Jump to content

Talk:Second Jassy–Kishinev Offensive/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Article creation

Okay, as requested by me on the Military History Project, I have started this article. I will get back to it and add to it over the coming weeks. Everybody else feel free to chip in. Andreas 13:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Soviet Commander

Tolbukhin and Malinovsky commanded the Fronts, but Timoshenko was the STAVKA representative, is that not correct? Andreas 18:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Casualties

Please, don't tell me you're saying Soviets lost only 13,000 KIA, while Germany and Romania would have lost 430,000 KIA as the template says. Yes, Romania's troops were quite bad, but Soviet having less casualties is rare. This much less? Impossible. Yeah the article says this also, but how was this possible then? Sources? --Pudeo (Talk) 00:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


Actually the casualties are low the German ones that is by at least 50% and take notice that only dead and captured are listed not wounded if you add wounded you get +75% of 1.5 of the numbers listed. In 1944 the Soviet war machine was winning everywhere and hard too. 1944 is not 1941, in 1944 the Germans on all fronts lost 2 million men and that is just the Germans. It is possible if you look at what was actually happening in the war by then and Soviets have less casualties is not rare in 1994 but the rule only a few battle, small ones did they get more casualties and everyone of those has an article 50 pages long but the overall picture was highly favorable for the Soviets in 1944 and even more is in 1945. No one in the German cam wanted to write about what happened in 43 let alone 44 and 45 because those stories where neither memorable or glorious like the battles of 41 42 so most books of that time either apologize for the crimes that the Nazis’ did or blame everything on Hitler. The sources which are plain to see for anyone are at the bottom of the pagePotaaatos 14:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The timeline of events

The timeline is very unclear: under A failure of Intelligence is written that 21 August was the day before the attack, therefore attack began on 22 August, but under Progress of the battle - General is written that the break-in in 6th Army sector [...] destroyed rear-area supply installations by the evening of the 21st. I guess later is wrong. In fact I have information that all action commenced on 23rd of August 1944. MC --89.40.223.31 14:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This Romanian[1] and this (official) Russian[2] sources both name the 20th of August as the day of attack. --Illythr 21:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

OK then, so the author should correct the article Kondo 10:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Rename to Iassy-Kishinev Offensive

I propose renaming this article to Iassy-Kishinev Offensive, per naming convention in this academic work by a renown specialist on WWII. PS. Please note that the lead of the article even now states: The Battle of the Romania 1944 denotes combat operations usually referred to as 'Jassy–Kishinev Operation' (Russian: Ясско-Кишинёвская операция).... we should use the more common title. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me -- after all, this was an operation in WWII that involved only a limited area of eastern Romania, not by any means all of Romania. The capital, Bucharest, was liberated from Nazi Germany by Romanian troops (with some air support from the United States Air Force, as the Soviet troops were approaching from Moldavia) in the days following King Michael's coup on August 23, 1944, in a separate military operation. As for the rest of Romania, it was not fully liberated until October 25, 1944, when the town of Carei was retaken by the Romanian Army, in a joint offensive with the Soviet Army, see Armed Forces Day#Romania. Now, I do have a quibble, though: why Iassy-Kishinev Offensive, and not Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive? After all, that's how both cities were known at the time the offensive was launched by the Red Army (not to say, that's how both Iaşi and Chişinău were known way back when, and that's how they are both known currently)... Turgidson 19:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
A few more sources:
  • John Erickson, "Stalin's war with Germany", London: Phoenix Press, 2000. ISBN 1842124269
  • Major Scott R. McMichael, "The Battle of Jassy-Kishinev", Military Review 65 (July 1985): 52-65.
By the way, the ref list in the article could use some editing to bring it up to WP standards. Turgidson 21:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, my source uses the English names - I'd suggest we look at Google Scholar and Print and see which ones are more prominent. Do the sources you quote use your spelling variants? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, I guess not. By the way, isn't Jassy the preferred English spelling of Iaşi? I get 1,010,000 Google hits for Jassy, and only 42,300 for Iassy (for comparison, Iaşi gives 27,700,000 hits!) While at it, Kishinev gives 661,000 hits, while Chişinău yields 7,040,000 hits. Finally, Iaşi+Chişinău= 1,350,000, Jassy+Kishinev=1,520, and Iassy+Kishinev=473. Not sure what (if anything) this proves, but it gives some rough indication of (current) usage. Will need to look more carefully at scholarly sources, though, I agree. — Turgidson 22:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
For now I will abstain on specific spelling issue, I am sure there are experts on Romanian spellings here, while I'd be just an amateur.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I would support this move, as 'Battle of Romania' appears to be a wiki-invention. I would encourage Piotr to be bold and move the page if no disagreement arises here within, say, two weeks. Buckshot06 03:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
"Battle of Romania" is indeed a wiki-invention. Russians only had this offensive and then, or better said during it Romania capitulated, what battle? Not even Russians call it that way as far as I know... -- AdrianTM (talk) 01:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
AFAIK, there was even a separate operation, the Romanian Operation, for the advancement of the Red Army beyond the Prut.--Illythr (talk) 02:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I thought Iaşi is beyond Prut (Pruth in English I think), once the Romania capitulated Russians only mopped up the remaining Germans (with Romanian help by the way), it wasn't a "Battle of Romania" per se (not they called it this way, again that's as far as I know with my limited knowledge in this field -- I'll let other people more knowledgeable to discuss this...) -- AdrianTM (talk) 02:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant further advances of the Red army into Romania. I suppose the whole military action in the region (Romania+Germany vs Soviet Union and Romania+Soviet Union vs Germany) could be called "Battle of Romania", to give it an epic tone, but that's certainly not a Soviet designation. --Illythr (talk) 02:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Err, what's up with the renaming? The operation's name was translated into English from Russian, its most common name in English is "Iassy-Kishinev Operation" (also "Yassy-" or "Jassy-" latter probably from German) Google books,Google search. --Illythr (talk) 00:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, er, perhaps it's because the respective cities are called Iaşi and Chişinău? I dunno, just a wild guess. Turgidson (talk) 01:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, a name of an important historical event in a given locality is usually not updated with the current name of that locality. See Kishinev pogrom, for example. Besides, it's the most common name for the operation. --Illythr (talk) 02:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
That's different: the Kishinev pogrom took place when the city was part of the Russian Empire, and was officially called Kishinev. The Iaşi-Chişinău took place when both cities were part of Romania, and were officially called Iaşi and Chişinău, respectively. So I think this should be the deciding factor, perhaps even more than the fact that that's how they are called now. Turgidson (talk) 02:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
The name that matters more is the current English name at the time. And those were "Jassy" and "Kishinev". This, however, is just an argument for the sake of an argument. All we need is to use the name used in English language literature. Compare:
Also, the Romanian source I cited above[3] uses "Iassy-Kishinev" in this context despite the text being an obvious translation from Romanian. (Not sure of its statistical credibility - could well be an amateur translation, but that site is used as a reference on Wikipedia...)
Another good site I read once in a while also uses the "Jassy-Kishinev" form: [4] (linked from this article) --Illythr (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I kind of agree with Illythr in this case, also since it was a Russian operation, we might need to keep the translation from Russian to English... -- AdrianTM (talk) 03:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, a translation into contemporary English would probably be "Iasi-Chisinau...". In this case, however, there's an established name for it, so there's no need to invent/retranslate anything. --Illythr (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure about that googling—it depends on what one looks for. An instant search for the right keywords shows that in Moldova, at least, they call it Operaţiunea Iaşi-Chişinău. Turgidson (talk) 05:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I put that link in the article, and added two more sources who call it "Operaţiunea Iaşi-Chişinău"—one is from Jurnalul Naţional, the other from BBC News. What else do we need to establish current usage of the terminology? It's certainly the case in Romania and Moldova, but it's also sanctioned by the Beeb. That, added to the fact that (1) the two cities are called this way today (and at WP, too, of course), and (2) the two cities were called that way in August 1944, when the offensive occurred—sounds like solid evidence to me. Turgidson (talk) 07:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I think I changed my opinion, let me explain, if the cities are now called in English Wikipedia "Iasi" and "Chisinau" then it's irrelevant that they were translated at some point from Russian in a different form, Kishinev is Russian for Chisinau, it's not the name of a different city, therefore there's no need to use an old translation, we simply need to use the current one (also as mentioned by Turgidson that was the name of the cities at that time too) -- AdrianTM (talk) 07:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Err, Turgidson, how a Soviet military operation is called in Romanian is pretty much irrelevant for an English language encyclopedia, wouldn't you agree? Likewise, for the Kishinev pogrom, "Chisinau" was the city's name in Romanian all this time, however, it was more known in the West as "Kishinev", not because of any "officialness", but because people who were referring to it were (or picked it up from) Russian speakers.
Yet again, there is nothing to argue here. I have clearly shown the current usage of the term in the English literature. A 41+27 hits against zero in Google Books settles the issue without any possible second thoughts. --Illythr (talk) 10:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
(1) You said at some point that even Romanian sources call it Iassy-Kishinev, and that we would be inventing/translating things otherwise; can we at least agree I shot down those notions? (2) How that Soviet operation is called in Russian is pretty much irrelevant for an English language encyclopedia, wouldn't you agree? (And while at it, wouldn't you agree that the Soviet Union is no more, whereas Romania and Moldova are alive and kicking? Just a thought...) (3) Please review WP:NAME: there are some very precise conventions here at WP on how to call cities, and the fact that it's Iaşi and Chişinău (diacritics and all, please note) means that the editors who decided how those cities are to be called at WP thought long and hard, and came to the conclusion that that's the way that best conforms to the WP naming conventions. If you want to challenge the consensus, why don't you try redirecting Iaşi to Iassy or Jassy, and/on Chişinău to Kishinev, and see how that goes? (Note that Iassy [the form you propose in the title of this section] is so unusual a spelling, that it doesn't even merit a redirect!) — Turgidson (talk) 13:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
(1) Nope, I presented an English language Romanian source. You - a Romanian language one. In order to see how the operation is named in a language other than English, you need but to click the various interwiki links provided in the article. Still, that doesn't really matter, as it's more indicative of a translator's skill (or preference?) rather than actual common English language usage (That particular site seems to use many combinations of the name at once).(2) The original name of any event or object in its native language is quite relevant in any encyclopedia (And while we're at it, we better stay on topic and not stray into offshoot discussions). (3) Erm, were discussing the established name of the operation, not the current names of the cities. Anyhow, the convention says to use the most common name. A 41 to 0 relation in English language books (per Google Books) clearly demonstrates which one's more common. A standard Google search indicates that the "Iassy-Kishinev Operation" is the most common name on the Internet in general (888 against 8 hits for the current name), but I'd rather stick to books. --Illythr (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Now that you've mentioned it, I'll go ahead and create that Iassy redirect if only for the sake of the 11200 enGoogle hits for it. --Illythr (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to make things clear: I intend to change the article name to "Jassy-Kishinev Operation" as the established English name for the operation[5]. The current name ("Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive") is a new construct for which I was unable to find any support whatsoever in English sources [6]. In fact, it looks like Wikipedia is the only English language resource that uses this form - a clear breach of WP:OR. --Illythr (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Look, why do you try to impose your solution, instead of seeking to reach consensus? Clearly, there are a variety of policies involved here, and a variety of interpretations, all in good faith. Just as an indication, look above at the original naming discussion, initiated by Piotrus, to see that various editors have grappled with this for a while. I myself am at wit's end, I don't know what else to say to make my case -- I'd rather improve the article (like I've been doing for a while) than keep talking about this (by the way, and for the record, it was not I who moved the page to this name, or the previous one; in fact, I very seldom move pages). But others may want to chime in. Instead of starting with moves and countermoves, how about we have a (somewhat informal) RfC on this very page, and see whether a wider consensus can be reached? Turgidson (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I do not intend to make the move immediately (wait a few days) and would welcome any informed input in the meantime. However, right now the situation looks quite clear: There is a common English name for the operation and it is not the name of this article. I am surprised to see such resistance from your side to something so trivial. There is no POV here, no controversy, nothing but a good faith error by a fellow contributor. I do not see a need for an RfC for something that obvious and would consider it a waste of time much better spent at working on the article itself. Still, if you think that an RfC would be best (I take it, you do not accept my arguments for some reason) - go right ahead. --Illythr (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Apropo improving: Why did you add the name of the operation in Romanian? I have seen no German or Soviet operation names given in languages other than English and native regardless of where those operations took place (i.e no "Операция Барбаросса" here, no "Bataille de Normandie" here, or, say, the name of the Battle of Keren in Tigrinya in that article etc). --Illythr (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

