Talk:Ivan Plyushch
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group. | ||
 |
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
|
 |
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | |
[edit] Neologism usage
My edits were explained in the edit summary, but since Krys persists, I can repeat them here despite his choice to use an abusive language in his edit sumamries.
The issue at hand is the appropriate terminology for the term that crudely corresponds in English to Collective farm: state-owned or nominally cooperative.
Such words exist in many dictionaries.
Merriam-Webster gives sovkhoz [1] as "a state-owned farm of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics paying wages to the workers". In the same dictionary one can find Kolkhoz,[2] a collective farm of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. This or any dictionary I checked has no mention of Radhosp or Kolhosp.
As such, the words introduced by Krys into the article are neologisms. "Radhosp" has exactly one mention in google-books[3] and the mention is in the reference list and to the title book written in Ukrainian. Kolhosp has mighty 44 mentions[4] (Kolkhoz has 9.5 thousand[5]). The introduction of neologisms into the articles creates an unnecessary clutter and since our job is to inform the reader about the subject of the article (Ivan Plyushch) the unwarranted neologisms are bad style that are useless in rendering any subject of the article related info. Whoever is interested in knowing the Ukrainian words, goes to the dictionaries, not the biographical articles in Wikipedia.
Krys' repeated abusive language in edit summaries is unwarranted. But I do accept the criticism that the more developed version of the article is still at my hard-drive yet. The only excuse I have is that it is there among the dozen of others. --Irpen 22:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Words "sovkhoz" and "kolhoz" represent a direct transliteration of Russian words "совхоз" and "колхоз", which are used to describe the phenomenon of Soviet collective farms. These words, while are presented in some English dictionaries, are not commonly known to English speakers. Similarly, words "radhosp" and "kolhosp" represent a transliteration of Ukrainian words "радгосп" and "колгосп", which are in pair with Russian "совхоз" and "колхоз". The Ukrainian words are not in dictionary, but they have been used in English, in books, in other written documents, over the internet (as Google search indicates), and in spoken language. It is well understood that the scope of use of Ukrainian words is smaller than the usage of Russian words. Nonetheless, they have been used in English, and in fact I have personally met an American who has been using word "kolhosp" as a part of his English vocabulary. This fact in part explains my predisposition for inclusion of Ukrainian words into this article. The current edition, in which Russian words are given as wikilinks and Ukrainian words are given in brackets seems to be a reasonable compromise.
- The actions by Irpen on removal of Ukrainian words are considered by me as trolling because (1) the removal of Ukrainian words is the only contribution by Irpen to the article at this point, (2) more importantly, Irpen has been a strong defender of the Russian names of the cities being included in the articles on Ukrainian cities, while I was against the inclusion in the cases the Russian names have no significant value; here the positions of the sides are opposite, and Irpen seems to abuse this situation to make some kind of a point. --KPbIC 23:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The reasons why the particular words of the Russian origins exist in English is irrelevant. Those are the English words (albeit of the Russian origin) as confimred by dicitonaries and they refer exactly to the places like the ones where Plyushch worked. I defend the common names rather than the Russian or the Ukrainian ones as I defended Kharkiv (the Ukrainian name) for the same reason I am defending kolkhoz (the Russian name). So I reject the accusation that I am making a point. One more time, I accept the criticism that I haven't yet finished the more expanded verion of the article. Will do.
If your desire to use Wikipedia to promote the Ukrainian words into English is so strong that you prefer to have extra clutter in the UA-related article that would just annoy the reader for no good reason (he is not given a more precise term instead of a less precise one, like in case of Oblast), let's have it your way for now, until I rewrite the whole thing which may take me some time. Originally, you even insisted on the neologism only version[6] and current more moderate variation of pushing Ukrainian onto an English reader was something I thought of for a short time, before deciding that in the end of the day, this is not a wiktionary.
That you use abusive edit summaries speaks about yourself and no one else. Take care, --Irpen
