Talk:Mikhail Tukhachevsky
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
|
Related task forces...
|
|
Contents |
[edit] Russian spellings
I'm sure we have a page somewhere on the correct rendering of Russian names, but I can't find it. Our current article is called Mikhail Tukhachevsky, but Google says that Mikhail Tukhachevski is the correct spelling by a ratio of 10 to 1. Do we have a policy? Where is it? Adam 04:03, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Yes - we're supposed to go with what most english speakers call them. However, as the Kiev article demonstrates, not everyone abides by the rules. I think there's going to be a referrendum sooner or later. →Raul654 04:05, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)
Oops, actually I am wrong, the Google ratio is the other way around. But I still want to know, do we write Vasili or Vassily or Vasily? Semen or Semyen or Semyon? Konev or Koniev or Konyev or Kon'ev? The dispute over Kiev is different, it involves alternative Russian and Ukrainian spellings. Adam 04:09, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- If I'm not mistaken, one issue is that Russian passports used to (and possibly still do) carry translitterations following French usage, not English usage. Thus, Sergey is rendered as Serguei on those passports. David.Monniaux 07:14, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
OK well no-one seems to what out policy is, so I will do as I please. Adam 07:29, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Does it have any fixed transcription scheme for russian names into english? I know it has one standard one for Russian to German, but not sure if there is just one standard for english. andy 07:45, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
If there was a fixed scheme for Russian-English transcription, I wouldn't have had to ask my original question, now would I? There are several schemes. My question is, has Wikpwedia adopted one of them? If so, which one? Does anyone know? Adam 07:55, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
This is the nearest I have got to an answer (section 3.1 I recall). Pfortuny 16:42, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, but that doesn't really help. It is an argument about the presentation of names, rather than their spelling. It doesn't help me for example in deciding between Yuri and Yury and Yurii, all of which are widely used. The record so far is Marshal Semyon Budyonny, who is also spelled Budenny, Budennii, Budyenni, Budyenny, Budyennii and Budyonni. Adam 00:34, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
OK well since no-one is able to advise me I am going to follow what seems to me the most sensible rule. In the name Будённый, I am going render ё as /yo/ rather than /e/ or /ye/, since that's how it's pronounced, and I'm going to render -ый as /y/ since /ii/ although orthographically correct looks very pedantic. Thus it become /Budyonny/. I also don't see why Russian biographical articles need to use the patronym in the article title, since that is not the way Russians are referred to in English. This means I will be moving some articles. If anyone wants to argue with me they are welcome. Adam 05:53, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
[edit] War of 1920
Should I expand the section explaining his command over bolshevik troops in the War of 1920? Is it needed? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 19:35, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)
- By all means, provided you do not drag in a whole lot of irrelevant Polish history and associated polemic. (Just a friendly warning.) Adam 05:18, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This particular warning is based on considerable experince of the passions that Polish history seems to arouse in the breasts of many Wikipedians. Adam 10:38, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- You do not warn other "passionate" users of British, American, German, Russian or Ukrainian origin, do you. :) Probably it's high time you understood that there are historians in other parts of the world as well and we share the same set of values regarding the truth and facts. It's only their interpretation that differs. I'm not offended but please, don't be so paternalist towards me. Such paternal advise (or friendly warning, as you call it) is out of place and might even be regarded as offensive to some. (Just a friendly explanation). [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 13:49, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Tukhachevsky Affair
Regarding the final chapter about the so-called 'Tukhachevsky Affair' and the framing of Tukhachevsky by the Nazi high command - with the collusion of Stalin, and the lack of new evidence. This is dealt with extensively in Vadim Rogovin's book '1937, Stalin's Year of Terror' (Mehring Books 1998, ISBN 0-929087-77-1 Paperback) - specifically Chapter 48 'The Stalin-Hitler Provocation' which deals in great detail with the collusion between Nazi & Communist Intelligence to frame Tukhachevsky. I will post something accordingly shortly on this.
[edit] Tukhachevsky: a holy martyr genius, or a bloody-handed terrorist/hangman idiot
The text of the current version is but an echo of the Nikita Khrushchev time propaganda.I have read his "scientific work." I intend to add a separate section with an alternative biography/characteristic of Tukhachevsky (without modifying the existing content). Prior to that, I would summon a discussion here. AbuAmir 19:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
http://hem.lidnet.se/~agzybirlik/tuhachvski.htm: T. sent to Tambov. Original command texts about war gases, against civilians
http://militera.lib.ru/science/tuhachevsky/index.html Thukhachevsky, selected writings, free fulltext russian
http://www.aif.ru/online/longliver/01-02/09_01?print neutral analysis
http://militera.lib.ru/science/tuhachevsky/01.html tukhachevsky suggests to convert comissars to comanding officers.
