Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia/Russia-related Wikipedia notice board/Archive05

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Napoleon's invasion of Russia

I was advised by someone to bring up an issue here: is it acceptable if the article Napoleon's invasion of Russia is renamed to the French invasion of Russia (1812) (or simply French invasion of Russia)? I think there isn't a big problem either way, but the latter seems more appropriate. The first gives the impression that Napoleon personally invaded Russia, and while we all realize that's not what happened (or what the title refers to), we do have to be careful about personalizing history to an exorbitant degree. As Napoleon was ultimately representing the French Empire, it makes more sense to think of this as a French invasion. Although more than half of the Grand Army at this point was non-French, they were still fighting for France. All thoughts and opinions are welcome! Thank you.UberCryxic 18:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think French invasion of Russia is OK, because there were no other French invasions of the country. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
By the way, there is a huge dispute over the outcome of Battle of Krasnoi. Every comment is welcome. --Ghirla -трёп- 17:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

North European Gas Pipeline

There are serious POV issues with the page. It is edited primarily by anons or disgruntled foreigners, who add all sorts of unsubstantiated and unsourced allegations bespattering the project. Could anybody add the article to his watchlist? --Ghirla -трёп- 08:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

AFAIU, it's "Controversy" section only filled with POVs. But, on the other hand, what the "Controversy" is for then? Did I miss something? --jno 10:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Энциклопедия не для того, чтобы сюда сливать компромат. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Unsourced allegations of criminal abuse by acting politicians already brought Wikipedia in disrepute on several occasions. --Ghirla -трёп- 10:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, you seem to be right. Maybe just drop the section and ask for article protection? --jno 13:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Seeing the word pipeline, I am thinking about Alexander's Oil and Gas online, and the excellent multinational coverage of every part of the world, with of course recently very many articles on Russia, Kazakhstan, Ceyhan, the new position of the Cyrillic world as Europe's lifeline, etc. And, the concept of "pipelineistan" is now an important concept in oil and gas. I searched this word on Wikipedia, and I don't think there was a search result. It sounds like it could be an article. --McTrixie 19:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Company Logos

Hi, I got some energy and wrote these articles over the last few days. I'm a pretty good Wikipedian, but I don't have much luck with putting the company logos into the Wikipedia Commons. I don't know the rules of GNU as pertains to Russia, either. So, I won't be adding the logos to the corporate boxes on all these new pages, and they really need them. I hope someone can find the time to get this done, it makes the page look 100% better.

I don't think you can upload company logos to Commons, because any copyrighted logos can only be used under the fair use provision. You could upload them here, and mark them as fair use, I suppose, but the thing is that I am not really sure whether those logos would add anything to the articles (besides, obviously, making them look prettier). What's important is the information about the company (and I see you are making splendid progress in that regards), not a pretty picture. If a reader wants to see the logo, s/he can visit that company's website. If you want to add a picture for aesthetical purposes, a (GFDL/public domain) picture of the company's headquarters/factory/plant/etc. is bound to be a lot more informative than a logo. Hey, it can even be a picture of the headquarters with the logo on the building :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I think it makes the company look good, and people will be likely to continue reading about the company. I would have added all of them myself for that reason; it's just that I really haven't been able to figure out how to do it.--McTrixie 13:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
You can upload them via the "Upload file" link in the Toolbox menu on the left side. You can then link to the image you uploaded from the articles in the English Wikipedia. If you choose to go that route, please make sure you provide explanations on the image description page why you think the image qualifies as fair use and what its source is. Don't worry too much—if you make a mistake or the information you provide is insufficient, a friendly image police bot will let you know right away :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I think I got most of them done.--McTrixie 06:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Names of Russian Monarchs

I recently attempted to change the names of Russian monarchs named Vasili and Feodor to Basil and Theodore respectively, but apparently this violated some rule and created a huge pain for whoever was forced to revert my work. Therefore, I propose an official policy that would require the names of Russian monarchs on Wikipedia to be given in their English variants, with certain exceptions based on common usage of certain names (Ivan would not become John) and if the subject happens to be better known by another name (i.e. Dmitri Donskoi rather than Demetrius IV). My proposal involves westernizing the names of any Russian monarchs that require such action starting with the Grand Princes of Vladimir. Specifically, the names would change as follows: Andrei - Andrew, Dmitri - Demetrius, Feodor - Theodore, Konstantin - Constantine, Mikhail - Michael, Vasili - Basil, Yuri - George, etc. Should the community accept this proposal, it would then be in order to debate whether members of royal families should receive the same treatment (i.e. Prince Mikhail Skopin-Shuisky). In addition we should make any names that remain in their Russian variants the same, as I have seen (for example) Dmitri, Dmitriy, and Dmitry used for different people and even in the same article referring to the same person. Arguably this needs to be fixed. Cossack 04:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I am no expert but just as a suggestion, please name a couple of articles that would be renamed below. Not a comprehensive list, just some examples. Thanks, --Irpen 04:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The Vasilis would become Basils and the Feodors would become Theodores. Cossack 04:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I haven't read the Wiki Russian Names Anglicization guidelines, but I think that like Ivan, Mikhail is now understood in English, due to the fame of Mikhail Gorbachev. And, I think that Dmitri is also a well-known name; probably even more so than "Demetrius". Fodor's is a famous travel guidebook series so Feodor also sounds familiar. And there is a great Olympic weighlifter named Vasili Alexeev; I watch a lot of sports and there's no questioning how famous that name is in mainstream America. There are now a lot of ice hockey names that are now "Americanized" as well, that may not also be the names of Russian monarchs; Miroslav Satan of the Buffalo Bills, Sergei Samsonov ex- of the Boston Bruins, and more familiar names especially from the Detroit Red Wings. The same goes for names of female gymnastics stars. I wasn't raised in an Eastern European tradition; it is something I came to later in life, so I have some perspective. And like I said, I haven't read the guidelines. --McTrixie 06:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is any merit in the proposal. If we move Ivan Kalita to John I of Russia, other people would restore the more familiar name sooner or later. I checked Britannica and Google Books; both sources prefer "Vasily III" to "Basil III" and "Fyodor" to "Theodore". We need serious arguments that anglicized names are more current in academic discourse. --Ghirla -трёп- 11:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

