text:
Talk:Dnieper

Name
Naming here is tough. Experimenting with Google I see about a 3-to-2 preference for "Dnieper" over "Dnepr" on English pages, including the most authoritative sources, such as Columbia and Britannica encyclopedias, English-speaking governments, etc. On the other hand, one could argue that "Dnieper" is the old fashioned transliteration, no longer appropriate. What authority should we use for transliteration? Stan 17:21, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

We should use a "most commonly used" English name of the river no matter what any government (English or non-English speaking) calls it in its sources. See a detailed discussion on Kiev-Kyiv-Kyyiv controversy, where the issue is finally settled. Therefore, I am changing the article name to Dnieper and Kyiv to Kiev in the text. Before reverting this change, please read the discussion of Kiev page. Hopefully, if you read it, you will leave the names alone.--Irpen 21:18, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * You're assuming too much about what exactly was settled. The discussion at talk:Kyiv was very specific.  The issue of what to use for the page heading for the article about Kyiv and a couple of other cities was settled.  The poll on the subject did not say anything about what name should be used in any other context.
 * And different names certainly can be appropriate in different contexts. Some cities were important in the histories of more than one country or culture.  Place names changed.  Russian names are often used exclusively in Soviet-period history, but aren't necessarily relevant when writing about modern geography.
 * Don't just do a simple Google search and assume the number of results is meaningful. Search for "Kanev", and the first page has 5 people in various countries named Kanev, two references to a WWII battle in the Soviet Union, and two references to Bulgarian music.  Search for "Kaniv", and you get ten references to Kaniv, Ukraine.  Search for "Kanev Ukraine", and "Kaniv Ukraine", and you get about 5000 and 3000 pages, respectively.  Not an overwhelming preference, and the small number of results indicates that very few English speakers would recognize the name in any form.
 * "...priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize..."
 * "If there is no commonly-used English name..."
 * It seems to me that the naming policy only intends to apply to foreign names that have a commonly-used English name. After Ukraine, Kiev, Kharkiv, Crimea, Sevastopol, the Dnieper, which Ukrainian place names are well-known in the English-speaking world?   Kanev/Kaniv (to stick with my very narrow example) is a house-hold name to what fraction of English-speakers?  I don't see any justification for using the transliterated Russian name for this Ukrainian town. —Michael Z. 08:20, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)
 * That is because everything was done in Soviet Union in Russian. It is difficult to find on the internet the Ukrainian names as all scientific and/or official documents were prohibited to be written in the native languages. I do not understand why can't the name of Kyiv be Kyiv and not Kiev. The case was officially recognized and the change has took place. Why can't a Ukrainian town be transliterated in English in Ukrainian way rather than Russian? Because it's established? Hindu cities also were called in English manner once, yet that was changed to proper English.Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 05:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In recent research of Google Trends (http://www.google.com.ua/trends?q=Dnipro%2C+Dnieper&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0) (for last 1.5 years difference is more than 10 times) and Google search (Dnipro (7 450 000)/Dnieper(966 000) about 8 times) and (Dnipro river(1 230 000)/Dnieper river(330 000)) I see that river is more commonly in English called Dnipro, the same as official name.
 * I suggest renaming of English page to Dnipro, but not current, not very common English one, as we should care only about common English usage. (talk) 15:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can bias the search to get the results you desperately want for your nationalist agenda.
 * Google books search Dnieper = 274 results \
 * Google books search Dnipro = 178 results (many of which are not in English or are about Dnipro Football Club)
 * --Toddy1 (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I followed your link to a Google Trends report - the top six stories were about football clubs with Dnipro in the name. Should we rename the article on the Dnieper River the Dnipro Football Club River.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see, you are right, I've misunderstood that Dnipro is official name of the FC as well. In God we trust, the rest we Test! (talk) 09:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * All candidate English names for the river are spelt with an initial D. What is the justification for not pronouncing it, whichever name is chosen? The Macquarie Dictionary gives Dnieper as the spelling and /'dnipə/ as the pronunciation. (Australian English has a non-rhotic accent, so the final /r/ is not sounded.) The Collins English and the Oxford Dictionaries also give this spelling and pronunciation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.160.142.168 (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

All candidate English names for the river are spelt with an initial D. What is the justification for not pronouncing it, whichever name is chosen? The Macquarie Dictionary gives Dnieper as the spelling and /'dnipə/ as the pronunciation. (Australian English has a non-rhotic accent, so the final /r/ is not sounded.) The Collins English and the Oxford Dictionaries also give this spelling and pronunciation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.160.142.168 (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What is the justification for not pronouncing it [...]? Easy: English words cannot begin in /dn/ – it is foreign to English phonology, just like various other word-initial consonant clusters like /pn/, which are therefore simplified –, and crucially, Dnieper is not a transliteration or transcription of anything, but an English word, just like Moscow or Warsaw. It is literally a translation! See exonym and endonym. Almost nobody on Wikipedia seems to get that simple concept anymore.--Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Nah. It's absolutely a (bad) transcription of the Russian name (via French) and the sources provided list the attempted pronunciation of the /dn/ cluster as the correct one.
 * I'm with you that in practice people are just pretending the D is silent but we need some actual sources to justify that it's never used or requires a schwa, Oxford & Collins be damned. — Llywelyn II   23:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Please, when discussing the normal use or google results, always keep in mind that we come from 70 years of Russian neo-colonialism during the USSR and centuries of Russian plain imperialism across the region where the river flows. In the same way that we will favor local use for naming rivers in India, Africa or South America, we should favor local (over colonial) names when it comes to the former Russian empire. Rivers in Poland are not named after Russian spelling, and neither should Ukrainian rivers. The Dnipro has by far most of it's area and volume of water inside Ukraine, and that should outweight any argument based on imposed "traditional" spellings. 2800:A4:1238:7A00:DEED:A212:95A:850E (talk) 23:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Throughout the time, while translating Ukrainian geographical names to English and other foreign languages, transliteration was used from Russian. As for instance instead of “Kyiv”, “Kiev” was used, or instead of “Kharkiv” - “Kharkov”, there’re still many examples of this…

Regarding the Dnipro river, it’s important to bear in mind that the river crosses through russia, although the stream is fairly shallow there, it also doesn’t play any historical significance in the country. But during translation, transliteration that is used is specifically from Russian. From the logical point of view, it would be more logically to use Ukrainian transliteration, because historically it played a key role in Ukrainian culture and every day life. The largest part of the river crosses through Ukraine, where it has its deepest and widest waters. From the times of Kyievan Rus Dnipro river was the most important inner vessel of the country, as well as during the times of Ukrainian Cossacks and the Cossacks Hetmanate. As an alternative translation, transliteration from Belarusian should be used, due to the fact that Dnipro is also the largest river in Belarus and plays a key role in the country. Usage of transliteration from Russian, may be tertiary, but definitely not the primary one.--Danylo 16:20, 31 Dec 2022 (UTC)
 * "Dnieper" is not Russian, it is English. It is neither spelled nor pronounced like Russian Днепр. We use WP:COMMONNAME here, not how culturally significant something is to somewhere or where it is located. Thus Cologne in Germany rather than Köln, etc. Dnipro, while used in English, is still the less common version of the name.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for enlightening me, but as a person who knows both English, Russian, and Ukrainian, I can tell you with accuracy that "Днепр" in Russian and "Dnieper" are read identically, because it is a transliteration from the Russian language. It sounds as identical as possible, if you ignore the fact that the English language cannot convey all sounds identically.... Данило12323 (talk) 23:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "Днепр" is transliterated "Dnepr" into English. Can't see how "Dnieper" is a "transliteration from Russian". Summer talk 04:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * More precisely, it appears to be a natural English transcription from Russian. —Michael Z. 14:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Much of the world knows the Dnipro only as the Dnieper, a name based on the Russian-language Dnepr and widely used before Ukraine achieved its independence in 1991, in concert with the fall of the Soviet Union. “Dnipro” is the Ukrainian-language word for the river, and is now its official name for international usage. ––Cybriwsky (2018), Along Ukraine’s River: A Social and Environmental History of the Dnipro:7: —Michael Z. 14:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "«Dnipro» is ... the official name for international usage"? Please excuse me from that politically motivated nonsense. Summer talk 16:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m glad we’ve settled “how "Dnieper" is a "transliteration from Russian"”. You’re welcome. —Michael Z. 03:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid we'll have to go to ANI if you continue your trolling. I didn't say that "Dnieper is a transliteration from Russian". In fact, the word is borrowed from French. Summer talk 09:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not a huge francophone population on the banks of the Dnipro. I didn’t say you said that. I said the answer to it is settled. The Wiktionary entry you linked to clearly supports the etymology of Dnieper from Russian (through French): “From French Dnieper, from Russian Днепр (Dnepr).” —Michael Z. 14:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The fact that the French don't live on the banks of Dnieper doesn't mean that «Dnipro» is a "more English" word than «Dnieper». Summer talk 16:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn’t say that either. —Michael Z. 17:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

We're still a few months away from having what is possibly a Wikipedia record - a 20-year-long single unarchived title debate. Two elements (not really arguments) that might be worth considering include (1) the most recent Kiev/Kyiv debate in which the decision was to shift to Kyiv (after the Russian invasion, but before the Feb 2022 full-scale Russian invasion); and (2) changing the river to Dnipro would require disambiguation with the town Dnipro. More significantly (presumably based on a wider consensus) is Naming conventions (Ukrainian places). Boud (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Names of cities along Dnepr
Greetings, Irpen.

Regarding your changes to the names of cities along Dnepr, I would first like to notice that this article is not a proper place to introduce them. Some of these cities (like Mahilyow or Kaniv) have their own articles, others are subject of interest to various Wikipedia projects (like List of cities in Ukraine), which you are welcome to join and discuss these matters, if you are interested in toponymy.

