Rename trade node Kiev into Kyiv

[parhammer]

Hello! I have very specific request to game developers. Can you please rename trade node Kiev into Kyiv?

[Modern day situation statements moderated out]

 

[almoravid]

It’s not silly though. It’s just like the shift from Aix-de-Chapelle to Aachen or Danzig to Gdańsk. Again, I can’t bring myself to understand how people don’t realise how much the use of the Russian-based transliteration is not insulting, especially considering that the Ukrainian form is completely historical. At least only with dynamic naming, it you must have “Kiev”. Just please realise how insulting it is to have major European languages use the Russian name of a Ukrainian city. Sorry, this isn’t something you can solve with the logic of “Kyiv is impossible to pronounce”. It’s possible, and it’s not even remotely difficult.

I never said that it's impossible to pronounce. I said that this combination of letters is not intuitively pronounced as Київ in most European languages.

Aix-de-Chapelle is very obviously a different word from Aachen, and Danzig is obviously not the same as Gdansk.

Київ vs. Киев is much more like Praha vs. Прага vs. Prag vs. Prague, or Roma vs. Rom vs. Rome vs. Rzym, or Warszawa vs. Варшава vs. Varsovie vs. Warschau vs. Warsaw. It just isn't really worth making this huge of a fuss about.

 

[Adrianople]

I never said that it's impossible to pronounce. I said that this combination of letters is not intuitively pronounced as Київ in most European languages.

Aix-de-Chapelle is very obviously a different word from Aachen, and Danzig is obviously not the same as Gdansk.

Київ vs. Киев is much more like Praha vs. Прага vs. Prag vs. Prague, or Roma vs. Rom vs. Rome vs. Rzym, or Warszawa vs. Варшава vs. Varsovie vs. Warschau vs. Warsaw. It just isn't really worth making this huge of a fuss about.

The difference is that Prague/Prag is not being used actively to invalidate the national identity of Czechia, just as Rome, Rom, Rzym, etc. are not used in a way that delegitimises the Italian identity. The use of Kyiv is a matter of respect, and it also is a matter of paying attention to the city's history. "Kiev" is used by Russia to delegitimise the Ukrainian identity, whether you agree or not is not relevant, and the survival of "Kiev" in historiography is simply a testament to Russia's domination over said historiography, to the point that we do not question when blatant imperialistic claims are made by terms such as "Kiev", "Kievan Rus", etc.

 

[almoravid]

The difference is that Prague/Prag is not being used actively to invalidate the national identity of Czechia, just as Rome, Rom, Rzym, etc. are not used in a way that delegitimises the Italian identity. The use of Kyiv is a matter of respect, and it also is a matter of paying attention to the city's history. "Kiev" is used by Russia to delegitimise the Ukrainian identity, whether you agree or not is not relevant, and the survival of "Kiev" in historiography is simply a testament to Russia's domination over said historiography, to the point that we do not question when blatant imperialistic claims are made by terms such as "Kiev", "Kievan Rus", etc.

So you admit that your concern is mainly political rather than scientific?

I really hope that some day in a distant future, Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians (or Belorussians, I really don't care. It's White Rus') will view each other the same way as Swedes, Danes and Norwegians view each other. I really hope that Ukrainians will realize that in the Russian Empire back in 1775, a cossack from the Ural river was oppressed just the same way as one from the steppes near Dnipro, and a serf from Penza governorate suffered as many hardships as a peasant from Chernihivshina. I mean, Norwegians were ruled by Danes and Swedes for centuries. And they don't hate them. They don't rename Frederikstad to spit into Danish faces. Why would anybody want to spit into their cousin's face, anyway?

I know it's hard not to hate other people when there's a horrible war. But in dictatorships, people have little say in whether they want to wage a war or not. So try to soften your heart, and mellow your hatred.

 

[Adrianople]

So you admit that your concern is mainly political rather than scientific?

I really hope that some day in a distant future, Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians (or Belorussians, I really don't care. It's White Rus') will view each other the same way as Swedes, Danes and Norwegians view each other. I really hope that Ukrainians will realize that in the Russian Empire back in 1775, a cossack from the Ural river was oppressed just the same way as one from the steppes near Dnipro, and a serf from Penza governorate suffered as many hardships as a peasant from Chernihivshina. I mean, Norwegians were ruled by Danes and Swedes for centuries. And they don't hate them. They don't rename Frederikstad to spit into Danish faces. Why would anybody want to spit into their cousin's face, anyway?

I know it's hard not to hate other people when there's a horrible war. But in dictatorships, people have little say in whether they want to wage a war or not. So try to soften your heart, and mellow your hatred.

