Talk:Orsha

Belarus Low‑importance

	Belarus portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belarus, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belarus on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelarusWikipedia:WikiProject BelarusTemplate:WikiProject BelarusBelarus articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Belarus and Litvins

No offense, but writing about Belarusians in the context of 16th century seems like a slight anachronysm to me... [[User:Halibutt|Halibu tt]] 15:19, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

The term is anacronism. The litvin article is long due, to explain who lived in GDL. Mikkalai 16:14, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dear Mikkalai. The early GDL was inhabited only by Lithuanians (Baltic pagans) and early dukes were pagans (Some were chirstianized by both orthodox and catholic church(because of politics), but returned to paganism). Late GDL was inhabited by lithuanians (baltic speaking catholics with some pagan traditions), eastern slavs (Old east slavonic speaking orthodox, later greek catholics), which are ancestors of both belarussians, ukrainians and cossacks, poles, jews, gypsies, some baltic germans and more tiny minorities. Eastern slavs wasn't ruling nation (like some belarussian historians says), but the only literated nation before christianization of GDL. That is why all early literacy of GDL is writen in old east slavonic (written by slavic scribers to communicate with eastern provinces) and latin (written by western scribers to communicate to catholic Europe). That's why heritage of GDL is our common heritage and we should look to it from both towers (Not to start lithuanise or belarussianise, polonise the articles and stop removing polish, belarussian and lithuanian names.). Yours faithfully, Karolis-lt.

Dear [[User:Halibutt|Halibu tt]], no offense, but what do you know about Litvin (Belarusian-Lithuanian) history? Both nations associated themselves with one state GDL and were calling themselves "Lithuanians" in their respective tongues (Old Belarusian and Lithuanian). There were definietely NOT Lithuanians in modern sense. I am tired of seeing it all over internet. First, Russians steal and rewrite our history of Ruthenia, then there come pagans from the swamps of Samogitia and steal the Great Lithuanian history. rydel 16:41, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dearest Rydel, I'm perfectly conscient of our history (yup, it's our common heritage). It's also perfectly clear to me that most of the then-Lithuanians would be much more happy among present-day Belarusians or even Ukrainians than among those Baltic barbarians to the north (just a joke, I'm not trying to offend anyone, hope that everyone got it...). The situation with Ruthenia article also makes me sad since I believe that those lands are the motherland of all of us, regardless of origin. Using the term as a synonym to Russia seems like a bad joke or a sad nightmare from the times after the January Uprising. As a sidenote, our Ukrainian brethren should be happy that the Muscovites allow them to call themselves Little Russians. That's at least better than being a Kostsiushkin or a pshek...

However, as Mikkalai said, both Litvin article should be created and the Lithuanians article should be enhanced. The latter is so far too strongly under the pressure of 19th century concept of nationality. Using it as a guidebook, noone will ever be able to understand how the hell this guy was writing in Polish about Lithuania that accidentialy was in Belarus...

Also, I enhanced the article on the Battle of Orsza, hope you like it. [[User:Halibutt|Halibu tt]] 19:33, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Location

Anybody know, what is the source of location information i.e. 54°28′14″ N 30°19′05″ E ? It is easy to check following the link from this location and using any tools from the link, that 54°28′14″ N 30°19′05″ E is a little bit outside Orsha. --Begemotv2718 01:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Troll^{[citation needed]} "Kuban Kazak"

After vandalizing Belarusian language and History of Belarus article (and totally dirupting editing of these two articles), the Russian troll Kuban Kazak continued his activities on the article about my native town Vorsha ([1]). I would like to ask Wikipedia admins and Wikipedia community members as what I should do in such a situation. Thank you very much. --rydel 02:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Выберай выражения. Who is trolling? The political consenquence of Battle of Orsha belongs there not here. Otherwise expans the heading. And Russian occupation is not POV pushing? If you are unhappy about my NPOVing of wikipedia because it damages your ideal perception of Belarus that you want the west to see, then start your own wiki and write anything you want in it. Considering you never responded to any of my calls for discussion you're the troll here. --Kuban kazak 12:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The battle is indeed regarded as one of the symbols of Belarusian national revival by Belarusian nationalists, but its significance is indeed being suppressed by the Belarusian authorities of Alexander Lukashenka." This is a fact. This is a true fact. Please, provide the information that it is not. And Muscovites/Russians did occupy Belarus' lands after the partition. It's also a fact. Stop removing the true facts. --rydel 13:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With the connatation of the modern political meaning of the Battle I do not argue, but it belongs in the battle artcile itself, not in the city's article.
The partition of Poland was not occupied, and only Polish and a minority of Belarusian sources use the terms occupied. Moreover since Orsha became Russian under the terms of the First Partition, which was recoginised by the Polish sejm. Moreover no Belarus existed at that time. That is called ceding the lands to another country and having that country annex them. No respectible western history detail uses the term occupation (eg Britannica), and neither will this wikipedia. --Kuban kazak 15:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of Orsha anniverssary is a major event in that town (hundreds of people go to the field with their guitars, national costumes, and tents, and police sends dozens of squads to watch over them, and sometimes there are arrests). It definetely belongs to this article.