Second, I would encourage you to consult the Wikipedia policy on naming conventions before engaging in name changes. In this case, Naming conventions (use English) is appropriate, which says:
 * If you are talking about a person, country, town, movie or book, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article (as you would find it in other encyclopedias).

and
 * If there is no commonly-used English name, use an accepted transliteration of the name in the original language.

As you can see, Wikipedia policy clearly gives preference to the local names in cases where there is no traditional or commonly accepted English variant. -- Naive cynic 14:18, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

To Cynic: However, often THERE IS a traditional and commonly used English variant that DIFFERS from local names, and in this situation Wikipedia has to reflect the English usage name rather than a local name. "UN name", whatever it means, is also a no substitute. The most clear example is the name of the capital of Ukraine. To your "as you would find it in other encyclopedias" quote, Britannica calls it Kiev because it reflects the more common English usage of today. Google search for Kyiv returns about 1 million hits while Kiev returns about 8 million. That's also a reflection of what a "most commonly used English version" is. It may change in some years. If this happens, encyclopedias should reflect that, but now it simply a wrong usage. Either do your research for common English names for the places or leave them alone. Avoid changing them simply because you like some ways better than the others. Unless, one comes up with some reasonable argument that these "UN names" conform Wikipedia policy, I am going to revert the name changes in a few days.--Irpen —Preceding undated comment added at 07:08, 14 November 2004 (UTC)
 * But Britannica seems to prefer "Kaniv", "Cherkasy", and "Kremenchuk", although only the last one has the most results in a straight Google search. I think there's just no simple correct answer in many cases. I'm deciding to relax and not get myself too worked up about it.  Going to sleep.  Good work, all.
 * [oddly, Kiev/Kyiv gives me 5:1 not 8:1 millions at the moment]
 * —Michael Z. 09:02, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)
 * Ah, I just realized what your reference to "UN names" was, Irpen. When I wrote "UN spelling" in my edit summary, I simply meant that I consulted a map at un.org for the source of Belarusian cities on the Dnieper, and spelling of their names, since I don't know Belarusian nor how to transliterate it.  Since I've never heard of any of these cities before, I thought that the native transliteration would be appropriate for Wikipedia, and I knew that the UN would probably do it correctly.  And of course, if someone knew better they would correct what I'd entered.
 * Anyway, apart from at most a dozen biggest cities, most ex-Soviet cities don't have English names at all; they have simply been transliterated from Russian. It continues to be appropriate to transliterate their native names for Wikipedia and in most other places, but the Russian can no longer be considered the native name for many.  It's now Ukrainian, or Belarusian, or Kazakh, etc.
 * Kiev/Kyiv is hardly a clear example; it's not really a different name at all, just a different spelling, rooted in the same name in a third language. Moscow for Moskva is a clear case of a distinct English name, in the same category as Rome/Roma, Florence/Firenze, etc.
 * —Michael Z. 00:27, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)

Upper case
WikiProject_Rivers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobias Conradi (talk • contribs) 20:53, 8 March 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything about this at requested moves (what's up?) so I'm just going to vote here:
 * Oppose, tentatively. The Ukrainian name of the river is just Дніпро, with the word "river" added as a qualifier when necessary: ріка Дніпро.  In English it is often referred to similarly as "the Dnieper" or used as an adjective, as in "Dnieper cruises".  If anything, I would choose to move the article to Dnieper, or Dnipro.  —Michael Z. 2005-03-9 17:14 Z
 * I suggest to keep the article as it is. How it is called in Ukrainian is irrelevant. While it is sometimes called simply "the Dnieper" in English, it is most often called the Dnieper river, hence the title of the article.Irpen 07:06, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * On what do you base that? In Google.ca the exact phrase "The Dnieper" gets 34,000 results, "Dnieper River" gets 26,800.  Dnieper appears in 54,400 results without the phrase "Dnieper River" (Dnieper -"Dnieper River").  I'm not saying Google hit counts is an authority, but at first glance they seem to strongly counter-indicate your assertion.  —Michael Z. 2005-03-15 15:00 Z
 * I think Google hit does count as one of the criteria (not a single most important authority, though) as we discussed in a similar conversation on another topic in Wikipedia. These two Google hit numbers you quoted are close and we have to look for other sources if we want a definitive answer which title is preferable to use. My personal impression was that the "Dnieper river" is most commonly used in English language media but after you posted your question I just went to Lexis-Nexis to check whether my impression is true. L-N seems to confirm that. I entered a search for the term "Dnieper" in major news sources. Out of the first 10 hits, in 9 of them "the Dnieper river" was used rather than "the Dnieper". I hope this settles this dispute.Irpen 17:40, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * But 54,400 of the results didn't see the need to qualify "Dnieper River" at all, only 26,800 did, a 2:1 ratio. Of the ones that did, some proportion certainly use the phrase "Dnieper river" once, to orient an audience not familiar with the subject, then simply use the name "Dnieper" or "the Dnieper" in the rest of the page.
 * Similarly, current Google news results have 26 occurrences of Dnieper, only 9 of them containing the phrase "Dnieper River" at all—but this sample is insignificantly small.
 * To find a better example, I searched for "Dnieper" in Wikipedia. Of the first 20 articles (skipping lists and years):
 * 6 name the river just "Dnieper".
 * 4 mention "Dnieper River" or "Dnieper river", but then find it sufficient to call it "Dnieper" alone.
 * 7 mention it a single time as "Dnieper River".
 * 1 uses "Dnieper River" in all three occurrences.
 * in 2 it's only used as an adjective: "Dnieper Ukraine" or "Dnieper rapids".
 * in several of the above, the name is additionally used in an adjectival phrase: Dnieper campaign, Dnieper basin, Dnieper valley, Dnieper rapids.
 * So in terms of writing style, in some cases authors and editors have deemed that "Dnieper" is sufficient to identify this river, in others they describe it as a river, then revert to using just the name. In only one case has it been phrased "Dnieper River" in every occurrence.  "River" (often un-capitalized) is a descriptive used to explain what the Dnieper is.  Its name is simply "Dnieper", just like the Nile or Danube.  I suspect Amazon and Mississippi would also be named thus, if not for the extensive disambiguation they require.  —Michael Z. 2005-03-15 23:04 Z
 * I think that when Google count is as close as it is here, it should be considered close enough to say, that Google check is not conclusive enough and we should look for other sources to determine what usage is the most common in English. For one, I respect the authority of Britannica. The respective article |aticle there is called "Dnieper River". A good guidance can be obtained also by current media usage. The Google news is indeed too a small sample. Besides, Google News includes in its search some unimportant news sources which simply cannot be called an authority in English usage. The results to which I referred to (from Lexis-Nexis) cover the period of last 24 months and only in major media. I think we should use them, rather than Google news. Finally, the usage in Wikipedia, is not a strong evidence, I think. Many users' ideological preferences affect the term they prefer as prominently exposed by heated debates over Kiev and Gdansk article names. Due to the reasons above, I think that the best title of the article is "Dnieper river" as now or "Dnieper River". Which of the two is rather a question of style where I am not an expert, so I called it Dnieper river months ago when moving an article Dnepr into the current name. Irpen 00:15, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * But in the second paragraph, Britannica calls it "The Dnieper", demonstrating that they consider that to be its simple name. —Michael Z. 2005-03-17 15:53 Z
 * Had a look around, it appears that Britannica adds "River" to everything, including Nile, Danube, Rhine, Thames, where Wikipedia has chosen different conventions.  —Michael Z. 2005-03-17 22:12 Z
 * Well, the article itself is still called the "Dnieper River" in EB. So, it's probably a good idea to keep river in the name of WP article. Whether to use "River" or "river" in the article name I would leave up to experts in writing style which I am not. That EB uses simply the Dnieper in the text, shows that there is nothing wrong to do that in WP article. My feeling still is that the Dnieper river is more common in English than the Dnieper but I will not have a problem with the word river omitted inside the article. Irpen 17:11, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * But simple names are preferred (Naming conventions (common names)). Anyway, I think we've both said more than was necessary here.  Cheers, Michael Z. 2005-03-17 20:18 Z
 * Move. Capitalize proper nouns. That's the rule in English. - TAKASUGI Shinji 08:56, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
 * support capitalize as for all other rivers that use the word river in page title. WikiProject_Rivers Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support move. WikiProject_Rivers Rmhermen 19:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Descision
This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. - double redirects fixed too. Ryan Norton T 12:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Can we have a pronunciation guide for Dnieper please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.145.134.103 (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The article needs attention
I urge Ukrainian editors to improve the article about their national river. Why not mention the Greek colony on Berezan Island, Herodotus's fables about its course, the Gothic capital?.. A picture of DneproGES is mandatory. I'm surprized that Khortitsa and the cataracts are not mentioned at all. It would be nice to have a sample translated from Gogol's famous description. The etymology needs double checking: why Sarmatian, not Scythian or any other poorly attested Iranian dialect spoken in the area? A parellel with the names of Dniester and Don would be instructive. -- Ghirla -трёп-  21:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Note. It's not DneproGES, but rather DniproHES (Dnipro Hydro-Electric Station).Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 05:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

STOP using Google!
People, you need to stop use google as the justification for anything. You're "googling" proves absolutely nothing. I hate to sound abvious, but as the old saying states that it's the quality of a material that counts, not the quantaty....Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 05:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Herodotus also called it Oaros
and this article says: "the Huns called it Var". Oaros and Var, the same name! Oar = Var ("-os" was just a Greek suffix.) Böri (talk) 08:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 9 April 2015