That's to (1) clarify the (current) title; (2) the battle occurred on what was at the time Romanian territory, and now is part of either Romania or Moldova (Barbarossa is not the Russian name of a locality, and Normandie is almost the same as Normandy [the latter is derived from the former]); (3) all three exterior links that I put in (there are no others at the moment) speak of "Operaţiunea Iaşi–Chişinău". Thus, I figured it's better to explain what's that all about, instead of leaving the putative reader wondering. As for the RfC, you may note that I did not propose something formal, but rather, something informal, on this page. For example, I remember a rather informative, consensus-building discussion some of us had at Talk:Odorheiu_Secuiesc#Requested move. I don't know whether there is enough energy for that here, but that's a thought. Turgidson (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
(1) The current title is incorrect. Unlike that Odorheiu Secuiesc dispute, there actually is an established English name for the operation. (2) No Chinese or Japanese name here as well... Point is, operations only have English and native language names in their respective articles. I do not see why this one should suddenly become an exception. (3) All three exterior links that you put in are in Romanian; obviously, they use the Romanian name and would much better look in the Romanian Wikipedia anyway (oh, I see you already put them in there, good job). The reader will be best served simply by correcting the name of the operation. --Illythr (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Aftermath of the Operation

Now that you mention it, I looked more carefully at one of those articles, namely, the one from the BBC. There is more to it than that bit about the naming issue. It says that, according to Asociaţia Istoricilor din Republica Moldova and Asociaţia victimelor regimului comunist de ocupaţie şi Veteranilor de Război ai Armatei Romane,

Operaţiunea Iaşi-Chişinău a fost o re-anexare a Basarabiei şi Bucovinei de Nord la Rusia Sovietică. Preşedintele Asociaţiei Istoricilor, Anatol Petrencu, a declarat la conferinţă că "ruşii au continuat să omoare şi să captureze militari romani chiar şi după 23 august 1944, zi în care Armata Română, la ordinul Regelui Mihai, a încetat să tragă în trupele sovietice." Uniunea Sovietică, potrivit istoricului Anatol Petrencu, a deportat peste 170.000 de ostaşi ai Armatei Române, 40.000 dintre aceştia fiind închişi în lagărul de filtrare din oraşul Bălţi, unde au murit de foame, frig, boli sau au fost executaţi."

Come to think of it, this is relevant information, and puts the Operation in a broader historical context. I'll take to heart your prod, and add the info to the article in a short while (translated into English, of course), so as to put a more complete picture into it. Turgidson (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that such an organisation is any more neutral on this matter as, say, the Soviet War Encyclopedia. Still, with proper attribution, it's fine. Although the wording is kind of strange - were they expelled or were they detained in the POW camp until all 40.000 died there? This is kind of contradictory... --Illythr (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Are you questioning the reliability of Asociaţia Istoricilor din Republica Moldova (The Association of Historians from the Republic of Modova), or that of its President, Anatol Petrencu? As I mentioned before (I think), the Soviet Union is no more with us (thanks for the small mercies!), whereas that association, that country, that person are alive and kicking. So let's be careful when impugning people's credibility or motives. I say that, based on WP policies, the president of a country's historians' association, being interviewed on the BBC, must be viewed as someone respectable, not pejoratively put down at the propaganda level of the Soviet Encyclopedia. Turgidson (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I am referring to Asociaţia victimelor regimului comunist de ocupaţie şi Veteranilor de Război ai Armatei Romane (Association of victims of the Communist occupation regime and war veterans of the Romanian army). --Illythr (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move —Angr If you've written a quality article... 13:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

This article should be moved to Iassy-Kishinev Operation, as per standard practice among English speaking historians (eg, Keith E. Bonn/David Glantz, Slaughterhouse, p.48). I have never seen it referred to as the Iasu-Chisinau Operation. As per the procedures at WP:RM, this title is being established so that discussion can be conducted under it. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Additional reasons given by user:Mrg3105 for the move at Kirill's talk page, repeated below, are:

1. This is an English version, and no English source I know of uses Romanian names for the operation.

2. The operation was a Soviet one, planned and conducted in Russian.

3. The convention on Wiki is that only the Operation code names be retained in their original language. The name here is an operational one, and not the code name of an Operation.

4. The name of the operation does not refer to the cities as such, but uses them as a general geographic reference for the area in which it took place, unlike for example the Siege of Tobruk.

5. I would agree that some of the article titles for some of the operations in Wikipedia are inappropriate. For example the Battle of Stalingrad describes neither the who, the when, the where, or the why of the entire 'battle'. In fact it describes three different operations, seen from at least four different perspectives, of which only one can be called a Battle of Stalingrad, and that is the actual tactical fighting IN the city. On the other hand little would be gained by renaming into German (or Polish) the Vistula-Oder Operation since the English versions of the rivers are very similar, and the operations were essentially about the breaching of the river-based defensive lines by the Red Army. In any case, I'll be working on the Eastern Front operations, so hope to enlist your able support in future improvements :o)

6. Finally there is a wider practice in the discipline of History to use contemporary names where known. That is the point of History. If for example Yassy is renamed city No.r345-6 300 years from now to comply to a new EU standard, the historians will not refer to it post-factum as such ;o) Buckshot06 (talk) 07:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

