Talk:3rd Belorussian Front

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.

[edit] Belorussian or Byelorussian

Moved from Talk:Battle of Berlin, which is a highly improper page to talk about the issue.

Taken from the History of the page

  • (cur) (last) 22:54, 31 Dec 2004 Mikkalai (Sorry; rv back. In this case it doesn't matter what can be found elsewhere. Wikipedia uses the official name of Byelorussian SSR, and there are three Byelorussian Fronts, for consistency reasons)
  • (cur) (last) 14:13, 31 Dec 2004 Philip Baird Shearer (Reverted because "Belorussian Front" twice as common as "Byelorussian Front" with google. Belorussian used by A Beevor in Berlin the Downfall 1945.)
  • (cur) (last) 05:29, 31 Dec 2004 Mikkalai m

Mikkalai you are being disingenuous. Both spellings are used in Wikipedia eg Belorusian language and Byelorussian SSR. There are also redirects from Belorussian language Belorussian SSR

As most of the sources about the battle of Berlin, like the books by A Beevor, "Berlin the Downfall 1945", one of the definitive accounts of the battle, use the term "Belorussian Front". This is not a new usage "Battle for Berlin end of the third Reich" by Earl F Ziemke published in 1968 uses "Belorussian Front". I do not have "The Last Battle" by Cornelius Ryan, please could someone look and see what is used by him. This article should use what most military historians use: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Historical names and titles. Please explain why you do not agree with this. Philip Baird Shearer 14:27, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Based on my own observations I concur with Philip, "Belorussian Front" is without doubt the most commonly used name. I just wonder is this another Kiev/Kyiv or Danzig/Gdansk type thing? GeneralPatton 15:27, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
By the way, what happend to the old talk on this article? There was a few 1000 words worth of discussion here. GeneralPatton 15:29, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Don't know what happened. I made a minor edit of the section and it threw away all the rest :-( I guess I made a mistake but don't know what it was Philip Baird Shearer 15:44, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I also note that Mikkalai changed the word Belorussian to Byelorussian on the pages Ivan Chernyakhovsky on 31 Dec 2004 and Front (Soviet Army) on 22 Nov 2004. I also note that a page exists called 3rd Byelorussian Front with a redirect page called Third Belarussian Front. So this is an issue which effects other pages as well as this one. Philip Baird Shearer 15:44, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with both Philip and Patton - I believe Belorussian is the more common version. →Raul654 16:03, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Neither. Belarusan or Belarusian (pronounced with an "s" not "sh").

Happy New Year. --rydel 16:45, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd go for "Belarusian", which is the most common version. jguk 16:52, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
So, Belorusian or Belorussian?

rydel why did you change the page without discussing it first and trying to get a consensus? The URL you have posted in interesting. The number of pages has changed since October 2002, but the ratio of usage seems to be about the same. The URL states that "Obviously, Belarusian is the leader, and indeed it is widely accepted to be the correct form of the adjective. It is used in United Nations documents and in English versions of official government documents in Belarus...Given the destructive nature of the Russian imperial rule that Belarus had to endure, many people in Belarus would find the adjective Byelorussian [and Belorussian] even offensive.", but should that be a guide for a historic name of a Soviet Army Group? The common term used by (English publishing) military historians is Belorussian (eg see A. Beevor "Berlin the Downfall 1945" first mentioned on Page 13)[1]. On goolgle using the English Language filter:

  • "Belorussian Front" returns 967
  • "Byelorussian Front returns 496
  • "Belarussian Front" returns 305
  • "Belarusian Front" returns 25
  • "Belorusian Front" returns 2
  • "Belarusan Front" returns 1 Philip Baird Shearer 18:20, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I concur. The mentioned Rydel's link speaks about the modern usage. We are discussing the historical usage. Mikkalai 18:53, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Byelorussian SSR is the official name of the country that no longer exists and the name of the main article. Belarus is a new country. There was Ivory Coast and there is Burkina Faso. Emperor Nero didn't live in Italy. What's disingeniuos in this? I'd call it disanachronistic. Mikkalai 17:44, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This discussion is clearly in the wrong place. It has no immediate relation to the Battle of Berlin. It has relation to the naming of the country at this period of time. It doesn't matter hwow the Front is named in other books. There should be consisitency throughout wikipedia how we name the country it that period of time, when there was no Internet. Please move the discussion to Wikipedia:Naming conventions, with references from talk pages with the names related to Byelorussian SSR. As for me, you can vote to call the country White Ruthenian SSR, if you prove yourself, but once you reach the decision, please make the corresponding changes for consistency. I spent innumeral days in chasing all versions to have a single name, so that the aricles could be linked together. If you will destroy my work back into chaos by randomly changing the name here and there, I will restore it. My sole goals are consistency and linkedness of information, unlike the mentioned Kyiv/Kiev thingy.