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. EdJohnston (talk) 02:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Dnieper River → Dnieper – Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCRIVER. "Dnieper" is more commonly used name for the river than "Dnieper River" ("Dnieper" redirects here, so the word "river" is not useful for disambiguation neither). It's hard to use Google Search to prove this (because the string "Dnieper River" contains the string "Dnieper"), but it still might be useful to say that Google Books search returns 37.900 hits for "Dnieper River" and 319.000 for "Dnieper -River".  Vanjagenije  (talk)  10:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment' Britannica presents: Dnieper River (river, Europe) GregKaye 12:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – The proposed title is more WP:CONCISE. The descriptor is not needed, no more than it is needed for the Danube. RGloucester  — ☎ 13:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose methodology - you can't use raw Google Books numbers for the same reason you can't use raw Google numbers; they're often unreliable. (To wit: Dnieper -river plus Dnieper river should equal Dnieper, but that is not the case.) But support move per ngrams, which I've generally found to be more reliable: here you go. Nice find, nominator. Red Slash 03:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, per User:Red Slash's ngram results above, per these ngram results where I added a verb to User:Red Slash's results and per WP:CONCISE. —  AjaxSmack   02:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Clever ngram usage there, AjaxSmack. I'll remember that. Red Slash 03:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The downside is that it lowers the n a lot so it only works for major topics. —  AjaxSmack  03:13, 11 April 2015 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Citation needed
From the article: The first constructed was the Dnieper Hydroelectric Station (or DniproHES) near Zaporizhia, built in 1927–1932 with an output of 558 MW. It was destroyed during World War II, but was rebuilt in 1948 with an output of 750 MW.

Proof it was destroyed in WWII: Paying for Hitler's War: The Consequences of Nazi Hegemony for Europe; Jonas Scherner, Eugene N. White; Cambridge University Press; March 21, 2016; page 403; https://books.google.com/books?id=A9BCDwAAQBAJ&q=Dnieper+Hydroelectric+Station+destroyed&f=false#v=onepage;

Regarding the 750 number, quoted from The Electrical Journal; Volume 162; David B. Adams; 1959; page 627; https://books.google.com/books?id=eJUTAQAAMAAJ: "Doubling the Dnieper Hydro Output [indented newline] Prof Andrei Voznesensky, director of the U.S.S.R. Institute of Hydro- Electric projects, said that it is possible to double the capacity of the Dnieper hydro-electric station by the creation of a huge reservoir for the Kremen- chug hydro-electric station further up the Dnieper. By regulating the flow of the river, the reservoir will enable the reduction of the spillway section of the Dnieper dam by one-third, and a power station with six turbo-alternator sets can be constructed on the site made available in this manner, raising the station's capacity by 750 MW to 1 350 MW. The cost of this project will only be one-third of the outlay needed for erecting a new 750 MW station."

So it could produce more power. And "raising the station's capacity by 750 MW to 1 350 MW" means that the original capacity was 600. However, I cannot tell which year it had that capacity. It might say in the rest of the article, but Google Books makes it difficult to view it. --NoToleranceForIntolerance (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Etymology
Perhaps the name Dnieper (ancient Danapris) is derived from Turkic Dynporis (from Turkic tyn "quiet" and boris "winding"). Why was this information removed from the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.59.42.175 (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Because it sounds WP:FRINGE and also suffers from unverifiability (see WP:VERIFY) and I doubt if it passes as WP:RS. Do you have English sources that support it? Can you provide some English sources? --Wario-Man (talk) 07:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This source is the article published in scientific journal "Известия Академии наук Азербайджанской ССР" (The news of Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan SSR). The article's authors are scientists known in USSR and Azerbaijan (Будагов, Будаг Абдулали оглы and Qiyasəddin Qeybullayev).
 * A 1988 article by some Soviet authors without any support in academic world does not sound reliable. As I said, find some English sources. If you can't find English sources, then don't add it to article unless you confirm its verifiability and reliability via WP:RSN. Submit a request there. --Wario-Man (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Why are English sources necessary? The Dnieper flows through Russia, Ukraine and Belarus therefore the majority of sources about the river is written in their languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.59.42.175 (talk) 10:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:FRINGE bogus, like many of these WP:OR theories proclaimed by Soviet/Azerbaijani sources. Sources published in nations that have no freedom of press, i.e. nations renowned for producing unreliable content in relation to key topics such as history/politics, should not be used on Wikipedia. You are free however, to take it to WP:RSN. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Because this is English WP and both our readers and editors read/review cited sources. 2) The main problem of your source is: It sounds fringe. So the content, authors, cited journal and publication require to be verified via WP:RSN. If they're reliable, then feel free to add your source again. 3) Your source can be non-English but we can't add random claims when other academic sources do not support or cite it. As I said, could you show me a book/source written in English that mentions such etymology? 4) Another point is that we don't want to add pseudo-scholarship to WP articles. Only reliable works written by experts, e.g. for this etymology you need a Turkologist, or a historian who's expert in this field, or a linguistic source. --Wario-Man (talk) 13:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The title of the reference sounds like a bogus ass-kissing research paper used to buy PhD degrees in non-scientific sciences in all these semi-feudal republics of the Soviet Union: (not in this case, though) "Questions of Turkic ethnonymics in works of M.Z.Zakiev" . I did some google search and found that Professor Zakiev produced a LOT of ridiculosity, most hilarious being the derivation of "Iceland" ('Islandia' in Russian) as "Land of Is People", with Is/As/Az being some old tribe whose name is found also eg in "Azerbaijan". Conclusion: Thoroughly unreliable source. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, some people used some of Zakiev's pseudo-history works on some articles. --Wario-Man (talk) 19:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * While "Islandia" thingy taken isolated does sound as if from standup comedy, the reality turns out sad: there is a whole neo-pseudo-Turkologist school (as in "school of fish") which seriously promulgate the very smooth theory of penetration of protoTurks all the way everyway, from South (Sumerians and Etruscans are prototurks) to North (Including Norway and yes Iceland) . And don't ask for English references: they surely will be coming from conservative retrogrades who stifle and choke the young research mightily. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * used some of Zakiev's pseudo-history works on some articles If you know where, this must be cleaned up. If met with resistance, we may raise an issue @ WP:RSN. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Basmyl, Old Turkic alphabet, Turki, Volga Tatars, and Yabaku. In my opinion, the problem should be solved via his own WP article. e.g. If other Russian scholars have criticized his works and views, then they could be added to that article. We already have Anatole Klyosov but nobody cites his works because he's known for pseudo-scientific claims in his works. But WP:RSN is also good for the future edits because we can refer to it. --Wario-Man (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Many his works do contain facts, but these facts are used for wild speculations. Yabaku looks OK, but tr:Yabaku has a more reliable ref. I will review more. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Take a look at his book "Origin of Türks and Tatars" (the online version is available if you google it). According to Zakiev, almost all Eurasian civilizations and cultures were/are Turkic. That book sounds like a fantasy work with a lot of made-up and baseless claims. So while some of his works may be OK, that book and other similar stuff should be considered non-RS. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