But I think we should move the Feodor articles to Fyodor (also well known in English, e.g. Dostoevsky). Errabee 11:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree, let's stick to the names used in English encyclopedias. Usually these names, if they are anglicized, have only been so the point that they are still recognizable to Russians. I had a look at Dutch encyclopedia and found only one divergence which Russian speakers may find strange. "Dimitri" for "Dmitry". Vasily is Vasil, Fyodor is Fjodor. I did not even have an idea what the Dutch version of Fyodor might be, until I found that the Dutch versions of Theodore are Theodoor (obsolete), Diederik and (modern) Dirk. "Diederik van Rusland"??? I have just edited List of Russian rulers to update all the wikilinks, so everyone can see how it is done in most other languages. I agree that Fyodor would be preferable. --Pan Gerwazy 12:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
In the Netherlands, the name Theo (short for Theodorus) is still in common use. Errabee 13:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Theo van Gogh, of course. But I think he's oficially called Theodoor? I believe in Belgium (and you want the name to be acceptable there as well, I hope), "Theodoor van Rusland" would sound at least as odd as "Diederik van Rusland". "Theo van Rusland" suffers from the fact that it is historically a hypocoristic name. It's Peter and not Piet for that same historic reason. But, of course, with people around called Fjodor Buis, Fjodor Poort and even Fjodor Klondyke (all of these are Dutch people, no imported ice hockey players) I do not think you object to Fjodor. If you do, let's discuss this on Dutch Wikipedia. Дорогие друзья, извините нашу беседу... --Pan Gerwazy 10:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, is there any particular reason why Boris Yeltsin is absent from the List of Russian rulers? --Ghirla -трёп- 15:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe this list only goes till 1917 and there is another one for post-1917... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 15:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not the point. Names of monarchs are always anglicized, just look at the ones that came after Peter I: Catherine, not Yekaterina, Elizabeth, not Yelizaveta, Paul, not Pavel, Nicholas, not Nikolay. Why should the others be treated any differently? Remember, we're talking strictyl about monarchs here, not ordinary people. Why do we call the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V that rather than Karl or Carlos, and why are the German emperors called William rather than Wilhelm? Lastly, why should Russian monarchs be treated any differently? Their contemporaries in Europe certainly called them by translated names, not Russian ones. Cossack 18:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


I was checking Detroit Red Wings and I found a Russian Five article. It got me to thinking that NHL.COM has all its games online for free and it's very easy to get the idea from the sportscasters that Russian naming should be going forward here and not to worry about expanding the "Russification of Russian material". I played 10 years of New England ice hockey starting ~ 1971 and I remember how happy we all were in 1976 when Russia first played Team Canada. Of course when the US won the Lake Placid Olympics it was real nice for America; but it didn't have anything to do with hockey. Hockey now has 4 real friends in Sweden, Finland, Czech and Russia. It is an integrated environment. --McTrixie 18:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
At this point, due to Pavel Bure's success, using Paul instead of Pavel would seem very strange and wrong. All these names are household words in any sports family and hockey family. Pavel is a perfect example of a permanent forward progress. It just might be that anglicization should be phased out! --McTrixie 18:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The names of ordinary Russians have no effect on how monarchs are named, regardless of their "success". Neither does the name of Miroslav Šatan, who is a Slovak and whose name cannot be anglicized anyway. It's fairly irrelevant and I don't think we need to come back to it. Cossack 23:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

In what I agree with Kazak is that names of modern notable Russians are irrelevant. The articles should be called by such versions of the rulers' names that are most frequently used in English historic literature. I can check what names are used by Britannica and report back. --Irpen 00:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am sorry to sound dumb; its just that I have never heard any anglicization whatsoever on any hockey game or sports show. But there are other considerations, I really can't contribute here. --McTrixie 00:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the 1911 Britannica referred to those grand princes/tsars as Basil and Theodore. I personally find those versions more attractive, and without the transliteration confusions typical of Russian names. Vasili, Vasily, Vasiliy, Vassili, Vassily, Vasilij, Wasilij, Vasil, Wasil are all possibilities for Basil, Fyodor, Feodor, Fiodor, Fjodor, Fedor, Fëdor, Fodor - for Theodore. To anglicize them would simplify things greatly. Cossack 01:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't claim to be an expert, but as I promised, here is the report on the names used by Britannica for the people listed above by Kazak:

