thusly? Take a guess before you click: intitle:"Battle of Kiev". —Michael Z. 19:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

  Considering there aren't any books titled "Battle of Kyiv", what does that prove?--Ermenrich (talk) 13:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

  Proves Battle of Kiev is not an established name for this event, which is referred to variously, but an example of the use of the city’s name. —Michael Z. 15:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support. I’m startled by the opposition numbers here. I hope the closer recognizes the mistake being made. This is not a name change like Burma→Myanmar. It’s a spelling change like Peking→Beijing. See Battle of Beijing (1644). It’s not Battle of Peking (1644) even though that’s how it was spelled prior to the 1970s. In English usage reliable sources have changed how we spell the name of this city. It’s Kyiv now. In historical references too. —В²C ☎ 05:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

  Well, Peking is still used in 100s and 100s of historical articles from 5th Dalai Lama to 1st Cavalry Regiment (United States). The nation that controlled Kyiv city at different times gave it different names... as it has now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

  Come on. There were three references to Peking at 5th Dalai Lama, two of which were in a quote. I fixed the third reference to be consistent with all the other references to Beijing in the article’s text. As to any other references to Peking in our articles, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. WP is written in 2020 English, which uses the Beijing and Kyiv spellings, not 1975 English which used the Peking and Kiev spellings. This is exactly the misunderstanding I’m talking about. —В²C ☎ 06:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

  Born2cycle, it is Battle of Peking (1900), because that's how RS refer to the battle. In this case, RS tend to use Kiev rather than Kyiv, it's not a question of "2020 English". And obviously Kiev→Kyiv is more than a spelling change, it's more in line with changing from Marienburg to Malbork or Flensburg to Flensborg - same name, two different language origins.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

  It’s not even like Peking/Beijing, because those names are pronounced differently in English. But Kyiv’s forms are just variant spellings like esthetic/aesthetic/æsthetic. It is one undifferentiated name in spoken English, only subject to editorial preference when rendered into writing. —Michael Z. 15:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

  As you speak Ukrainian you are fully aware that Kyiv and Kiev are not pronounced the same way (and Kyiv would be a pretty weird way to spell Kiev!). Ukrainians who wanted the spelling change also want a pronunciation change, which is why American diplomats, who have dealt with the issue much longer than the general public (mis-)pronounce Kyiv as "Keeve" to try to approximate the Ukrainian pronunciation: American lawmakers and officials at Wednesday’s hearing generally sounded as if they were trying to pronounce Kiev in Ukrainian, rather than the way it is pronounced in Russian. But at points, it sounded more like “keev,” with the long “ee” pronounced as a single syllable.[3] Many Americans first became aware of the Ukrainian name via hearings where government officers said "Keeve", so even if many people are currently spelling Kyiv and saying Kiev, this is only out of a lack of familiarity with the name in Ukrainian and the pure bafflement an English speaker feels when confronted with a name spelled K-Y-i-V.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

  No. As I speak Ukrainian, and as I can interpret an English dictionary entry, I am quite aware that that the name is practically always pronounced the same way in English. According to my ears, and according to reliable sources. In spite of one single TV spot where some diplomats pronounced it in Ukrainian, and were misheard, to boot. The English pronunciation could change in the future under influence of the spelling, but it certainly has not. If you think English has already changed the prevailing pronunciation of Kyiv, please find a single reference supporting that. —Michael Z. 21:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, if it changes the way the name is pronounced, and it certainly does in English, then it's not just a spelling change, it's a name change. Just like going from "Calcutta" to "Kolkata" is not just a spelling change. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

  I think you’re splitting hairs. Pronunciation change does not necessarily imply a name change. A name can be pronounced multiple ways. Mexico or Mehico? Spo-can or Spo-cane? Loss Ange-uh-less or Loss Ann-gel-eeze? New York or New Yoke? New Jersey or New Joy-zee? Etc. you get my point, I hope. —В²C ☎ 21:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. The city was invariably known as Kiev in English-language sources at that time. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

  “At that time” it wasn’t actually invariable. So are we going to move Siege of Kiev (1240) to “Siege of Kiow” next? This rationale bears no relationship to any of our guidelines. —Michael Z. 02:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

  Which shows very clearly that the primary usage at the time was Kiev! Of course it does. We use the commonest name in reliable sources. Which you have just proved was Kiev. Battle of Kyiv doesn't even figure in the Ngram. Neither, for that matter, does Siege of Kiow (or Siege of Kyiv). -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

  No, in 1240 Kiev was not used in English at all. “At that time” is nothing to do with our guidelines. And since you failed to recognize it, I must I apologize for my sarcasm. —Michael Z. 12:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

  I was referring to 1918, not 1240! No, I assure you I didn't fail to recognise it. I'm English. We invented sarcasm! I simply chose to ignore it and point out that you were wrong there as well. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

  Well in the Ngram, “battle of Kiev” only figures in references to the first and second WWII battles. This one does not register there. —Michael Z. 19:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

