Talk:Pinsk

Cluttering the lead

A note to those who keep re-adding the Polish and Yiddish names.

The logic behind the additional names in the first line is two-fold:

1. To provide the native spelling of the city (actually, I do not see the overwhelming need for this either, especially if the native name is non-Latin (one can always click on the wikilinked native WP article and find it out. But there is some logic behind it and, anyway, this became a wiki-wide tradition and part of the naming guidelines)
2. Provide the names one may encounter reasonably likely in the English language literature.

Note, that historic possession by some nation at some point of time may result in point two being the case but it does not always happens so. Speaking of Polish name, one is likely to find the Polish name for Navahradak in the English language literature but one is unlikely to encounter the Polish name of Kiev or Moscow in any English language sources even though Poland controlled both this cities at some periods of its history and you don't see the Polisn names in the first line of those articles as you don't see Russian: Варшава pasted in the beginning of the Warsaw article despite Russia controlled the coty for quite a while.

No one is going to forbid using the Polish name inside the articles and History of Kiev uses Kijow Voivodship in the text as well as the Smolensk article mentions Belarusian based Smalensk for the events connected with the announcement of the Belarusian People's Republic there. However, what matters is the scholarly usage in academic sources and not the possession in the past (or lack of it).

As such, if someone just can't sleep without the Polish name being somewhere in this article, please expand on the appropriate period of the place's history and introduce it there rather than through a quick but sloppy adding it to the first line where the result is the mere cluttering of it. If the desire to introduce the Polish name for Pinsk is just overwhelming and there is still no interest in doing something meaningful for the article, the quickfix solution is to add an entry to Cities' alternative names#P list article. At least there it is harmless and may be even useful.

Having a Yiddish name there is even more ridiculous and unjustified clutter. Yi-wiki is the place for such name as well as the list article. By all means, expand on the Jewish history of the city of course.

Finally, note that I removed the Russian name for the very same reason. The English language reader is unlikely to encounter the Cyrillic Пинск anywhere, it transliterates into the Latin in exact same way as the BE-name and ru:Пинск is just one click away. --Irpen 23:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Example of the use of Polish name in English

Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary (see Google Print link), published in 1998. So, the Polish name should be there at least. I have no opinion about any other ones. Balcer 00:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I would also prefer the general policy on Wikipedia to enforce the use of modern names only. However, right now that is quite simply not the case. Every single article on Wikipedia about a Polish town that used to be part of Germany before 1945 has the German name given. I don't see why the same policy of giving recent former names should not apply to towns which were part of Poland before 1939. Balcer 00:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, I would have opposed the policy you propose. Mentioning some foreign names might be warranted if their usage is English is notable. It is not the case here. Yiddish name has no place definetely. In this particular case, neither is the Polish name, as far as I can judge. One book is not enough. Here are the results of "Pińsk -pinsk" Google books search. No English books found. I accepted your argument in Baranovichi, but here it is simply not the case. --Irpen 06:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The arguments behind German names of Polish towns given were quite different. They are mentioned not because they are (or were) used in English, but because one might find them in maps, historical sources and so on. And this is certainly the case of cities that used to be part of Poland up to 1945. BTW, nobody has a problem with the Ukrainian name of Przemyśl mentioned, even though that city has never been a part of Ukraine, Russia or Soviet Union, nor is the Cyrillic name used in English. Yet, the readers might find it useful - and here it is. //Halibutt 11:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, this is not just any book, but a very comprehensive reference, Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary [1]. If it sees the Polish name important enough to mention (in 1998!), there must be some use of it in the English language. On the other hand, I must admit that the current name Pinsk is almost exactly the same as the Polish "Pińsk" ("ń" vs "n"), so it is not absolutely essential to include the Polish version here. Nevertheless, given that it appears to be quite common to use pre-1939 names in articles about European cities that changed owners after the war, I do not see why an exception to that rule should be made here. Balcer 11:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, I stand by that a single book is not enough and besides, it is the same name with a redundant (for an Enlgish reader) diatric symbol. There "must be" some use and "there is" some is not one and the same. If you can show that it was indeed quite common 50 years ago in articles written in English I will withdraw my objection.

Halibutt, above I made several proposals for you on how you can, with some effort, make the usage in the article justifiable. You are more interested in mere polonizing than doing work, which is sad, indeed. Note, that I excluded the Russian name too, btw. Finally, as for Peremyshl, this is an unrelated issue. If you remove it from there, the burden of proof to justify its inclusion would be on me and other Ukrainian editors. I will study the case and if I can make it, I will re-add it back. Now, if this topic interests you, please expand on the Polish history of Pinsk, just like Piotrus wrote half a paragraph in the middle of the Kiev article and Kijow Voivodship is there ever since.

