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

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.

As a general rule, we tend towards political accuracy (so no Palestine, only the Palestinian territories); local renderings rather than arcane British or colonial ones (Mumbai, Kolkata, Beijing and so on); and, as far as possible, neutrality. This last one can be tricky, of course, as any editor, writer or sub-editor who has ever had cause to mention the city of Derry/Londonderry will know. Nationalists and unionists do not agree, and attempts at a compromise rendering – to alternate, perhaps, or to use Derry/Londonderry at every mention (“Stroke City” as it has been dubbed) – are impractical. The Independent long ago settled on the moment in 1984 when the local council voted to revert to the name Derry. There will be disagreement (not least a 2007 High Court ruling in favour of Londonderry), but we have to pin it down somewhere.

There’s no blanket answer, and attempts to knit one are invariably thwarted by events. It was not so long ago that The Independent, in common with everyone else, favoured Burma over Myanmar. “Burma”, though colonial in origin, was more associated with the pro-democracy movement, while Myanmar was more aligned with the military dictatorship (and hence tended to be rejected by the pro-democracy movement). But the demarcations have shifted of late, and Aung San Suu Kyi herself – notwithstanding her recent difficulties – no longer insists on the name Burma. In the meantime, we’ll continue to keep a careful eye on the world stage, and an ear to any concerns about our style.

Yours,

Stephen Manning

Chief sub-editor