  • necrothesp, sources and ngrams reflect usage at the time each source was published. On WP we follow usage in current sources. In the vast majority of cases there has been no recent usage change so the distinction is often not recognized. But when usage has changed it makes no sense to look at usage in sources published prior to the usage change to decide what our usage should be. —В²C ☎ 16:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

No one has provided any proof that Usage for “the battle of Kiev” has changed, quite the opposite in fact—Ermenrich (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Can you point to that proof? This doesn’t seem to be a formal name at all. Yekelchyk (2007) just says “on February 9, 1918, as the Bolshevik army was entering Kyiv . . .” and “having taken Kyiv, the Bolshevik troops, led by the brutal Mikail Muraviev . . .” Magocsi (1996 and 2007) likewise never uses that name while describing these events. —Michael Z. 17:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Neither do Subtelny (1988) nor Wilson (2002), The Ukrainians. —Michael Z. 17:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Britannica says “Soviet troops occupied Kyiv.” Also Liber (2016), Total Wars and the Making of Modern Ukraine, 1914–1954. Abbot and Pinak (2012), Ukrainian Armies 1914–55 says “Kyiv was lost to the Reds early in February 1918.” —Michael Z. 18:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• It’s hard to find references to the battle that have been made in reliable sources since the usage shift. But the usage has shifted and current and future references to the battle will use the Kyiv spelling. —В²C ☎ 18:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I just invested a bit of time, and I literally can’t find a single reference to this battle by the name Battle of Kiev. The closest is one lowercased “the battle for Kiev was taking place now in Kiev itself,” in Allen (1940), The Ukraine: A History, Cambridge University Press. Just a usage of the name. —Michael Z. 18:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Here you go [4] This likely happened in February 1918 during the Battle of Kiev.... Capitalized as the proper name of a battle too. Cambridge University Press 2019. No sign that people are switching to "Battle of Kyiv".--Ermenrich (talk) 23:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I actually found a second one, lowercased, and referring to the broader November 1917–February 1918 Bolshevik campaign in Ukraine. Are these the only two occurrences in the entire corpus? —Michael Z. 16:33, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Presumably there's more, but not everything will be online, and this battle is mostly buried under millions of things referring to the Battle of Kiev (1941) in all the searches. World War 2 attracts a lot more attention than the Russian Civil War or First World War in English.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

It’s not buried, it’s absent. Is there a single pop-history book or historical blockbuster film about the Ukrainian–Soviet War? No. What you see is what you get. One reference to “Battle” and one “battle,” or at least closer to that than to ten of anything. —Michael Z. 03:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

“Presumably” is wishful thinking. You can’t assert anyone didn’t “switch” if you haven’t shown they ever used it before. —Michael Z. 03:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Sources do not use “ Battle of Kyiv“ and do use the current. Wikipedia should not do revisionism. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nomination and per В²C. Main title headers such as Battle of Tsaritsyn, Battle of Stalingrad or Siege of Leningrad should of course remain at those names since those were the names of the places at the time of the events in question. An argument may be made for renaming Black Hole of Calcutta to Black Hole of Kolkata, but the original form is uniquely positioned as a part of language as well as history. That is not the case with the Battle of Kiev disambiguation page which can be moved to Battle of Kyiv without violating historical integrity in a manner analogous to the main header of the Battle of Beijing disambiguation page. A number of the Battle of Kiev dab page entries, such as Capture of Kiev by the White Army can be likewise moved since, unlike Tsaritsyn or Leningrad, Kyiv, in the same manner as Kolkata, is not a renaming, but an English-language transliteration revision. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Kyiv has not been renamed ever since it was founded. We cannot rename Kyiv or any other city in any period of its history. It is about spelling. Before there was "Kiow", then "Kiev", then "Kyiv". I have not seen any authoritative source in which different names of Kyiv are used in different periods of history. If we do this differentiation and keep writing "Kiev", we violate WP:VERIFY, WP:ORIGINAL and distort the perception of history. In the entire historical line since Kyiv was founded, including places, events and persons, must be written "Kyiv". --AndriiDr (talk) 03:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support - the common name or common spelling at the time is totally irrelevant. We call it World War I even though it was known as The Great War at the time (and for decades afterwards). This is, indeed, like Peking/Beijing. Lev!vich 19:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support. This isn't a name change like Byzantium/Constantinople/Istanbul, rather it is the correct transliteration of the name. -- Calidum 04:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per standard practice at Wikipedia (cf. Battle of Tientsin, Bombing of Rangoon (1941–1942)). —  AjaxSmack  22:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support The name of the city hasn't actually changed, only the way we romanize it in English. So, in accordance with the moving of the main article on Kyiv, a good case exists to move this one as well. BritishProfessor (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  Note to closer: The above user had exactly three edits before voting in this RFC.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 4 April 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Overwhelming consensus is that the names of historical battles in a city do not automatically change when the name of the city does. We are supposed to wait for the historians to make the switch in the names of those battles first before we make the move. If enough historians do switch to "Kyiv" when referring to this specific battle over the next several years (and as supporter User:AusLondonder has noted, this has started to happen), maybe we can consider a move; but now is clearly not the time. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