  • Vasili I of Russia. EB: Vasily I, "in full Vasily Dmitriyevich born 1371 died February 1425, Moscow"
  • Vasili II of Russia. EB: Vasily II, "born 1415, died March 27, 1462, Moscow, in full Vasily Vasilyevich , byname Vasily the Blind , Russian Vasily Tyomny grand prince of Moscow from 1425 to 1462."
  • Vasili III of Russia. EB: Vasily III, "born 1479, died Dec. 3, 1533, Moscow, in full Vasily Ivanovich grand prince of Moscow from 1505 to 1533."
  • Feodor I of Russia. EB: Fyodor I, "born May 31, 1557, Moscow, Russia died Jan. 7 [Jan. 17, New Style], 1598, Moscow, in full Fyodor Ivanovich tsar of Russia (1584–98) whose death ended the rule of the Rurik dynasty in Russia."
  • Feodor II of Russia. EB: Fyodor II: "born 1589 died June 10 [June 20, New Style], 1605, Moscow, Russia, in full Fyodor Borisovich Godunov tsar who ruled Russia briefly (April–June 1605) during the Time of Troubles (1598–1613).
  • Vasili IV of Russia. EB: Vasily (IV) Shuysky, "original name Vasily Ivanovich, Knyaz (Prince) Shuysky, or Shuisky born 1552 died Sept. 12, 1612, Gostynin, near Warsaw, boyar who became tsar (1606–10) during Russia's Time of Troubles."
  • Feodor III of Russia. EB: Fyodor III, "born May 30 [June 9, New Style], 1661, Moscow, Russia died April 27 [May 7], 1682, Moscow, in full Fyodor Alekseyevich tsar of Russia (reigned 1676–82) who fostered the development of Western culture in Russia..."

Whoever wants to check Columbia Encyclopedia, it is available online in full. Now, in my non-expert opinion, EB used names Vasily and Fyodor are closer to the currently used ones Vasili and Feodor. Personally, I don't mind either names as long as they match mainstream use. IMO, one can't be more mainstream than EB. EB may make mistakes but it is certainly as mainstream as one can possibly be. --Irpen 03:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

So you think that we should base the names off of the lowest common denominator, not enforce uniformity? That seems sort of sloppy to me. It's the same reason we have Vasiliys, Vasilis, and Vasilys all over the place and even in the same articles. Cossack 03:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we should base the names on the prevailing usage in English language historic literature. For some monarchs the literature prevailingly uses the anglicised versions (Peter), for some it uses the transliterated Russian name. You said youself that Ivan -> John "anglicization" would be an overkill. The question is where is the fine line between proper anglicization and such an overkill. I say the line is defined by the usage in other sources which WP articles should summarize. --Irpen 03:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there would be a problem with Ivan (John), though. But why, for example, is the city of Феодосія called Theodosia in the English Wikipedia, and why is Євпаторія Eupatoria? Cossack
This is actually irrelevant to the present discussion. I pointed out that "Theodosia" is not an appropriate transliteration, see the talk page of that article. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
They have the same root - that's my point. Cossack 11:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I restarted the discussion about Theodosia vs Feodosiya on the grounds that GoogleEarth lists it as Feodosiya. Errabee 16:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
+ in russian traditions monarchs are called in church-slavonic language. in russian Fyodor (ru:Фёдор) (in european Theodore), in church-slavonic Feodor (ru:Феодор); Ivan (ru:Иван) - (en:John) - Ioann (ru:Иоанн)--83.102.202.10 08:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Russia

  • Take a look how Russia article was decimated by user:РКП starting October 1st. It looks like he does not know what he's doing. Eg., see what he inserted into Kievan Rus. I am about to revert all his edits, but what is your opinion? He drew my suspicions when he deleted a historical photo with comment: "these peasants are not nice here". `'mikka (t) 22:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I looked closer again and decided to globally revert him after all while it is easy to do so (no one other edited over him yet). He simply cut and dropped huge chunks into other pages regardless flow of logic. `'mikka (t) 23:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)‎
      • I also deplore the carnage. РКП, please discuss vital changes before implementing them. There should be no instructions creep in WP. The article about the largest country in the world cannot be measured by the same standards as your average Pockemon article. Just look at the Britannica, how varied is the size of its articles. Or check the length of USSR article in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia. --Ghirla -трёп- 11:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC) --Ghirla -трёп- 09:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • What's wrong in having a reduced article? --РКП 11:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Should the community accept my proposal, it would then be in order to debate whether new cuttings should receive the same treatment (i.e. Ancient Russia, Borders of Russia etc). This needs to be fixed soon. --РКП 11:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I have serious suspicions that this РКП is a sock of a seasoned troll. Please keep an eye on all his edits. This needs to be fixed soon. `'mikka (t) 17:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed --Ghirla -трёп- 09:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

2006 Georgian-Russian espionage controversy

The article is linked from Main Page, so some hectic and tendentious editing is going on there. Among many other statements of fact, the following was deleted as unreferenced:

* Around 1,000,000 Georgians reside in Russia as foreign workers. [1] [2]
* According to the 2002 All-Russia Population Census, 197,934 Georgians have Russian citizenship.[3]
*Unofficial estimations amount the annual monetary transfers of Georgian foreign workers to Georgia to a total of 2 billion dollars, exceeding the annual US help of 1.5 billion dollars.[citation needed]
* 18% of Georgian foreign trade is being handled with Russia making it the most important Georgian trade partner.[citation needed]
* The Georgian share of Russian foreign trade makes up 0.5%.[citation needed]

I hope that we can reference the facts and put the important background information to the article. --Ghirla -трёп- 12:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I was bullied out of the page. It is tended by three Georgian editors who do no other editing, except reverting any attempts to neutralize the page (or even to put a tag alerting about the dispute, for that matter). --Ghirla -трёп- 16:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
removed dispute over numbers. backed up numbers couldn't be disputed. Elk Salmon 17:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