If it is political by association with ending the Danzig case that Russia has placed upon us, then let it be so. Let a game about politics and the cultural issues of the day represent our trouble.

Как говорится в песни, мы никогда не будем братьями. Не тогда, не сегодня, а совсем не в будущем. The only people even remotely like Danes to us shall only be the Belarusians and Lithuanians, and nothing more. A Cossack from the Ural River spoke a dialect of Ukrainian like every Cossack would until the Decossackisation. Norwegians weren't forced to see all their political and cultural institutions destroyed and/or taken over in the span of a few centuries, nor would they see their language banned and considered a dialect of Russian. And ultimately, Norway was able to gain independence not through seeing an opportunity when the Swedes were weakened, but by the acquiescence of Sweden. We had to find our opportunity when the imperial centre was weak, whether in 1918 or in 1991.

It's actually very easy to not hate those who do not implicitly support the imperial policy that we oppose. It is easy to love Russians who accept the god-awful way that Russia has treated not only its own people, but every minority group within its empire, whether in history or now. It is far easier to love people who truly show respect and do not act condescending because we refuse to accept the previous status quo of not just being effective vassals to Moscow, but also refusing to further subject our very understanding of our own history to Muscovite lenses. I lost faith in the wider Russian people when one lone riot officer had a group of people running during the protests in Petersburg in late February and early March. In dictatorships, the support of the population and the creation of the fear of reprisal from not just the chinovniki but also one's fellow citizen is key. Keep excusing the inaction of the cowards.

So let "Kiev" die, and let Kyiv be. Get rid of your bs, we've discussed it far too much. Kyiv is Kyiv in 1453, Istanbul is Constantinople in 1453. And Moscow is bloody Moscow. And let the bloody ruling tag's culture determine the godforsaken name.

 

[Mr.Grizzly]

So let "Kiev" die, and let Kyiv be. Get rid of your bs, we've discussed it far too much. Kyiv is Kyiv in 1453, Istanbul is Constantinople in 1453. And Moscow is bloody Moscow. And let the bloody ruling tag's culture determine the godforsaken name.

If that's the case then the trade node would be called Kijów or Kijevas since the PLC owned the city for more of the game's time frame than Russia

Constantinople would also be changed to Kostantiniyye as Turkey owned it for almost all of the game's time frame

There is no Moscow trade node

 

[Adrianople]

If that's the case then the trade node would be called Kijów or Kijevas since the PLC owned the city for more of the game's time frame than Russia

Constantinople would also be changed to Kostantiniyye as Turkey owned it for almost all of the game's time frame

There is no Moscow trade node

The proper English name is Kyiv, with Kiev being an alternative based on Russian.
Constantinople is an acceptable form because of the fact that both the people of the city and its rulers saw it as such. Both Istanbul and Constantinople were used concurrently by the Turkish. Both were names in Turkish, if I cannot emphasise it further. Kiev and Kijów, along with the seldom used even by the Lithuanian Grand Princes Kijevas, are not the English name of the city. Kyiv since 1995 in English and following the historical linguistics of Ukraine is the proper name, regardless of traditions rooted in ignoring and obscuring the historical viewpoints of nations placed under imperialist occupation and colonisation.

And I realised that there is no Moscow trade node, so I feel required to concede there.

 

[Mr.Grizzly]

The proper English name is Kyiv, with Kiev being an alternative based on Russian.
Constantinople is an acceptable form because of the fact that both the people of the city and its rulers saw it as such. Both Istanbul and Constantinople were used concurrently by the Turkish. Both were names in Turkish, if I cannot emphasise it further. Kiev and Kijów, along with the seldom used even by the Lithuanian Grand Princes Kijevas, are not the English name of the city. Kyiv since 1995 in English and following the historical linguistics of Ukraine is the proper name, regardless of traditions rooted in ignoring and obscuring the historical viewpoints of nations placed under imperialist occupation and colonisation.

And I realised that there is no Moscow trade node, so I feel required to concede there.

But you said you wanted to use the ruling tag culture name for it...? There was no Ukrainian tag that owned the region. I'm well aware that the names I proposed are not English, I wasn't suggesting English. I was saying what your suggestion was, the ruling tag culture, which according to history the city was for most of the game's time frame under the PLC, hence Polish or Lithuanian.

 

[FleetingRain]

Should the node even be named after the city?

 

[almoravid]

Should the node even be named after the city?

No. Kiev wasn't even a major trade city. It's just that the name of the region is a bone of contention as well. I think the proper name is Lithuania, even though Ukraine changed to the polish crown under Union of Lublin terms.

