Wikipedia

Talk:Odesa/Archive 3

< Talk:Odesa
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Kahastok in topic This article should probably be renamed to 'Odessa'
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Foreign languages in the lead

Latest comment: 2 years ago44 comments4 people in discussion

I moved the second foreign-script name and pronunciation from the lead into the body with the edit summary “moving second foreign language to the #Name section per WP:LEADLANG.” The MOS guideline says

If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence, usually in parentheses. . . . Do not include foreign equivalents in the text of the lead sentence for alternative names . . . , as this clutters the lead sentence and impairs readability.

@Fyunck(click) reverted my edit with “Perhaps this should be discussed. Usually the local language is placed in parenths but the most common local language in Odesa is Russian.”

So, what alternative are you proposing? That Odesa, Ukraine, is closely associated with the Russian language and not the Ukrainian? (Historically, Yiddish was important too.) Or that we move all foreign names down? —Michael Z. 23:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Odesa and Odessa are now both English words. It doesn't really matter where they came from. All I'm saying is that if the main language of Odesa is Russian then maybe that is a better fit if we only use one term. Editors may want a say before it gets changed. If I was doing it... because of the complexities involved I would probably do it in the following way:
Odesa is the main name in English now and it has different spellings in Ukrainian and Russian, Russian being the predominant language of the area. I would not get rid of Ukrainian in the lead because that is the country it's located in. So I would say an exception is warranted. I would keep Ukrainian first as a compromise, but since Russian is the language of choice I would think it must be retained. Odessa is now just an alternative way of spelling the city in English. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
If both are retained then the way it was is better, because it clearly associates the Ukrainian-derived spelling with the Ukrainian and the Russian-derived with the Russian without any extra verbiage, and without requiring the addition of redundant romanizations.
If an exception is warranted wherever another language is the “language of choice,” then let’s have a broader conversation about it, because here is a clear consensus in the guidelines, but lots of exceptions and opinions about hem in articles about Ukrainian places. (I think I’ve seen five or more foreign languages in an article lead in the past.) —Michael Z. 03:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree that I've seen multiple (four or five) languages in the lead and it really looks messy. I would usually rather see one and the rest discussed lower down in an Etymology section. But this is a more unusual case. I do disagree on why we have the two items... it's because of what Odesa is based on. Odessa was the main English spelling. Now Odesa has overtaken it. We usually have a foreign spelling because of the location and usage of the people who live there, not because of how the name was derived. If it was derived from Latin we wouldn't put in the Italian pronunciation. This item is just complex because the people speak Russian and the city lies in Ukraine (hopefully for a long long time). We want to let readers know how to pronounce the name in it's native language and we can't settle on just one way. I think my suggestion accomplishes this but if it stays the way it is I have no issues. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:46, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
The same guideline also says:
Do not include foreign equivalents in the lead sentence just to show etymology.
 —Michael Z. 14:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

The situation here is identical to that at Kyiv, so the russian form should be removed and the Ukrainian form be the only foreign language used in this lead. Trying to use "the local language" is a fools errand in Ukraine because ever since 2014 Ukrainian is becoming more and more common even in so-called "russian" areas. Even in Kharkiv, the most "russian" of Ukrainian cities (excepting the Donbass), reporters have been commenting on how seldom russian is actually being heard in public. So unless there is a peacetime determination after the war is over, Ukrainian should be used for all these Ukrainian cities in the lead where we have changed the name and russian forms should be relegated to a point later in the article. There was a long discussion at Kyiv and this was the conclusion. As at Kyiv, so at Odesa. Thus Odesa (Ukrainian Одеса) or Odessa. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 12:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The guideline does not suggest including foreign pronunciation in the lead, either. Its intention is to improve readability by reducing clutter, so except for the single foreign name, all this stuff belongs in a comprehensive “Name” section. If we couldn’t decide on one primary foreign name, then following the guideline would have us remove that from the lead too rather than “balance it out” by increasing clutter—but it’s my impression that we all agree the Ukrainian takes precedence. —Michael Z. 15:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

The only thing close to an RS we have when it comes to determining what the language breakdown of a city is is the 2001 census that is woefully out of date. We really should have a discussion about this convention of including russian names in the lead just because the city had a sizable russian speaking pop in 2001—blindlynx

It’s reasonably well attested in RS that Ukrainian language use has increased throughout mainland Ukraine over two decades, the increase accelerated since 2014, and more so in the last five months. Practically all of mainland Ukraine is functionally bilingual or Ukrainophone. I don’t know whether Russian or Ukrainian is currently most commonly used in Odesa (anyone know of a survey?), and of course Odesa has an important Russian-language tradition, but even in 2001, 79% of Odesans said they are competent in Ukrainian, 81% in Russian (per uk:Населення Одеської області#Вільне володіння мовами). —Michael Z. 16:56, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
While not the most reliable source, this article from today's "Daily Beast" is an example of what journalists are reporting throughout Ukraine since the start of russia's war against it: [1]. And we keep "Odessa" as an "other name" for the same reason we keep "Kiev" at Kyiv--because there is still a sizable amount of English literature that uses "Odessa" and "Kiev". It's not for Ukrainian reference, it's for English reference. If we were to count all English language sources for the last 100 years, these two now-obsolete names would far outnumber the current names by many orders of magnitude. So we keep them in the infobox for the benefit of our primary users/readers: English speakers. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 03:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

From the Intercultural Profile of 2017, the principle language of Odesa is Russian. The thing is, no guidelines are etched in stone at wikipedia, and common sense and anomalies abound. This is a city that may really need the flexibility of both pronunciations. It's not three, four, or five... it's only two. Even if it is now 50/50 you wouldn't want to use bias and just show one. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

That article that you cite makes no sense in the very sentence that you cite: "Nowadays Ukrainians are the largest ethnic group (62%) with Russians the second largest (28%), but Russian is the principal language". If "Ukrainians are the largest ethnic group", then the comment about "principal language" is illogical. But even Russian-speakers in Odesa are speaking Ukrainian now. That's what is happening throughout southern and eastern Ukraine as reported widely in the media. Russian speakers in Ukraine are choosing to switch languages. So your comment about "bias" might have been valid a year ago, but is not valid now. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 06:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
It's one thing to want something later than 2001... it's quite another to insist on something since March 2022. That would run afoul of WP:RECENTISM. And just because they are ethnic Ukrainians doesn't mean they don't use Russian as their language of choice. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Let's review the simplest of all facts about Wikipedia. This is the English Wikipedia. It has nothing whatsover to do with anything about the local language. It has everything to do with what English readers want to easily learn about the topics we present. Thus, multiplying local languages in the lead is confusing and detracts from what English speakers need. That's why we restrict foreign languages in the lead to one. This article should follow the example of Kyiv's lead, which lists Ukrainian as the source of "Kyiv" and all other foreign names in a "Names" section. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 12:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Since it doesn’t appear that there there is any clear consensus to override the guideline at WP:LEADLANG, I suggest we move the second foreign language out of the lead. Dissenters are welcome to request closure or expand this to an RFC to change it. —Michael Z. 15:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia guidelines and usage at Kyiv, where a nearly identical situation was discussed at length, should be followed without a clear consensus to wander away. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Disagree completely. There is no consensus to change very longstanding usage of both items. In fact if one were to stay it might be Russian, since it's used more. That's the whole issue with this... there are two local languages. One of the different issues with Kyiv is it's pronounced about five different ways. There is also no requirement we add foreign language info at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
The guideline says “if the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language,” not “the language used more locally.” The very fact that we have moved the article to a Ukrainian-derived spelling attests that Ukrainian is closely associated with this place in Ukraine, and that it is not recentism to recognize this. —Michael Z. 13:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Fyunck, you are acting like there is some major difference between the russian word and the Ukrainian word. With Kyiv versus Kiev, there was an important different in the vowels used and a major difference in pronunciation, yet we don't list the russian word in the lead because it is not the basis for the name of the article per Wikipedia guidelines. Yet for Odesa, there isn't even a major difference--just the length of the pronunciation of the "s". For Americans, that is an impossible distinction to even hear because long consonants don't exist in English. You are arguing over the number of angels on the head of a pin, a difference without a distinction. The russian name is not the basis of the name of the article and it's not different from the Ukrainian name in any meaningful or even phonetically noticeable way. Your arguments for moving the russian name out of the lead have no real basis in fact and simply amount to "I don't want to". Wikipedia isn't written for speakers of a local language, it's written for English speakers. And in English, the Ukrainian form is the only one that matters because that underlies the most common spelling now in English--Odesa. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
It's not a question of major differences between the languages. In fact, in English, they are pronounced exactly the same. People haven't changed in that aspect at all. The fact is if you are giving a foreign spelling lesson on Odesa, which is not required at all on Wikipedia, then the local language is extremely important. It favors Russian, and sources tell us it favors Russian. It's not like I would advocate removing Ukrainian syntax either. The subject of this article Odesa/Odessa is very closely associated with both Ukrainian and Russian. You can't just wave a wand and throw that fact out because you want to. This fact and aspect has been in the article for a long long time and when it was titled Odessa of course we had both. For years and years it was done the following way... "Odessa (also known as Odesa; Ukrainian: Оде́са [ɔˈdɛsɐ]; Russian: Оде́сса [ɐˈdʲesə])... It worked just fine and dandy. Not too long but to the point. We have now changed the article to Odesa, but nothing else should change. It's not our place at Wikipedia to exterminate Russian words and phrases because we disagree with their politics and policies. As perplexed as you two seem to be with my stance on this, I am just as perplexed and bewildered with yours. I can't understand why you are so gungho with this expurgation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I want to exterminate the huge in-WP:consistency in the leads of articles on Ukrainian place names. We happen to be updating this one because the title changed recently.
Just look at the leads in any ten articles in List of cities in Ukraine, and you’ll see nine different styles, most not conforming to WP:LEAD, and very cluttered (much of the guideline talks about avoiding clutter for readability). —Michael Z. 19:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Consistency is a good thing. However cookie-cutter articles can also be a bad thing if the circumstances of those articles are different. I don't know the language situation of each of those cities. Perhaps they are quite different than Odesa. I don't see the original "Odessa (also known as Odesa; Ukrainian: Оде́са [ɔˈdɛsɐ]; Russian: Оде́сса [ɐˈdʲesə])" being cluttered in the least. We would just switch it around to conform to our new title of Odesa. However Kyiv is quite messy, Donetsk is messy, even a simple name like Kovel is messy. Places like Sevastopol or Lozova are just fine. Places like Sarych start off fine and then add extra crap in a second set of parenthesis. Places like Donuzlav strangely have no mention of Ukrainian in the lead at all. If we include anything on other languages other than English in the lead, certainly if two are pretty close we would include them both for our readers. I would like to see some semblance of structure in the articles you allude to, but we also need flexibility depending on the situation. No two are exactly alike. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Kyiv is not messy at all in terms of the foreign language component--just the Ukrainian. We're not talking about English pronunciations here, just how many foreign language examples are appropriate. Since the article is entitled "Odesa", then the only appropriate foreign language form in the first sentence is the Ukrainian one. We already give a nod to the russian-based spelling with "or Odessa", but since that form is not the article's title then the explanation for it, like the explanation for "Kiev" at Kyiv, should be later in the article. All of these Ukrainian city articles need attention when it comes to the proliferation of foreign names in the lead, but just because they haven't been cleaned up yet isn't an excuse for not cleaning Odesa up just like Kyiv was cleaned up. (Again, we're not talking about the English phonetics at Kyiv, just the single, solitary foreign language reference to Ukrainian there.) --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Well we simply disagree. Kyiv looks messy to read to me, and we 100% disagree on what is appropriate. And Odessa is also the English based spelling and has been the English spelling till the last month or so. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
We actually agree that Kyiv looks messy, but the messiness has nothing to do with the single foreign language entry and is due to the god-awful presentation of English pronunciations. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
What is sad for me is I look out for our readers. When I see Britannica's entry it shows how badly ours looks in comparison. Other encyclopedias and almanacs look similar to Britannica. All that stuff should be in a separate prose section, not garbaging up the lead. My beef in this issue is that if it is in the lead we can't show only one in this particular case as both languages are equally important with this city, and it's why I think a simpler style such as "Odesa (Ukrainian: Оде́са, Russian: Оде́сса) or Odessa, is the third most populous..." works much better. I even wish the country could be shortened to its country code but that doesn't appear to be a parameter for the template. The rest can go in a short etymology section for those readers who care. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
The problem with including all languages that are significant for a location is that it opens the floodgates for cities that are truly multilingual to have four, five, or more languages and that is real clutter. L'viv, for example, could legitimately include L'viv, Lvov, Lwów, and Lemberg in the list of language forms that have more than a passing relationship to the city. Wikipedia must draw the line and one official language (in this case Ukrainian) should be sufficient for the first sentence and all others later in the text. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 09:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