If you are military history experts (I am not), then please write the missing articles, so that all other names could be linked to them. In this case I will have no objection. Also, one can continue naming discussions on the corresponidng pages. Happy New Year! Mikkalai 17:44, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also, before doing name changes in red links it is always a good idea to go into the corresponding empty page and see what links from it. For example, please try 2nd Byelorussian Front, 2nd Belorussian Front, 2nd Belarussian Front, 3rd Byelorussian Front, 3rd Belorussian Front. Only then you act consistenly, rather than arbitrarily, in a single your favorite page.

I will not respond at this page further. Thank you. Mikkalai 18:10, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Also, before doing name changes in red links it is always a good idea to go into the corresponding empty page and see what links from it.
Lets see what links to 2nd Byelorussian Front
If only you had follwed you own advice...
Mikkalai as you will see from the discussion above this had nothing to do with what the country/region was or was not called, but what is commonly used in Military historians and by the authors of pages in Wikipedia, for the names of the Fronts.
Mikkalai has renamed half a dozen page links from their common names to one which HE thinks are more consistent and he say If you will destroy my work back into chaos by randomly changing the name here and there, I will restore it...I will not respond at this page further... What is the usual method of resolving such disputes? Philip Baird Shearer 19:40, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I am saying this was an improper page for discussion. You seem to listen only to yourself. What's wrong with HE thinks are more consistent? Where were you before, when there was a complete chaos in naming of Soviet Fronts? Now you are smart and I am bad.
The key word is randomly changing the name here and there. I am aiming at consistency. If you want another name, do it, but do it consistently, like I did, in your example above, probably intended to uncover my nasty voluntaristic behavior. You probably didn't notice that what I did was creating non-existing links from multiple spellings to one and the same name. If you don't like the name, change it, but consistently and uniformly. Mikkalai 19:55, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
P.S. If you think that I am dumb and calling you to run over dozens of articles and change the names everywhere, here is my hint: write an article stub under your favorite name, and a couple of redirects from less favorite names.
FAQ
Question: Why did Mikkalai not follow his own advice?
Answer: I am not a expert in military hstory and don't pretend to be one to write articles on the topic. I did this with the current article, because there already was a stub, see here.
Any other indictments, please? Mikkalai 20:28, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mikkalai to move text between pages like this without any sort of consultation is not the accepted behaviour on Wikipidia talk pages. What is worse you have changed my entry on the Eastern Front Talk page so that it says something in my name which I did not write. I'll over look it if we can reach an agreement but if not then I will revert the move.

Do you now accept that as you are not an "expert in military history" and authors and historians like Antony Beevor are, that "Belorussian Front" is the correct name to use for the names of the Fronts? If I put together an article on the 1st and 2nd Blorussian Front you will agree to the move of the 3rd Byelorussian Front to 3rd Belorussian Front and that you will not move them from those names unless you get agreement for the moves on the Wikipedia:Requested moves page. Philip Baird Shearer 02:02, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, sir, that was my suggestion, sir. Mikkalai 07:25, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] byyyelorussssian

Moved from User talk:Philip Baird Shearer

Changing from one wrong spelling to another wrong spelling does not make it right. Rydel, a belarus(i)an in Prague. :) Happy new year. --rydel 13:38, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Rydel, if you are watching this page, you are wrong. This is the proper name of a Front, not just an adjective. At these times no one used the name Belarus. It was Byelorussia or Belorussia. Mikkalai 17:43, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
At that time, they also said that Communism will win the whole planet, and that Stalin is the father of all Soviet people (when millions were being shot), and they called Ukrainians "little Russians" too. Right, Mykkalloi? (You don't have to answer this one. I perfectly understand that those "byyyelorussssian" adjectives are in many older books about WWII and "great" USSR. I just personally find this spelling variant ugly and offensive. But you know that already.) --rydel 18:09, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The common term used by (English publishing) military historians is "Belorussian Front" (eg see A. Beevor "Berlin the Downfall 1945" first published 2002). It is no more right or wrong than calling Germany Germany in English. Until the English publishing world starts to use some other term Wikipedia should use the most common term which is used by other publications (see above). I hope that the links on the "num Belorussian Front" pages links to the respective countries will inform people of the were the word comes from and is going. Philip Baird Shearer 23:04, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"It is no more right or wrong than calling Germany Germany in English". I have a better parallel. It's no more wrong than calling you Pilip Beard Sheeror in English. --rydel 11:38, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not to get people excited again, but I'm always keen to throw in my 2¢.

