What’s in a name? How The Independent style guide copes with geographical disputes

Chief sub-editor Stephen Manning on finding a balance between sensitivities and practicalities

Some time ago a reader asked why we spelt the Ukrainian capital “Kiev” rather than “Kyiv” when even the Foreign Office has adopted the latter spelling. The argument runs that “Kiev” is Russian in origin, whereas “Kyiv” is Ukrainian, and therefore to spell it “Kiev” is to imply pro-Russian bias and tacitly endorse Russian aggression against its neighbour.

Well, this much is true: our government and others do refer to Kyiv, in line with Ukraine’s guidelines introduced after it gained independence from the Soviet Union; but presently few media outlets follow suit, and Kiev is widely regarded as the English rendering of the name. The evolution of each spelling is not as clear-cut as Russian vs Ukrainian, so the argument that to favour “Kiev” is to take sides against Ukraine is not strong and not widely accepted.

Of course, one might argue that all place names are likely to connote something negative to somebody. For a publication’s style purposes, one has to balance up considerations of sensitivity with the need for a conclusion that is consistent and practical.