---

Battle of Kiev (1918) → Battle of Kyiv (1918) – While the previously closed discussion raised good points about historical names, that does not apply here—the name Kiev here is not based on a contemporary historical romanization system (Tientsin (Chinese postal romanization) → Tianjin (Pinyin)), nor is it based on the naming convention of a contemporary occupant (Rangoon (British Burma) → Yangon (independent Myanmar)). Rather, the name of the capital of Ukraine is Київ (transliterated Kyiv) in a Ukrainian context, while it is Киев (transliterated Kiev) in a Russian context. The city was Ukrainian at time of fighting, hence it is more precise to use the Ukrainian transliteration, Kyiv, here. Radio Adept (talk) 07:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)}

• Strong oppose. Sources continue to call it the Battle of Kiev. O.N.R. ^(talk) 11:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. The "Ukrainian context" is irrelevant here. We should use whatever is used by reliable sources.Esolo5002 (talk) 12:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USEENGLISH. The most common name in English sources for this topic is the current title. We should not be renaming articles based on WP:RECENT geopolitical politics. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

"The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject that is most common in the English language" are you suggesting Kiev is the version of the name most common in the English language? Because it clearly is not. AusLondonder (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per the most common name over the past five years and consensus for historical articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Considering a long history of Wikipedia debating the name of the city, with 16 archives here, and various external media catching the story, like this article at Slate, the conclusion was to use the spelling Kyiv. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  When was this conclusion? The conclusions of the past at Wikipedia have been to use Kiev in historical settings. You may want to change that, and that's fine, but the other conclusions were Kiev not Kyiv. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe you're more familiar with those decisions than me, since your name is all over them. In this case, the battle was of Russians conquering the city while it was in the hands of Ukrainians, so it would have been appropriately spelled Kyiv. Independent sources on the battle are a mix of Kyiv and Kiev, and since the main article is spelled Kyiv through a highly publicized consensus, I'm voting for move. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

So you're arguing about the transition phase of a couple weeks it would appear. Ukraine declares independence from the breakup of the Russian Empire in January 1918 (which the Bolsheviks don't agree with), becoming a virtual vassal state of Germany by February 1. And by February 9 Kiev is taken over by the Bolsheviks, its citizens massacred, and becomes a part of the Soviet Union transition by 1922. Some would argue Ukraine was never really independent since the whole area was in a state of civil war during that time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose as common name for historical usage by sources. ...GELongstreet (talk) 12:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The city is now Kyiv, but reliable source consistently refer to the 1918 battle using "Kiev", and we should follow the sources. ╠╣uw [talk] 13:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nomination and Cuñado. In this case, there is no comparison to historical battle names, such as Battle of Stalingrad, since Kiev → Kyiv is not a name change, but merely a transliteration change, such as Peking → Beijing. The reliable sources that use the form "Battle of Kiev", when referring to this battle, date from the era when manuals of style still indicated the spelling for the Ukrainian capital as "Kiev". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

So then I suppose we should move Peking duck to Beijing duck and Chicken Kiev to Chicken Kyiv? Rreagan007 (talk) 18:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

A number of places that offer Chinese food in the U.S. and other parts of the English-speaking world, as well as culinary websites, have indeed switched to using the form "Beijing Duck" (scroll to near bottom) and a number of places that serve Ukrainian food and, likewise, culinary websites, are making the switch to "Chicken Kyiv", most likely spurred by current circumstances. If someone does decide to submit such move proposals, there will be probably a similar range of pro and con votes. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support One of the justifications for using Kiev is that reliable sources used that transliteration at the time of the conflict. That's a bogus argument. Firstly, at the time sources such as The Guardian used "Kieff". Secondly, at the time of World War I and many years later most sources described it as "The Great War". We are not obliged to follow the usage of historical sources. To be clear this isn't a name change issue; it's a transliteration one. The name of the city has not changed. I also note recent coverage referencing the 1918 battle has used the Kyiv spelling. Here is Matthew Pauly, Associate Professor of History, Michigan State University writing for The Conversation. Here is a piece from AFP discussing the 1918 battle. It is clear the spelling of Kiev is increasingly outdated and reliable sources are no longer using it. AusLondonder (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Historical usage. This has been argued to death, and was the consensus reached. Walrasiad (talk) 08:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  This is outright false. There was no consensus reached: "After an extended period of time for discussion, there is nothing resembling a consensus here." Radio Adept (talk) 08:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. English-language sources invariably use the current title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, the proposal goes against the community consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  This is false. There was no consensus reached: "After an extended period of time for discussion, there is nothing resembling a consensus here." Radio Adept (talk) 08:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

  The consensus referred to is the general one that old names are not updated to present usage, not the no consensus result above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.