  1. Is it not sufficient that the article on Belarus mentions the other spellings of its name, rather than taking up a significant proportion of this brief article? I know, Google indexing. Could we not have a standard template to throw at the bottom of each Belarus-related page explaining the usage?
  2. "Byelorussian SSR is the official name of the country that no longer exists and the name of the main article. Belarus is a new country."
I disagree that this justifies sticking with the current title 3rd Belorussian Front. This article's title is a translation from Russian into English, not a transliteration of 3iy Belorusskiy Front. The adjective in English used to be Belorussian or Byelorussian. It's now changing to Belarusian. The fact that the old usage was derived from Russian transliterations and the new one from Belarusian is interesting, but irrelevant to the question. And it would be the same whether you translated it from Russian or from Belarusian.
Similarly, there once was an author whose name was spelled (among other ways) Shakspere and Shagesper, but we don't spell it that way except when being purposefully anachronistic to achieve a quaint effect.
WWII history writers are starting to sound similarly quaint, apparently quite unselfconsciously, when they refer to places in Belarus and Ukraine. (Do the historians debate this naming issue, or just stubbornly stick to their old habits?) Naturally, historians are conservative and resistant to change. But every month it's going to feel more and more like the rest of us are just humouring them by not using the currently accepted names of all these places in history articles. —Michael Z. 2005-04-12 20:59 Z
It doesn't matter that in 200 hundred years it may become "Balaryus" or smth. else. The country was Byelorussian SSR and it will remain so in history forever. This is the name of the country at a particular time period, not an adjective to "SSR". Mikkalai 22:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hmm; not quite a perfect parallel, but we say Roman Empire, not Imperium Romanum. 19th-century Ukraine, and not Little Russia. Medieval Moslems, not Mohammedans. England was once called Angle-Land, then Englande, but the language has changed and we don't call it that even in historical references. What was the Soviet republic called in Belarusian (or must we say Byelorussian when referring to before 1990)?
Byelorussia and Belarus are both translations of Беларусь and Белоруссія, but the first is going out of style. We still see the name a lot, but I think that in 20 years it will feel very self-conscious to say "Byelorussian SSR". If in 200 years the English word for socialist has become umbrella, then people would say Belarusian Soviet Umbrella Republic. —Michael Z. 2005-04-12 23:55 Z

It takes up as much relative space as it does, because this article is a stub. But if you look at 1st Belorussian Front you will see that although the article is a stub it takes up far less space relative to the rest of the article. It is just that the conversation about the name was moved to this talk page (one of three possible choices) from the Battle of Berlin talk page, and the rest has discussion has taken place here.

The great thing about "common usage" is that when the majority of military history changes to a different spelling then this page can change, but at the moment the common English name for the front is "Belorussian Front" both in Google counts and in published military histories including those published in the 21st centuryPhilip Baird Shearer 22:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. I wasn't going to go and move the article, but I sure would like to see the historians catch up to modern usage (no offence to historians meant). I guess when you're writing in a WWII context, it makes sense to use the established nomenclature in that context. But in a larger context like Wikipedia, I find it frustrating, especially when it creeps into other areas (e.g., when another editor insisted on using the Russian name for an obscure Ukrainian village in an article's title and contents, because he had seen it mentioned in several history books). —Michael Z. 2005-04-12 23:55 Z

[edit] Belarusian option

I just can't understand why do people stick with simply incorrect name "Belorussian". It is, at first, incorrect (in terms of English), and, at second, if you'll check Google, it is clearly outnumbered by "Belarusian" spelling (with or without "front"). Why to revert correct fixes? --Monkbel 11:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Have you read the rest of this talk page, because I think most of your question is answered there.
  • What makes "Belorussian" "incorrect (in terms of English)"?
  • FYI Google:
    • 833 English pages for "Belorussian Front" -wikipedia.
    • about 45 English pages for "Belarusian Front" -wikipedia.

--Philip Baird Shearer 13:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From my talk page:

why do you revert corrections of language mistakes? do you really think there are such words as "Belorussian" or "Byelorussia" or some other in English and these should be used? Did you try to check Google or any "official" encyclopedia about these? --Monkbel 16:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The term "Belorussian Front" is used in many English language military history books. Of which the most recent one I have is Berlin - The Downfall 1945, by Antony Beevor first published in 2002. Philip Baird Shearer 11:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Belorussian Front" is a specific term, the name of a particular thing, unlike, say "Belorusian food" or "Belarusian girls", therefore cannot be changed at will. mikka (t) 17:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)