“Dnipro” in the lead
I’m adding Dnipro in bold, because it now sees some mainstream usage. Just posting here because this Google Books Ngram link is too long for an edit summary: Dnipro river,river Dnipro,the Dnipro,Dnieper river,river Dnieper,the Dnieper. —Michael Z. 18:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * How much of that usage is by English native speakers? The ngram shows Dnipro with less than 0.0000020% of all usage - does that count as a name we have to include in the lead? Obviously some people in Ukraine think Dnieper is "Russian" but Dnieper (pronounced Neeper) is different enough from "Dnyepr" that it obviously hasn't caught on the same way as Kyiv vs. Kiev.
 * I'm in favor of removing "Dnipro" again.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don’t recall anything about “native speakers” in the naming or style guidelines. Do you normally research the personal history of the authors of your references? Sounds like a way to denigrate usage that you perceive as foreign, without any relationship to relevant facts or Wikipedia guidelines. Please see WP:BIAS. And I don’t understand your argument about some people in Ukraine at all. Please try to cite guidelines with your rationale.
 * I added this because I noticed a usage in recent news, and a search showed that it is not uncommon. Here’s a quick list of examples (not a formal survey):, , , , , and (map). Google Scholar shows “about 2,960 results” for "Dnipro river" OR "Dnipro basin" OR "river Dnipro". Google Books “about 5,400”. And it appears in an English dictionary, as cited in the article. —Michael Z. 21:43, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The biggest secondary source on Ukraine, the Encyclopedia of Ukraine (1984–93) has the headword and main spelling Dnipro. NGIS GeoNames Search gives both Dnieper (conventional name) and Dnipro (approved name). —Michael Z. 21:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I ran another ngram adding the Russian name "Dnepr". Guess what? It has more usage "in English" than the Ukrainian name [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Dnipro+river%2Criver+Dnipro%2Cthe+Dnipro%2CDnieper+river%2Criver+Dnieper%2Cthe+Dnieper%2C+Dnepr%2C+Dnjapr&year_start=1991&year_end=2019&case_insensitive=on&corpus=26&smoothing=0&direct_url=t4%3B%2CDnipro%20river%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3BDnipro%20River%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BDnipro%20river%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Criver%20Dnipro%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3BRiver%20Dnipro%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Briver%20Dnipro%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cthe%20Dnipro%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bthe%20Dnipro%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BThe%20Dnipro%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2CDnieper%20river%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3BDnieper%20River%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BDnieper%20river%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BDNIEPER%20RIVER%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Criver%20Dnieper%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3BRiver%20Dnieper%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Briver%20Dnieper%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BRIVER%20DNIEPER%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cthe%20Dnieper%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bthe%20Dnieper%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BThe%20Dnieper%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2CDnepr%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3BDnepr%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BDNEPR%3B%2Cc0#t4%3B%2CDnipro%20river%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3BDnipro%20River%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BDnipro%20river%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Criver%20Dnipro%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3BRiver%20Dnipro%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Briver%20Dnipro%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cthe%20Dnipro%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bthe%20Dnipro%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BThe%20Dnipro%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2CDnieper%20river%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3BDnieper%20River%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BDnieper%20river%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BDNIEPER%20RIVER%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Criver%20Dnieper%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3BRiver%20Dnieper%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Briver%20Dnieper%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BRIVER%20DNIEPER%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cthe%20Dnieper%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bthe%20Dnieper%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BThe%20Dnieper%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2CDnepr%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3BDnepr%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BDNEPR%3B%2Cc0], just over 0.0000040% of results. I don't think this is an accurate portrayal of English usage.
 * We follow wp:COMMONNAME here, and that specifically concerns what we call things in English, which relies on English-speaking media and countries. Your results for "Dnipro River" on Google Scholar are by authors with clearly Ukrainian names. The dictionary you cited says that Dnipro is "Ukrainian name for Dnieper" - that is not a dictionary entry stating that it's an English word. I bet I could find "Roma" "Venezia" and any number of other non-English city names and add them in that way. That you've found a few news cites and one encyclopedia (that last with a very clear Ukrainian bias) does not show that this is a name that needs to be added as an English name to the lead - I'm sure I can find articles in English similrly using "Roma", "Köln", "Wisła" or any number of non-English names for things. In fact, the dictionary you cite includes entries on "Roma", "Köln" and "Wisła", each time saying "lang-x name for y". We already list Dnipro as the Ukrainian name in the names in other languages section (remember, MOS:LEADLANG), that should be enough.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * “adding the Russian name "Dnepr"”: please compare apples to apples. You’ll notice I added words that would find the river and not things like “Volga-Dnepr airlines.” If you really believe that Dnepr and Dnyapr are similarly used in English, you can add those too (but I think real evidence is needed).
 * “authors with clearly Ukrainian names”: that sounds a bit racist to me. Can you tell Ukrainian names from Russian? Did you review all three thousand? Which guideline requires us to filter search results on the basis of presumed ancestry?
 * “that is not a dictionary entry stating that it's an English word”: yes it is. It’s an Oxford dictionary of English. It literally says “Meaning of Dnipro in English.” “Ukrainian name for Dnieper” is the definition of Dnipro in English. In Ukrainian it is Дніпро, not Dnipro. By the way, it lacks Dnepr and Dnyapr, that you seem to think are equivalent.
 * “with a very clear Ukrainian bias”: please cite a secondary source that says so. You seem to insist anything published by experts on Ukraine is unreliable because it is by experts on Ukraine. Is this an anti-Ukrainian prejudice on your part?
 * “articles in English similrly using "Roma"”: Rome currently has Roma in boldface. See similar examples of multiple English spellings Luhansk, also known as Lugansk, Kharkiv, also known as Kharkov, and Odessa or Odesa. For precedents in rivers see, for example, the Southern Bug, also called Southern Buh . . . and sometimes Boh River, the Seversky Donets, Siverskyi Donets, usually simply called the Donets, the Horyn or Haryn, the Inhulets or Ingulets, the Pripyat (river) or Prypiat (and city of Pripyat, also known as Pryp'yat' or Prypyat), and the Tisza, Tysa, or Tisa.
 * “We already list Dnipro”: no we don’t. We list a romanization of Дніпро.
 * Your argument is unconvincing. Let’s get some more opinions from WikiProjects listed above, or call an RFC. —Michael Z. 18:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Just dropping my take here, since I work in a lot of Africa topics where alternate names are common (generally in French or Swahili, it varies). When it comes to geographic terms, it seems we sometimes prefer bolding the English preferred term only, such as at Munich (I took German in school and in every German context I've seen the city called München). There might be some MOS rules out there, but I personally am totally fine with adding the local-preferred use second in the lede in bold, such as at Rome, if it has genuine local traction. I haven't personally reviewed the literature, but by my reasoning articulated above it would seem fine to have Dnieper followed by Dnipro. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Ermenrich, I’m going to restore the alternate bold name. If you still object, go ahead and revert, but then please post an RFC or otherwise get evidence for a consensus. Thanks. —Michael Z. 15:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's sweet that people were trying to preserve the names of this and the Dniester, but this is an example of a huge swing in usage now. Every Western media outlet is using Kyiv and Dnipro in place of the Russian forms of the names and if the war gets that far they'll surely be using Dnister. Britannica and the dictionaries aren't going to be able to keep pace with this usage shift (let alone Google Ngrams, Books, &c.) but it will show up in Google Trends and traffic results to the different pages.
 * 100% Dnipro stays in the lead and very soon it will be time to move the entire article to Dnipro (river) or Dnipro River. — Llywelyn II   21:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * We should use English, not Ukrainian or Russian. I removed it from the start of the article. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Did anyone actually bother to look at the sources being cited? None of them support the pronunciations being used. Someone cute added a <! comment !> that tried to clarify how Oxford's dictionary was clearly wrong in their personal opinion, but that's not how Wikipedia references work. Cf. . Find a reliable source that supports your idea that there's clearly a schwa being added.

It's worth mentioning the variant etymologies immediately, especially given the political nature of the names at the moment, but there's no reason to include the Russian and Ukrainian pronunciations in the lead since they're already thoroughly covered further down in the names section.

The respell pronunciation is only optional in addition to the IPA and here there's too much clutter in the lead sentence to leave it. It's better to move it to the name section if it's really thought necessary. — Llywelyn II   21:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Lexico doesn't distinguish English from Russian/Ukrainian pronunciations, while we specify that these are the English pronunciations. Also, the Lexico transcriptions do not match their English sound files: those are d@-NEE-p@ and d@-NEE-pro. Not unsurprisingly, since #dn is not a possible sound combination in English. — kwami (talk) 01:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Lexico/Oxford/Dictionary"com are English dictionaries that only give English pronunciations. The assertion about “possible sound combination in English” is unfounded, and using it as the basis for conclusions about those dictionaries is original research. —Michael Z. 04:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's simply not true. The print OED uses symbols to distinguish foreign pronunciations transcribed in an approximation of English phonetics from actual English pronunciations, but these online dictionaries do not. When there is no established English pronunciation, an approximation of the foreign pronunciation will be used. This is clear in some cases, e.g. when the pronunciation isn't possible in English, or conversely when it is not close to the original. But often foreign names are ambiguous as to whether the pronunciation is English or not. The same is true for MW, which has non-English symbols in its key specifically for foreign sounds (like un bon vin blanc), but of course not all unassimilated names have such sounds. When there is no established English pronunciation, then we should transcribe the original language without spuriously claiming that it's English. E.g. feu should be transcribed using the French IPA template, not the English, despite the fact that MW uses it as an example of the sound \œ\ in their key. — kwami (talk) 01:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * (I don’t know why you refer to Lexico, since it’s now gone and redirects to dictionary.com, and I don’t know what is the source of your transcriptions above, with I presume @ signs representing shwas.)
 * But yeah, it’s true.
 * Dictionary.com says:
 * Dnipro [ dnee-proh; Ukrainian dnee-proh ]
 * Dnipro / ˈdni proʊ; Ukrainian dniˈproʊ /
 * It does explicitly distinguish. And the second transcription is clearly not native Ukrainian pronunciation, which doesn’t have the diphthong /oʊ/ in this name. It means “in a Ukrainian context.” Sure, it might represent the pronunciation in English of someone who is more familiar with Ukrainian, or whatever. But it is still an English dictionary, without injected bits of a Ukrainian dictionary.
 * For example, my Canadian Oxford Dictionary (2004) says in the “Guide to the Use of This Dictionary” (p xv):
 * Foreign pronunciations All pronunciations of foreign place names and people’s names are transcribed as they are most commonly spoken by English speakers, as are the pronunciations of words recently borrowed from other languages. Whether the pronunciation given is in the ‘foreign’ or Anglicized form reflects the degree to which the word has been naturalized by English-speaking Canadians.
 * This dictionary is the Canadian equivalent to the ODE, which the defunct Lexico was based on, and I recall finding many of its entries identical to those in Lexico. —Michael Z. 06:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, some dictionaries do distinguish. But no, that doesn't mean "in a Ukrainian context", it means "in Ukrainian." And just as /oʊ/ is not Ukrainian, so /#dn/ is not English. Dict.com simply isn't a reliable source here: The only thing those transcriptions show is that the stress is different in the two languages. I imagine you would object to me changing the Ukrainian and Russian pronunciations to [dniˈproʊ] and [dnyɛpr], with a link to Dict.com as justification. In the same vein, I challenge you to find any native speaker of English, not fluent in a Slavic language, who can pronounce /ˈdni:pər/ or /ˈdni:proʊ/ without inserting a schwa between the /d/ and the /n/. English-speakers can't even detect the /d/ when they hear it, which is presumably why we have the /#n/ variants. — kwami (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Original research. Also wrong. We’ve had this discussion before, I think. —Michael Z. 01:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Since this is an English Wikipedia, the only pronunciation in the lead that we should possibly have is how to pronounce the name in English. That's pretty much nē-pər per Collins and Websters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyunck(click) (talk • contribs) 19:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Collins 2012 says /ˈdniːpə/. Random House Unabridged 2022 says /ˈni pər/ and /ˈdni proʊ/. ODE 2021 says /ˈdniːpə/, /dniːˈprəʊ/. NOAD 2021 says /ˈnipər/, /dəˈnjɛpər/, /ˈ(d)niproʊ/. Canadian Oxford Dictionary 2004 says /ˈdniːpɜr/. —Michael Z. 01:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Which “Websters” is that? —Michael Z. 01:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have Collins with nipər, and we have Websters with nē-pər. They are pronounced the same per my ears whether you use the ni or nē. And the exact same pronunciation from Britannica. There appears to be one main way to pronounce it in English no matter the nomenclature. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The Collins Dictionary site actually gives several pronunciations.
 * Dnieper:
 * American /ˈnipər/ (Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition, 2010)
 * British /ˈdniːpə/, /ˈdnjɛpə/, /ˈdnɪprə/ (Collins English Dictionary, 2022)
 * Dnipro:
 * British /ˈdnɪprə/ (Collins English Dictionary, 2022)
 * The Britannica Dictionary gives /ˈniːpɚ/, but the encyclopedia gives four alternate titles for Dnieper River: Borysthenes River, Dnepr River, Dnipro River, and Dnyapro River (updated 2014). Its Ukraine article glosses “Dnieper (Dnipro).” —Michael Z. 04:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, we wouldn't want more than one pronunciation in the lead. The American and British varieties vary with the "per" or "pah" ending. Fine for the name section but not so much the lead. I'd leave them both out of the lead since we don't really want messy. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Romanian
There's not actually any good reason to separately list the Romanian name on this page, is there? There aren't any major communities of Romanians along this river or a period I'm forgetting when Romania secretly controlled central Ukraine, right? It's still available on the left links, at Wikidata, and at Wiktionary for the curious. — Llywelyn II   23:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2022
Dnipro river as the article literally states goes through three countries. Those being Ukraine, belarus and russia. But the biggest part of the river goes through Ukraine. And in Ukrainian it is called Dnipro. So why it says dnieper? I understand it’s a russian spelling of it, but russia has the smallest part of it. Either name it only Dnipro (as the biggest part of it is in Ukraine, so it has to be Ukrainian spelling), or give it all three names including belarusian spelling. Obviously, in logical order so that Dnipro still stand first due to obvious reasons 185.177.190.203 (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ It's the English spelling, it's not based on where it's located. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We use WP:COMMONNAME, and the common name is Dnieper in English. The Russian name is Днепр (Dnjepr), which is neither spelled nor pronounced like Dnieper (Neeper, D'neeper).--Ermenrich (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2022
Change the "main" name of this river to the Ukrainian "Dnipro" from Russian "Dniepr" this river does not flow through Russia at all and is mainly in Ukraine. Gab3196 (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: see above request Cannolis (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Pronunciation and sources
@Kwamikagami reverted my tagging two pronunciations as failed verification with “check before tagging.”

