"In the Soviet Union, borscht was one of the most popular everyday dishes. It was described by James Meek, a British correspondent in KYIV and Moscow ..."

In the Soviet Union, the Ukrainian capital was spelled most commonly by its Russian name, Kiev. While it is a sensitive topic, I think it is important to stick to factual names. We don't call the battle of Stalingrad (1942) the "battle of Volgograd" because it is anachronistic. 5.151.189.241 (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We call it Battle of Stalingrad because that's the wp:commonname for the event. But generally we wouldn't go back and forth within an article without some very good reason. The fact that when James Meek (writer) was working there it was called Kiev is unimportant to the reader's understanding of Borscht. Valereee (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I beg differ, given the overpoliticized nature of the article 5.151.189.242 (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I beg differ, given the overpoliticized nature of the article 5.151.189.242 (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not following your argument...what are you disagreeing with? Valereee (talk) 11:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

city names are historically inaccurate and this article is protected largely for political purposes 5.151.189.242 (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This argument has nothing to do with the history of "borsch" since it could be perversely used throughout Wikipedia to change names in every article that references a geographical name that that is different from, or spelled differently from, the contemporary name. The proposer is actually politicizing the article by trying to use a historical spelling rather than the contemporary spelling. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 10:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue at hand is not merely a matter of contemporary vs. historical spelling but one of consistency and factual accuracy in historical context. While Wikipedia follows the WP:COMMONNAME guideline, it also prioritizes accuracy, particularly when discussing historical periods. The usage of "Kiev" in reference to James Meek's time in the Soviet Union aligns with how the city was officially referred to at that time. It is not a matter of "politicizing" the article but rather ensuring it reflects the context in which historical events or references occurred.

If the standard is to always use contemporary spellings regardless of historical context, then we should, for example, retroactively change "Peking" to "Beijing" in all past references, which is not common practice. The goal should be internal consistency and factual precision, rather than blanket adherence to present-day nomenclature, especially when discussing historical periods. 5.151.189.242 (talk) 06:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we are dealing with direct quotes or when dealing with differing transliteration systems (as in "Peking" versus "Beijing"), then I might agree with you, but when discussing Kiev versus Kyiv, we're dealing with a native term "Kyiv" versus a foreign imperial nomenclature "Kiev". I do not agree with using the imperialist name versus the native name. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your perspective regarding imperialist nomenclature, but Wikipedia's approach should prioritize historical accuracy over retrospective reinterpretation. The name 'Kiev' was the internationally recognized spelling during the Soviet period, used by English-language sources, including official documents, media, and scholars of the time. This is not a matter of imposing an 'imperialist' term but rather reflecting the historical context in which James Meek was working.

The argument that 'Kyiv' should be used retroactively in all instances would necessitate changing numerous historical references where 'Kiev' was the standard at the time. This is not about preference but about consistency in historical representation. If a direct quote from a period source used 'Kiev,' would we alter it to fit contemporary preferences? That would set a precedent that risks distorting historical references throughout Wikipedia.

To be clear, I fully support the use of 'Kyiv' in contemporary contexts, but when discussing events or references from the Soviet period, using 'Kiev' aligns with how it was known and recorded at the time. 5.151.189.242 (talk) 11:14, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about a food. I can think of no reason it is helpful to the reader's understanding of Borscht to know that when a British writer was writing about Borscht, westerners used Kiev. So what?

For the record, Wikipedia cares more about internal consistency within an article than between articles, and there's a reason for that: It's confusing to readers to have a place name change within an article unless that change is explained, and unless there's a reason it is helpful to readers' understanding of the article subject, that explanation is just unneeded trivia.

There is more info at WP:KYIV. If you want to continue to argue this, please go to the talk page there, whichis Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Ukrainian places), and start a section. Valereee (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since borscht is a contemporary topic, then the correct spelling is Kyiv and spellings of Kiev should be changed to Kyiv (except in direct quotations) throughout to maintain internal consistency. It's completely in line with Wikipedia Ukrainian naming conventions. (BTW, I was part of the decade-long discussion on the use of "Kyiv" over "Kiev".) --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 00:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was my read on it, too: Borscht is ongoing. Valereee (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"For unambiguously historical topics (e.g. Principality of Kiev), do not change existing content." 5.151.189.242 (talk) 04:26, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Borscht is not unambiguously historical. Valereee (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My Ukrainian wife made borsch on Saturday. It is certainly not unambiguously historical. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I actually made borscht Friday! Almost certainly because of these discussions making me think...hm, borscht! It's well below freezing, borscht sounds great! And I combined two recipes, so yeah: borscht is still a developing subject. Valereee (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The context was regarding Ukrainian city names during the Soviet era, not borscht. 5.151.189.242 (talk) 21:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is protected because of frequent disruptive editing by IPs. Anyone autoconfirmed can edit it. Valereee (talk) 12:59, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]