First, it's not "Iasu-Chisinau", but rather, Iaşi-Chişinău (with diacritics and all). Second, that's how both cities were officially called at the time when the Soviet Offensive took place (August 1944). Third, that's how both cities are officially called as of now (January 2008). And fourth, if you were to read the discussion above, you'll see we've been going around the bend with this one for a while (well, not on the same scale as the epic Kiev vs Kyiv debate, but still), and the consensus among a majority of editors has coalesced around Iaşi-Chişinău — though a significant minority prefers some other variations on the names of those cities, that's true. I appreciate your input, and I'm ready to discuss this issue more, if needed. But perhaps it would be more productive to add content to the article? Turgidson (talk) 07:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Er, where did you manage to spot a majority of editors? Besides, it's not a question of majority, but a simple matter of being correct or incorrect. As I demonstrated above (and Buckshot06 expanded later), the current name is simply false (no scholarly references). I waited over two weeks for any kind of informed input, but none was provided. So I see no reason not to rename the article to its proper English name. --Illythr (talk) 11:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Majority means more than 50%; should we have a count? And, er, could you please define for me what "proper English name" means in this context? Sorry, I just don't dig it. Please consult WP:NCGN. -- Turgidson (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, I should add, all the recent (ie, 2000s) sources mentioned in the article use Iaşi-Chişinău for this offensive: see BBC News, Moldova Oficială, and Jurnalul Naţional. I wouldn't say that's the main reason for keeping the present title (WP:NCGN is the basic reason, I think), but this should dispel the notion floated a while ago that there is no current usage for Iaşi-Chişinău — to the contrary! Turgidson (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello? How Romanian language sources using the Romanian language name are supposed to support your attempt at replacing the existing English language name for this Soviet operation (derived from the native name, obviously)? Once again, a 40+ to zero relation in English books pretty much closes the argument (for which I fail to see a reason in the first place). --Illythr (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
First of all, BBC News is an English-language source; even if this their Romanian branch, the fact that they use Iaşi - Chişinău at bbc.co.uk (please note the uk ending -- that stands for the United Kingdom), is telling, I think. Indeed, if Jassy/Yassy/whatever and Kishinev were so universally known under that appellation in the English language (which I very strongly doubt), why would they go to the trouble of translating it back to Romanian?
And second, why should we rename cities just because the Soviet Red Army may have called them like that for a few days or weeks in 1944, for operational purposes? I mean, if the Red Army had launched a "Bucureṣti offensive" in August 1944 (which they didn't, since the capital city was libearted by Romanian troops themselves), would we have an article called Bukharest Operation? Or, if they had moved towards Tulcea, something called the Tulcha Operation? And, if they had pushed towards Switzerland, would we have a Zheneva Operation, or a Lozanna Operation? I mean, c'mon, gimme a break. Turgidson (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
1. Oh, in that case, I'm sure you wouldn't object renaming the article for, say, this guy to "Владимир Путин", because this BBC article (do note the uk TLD, yes) calls him such. Seriously, I am at a loss as to how to explain it more clearly that using foreign language articles (with appropriately foreign language names) to prove that those names are in fact correct English is a bit... odd?
Good try, but doesn't count -- of course we transliterate cyrillic characters into latin characters in English. That was not my point. Turgidson (talk) 03:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, here's one more. With a "W". .uk, too. Point is, sources in Romanian use the Romanian name. Why are you trying to replace the English one using them? --Illythr (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Renaming cities? Where? We merely use the most widely used names (in English). As for naming the operation- we just give the established English name for the operation, that's all. No one here ever requested renaming Iaşi and Chişinău themselves.
Finally, cmon, take a look yourself: "Iaşi-Chişinău Operation" and "Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive" link ONLY to Wikipedia and its mirrors! That should be damning enough evidence... --Illythr (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Why do you google English names (within quotes) on google.ro? (Ro stands for Romania.) I recommend trying google.com for English-language searches.
Finally, here is yet another mention on BBC news (from 2007 this time) of the Iaşi-Chişinău Operation: "Complexul memorial Şerpeni, pe malul Nistrului unde în august 1944 Armata Roşie a purtat lupte împotriva Armatei germane în retragere, în cadrul operaţiunii Iaşi - Chişinău." And who is there presiding over those ceremonies? None other than this guy, described by WP as "a Moldovan communist politician, and the current President of the Republic of Moldova." How come he's not clamoring for Jassy-Kishinev? In fact, he calls it that way on his site (which unfortunately is down -- I guess they don't know about maintaining servers there...), but google.com tells me that it says: "Cuvînt introductiv al Preşedintelui Republicii Moldova, Vladimir Voronin, ... Biruinţa repurtată în cadrul Operaţiunii Iaşi-Chişinău a contribuit...". Also, a dead link here says (according to google): "ALOCUŢIUNEA Domnului Vladimir VORONIN, Preşedintele Republicii Moldova, ... participant la operaţiunea Iaşi-Chişinău, care sa aflat în ţara noastră cu...". But maybe the dead-link page says something differently when you look at the Владимир Николаевич Воронин version? I just don't know, I go by what I see. Turgidson (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The "Владимир Николаевич Воронин version", as you called it, uses the term "Ясско-Кишинёвская операция". However, I don't think that those two have a say in the naming of this article. It may have something to do with the "rom" and "rus" parts in the links, as opposed to the "en" part in the link that leads here. --Illythr (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Turgidson's "BBC news page" is this one, which is from their Rumanian service, and in Rumanian. They may, or may not, be good guides to what Rumanian usage is; is their reporter here a native speaker? but they are only evidence of English usage when they are writing in English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, of course I had noticed the page was in Romanian, and from the BBC Romanian news service -- geez, gthis is not rocket science! (And, btw, it was I who added that link, and several others, and the discussion surrounding it--there is more to the article than the !%$@@!!&^$$! title, mais passons, as the French say. ) Be that is may, note that the Beeb refers to the cities of Iaşi and Chişinău in their English editions, too, see eg this sample. At any rate, the ultimate arbiter at WP is WP itself, and as AdrianTM points out again below, this is how the two cities are called here at WP, so why not use that in the title, and move on? And, oh, while at it, here is yet another English-language source that mentions the Iaşi-Chişinău operation: George Ciorănescu and Patrick Moore, "Romania's 35th Anniversary of 23 August 1944", Radio Free Europe, RAD Background Report/205, September 25, 1973, which says the following:
A book published in Bucharest on the eve of the August 23 anniversary concluded that internal factors played a decisive role in Romania's liberation while the external factors only gave support. [37] This version is very different from that of the Soviets who purport that only the powerful Soviet army offensive on the Iaşi and Chişinău fronts liberated Romania. [38]
Hmmm.... I think I'll add this is in, in order to maintain NPOV balance, and get away a bit from this never-ending naming dispute.... Turgidson (talk) 07:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, done. And here is more from that article from RFE/RL:
The first article, "The Importance of the Iaşi-Chişinău Operation," appeared on August 11, signed by S. Afteniuk, an historian who has been involved in previous Bessarabian polemics with Romanian scholars. [...] The more important piece appeared on August 19 and was entitled "The Iaşi-Chişinău Operation and its Importance for the Historic Destinies of the Peoples of Southeastern Europe." The author is I. Levit, identified as "head of the department for the history of socialist European countries of the Moldavian Academy of Sciences' Institute of History."
How does does this sound? Good enough, or do I need to keep on diggin' for more? Turgidson (talk) 07:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Books published in Bucharest are not reliable sources on English usage; carelessness in translation by a less-than-fluent translator is always too strong a possibility. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Which "books published in Bucharest" are you referring to? As I said, the quote I used comes from an article from Radio Free Europe, which was located in Munich at the time the article was published; it's now located in Prague (see here). And the link I used points to the Open Society Archives, located at the Central European University in Budapest (a city not to be confused with Bucharest). Turgidson (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
And, while at it, I don't think I like the possible implication in this above comment (and in several others), that sources published in Romania (or in Moldova -- a lot of them come from that country), or simply in the Romanian language, are to be less trusted than other sources. I'm not sure that was the gist of what you said (I do apologize in advance if that was not the case), but let's make sure we play on a level playing field here, and we don't judge sources by what language they use, shall we? Turgidson (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
They are to be less trusted than native English sources in relation to proper English names of things, yes. The article you cites the title of a chapter in that book. Proper attribution and all that... --Illythr (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, yeah? So, if I bring you a zillion books in English referring to Peking, will you go ahead and move Beijing to Peking? I'll be waiting patiently till you do. Turgidson (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
In that case (there's approximately an equal number of references; standard Google search prefers Beijing by a factor of about 9, though), there actually is room for discussion and doubts. In the case where the name's not found outside of Wikipedia, there is none. --Illythr (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec) No, we will point out the gazillion books in English which have adopted Beijing, which is why we use it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, we'll probably cite Mao Zedong's insistence on the usage of "Beijing" in Latin transliterations. Perhaps Turgidson can cite some kind of Soviet or Russian authority insisting on the Romanian spelling of the operation in English... --Illythr (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Both Romanian and Rumanian are used in English; an example of why we have WP:ENGVAR, and why it is imprudent for a foreigner to dogmatize on English usage. The question at hand is not historical fact, on which Romanian (since Turgidson insists) sources are, under a free government, as likely to be reliable as any others; but what is most clear to English-speaking readers. (This works both ways, of course; no one is attempting to dictate spelling to the Romanian Wikipedia, but if they did, simply quoting English evidence to move an article, whether ro:Londra to London, or, as in this case, something more obscure, would be rightly ignored). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Please be civil, you two. Disdain and bitterness won't bring anything positive to this discussion. Thank you. Húsönd 01:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
"Foreigner"? What is that supposed to mean, User:Pmanderson? Wikipedia is supposed to transcend national borders, it's an international venture, yes? So what exactly does that mean in this context? Not that it matters where I live, or what nationality I am -- that's totally immaterial here. I've told you several times already you are rubbing me the wrong way with your snotty comments about how supposedly superior your English is to everyone else's, but this is crossing the line. For the last time, please cease and desist from attacking other editors based on their supposed nationality or ethnicity, and concentrate on commenting on content. Thank you. Turgidson (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
In this case, someone whose fluency in English is not that of a native speaker, which Turgidson has already demonstrated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Guys, would you please stay on topic? You two aren't it! :-) --Illythr (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NCGN and Turgidson's explanation. The issue here is that Illythr and other editors treat the name of the operation as an entire proper name isolated from the name of the cities, while it's obvious that the name of the operation is composed of names of the cities, since Wikipedia uses a specific name for those cities it makes sense to use the same name here even though (old) historic books use an older name for those cities -- for example it would be pretty ridiculous to present information in Iaşi and Chişinău articles using other names on the ground that that was the name used in the source (e.g., in 1900 Kishinev had a population of [...], in 2000 Chişinău had a population of [...] -- of course that history books use one form for 1900 and another for 2000, but it's about the same city, right?) I think we need some consistency. -- AdrianTM (talk)
    In the case that no English scholarly source uses the current name and dozens use the "J-K" name, I'd say the case is quite clear. --Illythr (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    I also wouldn't call the 2001 book by David Glatz (uses "Iassy-Kishinev") cited by Piotrus "old". --Illythr (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
There are other sources that still use Kishinev even today, but they don't abide (and don't have to abide) by Wikipedia rules, here we use Chişinău, we have to reach a common conclusion, are those names the names of cities or not, if they are name of cities than we need to use the name of cities that we use in main articles (that seems reasonable to me) -- AdrianTM (talk) 03:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, here we discuss the usage of the operation's name, which favours "J-K" 40+ to zero in Google books. Moreover, the current name only gets hits in Wikipedia! What is here to discuss at all? --Illythr (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The "operation name" is not a standalone name is a composed name and the names that is composed from are names of cities that are listed in Wikipedia under a specific name. Initially I agreed with your point because the references indeed favor "J-K" form, but for the sake of consistency and because it's obviously a composed name not a standalone name I think we should use the forms of the names (of which is composed) favored by Wikipedia. -- AdrianTM (talk) 04:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
"Peking duck", while not particularly consistent either, is still quite good... ;-) Once again, I do not contest that a general modern English reference to the area would be "Iasi-Chisinau" (diacritics and all). However, the simple fact that almost all non-Romanian sources refer to the operation as "J-K" is the main reason for the name. The logic behind this, that a known name derivative often doesn't follow the change of its primitive, while sound, is only secondary to the true reason - actual English sources. --Illythr (talk) 11:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not convinced by the arguments pro-move. Húsönd 17:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Would you move Battle of Stalingrad to Volgagrad?
    • If not, why not?
    • What are the arguments to keep this where it is? And which of them, if any, would not apply to Stanlingrad? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
      • The difference is colossal. First, the Battle of Stalingrad is a far better known siege than this one, where common usage is simple to determine. Then, at that time the Russian city of Stalingrad had no other name but Stalingrad, unlike Iaşi and Chişinău that had other names depending on the language used by its citizens. I believe that the Romanian names are the best option, not just because its the language of the majority of their population, but also because Iassy and Kishinev are barely known these days. Húsönd 18:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Precisely--and well put. And to clarify a point for the umpteenth time: Both Iaşi and Chişinău were under Romanian administration at the time of the offensive, and were (and still are) named that way. As I said above, if this were Geneva and Lausanne, would we be calling the offensive the Zheneva-Lozanna Operation, just because some books happened to call it that way? Turgidson (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
          • If most histories in English called it that, yes. They would not; but the preposterousness here lies in the distortion of Lausanne, not our naming policy. To pick a more plausible example, if most sources referred to the Battle of Basle, we should call it that, adding a note that we list the city as Basel. This is not a derogation of Rumanian sovereignity; it's an effort to communicate with our readers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
            • First, it's Romania and Romanians, not Rumania, and not Rumanians: is it too much to ask you to use the correct English word(s) in this conversation? I'm getting a bit fed up with all the thinly veiled derogatory implications about the reliability of Romanian sources, and all the misspellings--deliberate or not-- of place names related to that country. If you want to continue this discussion so as it goes somewhere, could you please start by addressing these points? If yes, we can take it from there. If not, I'm done with it. Turgidson (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
              • Please read the English literature, if you can; you will find Rumanian quite frequently (I believe we are correct that Romanian is now more frequent). As for the rest of this, I am very fed up with every patriot who doesn't get his way crying out: They're Picking on Us. Try something original. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    • AFAIK, if something is determined to be a wiki invention, it goes from Wikipedia immediately. WP:OR. --Illythr (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Changed to weak support per Illythr's sound arguments on my talk page. However, "Yassy" may be a better option than "Iassy", as it is closer to the correct Russian transliteration and besides there seem to exist more sources for "Yassy" than for "Iassy". Húsönd 04:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    While reasonable, this suggestion sort of undermines my main reason of sticking to the form used by the majority of reliable sources. I think the bast way to avoid any possible confusion (aside from the already existing redirects from all possible forms) would be to name the cities' current names early in the article and make an explicit link between the different names (Although both Iaşi and Chişinău both have these alternate names right in the first sentences of articles about them). --Illythr (talk) 11:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: And, if I can change tack a bit, remember there was an important Soviet offensive preceding this one: the Battle of Târgul Frumos, from May 1944. Note that here there is no question about it: everyone agrees it should be called by the (Romanian) name of the town around where it took place, not the way that town transliterates into Russian or German. Why on Earth use different standards for two (so closely related) articles? (While at it, we also have the Flămânda Offensive from WWI, etc). Wait a second, who changed the title, and why? I thought we were having a discussion here about that, why take unilateral action in the middle of it? Turgidson (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Husond, for reverting that page move (I'm a bit nervous as to how that works, especially with respect to edit history, that's why I almost never attempt one...) It kind of blows my mind how someone can barge in, and perform such a move, smack in the middle of a discussion about it. Geez, what's happening to this place? Turgidson (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
We simply use the most common name. The Târgul Frumos battle is known as such in English, so we use that name. The Jassy-Kishinev operation, on the other hand, is known in English under this name, and not the current name of the article (check again the Google searches, they only link to wikipedia+mirrors; PS: I changed .ro to .com in the above links. Made no difference whatsoever). --Illythr (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Huh? How does WP:NCGN support the move away from the correct place names? And what valid case has Septentrionalis made that would support the move? And how is the current title different from "Iaşi-Chişinău", and how should it be to keep with Romanian standards? I'm totally lost. Turgidson (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Romanian orthographic conventions mandate a comma, not a cedilla be placed under both 's' and 't'. It just so happens that many Romanians (through no fault of their own) have ill-configured computers and so fail to type the correct characters. - Francis Tyers · 06:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
"J/I-K" is the most common English name for the operation. Period. I didn't get the orthography bit either, though. --Illythr (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
That this is the "most common name" is your assertion, I still haven't seen convincing proof of that, neither did at least a plurality, perhaps a majority, of editors commenting here. And just being the "most common name" is not in and of itself enough. As I said, I bet you a nickel to a donut that most books ever written in English refer to Peking, not Beijing, but we still have the latter. It's all a matter of interpreting WP:NCGN judiciously, and I'm sorry to see you cannot even imagine someone can reasonably and in good faith interpret that guideline differently. Let me remind you what it says, right there in the preamble: "It is a generally accepted standard that all editors should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, ensure that your revision reflects consensus." So please take that admonition into account, and not enunciate peremptory fiats like, "That's it. Period. I'm right, you're wrong. End of discussion." (I'm paraphrasing slightly, but that's the gist of it.) For, that's not things are supposed to work, according to WP:NCGN. Turgidson (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
In the case that a reasonable diverging point of view exists, yes, a discussion is needed to achieve consensus. Here, there's a simple fact of a "Wikipedia only" name [7], that has no support in the English language. That's all that really is to it. I'm surprised that such a long discussion has actually evolved over something so trivial. --Illythr (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, take a look at this famous dish! :-D Would you be consistent and propose renaming that one to "Beijing duck" as well? Current official name and all... --Illythr (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:BEANS. It's been done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
That'd be a whole lot of beans, methinks[8]. --Illythr (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There are many ways to play the google game: "Iaşi-Chişinău" gives 4,490 hits, whereas "Jassy-Kishinev" yields a paltry 274 hits (how come, I thought that's a famous name-combination in the English language?). Googling without quotes the same name combinations gives 175,000 vs 1,770. So yes, one can spin these google hits each and every way, depending on the keywords one uses, depending on where the quotes are, or are not, and even on which google engine one uses (com, ro, etc). In the end, what does this prove? (That's not to say looking at google hits cannot be a useful indicator in certain situations, when used judiciously -- it all depends on the context.) Turgidson (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
This is why WP:NCGN recommends other sources than google (and recommends against simple www.google.com, quite strongly) and gives preference to the usage of reliable English tertiary sources. That appears to be clear: Jassy-Kishinev. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure, a Bukarest - Iaşi - Chişinău festival train (the first and only genuine English language nonwiki "Iaşi-Chişinău" google link in quite a while) is VERY relevant to the 1944 operation... Indeed, Google searches must be handled with extreme care to produce meaningful results. That is why I looked for the actual name of the operation and its variations, and not references to the general area, which obviously exceed the operation references by far. --Illythr (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
"only genuine English language nonwiki "Iaşi-Chişinău" google link in quite a while) is VERY relevant to the 1944 operation..." -- leaving your sarcasm aside, it is indeed relevant -- it's about the same' cities, the operation's name is a composed name, as a composed name it's normal to use the names of the cities that compose it as they were used in 1944 and now in 2008. -- AdrianTM (talk) 04:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps when this nameform becomes actually the most popular one, the change should be made. Now, however, as the preference in naming the operation outside of Wikipedia is "J-K Operation", we simply follow it, as a tertiary source. --Illythr (talk) 11:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:NCGN wikipedia policy. Ostap 06:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    It seems that WP:NCGN has been cited left and right here, so it's probably better to cite the actual passage, someone else's "oppose" arguments here or, best of all, some of your own to make your case. Remember Polls are evil! ;-) --Illythr (talk) 11:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: While there's been a lot of hot air in the above discussion (replete with snarky remarks by a would-be Shakespeare), I've been actually adding some further content to the article, to wit, a couple more published sources which mention (in English) the Soviet (or Red Army) "offensive on the Iaşi-Chişinău line". So much for google hits not recording anything like that: these are published reports or books by scholars. One of them, Vladimir Tismăneanu, is, in fact, a professor at the University of Maryland. No doubt, a "foreigner", so what does he know — would say our would-be Shakespeare. Right-o? Turgidson (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    While adding more sources is generally considered a Good Thing (especially if they are actually used to contribute to the content), pointedly seeking out the few (all by Romanian authors or in Romanian outright) you did just because they use this nameform rings of POV-pushng. Should I add the 41 (or so) sources that use "Jassy-Kishinev" to put this POV in proper perspective? --Illythr (talk) 11:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
FYI: (1) I'm the one who started adding inline refs to this article--there were none before. (2) As I did before, I sometimes add a source as an external link, only to develop it later and put it it the text as inline ref, when I get a chance. (3) I am sick and tired of hearing about Romanian authors or Romanian-language sources as being somehow inferior, by definition. Either (i) you show me a WP policy that says that, or (ii) we stop once and for all this nonsense. (4) Those accusations of "POV-pushing" are spurious, and go against WP:AGF. Period. Turgidson (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The only person who has said anything about "Romanian authors or Romanian-language sources as being somehow inferior, by definition" is Turgidson. If he wishes to stop it being discussed, the remedy, therefore, lies in his own hands. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per Anderson and others (and the ever helpful WP:NCGN). Weird arguments about what we would call Geneva-Lausanne offensives just baffle we. I imagine we would call it the Geneva-Lausanne Offensive. Not Genève-Lausanne or Genf-Lausanne or Ginevra-Losanna, (I'm afraid my Romanche is a little rusty so I've no idea what they would call it). The problem we find in these eastern european ones is that there /isn't/ a huge history of referring to these places in English sources, we should probably deal with them on a case by case basis on each article, rather than declare it only has one name on wikipedia and damn the refs. Narson (talk) 08:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh and I /do/ think that there is a debate to come over which first letter should be used. Though perhaps that should be saved until after this move discussion is done. Narson (talk) 08:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    We would call it exactly as the absolute majority of reliable sources (military historians) would call it. Same as everywhere else on Wikipedia, I think. --Illythr (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry, it wasn't very clear. My point was that for places like Geneva or Lausanne, there has been alot of English usage of the place and it has a widespread anglicised name. Places further east have not really had a huge presence in the mind of English speaking people and so we get these fights over which local or which obscure anglicised version we will use. Obviously if there are published sources that provide a clear majority use for one term it gets used. Narson (talk) 15:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    Yeah, as this appears to be the crux of the problem here - the more common names of the places themselves in English now appear to be the Romanian ones. The operation, on the other hand, is almost exlusively referenced to as the "Jassy-Kishinev Operation" with some variations in the first letter. --Illythr (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, yeah — places further east of Geneva or Lausanne have not really registered on the minds of English-speaking people. Wowsers! Care to provide a reliable source for this statement (which I only slightly paraphrased)? Are we being serious here, or is this a place to vent prejudices about the hoi polloi, out there in the boonies? Turgidson (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry that my voting against your view so angered you, but failing to AGF and accusing me of prejudices is perhaps not helpful? Narson (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Say again, how does what I said "fail AGF"? And, yes, when you're talking about "the mind of English speaking people", you are not bringing any reliable sources whatsoever, just discussing your feelings or whatever you want to call those, not something based on fact. And, as I said again and again, all this discussion about how "English speaking people" feel about "foreigners" (someone else's formulation, see above and below), and their stupid ways to call place names, such as Iaşi and Chişinău, instead of what—the proper British way? which is?—is extremely annoying, improper, not based on any facts or reliable sources whatsoever, and yes, it goes against WP:NCGN. And, I forgot, perhaps not helpful? Turgidson (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
You really want proof that places like Iasi are less well known in the west than western european areas now and in the past? Also, perhaps AGF was the wrong policy to bring up, incivil might have been better. Either way, I am done with this. I believe the move is correct and believe your arguments are wrong. Attempting to browbeat me is not going to alter my view on that so this isn't useful anymore. Narson (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I suppose Narson meant the more obscure places in the East, like those being discussed right now. Places like Transylvania have, of course, a special place in hearts of Westerners... ;) --Illythr (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my interpretation of WP:NCGN (point 1 and "use English" ¶ 3), as Iaşi and Chişinău were the names of those cities both in 1944 and today. I think Illythr has made some very solid points about English sources using the Russian names, and I seriously considered supporting the proposal. However, Pmanderson has needlessly raised hackles with his incivility, so that for the time being I believe the article should remain where it is now. Biruitorul (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    I find it incredible that you considered personal feelings over user behavior more important than objective arguments (overwhelming support for the proposed name in reliable sources, no support for current name outside Romanian sources) in your choice. --Illythr (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
That's your prerogative, but no, do read my first sentence. I base this judgment on facts, but I'm also honest in admitting that yes, the incivility shown here did play a role in my vote. Biruitorul (talk) 12:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
While there may be a debate on what names were used in English for the two cities in 1944, I am aware of no such debate over the operation's name at any time in history (well, except for the one on this page). Please excuse my incredulity, but this is actually the first time I see a significant number of Wikipedians decide against scholarly consensus and ignore such obvious facts as no Google links outside Wikipedia for the current name. --Illythr (talk) 13:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. There seems to be agreement (gasp) above that Iassy-Kishinev Operation is the most common English name for this operation. Suggestions based on the current or previous names of the cities are misguided; Perhaps people should call it something else, but the only question here is what they do call it. Andrewa (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • People, this was not a vote.
I would like to see any Soviet source from 1944 that used Rumanian city names for the operation.
I would also like to see how many English speaking military historians used Rumanian city names in their works.