DYK

The DYK section featured on the main page is always looking for interesting new and recently expanded stubs from different parts of the world. Please make a suggestion.--Peta 02:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Aviastroitel

Newly created page, almost empty. I placed it on PROD. Could someone take a look? Pavel Vozenilek 23:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Deprodded, left a note with creator. Gosh - give it a few hours, will ya? - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Its website http://aviastroitel.nm.ru/ is dead. May be the company is dead after the catastrophe of its gilder? `'mikka (t) 00:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Dead companies are notable if they were once notable. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not questioning notablity. I even expanded the article myself. The problem with dead russian companies is that it is next to possible to find reliable info about them. `'mikkanarxi 21:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Serfdom#Return_of_Serfdom

de-facto serfdom persisted in Russia till as late as 1974. I'd expect some {{fact}} at least. This section certainly requires some copyediting.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course, nobody called it so, but how else would you call the fact that Soviet kolkhozniki had been issued passports en masse for the first time during the Passport Reform of the late 60's–early 70's? Prior to that they were "slaves of the land" indeed, as their chances to get out were very limited.--Barbatus 04:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I would call it the restriction of the Freedom of movement. Not a good thing, in fact a very bad thing but whether or not I would call it serfdom matters little. The question is whether serfdom is a widely agreed among the scholars term to apply to condition of the Soviet kolkhozniki. If it is so, the section would have belonged to the Serfdom article. Otherwise, it does not and the condition imposed by the Soviet state on a significant part of its citizens who worked the land, while certainly deserving a WP coverage, should be discussed in Human rights in the Soviet Union and Kolkhoz articles. --Irpen 04:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Muscovy

It has been my experience that there is significant opposition to the usage of this word. I'd appreciate the explanation as to why this may be.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no opposition to the correct usage of the term, that is to use it interchangeably with the Grand Principality of Moscow. This correct usage is exemplified by Britaniica, for instance (see article). Ivan IV and all later rulers were crowned as the sovereign of All Rus' not the Grand Princes of Moscow.
Some prefer to use the term all the way to the times of Peter and even Catherine. This is improper usage that also has a political flavor. The latter issue has been discussed at length. --Irpen 18:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
The lead of Muscovy notes that this term is applicable for period 'from the 14th century to the late 17th century'. I'd agree that usage in 18th century is erroneus. But IIRC there were voices that it should not be used in Polish-Muscovite War...or am I mistaken?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
The article is almost exclusively referring to the "western" side as the Polish, too. It mentions Commonwealth once at the beginning, and this is pretty much it. Yury Tarasievich 20:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, the point is that for many centuries West Europeans have been looking at Russia through the eyes of the Poles. But the use of the term "Muscovy" for the period after the accession of Ivan IV or after the conquest of Kazan (often quoted in West European books as the birth day of Russia and the end of Muscovy) is indeed declining in modern history books in the West. Judging on what I can read in Dutch, English and French, of course. Actually, this view is not so brand new as some people suggest. Look at this 1911 encyclopaedia by the way. It quotes as its sources 2 Russian, 1 German, 1 Swedish and 1 French history book mentioning the country's name under Ivan IV. The only one mentioning "Moscovy" is ... Russian! (E. Tikhomirov, "The first Tsar of Moscovy, Ivan IV." (Rus.) - Moscow, 1888). --Pan Gerwazy 11:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Names of the countries, languages etc., of the period, are quite complex issue, indeed. And the point being raised is, I believe, that using the "Muscovy" term, if referring to the post-16th cent. entity, is incorrect. Quite as the co-example of using the "Poland" term for the post-16th cent. Yury Tarasievich 14:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Styd i shram! I did not notice that the other Russian book and the German one should not be used as an argument because they deal with a longer period of Russian history (meaning we need to read an actual copy to find out) So the score for the 16th century is here 2 (Russia) against 1 (Muscovy). But look (and that was my point, really): the Swedish one (and Sweden is the only country in Europe where they never looked at Russia through Polish eyes) says Russia (and not "Russian") for the year 1555! Why that is interesting? I had a look at the 1966 translation of the 1949 French "Histoire de la Russie des origines à nos jours" ("Geschiedenis van Rusland") by French historian Gustave Welter. It uses "Moscovië" as the title for the pre-1675 state. However, the words "Moscovisch", "Moscovitisch", "Moscoviet" are never used in the whole chapter on "Muscovy", except for the phrase "Moscovisch Rusland" and when the author claims "The authority of the Romanov dynasty was Russian from the start, and not Muscovite". The adjective used is "Russisch", the inhabitants of this entity are called "Russen". And here and there the word "Rusland" does creep in. It almost looks as if Western historians switched back to "Muscovy" sometime in the 20th century (perhaps the 1917 revolution or/and the re-birth of Poland did it?), but felt that the corresponding adjective "Muscovite" had become too old-fashioned to still be used. But as I say, they are switching back again. From the West European view point, a strong argument could be made that the state that conquered Kazan in 1552 only changed significantly in 1772. But how to call the state during that 1552-1772 period?--Pan Gerwazy 15:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

My take in this is that we should avoid Russia to anything pre-1993, just as we should avoid Poland to anything pre-1990; especially in the leads. Why? Because they direct the user to the page of a mondern country, where often they should direct the user to a page of a historical country - Soviet Union, Kievan Rus', People's Republic of Poland, PLC, etc. In those cases saying 'Russia' or 'Poland' is a big simplification, which I see as completly unncessary given that we have good articles on the historical entities in that era (other exaples: Rome instead of Roman Empire, Germany instead of Holy Roman Empire, Austria instead of Austro-Hungary...). That said, I'd appreciate explanation of this edit, it is an example of what promted me to make this post and enquire about that issue.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Brezhnev - Брежнёв ??