I had checked.

The article says: /dəˈniːpər/ də-NEE-pər but the cited source says /ˈdniːpə/

The article says: /dəˈniːproʊ/ də-NEE-pro but the cited sources says [ dnee-proh; Ukrainian dnee-proh ], or click “show IPA” and it says / ˈdni proʊ; Ukrainian dniˈproʊ /

Now I don’t mind if we interpret IPA or other transcription and ensure it is transcribed into our system, if the source says it uses different assumptions or transcription. I do have reservations about “converting” an American English transcription into a British English equivalent or vice versa.

But this is just not what the source says at all. I suspect it is based on someone’s opinion that “/dn/ is impossible in English” or something of the sort I recall in discussions. In my opinion that is not true. Please support that with a source that is more reliable than these English dictionaries if that’s the argument.

I am restoring the tags for now. —Michael Z. 00:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Check the Dnieper sound file at Lexico. It's /dəˈniːpə/. The only accommodation was adding the final -r. There's a note to the same effect for Dnipro, though I can no longer access it, but obviously the dn- in 'Dnieper' is not going to be phonemically distinct from the dn- in 'Dnipro'. — kwami (talk) 01:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's hardly an opinion, but a well-known phonotactic constraint in English. Don't have a book/journal source at the moment (because this is so standard that I'd have to look through elementary linguistic texts), but OK, here are some web notes from Eötvös Loránd University: Native speakers of English know not only that there does not happen to be a word tne, but also that there could not be such a word in English, since plosive+nasal clusters do not occur at the beginning of any word in this language. This would violate the phonotactic constraints of English. That covers /dn/. Yes, English speakers who also speak a Slavic language would be able to handle that cluster, but that's certainly not most English speakers. Double sharp (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If they did, others wouldn't hear the /d/, which is why we get the silent-d pronunciation. I just saw a program where someone used an alveolar click in onomatopoeia for a gunshot (which much more effective than bang! bang!), but he was a native Xhosa-speaker. When phonologists make statements about phonotactics, there's usually an understanding that they're speaking of monolinguals. — kwami (talk) 04:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Otherwise we'd have to posit that English has tones because I (and no doubt many other bilinguals) pronounce the names of Chinese cities, dynasties, people, etc. as in Mandarin (with the tones). Clearly, considering bilinguals quickly leads to absurdity. Double sharp (talk) 05:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources gives transcriptions. You changed them and provided here a litany of original-research rationales. Please either edit the text to reflect the cited source, remove the citation, or restore the tags. —Michael Z. 16:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly normal on WP to (1) transcribe from sound files or (2) edit transcriptions from other sources to conform with how we decided to use the IPA (because different sources use it differently). Double sharp (talk) 03:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Muromian-map.png

Requested move 7 June 2023

 * 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. A number of issues with the proposed title; Ambiguity with the name of the city, as well as the WP:COMMONNAME arguments for the proposal relying on using only searches of very recent articles. (non-admin closure) Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Dnieper → Dnipro (river) – Usage in English language news seems to have shifted from Dnieper (Russian name) to Dnipro (Ukrainian) AncientWalrus (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide evidence of such a shift? (Also, Dnieper isn't Russian, it's English, pronounced 'Nee-per. The Russian name is Dnjepr/Dniepr/Dnepr [Днепр], pronounced [ˈdⁿʲepr]). I agree that more publications are using Dnipro, however I doubt that there is yet even a bare majority doing so. Even if there has been a shift, usually we need to wait.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, I went through recent articles on the Kakhovka dam destruction and looked at which news organization used which name. These were the results:
 * Dnipro river: BBC, NYT, CNN, Al Jazeera, Axios, Guardian
 * Dnieper (river): Newsweek
 * Both: USA Today
 * AncientWalrus (talk) 19:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I did some more research:
 * Dnipro river (15 including above): Telegraph, Euronews, Moscow Times, Reuters, VOX, Foreign Policy, Times (London), Independent, France24,
 * Dnieper (river) (8 including above): NBC, CNBC, Economist, New Statesman, RFERL, Politico, AP,
 * Both (2 including above): DW
 * AncientWalrus (talk) 19:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

 * Dnipro is what we currently call the city. If there's a move here we need a disambiguation. Dnipro (river), Dnipro River, or whatever. The proposed title needs to address this. Super   Ψ   Dro  19:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Good point, I've changed the proposed move target AncientWalrus (talk) 19:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Google Scholar results for 2023 of "dnieper river": 217; results for 2023 of "dnipro river": 127. Out of curiosity, the Belarusian version "Dniapro" has 0 results. Google Ngrams also shows that Dnieper is more common . It is valid to keep the Russian name as the river also passes through Russia even if the Ukrainian section is probably better known. Super   Ψ   Dro  19:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Google ngram stops in 2019 and also shows Kiev being more used than Kyiv AncientWalrus (talk) 19:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In Google Scholar, since 2019 Dnieper had 2,850 results while Dnipro had 1,320. Counting results since 2019, Dnieper is 2.15 times more common, but only since 2023, it is only 1.70 times. 1.77 since 2022, 2.05 since 2021. Slowly, Dnipro is becoming more common but we're not there yet. Super   Ψ   Dro  20:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Depends if we care more about scholarly publications or mentions in news. The majority of news orgs seem to use Dnipro already (at least in the context of the dam destruction). AncientWalrus (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Google News seems to show majority using Dnipro river not Dnieper, though Google News doesn't seem to quantify. AncientWalrus (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support.
 * Google Advance Book Search for English-language sources from 2021–present returns:
 * “Dnipro river” OR “river Dnipro” -Wikipedia 19
 * “Dnieper river” OR “river Dnieper” -Wikipedia 17
 * Google News for the last 7 days:
 * Dnipro river when:7d 98
 * Dnieper river when:7d 66
 * Although Dnipro is not the most use in Google Scholar, its results show it is used in just over a third of all sources, indicating that there are two commonly used names: this is much like the situation when we moved Kyiv, and with a larger proportion than was the basis for that move. —Michael Z. 21:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

 * Oppose per NATURAL, and both used enough that there's no clear PRIMARYTOPIC.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The title river Dnipro satisfies WP:natural.
 * The river is definitely the primary topic because it is better known, because the city was known by other names until a few years ago, and because it flows through three countries. I am sure that other measures like article stats and the subjects of searching will show the same. —Michael Z. 23:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course renaming something is not the same thing as natural disambiguation, and there are many, many cases where parenthetic disambiguation is right anyway. For example, Galicia (Spain) and Galicia (Eastern Europe). I suggest the article on the recently-renamed city be retitled Dnipro (city). —Michael Z. 03:25, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

 * Oppose per Ortizesp. Killuminator (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

 * support it's not often we get a major news event gives us clear insight in what the currently used name is. Also, the river is the clear primary topic—blindlynx 02:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen evidence of that. Looking up "Dnipro" on Google News I see very mixed results, some refer to the river and some to the city. Super   Ψ   Dro  08:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * News is favouring 'Dnipro' for the river no?—blindlynx 15:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ...but academic sources favour "Dnieper". Checkmate. Summer talk 22:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