But I never said to include all languages. Where did I ever say that? We can't do that as you said. But here we may have a city that speaks perhaps 60% Russian and 40% Ukrainian. I don't think it's correct to have only Russian (or Ukrainian) in this particular case. We would usually include only the main language here but in this case we have two main languages. I just don't understand how you can't see this. I feel anything but zero or two is POV and unfair to our readers. So we could keep all the foreign language stuff out of the lead and put all of it below in detail. Are you from Ukraine or near the area concerned? I don't mean to be rude...I ask because I'm trying to understand where your stance is coming from. I'm USA so I'm far afield from the situation there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

The point that I'm trying to make is that the English Wikipedia is not for the benefit of the local speakers of whatever language they happen to speak, it is for English speakers. As English speakers our readers don't need a panoply of whatever the locals speak, whether relevant to the title of the article or not, but the language from which the name of the article derives. And your argument about local speakers is no longer valid even though it might have arguably been valid a year ago. russian speakers in Ukraine outside the occupied areas are switching to Ukrainian, whether that is their native language or not. russian is simply not an acceptable language for public use in Ukraine anymore. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 10:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
That would be WP:recentism and not used at Wikipedia. And someone keeps throwing WP:LEADLANG in our faces... what you just wrote goes against that. It specifically says the "subject of the article" not the "name of the article." It also says the lead "typically includes the local-language equivalent." We have to be flexible in whatever a guideline says but it does not say we use the language of the article title or country. Per that guideline, if we use anything, we should be using Russian not Ukrainian. I don't agree with that at all, but I also don't believe we excise one of the two main languages. I don't think I can get any clearer on this issue and we are getting absolutely nowhere here. You may have the last say since we are filling this talk page up with essentially the same thing over and over and over with no end in sight. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
That extract is from a sentence that actually does say “country.” One completely reasonable and consistent interpretation is to include the Ukrainian name in the lead of articles about subjects that are places in Ukraine. —Michael Z. 22:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Fyunck(click)’s idea seems to be that the city should be treated as an exception because a 50%-plus-one majority reported their “native language” as Russian in the latest census, 21 years ago. A couple of problems with this:
  • The census is out of date. To say that newer figures, estimates, or surveys are WP:recentism is a fallacy, as it is well document and supportable that Ukrainian usage has been growing since before that census and, especially, since, so its figures are almost certainly no longer valid.
  • The census doesn’t represent what people necessarily speak, or what their ancestors spoke, or speak the most, or at home, or daily. Many or most Ukrainians are functionally bilingual but the census design didn’t capture that. And, for example, in Kyiv, widely regarded as a mainly Russian-speaking city, only 25.3% reported their native language as Russian.
If we are to apply this consistently, then a number of articles would change. I had a look at the articles about the 25 Ukrainian regional capitals. They have from 1 (11 of them) to 5 (Ternopil) foreign languages in the first sentence. Eight had a native-Russian-language majority in 2001, and six of these have the Russian name in the first sentence. Three with fewer native-Russian-language Ukrainians in 2001, Kherson (45.3%), Lutsk (6.8%), and Zhytomyr (16.3%) have the Russian name in the first sentence.
I hope to revise the leads of these articles and make them appropriately more consistent in terms of alternate names and foreign names. Do you think we’ll find consensus to include Russian in the first sentence for the 50%+1 2001 native-Russian-language population cities: Dnipro, Donetsk, Kharkiv, Luhansk, Mykolaiv, Odesa, Sevastopol, and Zaporizhzhia?
I don’t think we should. I believe the clutter should be reduced greatly and most of this moved out of the first sentence, as recommended by MOS:FIRST and MOS:LEADLANG. But let’s at least consider the broader context while discussing this article. —Michael Z. 23:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
You have no business summarizing for me, because you are dead wrong in your assessment. I have not based it on any such thing and I have stated so and given links. State your own conclusions, not mine! Wikipedia has always been flexible and common sense trumps many items. I also listed cities in Ukraine that are all over the map and we have to look at each one and not treat them in some blanket fashion by eliminating all things Russian. I see you have all kinds of Ukraine awards on your wiki page so perhaps you can't look at this as objectively as you should right now. That would be understandable but not helpful here. And the WP:recentism statement was based on comments about changes since the war, so it is not fallacy in the least. Goodness. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click), you are WP:casting aspersions and implying a lack of WP:good faith. Please reconsider your comment.
If I misinterpreted, just say so. I never implied we should not be flexible or use common sense, only that we should consider the guidelines including WP:consistency and the WP:MOS. —Michael Z. 03:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
You are probably correct in me casting aspersions that you might be from the Ukrainian area... sorry about that. I should have stuck to the topic only. However I was quite unhappy that you summarized this discussion with two incorrect things about what I said, and it has made me lose some faith in your objectivity. I've tried multiple lead sentence changes and suggestions to make the the lead less messy. I'm not sure I see any other changes others have put in writing that we can look at. While I do agree that most of the first sentence could be moved out and into a etymology section, I don't think we agree on what should be moved. While we do need to look at the big picture, each city or area has it's own issues that can change what goes into the lead. You mentioned several cities you would like to conform in your last post, one of which was Sevastopol. I'm interested how you would handle that in conforming. When I look at that lead I would either leave it as is or move everything in parenths into another section. I can't think of anything else that would work. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
The problem with using any language census material prior to 2014 is that the language situation in Ukraine has changed radically since then. The use of Ukrainian in day-to-day life has skyrocketed in the unoccupied part of eastern and southern Ukraine since that time. This has been reported widely in the media since that time. Blindly relying on grossly out-of-date language censuses is unreliable considering language use in Ukraine post-2014. Using 2001 census data for languages in Ukrainian cities is laughable and grossly deceptive. All Ukrainian cities should be standardized with Ukrainian as the sole foreign language in the lead since that is the national language and there is no reliable information about current language use in any of these cities. Language use in Ukraine has changed radically since 2014. Sticking with the national language, especially when the article titles are being changed to reflect Ukrainian spellings and use in English language media, is the only reasonable and NPOV choice. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 07:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
That’s all true, but I don’t think that’s even the main argument. Many, many places in Ukraine see the same language situation, whose precise details we cannot determine, and I don’t think bringing multiple foreign names up to the lead to reflect local usage is necessarily useful.
For example, in Odesa Oblast the majority named Ukrainian as their native language in 2001. That article’s first sentence has four foreign-language names and theee romanizations, and the next sentence has a foreign name too. It ought to be de-cluttered. Should we really override the guideline in seemingly random articles for this one rather obscure and possible no longer valid statistic without any obvious explanation?
Language demographics can vary greatly from village to village and from raion to raion. See for example,E, uk:Населення Одеської області#Мовний склад (“Demographics of Odesa Oblast § Language structure”), where the second table shows Ukrainian language fraction varies from 5% to 96% within the oblast’s districts, and Russian from 2% to 74%. Is the argument to check the two-decades-old census for every oblast, raion, hromada, city, town, and village to determine where to override the guideline? I think that would require a central consensus discussion and lead to a huge waste of time and energy because the resulting pattern of article first-sentence content would be effectively meaningless.
Bear in mind that we are not discussing changing the article title, nor altering the Russian-derived alternate name in bold, nor even removing any foreign-language material at all. Just reducing clutter in the lead for readability, as the consensus guideline recommends in several places. —Michael Z. 14:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I would tend to agree that if possible we don't want to override the guideline. These four and five languages in the lead are unwieldy and un-needed. There is no wikipedia requirement to have any language other than English in the lead. I would think we would need to have a source or two that shows two languages are historically pretty much evenly spoken before we put more than one in the lead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
"Historically pretty much evenly spoken" is, itself, a minefield for many cities in Ukraine because the interpretation of what counts as "evenly spoken" is meaningless outside of a modern language survey (which hasn't been done in Ukraine for two decades with intervening massive language upheaval due to wars in 2014 and 2022). All other "reliable sources" are virtually anecdotal. "Historically" is also subject to interpretation since Kyiv began life with Proto-East Slavic as the primary language before it differentiated into the Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian languages. Should we then list one of the "foreign languages" a reconstruction of Kiev/Kyiv from Proto-East Slavic? Or how about Lviv? In the absence of reliable language surveys, we'll have to list Ukrainian, Russian, Polish, and German. The first sentence of the lead is, of course, all we're talking about and since you, Fyunck, value the removal of clutter, then it's surprising that you are the one arguing for the retention of foreign language clutter. In Ukraine, the only language that should be mentioned in the first sentence should be Ukrainian. And your argument is further undermined because the difference between the Ukrainian form and the Russian form is trivial, both orthographically and phonetically. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I absolutely want to remove clutter, but not at the expense of NPOV. Per the sources I'm seeing, Russian is the prevailing language of Odesa. If we were only going to list one, that's what I would likely list. Same with Sevastopol, but the Sevastopol article lists none and that could be the best option here. Otherwise I would list two with this article and my examples have less clutter than what we have now. I've given examples... but you haven't shown us your exact preference. I feel I'm on really solid ground source-wise. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

We now have a longstanding style:

Odesa (Ukrainian: Оде́са [oˈdɛsɐ] ⓘ) or Odessa (Russian: Оде́сса [ɐˈdʲesə]).

