Talk:Novgorod case

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Дорогие сообщники! Я хотела бы перевести секцию "Версию защиты". Сегодня вечером (американское время) переведу. С уважением, Ольга/ oliandy в ЖЖ / Olivshin 15:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to offer your suggestions on the Novgorod Case Wikipedia article here. Thanks. Olivshin 02:03, 14 September 2007


Contents

[edit] an open secret

née Fyodorova: точно не по первому браку?

son, whose name remains undisclosed: и все же это секрет Полишинеля.

tridecahedron —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.237.208.189 (talk) 14:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fyodorova is her name ny her first marriage. Née Stepanova, it's not so important and not mentioned in the Russian article. (I have no time to edit the article right now.) --Yms 18:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Как в оригинале было, так и написал. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snerrir (talk • contribs) 19:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Не нашел в оригинале. tridecahedron 83.237.208.189 19:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Уточню. Не нашел, где в оригинале сказано, что имя мальчика не разглашается. А про фамилию там было "Антонины Фёдоровой (ныне Мартыновой)", но не "урожденная Фёдорова". tridecahedron 83.237.208.189 19:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Мнэээ, и я теперь не нашел. Удаляем.
Исправим на formerly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snerrir (talk • contribs) 19:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] навигация внутри статьи

Как сделать ссылку на другую строчку внутри статьи? Например, Чадаев упоминается несколько раз, при первом упоминании сказано, кто он такой - было бы удобно дать ссылки из последующих мест в первое употребление. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snerrir (talk • contribs) 19:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] missing templates

Нет темплейта для "текущие события" (вроде эту коробочку попросили удалить, но запостите тут таг for our records). Нет темплейта для ЖЖ-сообщества.

No template marking the article as following real-time events. No template for coventional symbol for LJ-community.

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_messages

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_messages/General#Timing-related_messages Mirko Tomic 22:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where am I?

Remember, this is the English Wikipedia. It's hard for other editors to participate in the conversation about this article when the conversation isn't happening in English. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

[edit] Antonina's mother last name

I deleted the patronimic "Bulatovna" from the article - if it remained, the English-speaking readers would have taken in for a last name. We should probably reinstate it, but then we need to know Ninel Bulatovna's last name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snerrir (talk • contribs) 04:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe her name is not worse mentioning in this article at all. Shortcirquit 08:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] misprints

Ladies and gentlement with keen eyes - please look for typos, I'm good at editing by not quite so good as spotting misprints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snerrir (talk • contribs) 18:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LACKING Photo in the "version of the defence" section

The Russian source has a nice photo with Antonina, Alisa and a brithday cake there, how we can put it here too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snerrir (talk • contribs) 18:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The photo was speedy deleted "as an obvious BLP violation, being an image of a living minor child crime victim", or even "under G10" which should mean it was unsourced and negative information. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_September_14#Image:Prolet_novgorodskoe_delo.jpg . Also, things have to be straightend out with the other photo, which is tagged as IFD 91.77.61.221 20:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
What does all this mean? For me, it sounds like a lot of acronyms without any sense. Would you like to be so kind as to spell it out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snerrir (talk • contribs) 21:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
As it was for me when I first encountered it. BLP a Wikipedia policy for Biographies of living persons: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WP:BLP . G10 is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CSD#G10 . Anyway, G10 does not add any sence, since the photo was well-sourced and clearly positive. 91.77.61.221 21:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I found BLP, could you explain the rest (e.g., G10 is for me, again, Canada, US, Europe, Russia etc. and another two countries which are "great" and joined the club). BTW, isn't it an overprotective policy, this BLP, eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snerrir (talk • contribs) 21:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Some interpreters of BLP certainly are ;) G10 is 10th General Criterium for speedy deletion , as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CSD#G10 91.77.61.221 21:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] “Will you do that again? Will you?”