I don't care about your issues with the German editors. I apply here the same rule of thumb that already exists for the cities in UA as it finally settled between us and our Polish, Romanian and Russian colleagues. Cities with English usage have the relevant names, cities without usage don't, no matter whether they were under Poland before. As such, there is no Polish name in the first line of Kiev, there is a Romanian name in the first line of Chernivtsi and there isn't in Chernivtsi Oblast, as the subdivision itself (unlike Bukovyna) being a modern creation has no Romanian history. Now, please take it easy and accept that Poland is not going to repeat its expansions in any forseeble future. --Irpen 20:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope, Irpen. We're responsible for our actions. If I write something, it's up to me to source it. If I delete something, it's up to me to convince the rest of the community that the deletion is indeed good for the article, and not just for my own POV. So is the case here.

Also, I don't think you're right when you suggest that I am more interested in mere polonizing than doing work. It seems like an usual piece of slander that is intended to make people (and me in particular) jump into pro personam arguments. I would appreciate it if you refrained from such quasi-arguments in the future.

Przemyśl is not an unrelated issue, just like Gdańsk, Sejny or Kaliningrad are not unrelated to this issue here. There's an all-wiki agreement to put alternative names in the headers and it seems fine. It also seems fine to you as long as it's Polish cities that have their alternative names mentioned. Why should it be different for towns that have been a part of Poland for roughly half of their existence?

Having said that, please take it easy and accept that fears of Poles repeating any expansionism border paranoia, quite uncommon in the world nowadays. This is a merithoric dispute, not some inter-state controversy or some battle for history. //Halibutt 22:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, you are being quite transparent in your comment that "Yiddish name has no place here" in a city that the article itself says had a Jewish population of 74%. Additionally, the first president and fourth prime minister of Israel were born in Pinsk and both spoke Yiddish. With the inextricably intertwined history of "Pinsk" and "Jewish Pinsk" your statement that the Yiddish name definitely has no place in this article strikes me as a further attempt to further remove us Jews from Pinsk's history. 208.125.143.178 (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Halibutt, the issue of Peremyshl is indeed related. The issue of Kaliningrad is not. I explained to you many times that when the city was actually renamed it's not the same thing as arguing between different national spellings of one and the same name. I single usage in a single English language source among the thousands of books is not enough to justify cluttering the lead. There is much more usage of Varhava in English language sources. No one inserts it yet to the first line of Warsaw. If you think it belongs there, show this to us all by adding it yourself. --Irpen 05:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe have a Poll?

For me both variants of the first line:

• Clutter - with be,pl,ru and yi
• And be-only

are acceptable. The variant be+pl without ru looks like a WP:POINT and it is interesting how its proponents would support it.

I would personally prefer the be-only variant as the difference between the Polish name and the English one of only a diacric mark (as well as difference between Be and Ru in i/и letters) have no value for the 99% of Wikipedia readers (and anyway the Polish and Russian names are on Interwiki, just one click away). I understand this a matter of a personal taste, so maybe we could have a poll rather than an edit war to solve the matter? abakharev 05:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a need for a poll because this is a part of the broader issue and should be resolved globally. I always emphasized (and others have agreed mostly) that there are three separate, albeit related issues: 1) name of the article (strict rules); 2) names allowed in the first line (reasonably expansive rules); 3) usage within articles (more flexibility but still common sense)

We are talking about issue 2 here. I was not following the PL-DE debates but I was closely following the EE placenames and, although the rule did not crystallized in guidelines yet, the tradition was to add to the first line the names the reader is reasonably likely to find in English. So far, only one book, out of the thousands, has been produced where the name with the Polish diactric is given separately, much less than a number of books that use Varshava. It's the likelyhood of finding the name in English is what's the key and not the pocession or occupation at some point of time or the other. There is no question that Danzig and Gdansk are frequently met in books. There is no dispute that Nowogrodek is used in some English lang sources. It is just not so for Pińsk and only one book that uses it has been demonstrated.

For this very reason I purged the Russian name as well. It is an English Wikipedia and whoever wants to find the Russian Cyrillic spelling (or the Polish diactrical spelling for that matter), the appropriate i-wiki article is just one click away. As a good will gesture, I added this entry to the Cities' alternative names#P list and I hope my prolific opponent will spend his valuable time on the more productive activity, than cluttering the lead of the Belarusian city article. (and again, please don't clutter the talk page by comparing the issue with a really different one of Kaliningrad or Stalingrad, when the cities where actually renamed. We are talking only about cities where the same name is spelled differently in different languages). --Irpen 16:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well if we take only one lead language then it will have to be ru only, and no be. Why because Belarusian in official Belarus is NOT a primary lanaguage. So I propose to leave the lead as it is and not bother.--Kuban Cossack 13:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Notable Residents

Are they in any particular order? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.78.119 (talk) 12:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

CCI review

The relevant edit is here.