We could leave it as is since it's really not a huge deal. It's not like we have five different languages in the lead. We could also do:

  1. Odesa (Ukrainian: Оде́са [oˈdɛsɐ]) or Odessa (Russian: Оде́сса [ɐˈdʲesə]).
  2. Odesa (Оде́са, Оде́сса) or Odessa
  3. Odesa (Ukrainian: Оде́са [oˈdɛsɐ], Russian: Оде́сса [ɐˈdʲesə]) or Odessa
  4. Odesa (Ukrainian: Оде́са, Russian: Оде́сса) or Odessa
  5. Odesa or Odessa

All these are less busy than the original yet do not preach one language preference over another. Every city would be a bit different depending on the language situation. Choice 5 is how Britannica does it. The international Encyclopedia of Ukraine does it "Odesa [Одеса; Rus: Odessa]" fwiw, with no diacritics in the cyrillic spelling. While I feel all these are better than the original, I think 4 or 5 work best. And detailed explanations can be handled in prose in a etymology section. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

You're just going to die on that russian cross even though the most recent reliable language use census in Odesa is from 2001 and current media reports indicate that Ukrainian has overtaken russian after two wars with russia. Keeping two languages in the lead is not "less cluttered" than having just one language in the lead. The obvious solution is:
  1. Odesa (Ukrainian: Оде́са [oˈdɛsɐ]) or Odessa.
It's clear that the russian variant is both orthographically and phonetically only trivially different from the Ukrainian and therefore offers no real information to the reader that they can't find later in the article if they're really interested. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 08:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
I’d be okay with moving the Ukrainian pronunciation to the “Name” section too. It is not something that every reader needs to see immediately. —Michael Z. 01:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
While I might prefer choice 4, I agree and also would be okay with choice 5. Everything can just be handled in a name or etymology section in prose. I certainly can't deny it would be the cleanest look. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

*Sequence* of Ukranian and Russian spelling (and pronunciation)

Latest comment: 2 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion

This is a Ukrainian city. Shouldn't then the Ukranian spelling be *before* the Russian?
77.190.16.34 (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

It's based on common use in the English language. Odessa is the common English spelling. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Maybe so, maybe not.
 —Michael Z. 18:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
I would say Odessa is the English spelling, Одесса is the Russian one, and Одеса is the Ukrainian spelling. The most common name of the city in English is Odessa, and this is why the name of the article is Odessa not Odesa, however, this is not the question which is being asked. What is being asked is, out of Russian and Ukrainian, which one should go first. I do not think we have policies regulating this; Ukrainian is indeed the state language, and Russian is the language still predominantly spoken by the population. I do not have a strong opinion on this order, it can go either way. I am pretty sure in almost all articles on Ukrainian localities where two names, Russian and Ukrainian, are used in the lede, the Ukrainian one goes first.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Wouldn't it usually be that the article title name would go first? Since that is presumably the most common spelling in English. If there are two pronunciations for the same spelling I would say yes to a change of order. It would be more like Odessa (Ukrainian: Оде́са [oˈdɛsɐ], Russian: Оде́сса [ɐˈdʲesə]), also spelled Odesa.... But otherwise the title spelling should really go first. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
But Odessa is the English (or German, or French, or whatever) spelling, not a Russian one, despite all attempts of Ukrainian nationalists to claim the opposite. Russian is not written in Latin. It indeed likely originates from the Russian spelling, but I do not think this is a direct connection to which one comes first. Ymblanter (talk) 20:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Please stop citing the boogyman of “Ukrainian nationalists” in every discussion about naming. Why don't you mention the Russian nationalists’ opinion for balance? What do the English nationalists say about the English name of this Ukrainian city?
None of this is sourced or even accurate. It’s only emotional.
Of course, Russian is written, specifically transcribed, in the Latin alphabet. Odessa is precisely a Latin transcription of Russian. Writers who are not retentively pedantic would refer to it as “the Russian name” of the city. Oh, look: Dictionary.com (Random House) does just that: “Odessa. The Russian name of Odesa.”[2] —Michael Z. 20:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Please stop commenting ad hominem on every my comment, this is feeling like harassment. Ymblanter (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
No, sir. You are broadly making negative statements associated with an identifiable group. You are contributing to a hostile atmosphere, and you’ve been doing it for months or years. It is not ad hominem to ask you to stop it.
As you are quoting my previous comment, you separately continue to make similar cracks about me,[3] in reference to the slur you previously labelled me with. It is not ad hominem to ask you to stop it, to take it back, to admit you were wrong, and to apologize. —Michael Z. 20:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Ymblanter, even with your bad faith accusations that I was being disruptive, it seems very clear that the consensus has settled on Odesa as the English spelling. Advocating for an article name change based on published sources and clear precedent (Kyiv) is not disruptive behavior and you are clearly biased against Ukrainian transliterations. It looks like it didn't need to take 20 years for the change and I was mistaken that it might never be changed in English sources after the pushback from Russian speakers like yourself who seem to think that former Soviet or Russian territories must use Russian transliterations, even after the Ukrainian transliterations were requested by the Ukrainian government and supported by the majority of Ukrainians. I didn't see any of your comments in the second requested move. It seems like you recognized you were wrong. Please don't accuse other editors of disruptive behavior or ad hominem attacks just because you don't agree with their actions or with the fact that Ukrainian transliterations are the appropriate names in English for Ukrainian topics. If I had waited a month or two to request the move, the article would have been moved without objections, and most likely if you had not spammed every reply opposing the move, it probably would have been moved. OjdvQ9fNJWl (talk) 07:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Why isn't the English pronunciation given? Websters has it as (ō-ˈde-sə). It seems if we are giving the Russian and Ukrainian values shouldn't we give the English version in this English wikipedia? Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, we certainly should. Ymblanter (talk) 09:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Look at Kyiv if you want a good example of why English pronunciations can make the first sentence a nightmare of unreadability. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 17:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
I actually agree. We don't really need pronunciations in the lead. What I'm saying is this is an English encyclopedia... if we have any pronunciation in the lead it should be the way it is pronounced in English, not Ukrainian or Russian. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Date of name change from Odessa to Odesa

Latest comment: 2 years ago64 comments8 people in discussion

It is not mentioned anywhere in this article, therefore, unclear, when the name change from Odessa to Odesa occurred. Perhaps in 1991? This requires clarification. Tachypaidia (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