The original phrase has been taken out of context. I'm affraid this translation adds more meaning to it than it should carry. 91.77.61.221 20:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It is perfectly clear in Russian without any context, it is an admonition not to do something ever again.Snerrir 22:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Or is it an offer to have some more candies? I'm not sure yet. 91.77.61.221 22:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, are you a Russian native speaker? 'Cause I am:-)). No other interpretation is possible the way that woman (who retold the boy's evidence) presented it - it was a threat, no dice. The short repetition is also a clear sign of that.Snerrir 22:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
LOLz, yes, I am. Just butchering the English language for the benefit of English-speaking users. Well, okay. Lets continue passing rumors, as "we said that she said that he said that she said". 91.77.61.221 22:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, see below.
I only meant that I provided a correct translation. Just rewatched the part of Malahov's program from which it is a quote - it is quite clear that the words in question constitute a threat.
IMHO, you can safely remove this whole paragraph from the article. Anyway, it's rather doubtful and weak argument. The woman's words are unreliable. --Yms 22:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
We can, of course. You think we should? If you think yes, just delete it. Still the translation is correct (which is my concern here).Snerrir 22:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the translation of what the neigbour said is correct, but the translation of what Antonina possibly said is possibly not :) That was my point. 91.77.61.221 22:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, that's what you mean. Of course, as we do not know if Antonina was saying anything AT ALL. But that doesn't concern us here, 'cause we aren't rendering Antonina's words, we're rendering words of a person who was talking to a witness. And we did that in a correct manner, as it is clearly marked in the text it's witness who's speaking.
Disagree. The true interest are Antoninas's words, or whether she did say something. 91.77.61.221 23:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Could we just cite the words in question without translation? 91.77.61.221 23:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Added a "clear citation of the foreign-language original", per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English Shortcirquit 22:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editing the Wiki, from Olivshin 05:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello everyone! We can see that this article has been edited quite a bit over the past days. It looks really good. However, some of this does not read clearly. Parts of this sound like a translation. To make it clear where we think our authority comes from: Olga Livshin is a native speaker of Russian and spoke English since she was four. Andrew Janco is a native speaker of English and has spoken Russian for ten years. We live in the US and are completing our Ph.D. degrees (Olga in Russian literature, Andrew in Russian history); both of us have published articles in English. We have collaborated on a series of translations from Russian, most recently for a bilingual anthology of contemporary Russian poetry. We realize that certain things may sound incorrect to you, but we would like to go through the text and tweak it a little in order to make the Wiki accessible and respectable to a native speaker. This is important to all of us, since we would like this Wiki to be a professional tool to those who may be able to get involved in the case.

We volunteered to go through the translation once it is completed on the novgorod_delo community, a few days ago. The users tucovic, decahedron and nornore, who we knew were collaborating on the Wiki -- agreed to this. See http://community.livejournal.com/novgorod_delo/119199.html?thread=1717919#t1717919 We realize that this text will change as events take place, but we would like to make an effort to make it sound as clear as possible.

Below are the principles of the changes we would like to make. Unfortunately, we can't explain every change because it will take too much time. If anything sounds strange to you, please feel free to take it up with us:

1) Several expressions strike us as not very idiomatic, for example:

  • ex-Fyodorova. This is an incorrect way of saying that Antonina's former name is Fyodorova. Usually, the functions of former last names are specified. For example, "Her name at the time of the incident was Fyodorova."

2) Style. We also find the current version to be overly conversational in some instances and overly formal in others. It is helpful to compare it to the style of an existing Wikipedia article about a famous case, for example, the Roe v. Wade case (which led to a landmark decision about abortion), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_vs._wade. Instances of inappropriately informal style: The Novgorod case Wiki states, "there's been an on-going discussion in the media." "There's" needs to become "there is." Otherwise, it sounds like colloquial style, not the style of a Wikipedia article. In "So, after Ninel left...", "so,..." in the beginning of the sentence, is extremely informal. Instances of overly formal stuff: currently, in parts of the article, certain members of the investigation are called "Mr." and "Mrs." followed by their last names. This is inappropriate as regards the style of an encyclopedia article. Compare with the Roe v. Wade article: it refers to a Justice Harry Blackmun when this person is introduced, and then simply calls him Blackmun.

3) Spelling. There are quite a few spelling errors in the text. We will run spell check on it.