Earwig shows a significant overlap with this site.

This site does have multiple snapshots in the Internet archive. One shortly before the edit in question is:

this one in 2006

Earwig shows substantial overlap: Earwig

It is mainly the early history section. While some of those sentences may have been edited subsequently, I think the easiest action is to remove the entire section and let editors start over.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: While I have no objections to removing the section, overshighting virtually the entire history of this article abut a major town for 15 years (since 2006) seems over the top. This eventually removed the entire 15 years of history. I don't think this is fair. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Piotrus, As a minor point, it's revision deletion not oversight. (while a minor point, it means if you need to see the material only need to track down an admin rather than an oversighter.) I don't like what it does to articles when it is necessary to remove something from early on the history, but there isn't any alternative I know of. I thought it might be nice for the foundation to build a tool that could reconstruct the history in such cases but I don't even recall whether I formally proposed it.

I have encountered other situations where an editor was concerned about losing access to some material other than that associated with the copyright issue. In such cases, I have offered to undo the revision deletion so they can access some material and then re-imposed it. I'm happy to do that here, although that's obviously not the ideal solution. If the community concludes (and legal concurs) that we should ignore hiding of copyright violations in some circumstances, I'm fine with that. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: I can't fault your explanation, but I think such wide ranging deletion should IMHO merit at least a second opinion. Is there a more specialized forum we could ask for one outside WP:AN? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Piotrus: As indicated above, it's a problem with poor design of the software. Unfortunately, copyright violations are a violation of all the things, local policy: terms of use, and local law. But this is the only clumsy tool that the software gives us to enact that. GMG^talk 17:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Came to give my 2p-worth: when deciding whether or not to revdelete a copyvio, we always have to weigh the benefit against the potential damage. For recent violations, revdeletion is automatic – the history is not made substantially less accessible by doing it. For older copyvios like this one, the magnitude of the copyvio comes into play: no-one is going to hide 1000 revisions because of one offending sentence in 2004 (well, I hope they aren't!). This appears to have been a serious large-scale copy-paste, and there's really very little we can do to put that cat back in the bag – it will have been copied and re-copied from us over the last fourteen years; however, we can at least put our own house in order. I think revdeletion is entirely appropriate here, and I'd have made the same call as Sphilbrick. Although it's a substantial proportion of the history of the page, it is "only" about 350 revisions, so not particularly large compared with some such situations. Non-admin editors have no difficulty accessing the material that's been removed, as it is available here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to have to differ with the above: I think this is excessive. From Wikipedia:Revision_deletion#Large-scale_use, the relevant policy: RevisionDelete is mainly intended for simple use and fairly recent material. Text that exists in numerous revisions (e.g. on busy pages) or which has been the subject of many others' comments may not be practical to redact. Redaction of such material should take into account how practical and effective redaction will be, how disruptive it would be (e.g. to others' valid posts), and whether redaction will itself draw attention to the issue. We are talking about hundreds of edits over a timespan of 15 years, this clearly isn't simple use on recent revisions. There is no requirement that all copyright violations must be reveled, as one of the above comments seems to suggest - that view isn't even consistent with the revision deletion policy. Furthermore a large chunk of material removed by Sphilbrick was not derived from the edits by Dr. Blofeld and therefore isn't copyvio. Hut 8.5 22:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. Probably over 90% of the oversighted material is copyvio free. Doesn't it removal violate Creative Commons license? For example my edit from 02:34, April 29, 2009; shouldn't I have the right to see my contribution? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm hoping we can reprise and continue this discussion on the talk page of copyright policy: Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#RD1_in_case_of_old_edits--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

For wider policy-level applications, that's a good venue, but I'd like to keep this discussion open with regards to whether we can consider undoing some of the rev delete here, per Wikipedia:Revision_deletion#Large-scale_use. "Text that exists in numerous revisions (e.g. on busy pages) or which has been the subject of many others' comments may not be practical to redact. Redaction of such material should take into account how practical and effective redaction will be, how disruptive it would be (e.g. to others' valid posts), and whether redaction will itself draw attention to the issue." I'd like to propose undoing the revdel, as in my view it is not appropriate in this case (too many edits by too many editors from too large span of time are affected). On a more constructive note, I'll also volunteer to rewrite any offended parts for the current revision. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Pinsk Montage (2017)

The first photo on top shows a Pinsk State Agrarian-Technical College named after A.E. Kleschev, not a Poleskiy State University. 93.125.1.86 (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)