Seems pretty simple to me --mrg3105mrg3105 13:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not the issue, in Wikipedia we use a specific form for those names, besides the operation is not a pizza or a duck dish to have a name, it's an offensive that reffers to some cities, why not use the names of the cities that are used in the main articles? -- AdrianTM (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, at least someone got that right. Indeed, it isn't.
The operation name usage comparison in English is up there. Many Romanian city names are now more popular than old ones in English, actually. This did not affect the operation's name itself, though (except for some Romanian English language sources).
To Adrian: Because nearly all English sources use one specific name. (That duck dish does refers to a city name too, BTW). --Illythr (talk) 14:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Vey simply because the names were not used by the forces that conducted the Offensive. Regardless of Wikipedia protocols you can not make up a name which was not used historically. The only constraint is that the name must be readable by an English speaker. Therefore the name, which was in Russian) has to be transliterated into English. I will be happy with either Iassy, or Yassy, though the later is used by no less a person the David Glantz, and since I'll be quoting him, I would nopt want the reader to be confused byt he differing spelling.--mrg3105mrg3105 14:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - Original nominator: It seems we have a consensus to move the page back to Iassy/Yassy-Kishinev Offensive, on the basis that that is how the offensive in question is known to historians. As Mrg3015 said, it seems to be now a question of Iassy or Yassy. We have a current page at Iassy-Kishinev Offensive, and this spelling is supported by Bonn's Slaughterhouse. Yet, Mrg notes Glantz uses Yassy. Could we please get a roll call on who thinks 'Iassy' is appropriate and who thinks 'Yassy' is appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckshot06 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The Google hit frequency test suggests