 * Oppose This an article about a river. Latest news is not the measure of common name in English language sources. Walrasiad (talk) 05:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

 * Oppose. Ngram shows overwhelming usage of "Dnieper River". The usage of "Dnipro" has spiked recently in news articles but this does not demonstrate a change in the common name for the river. As shown in the Google Scholar results, "Dnieper" is still used more often. Mellk (talk) 05:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

 * Oppose historically known in English as Dnieper.--Dl.thinker (talk) 06:26, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

 * Oppose, misleading nomination - Dnieper isn't a Russian name, but English, derived from French most likely. Russians prononounce it Dnepr Marcelus (talk) 07:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's Russian-derived then. Super   Ψ   Dro  08:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it's not, it was adopted into French and English when there was no clear distinction between Russian or Ukrainian, also it was maybe derived from Polish. It doesn't matter because the name isn't Slavic even. Marcelus (talk) 08:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There was a very, very clear distinction. Ukrainian is the one that was banned by the Russians in the part of Ukraine they controlled. See Chronology of Ukrainian language suppression. Of course it was from Slavic, unless you think it spontaneously appeared through convergent evolution. —Michael Z. 13:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Russia never banned Ukrainian language before the Valuev Circular of 1863, what you are refering to is Ukrainian recension of Church Slavonic, that was banned from printing in Russia for religious reasons. Ukrainian as literary language started developing in late 18th century. But it really doesn't matter in this case.
 * The name isn't Slavic, Slavs adopted it from Sarmatians and Scythians, the name is actually first noted in 6th century in Greek as Lάναπρις and later by Jordanes as Danaper. The other Slavic name is Slavutych afaik.
 * There is also no reason to replace English name of the river by Ukrainian name if the river flows through two other countries: Russia and Belarus. Marcelus (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I see you already removed it from that timeline. Muscovy started its colonization of much of Ukraine and imposed a ban of Ukrainian-produced church books on churches in Ukraine. What hogwash to pretend it wasn’t colonial censorship. Much public writing of the day thoroughly intertwined religious and imperial politics, and the censorship was tyrannical.
 * English Dnieper and Dnipro come from Russian and Ukrainian, not Ancient Greek.
 * There is no reason? I guess you object to the “use Kiev in historical subjects” vote (WP:KYIV), which was actually proposed and accepted without giving any reason, right? —Michael Z. 15:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * These books were not written in Ukrainian, but in modernised Church Slavonic, or less likely in Ruthenian (prosta mova), which was called Lithuanian in Moscow. English may have borrowed the name of the river via one of the Slavic languages, but the name itself is not Slavic in origin. Marcelus (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * So much for “there was no clear distinction.” —Michael Z. 00:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The earliest use I can find is 1662. A traveller in Muscovy referring directly to the Russian name: “the Boriſthenes, which thoſe of the Countrey call Dnieper.” As you may know, Ukrainian Cossacks and Muscovite emissaries needed interpreters to communicate at the Pereiaslav Agreement in 1654. —Michael Z. 13:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

 * Oppose, the nomination is used on a false premise that Dnieper is a Russian name. It is not.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * “Dnieper, a name based on the Russian-language Dnepr.” — Roman Cybriwsky (2018), Along Ukraine's River: A Social and Environmental History of the Dnipro, p. 7. —Michael Z. 12:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize until now that your quote In English, Dnieper derives from Russian Dnepr, and Dnipro from the Ukrainian. is from the article itself. @Ymblanter do you think the article needs to be changed then? AncientWalrus (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This is based on one source that was recently added, does not look like a good source. It claims Dnipro is the "official name for international usage" which is nonsense. Mellk (talk) 12:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It is a fact. Official toponyms in Ukrainian are romanized according to the official Ukrainian National system. The name is entered in the national geo-names database, and from there used by international databases and maps, including at the UN, BGN and PCGN, etcetera, as well as commercial atlases and mapping services like Google Maps. This is how place naming and mapping works globally, not just in Ukraine. —Michael Z. 20:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

 * Clarification because some people call the nomination misleading: while Dnieper is linguistically closer to to Russian Dnepr than to Ukrainian Dnipro, etymology is irrelevant for the purposes of the move, I should not have mentioned it. My proposal is supported by usage in the media. As most news media have adopted Dnipro, Google searches in the US for Dnipro river have drawn even with Dnieper river. I accept that those who heard about the River before the war will most likely have heard it referred to as Dnieper (probably this applies for most editors here). But those people who have not heard about the river before the war (probably the majority of the population) will read about it as Dnipro. AncientWalrus (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Currently, the article states: and this was not added by myself and predates this discussion. AncientWalrus (talk) 13:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I struck through tha claim in the nomination that Dnieper is a Russian name, per discussion. I hope that's ok. Marcelus (talk) 07:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

 * Oppose per WP:RECENTISM. Khiikiat (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s not just a reaction to a news spike. We’re following the sources.
 * Guardian and Observer Style Guide: “Dnipro (for the city and the river).” Was updated December 26, 2022.
 * New York Times seems to have last used Dnieper in August 2022.
 * The Guardian seems to have used Dnieper on 20 pages this year, but Dnipro in about 150.
 * —Michael Z. 19:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * On the Reuters website, Dnieper appears in two stories after October 2022, Dnipro in 20 stories in the last day alone. —Michael Z. 19:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

 * Comment. Based on Google searches, it clearly follows the pattern of WP:KYIV. Hence, it will have to be renamed, sooner or later. My very best wishes (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The difference is of course that whereas Kyiv/Kiev is in Ukraine (and for historical usage the current consensus is to use Kiev), the Dnieper is share between three countries, two of which are not using Dnipro in any context. Of course it does not help that the two of these countries invaded the third one, but I see some usual suspects in the thread who apparently believe that the article must be removed Dnipro as a some kind of damage compensation. This is not what we should be doing. Ymblanter (talk) 07:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The real argument for renaming should be usage in reliable sources. It looks like there's no consensus for move now, so we can see how the river gets called in future reporting and reevaluate in a few months. AncientWalrus (talk) 11:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ymblanter, you’re a usual suspect that habitually casts aspersions like this, against vaguely defined supposed groups to stake out a WP:battleground and assign evil motives to anyone that doesn’t agree with your opinion. In many cases you have implied a sinister association with Ukraine. It is not what you should be doing.
 * If you have a specific accusation against someone, then please name them in the appropriate forum. Don’t smear groups to poison a discussion. Stick to the subject and the guidelines. —Michael Z. 13:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * We have in this thread three editors who ALWAYS vote for any move if it sounds pro-Ukrainian. Does not matter what other arguments are. And you perfectly know who these users are, but the closers often do not, and they already performed a number of bad closes based purely on the numbers. Ymblanter (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Which three editors, am I included? Assuming your intent is to provide important context for closers, you should be as precise as possible. AncientWalrus (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No, you are not included, as you probably know yourself. Ymblanter (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Which three editors? —Michael Z. 16:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You mean like the “Kyiv in historical articles” which was a pure WP:VOTE with no rationale and in complete spite of the guidelines? Let’s challenge it together. No?
 * If you have a problem with editors who support “pro-Ukrainian” too much for your taste then take it to the admin boards, again. Stop trying to poison project discussions, as you’ve been doing for years since you decided I’m too “Ukrainian ultranationalist,” on a “crusade,” and “pro-Ukrainian.” Why don’t you give closers that important context about yourself? —Michael Z. 16:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * When I have more time this is exactly what I am going to do and I will get you topic-banned, this time without expiration date. In the meanwhile, I need to minimize the damage. Ymblanter (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * How many repeated threats constitute harassment? —Michael Z. 16:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:NATURALDIS. Srnec (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per strongly-researched nomination, per Michael Z. and blindlynx as well as per comment by My very best wishes. As in the case of earlier successful nominations Kiev → Kyiv or Odessa → Odesa, the English transliteration of the river's Ukrainian name — Dnipro (river) — has become dominant over the English transliteration of the river's Russian name — Dnieper. I also would support, an an alternative option, the proposal by Michael Z. that the main title header of the entry for Ukraine's fourth-largest city be moved Dnipro → Dnipro (city) and the header for the article under discussion be moved Dnieper → Dnipro. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * dominant over the English transliteration of the river's Russian name — Dnieper, Dnieper isn't a transliteration of a Russian name, because that would be Dnepr Marcelus (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Since each English transliteration attempts a close representation of the original form, it is natural for such transliterations to use differing methodologies, depending upon the complexity of the term to be transliterated. Thus, in order to arrive at a nearly-same pronunciation as the Ukrainian one, English transliteration of Ukrainian "Dnipro" can be done letter-for-letter, while English transliteration of Russian "Dnepr" would not arrive at a nearly-same pronunciation as the Russian one, causing the Russian name to be transliterated as "Dnyepr", "Dniepr" or the standard "Dnieper", with the second "e" enabling a smoother pronunciation. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Roman Spinner That's literally your own WP:OR, it's not a transliteration of a Russian name, because it has sounds that don't exist in Russian original. The name is derived from French, which adopted it from Polish. Marcelus (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Your logic is flawed, because there isn’t only one possible transliteration of anything. If you want to split hairs, Dnieper is a transcription of the Russian name. See my comment starting with “The earliest use” above. —Michael Z. 00:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mzajac Your comment there was nothing else than WP:OR and use of WP: PRIMARY, nothing with any value for the ongoing discussion Marcelus (talk) 01:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the Dnieper river flows through Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus. Unlike changes to city names in English Wikipedia, like Kiev to Kyiv or Lvov to Lviv, Ukraine does not have sole ownership of the Dnieper river. The article also mentions its names in Ukrainian, Russian, and Belarussian languages. Dsobol0513 (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This debate shouldn’t be about any country’s supposed ownership of the river or some parts of it at all: I can think of no relationship to the guidelines in that, except WP:officialnames which appears to say we oughtn’t consider that.
 * This is about reliable English-language sources “owning” its name. —Michael Z. 17:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

