Talk:Odessa Military District

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

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 January 2024[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 16:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Odesa Military District → Odessa Military District – After a modicum of discussion elsewhere (can’t find the link), some months ago the page was moved on grounds which I believe to be less than solid. The current revision is also heavily slanted toward WP:RECENTISM in a manner that could be construed as intentional. Bottom line, the vast majority of English-language RS not only call it by its Soviet official name, but they also primarily cover its extensive history in the Soviet Union rather than a few years in the 90s when it was a holdover organization inherited by Ukraine and soon dissolved and reorganized as happened to many other Soviet-era formations in their successor states. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 09:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong support. There is no basis to use the Ukrainian spelling here. O.N.R. (talk) 02:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The basis for the modern English spelling is our guidelines and consistency with other Ukrainian subjects. There is no basis for imposing a Russian-derived spelling, except to impose an outdated colonial POV.  —Michael Z. 16:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is, in Special:Diff/1099650566 it appears that it was you who imposed this retconning on the longstanding stable version. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and WP:KYIV Marcelus (talk) 11:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not relevant to this. But if it were, the original exception[1] does say that “From October 1995 (Resolution of the Ukrainian Commission for Legal Terminology No. 5), [the modern spelling] is presumptively appropriate subject to specifics of the article.” Odesa MD, like the exemplary Kyiv Metro, remained a current topic after that and so is “unambiguously current / ongoing.”  —Michael Z. 16:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The spelling should be consistent with the main article Odesa according to WP:CONSUB and WP:MODERNPLACENAME, and in parallel with the naming of other articles like Odesa and a couple hundred other articles related to Odesa,[2] Kyiv, Kyiv Metro (a consensus example of an unambiguously current/ongoing topic),[3] other Ukrainian post-independence military districts and units, etcetera. The Odesa Military District was a Ukrainian organization until its dissolution in 1998, several years after Ukrainian independence. We should not adopt an imperial POV on Ukrainian subjects and impose anachronistic foreign spellings on them with the justification that some Ukrainian organizations also have a history under Soviet, Russian, or Hapsburg empires.  —Michael Z. 16:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal is also heavily slanted away from WP:NPOVNAME (“An article title with non-neutral terms cannot simply be a name commonly used in the past; it must be the common name in current use”) and WP:NAMECHANGES (“we give extra weight to independent, reliable, English-language sources . . . written after the name change”) in a manner that could be construed as intentional.  —Michael Z. 21:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Given that you were, once upon a time, given sysop tools mainly on the strength of your MILHIST contributions (which, from what little I’ve seen in page histories, were solid stuff) you ought to be as cognizant as anyone else that the vast majority of sources (which to a large extent consist of DTIC archive papers etc.) uniformly refer to it by its official Soviet name, which both followed pre-invasion English convention and was a direct transliteration of одесский военный округ.
And as far as I’m aware, with the possible exception of “cooperative threat reduction” or CFE Treaty stuff, the plain fact of the matter is that nobody in the English-speaking world cares one whit that the OMD continued briefly while the tanks rusted and the oligarchs got rich (I’m sure you’ll agree with me and various Ukrainian milbloggers that Russia did a number on the ZSU and especially the defense industry back during the bad old days).
So I have no idea which cupboard or pigeonhole you could possibly have pulled that out of. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Odessa" isn't an "imperial POV" or "anachronistic foreign spelling", but the original one; it was later changed to Odesa by Ukrainians. The military disctrict was a Russian, later Soviet creation, liquidated by independent Ukraine; it should use Odessa spelling according to WP:KYIV Marcelus (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, English-language writers, not Ukrainians, changed the spelling used in English. The Guardian, not “Ukrainians,” changed its style guide.[4] AP, not “Ukrainians,” changed its AP Stylebook.[5] English-language lexicographers, not “Ukrainians,” are updating their dictionaries.[6][7] Then Wikipedians, not “Ukrainians,” adopted it as the main-article spelling in July 2022, because, among other reasons, of the Wikipedia principles supported by MODERNPLACENAME and NAMECHANGES.
And your other argument is that the Odesa MD really belongs to the Russian and Soviet empires so we should use the Russian-derived spelling and ignore that Odesa has been in Ukraine land since the Russians colonized it, and that isn’t the least bit colonial. Really?  —Michael Z. 23:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Odessa wasn't in Ukraine land when it was "colonized" or rather established by Russians in 1795; it was a land conquered by Russian Empire from Ottoman Empire. It wasn't attached to Ukraine before 1920s. And Ukrainian spelling "Odesa" is much newere than the original one "Odessa".
Nonetheless I think that reasonable solution would be splitting article, and creating new one about Ukrainian "Odesa military district". Marcelus (talk) 10:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s a valid proposal, although the post-1991 formation might not pass a strict reading of GNG. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 10:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Michael, I would like to point out that pretty much the entire area that happens to be currently occupied by Russian invaders was mainly inhabited by Muslim Tatars (broadly speaking) until the Russian Tsardom and later Empire encouraged Ukrainian-speaking (i.e. fellow Orthodox East Slavs) peasants to displace them. This is no more or less “colonial” than the Russians taking over an Ottoman fortress town and expanding it into what it is today.