In the article Reforms of Russian orthography (unfortunately, an article with few or no references), it says that the letter ё...

"though pronounced correctly in educated speech, its absence in writing has led to confusion in the transliteration of certain Russian names (for example, Khrushchev is actually Khrushchyov: Хрущёв), and occasionally even in their native pronunciation (e.g. Chebyshev, Чебышёв, also spelled as Tschebyschoff or Chebyshyov.) Curiously, Brezhnev was Брежнёв during World War II."

Well, was Brezhnev indeed spelled Брежнёв during WWII? If so, was that in recognition of the his Ukrainian past? In Ukrainian, his name is spelled with an є - Брежнєв. --Regards, Odengatan 22:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

http://www.biocrawler.com/encyclopedia/Leonid_Brezhnev or http://www.mathdaily.com/lessons/Leonid_Brezhnev It appears that in 1956 then he was elected Candidate to the Presidium of the Central Committee of CPSU they proposed to change his last name to a less-Ukrainian sounding. Alex Bakharev. Still cannot find WP:RS for this fact 03:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
My references above appear to be WP clones, see also http://www.everyday.com.ua/timeline/person/pnames.htm and a few even less reliable references. The Urban Legend seems to exist but if it is a fact, I do not know. Alex Bakharev 03:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, this article at the Biocrawler states that Dear Comrade Brezhnev was ethnic Russian. Endings -ov/-ev (-yov) are usual for Russian or Russified surnames (as in Russified Ukrainian: Harbuz→Arbuz(nik)ov; Khrushch→Khrushch(y)ov). I don't know reasoning behind the name change in question, but I really doubt it had anything to do with neither recognition of his Ukrainian past or russification of a Ukrainian name (as it was Russian, anyway). Ukrainian spelling of Brezhnev's surname (Брежнєв) is a virtual phonetic equivalent of its (changed) Russian spelling. In fact, elimination of ё made it more suitable for Ukrainians: there's no close corresponding sound in Ukrainian, and native speakers of that language sometimes have problems pronouncing it (I've been once told by a former professor of the Historical faculty of the Odessa University, Vasily Halias, how, back in 1930's, his Russian schoolteacher tried to make him to recite Lermontov correctly: "... Вскормленный в неволе орьол молодой ..."—"It is not орьол, Vasiliy, it is орёл!").
... Come to think of it ... is it Бахарев, or Бахарёв? ;) --Barbatus 03:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
It is Бахарев (with the stress on the first sillable). The story with Брежнёв is feasible but if true it should be easy to find in reliable sources and it does not seems to be the case. Alex Bakharev 12:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Brezhnev example removed (2 other examples suffice anyway).
I would also like to notice that Yudenich is spelt as Yudyonich (which would mean to transcribe "Юдёнич") in the famous White Eagle, Red Star: The Polish-Soviet War, 1919-20 by Norman Davies. I doubt he invented this or made a typo. I posted a question in the Yudenich talk page, but obviously this minor issue is not interesting to all. `'mikkanarxi 01:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Zolotaryovopedia

  • People, remember when Yaroslav Zolotaryov, with aid of Ukrainian Svidomy people that they recruited from Livejournal and Maidan (to give illusion of a much larger community than exists), created the so-called Siberian language wiki (a language that remains unrecognised to this day), look at the feaces thats now surfacing [1].
  • Zolotaryov's takeover of Wikispace and using it as a propaganda machine has overpushed all boundaries. As long as he continues to feel that he can get away with anything, this will continue to escalate. If this in En-wiki it would spell a full arbitration case. However this circuis is going through several wikis. I propose that we take this straight to Jim Wales by first of all writing a petition of complaint, and explaining to him that this is not someone on Chechen wiki trying to put a slant on the articles, this is someone that is actually using a BS cover for a clear Podlyanka to us. --Kuban Cossack 10:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • We have wikis on the language of Klingonians, Elfs and Orcs, why not have a wiki on the language of Zolotaryov, so far he does not state that this is a real language on one of a real-language wiki - who cares? Alex Bakharev 11:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes he will. And watch how bots will populate other wikis with interwikilinks to ru-sib and how Zolotaryov glory will grow and spread. Well, apparently his persistence deserves glory, I suppose. Time to learn words original research and articles for deletion in Zolotarski language :-) (Resistance is futile anyway, I guess Zolotarkabal will prevail there.) `'mikkanarxi 23:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not the first instance of a passionate bearer and spreader of fringe views taking over a small Wikipedia. For this one, I would not worry too much. Even if articles get linked to this, so what? No one would bother reading in Chaledonian.