There was never an "official" change of name. The name has always been "Odesa" in Ukrainian and always "Odessa" in Russian. The city name is still "Odesa" in Ukrainian language documents and "Odessa" in Russian language documents. If you look at Odesa's official website, you can see the difference between the Ukrainian and the Russian language versions. Odesa official website (Ukrainian) Odessa official website (Russian) --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
The prevailing English spelling has been in the process of changing over several years, and it is partly the result of official changes. Ukrainian became the sole official language of Ukraine upon its independence in 1991, and Odesa was adopted as the official Latin-alphabet romanization in 1996. From there, international organizations and place-name databases adopted it, and more English-language references and writers gradually did. A lot of journalistic sources reevaluated their practice in the light of Ukrainian self-determination after the 2014 and 2022 Russian invasions. —Michael Z. 01:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
These explanations seem deficient and implausible. The assertion that the name has “always been” in Ukrainian is suspect since the word is neither Ukrainian or Russian, but Greek, i.e., Odessos. In the Russian practice of forming names of cities in feminine form (although Odessos is already feminine in Greek, the “-os” ending gives a masculine impression), an “-a” ending was substituted. This occurred from the founding of Odessa, and would have been in the founding naming documents of the city. At some time, Ukrainian lost an “s.” Perhaps following pronunciation which articulates only one “s” (but so does Russian). It would seem that consulting the city’s documents would be informative: perhaps this divergence dates as earlier as the 1917-1922 Soviet period? In any instance, somewhere along the line there was a change, and identifying it would be helpful. Tachypaidia (talk) 13:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
a different datapoint - "Odessos" is Varna, Bulgaria, anyways. the transliteration of Odrysian kingdom is almost Odrysian now, but has often been Odryssian in the past. same thing with thasos vs thassos, etc. Cononsense (talk) 14:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
This is wrong on two levels. (1) if one consults the article itself, we see: "This refers to the second ancient Odessos, founded between the end of the 5th and beginning of the 4th centuries BC (the first one, identified with modern Varna in Bulgaria, is the older of the two, founded c. 610 BC). The exact location of this ancient Odessos is unknown, but modern efforts have attempted to localize it 40 km northeast of Odesa, near the village of Koshary [uk], Odesa Oblast. (2) in attempting to date the Ukrainian change, the only data point of relevance is the orignal Greek name upon which it was based and its subsequent transmissions. Tachypaidia (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
yeah, but "odessos" seems like it's mostly referring to the famous milesian colony, which is definitely at the site of Varna.
it's interesting how the toponym changed spellings even in greek:
https://www.google.com/books/edition/An_Inventory_of_Archaic_and_Classical_Po/h7kRDAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA936&printsec=frontcover
also 'Одесос' is the spelling in bulgarian Cononsense (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
I don’t believe in 1795 they distinguished distinct places named Odessos or reliably knew their locations. —Michael Z. 17:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Whether the referent city is the Odessa that is the neighboring village of Koshary, 40km or a same day trip on foot; or the Odessa in Bulgaria, a 570km journey, is of little relevance regarding the name (though it would seem that the Empress Catherine naming the town Odessa, which was believed to be nearby, and likely is, seems beyond coincidence). Yes, toponyms change, and sometimes revert back to older forms; but that is all the more a basis for dating the change. 108.45.125.107 (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Oh, so you meant a supposed change from Ukrainian *Одесса to Одеса? I doubt any Ukrainian orthographies ever used the Russian double consonant, so it’s probably a wrong assumption that “Ukrainian lost an S.” Perhaps it was used in transcribing Greek text, but that is a different question.
By the way, English Odessos/Odesa was also spelled with the single S since before its modern re-foundation. See wikt:Citations:Odesa. —Michael Z. 16:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
It was also called Адес (Ades) in Ukrainian.[4]  —Michael Z. 16:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
In Ukrainian Greek Odessos is Одессос. —Michael Z. 17:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
I am not sure why you would suppose that the Ukrainian never reproduced the name in the founding documents. That's hard to see. I am not scholar in this area, but if I were to pose a hypothesis, I would begin with the literary material of the 19th century, and the timing of the oral and written language. It may be that Ukrainian relied primarily on the oral language and that lead to omission of 2nd "s" in the written language. Russian being the keeper of the legal documents may have kept the original spelling. It would seem that the 19th century lexicons and literature would be informative for (a) when the single "s" appeared in documents, and (b) when it was officially issued (= issued by the authoritative office), which I think could not have happened earlier than 1917-1922; but it may not be until 1991. If there an office-issued change of the name, its history would be quite informative.
BTW, Odessos remained unchanged from Ancient Greek (c. 600 BC) to Modern Greek today, for which, as you inform us, is also still the case in Ukrainian Greek. Tachypaidia (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
But "Odessos" is a transliteration of the Greek word, not a Ukrainian form. As noted above, Ukrainian has never used a double "s". But all this discussion of any placename other than the city founded by Catherine the Great is irrelevant because the name "Odes(s)a" for that place is all that matters. By the 18th century, there was a distinction between long consonants in Russian (which are always pronounced long) and long consonants in Ukrainian which always have a morpheme boundary between them and are always pronounced short. Thus, there has never been a morpheme boundary between the two "s" in "Odessa" (as spelled by Catherine) so the placename would always be "Odesa" in Ukrainian and pronounced short. But in discussing "official" names, then the Russian name was the official name in the Russian Empire. But since Ukrainian speakers NEVER had a long consonant in the pronunciation of the name since Ukrainian always shortens doubled consonants when they occur at morpheme boundaries, "Odesa" would have been the written form when writing Ukrainian. Unfortunately, Ukrainian was long suppressed by russians and there may not be any documentation of the name in Ukrainian before the late 19th century. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Stipulating to your presentation of facts (though I am a bit unclear by your saying (a) “Ukrainian which always have a morpheme boundary between [long consonants] & (b) [In Ukrainian] there has never been a morpheme boundary between the two "s”. I take this to mean that “ss” in particular case of a double consonant that does not have a morpheme boundary. (Although, at least to my ear, the long consonants here in Russian sounds very weak too, if at all). We have already established that the Ukrainian pronunciation is with a single “s”; but that does mean that the spelling followed. Place names spellings can be standardized against pronunciation, especially as required for legal and commercial purposes. Your contention that from day 1, from 2 September 1794, ”Odesa would have been the written form when writing Ukrainian”, I think is beyond the evidence. As for an official issue on this, prior to 1917 Ukrainians would not have been positioned to effect this kind of a change. It may be that the official name change came only with the current set of transliteration documents issue by Ukraine. 108.45.125.107 (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
This appears analogous to taking a Greek city name with a double "ss", as say, "Colossians" (as in the NT book), and, owing to phonetics (kə-ˈlä-shənz, also kə-shē-ənz) changing it to "Colosians", and then outlawing under hefty penalties any resident who uses "Colossians". Tachypaidia (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
This is not a chat forum. This conversation purely hypothetical to the second degree (since no one here knows how Odesa’s name was spelled in Ukrainian or Russian originally), and devoid of suggestions to improve this article. Please take it to your user talk pages. —Michael Z. 17:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
You wrote: "Since no one here knows how Odesa’s name was spelled in Ukrainian or Russian originally". What is your basis for making this claim? Consonant elision in the originality, especially given that the august Academy at St. Petersburg first proposed the name, seems beyond the pale. Your claim looks to go against every sources that I have seen on this. Claiming that the original name is obscured in a historical fog, like, "who knows?", goes to an obfuscation on dating. Tachypaidia (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Please take this to user talk. —Michael Z. 19:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
According to legend (I'm relying on tertiary sources here), the ancient city was to be called Odessos--the Tsarina Catherin is reported to have said "Let Hadjubej bear the old Hellenic name". For secondary sources on the naming of Odessa (I have not consulted these) see:
- OA. Orlov Istoriceskij ocerk Odessy s 1794 po 1803 god.
- Sostavilpo dokumentam, chranjascimsja v Moskovskom Archive Ministerstva Justicii. Odessa 1885,pp. XI- XII.3 Tachypaidia (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Is there a specific improvement to the article being discussed? This is become WP:CHAT, and should be closed or moved to another website. —Michael Z. 05:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. It has no relevance to the article. As long as the official language of the Ukrainian region of whatever entity was ruling it from moscow/st. petersburg was russian, the city's name was spelled "Odessa" no matter how it was spelled when writing Ukrainian. Now that Ukrainian is the official language of Ukraine, then the city's name is spelled "Odesa" unless writing in russian. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 11:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
The 2019 Ukrainian Law, "On ensuring the functioning of the Ukrainian language as the state language", passed by the Verkhovna Rada on April 25, 2019 and effective July 16, 2019, Article I Sec. 6,7. Article III 6(c), Article 39 ban the use of a non-Ukrainian or non-Ukrainian spelling for government (including local) names. On July 14, 2021, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine declared this law constitutional. The law is enforced with punitive penalties. Given that the use of "Odessa" is now illegal for official (and many non-official uses), we can state affirmatively that name and use of "Odessa" has been outlawed, and the article should include this fact. Tachypaidia (talk) 14:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Sources? —Michael Z. 22:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
You can look at the constitution (through 2019) here. I didn't see it. But there is discussion right here at the Venice Commission. There is of course our own wikipedia article at Law of Ukraine "to ensure the functioning of the Ukrainian language as the State language" that may have some links. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Source: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/cgi-bin/laws/main.cgi?nreg=2704-19#Text (Про забезпечення функціонування української мови як державної). Розділ I, Стаття 1, 6,7; Розділ I, Стаття 3, 6(c);Розділ VI, Стаття 39, Стаття39,2. Tachypaidia (talk) 00:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, that law sets national standards for transliteration from the official language. So the official Latin-alphabet spelling is Odesa.
All states have official languages and official names for places and institutions.
But saying “the use of Odessa is illegal” is like saying it’s illegal to write “United States of Murrica” or “Moscow.”
If you want to add such outstanding claims to the article, then the WP:burden is on you to support them with specific statements in reliable source, and then the WP:onus is on you to demonstrate consensus for inclusion. —Michael Z. 15:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
I have cited the source and make the case. I guess that I could also take up the lift of providing English translations of the sections cited (I hoped someone more qualified than I am would do so); but, otherwise, I'll give translations of those sections and then see what comments come from there. 108.45.125.107 (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
No one has cited a reliable secondary source saying words to the effect of “the use of "Odessa" is now illegal for official (and many non-official uses).” —Michael Z. 23:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Be sure to hold on tight to that secondary source having to make an obscure remark on this specific instance on an obvious plain language law with hefty penalties; or perhaps, someone might volunteer to break this law, and see if that person winds-up in the news section of reliable secondary source. Tachypaidia (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
WP:BURDEN is on you. —Michael Z. 03:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
As the source document for this lengthy and generally unfamiliar, as a aid I am posting below selections from the Language Law that I believe are directly relevant. This does not mean that other sections of the law may not have relevance to this question. I will follow-up with direct source references from this selection within the article-in-chief.
LANGUAGE LAW OF UKRAINE
On Supporting the Functioning of the Ukrainian Language as the State Language (updated 2020)
Section I GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Article 1. The status of the Ukrainian language as the only State language in Ukraine
6. Deliberate distortion of the Ukrainian language in official documents and texts, including its deliberate use in contravention of the requirements imposed by Ukrainian spelling and the State
language standards, as well as the creation of obstacles and restrictions in the use of the Ukrainian language, shall entail the liability established by law.
7. The status of the Ukrainian language as the only State language implies its mandatory use throughout Ukraine in the exercise of powers by government authorities and local self-government authorities, as well as in other common spheres of public life determined by this Law.
Article 3. Purposes of the Law
c) the use of the Ukrainian language in compliance with Ukrainian spelling and other State language standards;
d) the use of Ukrainian words, phrases and terms instead of foreign-language words, where corresponding equivalents exist in the Ukrainian language, and by raising public awareness of them;
Section VI
USE OF THE UKRAINIAN LANGUAGE AS THE STATE LANGUAGE IN PROPER NAMES AND TITLES
Article 39. Names of government authorities, authorities of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, local self-government authorities
2. Official names of government authorities, authorities of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, local self-government authorities, State- and community-owned enterprises, institutions and organisations shall be made in the State language.
Article 41. Use of the State language in geographical names and names of toponymic sites
2. Names of toponymic sites shall not be translated into other languages and shall be conveyed in official documents, mass media, cartographic, reference, encyclopaedic, educational and other publications in the letters of a relevant alphabet according to pronunciation thereof in the State language.
Official names of government authorities, authorities of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, local self-government authorities, State and community-owned enterprises, institutions and organisations shall be made in the State language.
Section VI
Article 44. Powers of the National Commission for Standards of the State Language
a) Ukrainian spelling and any changes thereto; standards of transcription and transliteration;
Section VIII
PROTECTION OF THE STATE LANGUAGE
Article 18852. Violation of the law on the functioning and use of the Ukrainian language as the State language
Other violations of the requirements imposed by the Law of Ukraine on Supporting the Functioning of the Ukrainian Language as the State Language on the use of the State language than those referred to in paragraphs 1–3 of this Article - shall entail the imposition of a fine from 200 to 300 tax-free minimum individual incomes [minimum wage rate, Tachypaida] or a warning, if the offence has been committed for the first time.
A repeated violation from among those referred to in paragraphs 1–4 of this Article, were committed within a year and for which a person has already been subjected to an administrative penalty,
- shall entail the imposition of a fine from 500 to 700 tax-free minimum individual incomes [minimum wage rate, Tachypaida].
END OF EXCERPT OF THE LANGUAGE LAW OF UKRAINE Tachypaidia (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
That’s a lot of text just to show that you have seen zero reliable secondary sources that support your assertion. Please propose text for the article with WP:reliable sources, or take this to user talk. —Michael Z. 19:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Please re-read the header. Also, please note that citation of primary sources is not evidence of zero reliable secondary sources. Tachypaidia (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Per WP:PSTS, we are not allowed to draw interpretations from primary sources that are not present directly in the primary source and that are not backed by secondary sources. You claimed, we can state affirmatively that name and use of "Odessa" has been outlawed. This has not been demonstrated to Wikipedia's standard and cannot go in the article at this time. Kahastok talk 20:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Well, we could resort to what I said on this: "I will follow-up with direct source references from this selection within the article-in-chief." That is to say, I can use it as a direct source for factual information without adding an interpretation or positing it as basis for original research. I think, though, that everyone reading the plain language law on his own can draw his own obvious conclusions. Tachypaidia (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
If you use it without adding an interpretation, in a way that implies your claim, that's original research, just as it would be if you made the implication explicit.
If you use it without adding an interpretation, in a way that does not imply you claim, then it's an irrelevant factoid with no connection to the article topic.
Either way, it doesn't belong on the article. Kahastok talk 21:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
What you said has no practical sense. Tachypaidia (talk) 23:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Since the UNGEGN adopted Ukrainian National romanization system in 2012, “Odessa” is being outlawed worldwide, but not criminalized. Yet. —Michael Z. 22:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Not sure what's happening here. I thought, as you wrote above, "But saying “the use of Odessa is illegal” is like saying it’s illegal to write “United States of Murrica” or “Moscow.” which also made no sense; but anyway, it seems now you're are recognizing the 2019 Ukrainian law, as for example,
Article 39(2), "Official names of government authorities, authorities of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, local self-government authorities, State- and community-owned enterprises, institutions and organisations shall be made in the State language." Yes? Tachypaidia (talk) 23:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