OK, I agree, let's use the word "annex", although there was war, and our people were killed by Muscovy army^{[citation needed]}, so I don't see any problem with the word "occupation" either. --rydel 19:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok write about that. But if a peaceful celebration is turned into a political rally then the police have every right to subdue the crowd.

So in that case what is wrong with the words (after entry into the Russian Empire). Also I would like some refrences for that comment. --Kuban kazak 23:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move: Vorša→Orsha

As other spellings of Belarusian toponyms coined by User:Rydel for this Wikipedia, Vorša is extremely misleading and smacks of original research. Orsha is a traditional East Slavic name for the city, a stubborn fact that Belarusians nationalists dislike. The name is still used in Russian, but Russian is a state language of Belarus. Let's look what the google says:

230 hits for Vorša, Belarus [2];
385 hits for Vorsha, Belarus [3];
92,600 hits for Orsha, Belarus [4].

In other words, Orsha is a commonly accepted spelling, 402 (sic!) times more popular than any of original research spellings coined by Rydel. If Wikipedia continues to use fringe spellings, its verifiability will ever be suspect.

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

Support as a nominator. --Ghirla | talk 11:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, good idea. Voyevoda 11:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, though not strongly. While we could use Russian as well, I prefer we used Belarusian for Belarusian towns. By the way, łacinka seems a tad better as a transcryption than the Russian transcryption we're using in wikipedia, which borders original research as well. Halibu tt 11:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per nomination. Gene Nygaard 15:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
support move. We should generally use the national names (Belarusian in this case) unless there is an established English usage, similar to Moscow, Warsaw and Kiev. That the reason of Orsha's usage is the influence of the Russian historian scholarship, may be upsetting for some, but WP has to reflect the current usage rather than be used to "correct" it. --Irpen 17:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Besides Russian is the official language of Belarus. If the same people who argue for Ukrainisation of Wikipedia by changing Russian names of Kiev -> Kyiv. Then I expect their utmost support here. --Kuban kazak 18:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An official language. —Michael Z. 2006-01-23 18:48 Z
Well in any case Vorsha otherwise, since Lacinka has no legal status in Belarus. However Russian is the dominant language of Belarus, even the government website has no Belarusian. That may not be correct, but that is how things presentely stand.--Kuban kazak 20:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But don't conflate the language with its representation. Whether we use Cyrillic, Łacinka, BGN/PCGN or the official Belarusian geographic transliteration is a different question, or at least secondary—the issue is whether to use the Belarusian or Russian name. —Michael Z. 2006-01-24 16:37 Z
Oppose—Native name is preferred where there isn't a well-known English name. —Michael Z. 2006-01-23 18:50 Z
- What are you talking about? Wikipedia's policy is to use "what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize" (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places)) --Ghirla | talk 15:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per common use.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 19:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The difference in English usage seems quite convincing abakharev 21:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Belarussian names for Belarus.The fact that Government of Belarus gives Russian names to cities as a result of Belarus being currently puppet state of Russian Federation should be mention ed though.--Molobo 23:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the fact that Belarus is not a puppet state of Russia is clearely explained why the proposed union republic is still non-existant. Moreover what does language has to do with this? Oh BTW Russian names existed for the cities before Lukashenko, this is the most rediculuos comment yet seen. --Kuban kazak 00:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Halibutt and Molobo. Space Cadet 00:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I guess, it makes sense to use Orsha in English. I think it will suffice to keep Vorša and Vorsha as redirects. (And somebody should check "history" first before making false claims as to who moved the article and where). --rydel 11:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. AFAIK Orsha is official Belarusian spelling, Vorsha is unofficial classic spelling. Definitely this is russification, but derussification must be done in Belarus, not in English Wikipedia. Official name is less POVed. All spellings must be presented in article. --EugeneZelenko 15:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ghirlandajo and Rydel Sciurinæ 16:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. KNewman 13:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Jonathunder 17:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I agree with the principle mentioned by Irpen, but I'm not convinced that Orsha is a well-known or established English name. Moscow and Warsaw are actual English names like Rome and Munich. Kiev and Orsha are simply Russian names transliterated, and Orsha is not exactly widely known English-speaking world—it has one hundredth the number of Google hits of Kiev and just over one tenth the hits of Ukrainian title for the article "Kharkiv". —Michael Z. 2006-01-23 18:08 Z