 

[Adrianople]

Should the node even be named after the city?

No. After all the shit going on, no, it should just be Ruthenia.

 

[Adrianople]

But you said you wanted to use the ruling tag culture name for it...? There was no Ukrainian tag that owned the region. I'm well aware that the names I proposed are not English, I wasn't suggesting English. I was saying what your suggestion was, the ruling tag culture, which according to history the city was for most of the game's time frame under the PLC, hence Polish or Lithuanian.

In this case I was talking just about dynamic naming. And the name of the trade node should be in English, it should use the proper English name, like Constantinople and Venice (though Wien is a strange exception). Honestly, I would rather in the end the trade node be switched to either Kyiv or Ruthenia. Both are worlds better than "Kiev".

 

[almoravid]

No. After all the shit going on, no, it should just be Ruthenia.

Why Ruthenia? It's a node including Vilnius, Smolensk and Kiev. Lithuania is the proper name, if anything.

 

[gigau]

Next stepping on the history outside EUIV tiemframe line will lead to major infraction.

 

[Mr.Grizzly]

In this case I was talking just about dynamic naming. And the name of the trade node should be in English, it should use the proper English name, like Constantinople and Venice (though Wien is a strange exception). Honestly, I would rather in the end the trade node be switched to either Kyiv or Ruthenia. Both are worlds better than "Kiev".

No one was talking about changing the province name, those are dynamic and current situation is fine. Trade nodes on the other hand are not dynamic, and were the main topic before this got side tracked. Now, Kyiv/Kiev wasn't a major trade city during the period and I know that some people don't want to acknowledge this but Ruthenia is just the Latin name for Russia so I don't think it would be appropriate to label that small area alone as Ruthenia.

Now I'm not an expert on the history of the region but what about other cities? Was Smolensk a major trade city? It already has a trade centre modifier and avoided attack from the Mongols. What about Gomel, Brest or Minsk? I'm just trying to think of other cities in the trade node that could replace the name to avoid a back and forth fight that won't end.

Why Ruthenia? It's a node including Vilnius, Smolensk and Kiev. Lithuania is the proper name, if anything.

I would take Ruthenia over Lithuania if need be, majority of the territory was Rus/Ruthenian and by representing Roman Catholic influence the Latin name makes some sense. Personally I don't even know why Vilnius is in the trade node other then for gameplay reasons. Still would prefer Smolensk if it makes sense.

 

[almoravid]

I would take Ruthenia over Lithuania if need be, majority of the territory was Rus/Ruthenian and by representing Roman Catholic influence the Latin name makes some sense. Personally I don't even know why Vilnius is in the trade node other then for gameplay reasons. Still would prefer Smolensk if it makes sense.

In early modern era, they really did use "Lithuania" for the entire region rather than for Lithuania proper in her modern, modest borders, including the time when Lithuania no longer was on the map. Ruthenia on the other hand wasn't used for the entirety of modern Ukraine and Belarus yet excluding Muscovy-Russia until well after 1820.

 

[Adrianople]

No one was talking about changing the province name, those are dynamic and current situation is fine. Trade nodes on the other hand are not dynamic, and were the main topic before this got side tracked. Now, Kyiv/Kiev wasn't a major trade city during the period and I know that some people don't want to acknowledge this but Ruthenia is just the Latin name for Russia so I don't think it would be appropriate to label that small area alone as Ruthenia.

Now I'm not an expert on the history of the region but what about other cities? Was Smolensk a major trade city? It already has a trade centre modifier and avoided attack from the Mongols. What about Gomel, Brest or Minsk? I'm just trying to think of other cities in the trade node that could replace the name to avoid a back and forth fight that won't end.



I would take Ruthenia over Lithuania if need be, majority of the territory was Rus/Ruthenian and by representing Roman Catholic influence the Latin name makes some sense. Personally I don't even know why Vilnius is in the trade node other then for gameplay reasons. Still would prefer Smolensk if it makes sense.

Ruthenia is a translation for Rus, and describes much of the region that the node covers. Ruthenia, Lithuania, Rus, Kyiv, even Vilnius, all could do.

Smaliensk was able to avoid the catastrophic decline that Kyiv and other cities sacked by the Mongols suffered, but while it was a trade centre, it wasn't as important as cities such as Vilnius or Lviv. Homiel, Berescie, and Miensk are still not fitting, and to be fair, they considered themselves at the end of the era (along with in Smaliensk), Litvins, or the Rus of Lithuania.