Much more alarming is the situation in the original Belarusian wikipedia which is ruled by a small group of promoters of the non-normative grammar version of Belarusian language. Editors who are interested in writing in standard Belarusian had to take so much abuse by a small cabal of be-wiki admins who view a be-wiki as a machine to push their fringe version of Belarusian language that other editors moved towards creation of a second Belarusian Wikipedia based on the normative grammar and vocabulary, which millions of Belarusians learned at school. I am not sure whether they succeeded in convinsing the foundation to open a WIkipedia in normative Belarusian but situation seemed ubearable last time I checked. --Irpen 01:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Nearly all national w'edias I've seen or heard are in some kind of cabal. A notable exception is de: w'edia. I guess it is because of limited authorsip. IMO just as we don't care what is written in Turkish school textbooks, we should not be bothered much what is written in uk: or tr: or even esperanto w'edias. A truly international en: one has chances to have some balance eventually. `'mikkanarxi 01:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Privet. I just saw my first ru-sib link in English Wikipedia. Hamlet, supposed to be by Wilka Shakespearovsky, I see. In French, German and English the wiki link was made by User:Numbo3. The Esperanto one by a bot, it seems. NO link in Dutch or Frisian yet. By the way, what the hell is this: [2]--Pan Gerwazy 04:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The subject is clearly important, but it would generate more discussion in Russian Wikipedia. I don't think a handful of Russia-interested contributors in English Wikipedia can do anything about it. Here's the recentmost discussion in ru.wiki. I shall try to attract the attention of Russian wikipedians to Zolotaryov's паясничанье. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The discussion continues on ru:Википедия:Форум/Прочее. --Ghirla -трёп- 11:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but I will be removing this interwikimockery from articles in my watch list. `'mikkanarxi 16:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Are we allowed to do that? I have deleted the French and German one anonymously, quoting the obscenity as a reason. I wonder what to do when this sort of thing gets bot'ed. Now for some "good" news: User:Numbo3 now mentions that he learns Esperanto, so perhaps he created that bot for Esperanto and wanted to see what happened when he added it to three other interwikis? --Pan Gerwazy 19:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at Siberian/Nort Russian language, it seems to be a part of this project, as well. · Naive cynic · 12:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


In the meantime, a Spanish bot has been adding links to all their year articles and of course to Hamlet too. The Poles are also hard at it. And some nut at French wiki put back the link at Hamlet. I explained something on the talk page there. Perhaps someone who knows better French than I can have a go there? --Pan Gerwazy 15:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

And in Russian Wikipedia as well now: 117 put the ref to ru-sib in the Ingria article back. Sorry guys, but if you cannot keep order in your own house: [3] ... Note that there is no link to the Russian article in ru-sib, what a surprise! --Pan Gerwazy 16:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I have special antivandal tool which listens to recentchanges IRC channel and removes interwiki links to ru-sib 2 seconds after someone appends it. I used it in ruwiki for some time but unfortunately some administrators found this unacceptable. Anyway, if we'll decide to remove all this interwiki-s it would be easy to do. Edward Chernenko 17:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the argument is you should not stop the bots, because they also put Russian links on the other interwikis, including the "Siberian" sandbox. We will see how long it will take before THEY run a bot to take those away. In any case, I think we are allowed to take away these links to the Hamlet obscenity. Only problem is there are other bots which treat that sort of thing if done by an IP as vandalism.
But: remember what someone else did on Jogaila? What if we put a message on all Hamlet talk pages - mentioning the obscenity and pointing out the vote on Meta? Well, if the deletion of the link is treated as vandalism, we are allowed to explain it on the talk page, are we not? That would not infringe on WP:POINT, would it? Just thinking aloud, of course.--Pan Gerwazy 01:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Vote on Meta for closing Zolotaryovopedia

  • m:Proposals for closing projects 71.132.224.180 11:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    Please keep vote against of this utter rubbish OR.
    and here is several articles around other wikies (and on en as well) about this slang that should be deleted.
    [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Elk Salmon 12:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    Voting is useless, as long as the process is hijacked by sockpuppets. --Ghirla -трёп- 12:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    Not unless we can prove to them that Zolotaryov created this language and that he is using LJ and other recruits to keep it alive, do make a more frequent appearance on Meta, I think their overreaction and our perfect timing made them come out with full colours, now all we need is just to have a neutral admin see the whole picture... if we can then the whole ru-sib will be gone in no time. --Kuban Cossack 21:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    "IJzeren Jan" has himself thought up several imaginary languages, based on Polish. He's got lot of friends of divers plumage who are just ready round the corner. I am sorry, but in my view, there is not a snowy chance in hell you are going to get the article on Dutch Wikipedia deleted. It has become a political issue and that is always "interesting" for the neutrals, who will then vote not to delete. Re-naming the whole thing to "Siberian project" or "Siberian question" stands a better chance. Are we still writing articles? This thing had me take an account on Russian wikipedia! --Pan Gerwazy 15:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
And now they are so confident, that they have started to intimidate those who take away the links: [10] --Pan Gerwazy 09:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

While reverting interwikiRuSib, I noticed that at least 10 interwikie bots run here (and may be more), so I guess I cannot overdo them manually. Who can write bots? `'mikkanarxi 00:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

What needs done is bot runners should be alerted to modify their bots' scripts to exclude Zolotapedia as the discussion to close it is ongloing until this smut project is either closed or brought to order as nothing more than an obscure language Wikipedia rather than propaganda machine of obscenity[11][12] and ethnic hatred[13][14][15]. There is an Old Church Slavinic Wikipedia and there is nothing wrong with it or with linking to it. --Irpen 00:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The current, and maybe, future links to Zolotapedia can be seen at here. Remove on sight until this is sorted out. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, google for Сибирской site:en.wikipedia.org gives much more fun. `'mikkanarxi 02:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Кислород Перекрыли, теперь надо душить

Gentlemen, ladies, I offer you to have a look right now at the present state of the deletion proposal. Right now there is a 66:46 advantage wrt to us. Now the rules say we need 2/3 of the vote, thus roughly 30 more, but better to push it over 100. However, just read what kind of an image has Zolotoryov managed to paint of himself. Instead of any replies to our questions on the credibility and professionalism of his research (or even discussing those) he spent the last two weeks trying to convince us that it is ok to call us Moscals. What he does not get, is that he has really become the chauvinist, flashmobber that he accuses others of being, and who he really is in practice (Samir74). Now look at the people who are placing their votes. META WIKI ADMIN like meta:User:Improv are supporting the closure. And look at the people opposing, half are the same xenophobes that Zolotoryov is himself. However a good ten of those are actually, in a way, outside the brakets, who voted EXCLUSSIVELY out of the Good Faith principle simply because they fell into Zolotoryov's trap.

