Talk:Zinovy Rozhestvensky

Untitled

The family name of Vice-Admiral, commander of Second Pacific Task-Force was Rozhestvenski. Without any "D" letters! His family name doesn't have anything to do with "rozhdestvo" (Christmas). This error is extremely painful. In Russian: Зиновий Петрович Рожественский.

---

Hi, this is a difficult name for English speakers, and there are many versions of it. Searching Google I found the following matches:

• 1 for Rozhedestvenski
• 130 for Rozhestvenski
• 169 for Rozhedestvensky
• 1,180 for Rozhestvensky
• 14,500 for Rozhdestvenski
• 38,100 for Rozhdestvensky

Wikipedia conventions require the use of the most common name - so it may be correct to change it to Rozhdestvensky, but not to Rozhestvenski

Mmartins 16:16, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

To that time somebody wrote this poem in Britain:

And then an admiral came, a terrible man with a terrible name. A name we all know well, but nobody can speak and nobody spell.

---

Ok, I've made a disambiguation page at Rozhdestvenski (disambiguation) to hopefully make things clearer for English speakers. -Mmartins 1 July 2005 17:49 (UTC)

---

The admiral’s name was Рожественский. It does not contain the letter “д”, the Russian equivalent of “d”. There is no question about it, as anyone who speaks Russian will find soon enough if they consult Russian sources on the subject. The corresponding English spelling is Rozhestvensky (or Rozhestvenski, or Rozhestvenskiy, or Rozhestvenskii), and there is no reason on earth (transliteration rules or anything else) why a “d” should be added.

The ending is not that important. Whatever variant you use, it does not turn this name into a different one. What really matters is that the addition of the "d" does turn it into a different Russian family name (cf. Johnston/Johnson). It is true that the family name Rozhdestvensky (with a “d”) is much more common in Russia than Rozhestvensky (which probably explains why this unfortunate error occurred in the first place), but this is no reason to use one family name in place of the other.

---

I hope the above will convince whoever wrote/edits this and related articles that this is not a matter of “prevailing” English spelling or different “versions” of the same name and that the spelling with a “d” is wrong whether supported by “authoritative” English reference sources or not. If not, I encourage you to do some further research. The poor guy might have been the worst (or most unlucky) admiral ever, but he deserves his name to be spelt right, as do Wikipedia readers. --80.94.225.222 20:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I confirm what's written above and I believe the article SHOULD be moved to a correct name. One of Wikipedia goals should be correcting established mistakes. Pibwl [[User_talk:Pibwl|talk]] 22:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Leave it alone This is the English spelling, as the results above demonstrate. Septentrionalis 01:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this seems to be a very common mistake among English speakers, eg. searches for "Admiral Rozhdestvensky" and "Admiral Rozhestvensky" yield around the same number of results. A move is probably in order, provided it is well covered by redirects. Bastie 09:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok done. I've also fixed all the redirects. Bastie 10:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Article in need of improvement

Hello,

This article is in need of some serious review. There are several instances in the article where the author's opinion is stated as fact. For example: ". Even without Battleship combat experience, Admiral Rozhestvensky was the one man with the personality, skill, and determination to sail an untested battleship fleet on an unprecedented voyage to the other side of the world. " This entire statement is opinion. Worse, it is unsubstantiated. There is not a single instance mentioned in this entire article that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that Admital Rozhestvensky was a superior commander. If there are any unbiased historians out there who are experts on this man, and who can help improve this article, it would be much appreciated!

Biography on Admiral Rozhestvensky

It was interesting to see that the Admiral's death was actually described, to lung disease(?). Mr. Constantine Pleshakov's 2002 book entitled, "The Tsar's Last Armada..." was the only source previously seen on Admiral Rozhestvensky's death, as well as the closest writings on being close to a biography on this fighting admiral. Two questions here please; if someone can answer them:

1. Where was this information obtained on the Admiral's death? 2. Is there a biography available about Admiral Zinvoy Rozhestvensky? And if so, can the book be obtained in English? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.61.235 (talk) 02:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Zinovy Rozhestvensky. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081013053249/http://www.worldcourts.com/ici/eng/decisions/1904.11.25_doggerbank/index.htm to http://www.worldcourts.com/ici/eng/decisions/1904.11.25_doggerbank/index.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081013053322/http://www.worldcourts.com/ici/eng/decisions/1905.02.26_doggerbank/index.htm to http://www.worldcourts.com/ici/eng/decisions/1905.02.26_doggerbank/index.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070927063614/http://www.slashdoc.com/documents/94866 to http://www.slashdoc.com/documents/94866

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Neutral POV and comparison with Scheer

The German force at Jutland was in no way capable of fighting the Grand Fleet on an even footing, and to not retreat would've been suicidal. The contact was also entirely unexpected. Fortunately, retreat was an option. In the battle of Tsushima however the port of Vladivostok was behind the Japanese battleline. There was literally no option but to attempt a breakthrough. That entire section borders on an NPoV violation and isn't clear about it's citations, treating what are clearly opinions as facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.247.217 (talk) 22:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

After reading into it I do agree and have therefore added the POV-Template. It all reads somewhat biased and rambling. Rozhestvensky is compared with an admiral with whom, on the one hand, he had nothing in common except that they were both involved in a battle; hardly surprising since it is "part of the job description". ^^ Furthermore to say that Scheer turned by 180 degrees is quite flowery but not correct since there was a small battle. I therefore also added the Link to the Article about the Battle. But to quote:

“ Fourteen British and eleven German ships sank, with a total of 9,823 casualties. After sunset, and throughout the night, Jellicoe manoeuvred to cut the Germans off from their base, hoping to continue the battle the next morning, but under the cover of darkness Scheer broke through the British light forces forming the rearguard of the Grand Fleet and returned to port. ”

But I must also admit that there are others who know more about it and therefore offer to discuss it. Perhaps the author who wrote those sentences can also say something about it. --Wilhelm3 (talk) 01:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I have removed it as it is rambling, with several derogatory statements with no proof, calling out readers as armchair historians, and honestly seems like a bunch of unsubstantiated claims. Additionally, the author has not responded to comment on this, and I thus find no grounds for further delay. Cheers.