 * Wait: As time passes, "Dnipro" will probably unambiguously beat out "Dnieper" as the most common name for the river in English, but until that point is reached, the current title is fine. In a year or so, the situation will probably be more clear, and then discussion should be opened again.  Physeters ✉ 21:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be so sure, Dnipro is popular now because of the ongoing war and general preference of journalists to use Ukrainian toponyms as a sign of solidarity, but it can change after the war ends. Since the river flows through two different countries. Marcelus (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That is entirely possible, which is why I think we should wait to see where the dust settles, though I personally believe that there is no turning back in the medium term, especially if things continue as they are going.  Physeters ✉ 21:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * “As a sign of solidarity” is baseless and condescending. The Guardian did not change its style guide in December to get warm feelings. It did it because it’s the right thing to do, because the imposition of Russian colonial names on Ukrainian stories is obsolete and morally unsound. —Michael Z. 00:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mzajac Saying that something was done as a sing of solidarity isn't condescending. Marcelus (talk) 01:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Anyway it’s wrong. —Michael Z. 01:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for proving that your only goal in Ukrainian topics is promoting a pro-Ukrainian point of view. Summer talk 21:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * My goal is to reflect the consensus in today’s academia over an obsolete imperial bias. You’re welcome. Why are you defending nonsense about “signs of solidarity” in journalism? —Michael Z. 21:37, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There's no "imperial bias", because as we have told you numerous times already, this river doesn't belong to Ukraine and as such there's no need to use the Ukrainian name. It's not surprising that you refuse to understand that. Summer talk 12:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * So you’re not defending the “sign of solidarity” theory? Dnipro is a name in use in English (not Ukrainian, which is Дніпро), you’re wilfully ignoring that a large proportion, perhaps a majority of English-language RS published right now are using Dnipro.
 * Who includes themselves in your “we”? You’re showing some kind of bias alright, because you’re only superficially engaging the subject without bothering to really discuss it. You persist in strawman criticism, as I’ve already told you I don’t believe the river belongs to any country, and when sources write about it in the context of events in countries and choose a particular spelling that is not my doing. Your sole substantive argument continues to be only personal insults that you disturbingly associate with Ukraine. —Michael Z. 13:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We have a long history of preferring lightly suboptimal titles in the name of natural disambiguation. Red   Slash  22:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose per WP:RECENTISM + The proposed title fails to satisfy WP:NATURALDIS and WP:POVTITLE. Summer talk 13:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Please explain how this relates to POVTITLE at all. —Michael Z. 15:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The current title is a neutral and established English term. The proposed one is a transliteration from Ukrainian, which means that it promotes a specific point of view. I am not replying to any of your comments that will follow. Summer talk 21:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * (It’s a name, not a “term.”) Sources tell us Dnieper is based on Russian and Dnipro on Ukrainian.
 * So names based on Ukrainian are non-NPOV and don’t belong in Wikipedia? I don’t think consensus supports that and whatever POV it is based on, because thousands of article titles are based on names and terms from Ukrainian, Russian, and other languages.
 * But you’re insisting that something about how it is derived makes it unacceptable. Why pick on that? Are you promoting names from Russian for Ukrainian subjects? You going to insist that “Kiev,” “Kharkov,” “Lvov,” “Chernigov,” “Odessa,” “Nikolaev,” “Lugansk,” and friends are the only “neutral and established English terms” too, but there’s something defective about Kyiv, Kharkiv, Lviv, Chernihiv, Odesa, Mykolaiv, Luhansk, etcetera? That would be WP:RGW.
 * It’s a neutral and established fact that the Dnipro is well known as a river of Ukraine, just as the Nile is associated with Egypt, not Kenya, and the Amazon with Brazil, not Peru. Just read today’s news, or read history. —Michael Z. 01:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Dnieper isn't owned by Ukraine, and it's not Ukrainian river solely. Marcelus (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. —Michael Z. 20:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object to place names located fully in Ukraine getting their respective Ukrainian-transliterated names. But Dnieper doesn't belong to Ukraine because the second half of it flows outside of Ukraine, which is why this article uses the river's most common and neutral name. Please stop trying to promote Ukrainian state-sponsored propaganda, although I know that you won't listen to anything that's being told to you. Summer talk 15:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That’s a rude accusation.
 * I’m trying to explain why English-language writing is currently using the name Dnipro in English. If you are insisting that the New York Times, the Guardian, the Institute for the Study of War, and Reuters are sponsored by the Ukrainian state, then you are the one well into RGW territory, and perhaps making accusations against me to ignore Wikipedia’s consensus to follow reliable sources. Even the freakin the Nation, Democracy Now, and the World Socialist Web Site use Dnipro, so please stop trying to put me at the centre of any “Ukraine controls the world” conspiracy theories. —Michael Z. 20:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oxford, Britannica, NASA, dictionary.com. Merriam-Webster doesn't recognise the name "Dnipro", having a definition for Dnieper instead. Even JSTOR retrieves more results for Dnieper than Dnipro. That's academic consensus for you, which is definitely not recentism, unlike your cited sources. Summer talk 22:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * JSTOR also has more results for Kiev than Kyiv (where the first page of results has a source from 1933), but here we are, so your checkmate analysis seems to miss some factors. —Michael Z. 04:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The 2010 Oxford Dictionary of the Middle Ages, which uses the spelling Kiev, is an odd choice to represent the entire publishing house. —Michael Z. 04:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oxford uses Dnipro. —Michael Z. 04:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * NASA uses Dnipro.
 * If you’re going offer a selective list of sources to “prove” a point, at least don’t misrepresent them. I could offer as many that equally prove the opposite, and my list would have integrity. . —Michael  Z. 04:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This is exactly why arguing with pro-Ukrainian propagandists is pointless. Summer talk 07:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @SummerKrut, please strike or delete your pejorative comment about my supposed nationality. Review WP:CIVIL and WP:CTOPS. —Michael Z. 15:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @SummerKrut I see you quietly edited your comment to change its meaning after I directly addressed it, contrary to WP:REDACT.
 * It’s still a signal of battleground mentality, accusation of bad faith, and a personal insult. Please just strike it and move on. —Michael Z. 02:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * What I originally meant had nothing to do with your nationality. I thought the initial version of the comment was clear enough to understand, but since you didn't, I made a clarification. Summer talk 11:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm an "oppose" voter here BUT I want to step in and say that it's inappropriate to call the proposed title a POV title. People may be pushing a POV to get the article moved, but the move in and of itself is a valid and fair proposal. "What should a binational river be called" is a very, very fair question that usually has no easy answer, and the Dnipro title wouldn't be a bad title if not for the fact that it would be disambiguated. Red   Slash  16:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * A note that I also completely agree with this statement by Ymblanter. Summer talk 21:49, 10 June 2023 (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.
 * Oppose because it's a big international river. Why not Dnyapro (Belarusian)? And Dnieper isn't a transliteration of a Russian form (Dnepr). Dnieper /dəˈniːpər/ is close to an old Ukrainian name (Дніпер).--Юе Артеміс (talk) 10:27, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a misunderstanding. The majority of reliable English language news sources call the river Dnipro, not Dnieper, not Dnyapro. That's the only thing that matters. I'm not sure how "it's a big international river" is relevant for this argument. AncientWalrus (talk) 12:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Why is the only thing that matters is what news sources say? Which policy says only news sources count when considering the title? And this would only be true for recent news sources, but this is recentism. Mellk (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:RECENTISM which explains why sudden switch of news sources to another name doesn't mean anything. Summer talk 15:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * What exactly in RECENTISM clearly describes this? The Guardian updated its style guide over five months ago in 2022. It’s not just a news spike. We should be following the sources. —Michael Z. 20:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * How much international shipping crosses those borders from major Belarusian and Russian ports on the Dnipro? How many major dams and reservoirs are in its Belarusian and Russian reaches? How many famous battles have taken place on its banks beyond Ukraine, from the medieval period to today? How many national capitals, large cities major shipyards, and nuclear catastrophes can you name on the non-Ukrainian bits of the Dnipro? Sure the river crosses borders, but its major significance is not so international at all.
 * A similar example is the international geographical region named Donbas from Ukrainian, not Donbass from Russian. I’m sure there are many, many others in the world. —Michael Z. 20:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. Ngram results show that up to 2019 the current name was vastly more popular (also, think about area size, not just the trend lines). Can anyone get more recent ngram results? But even if this year or so the usage switches, it still doesn't change the fact that most past sources use old name. Our naming should follow estabilished patterns, not recent fads. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

English name etymology
In, @HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith states How is the Belarusian name more related to "Dnipro" than "Dnieper"? Makes no sense to separate the foreign names like this as reason for moving the Russian foreign language note from behind Dnieper to behind both names where now all 3 languages are stated. I think it's debatable whether the Russian note should be behind Dnieper or behind both. It is definitely not true that it "makes no sense to separate the foreign names like this". Linguistically origins of names can be traced. But such a discussion is best left for a 'name' section and kept out of the note in the first sentence, so I agree with lumping all 3 together after the two common names. AncientWalrus (talk) 17:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