Our job now is to being actively lobbying everybody that falls outside our circle, I know I will make sure all my Metro colleagues are informed of this, Ghirla you got freinds in architecture and history, there are other people, Armenians, Azerbaijanis, Jews (how do they like being called Zhids?). Also it is important that we do everything possible to make those people that have opposed the closure change their votes, all we need is to convince 10 people and we have the 2/3 majority, but even if we get only two or three to go along then that already cuts down the amount of votes required by a great deal. It ain't over yet, but we certainly have momentum, lets not lose it. --Kuban Cossack 04:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll tap the Belarusians I know and see what impact we could make. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Eastern Front (World War II) - help needed!!

Please see the talk page of this article - read the two topics, "Casualty numbers" and the one below it.

We are having some major conflicts about casualty statistics - this is because there are so many "reliable" sources for them, but many of them disagree on the number of Soviet casualties by many millions. Some help is really needed in finding a solution - perhaps giving a "range" of numbers. I simply can't understand why the casualty numbers are so different in different sources, so we really need an expert.

To be neutral, we must mention civilian casualties on both sides - Soviet AND German (if this is not done, there are editors who will remove the Soviet civilian casualty numbers and accuse us of bias). German civilian casualties are a taboo topic in Russia, I realize... but we must try.

In short, I feel that this article is on the verge of exploding into an edit war, if it hasn't already. I removed the casualty numbers from the infobox until this issue is settled, and I need some urgent help - this is one of the most important articles on wikipedia and certainly in the Russian Portal. We can't let it fall apart. Esn 01:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, this entire article is a huge mess. As an example, take a look at the sloppy Results section of the very top.
What would you think were the results of this war? When asked, I would have said that the main result was the disappearance of Germany left at mersy of the victors from the map of Europe and from being an influential power for a long time and the USSR becoming a world power for some years to come with its influence expanded to a half of the Europe. Also, I would think, the "result" was fixation of the European borders for the decades to come as well as the preservation of the statehood (and often expansion) of the countries initially conquered by Germany. Instead the "results" section gives you a bunch of loosely connected info about victims and horrors of the war (all true but strangely pasted there) as well a lengthy discussion about the Soviet soldiers brutalizing Europe. Is this a "result" of the war for the eponymous section at the top of the article? And there is plenty of other stuff. Sorry, but someone has to take a huge undertaking to fix this whole mess with that article. This would be a multi-month project. --Irpen 02:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Is it possible to nominate an article for such an improvement? Esn 05:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The only way I know that will bring such article into order is a single knowledgeble user, or 2-3 of such, committed to the topic take it upon him/themselves to do a complete overhaul. This article is in such a pity state that no less effort would help. The user or a small team would need to babysit the article in the process of its overhaul to fend off the attempts to interfere with the normalization and such attempts would be plenty since the topic raise many emotions. Small help from others aside, this would be an enormous task. I know of only one user who could do it but I would not want to loose him from other articles that such committment would require. Personally, I am not able to help much with this now. So, I see no easy solution. If you want to be in charge of such overhaul, your service would be worth a huge gratitude from everyone at this board. Actually, being a great specialist in the war would not be required from the start. Just some level would be needed that would allow to have some sort of a picture of the direction in which the article should be reformed. Whoever and whenever does this will be a real hero. --Irpen 06:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a few problems with the German victims passage at the beginning:

"When the Red Army invaded Germany from 1944, many German civilians suffered from vengeance taken by Red Army soldiers. After the war, following the Yalta conference agreements between the Allies, the German populations of East Prussia and Silesia were displaced to the west of the Oder-Neisse Line, in what became one of the largest forced migrations of people in world history. The German minority scattered over large swaths of Eastern Europe was thus expelled and those who did not manage to leave were exterminated." 1944, that date is wrong. It refers of course to Nemmersdorf et al. But that was propaganda by Goebbels. The atrocities in East Prussia happened early 1945. Even then a lot of it was civilians killed in crossfire, but that there were many atrocities cannot be denied. [OR, of course, but I am sure Red Army soldiers also listened to German radio services. Not only to listen to Lili Marleen, but also because often they advanced so far that Russian radio was out of reach (cannot find where I read that, I did read it in a book originally in English). So they must have heard the propaganda about Nemmersdorf. They cannot have liked that.] Displacement of German populations: in Silesia, many refugees actually came back (not so many in East Prussia) but they were evicted again by the Poles. Only in Stettin did they stay on a bit longer - the Russian army stayed in charge of the harbour for some time and gave the harbour personnel temporary exemption from eviction (there is an argument about how long that lasted). You use the passive voice, which is perhaps a nice NPOV solution since the Poles had no choice really. However, that passage is then followed by a sentence about the whole of Eastern Europe: 1) the Germans did not get evicted, and did not run away, everywhere in Eastern Europe. They stayed on in Romania for instance, until Ceaucescu literally sold them to the German Federal republic. 2) the way it is written is like there was a direct link between Yalta and other evictions of German populations, outside Poland and/or East Prussia. Not really: everybody, even Churchill, expected those Germans to run away and never come back. --Pan Gerwazy 02:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