501,000 for Jassy
79,700 for Yassy
26,600 for Iassy
However the Jassy comes from the German usage as in "Ja" (jawohl) for 'yes', and is therefore ineligible for use in en-Wiki. Yassy as used by the US Army represents the older NATO standard, but this is the form used in most of the sources I have seen since editors tend to not worry about correcting place names in historical manuscripts (other then spelling).--mrg3105mrg3105 23:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a great google test there, as we want the specific use with this operation....I'll have a quick go:
90 for "Iassy-Kishiniev Offensive"
23 for using "Jassy-Kishiniev Offensive"
11 for "Yassy-Kishiniev Offensive"
Using google books:
2 for "Iassy-Kishiniev Offensive"
4 for "Jassy-Kishiniev Offensive"
0 for "Yassy-Kishiniev Offensive"
Now, from that I'd acctually think we shouldn't be disregarding Jassy from discussion as it does seem to be quite a popular transliteration. NOTE: I didn't filter the searches to remove wikipedia references or small goats that might be called 'Iassy-Kishiniev Offensive'. Was just a quick one to respond to Mrg. Narson (talk) 06:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, time to end all this. The Wikipedia standard for transliteration of Cyrillic is ISO9 found here http://www.vsemusic.ru/information/tools/transliter.php. The transliteration of Яссы according to ISO 9 is Yassy'--mrg3105mrg3105 06:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Since we talk about references, is that supported by any reference? (meaning: is the name of the offensive ever spelled like that in any reference?) -- AdrianTM (talk) 07:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I would highly recommend reverting your move, mrg, as it could very easily be seen as disruptive considering the ongoing move proposal (that you started). There is no need to use transliteration IMO, as we have English use of names for the operation, and the current name gets 0 hits on google books. Now, Yassy-Kishinev Operation gets some hits on google books...so...there is still some debate to be had here. Narson (talk) 07:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The Yassy is used consistently in all of David Glantz's works as well as all US published sources. I am not going to at this time survey my library for Iassy users. If anyone has sources that uses Iassy, they can add them to the article. I have a source from the 19th century that uses Yassy. I no longer need an administrator now that I am clear about Wikipedia adopted ISO standards, and can perform the move myself. I find this polemical name-by-a-committee method rather unproductive. --mrg3105mrg3105 08:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia works by consensus of editors. If you look under your hugely flawed google search, you will see there are sources for Iassy and Jassy-Kishiniev Offensive. Personally my preference is for Jassy or Yassy purely on pronunciation (Iassy could be seen as being Eye-assy rather then e-assy), however I think just unilaterally changing the name during a discussion is just bad form. Narson (talk) 09:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
As I said before, we don't make new names here (even if they're more technically correct). Neither Romanian nor Russian. We simply pick the most common one - "Jassy-Kishinev Operation" (most Google Books hits). The current name (with that apostrophe) is even more OR than the previous one. --Illythr (talk) 12:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
If there is anything that can be said about Wikipedia is that it is technical. I requested a move and I got a very long and completely irrelevant discussion. Google hits ultimately mean very little in terms of standards. The standard for a major source on the subject uses Yassy, and the standard adopted by Wikipedia for dealing with situations just like this one is ISO9. This standard was adopted to avid situations like this, and unless I hear from the Wikipedia standards Committee. It can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Romanization_of_Russian--mrg3105mrg3105 13:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia may work on consensus of editors, but history does not. Illythr is from Moldova, and therefore is assumed to be emotinally involved. Jassy is a German spelling as is always the case that the German Ja is used for the English Y. Although I am not required to quote sources in talk, I will do so again here as I have in the Rumania page. Same source. Universal Geography, Elisee Reclus (a Belgian), ed. E.G. Ravenstein, F.R.G.S, F.S.S, Vol.I, Southern Europe, J.S.Virtue & Co., London, 1875
p.167 - "Yassy (Jasi or Yashi), which became the capital of Moldavia when Suchova was annexed by Austria" This spelling is consistently used in most English language sources--mrg3105mrg3105 13:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core policies (hate to state the obvious, I really do). If the Romanian name could at least be found in a few Romanian sources, this one is surely unique to this page. Not a single reliable source uses "Yassy'-", many use "Yassy-" but the majority uses "Jassy-Kishinev Operation" (see the links to GB I provided above). Why don't we go with the majority - of historians, not editors?
Emotionally involved, eh? Gotta say, that's a remarkably bad way to debate my arguments... --Illythr (talk) 13:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
PS: Your argument that Jassy is ineligible for use in enwiki because it comes from German is invalid, because many, if not most names for foreign places in English are borrowed from other languages. Using the same logic, one can say that "Yassy" is just as ineligible, because it comes from Russian. That's why I insist on using the majority of RS: 1. To avoid conflicts about which name's "correct" (unsuccessful, alas) and 2. To adhere to the WP:V policy. --Illythr (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
You are failing to WP:AGF a little there. I think we are discussing at cross purposes here, the important factor is the name of the operation in text books, not the name of the place now or in history (For example, The Battle of Hastings is acctually at the modern location of the town called 'Battle'. Wikipedia does not name it based on its location but on the common name given to the battle. After all. Who wants the Battle of Battle?). As it is, I am not going to revert the move until we have achieved some kind of agreement on which to use. I believe Jassy is likely the best choice of the three due to the current search results, though, I am perfectly willing to be persuaded otherwise. Narson (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC) (Edit conflict)
Why this article was moved to Yassy'-Kishinev Offensive before the discussion is over and no agreement was reached?? --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I moved the article back to Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive as no consensus/agreement was reached before mrg moved it to "Yassy-Kishinev Offensive". Also, according to opinions expressed above, more than 50% of the editors are preferring the Iaşi-Chişinău version, rather the Jassy/Yassy - Kishinev Offensive. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 14:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Even for those who fail to understand that this is not a vote, currently, there's a 9 to 6 support for the move. The main reason, however is that we don't have to "agree" with what the majority of reliable English sources say about the name. Besides, your original move in December precluded any kind of proposal or discussion as well. That being said, I oppose the "Yassy-apostrophe" version too, as being even worse than the "Iasi-" one, sources-wise. --Illythr (talk) 14:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
We have sources for "Iaşi" version, and for "Yassy" version also. I just checked and Google (English) scores 390 for "Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive", 70 for "Yassy-Kishinev Offensive" and 200 for "Jassy-Kishinev Offensive". I counted again and I noticed that there would be 6 to 6 for the move. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Google hits are NOT a qualification for adopting a given place name. There is NO English language source for "Iaşi". However I frankly don't care. I will report this to appropriate people in Wikipedia though. This is EXACTLY how NOT to write articles. All for the sake of trumpeting Rumanian place names. --mrg3105mrg3105 15:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Eurocopter Tigre, if you examine the 390 Google links (do provide a link, a search for "Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive" in English only provides 7 links for me), you'll notice that almost all of them point to Wikipedia. That's why I look in Google Books, which is much more reliable source-wise. As for opinions - do count again.
mrg3105: I still believe logic will prevail over hot temper here. --Illythr (talk) 15:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's the link - [9]. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Yup, nearly all of them point to Wikipedia (I didn't even know there are so many mirrors out there!). A few link to Romanian language sites, some - to the unrelated Vistula-Oder Offensive and a few more to English versions of Moldovan or Romanian sites. That's exactly why I prefer to use Google Books for this kind of searches - no self references there. Usually no amateurish translations either. --Illythr (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment:Interesting how Mrg3105 by his latests edits inadvertedly makes a good point for using the current spelling of the names, in his edits he uses "Rumania" on the pretense that that was the way sources named the country at that time, obviously it's about Romania since the "Rumania" spelling is kind of obsolete (it's not longer used in official documents and 99% of google results point to Romania). This comes to show where the argument "sources use a specific name" leads, it leads to absurd articles and annoying inconsistencies. -- AdrianTM (talk) 08:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    Eh, no, he argues that this is how Soviet sources referred to the country in Russian (transliterated), which, while correct, is totally irrelevant here. The logic is simple: Most sources use "Romania", so do we. Almost all sources use "J/Y-K op", so must we. --Illythr (talk) 13:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Iassy-Kishinev is what Glantz uses, that's good enough for me. Erickson has Jassy-Kishinev, so that's a second-best. The current name is a travesty. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    Glantz would be a single source, and we shouldn't rename this article just because Glantz says so. Unfortunately there is no majority of sources which mention Jassy-Kishinev version. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, there is. --Illythr (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 14:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Incivility by User:Pmanderson

This discussion is getting out of hand. This user insists on taunting other editors, based on his (supposed) superior command of the English language, and on the supposed fact that they are "foreigners" (what does that mean at WP, pray tell?). I asked him several times to stop this, to no avail -- every request simply emboldens him to be even more uncivil and aggressive. I find this to be a gross violation of WP:UNCIVIL, and as a result, I simply cannot continue the discussion, unless a stop is put to User:Pmanderson's harassment and general incivility. Turgidson (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I have requested above for everyone to stay calm and behave civilly. The incivility should now cease, if both sides just concentrate on the arguments being provided and not on the respective writers. Húsönd 03:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
To Pmanderson: I understand your frustration with this procrastination of something as trivial into a Kiev/Kiyv wannabe battle, but please do keep calm. Remember: whoever attempts to shift a discussion's focus from the topic to the behavior of fellow users is usually the one lacking in the facts department. --Illythr (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Husond and Illythr: I appreciate your support in seeking to put an end to this incivility. I will refrain from pursuing this further if Pmanderson simply ceases and desists -- but, just for the record, I think some of the stuff he said went beyond commenting on the "behavior of fellow users". Irrespective of our differences, I hope we can all agree I never tried to shut off someone from the discussion by claiming he's a "foreigner", all on a disgracefully mocking, taunting tone ("Please read the English literature, if you can"--aw, gimme a break!)--no one did, in fact, except for Pmanderson. If left unchallenged, and allow to flourish, such an attitude would be extremely detrimental to Wikipedia, and its core values, I think. Setting aside for a minute this, admittedly less than earth-shattering discussion about Iaşi-Chişinău vs Jassy-Kishinev, can we all agree on some basic principles of civility and mutual respect that should guide the discussion? For otherwise, it just becomes impossible to continue, and we may as well go do something else. Turgidson (talk) 03:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Turgidson has received markedly less incivility than he has given, as here and here; if he wishes to find mockery, he would be more successful using a mirror.
I regret upsetting him, but our naming conventions do deprecate any discussion of which name the place ought to have, instead asking what name each subject does in fact bear in English. Husond disagrees with this, but that's another issue. As far as I am concerned, there is no question of the reliability of Rumanian sources in general, although sources in every language should be treated with care. We merely observe that they are not, and are not intended to be, in English, or to communicate with English readers; we are. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem appears to me to be the diacritics. Whenever we discuss diacritics, we seem to lose it. Let's accept this, and all move on. Andrewa (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Battle

Battle is used throughout to refer to this but, it seems to me from reading that this was an offensive/campaign/what have you rather than a single battle (I mean, I imagine it is hard to fit 1.3 million chaps onto a battle field in the first place). Before altering this I thought I'd double check with the people here whether my reading of this is correct, that this was a front offensive and not a single battle? -- Narson (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The Russian sources I read about this offensive call it an operation (consisting of numerous unnamed battles). It is indeed a two-pronged coordinated strike over a territory too large to be considered a single battle. However, the whole operation took only 4 days and was marked by uninterrupted Blitzkrieg-type battles all over the entire area. I've read too few English language sources to hold an informed opinion, but the names "Offensive" and "Operation" do seem to describe the thing as a whole more accurately. --Illythr (talk) 14:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Presumably this results from the original title of Battle of Romania, and it is quite true that the WWII use of Battle was occasionally very expansive (this is smaller than, say, the Battle of Britain). If it is in fact so called, I would be willing to compromise this pointless naming dispute thus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that is what I figured, I changed the one sentence 'battle of Romania' to 'Battle of Romania' as it is a proper noun, the others I altered to offensive or operation. Narson (talk) 14:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I think this looks much better. -- AdrianTM (talk) 14:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
There is no source for a 'Battle of Rumania' in Soviet literature.--mrg3105mrg3105 14:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

"...only the Soviet Offensive liberated Romania"

That is an incorrect portrayal of what Soviet sources say, as they do place an emphasis on the role of the "Romanian people" and the "progressive elements" thereof (i.e. the Romanian Communist party) in liberation/defense of Bucharest, for example.