"Outlawed"? I don't think that really anywhere is it being outlawed, nor should it be. Usage changes and press MOS also changes. That's not outlawing worldwide. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Again, I'm not sure what's happening here? Above in this Talk section, I research, extract, and posted (in English) the nine (9) provisions from the 30 page 2019 Ukrainian language law (held to be constitutional on July 14, 2021) that outlaws the where and the when of penalties for using non-Ukrainian names. The penalty of the 1st infraction is a fine in the range of 200 to 300 times the minimum wage (making an equivalent calculation for the US, given a $15 minimum wage, would be $3,000 - $4,500 (though, with discretion, you may be let off with a warning on the first time.) But repeated infractions in the same year is 500 - 700 times the minimum wage (USA equiv. $7,500 - $10,500). Certainly looks to be against the law to me. Tachypaidia (talk) 23:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Remember that research and extract alone doesn't cut it here. You need to link to a reliable source on the exact law that tells us it is absolutely a crime... no interpretation at all. It needs to be specific on who will be fined or what organizations will be fined. It does not have to be a secondary source though. Secondary sources are mostly used to show notability. If a "primary" official law on the books shows exactly that anyone will be fined or jailed for using a word, then that should be good enough. Whether it's notable enough to include is another story. We may have president Biden's shoe size in primary, secondary, and tertiary, sources... but it's not notable enough to include in an article. Perhaps what you are suggesting would be better suited to the Ukraine article rather than one particular city. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
As the law is freshly-minted (I believe Zalinskyy signed a final provision last month), the legal experience on this change may be negligible; plus, Ukrainian-Russia war is center. The general point of when Ukrainian city names have been renamed (and I think there are about 900 city/town re-names, I believe) it's easy to document. Dates are published. The change from Odessa to Odesa is more limited, and, I believe, requires separate attention. Thank you for your thoughtful advice and helpful overview on this. Tachypaidia (talk) 00:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Odesa was never renamed. —Michael Z. 01:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't know the city area or how they do things in Ukraine. In the US we usually have signs that say welcome to farmville or now entering the town of Burbsopia. Possibly even freeway signs that say Sants Clausland next 8 exits. If a township or city or community changes it's name all those signs are also changed. How do they handle things in Odesa or Kyiv or other Ukrainian towns? Have the signs always been spelled the same, have they changed? Do the cities in Crimea still have the same town and street signs as they did prior to 2014? Does Odesa or Kyiv have both Russian and Ukrainian names on their signs or did they ever. I have no idea. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:17, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Sign change is not renaming.[5] In Ukraine it has represented colonization, genocide, and decolonization. What does this have to do with improving the article? Please take it to user talk. —Michael Z. 15:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Because changes made by the govt (you don't just make a new sign in your garage) is pertinent whether you like it or not. I thought someone might know to help us here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, when Ukraine left the Soviet Union the only official language was now Ukrainian, and eventually regulations were enacted and signage was changed from Russian to Ukrainian and Latin-alphabet romanization (example). The city was never renamed. Now foreign occupying forces are changing signs to Russian where they have overthrown legal governance. Am I helping? —Michael Z. 15:53, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
The sole legal status of a new name and the illegalization of the use of the old name is primae facie evidence of a name change. I see no basis for requiring that an official name change be executed such that the new and old name are in a single legislative action. The question should be separated: it appears that the argument to the contrary is on not this standard, but only whether it can properly demonstrated to have occurred via reliable sources. Tachypaidia (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
They’re not different names. They’re the same name in a different language. The name has never been changed. Please take this nonsense to talk so we don’t have to monitor it and feel obligated to address misinformation. Come back here when you have a specific proposal to add to the text. Thanks. —Michael Z. 19:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Then you need to prove that in making such a bold statement. No one died and made you God of everything Odesa and Ukraine. I'm trying to understand how it works there so I can make a better informed decision on what constitutes a name change in Ukraine. Local name changes could be very important to this article and Ukraine articles as a whole. I thought you and others might have a better grasp on how it works there on the local level. If you don't know then ok. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
I have to prove what? If you can’t provide references showing that someone changed the name of the city, then our article won’t say that someone changed the name of the city. If sources don’t say that Ukraine criminalized the name “Odessa,” or “Одесса,” or something, then Wikipedia doesn’t say so either. The WP:BURDEN is on you. Until you have something like that, then all this speculative chat is a waste of time and energy.
It’s also somewhat offensive given there’s plenty of articles on actual human rights abuses to improve based on actual reliable sources. —Michael Z. 21:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
If Los Angeles changes all it's street signs to Ukrainian cyrillic and I can show a local edict that shows when, you better believe it's a name change that will be in the Los Angeles article. It doesn't matter if it's Los Angeles in Ukrainian. Someone wants to know if we should put a name change date in this article based on Ukrainian Law. They have shown some very interesting law changes to back up their claims. I feel it's more Ukrainian-centric rather than Odesa-centric but it is worth discussing on whether it should be mentioned in this or other articles. What is offensive to me is your pish-toshing it away as nonsense. If while under Russian control, everything in the city was Odessafied in language.. then ok. If while under Ukrainian control everything became Odesafied.. then ok. If the entire city was always an amalgam of Russian/Ukrainian language and no local signage ordinances took place.. then ok. If new laws have happened to outlaw Russian signage and documents.. then ok. All that is valid, to be mentioned in an article if sourced. It's not for personal talk pages... it's for right here. Yes it must be sourced whether secondary, primary, or tertiary. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
What I am pish-toshing is the intent to write “the use of ‘Odessa’ is now illegal” and “name and use of ‘Odessa’ has been outlawed,” and the insistence that we conduct some original research to date some renaming that never occurred to prove that. This is the closest this entire discussion has come to proposing changes to the article and that is nonsense.
If you want to know when signage changed, then search for the sources. There are a lot of articles in Wikipedia that already talk about language policy, and you can improve them too. This discussion has not be about those things. —Michael Z. 16:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Now what we need is an exact sentence to include in this article, or perhaps just the Ukraine article, with the source that backs the sentence. Until we see exactly what is proposed it's hard to judge whether it's worthy. It's certainly not going to be more than a long sentence or it would fail undue weight. The proposer needs to show his fellow editors where it would be placed and what exactly it should say. Then we can better discuss the merit of including it at all or perhaps tweaking the proposal to more fit the source. Until we see that it's hard to judge anything. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Here are some places to start about language use and name changes in Ukraine:
Odesa was never renamed. In Ukrainian it remains Одеса, in Russian Одесса, and in English we now use one spelling (which has seen use for centuries) more often than the other. —Michael Z. 16:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Official documentation is dispositive. Sourcing will be demonstrative. Please consider evidentiary replies. Tachypaidia (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Am I the only person here who remembers WP:COMMON. That policy states clearly what is our true practice instead of blindly applying WP:OFFICIAL names. Therefore I do not understand why such a comprehensive discussion is taking place dealing with the laws of Ukrainian language. This is the English language Wikipedia. We are not an Ukrainian institute and we do not use the Ukrainian language. Laws of the Ukrainian language that have not legal value outside of Ukraine have no importance to us here. For similar reasons we DO include illustrations of Muhammad in his article, despite that being illegal in many Islamic countries. Wikipedia is NOT censored. Thus the claim that Odessa (spelt with double s) is illegal in English (or more broadly Latin) is illegal is wrong, as the cited laws only apply to Ukrainian language and only in that country. We base the names of our articles on what is most commonly used in reputable English-language sources and if that is Odessa in this case, that is what we use, period.Tvx1 19:43, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

That's not the question; rather, it's a question fact: that is, within the State of Ukraine, and the State of Ukraine only, is the name "Оде́сса" or its transliteration "Odessa" illegal as an official name; and if so, as of when. It's an empirical question of fact: yes or no. That's it. This question has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy, period. Tachypaidia (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy is WP:verifiability, not your desired WP:truth. If you want to discuss supposed facts for which you cannot produce reliable secondary sources, please find a chat forum about it somewhere else. —Michael Z. 23:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Only within the Ukrainian language. Odessa is not illegal. The state of Ukraine has nothing to say regarding English language and its writing. And their laws have no bearing on the name and the usage within this article.Tvx1 15:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Precisely. The legal status of "Одесса" in Ukraine appears clear; that is the factual point. The status of the use of English "Odessa" in Ukraine is less clear, but at least from official websites of Ukraine, it appears that the prohibition extends to "Odessa" as well, but verification of that legal status requires further research. Tachypaidia (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
I am sceptical of the quality of the “research” you conducted on “official websites of Ukraine” and its conclusions. The criminal terminology appears on hundreds of pages of the city’s own website.[6][7] Please be familiar with WP:NOR. —Michael Z. 16:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Request to delete Russian transliteration at the beginning of the article. This is English Wikipedia about Ukrainian city. Official language in Ukraine is Ukrainian. There is no reason to have Russian versions of Ukrainian cities, including Odessa. Kyiv doesn't have it neither should Odessa. Dmytro91 (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

It's as important as the Ukrainian transliteration for this city, however all lead transliterations could be removed and placed below in a separate section. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
I think he is asking to remove "Odessa" from lead. Mellk (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
It could be simply "Odesa or Odessa" but Odessa is too prevalent an English term to be removed completely. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Of course, like the IPs asking for removal of "Kiev" in Kyiv, it is simply a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Mellk (talk) 00:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree, censoring information like this does not help the encyclopedia. We want to show knowledge, not hide it. Baxbox (talk) 05:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Fix spelling/grammar mistake in "Independence of Ukraine"

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"Odesa was a contender for hosting Euro 2012 footbll matches in, but lost the competition to other cities in Ukraine." contains "footbll" where "football" would be correct. Also the "in" should be removed. I propose changing the paragraph to "Odesa was a contender for hosting Euro 2012 football matches, but lost the competition to other cities in Ukraine." Julian Ahl (talk) 23:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Pronunciation of the city name in the article