Ruthenia is still the best option, as the other Latin forms for Rus, such as Rusia, Russia, etc. have been claimed by the other neighbour. Before, Ruthenia, Russia, Rusia, etc, were exclusive to Rus, i.e. Central and Western Ukraine and Belarus. Lithuania is still fitting due to Vilnius' central role in reuniting Rus and using Rusian rather than its own native Lithuanian in ruling the country, which is also why I suspect the Lithuanian capital is part of the node, as the Lithuanian Grand Prince was also Grand Prince of Rus-Kyiv.

 

[almoravid]

Ruthenia is a translation for Rus, and describes much of the region that the node covers. Ruthenia, Lithuania, Rus, Kyiv, even Vilnius, all could do.

Smaliensk was able to avoid the catastrophic decline that Kyiv and other cities sacked by the Mongols suffered, but while it was a trade centre, it wasn't as important as cities such as Vilnius or Lviv. Homiel, Berescie, and Miensk are still not fitting, and to be fair, they considered themselves at the end of the era (along with in Smaliensk), Litvins, or the Rus of Lithuania.

Ruthenia is still the best option, as the other Latin forms for Rus, such as Rusia, Russia, etc. have been claimed by the other neighbour. Before, Ruthenia, Russia, Rusia, etc, were exclusive to Rus, i.e. Central and Western Ukraine and Belarus. Lithuania is still fitting due to Vilnius' central role in reuniting Rus and using Rusian rather than its own native Lithuanian in ruling the country, which is also why I suspect the Lithuanian capital is part of the node, as the Lithuanian Grand Prince was also Grand Prince of Rus-Kyiv.

I would hardly say that there was a common sentiment that Moscow-Rus was not a part of Rus back in 15th century. So using Ruthenia to include the south-west as opposed to the north is hardly correct, is it? If people wanted to differentiate between Muscovite Russia and West Russia, they'd call the latter Litva, or Lithuania.

 

[Adrianople]

I would hardly say that there was a common sentiment that Moscow-Rus was not a part of Rus back in 15th century. So using Ruthenia to include the south-west as opposed to the north is hardly correct, is it? If people wanted to differentiate between Muscovite Russia and West Russia, they'd call the latter Litva, or Lithuania.

The Muscovites quite literally placed bans and restrictions upon the Rusian language as soon as they had control over Kyiv. So the people who were Rusyns and Litvins who saw the Muscovites as foreigners could hardly be blamed for wondering why Moscow was using their name for themselves for the Muscovite realm. Rus/Ruthenia and Lithuania are more than appropriate. "Moscow-Rus" is a creation of Moscow, as is, ironically the terminology of "Kyivan Rus", "Novgorodite Rus", and "Lithuanian Rus". Just as there was one city of Rome, there was one Rus Land, while they controlled their own states that followed in their name. Moscow-Rus is nothing but a pretence that is preposterous. And Muscovy, as Vladimir-Suzdal, had already shown its separate tendencies from Rus, including a more autocratic structure and more violent means of control. So, Ruthenia being a name which contains the entire Rus Land is entirely appropriate, going by the definitions provided by the Primary Chronicle and Rusian sources. Muscovite sources use the term "Rus" only as a pretence that they used as a claim upon Rus, that is Ukraine and Belarus. To not see through that is naïve, and if there is any doubt that Ruthenia is not a fitting name for the node, why don't you message me directly, so that you can give a full argument (auf Russisch oder auf Deutsch) as to why it shouldn't be so.

 

[santali]

The Muscovites quite literally placed bans and restrictions upon the Rusian language as soon as they had control over Kyiv.

Citation needed

So the people who were Rusyns and Litvins

Litvins is a politonym and nothing else. Rusyn is an ethnonym which was just as well used in Muscowy before the XVII century as everywhere else.

Muscovite sources use the term "Rus" only as a pretence that they used as a claim upon Rus, that is Ukraine and Belarus. To not see through that is naïve

Cute emotional manipilation, bro.

And Muscovy, as Vladimir-Suzdal, had already shown its separate tendencies from Rus, including a more autocratic structure and more violent means of control.

Citation needed. But let's suppose that's true. One wonders - compared to what? All other principalities of Rus, each of which had their own separate characteristics? Or is it compared to Lithuania, the control of which over Podolye, Volhynia, Kiev and Smolensk is a result of military conquest?

Better yet, why don't we return to the original topic. And maybe instead of a tour of your personal family history, you could finally cite a contemporary written source, where Kiev is written as Kiїv, or any variation of such? Because I can provide you with documents either from Bogdan Khmelnitsky, or Ivan Mazepa if you prefer, where Kiev is Kieв. But I wouldn't want to jump ahead and make effort, before you do.

 

[gigau]

Looks like discussion can't remain civil. Let's put an end to it.