Soviet sources can be shortly summarized to state the following: The Operation was the main mover that demonstrated the futility of Antonescu's position and caused the progressive elements of the country to actively oppose his fascist dictatorship. A coup was thus staged, but the reactionaries who led it (Sanatescu government) wanted just to quit the war without opposing the Germans. Only the subsequent German occupation attempt and the work of the Romanian Communist party had convinced the people to fight the Nazis. It was thus the Romanian people who thwarted the German occupation attempt, with the Operation causing the coup, ensuring the failure of German forces to occupy Romania and taking the brunt of the battle with German forces. Soviet sources, for example:[10] (in Russian). --Illythr (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You can talk until the cows come home

I frankly don't care for all this pointless discussion that meanders around Rumanian ideas on what this article should be. This article was poorly researched, unreferenced and NOT AT ALL describing the Offensive, and now you are trying to dictate what it should be named? This will teach me to ask anything again in Wikipedia. Nothing ever gets done by committee, particularly when the committee has a bias POV. Do whatever you want with this poor excuse of an article. Since its name is Rumanian, it is unlikely anyone who speaks English will actually find it. I bet in the Rumanian Wiki version the 'glorious' Rumanian Army won the 'battle'--mrg3105mrg3105 14:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly. The only weakness I noticed in the rowiki article is stating that the coup occurred simultaneously with the operation and making no connection between the two. Otherwise, it's more or less a translation of an earlier version of the enwiki article. There's also an interesting notion that, due to being underequipped, the Romanian army could not repel *all* Soviet attacks (implying that it did repel most of them), but that could be just my Romanian failing me... --Illythr (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
And, incidentally, it is Romania. Free speech, of course, so call it what you want, but I don't write about "the Ukraine", "Servia", "Byelorussia" and so on, so really, a bit of courtesy would be in order. Biruitorul (talk) 00:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
You are new to this so I will do you the courtesy you request. The operation was conducted by Soviet forces, and the official language in the Red Army at the time was Russian. In Russian the name for Romania was (Russian: Румыния), and the only way to transliterate this into English is Rumania, or actually Rumy'niya (however this is not the accepted English transliteration). This avoids the inconsistency of using one form of spelling in the narrative and another in the quotations. It is also the accepted practice in historical works to use the names actually used by the historical event participants, and in this case they are Russian speakers and not Rumanian as much as you may dislike that personally. Now I promise that if I should have to quote any Rumanian participants in the article, their exact vowels will be preserved.--mrg3105mrg3105 01:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Uh, how is this relevant to the "Jassy-Kishinev operation"? --Illythr (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Its relevant because unlike past editors I intended to provide references and actual quotes from sources. It shows that my use of Rumania has absolutely nothing to do with Romania being the current official spelling of the country name in Romania now.--mrg3105mrg3105 02:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Err, what are you doing? Just as the established English name for this operation is "J-K Op", so is the established name for the country "Romania". We (should) use these names NOT because they were spelled in a certain way by the operation's participants, but because the absolute majority of reliable sources say so. It would be extremely silly, for example, to use "Russland" or "Ruşia" (etc) as the country's name in Operation Barbarossa, because that was the name used in the languages of the invaders. Only when a foreign name becomes established in English, for example, the Wehrmacht itself, will it be used in its original form. Another exception is to use the names common during that particular time in history, but I think "Rumania" was dated even then.
Post edit conflict: It's okay to diverge from official spellings when using names in direct quotes. But generally, the established name is preferred. --Illythr (talk) 02:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Well said, Illythr. Current English names should apply for historical situations, unless the name is totally different (Persia/Iran, Siam/Thailand, etc) or in quotation. I think, mrg3105, you'll find your view in a distinct minority. Biruitorul (talk) 03:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
No, the established name in the society which is being documented, in this case Soviet Army, not Romania. Also it is not "ok" to use different names in the article. It may be OK to you, but this is not the practice in the world of history publishing. The vast majority of experts on the matter use "Y-K op" in English and not J-K op. However I feel that I can continue to put logic or facts before you, and you will not see it if "it hit you in the face" as the saying goes. You and others are just intent to make the article as Rumanian/Romanian as you can although its only role was to provide the terrain over which its, and Wehrmacht forces were over-run during the operation. There is very little that can be Romanised in a Soviet operation, but for the sake of Romanian PRIDE you MUST insert as much ROMANIAN CONTENT into the article as possible. Well, go for it, but I will make you work for it, YOU can bet on that. EVERYTHING YOU SAY WILL HAVE TO BE REFERENCED AND SOURCED PROPERLY IN ENGLISH.--mrg3105mrg3105 03:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
In an English encyclopedia we are bound to use names given by the majority of reliable English sources. Simple as that.
We may not violate direct quotes, even if they use substandard English.
I don't care about the "J/Y op" choice, as long as it's not the "Y-apostrophe" or the "I-diacritic" thing. The former two both have a sizable (41 and, like, 27?) English sources supporting them, the latter two have none (ok, the last one may have one or two - of Romanian origin). --Illythr (talk) 04:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

"Current English names should apply for historical situations" so far you are the only one to say what 'should' be. So you go and find your 'majority'--mrg3105mrg3105 03:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you please stop these nasty accusation about Romanian pride here? It starts to get to a point were people think that you have something against Romanians, you might not like our opinions or our arguments but I think this starts to be a little bit over the line of decency. Please stop _any_ accusations, present your point calmly and see what other people have to say, disagree with them but don't throw ridiculous blanket accusations like this one. Thanks. -- AdrianTM (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

User:mrg315 disruptivity

User:mrg, I know that you seek revenge because the request to move was denied, but this kind of behaviour is clearly disruptive (filling the article with tags, 50% of them being irelevant) and harming for the article's image. Could you please be civil and let this go on, as all of us do? --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably a good idea Eurocopter. It can be relisted in a month or so, when everyone has calmed down, as a multiple choice move. Narson (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Move was denied?

Was I disruptive? Which tag was inappropriate or irrelevant?
I don't seek revenge, Eurocopter, unless your mind works that way that you suspect everyone to be against you.
However maybe I should propose that the Guadalcanal Campaign be renamed to Isatabu Campaign, so that should get more attention to your arbitrary renaming of this article.
Now, lets see how this vote was decided:
  • Opposing the move to the English usage was the "anachronistic naming party" with (look at the pages of these users) Biruitorul (very Rumanian), AdrianTM obviously not without Rumanian POV, Turgidson has a "Romanian Barnstar of National Merit", Eurocopter tigre is Rumanian, Roamataa another Rumanian, and Ostap = 6
  • The supporting or historical naming party side had Illythr (from Kishinev in Moldavia/Moldova) but apparently impartial, AjaxSmack, Septentrionalis PMAnderson (put up a good logical fight), Francis Tyers, Húsönd, Andrewa (pointed out the Iassy-Kishinev Operation is the most common English name for this operation), Angus McLellan ("The current name is a travesty"), Narson ("Support per Anderson and others (and the ever helpful WP:NCGN)") and Buckshot06 = 9 (assuming Buckshot06 strong support balanses Húsönd's weak support)
Of course I could not vote since I am the proposer, and obviously biased against use of anachronistic names in the titles or anywhere.
Actually, the proposer can vote as well (or rather, votes automatically with his proposal, AFAIK). However, we both pointed out that this is not a vote, remember? ;-) Ideally, a closing admin should have examined the arguments of the sides and made a decision based on those, when there's no consensus in sight. As it is, the proposal will either have to be restarted later as Narson suggested, or an RFC can be started, although I find it hard to believe that such a simple issue could warrant one. --Illythr (talk) 08:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you meant by saying that "this is not a vote", but I meant that the vote was not taking into considerations the basis on which it was proposed. Besides that, I expect a new vote to take place very soon unless the Angr reconsiders the vote outcome and in fact scraps it all together since most of the opposers were ineligible for voting.--mrg3105mrg3105 08:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, your "not a vote" was rather slim because you based WP:OR on evidence outside of Wikipedia which seems to me (having looked around in other cases) is not a good idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrg3105 (talk • contribs) 08:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
By "this is not a vote" I meant to point out that since scholarly consensus exists on the issue, there is no point in "voting" whether to agree with them or not.
What Angr did was "scrap it altogether". Every Wikipedia editor is eligible to vote here, since (supposed) ethnic background is not sufficient to claim a conflict of interest.
I didn't understand that last comment, sorry. --Illythr (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Minor orthographic correction

I've moved the page to the appropriate orthography (e.g. ş → ș) in accordance with guidelines laid down by the Romanian Academy. - Francis Tyers · 14:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I will still type in Yassy-Kishinev if I want to find it, and I suspect so will the other 100% of English speaking readers :o) How did you get so proficient in Rumanian?--mrg3105mrg3105 14:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think plenty of English-speakers will also use Jassy-Kishinev. - Jmabel | Talk 16:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Aww, where have you been a couple of days ago? :-) --Illythr (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I still agree with moving the article to the more well known name, but the less well known name in the correct orthography is better than the less well known name in the incorrect orthography :) - Francis Tyers · 19:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't object, although I suspect it was your move that finally attracted Thatcher's wrath. :-) Note that your correction has invalidated the ro interwiki which is still under the old name. --Illythr (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I've put in a redirect on the ro Wiki, I suppose a roving band of interwiki bots will fix it properly soon enough. - Francis Tyers · 07:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Move protection

I have applied move protection to this article for one month as it has been moved 6 times in the last 45 days that I can count. This is not an endorsement of the current title. I appreciate the efforts of the parties here to discuss the move and attempt to reach a consensus. However, I also note that talk page discussions such as this are often very insular. I suggest waiting a couple of weeks and then listing the article at Requested moves to make the discussion visible to a wider audience. I note that there is a {{move}} message at the top of this page (which I will remove shortly) but I can find no indication that it was actually listed for a wider viewpoint. Please think about this issue some more, calmly discuss it, and if you want to list it again, be sure to complete the listing process so that it will be visible to the whole community at WP:RM. You may also consider leaving a neutrally-worded note asking for help with some of the Wikiprojects listed on this page. (Such a note would not be impermissible canvassing as long as it is neutrally worded, asking editors to read and comment on the discussion, and does not itself take sides.) Thatcher 17:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I posted a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history to attract some attention from interested people. Nobody commented it, but I think a few of the participants came from there. Hmm, I was sure someone listed the thing at WP:RM... no wonder there's been so few people here.
As for discussing - I doubt any more arguments will be presented. The major opinions are already voiced. I suppose we can try this one more time in two weeks or so, to do it by the book. --Illythr (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Summary of arguments for and against moving the page

(please add here if I missed or correct what's wrong)

  • The name is a standalone name that's referenced as "Jassy-Kishinev Offensive" in the literature therefore using any other form would be Original research
  • The name is a composed name and therefore the form for the component parts should follow WP:NAME and the usage in the respective articles: Iași-Chișinău Offensive.