These are the kinds of changes that we will make. Editing is in progress. Olivshin 04:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

While improving the style of the translation, please focus more on what is going to be said. Look, I had to change 'trial' for 'inquest' just because it was a factual error, no matter this was not idiomatic. Now, you type "Antonina's name was Fyodorova at the time of the crime". There is no crime mentioned before that, moreover, we do not know whether it was a crime or not. Please excuse my English. Yours, 13-hedron 193.239.150.241 08:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for these corrections, they are helpful. Of course, we are all for factual accuracy. Olivshin 18:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you :) 13-hedron 83.237.204.107 23:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "We don't do photo credits on articles" edit by CBM

Was the attribution of the birthday photo to Martynov a credit or an encyclopedic fact? Shortcirquit 20:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Either way, our standard practice is to not include photo credit lines on images. The credit is listed on the image description page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Look, sir, I'm not asking whether we do or do not "include photo credit lines on images". The question was whether we treat it as a credit, and then we leave it out, or as a relevant fact, and then we bring it back and make it look less like a credit. Shortcirquit 17:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I can't see how it's any sort of encyclopedic fact; are you suggesting it should go into the article text? That would seem to giving a lot of weight to it. Does it really make a difference who took the picture? One would expect that a birthday picture was taken by a family member. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
That is what I was asking about. If you want my personal opinion, I would let the reader decide on their own whether to assume Martynov having been their family member a year ago or not, just because it is one of the key arguable points of the case. Shortcirquit 19:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't follow what you're saying there. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Can I help it somehow? Please try reading and understanding the article carefully. Shortcirquit 19:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm getting upset. Look, the investigator claims Fyodorova was single 'cause her marriage to Martynov was not registered or whatever. Martynovs claim otherwice. Can I judge between them? Shortcirquit 20:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I understand that dilemma, but I don't see what it has to do with the photo credit. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Now, you assumed the photographer to be a family member. Martynov it the photographer. Martynov claims to be a family member and provides several photos as a proof of that. I'm not sure if such proof is somehow relevant. I'm not sure this is one of such photos. I am sure the original article contains such an attribution and I assume it serves some purpose there, other then being a credit to Martynov who is not in a condition to pay attention to photo credits right now. So I ask my question. Shortcirquit 20:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
All I said is "one would assume the photo was taken by a family member". I was trying to explain why it isn't necessary for the article to go out of its way to emphasize who the photographer is. I don't know what the "original article" is (a blog article or the one on Russian wikipedia?), but whether there is a photo credit there is also not so important. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I did not ask for explainations, nor I've recieved any. I had to explain myself how could the attribution be in the way of this particular article instead. I was asking for opinions. Your opinion was evident however. And yes, I meant the Russian wiki. Shortcirquit 21:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Floors

Shouldn't we translate третий этаж as the 2nd floor and первый этаж as the ground floor?? --Yms 16:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a good question. In terms used in the UK and other European countries, indeed, she fell from the 2nd floor. In the Nortern American usage, the floor at the ground level is usually the first floor and the floor above is the second floor. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storey). The current edition follows the North American usage. We can discuss which audience we would prefer to reach, if we had to choose. I believe this discussion began on Livejournal already.

The good news is that as of right now, the translation makes it clear that Alisa fell two stories, which makes it easy to understand where she was, factually speaking.Olivshin 17:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Our Editing: Done

We have finished editing the text. As it looks to us now, it is a serviceable translation that, with some patience, an English speaker can use to piece together the case.Olivshin 17:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] internal bleeding

Don't be crazy, they were just bruises. Shortcirquit 18:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

...are not ready, it seems; it's just 1 letter and two blog references. Would anyone be able to complete them? We're out of time and must get back to our work. Olivshin 18:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Done mostly by Snerrir Shortcirquit 10:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is largely about blogs, so I don't think it was too much reason in removing blog references. Nevertheless, since the sources are in Russian, all of them can be found in the Russian article. Reliability of specific blog sources can be discussed in ru-wiki as well. --Yms 14:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] had Antonina WROTE (Shortcirquit's edition)

We had "write" not "wrote" because the expression "to have somebody do something" requires the infinitive of a verb. For example:

  • "I had her write down the formula and gave it to Chanelle when I got home." - from the " Chicago Tribune "
http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/columnists/advice/chi-0706abbyjul06,1,910870.column

You changed "write" to the past tense. Olivshin 19:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

  • My fault, sorry. Shortcirquit 19:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
No problem :) Olivshin 20:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] fell two flights of stairs down

Five flights of stairs then, cuz "а flight is an uninterrupted series of steps" (Stairway), or two floors down. Shortcirquit 08:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] кстати

Мартынов уже давно не Хвиль, а кмартынов Vypolzen2 (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)