And even if it was somehow “colonial”, historical facts can’t be rewritten on a whim and the Soviet Union can’t be retconned away. And if you had actually read WP:BIAS you’d know it’s actually talking about the dominance of the white youngish male Anglophone POV… RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I must protest that you are automatically blue-and-gold-washing the complexities (or even as here the plain facts) of history.
Furthermore, I’m not aware of any formal consensus to retroactively rename any instance of “Odessa”, probably even prior to 2022, much less far past 1991–95 back to the Great Patriotic War or even the 1980s.
My understanding of what happened is simply that the reality on the ground changed as a reaction to Russia’s invasion. Part of it was that many people who previously identified as русский consciously chose to redefine their identities along political-ideological rather than cultural-linguistic lines. Some of them are still unable to pronounce shibboleths such as «Героям слава!» with a soft guttural sound.
Especially as we’re talking about the most cosmopolitan city in a multiethnic country. Just ask your preferred Ivy League RS, Timothy Snyder.
At the same time, English-language media gradually adopted the official spelling, and after some months the change had percolated sufficiently deeply that editors here decided that there were reasonable grounds to assume the change is here to stay.
That is, after a brief one-on-one discussion that should have taken place on the talk page (IDR where I eventually dug it up, it was during the semester so I took no action then) you interpreted the Oct 2022 move as a broad mandate to make sweeping changes. While I toned down my original characterization of your action out of collegial courtesy, I stand by that opinion.
RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 10:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Michael, can you elaborate on why you think the military district is considered a subtopic of the city? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The name means “MD of Odesa.” The subject was based in Odesa. In a recent consensus, for example, the community decided to use one spelling of Kyiv in the article History of Kyiv: the same approach would avoid ugly and senseless editing practice in contrast to well-edited reliable sources like “the Odessa Military District was a military district based in Odesa,” out of an unjustified attachment to a colonial spelling variation.
(Wow, you could easily edit all of what you’ve written above into a short opinion essay, although it’s sorely lacking references to reliable sources that support all of the assertions. It would also be better if you stuck to the subject, and spent less energy ruminating on me personally.)  —Michael Z. 14:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COMMONNAME arguments for the move are problematic because they ignore NAMECHANGES and MODERNPLACENAME: the very reason we retitled the article “Odesa” and most other subtopics and eponyms in 2022. Although the sample is small, the old spelling is used in fewer sources more recently:
Google Scholar Search
Google Advanced Book Search (restricted to English-language sources)
Unfortunately it’s difficult to compare to the overall usage of the two spellings of the city’s name, because there exist Odessa, Texas, and others.  —Michael Z. 18:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. According to WP:CONSUB, we should have Odesa instead of Odessa.--+JMJ+ (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per common name. It is most associated with Soviet military history. See for example Ngram. There could be an argument for keeping the current title if it still existed, but it does not. Mellk (talk) 12:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, above and WP:MODERNPLACENAME and WP:CONSUB where exceptions to the consistency between articles can be made if in the relevant historical context, which applies as this no longer exists and Odessa was the common spelling at the time, with the change in English being recent. We wouldn't be calling for a Battle of Volgagrad or Sieges of Istanbul. Plus that's what Kiev Military District does. DankJae 03:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    MODERNPLACENAME says “when a substantial majority of reliable modern sources do the same,” and not anything remotely to do with “Odessa was the common spelling at the time” If it said that, then we would have to use the old Cyrillic alphabet to describe the first 1,100 years of the history of the city of Kyiv, and spellings like Kiou, Kiow, Kiovia, Kiof, and Kieff for the two or three centuries that followed. But we do not use contemporary spellings, we only sometimes use historical spellings that are in use today. And we stopped using the spelling “Odessa” a year and a half ago. —Michael Z. 04:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The former spelling still has a majority on Google Scholar since 2020, 61 Odessa vs 15 Odesa, and 24 Odessa to 6 Odesa since 2022, so Odessa is still used, and more for the actual MD, and shown by your data, with the old still being a majority. The Kiev MD was created in 1862, not 1,100 years ago. DankJae 12:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and all that and our guidelines and consensus makes it a judgment call and not a fait accompli how to spell the name. IMO our usage of modern names should mean we don’t consider setting in stone somebody’s opinion that the encyclopedia should encourage inconsistent spelling in contradiction of guidelines, that will look like sloppy mistakes like “the Odessa Military District was based in Odesa until 1998.”
    Why would we choose to do that? Because we refuse to give up colonial language in defiance of every reliable source and style guide that has bothered to give the importance of names a single thought? Because we refuse to pay common-sense respect for every WP:CRITERION starting with no. 1: “Recognizability. The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize,” through no. 5: “Consistency”?  —Michael Z. 15:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Odessa_Military_District&oldid=1200081065"