Did I get it right? -- AdrianTM (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Almost. Since Turgidson did manage to dig out a few existing references (invariably from Romanian sources), the current name no longer constitutes OR, now it's more like an ethnic neologism. A debate on whether it's a standalone or composed name does look rather [WP:OR]ry, though. The two reasons for the move I provided are:
  1. The proposed name is used (with a slight (J/Y/I) variation) by nearly all reliable sources (such sources being, in this case, English speaking war historians). This is basically it.
  2. Googling the current name only brings up links to Wikipedia and English versions of Romanian language sites. --Illythr (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments on the arguments

Historians?? You gave only one example, which is Glantz... --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Turgidson provided two more himself. But you're welcome to count "J""Y".
For comparison, a more liberal search on the current name does yield one book by Tismaneanu, although the name is paraphrased there. Exact wording yields nil. --Illythr (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the above - these would be my arguments for moving the page to either J or Y or I - Kishinev Offensive. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
We should also count this. And, we shouldn't use J/Y - Kishinev name just because some historians who wrote all their life about Soviet Union use the Russian name in favour of the Romanian one. I would also mention in the link provided by you there are a number of 7 authors, of which 3 are Russian. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
this is about as relevant for the English Wikipedia as this. Did you make a research on all those scholars' works to make such a claim? Could you please be more specific as to why their usage of the name "doesn't count" and weighs less than that of Romanian language sources? As for counting, do count again. Here, I'll make it simpler for you:
  1. John Erickson
  2. Harry R. Borowski
  3. Carl G. Jacobsen
  4. William Connor
  5. George Mellinger
  6. Harriet Fast Scott, William Fontaine Scott
  7. Harold Shukman
  8. Paul Wanke
  9. John Stanaway
  10. Norman M. Naimark
  11. George H. Hanna
  12. Robert L. Pfaltzgraff
  13. Raymond Leonard Garthoff
  14. Duncan Rogers, Sarah Rhiannon Williams
  15. Harry R. Borowski
use "Jassy" and
  1. David M. Glantz
  2. Chris Bellamy
  3. Willard C. Frank, Philip S. Gillette
  4. Christopher Duffy
  5. Robert Maxwell
use "Yassy". Quite a bit more than 4, I'd say, even when counting co-authors together. Plus some US Army reports without specified authors. --Illythr (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This would be for J/Y versions together, am I correct?--Eurocopter tigre (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The column above "Jassy" uses "Jassy". The column between "Jassy" and "Yassy" uses "Yassy". Hope that helps. --Illythr (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi all, at user:Mrg3105's request, because of his wobbly access to wikipedia, I'm reposting this list of authors/spellings:
  • Yassy-Kishinev produces use by Glantz, Bellamy, Jukes (Osprey series), Willard C. Frank and Philip S. Gillette, Christopher Duffy, Denes Bernad, Albert Axell, Malcolm Mackintosh, Nathan Constantin Leites, Carl G. Jacobsen, Institut zur Erforschung der UdSSR, Florence Farmborough, Robert Maxwell (Information U.S.S.R.: An Authoritative Encyclopaedia about the Union of, University of Michigan), Martin L. Van Creveld, Kenneth S. Brower, Steven L. Canby, Air University (U.S.), United States Dept. of the Air Force.
  • Iassy sources are only three, one Russian, one a collaboration for Glantz, and the other a 'reader' by Peter B. Lane, Ronald E. Marcello (unknown to me).
  • Jassy is used by John Erickson, George Mellinger (on fighters), Carl G. Jacobsen (note use above), Heinrich Böll (a German), John Keegan, Sydney L. Mayer (for a Rand MacNally 'encyclopaedia'), Roman Johann Jarymowycz (from German sources), Paul Wanke (also a German), Horst Hutter (another German), J.B.A. Bailey (in Field Artillery and Firepower avail. for download), Norman M. Naimark (another German), Martin McCauley (not a military historian), Ray Merriam (from German sources), Harriet Fast Scott and William Fontaine Scott (in 1979 from German sources), Joseph Slabey Rouček (Slavonic encyclopaedia likely from German sources), Raymond Leonard Garthoff (1953, so from German sources), George H. Hanna (1960, likely from German sources), Andrei Oțetea (History of the Romanian people, 1974), Robert L. Pfaltzgraff (translation from German), Stephen J. Cimbala (Cold War strategist, only one mention), Joint Committee on Slavic Studies, American Council of Learned Societies, Social Science Research Council ( U.S.) (from 1970, so again from German sources), Andrew Hendrie (a US aircraft book!), Duncan Rogers, Sarah Rhiannon Williams (article on NW European Campaign, used in a footnote), Scott R. McMichael: The Battle of Jassy- Kishinev.[1944.] - Military Review, 65 (1985), and several Bulgarian authors.

Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for posting that Buckshot06. My point on sources is that they are to be determined not on quantity, but on quality and availability.
Most of the sources from Germany have been significantly criticised in recent two decades because of their lack of balance in in historiography. This became apparent during the "Art of War Symposiums" that the then Colonel Glantz conducted at the US Army War College because present at the symposiums were many German officers who were participants in the events of the war. This is not reflected in Glantze's later works, but one read of the three volumes establishes that even before he was granted unprecedented access to the Soviet Archives his rigor in operational analysis was already establishing him as an expert in the Eastern Front history. This is why I only had to rely on him. He is also cited by other well known military historians, including Van Creveld who is on the Pentagon officers recommended reading list and is a consultant to NATO and Israeli Defence Forces. The series on the Eastern Front by Jukes written for Osprey is currently the most available work to the English reader primarily due to the low price. Christopher Duffy's name has been synonimous with Military history for longer then I have been alive, and his authority is not usually questioned even in the academia. These authors Jean-Louis Roba, Dmitiry Karlenko, and Denes Bernad are well known for a series of works on WW2 aircraft and are producing quality focused research in their area of interest which includes "Aircraft of the Aces 54 - Rumanian Aces of World War 2" by Denes Bernad (2003). The Soviet Military Doctrine from Lenin to Gorbachev, 1915-1991 (Contributions in Military Studies) by Willard C. Frank and Philip S. Gillette is only available to me through the local Defence library, but it is not a work that would contribute much on the operation in question.

The greatest problem with the authors above listed as users of Jassy-Kishinev is that they are not generally available to an English reader, and even to a specialist reader like myself. I was only able to locate three of them in Australia (with the exception of Erickson whom I have myself), and two would have to come from the National Library. This would make verification of their writings difficult if not impossible if they should be found to contradict others. --mrg3105mrg3105 02:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I favour Jassy, myself, as it seems the most widely used in books. However, Iassy/Jassy/Yassy are all far more acceptible than the current title. I mean, going back and piddling with things for modern accuracy can result in some dumb stuff. For example, a few of you might have heard of the Bayeux Tapestry. It is in fact an embroidery. Should we go back and correct it because in our modern understanding it is misnamed? The place names are irrelevent, only what it is referred to. Lets leave revisionism to the historians, and when they start using the diacritic form, we should too. Until then, lets just get this moved to Iassy, Jassy or Yassy (I'd say Jassy now based on numbers) and then lets quibble over I/J/Y after we get it to at least a half right title. Narson (talk) 09:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you mean negationism rather then revisionism, so "half-right"--mrg3105mrg3105 09:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not knowledgable enough to argue for one form of anglification or another, but any reasonably accurate translation is far better then the current title, which is not very useable for the English Wikipedia. Could this be changed to whichever is the most common (for the moment) and then worry about exact semantics later? Oberiko (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Renaming to Yassy-Kishinev is opposed by Eurocopter tigre and others because it is not the spelling they accept (based on their sources), I oppose Jassi-Kishinev because its a German usage, Iasi-Kishinev, although appearing to be the old English usage standard, is almost never used in contemporary English military history sources. The current name is only used in Romanian source.--mrg3105mrg3105 23:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Naming conventions (geographic names)

People should familiarise themselves with the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) of which I was unaware during the earlier WP:RM. Based on this policy, the geographic names need to use naming that reflects English usage, and use during historical period. --mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 01:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
You may notice that this convention was used in the discussion above by both sides, though. --Illythr (talk) 01:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
No, the side that argued for use of Romanian language in the title clearly misused it. I only used WP:UE, which is a more general policy applied in English Wikipedia--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 02:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I personally am not sure what that policy recommends, but I militated for consistency, if we use Iaşi and Chişinău in Wikipedia it only makes sense to me to use Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive, since it's about the same cities (BTW, if somebody claims that were named otherwise, at that time they were part of Romania and the same spelling was used as today). So basically I think you should fight to change the names of Iaşi and Chişinău articles and then if you succeed you can change the name of this article too for consistency. -- AdrianTM (talk) 02:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Adrian, it seems to me we should begin again with simpler questions such as:
  • Is the editing of this article being done in English language Wikipedia?
  • Does the English language have a usage for letters ş or ă in its alphabet?
Aside from that I note that the issue is not what the Romanian names of the two cities are in Romania. What do you think the issue is? --mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 05:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
You know what, I agree with you, there are no ş or ă in English and no doubt that an English reader would be confused by those letters, but that, again, needs to be addressed in the main articles first. Just my opinion... -- AdrianTM (talk) 05:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify your answers:
  • Yes, the article is being edited in English language Wikipedia.
  • No, there are no ş or ă in English.
Which "main articles" are you referring to?--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 05:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Iaşi and Chişinău (BTW, I think you shouldn't continue to treat editors on this page like idiots, I'm sure they know how to interpret my answers) -- AdrianTM (talk) 06:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm getting to those. However in this case the names of the cities in Romanian has nothing to do with it either. We are talking about a historical event which is unique to Russian language.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 06:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I beg your pardon if that was how you read it, but that was not my intention. Quite simply if a question is asked, it is expected that the answer is framed accordingly to eliminate any ambiguities that would require clarification. I am simply clarifying the answers you gave based on your agreement, and any negative or disparaging meanings you may have obtained from my edit are yours alone.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 06:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I thought we were talking about English Wikipedia, it's pretty irrelevant how Russians called the cities in their plans. If that would be the case we would use the full Russian name, not a translation, if you translate a part, then you need to translate the whole. Since this English Wikipedia uses those specific spellings it makes sense to keep this consistent across pages, that's why I'm saying to change the names of Iaşi and Chişinău first and then it would make sense to change it here too, till then I think we need to keep a consistency of using the same name for the same city across different pages.
And sorry I don't play the game of scripted questions/answers. But if it were to play, I would ask you: what are the names of the cities in English Wikipedia? (don't say anything else, just respond to this question. See, wouldn't this be a silly way to discuss issues, I don't limit your answers, please don't try to limit or edit mine) -- AdrianTM (talk) 06:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't really care at this stage what the names of the cities are in English, Russian or Romanian Wikipedias are because they are disputed in the English Wikipedia, and this is the only one I currently edit in. However, the next questions is:
  • Sorry, but I find this silly, I think it's pretty clear explained in the article "a Soviet Red Army Offensive against the German-Romanian forces which took place in Eastern Romania during late August, 1944." -- AdrianTM (talk) 06:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, please humour me.
What about this? It is better to use an appropriate geographical name for the article, creating a redirect from the operational name, for all but the most well-known operations. In this case the appropriate geographical name would be Iaşi and Chişinău respectively. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 09:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
But this is not an operational codename; its a historical event name given to activities of troops within a given period of time over a certain area of operations. It is a name given to an operation by the command echelon of the forces conducting it.
PS. How interesting that you choose to hide guideline heading Operational codenames under [[What about [[WP:MILMOS#CODENAME|this]]?|this]] and then say "creating a redirect from the operational name" and not a codename. The difference is slight, but far from semantic. --mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 11:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
PPS. A historical name is defined by the Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(events)#Definitions as:
A common name or standing expression exists if most English speakers who are aware of the topic call it the same thing. Slight variations on the name, such as changes in word order, count as the same common name. For example, World War II is often called the Second World War; they are close enough to be considered variations of the same common name. (next paragraph does not apply because it deals with a generally accepted word).--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 11:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
In this case, the operational name would be Iassy-Kishinev Operation (as stated by the many historians mentioned by you above) and this should be a redirect to the appropriate geographical name which is Iaşi-Chişinău. I think we should respect this guideline and end this useless discussion here. Also, user:mrg please try to calm down and discuss this in a civil way. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 11:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify:
  • Yes, you agree that the name is that of a historical event which was a military operation
  • Yes you agree that the operation was named in Russian
  • Yes you agree that the name of the historical event named in Russian should be given in English as the article title
  • Yes you agree that the English title should be a common name or standing expression exists if most English speakers (including English historians who write for English speakers) use it
Now, the guideline you refer to when you suggest "a redirect to the appropriate geographical name" is in fact the WP:MILMOS#CODENAME, but we are not talking about guideline heading Operational codenames, so it does not apply. The common English name used for this historical event is sufficient for the article because it is not being used to define operations in terms of relationship to the specific cities. It is a name given to the Area of operation.
The "common English name" claimed by you, is actually the Operational codename used by the most historians and by the Russians. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 12:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
An example of an operational codename is Operation Citadel where the name bears no relationship to the operation. The common historical event name is Western_Front_(WWII)#Battle_for_Benelux_and_France. However
Since it is used in Red Army files, I presume it is a codename - link. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 13:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
PS. Fascinating, I never knew that the Red Army prepared its files in English and in .pdf format. In nay case, on page 5 the listing says Operations:, and not Operation codenames.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 13:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
It's even more fascinating for me that you never heard of translation. The source mention even the file number, so it would be quite correct and official in my opinion. The operation names used are clearly Operation codenames, as they where used in this files. Where else could the operation codenames be used if not in the military files?? --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 14:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify:
  • You agree that in English language Wikipedia translations should be used.
Now, please read this article Code name. I would like you to
  • explain to me how you decided that the names of the operations in the translation you sited are codenames if it doesn't say so anywhere there that they are.
  • Please provide the codenames from the document you sourced.
Also, please tell me if any codenames are used in the following passage of text
"It would most likely have played a role in the destruction of Army Group Center (‘Operation Jupiter’) had ‘Operation Mars’ had succeeded since it was transferred to the 5th Army during November 1942. Once it was clear that ‘Mars’ was a failure, it was then transferred south to the Southwestern Front and assisted it, either in 1st or 3rd Guards Armies in the offensive against the Germans in the Donbass region, ‘Operation Gallop’."--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 14:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what all this codename/convention fuss is all about. Facts are - all native English sources use "Y/J/Iassy-...", no non-Romanian English sources use "Iasi-...". Conventions are good when the scholarly opinion is divided or nonexistent, a controversy exists, or several equally popular names are available (meaning that a name must be chosen or made up). None of the above is the case here. We merely reflect the name used by a clear majority of reliable sources. Full stop. --Illythr (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"You agree that in English language Wikipedia translations should be used"