Latest comment: 2 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion

Odesa is an ukrainian city. Why is there (article) a russian pronunciation of the city name? Web-wiki-warrior (talk) 08:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Probably because more people speak Russian in the town than Ukrainian. Those are the two main languages spoken there. Plus, in English, it's spelled both ways. We could just have Odesa or Odessa, with no pronunciation in the lead (leave it to the name section). Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
"Probably" doesn't work for me in the case. For example there are a lot of cities in Russia where many Ukrainians live. But if you see an Wikipedia-article about the cities, then there is no Ukrainian pronunciation of the city name. Web-wiki-warrior (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
because no city in Russia is Ukrainian-speaking whereas plenty of cities in Ukraine are Russian-speaking LICA98 (talk) 08:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Doesn’t really work for me, either. As discussed above, WP:LEADLANG guides us to include “a single” foreign-language name in the lead if the subject is “closely associated with a non-English language.” We can find all kinds of associations. Yes, Odesa has been historically Russian-speaking. But the article’s title is based on Ukrainian, the subject is in Ukraine, Ukrainian is the most common language in surrounding Odesa oblast, Ukrainian is the official language and the national language of its inhabitants of all backgrounds, the language of education, the language many are switching to. Sure we can cherry-pick a single criterion that’s based on 2001 sources and not even mentioned in the article. But Ukrainian is undoubtedly the main language associated with Ukrainian places, including Odesa.
We should follow the guideline and reduce clutter by moving additional foreign-language names to the section that exists specifically for the “Name.” —Michael Z. 20:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
The guideline won't work in this case. It is "closely associated with" two non-English languages. So either both or none, and I'm flexible with either. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Works fine. The Ukrainian city is more widely and more closely associated with Ukrainian than with Russian, Yiddish, Greek, or the many other current and historical languages of its residents. Secondary foreign languages have a place near the top in the “Name” section. —Michael Z. 17:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Well then we disagree on the facts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Which facts? Do we have secondary sources that say there are two equally most closely associated languages with Odesa? No. Are you saying Russian is more closely associated with it than Ukrainian? That would be an odd conclusion, since consensus is to spell the article title by the Ukrainian-derived version, as are nearly all of the hundreds of articles on Ukrainian places.
But we can do a RFC and determine what consensus is on this question. —Michael Z. 22:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
We have factual sources that said Russian is the majority language. I never said Russian is more closely associated with Odesa than Ukrainian. Nor would I say Ukrainian is more closely associated with Odesa than Russian. That's the point. And consensus is to use the most prevalent "English" spelling, regardless of what Ukraine uses. This is a split city on language... Ukrainian/Russian and a smaller percentage of others. Why would we want to censor this article and say otherwise? You said we could put all pronunciations in the name section and I agreed with that so why don't we simply plop in "Odesa or Odessa" and be done with it. No fuss no muss. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Okay. Let’s move both pronunciations into the “Name” section. Let’s leave both English spellings in the lead section. And let’s call an RFC to determine which foreign name or names to keep in the lead, in the light of WP:LEADLANG.
Protesting “censorship” is inappropriate. —Michael Z. 02:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Having censorship is also inappropriate. One thing though.... both English spellings must be there. It would be against wikipedia guidelines to not include both spellings. What we are talking about is pronunciations and whether we include none, one (and which one), or both. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:01, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Pronunciations in the first sentence always create a mess that isn't usually helpful, especially when those pronunciations are foreign pronunciations and not the common English pronunciation. The only time that a pronunciation is appropriate is if the name in English is not commonly pronounced anything close to the spelling, such as [wʊstɚ] for "Worchester" (without even considering strictly local pronunciations like [nalɪnz] for New Orleans). This is certainly not the case with "Odesa/Odessa", which is pronounced exactly the same in English no matter which way it is spelled, and is very close to the spellings--[odɛsə]. All that counts here in the English Wikipedia in the lead is the English pronunciation, not the local pronunciation in any other language. Put those foreign pronunciations in the "Name" section and leave them out of the lead, where they do nothing but clutter things up. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 04:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Agreed that "Worchester" is a perfect example of when to add a pronunciation. It doesn't sound like it looks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
No, I mean your accusation that something I am advocating is “censorship” is wrong and impolite. And I already clearly agreed with that “one thing.” —Michael Z. 14:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

This article should probably be renamed to "Odesa"

Latest comment: 2 years ago21 comments8 people in discussion

In line with the recent renaming of Kiev to Kyiv, the same reasons should also apply to this article.

Source:

Edit: Also Lviv and Kharkiv seem to be following the Ukrainian naming style. --Blomsterhagens (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME. Mellk (talk) 23:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME would support the name of the article being Odesa. All official establishments of the city, and the country itself, including the airport, use "Odesa" in english. --Blomsterhagens (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

---

That has been extensively discussed at this very page, and so far the consensus invariably was opposite to your conclusion. Seriously, do you think that a high-profile Wikipedia article has a demonstrably wrong name for twenty years, and you are the first person to notice this?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Kyiv used to be "Kiev" for 15+ years on Wikipedia, so yes, I think article names change constantly. "This is how it's always been" isn't a valid argument on wikipedia. --Blomsterhagens (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Sure, but the argument "the article has a wrong name period" is even less valid. For Kiev, what one one needed was a topic-banned user evading ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't think Odessa is wrong. Odessa is a valid, correct, alternative spelling. Sorry if my original post made it look like I thought Odessa is wrong or wanted to exclude it. I don't. I think it should be listed as a correct alternative spelling. It's just not the officially used name anymore in english by the city itself or the country. By WP:COMMONNAME, the name of the article should be Odesa and "Odessa" should be listed as the alternative spelling. Exactly what is done now, just reversed. Currently "Odesa" is listed as the alternative spelling, but it should be the other way around. --Blomsterhagens (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
This is incorrect. WP:COMMONNAME is not about what name is used officially. It is politically unacceptable to use Odessa now in Ukraine, but the Ukrainian government is not an institution with any authority to establish the English usage. WP:COMMONNAME is about how the city is actually called in English, by reliable English sources, ideally independent of the Ukrainian government. Please read the archives of the page.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
To add, "Chornobyl" is also the official name for Chernobyl, but very few people write it like that. Moving that article to Chornobyl because of the official spelling would be a mistake. Mellk (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Chernobyl is a terrible example here. Odesa is a city of hundreds of thousands and Chernobyl is a ghost town. The Ukrainian govenrment decides what its cities are called, not historical Russian claims. Acknowledging Ukrainian sovereignty requires using the Ukrainian preferred spelling. Refusing to do so is tantamount to supporting Russian claims of sovereignty over Ukrainian lands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.22.255.72 (talk • contribs)
This discussion is about forms to use for names and Chernobyl is a name at least as familiar to English-speakers as to that of the subject of this article, so a perfectly pertinent example. Governments decide no such thing on Wikipedia, though you can bring that argument back if you manage to overturn COMMONNAME first. By extension of your argument, does the Ukrainian government require us to say Ukraïna in English now, or do they accept that we have our own long-standing common name? Reference to the Russian term "Chechnya" (for Noxçiyçö) reflects common usage in English and says nothing in regard to support for Russian sovereignity. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Interestingly, Google News Search gives its maximum number of 100 results for each of "Odesa" Ukraine -Wikipedia and "Odessa" Ukraine -Wikipedia. Google Scholar Search of academic sources, limited to 2020–present, returns 11,400 and 15,500, respectively. It could be argued that there is no longer a single WP:COMMONNAME in English. Perhaps we should research what current references say. —Michael Z. 02:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Google Advanced Book Search (English-language sources) is really showing off its “total results” bug in these searches. It looks like Google’s estimates are nonsense, but counting actual results returned does not clearly favour Odessa, and may indicate a dramatic opposite trend (viz. WP:GOOG).
Looking at sources suggested by WP:Widely accepted name which are up-to-date and accessible:
The two English-language dictionaries use context labels, indicating that in a Ukrainian subject context, Odesa is the most commonly used spelling. An article on a city in Ukraine is an example of such a context.
Using the spelling Odesa also fulfils the WP:CRITERIA of precision (distinguishing from other subjects listed in Odessa (disambiguation)), and of consistency since nearly all Ukrainian place names are spelled according to the Ukrainian standard system of Romanization, as recommended by WP:UKR (and consistent with Nova Odesa).
WP:MODERNPLACENAME tells us to use a current name. Since the last move request was twelve and a half years ago, it’s about time to check consensus. —Michael Z. 04:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
This is a really thorough research into this question. Thank you very much! --Blomsterhagens (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
As of July 3, 2022:
 —Michael Z. 21:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Some other sources popped up.
 —Michael Z. 01:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Article name should be changed as suggested. Ukraine's national language is Ukrainian and Odesa is a part of Ukraine. Simple.XANIA - ЗAНИAWikipedia talk | Wikibooks talk 14:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Simple, but explicitly contradicts to the Wikipedia policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
The Kyiv precedent shows that it does not. The rational from that decision is directly applicable here. —Michael Z. 21:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
I'd strongly support using the Ukrainian spelling with one 's' (one 'с' in Cyrillic). I notice that this spelling is now being used by ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox, BBC, The Times, N.Y. Times, L.A. Times, and Houston Chronicle. The Washington Post and Chicago Tribune are outliers as the only major media I found using the old Russian spelling.RichardMathews (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

In english a single or double s affects the pronunciation of the preceding vowel, so Odesa in english is pronounced "ODEESA". With the double s it is the traditional "ODEHSSA". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:19B:C701:7500:D1D4:8C6A:7987:21C5 (talk) 03:11, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Recentism

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments2 people in discussion

@Blueginger2: Please take a look at WP:ONUS: The onus to get consensus that a text you want to see added is on you. Also please take a look at WP:AGF and don't call other editors' edits "vandalism". I don't think we should report each recent protest, see WP:RECENTISM. You might also want to take a look at WP:NOTNEWS: WP is no newspaper, Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. I think the stress here is on "enduring". Rsk6400 (talk) 10:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

the consequences are enduring because it shows people's dissatisfaction with 4 day long blackout. It puts current terrible conditions in Odessa in entire new perspective in the article. Before, it was not reported that blackouts are 4 days long and that government is stealing electricity. Blueginger2 (talk) 11:44, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
For the record: I never said that the sources were "good sources" or "satisfying" as Blueginger2 claimed in their edit summaries. I said "now completely sourced"[12], because in a preceding edit summary I had said "partly unsourced", meaning that I never commented on the quality of the sources, which I doubt. Please note that Blueginger2 has been blocked for 72 hours for edit warring. Rsk6400 (talk) 16:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
You never criticised the sources and had no comment about them when I added them to the text. Also, you had no comments when I stated that you believe the sources are good.Blueginger2 (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
@Rsk6400 my status here on Wikipedia is completely unrelevant to this discussion and this is pure personal attack on me. Administrators? @ToBeFree Blueginger2 (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Odesa or Odessa (Ukrainian: Оде́са /ɔˈdɛsɐ/ ; Russian: Оде́сса /ɐˈdʲesə/) is a....