 * The foreign names already appear in the “Names” section immediately below the lead. There’s no need for cluttering footnote references that link all the way to the bottom of the article. —Michael Z. 20:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * They show on click right there at least in my Wikipedia clients. AncientWalrus (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, if you click an endnote the test content should appear right where you’re reading.—Ermenrich (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know what it does in visual browsers. But it’s still unnecessary clutter when the same content is inconsistently repeated in the very first body section (DRY).
 * And it would be one less thing for y’all to argue about the format of. —Michael Z. 00:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Island
Boud wrote in edit summary: "quite likely control of other islands in the delta has changed hands several times, but those events would need sources" -= that's quite right. With the additional clarification: we need reliable sources. Mil bloggers and event trackers are not reliable sources for wikipedia. Besides, this is encyclopedia, not newspaper. We are not supposed to write about each daily military move in the war. Wait until the "fog of war" goes away. - Altenmann >talk 17:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * P.S. More detail: in fact the cited Russian blogger wrote that someone reported that Ukrainian forces were shelling Nestryha and he concluded that Russian forces are there, i.e., no direct knowledge. Maybe Russian just tried to get a foot there. Another Ukrainian source cited wrote that Nestryha is in the "gray zone". So this reaffirms my opinion: too early to write anything about this in Wikipedia. - Altenmann >talk

Alt names
Is there a reason why "Dnipro" and "Dniapro" are chosen as alt names when "Dnepr" generally has higher usage than both of them? They are all mentioned in the footnote but I am not sure why those two specifically are highlighted in bold. Mellk (talk) 08:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

 * I suppose because of the conceit that “Dnieper” is the same as “Dnepr”. As to why the others are bolded, they are alternative names in Ukrainian and Belarusian respectively. I’m not sure about Dniapro, but Dnipro is in major western journalistic publications now, like the New York Times.—-Ermenrich (talk) 11:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "Dnipro" can probably be considered as an alt name, but I see very little usage of "Dniapro" or "Dnyapro" so I do not think it makes sense to include this in bold. There are also plenty of English-language sources that use "Dnepr" rather than the English name "Dnieper" (after all, the river flows through Russia too). If we include all local names, then there will be too many alt names (see WP:ALTNAMES), but then it does not make to omit "Dnepr" but include "Dniapro". Mellk (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I would generally agree with removing Dniapro. I suspect adding "Dnepr" may result in some edit warring, but it seems reasonable to me.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dnieper


text:
Permanent normal trade relations

The status of permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) is a legal designation in the United States for free trade with a foreign nation. The designation was changed from most favored nation (MFN) to normal trade relations by Section 5003 of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998. Permanent was added to normal trade relations some time later.

In international trade, MFN status (or treatment) is awarded by one nation to another. It means that the receiving nation will be granted all trade advantages, such as low tariffs, that any other nation also receives. Thus, a nation with MFN status will not be discriminated against and will not be treated worse than any other nation with MFN status.

Applicability
Granting of permanent normal trade relations status is automatic, except where specifically denied by law.

Embargoes also apply to additional parties; see United States embargoes.

History
In 1948, the United States joined the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the predecessor organization of the World Trade Organization. In accordance with GATT provisions the United States agreed to extend what was then called Most Favored-Nation status (MFN) to all GATT member countries. This status was also applied to some countries that were not GATT members. However, a member may opt out of its obligations by invoking the non-application provision (Article XIII of the WTO or Article XXXV of the GATT) if it determines it cannot extend GATT/WTO principles to newly acceding members for political reasons.

In 1951, the U.S. Congress directed President Harry Truman to revoke MFN status to the Soviet Union and other Communist countries except for Yugoslavia. During the Cold War, most Communist countries were denied MFN status if they did not meet certain conditions.

In December 1960, Poland was granted MFN status by President Eisenhower. In 1962, Congress enacted a directive that jeopardized the MFN status of Poland and Yugoslavia; however, the directive was delayed until a new one was passed that allowed any countries with MFN to keep the status if the President determined it to be in the national interest of the United States.

Title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 superseded these provisions. Section 401 of Title IV requires the President to withhold MFN status from countries that had not acquired that status by the time of the law’s enactment on January 3, 1975. In effect, this meant all communist countries, except Poland and Yugoslavia. Section 402, the Jackson–Vanik amendment, withholds MFN status from countries with strict restriction on freedom of emigration. Countries that wish to have PNTR must fulfill two basic requirements: (1) comply with the Jackson–Vanik provisions of the Trade Act of 1974 that states that the President of the United States determines that a country neither denies or impedes the right or opportunity of its citizens to emigrate; and (2) reach a bilateral commercial agreement with the United States. Jackson–Vanik allows for the President to issue a yearly waiver to allow the granting of PNTR.

For many years, People's Republic of China was the most important country in this group which required an annual waiver to maintain free trade status. The waiver for the PRC had been in effect since 1980. Every year between 1989 and 1999, legislation was introduced in Congress to disapprove the President's waiver. The legislation had sought to tie free trade with China to meeting certain human rights conditions that go beyond freedom of emigration. All such attempted legislation failed to pass. The requirement of an annual waiver was inconsistent with the rules of the World Trade Organization, and for the PRC to join the WTO, Congressional action was needed to grant PNTR to the PRC. This was accomplished in late 1999, allowing the PRC to join WTO in the following year.

By Act of Congress, the United States granted permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) status to Czechoslovakia (later the Czech Republic and Slovakia), Hungary, and Romania after the fall of the communist governments in those countries. The United States granted PNTR to Albania, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania before their countries acceded to the WTO. Before it granted PNTR, the United States invoked the non-application provision against Mongolia for more than two years after it joined the WTO on January 29, 1997. It also invoked the provision against Armenia from its WTO accession on February 5, 2003, until it was granted PNTR on January 7, 2005, and with Kyrgyzstan from when it joined the WTO on December 20, 1998, until receiving PNTR on June 29, 2000.

According to a 2005 Congressional Research Service report, as of 2005, only Cuba (see United States embargo against Cuba) and North Korea (see North Korea–United States relations), were specifically denied NTR status. The same report said that in accordance with the Jackson–Vanik amendment, Belarus and Turkmenistan had been temporarily afforded NTR treatment by presidential waiver and that Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan were temporarily afforded NTR treatment by a presidential compliance determination.

In December 2006, the U.S. granted Permanent Normal Trade Relations status to Vietnam. Vietnam had a temporary free trade status on a year-to-year waiver basis as a prerequisite for accession to the WTO since 2001.

In the same year Ukraine was granted PNTR. In December 2012, President Barack Obama signed the Russia and Moldova Jackson–Vanik Repeal and Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012 (Magnitsky Act) granting PNTR to Russia and Moldova.

In April 2022, President Joe Biden signed a law which revokes the PNTR status for Russia and Belarus. This happened as part of a coordinated action of the EU and G7 nations to collectively revoke any MFN status from Russia in response to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

U.S. and China
The Trade Act of 1974 required the trade status of China be reviewed annually. On May 15, 2000 Representative William Reynolds Archer, a Republican from Texas, introduced H.R. 4444 to make the trade status of China permanent, saying that the bill was a top priority for the rest of the year and it was vital to the U.S. agriculture market to have access to a market that accounts for one-fifth of the world’s population

Congress added some important points into the legislation to make sure that when China entered the World Trade Organization it could be reprimanded for crimes against the workers of the country, and certain markets would be mutually exclusive between the two countries. The People’s Republic of China would need to abide by human rights for their workers as stated in the internationally recognized worker rights. To monitor the workers’ rights Congress established the Congressional–Executive Commission on the People’s Republic of China. The commission was to monitor acts of China which reflect compliance or violation, compile lists of persons believed to be imprisoned, detained, or tortured due to pursuit of their human rights, monitor the development of the rule of law in China, and encourage the development of programs and activities of the U.S. government and private organizations with a goal of increasing the interchange of people and ideas. The committee formed, along with the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), and the International Trade Commission (ITC) was to give an annual report to the President.

Congress believed that they needed to pass a bill that would help the economy stay stimulated if not have a higher growth than at the time. The most productive and trouble-free way to keep the economy growing strong was to outsource and trade more with China. China was to help provide America with superior markets in industry, agriculture, and technology. Congress as whole thought that without these things America would fall behind economically and technologically to some enemies of America. If China did not get support from America they could go to another country that would not be so strict on their treatment of people, and they could use that country to gain access to the WTO. The down side to this was that no markets could provide and receive China’s goods like the United States markets could.

The International Trade Commission’s report was the determination of China’s impacts on United States market, and how those certain disruptions can be remedied or expanded. The ITC was to find what domestic industries were being hurt by the trade and to present how the repair could be made. This was the most important part of the bill for most of the country. The bill breaks down to depending on how the different markets in the U.S. economy are doing it can use China’s markets as a catalyst to help stabilize when need be.

The bill created a stir among Congress and the American people when presented because people did not believe that America could actually do anything to help regulate China’s treatment of workers. Aside from people’s rights activists many business men believed in the bill to help flourish the different areas of industry. The legislation was passed by the House of Representatives on May 24, 2000 and by the Senate on September 19, 2000. Members of the senate wanted to add in amendments on treating their workers even better than stated in previous legislation, and to make the punishment for breaking the rules greater. Congress was up for re-election that year so due to time constraints all twenty four amendments were rejected. The President signed on Oct 10, 2000 and that day it became.

US imports from China more than quadrupled between 2000 and 2015, increasing the decline of US manufacturing jobs. Since the passing of the bill there have been three attempts to repeal the PNTR with China. The strongest attempt was in 2005 when House Rep. Bernie Sanders and 61 co-sponsors introduced a legislation that would repeal the Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. Rep. Sanders said to the House, "anyone who takes an objective look at our trade policy with China must conclude that is an absolute failure and needs to be fundamentally overhauled". The Representative cited statistics, including the increase in the trade deficit and the number of American jobs lost to overseas competitors. One point that Sanders did not make due to time constraints and the legislation being passed so quickly was that nothing in the way China treats its workers has changed.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Permanent normal trade relations