What we agree on

  • Yes, you agree that the name is that of a historical event which was a military operation
  • Yes you agree that the operation was named in Russian
  • Yes you agree that the name of the historical event named in Russian should be given in English as the article title
  • Yes you agree that the English title should be a common name or standing expression exists if most English speakers (including English historians who write for English speakers) use it
  • You agree that in English language Wikipedia translations should be used.
  • You agree that the names should be translated uniformly in Wikipedia
I agree that the names should be translated uniformly in Wikipedia, since the name of the cities in this very English Wikipedia are Iaşi and Chişinău we should use the same names here, if you manage to change the names of those articles then we need to change this one too. But I already said this 10 times, I'm not going to continue this discussion till I don't see any progress in changing the names of those articles. (to make things clear, you need to reach a compromise with editors of those articles, changing the names by yourself won't do it because it doesn't really prove anything, I or anybody else could change them back) -- AdrianTM (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

We agreed that the article does not deal with the cities in their modern sense at all, but deals with a historical event as a military operation which was originally maned in Russian. We also agree that this event needs to be given an English name which is commonly recognised as the name of the event understandable to most English speakers. We also agreed that English language translations should be used consistently in Wikipedia.

  • Why do you continuously refer to articles that deal with cities if we have already agreed that the article under discussion is about a historical event?
Just to clarify:
  • all native English sources use "Y/J/Iassy-..." (i.e. Iassy-Kishinev)
  • no non-Romanian English sources use "Iasi-..." (i.e. Iaşi-Chişinău)

However

  • We merely reflect the name Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive used by a clear majority of reliable sources

It seems to me that the first two statements you made contradict the third statement--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 14:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I meant to say that we, that is, Wikipedians, do that, that is, use the most common name, everywhere in Wikipedia except for this article. Why must it be such an exception against all factual evidence is beyond me. --Illythr (talk) 14:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Why is this article an exception?
Because we have to respect the guidelines. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 14:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Which guidelines are you respecting?
WPMILHIST guidelines mentioned above. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, per this, Operation names used in those military files are codenames. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Please provide sources that the names (which names?) used in the single translated file are codenames.
Ah well, but you see,
  • it is YOU who asserts that they are, and therefore the onus is on you to prove your statements. I never claimed they are codenames. In fact
  • you haven't even said which of them are codenames, and which are not.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 15:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


And so on the discussion is becoming endless and no conclusions will be reached. We should think at a compromise, because personally i'm sick of this discussion and i'm not going to continue it. I'm here to discuss any proposals. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Its not endless Eurocopter tigre! In fact it has ended.
  • You are unable to show which of the operation names in the ONE source you sited are codenames and which are not.
Despite misapplication of the Operatonal codenames guideline
  • You are not able to translate this into Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)
  • In any case the suggestion does not apply since you agreed that the discussion is not about a geographic name, but a historical event.
  • User:AdrianTM showed that there is a contradiction because although
    • all native English sources use "Y/J/Iassy-..." (i.e. Iassy-Kishinev, the previous name of the article you moved without using WP:RM)
and
    • no non-Romanian English sources use "Iaşi-..." (i.e. Iaşi-Chişinău)
  • The the name Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive currently used for the article title has no clear majority of reliable sources in the English language as you seem to believe.

Consequently I see no reason that this or any other article of a historical event needs to be titled in any language other then English, and use any other name other then one used in acceptable English language sources as per numerous English language Wikipedia policies and guidelines, accepting their letter and the spirit in which they were created.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 23:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Yet again I ask for proof that the widely accepted names in English sources are Iaşi and Chişinău
  • Do you agree with Wikipedia policy on providing sources for what you write?
  • So far the only one being disruptive is yourself by having moved the original article without a justified WP:RM
  • In what way am I uncivil?--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 14:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the name should be changed to Jassy-Kishinev Offensive. People proved above this is the name used in English language academia. This has nothing to do with the present town names. In Wikipedia articles are called Treaty of Passarowitz, not of Pojarevat, and Treaty of San Stefano, not of Yesilchioi. Here is the same case.Xasha (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

At this stage if I say anything, I will be accused of something. In this case probably WP:LAWYER.
However, here goes:
Wikipedia:Naming conflict
==== Dealing with historical contexts ====
Always ensure that names are used in an historically accurate context and check that the term is not used anachronistically, e.g. using France as a synonym for Roman Gaul, or Edo to refer to modern Tokyo.
I don't have much time, so I took this discussion elsewhere, and address the general and more global issue.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 10:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course we should use "Battle of Stalingrad" not "Battle of Volgograd", but if you notice in this case as in the ones mentioned in the quote above is about different names not about different transliterations, I still think that we should have some consistency here on Wikipedia and use the same transliteration when we talk about the same cities. -- AdrianTM (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Instead of creating new transliterations we should use those already in use by most English sources. Sigh... --Illythr (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
or use the ones already used in Wikipedia, I fail to see why the city names should be treated as indivisible parts of the offensive name, I mean "Y-K Offensive" is not a proper name that needs to be translated as a whole (and in not part of vocabulary as "Peking duck") it's a composed name and the name of the cities should use the same form that we use elsewhere in Wikipedia, that's common sense to me, but I repeat myself... -- AdrianTM (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Reliable sources always take precedence over Wikipedia (in this case, by using the established composite name). Besides, with names of historical events (and this is undoubtedly one), we use names that are contemporary to the event. Same as Kishinev pogrom, Peking duck and many, many others. But yes, I think we exhausted our arguments... --Illythr (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I see a small difference here Kishinev pogrom took part in Russia and the official name of the city at that time was "Kishinev" however, the offensive was carried against Romania, and at that time the name of the city was Chişinău even though English sources still used the old transliteration, but if in English Wikipedia we use now Chişinău and at that time the official name of the city was "Chişinău" it doesn't make sense to use the form that was used during the time the city was part of Russian Empire. Again, I would agree if we change the name of Chişinău article, but since we talk about the same city we should use the same transliteration, especially that the official name of the city hasn't changed. -- AdrianTM (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter who owned the city at a given time, what matters is who makes its name known in English (usually, the owner country, but not always). As I mentioned above, "Jassy" is a name taken from German, yet the city never was a part of Germany or Prussia. The name "Chişinău" is the one most commonly used in English now, so Wikipedia reflects that. Likewise should it reflect the name "Jassy-Kishinev Operation", the most common English name for the event. --Illythr (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The Ясско-Кишинёвская наступательная операция did not take place in Romania.
  • Only the events of the operation took place in Romania.
  • It only took place within the scope of the Red Army operational planning.
  • The plan called for the operation to begin on a certain date and end with achievement of certain objectives which did not include the cities in the name of the operation.
  • The Red Army didn't use Romanian maps, or German maps, but its own Russian maps because few of its officers could read either Romanian or German.
  • The only issue is, how were the city manes written in English at the time? There is a variation, but this map [11] from 1911 has Jassy-Kishinev which is the German transliteration on which many English maps were based until the 1930s. The vast majority of post-Second World War English military history sources use the American transliteration of Yassy-Kishinev (for obvious political reasons), and this had become the NATO standard, hence its use by Glantz who had to refer to standard NATO spelling when teaching NATO officers (not just US Army) in the US Staff college. The funny thing is that now that Romania is in NATO, its officers are likely to end up in NATO course that include teaching Second World War history.
  • Are Romanian officers going to insist that NATO changes its spelling of Second World War events to comply with Romanian Government's official policy? I am unaware of this request, and its been three years since they joined.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 22:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Do NATO officers use Wikipedia, then yes it would be better that they use the same name for the same city... consistence is nice especially when it comes to army.
"The only issue is, how were the city manes written in English at the time?" -- Why is that the only issue? If it were a different name like Stalingrad/Volgograd I would understand, but since it's only a transliteration it make sense to use the form that is used now in Wikipedia, why would it makes sense to use an obsolete transliteration? -- AdrianTM (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
As a side remark can you please stop using bold face, that starts to get annoying. -- AdrianTM (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I use bold face because in the past there were problems with interpretation of what I said.
I would appreciate if you used the usual stitch pattern of reply rather then interleaving your replies into mine.
Whether NATO uses Wikipedia is not really an argument! NATO has been around for a while, and has standards which are Wikipedia-independent. They are also derived based on requirements of all its members and not specific governments.
Let me be more specific. "The only issue is, how were the city names written in English during 1944?" We are concerned with 1944. In 1944 British and US Air Forces were used to bomb Romanian objectives. The pilots used maps of Romania. What was the spelling on these maps?
Do you think the maps were in Romanian?
The "Battle of Stalingrad" is factually wrong, but has been used because it is a commonly used name for the event in English. In military history the "battle" includes several distinct large scale operations, one of which consisted of a series of tactical engagements/battles for the Stalingrad suburbs. However, thats another story as they say.
"since it's only a transliteration it make sense to use the form that is used now in Wikipedia" Are you saying that Wikipedia creates World-wide policy on transliteration or naming conventions? This is besides the point that you are confusing transliteration using standard modern English alphabet, ISO transliteration, and writing in Romanian. The transliteration I proposed is not obsolete! The transliteration I proposed is to my best knowledge the current standard NATO transliteration for that historical event.
In any case, even if NATO changes this policy, it will remain the standard English language transliteration because I don't see either the UK MoD or the US DoD adopting Romanian for all historical use during the Second World War. However, when they do adopt Romanian for this purpose, I will be the first to move the name of the article back to Romanian spelling and script.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 00:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me just pipe my two cents. I haven't got a clue how to pronounce "Iaşi-Chişinău". This is, IMO, a terrible choice for the article name as most English speakers are not familiar with diacritics. If it's been at this version for so long, has it gone to mediation yet? Oberiko (talk) 12:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sort of like "Yashi-Kishinaeu". :) I think the pronouncement aka "those weird letters" problem should be handled separately, since renaming this one article won't resolve the problem in general. The main argument to rename this article should be term usage data as presented above. As for proposal - a month has already passed, so a new proposal can be made. --Illythr (talk) 12:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, then I'd vote for Jassy-Kishinev since that seems to be the most common transliteration. Do we have a straw poll at all? Oberiko (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I can make one once I'm back from work. Should we post a note at WP:MILHIST and WP:RM as well? --Illythr (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
the more heads involved the better. Oberiko (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Jassy–Kishinev_Offensive/Archive_1&oldid=1090578773"