This is the first city where the names aren't given right at the start. The russian Russian: Оде́сса should be included as a significant part of the population ante bellum was russian-speaking; "Odessa" is a better phonological fit, as in many languages including english, "Odesa" would have a longer "e", while the double-s shortens it, making it easier to pronounce correctly. --2003:C8:470C:6D00:C847:2CED:170F:9F9A (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

  Not done This was discussed a bit. This is like the only encyclopedia that clutters the leads with pronunciations, foreign spellings, and links that makes it hard to read. We don't eliminate anything but it is now in the name section where it can be discussed in greater detail. And in English, Odesa and Odessa don't differ in pronunciation. Most English folks don't pronounce Kyiv and Kiev differently for that matter. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Odesa is a Ukrainian city!!!

Latest comment: 1 year ago49 comments11 people in discussion

Odesa is Ukrainian city, so pls delete russian transliteration from the city’s description, it is very important in days of war in Ukraine started by russians with the aim to destroy Ukraine and Ukrainians. 2A02:8109:2740:1FEC:1956:9471:7618:3E0E (talk) 07:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello 2A02:8109:2740:1FEC:1956:9471:7618:3E0E, please note English spelling, this is Wikipedia.en. --Serols (talk) 07:14, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
This is the English language Wikipedia, and we use the forms of words and names normally used in English, no matter how they may appear in other languages. Thus, for example, we use "Italy", not "Italia", "Spain", not "Espagna", "Moscow", not "Moskva", and "Odessa", not "Odesa". JBW (talk) 09:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
It is not true that Odesa is not English: both spellings are used. If you do a news search, you’ll find that on some days Ukrainian-derived Odesa is used by more sources than Russian-derived Odessa. There is no longer a single WP:COMMONNAME. Some style guides and dictionaries have made Odesa their primary spelling. The situation is currently similar to when we chose to move Kiev to Kyiv. —Michael Z. 16:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Ukrainian people who speak Russian as their first language are not Russian. They are Ukrainian. The big pro-Russian mobs in Donetsk in 2014 were mostly people bussed in from Russia who did not even bother to reset the times on their watches from Russian time to Ukrainian time. They beat up and murdered Ukrainians who stood up to them (and yes, the Ukrainians they murdered spoke and thought in Russian, but were Ukrainian not Russian). Most Ukrainian people who live Odessa grew up speaking Russian. It is not appropriate to delete the native language name.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Just where is it being deleted? Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
I’m not suggesting it be deleted. I’m responding to misinformation in another comment above. —Michael Z. 22:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Odesa is certainly not the traditional English spelling. Odesa is modern politically motivated new spelling. It runs contrary to usual spelling rules (one s between two vowels usually makes Z: cousin, rose, reason, and teasing but crossing, passage, etc.) 98.143.210.7 (talk) 05:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Whatever the "motivation", the current most widely used spelling in media and other reliable sources is with one "s". English spelling rules since 1066 have never been "rules", but only "suggestions". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 07:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Ok... it is not traditional English. Agreed. But it has become the most common English spelling, which is what matters here. We don't care how Russians spell the city... we don't care how Ukrainians spell the city. English spells things the way they want and Wikipedia simply takes note of it. These spelling changes might have taken decades, perhaps never happened at all, except for the ruthless invasion of Ukraine that spiked the ire of the entire world and turned all things Russian into something worth avoiding. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Everything is political. Odessa is politically motivated colonial spelling. Reliable sources have made the moral choice about it. Wikipedia follows them.  —Michael Z. 07:27, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
And just to point out that there are many English words (like "Odesa") with one "s" between vowels that are pronounced with [s] and not [z]: mesa, peso, parasol, aerosol, increasing, decreasing, ceasing, leasing, encasing, basing, loosing, looses, nooses, etc. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 12:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
I wouldn't say everything is political. Barely anything in my life choices is political. And using Odesa is certainly not the "moral" choice, it's simply a choice in an anti-Russian world right now. Russia's invasion greatly accelerated spelling changes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Maybe (I was paraphrasing Ai Wei Wei).
But the colonial name Odessa, part of the mass toponymic hellenization imposed by a Russian monarch intended to give the impression that conquered Turkic Muslim lands were terra nullius, and where a self-proclaimed inheritor of the same empire is now accused of conducting genocide against Crimean Tatars and other Ukrainians, is heavily steeped in politics. Anyone who claims it’s apolitical in the face of its rejection is playing politics (even in the unlikely case they’re somehow unaware that they are).  —Michael Z. 15:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
So then Odesa is a colonial name. Mellk (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Pretty sure reliable sources don’t say so. Do you tell people Russia was forced to invade Ukraine to defend itself from genocide, too?  —Michael Z. 04:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
So Odesa has nothing to do with Odessa? It was known as Odesa but the Russians imposed two s's as as part of their colonialism? Mellk (talk) 04:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
You pronounced this nonsense. Not me.  —Michael Z. 04:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
You are saying that Odessa is a colonial name (part of the mass toponymic hellenization imposed by a Russian monarch intended to give the impression that conquered Turkic Muslim lands were terra nullius) but act as if Odesa has nothing to do with Odessa. Also calling it the "moral choice", and when your faulty logic is exposed this is your response, OK. Thanks for really enlightening me there. Mellk (talk) 04:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
“So then Odesa is a colonial name.” It is not.
“So Odesa has nothing to do with Odessa? It was known as Odesa but the Russians imposed two s's as as part of their colonialism?” I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
“Act as if Odesa has nothing to do with Odessa.” – you use this as if it were a dire and damning accusation, but I cannot take offence as I have no idea what it is.  —Michael Z. 00:40, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Others already understood the point. Odesa is simply a minor respelling of what you call the colonial name. It is the same name. How Odesa is not a colonial name but Odessa is... I am not sure how you are arguing this. Mellk (talk) 04:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Ah, some here are arguing there’s no difference? Then why are they arguing? And why did Ukraine pass laws on this, and why are foreign invaders tearing down signs and monuments and replacing school curriculums they say represent “Nazism,” “genocide,” and “satanism”?  —Michael Z. 14:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
By this logic Odesa as just as bad as Odessa and the only politically correct name is Khadjibey.
We do not and should not be making this sort of moral judgement when we choose how we name articles, because this is counter to WP:NPOV. Per WP:NPOV, Wikipedia as an institution does not care how a name came about. We even use explicitly propagandistic names for some articles, like Great Leap Forward.
By the same token, of course, if the real world conditions have changed, meaning that the appropriate name for the article has changed, then we move the article - even if the motivation for the real world change is purely political in nature. Kahastok talk 17:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Please don’t make the mistake of thinking the editorial principle of neutral POV requires us to become amoral human beings. Wikimedia’s mission is to empower people, not turn them into soulless machines. The guidelines support respect for people and their rights.
The editors of Crimean Tatar Wikipedia call the city Ades, listing Hacıbey as historical name. Please check your moral pronouncements, big brother.  —Michael Z. 04:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
It does, to a large extent. This is why the name of Tunceli is not Dersim, for example. Most editors know that Tunceli is a very problematic name that is the result of a propagandistic effort to erase a massacre of Kurds; that does not mean we can change the naming present in that article. On a more personal note, the same thing is true for the article classical music; Wikipedia guidelines do not allow for us to change this to "Western classical music", and instead we have to contend with a very Eurocentric definition that reinforces concepts of Western exceptionalism.
Kahastok and Mellk make good points; and what Crimean Tatar editors call the city does not actually support your conclusion. Indeed, they call the city Ades because that is the common name; not because they think it is the "morally correct" name. And you still have to answer to the fact that Odesa is simply a respelling of the name given to the city for imperial reasons. Uness232 (talk) 06:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
The prevailing spelling changed to Odesa for reasons related to the decolonization that Ukraine is undergoing right now, and Wikipedia followed suit when we renamed this article.
I do not have to “answer for” anything. But if the above is not absolutely self-explanatory, I’ll look out for sources to improve the article to spell it out in detail. —Michael Z. 01:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Sorry for my usage of "answer for", that was not my intended tone, nor was it appropriate. However, your point still makes no sense to me. Odesa may be portrayed as "decolonizing" in the sense that it uses a native spelling, but it still very much is a colonial name. It would be the equivalent of, using the same example, renaming Tunceli to something like "Tunjəli" to reflect local pronunciation. But the history of that name still remains the same; Odesa is simply a different way to spell Odessa.
As you pointed out:
But the colonial name Odessa, part of the mass toponymic hellenization imposed by a Russian monarch intended to give the impression that conquered Turkic Muslim lands were terra nullius, and where a self-proclaimed inheritor of the same empire is now accused of conducting genocide against Crimean Tatars and other Ukrainians, is heavily steeped in politics.
This would make Khadjibey/Hacıbey/Hocabey etc. the least problematic name, but indeed this still presents an issue. This Turkic name, while not imposed, is also the result of an imperial incursion. This would leave the city with no unproblematic names. So instead of inconsistently trying to delete names of the city for some moral cause, let's just list the names being used for the city, according to Wikipedia policy.
One last point that Toddy1 has also made:
Ukrainian people who speak Russian as their first language are not Russian. They are Ukrainian.
People who spell Odesa with the Odessa spelling are no less citizens of Ukraine than those who use one "s". They are not using "a foreign name", they're simply using the standardized spelling of their city in their own mother tongue. To characterize that name as an "other" is fundamentally misguided, and in a way plays right into Russian excuses for imperial ambition. Uness232 (talk) 07:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
I’m not arguing which is the best name or spelling, or which people are citizens of Ukraine and how that is expressed in some unnamed individuals’ choice of English spelling. The vague scenario in your last paragraph seems to be about someone specific, and someone else specific who said something “misguided” about them. I never said any of that about whoever it is you’re referring to. So if you’re accusing me of something then please do it clearly without vague proverbs.
Ukrainians chose the Ukrainian language in the 1980s, and chose to romanize place names from Ukrainian in the 1990s. And the Anglosphere is finally noticing that they are decolonizing and has shown respect for it. I wish more editors here could do likewise instead of grumbling about Ukrainians’ choices or denying them as the source of this article’s title.
We’re far gone from discussing specific improvements in the article, and I don’t think anyone’s benefitting from what I have to say. Apropos of WP:NOTCHAT, I’d like to be finished with this discussion now.  —Michael Z. 23:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
While I still am puzzled by the points you're making (and your general goal in arguing), that may be on me. Have a good day. Uness232 (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

