Talk:Guberniya

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Guberniya is within the scope of the Russian History WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian History. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former Countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of now-defunct states. If you would like to participate, visit the project page to join.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. (FAQ).
Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.


What is the proper plural form of Governorate General? Is it Governorates General? Governorate Generals? Governorates Generals?--Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 17:32, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

"Governorates General". It is French-style naming, "general" being an adjective. BTW it needs to be clarified how the notions "gubernator" and "general-gubernator" (and "guberniya" and "general-gubernatorstvo") were related." Mikkalai 19:07, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. As for the difference between "gubernator" and "general-gubernator", maybe I'll add it later, unless you already have something to add.--Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 19:15, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Governorate-General

The usual English term is in fact "Governor-Generalship", and in the Russian Empire at least it is not the same thing as a Губерния. A Guberniya is a province (normally known as an Oblast in the outlying regions of the Empire), and a Governor-General had authority over several provinces. In Turkestan, for instance, The Governor General had authority over the Syr-Darya, Ferghana, Samarkand and Transcaspian provinces. Sikandarji 14:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

With the English term may be right, but as to the rest you a right only partially. You probably didn't read the article carefully how the meaning of the term Governor General changed over the history. Mikkalai 19:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Fair Enough - although I had always thought that as military rulers they were in some ways the successors of the pre-Petrine Voevody. Try not to use 'Governorate General' though as it looks abominable in English.Sikandarji 08:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Russian Governor Generals of estonia

Has anywone got any info on the governor generals of russian estonia? --Dahlis 23:00, 2005 September 2 (UTC)

If no one answers you, I'll try to dig something up for you after I return on 9/20. Can't promise I'll find this exact info, though.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 01:03, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Governorate?

Why are we translating this as "Governorate?" The 1911 Britannica uses "Government" as its term for divisions of Russia, or alternately "Province." This would point to what the usage was at the time these things actually existed. Can we point to usage of "Governorate"? john k 17:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess the term came about in order to avoid using "guberniya", which is the direct transliteration from Russian and is unintuitive to the general English-speaking public. "Government" is too ambiguous (just try describing the history of the government of Smolensk Government and its differences from the government of Smolensk :)), and "province" is unacceptable because guberniyas themselves were administratively divided into provinces. "Governorate" seems to be the best adequate translation of the Russian "guberniya". With all due respect to Britannica (both 1911 and modern), the scope of their articles dealing with guberniyas is pretty limited, so they never ran into the problems we did. They also invented the term "sector" to refer to Russian raions, so I'd take whatever terminology they are using with a grain of salt.
That said, if you have a better solution, please voice it here. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I would say that we should use "government" in this article, because it is not ambiguous. In any other articles we can say "government (guberniya)". Thus, the Government (Guberniya) of Smolensk. Britannica 1911 has articles on most Russian guberniya, so I don't see the idea that the scope of their articles is especially limited. john k 19:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
All we have to do to use government, at any rate, is to say that Tsarist Russia was divided into "provinces called Governments (Guberniya)" or else "provinces called Guberniya ("governments")". Lots of words have multiple meanings. There is absolutely no reason not to use "government" a proper English word. There are other similar uses - the French military provinces in 1789 were Gouvernements. john k 19:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
If you are willing to do all the work that needs to be done to introduce such a change, go right ahead. You will need to start with History of the administrative division of Russia and its subarticles, change every instance of "Governorate" to "Government" or "Government (guberniya)", make sure all double redirects are fixed, verify that all backlinks are linked properly, and that all existing references to "governorates" are straightened out. You will also need to revise some of the narrative to make sure there are no "government" vs. "Government" ambiguities (I suggest you practice with my Smolensk example above first, writing a few paragraphs on the differences between the government of Smolensk and the government of Government of Smolensk; your practice passage doesn't need to be factual, just coherent). Once you do all that, I promise you (or any other editor who embarks on and finishes this tremendous endeavor) a barnstar or any other award of your (their) choosing.
I beg your pardon if I sounded a little sarcastic, but my point is that the expected final outcome simply does not justify the amount of work involved. It's one thing to mention that "Russia was divided into provinces called Governments/guberniyas" in the lead section of the guberniya article (which is a fine suggestion, although not terribly superior to what the lead is already saying now); it's a completely different matter to correct the whole naming scheme, hopefully without screwing things up. The value added by using what's arguably a better term, in my view, is quite marginal. If you are willing to spend your time on that, I have no problem with it, but please make sure that when you are done things are in the same or better condition than they are now.
As for the existence of lots of words with multiple meanings, that is, of course, true. It is also true that one usually seeks synonyms when two such words collide in one sentence in order for one's writing to be coherent. "Governorate" is just such a synonym in this case (one can imagine that due to the nature of the topic the meanings of "government" as "a governing body" and "an administrative unit" are bound to collide quite often). Unless you can show that "governorate" is an entirely incorrect term to use, I am not convinced that this whole correction thing is anything more than a fool's errand. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, and you have called my bluff - I don't think I'm up to the task of changing the whole wide variety of articles. I tend to dislike neologism translations, but it's probably not worth the effort. john k 22:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks; however, please note the section I added below. The term is far from being a neologism. If it were, I myself would be doing all the activities I so helpfully outlined to you above :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For reference

Lest you still have doubts, a google books search shows that the terms "governorate" and "governorate general" are valid. "Governorship" is also used, although a good portion of the hits refers to the post of the Governor, not the administrative unit.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)