How do you compare a minor town with capitals of a large country? Orsha is 402 times better known than Vorša, and that's a fact you cannot ignore. --Ghirla | talk 18:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I'm not convinced yet, but I think that in the case of names that are not well-known, the native name should have preference, following the principle of self-determination. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English): "if there is no commonly used English name, use an accepted transliteration of the name in the original language" [my emphasis]. —Michael Z. 2006-01-23 18:17 Z

With Kharkov, should Russian get the status of an official language in Ukraine (which Vitrenko, Yanukovich and even the Communists actively support) Kharkiv will be the first to go and become Kharkov (as well as Lugansk, Nikolaev and Dnepropetrovsk amongst others). However Russian currentely has preference by official Minsk (which is not Rydel's pravo-piss Russophobia) and hence it is reasonable to stick with the current trends. --Kuban kazak 20:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't resort to poo-poo pee-pee name-calling; it only reflects on yourself. —Michael Z. 2006-01-24 00:59 Z

I would like to add that Google Books finds 646 mentions of Orsha and zero mentions of any other spelling. Additionally, user:Kuban kazak is totally correct that and alternative name should be VorSHa if we want to stick to the official name in Belarusian since lacinka has no official standing and normal translit should be used. --Irpen 07:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Orsha

Final tally was 12–4 in favor of the move (75%). howch e ng {chat} 23:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lazy reverting wastes everyone's time

Space Cadet, you reverted to an older version [5] with the edit summary "rm nonsensical chauvinistic claims". All I see you removing is a statement about motorways and the Polish interwiki link; and I can't imagine how either of these could be chauvinist. You also restored a lot of misspellings and miscapitalization of words, and changed some, but not all instances of "Vorša" to "Vorsha".

I have to call you on sloppy editing. It makes no sense; I can't even tell why you did it, and now we have to start a discussion just to discover what this was all about, and possibly prevent the revert war that's about to start. Please don't do lazy reverts: edit what you intend to, and describe it accurately in your edit summary, as required by Wikipedia conventions. —Michael Z. 2006-01-23 16:29 Z

No personal attacks

I just removed a comment that contributed nothing to the discussion, merely constituted a personal attack against several editors. If you can't control yourself, just go for a jog around the block before posting here, or have a read through Wikipedia:No personal attacks. —Michael Z. 2006-01-24 16:41 Z

It is your comment that is a personal attack. On the other hand, confirming a well-known fact that someone is a Pole is not a personal attack. Please refrain from deleting comments by other editors in the future and remember to be civil. Thanks, Ghirla | talk 16:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You also called these editors another name, and appeared to attribute a particular attitude to Poles. Your comment was strictly to label or denigrate a particular group, could be construed as racist, and did not contribute to the question at hand. It was inflammatory, and way out of line. I may continue to remove stuff like this when it offends me and threatens to start another irrelevant flame war. I suggest you apologize rather than trying to justify a shameful outburst. —Michael Z. 2006-01-24 18:21 Z

If you can't see that Halibutt, Kosmak, and Molobo are inveterate Russophobes, you never will. Just scan the history of their contributions. --Ghirla | talk 18:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Rydel and Andrew Alexander to that list, not Polish but certainely the second category. --Kuban kazak 18:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You two are steering this discussion merely to participate in name-calling, and to defend name-calling—personal attacks. I believe this is exactly what is called trolling, and completely contrary to the word and spirit of Wikipedia rules. These rules exist to make it easier to contribute to Wikipedia, but your behaviour is contributing to the problems. —Michael Z. 2006-01-24 19:18 Z

Being called "racist" and "troller" is nothing new to me. I will not post on this page until the appropriate apologies are brought. Other opposers may join SC and Molobo on their Russophobic revert warring here. --Ghirla | talk 20:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't call you racist, I described how your ill-considered remarks could easily be interpreted. Please don't deflect responsibility for your comments by pointing fingers at others. If analyzing your comments will get you to post fewer such outbursts, then I may have found a new hobby. —Michael Z. 2006-01-24 21:10 Z

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Orsha. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050204123649/http://txt.knihi.com/hierb/vorsa.gif to http://txt.knihi.com/hierb/vorsa.gif

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]