What incredible nonsense! There are two "ss" in the russian form because there are two sigmas in the Greek form that Catherine the Greek based the name of the city on: Ὀδησσός. There's nothing "colonial" about that. In general, when Ukrainian spelling began to be standardized, nearly everything in russian that was written with double letters was reduced to being written with just one letter (like Ukrainian Росія for russian Россия). But if you want the culprit for the double "ss" in "Odessa", then blame the Ancient Greeks. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 02:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Respecting Ukrainians’ choice of naming places in their land is respecting their incredible effort at decolonization against a power trying to destroy them. Wilfully denying the very existence of their choice is incredibly sad and pathetic.
Cripes, you even define Ukrainian names in Ukraine as “everything in Russian” and call it “reduced” by being expressed without the presence of Russian. Can you even hear yourself?  —Michael Z. 00:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
One last thing before I disengage with this conversation, because you're reading this extremely uncharitably. "Everything in Russian" clearly means "All of the Russian-origin names in Ukraine written with double letters", not "every name in Ukraine, being Russian". Furthermore, "was reduced" is not about a decrease in quality; it's about reduction in letter count, as seen in how these phrases are ordered:
nearly everything in russian that was written with double letters --> was reduced to --> being written with just one letter
You might have problems with phrasing, which I understand; but what is clearly being communicated here, is that as Ukrainian spelling was standardized, Ukrainians standardized writing many names with "ss" in Russian as "s". They did not change the name, simply spelled it differently; and the name therefore still carries its imperial connotation; and I would argue this is true for every name given to this city. Uness232 (talk) 05:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
That is an overly narrow interpretation, ignoring that Kyiv/Kiev is another example of a name being decolonized on exactly the same principle. We also have Bakhmut/Artemivsk, Yañı Qapı/Krasnoperekopsk, and many others. —Michael Z. 14:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Well, the argument isn't that Ukrainians are not right to change the spelling of their names. There was a simple premise in this conversation, which is based on this claim you made:
Please don’t make the mistake of thinking the editorial principle of neutral POV requires us to become amoral human beings. Wikimedia’s mission is to empower people, not turn them into soulless machines.
later adding,
But the colonial name Odessa, part of the mass toponymic hellenization imposed by a Russian monarch intended to give the impression that conquered Turkic Muslim lands were terra nullius, and where a self-proclaimed inheritor of the same empire is now accused of conducting genocide against Crimean Tatars and other Ukrainians, is heavily steeped in politics. Anyone who claims it’s apolitical in the face of its rejection is playing politics (even in the unlikely case they’re somehow unaware that they are).
This is fundamentally a moral argument to change the naming structure of the article from what it is now. My (and from what I gather, also others') point is that Odesa with one "s" is still not very "moral" by your own argument. It is a respelling, it does not change what the word indexes, neither does it undo the "toponymic hellenization" you talked about. Conversations like this are why Wikipedia policies do not change based on the moral arguments of editors, and while we're entitled to our opinions on this platform, as a group we can be in situations where we have to act, as you said, as "amoral human beings" by some editors' standards. Also see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Uness232 (talk) 15:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
RGW would be resisting the use of a newly adopted spelling like Odesa or Kyiv after a successful RM for reasons.  —Michael Z. 05:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
And this argument is not about that. I never said that Odesa should not be used, I simply don't see a reason per Wikipedia policy (nor your own reasoning) that the naming structure should be changed from what it is now, other than your own moral convictions; which is RGW. Uness232 (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Wait a minute. Wikipedia doesn't give a flying fig what Ukrainians choose as their spelling. This is the English language spelling here. If it happens to coincide with the Ukrainian choice, fine and dandy. If it doesn't, fine and dandy also. We aren't in the business of respecting what a country wants, only what English language dictates to us through sourcing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I think that some of you misunderstood my post, that I was supporting the retention of two "ss" in Ukrainian toponymics. I was just making the point that there was no conscious colonialism inherent in the use of two "ss" because they originate from a simple transliteration from the Ancient Greek name (for a nearby location). I do, however, support Ukraine's right to respell or rename toponyms within its borders just as Americans respelled "colour", "theatre", and "colonising" when they achieved their own independence from Britain. That said, Fyunck is perfectly correct--the issue isn't about Ukrainian or Russian at all. It's about what is the most common spelling in modern reliable sources in English. And there is a very, very rapid shift from two "ss" to one "s" in this city's name in English language sources. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I thank you for clarifying. But I think you are still avoiding part of the story. Why is there a very, very rapid shift? Because of more active and broader decolonization of Ukraine. Is there not conscious colonialism on the part of people who refuse to respect it?  —Michael Z. 04:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Well, silence in the face of colonialism yes, but concious colonialism? Most people don't use Aotearoa for New Zealand, nor do they use Dersim for Tunceli; and while it is arguable that a vocal minority of this group engage with this in bad faith, the idea that everyone who does not respect decolonized place names is conciously being colonial is not very defendable, I don't think.
Getting past that, as Taivo has pointed out:
--the issue isn't about Ukrainian or Russian at all. It's about what is the most common spelling in modern reliable sources in English. And there is a very, very rapid shift from two "ss" to one "s" in this city's name in English language sources.
This is what the latest RM was about. Odesa overtook Odessa in usage, so we changed the article's name. Odessa is still in somewhat common usage (as pointed out in the RM) so we're keeping it. Compare Mumbai, for example. Uness232 (talk) 08:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
It took about a decade of regular (if not constant) discussions to change "Kiev" to "Kyiv" here. I suspect that a lot of the reaction to the "Odessa" to "Odesa" change is fueled by the relative speed with which it happened. In normal times, the change would have taken more time. But a certain ruzzian dictator changed the speed of all these changes in February of last year when he sent his tanks across Ukraine's border. Within just a few weeks of that event, English language news media had completed the change from "Kiev" to "Kyiv", "Odessa" to "Odesa", "Dnipropetrovsk" to "Dnipro", "Kharkov" to "Kharkiv", etc. I'm not surprised that a lot of Wikipedia editors are suffering whiplash. But that's what war does in the real world--accelerate changes to things that might take a decade to change otherwise. Such is the case here. contemporary English language sources changed virtually overnight. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 13:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Yep. The rapid shift has nothing to do with a "more active and broader decolonization of Ukraine." It has to do with the Russian invasion and anti-Russian sentiment in the English speaking world. Otherwise we'd still be at Kiev and Odessa for years and decades or forever for all we know. The war has pushed the linguistics of Ukrainian place-names into the corner of anti-Russian, not pro-Ukrainian. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Not sure if I'd agree with your phrasing @Fyunck(click), but that's still irrelevant. What matters is that per Wikipedia policy, this argument should not be happening. Odesa is now WP:COMMONNAME, with Odessa still being important both historically and as an alternative usage. The political connotations of this is irrelevant in Wikipedia's eyes. Uness232 (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Of course it's irrelevant. I was simply answering someone who said why it happened, and is wrong about why it happened. Odesa is now the most common spelling and it's what we use per wikipedia guidelines. However, Odessa is still a very common spelling. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I’d suggest the change had been remarkably slow, considering that the Russian colonial bias in Western academia was identified in the 1950s,[13] and Ukraine established its official language and international place naming in the 1990s. The West was inexcusably slow to recognize its own Russo-centric WP:BIAS and see Ukraine as a former colonial subject right up until it was confronted head-on with the brutality of Russia’s neo-imperial invasion and its incitement to genocide. Even most historians and other experts on Eastern Europe were asleep at the wheel up to this year, and many are rushing to make up for it.[14]  —Michael Z. 23:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
This can be said about many issues of political and cultural influence. As someone involved in a non-Western classical music tradition, I know and understand the frustration of academia ignoring, generalizing, and worse, denigrating undeservedly. There are, however, certain Wikipedia policies in play here that aren't interpreted as flexibly by most people as to remove a still-common spelling for a city. Change the WP:COMMONNAME, yes, but ignore the alternative? Not yet. If the spelling Odessa is still recognizable as Bombay is for Mumbai, for example, it will likely stay, no matter the connotations. Uness232 (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I am not arguing to do that. I am saying editors will fail to understand the subject if they cling to some of these principles, especially the baseless notion that Wikipedia is amoral and that changes to articles are never affected by moral questions, and which is regularly used to justify unjustifiable inflexibility (as above, when citing “English-speaking” and “anti-Russian” boogymen as responsible for even partial decolonizing efforts during an actual violent war of colonization). Wikipedia's mission is explicitly a moral one, its editors are moral beings, and so are the people who created its sources.  —Michael Z. 20:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Changes to articles are absolutely affected by moral questions, but the claim that Wikipedia is, at least ideally, amoral is not a baseless one. I would argue that it is usually considered best practice to --as much as we possibly can-- leave our desires aside and act systematically, within the policies and guidelines, and if these policies and guidelines cause problems we try to change them, either by carving out exceptions, or by opting for more radical changes. Either way, Talk:Odesa is not the right place to argue over this, I don't think. Uness232 (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia’s (moral) purpose is “to benefit readers.” One of its five pillars is “respect and civility.” Everything we do is based on this. If we just pay attention we can also see expressions of guiding morality in the most respected and neutral sources, but I won’t get into it here.
I can’t just ignore an editor soap-boxing about basic respect and civility towards Ukraine’s decolonization being “anti-Russian” where we discuss how to frame Ukrainian history (courtesy pinging @Fyunck(click)). But you’re right, this conversation is out of scope, and perhaps we can end it here. —Michael Z. 20:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

This article should probably be renamed to 'Odessa'

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Over the past year, a select few editors have been imposing their own personal, biased moral beliefs on all readers of this article (WP:TE). When confronted with rational counterarguments, they ignored them and instead cited a moral responsibility to change the name of the article from the original 'Odessa' to 'Odesa', directly violating Wikipedia guidelines and undermining the very core that this encyclopedia is built upon. Wikipedia should not become a pawn of political trends, but rather reflect a neutral and rational approach to all matters. Furthermore, editors should not act on impulses or enforce their own views of right and wrong, because this invariably leads to conflict, as people will always differ in what they consider morally wrong and morally right, making it impossible to reach the vital consensus that an encyclopedia requires.

Please only argue based on Wikipedia guidelines, not your interpretations of morality. 212.86.40.193 (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

If you wish to change the name of the article, you will need to persuade a consensus of editors that Odessa is the common name for the city in English, or that it otherwise is the name that best meets our naming criteria. You have not attempted to do this above.
For all that you say that people should "only argue based on Wikipedia guidelines, not your interpretations of morality", I note that you argue primarily based on your interpretations of morality and not based on Wikipedia guidelines. Kahastok talk 21:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Odesa/Archive_3&oldid=1255421219"