But of course! But the main problem that this issue is in the top of the article devoted to the entire war (!) under the results section (!!) where no actual results are presented (!!!). This whole article is a big mess. --Irpen 02:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
You are right about the structural problem. But as the Americans would say: where is the beef? In the case of East Prussia, the numbers of casualties. I doubt very much that the book I was thinking about mentions figures. I myself have heard figures as low (because they are bound to include suicides, killed in crossfire and those who later died because of malnutrition) as 100,000 dead mentioned, but also 500,000. Did Solzhenitsyn mention numbers? He was good at extrapolation. --Pan Gerwazy 01:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, it seems we had an article on that one all the time.[[16]] The controversy: statistical evidence for the area that was German in 1937 means 2 million people are missing. Some people have refined that to about 1.3 million. However, the TEXT of the article also mentions my 500,000 as a maximum (there is no rationale there, however) Note that none of these three figures (like my figures above) include soldiers from the area killed in the war.--Pan Gerwazy 02:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I can put this here: Mayakovskoye is up again. I am starting to sound and feel like a broken record, always repeating the same thing. Do they think now, with this Siberian thing, and the Halibutt affair, Russian (and Polish) editors will be too busy elsewhere?[[17]]. Some of what I wrote about Normandie-Niemen (part of which I later deleted) may be interesting. Not merely the French involvement, but also that there was actually an air base in Soviet possession. Most Eastern front maps I have seen pretend that the border was the exact front line that winter. --Pan Gerwazy 01:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Russian Institute of Documents and Historical Records Research

From a deleted article:

  • Hello i have an uncle who either died their or is missing his name is Karl Birkenfelder as in the 6th army how would find anything out about him thank you for your help Karl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl boss (talk • contribs)

Can somebody help the guy? Alex Bakharev 06:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Forts in Russia

For some reason, Category:Fortresses in Russia was deleted and all entries (such as Koporye and Kazan Kremlin) went into Category:Forts in Russia. Can anybody explain why? --Ghirla -трёп- 10:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks like this was the outcome of this CfD.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested moves

Some requested moves are required to bring a couple of articles to normalcy:

  • Don River (Russia) is a stupid name, longish to type, considering that our river cannot compare in geographical, historical or cultural importance with its namesakes. Should be moved to Don River while the latter article should be moved to Don River (disambiguation).
What about the Dutch Wikipedia solution, re-directing Don River and River Don to Don River (Russia) and having all disambiguation at Don (disambiguation)? That way, the title of the other three rivers is at least suggested by the title of the article on the Russian Don river. I do not think many people will type in Don River (Britain) but of course, that one should be re-directed to the Scottish one, obviously. ;>) As for the other uses of "Don", I found it funny to believe that people would actually look up "Don Camillo" under "Don", but why bother, if we put the rivers first, that is OK. --Pan Gerwazy 22:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your solitary response. I found it prudent to follow this advise and made necessary changes. Best, Ghirla -трёп- 08:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Er ... I think that guy actually believes Don River should be redirected to Don River (Russia) - which is more or less what I proposed. However, there is someone on the same talk page who seems to think that only the British ones are called "River Don". I doubt very much that it is as clear cut as that: "River Don" England gets 47,000 googles, "River Don" Scotland gets 33,000 - "River Don" Russia 36,000 and "River Don" Canada 29,000. Of course, some of the Russia and Canada pages may actually mention the English or Scottish river as well, and keep the "Don River" version for the Russian or Canadian one. In any case, I do not think there is much to say against at least redirecting Don River to Don River (Russia)--Pan Gerwazy 10:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Re-reading it, what he wrote could alo be interpreted to mean he wants "Don river" to be the article about the Russian river, with a reference about other uses. --Pan Gerwazy 10:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I believe that the existing naming convention is per the guidelines laid out in WP:RIVERS. You might want to check with them before you start doing the moves.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Not too much there, except it is suggested to take the most important one without disambiguation and Americans or Australians do not seem to like commas in the disambiguation. --Pan Gerwazy 16:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Ezhiki, all the moves (actually, one) have been done before your comment was posted. Pan, River Don indeed redirects to Don River (disambiguation), because this particular sequence of words refers to non-Russian rivers only (see?) --Ghirla -трёп- 19:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

As I have no time to sort it out by proposing requested moves in each case, I urge the community to discuss and to propose requested moves if my reasons are found compelling. --Ghirla -трёп- 12:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Zygii

User:Johnmarks9 spreads strange allegations that Chechens descend from a mysterious nation mentioned by Strabo. I suspect this is original research and would appreciate a review of articles recently edited by this user. --Ghirla -трёп- 18:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Russ-Kazan wars

The Tatarstan article links to "Russ-Kazan wars". A suspicious title, but there is no Russo-Kazan wars either. Could you please fill the gap? Thank you, Mukadderat 20:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sergei Kovalev

Could someone take a look at the latest edits there. In addition to being ill-formed, they seem to be severely POV. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Russia

Our portal looks ghastly. Some sections have not been updated for more than a year. Could someone update it more regularly? Thanks, Ghirla -трёп- 10:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ The gas knockout, Strana.Ru, October 5, 2006
  2. ^ Georgia gets warning on 'anti-Russia' stance, International Herald Tribune, October 5, 2006
  3. ^ 2002 НАЦИОНАЛЬНЫЙ СОСТАВ НАСЕЛЕНИЯ, 2002 All-Russia Population Census official website.(in Russian)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Russia/Russia-related_Wikipedia_notice_board/Archive05&oldid=1080956058"