![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm pretty sure that Okhrana is the more usual transliteration, and I have struggled to find the spelling Okhranka in my books and notes on the subject. Perhaps I'm being foolish but having just checked again in Pipes and Figes it is the only spelling I've come across. Driller thriller
Driller Thriller is surely right! This is an English language site and okhrana is the common english usage. the page should be moved ASAP to avoid further inaccuracies and confusion
Agree. Охранка is a jargon word that's strictly associated with state security units of MVD, while охрана is a very general word for "protection" and "security (team)". -- Dmitry 16:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Well there seems a majority in favour. Let's move the page. How about you do it Driller Thriller as it was your idea first. DmitryKo, I hope that's ok!
You are talking about the majority of random people. Any academic work refrring to the Soviet Union would not call it Russia, as that term is inaccurate. The accepted English academic term is okhrana without a second 'k'. Sorry if you like the other spelling, but put that in the Russia version of wikipedia.
From WP:RM: What counts here is normal English usage, since this encyclopedia is to rad by English-speakers. That seems clear; Okhrana. Septentrionalis 04:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Dmitry, you are wholly wrong. As an academic who studies Russia/ the Soviet Union I can assure you that the academic term is okhrana. Any English usage, especially in historical terms is 'okhrana'. 'okhranka' should be in the russian version of wikipedia not the english one!
If it were a word of English ethimology, I'd have no concerns. Since it's a Russian word, there's no need to corrupt it to comply with old and obviously erroneous usage. And please don't push words like "invariable" and "wholly wrong", you failed to prove it. -- Dmitry 18:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Well I think you kind of shoot yourself in the foot, Dmitry, given your knowledge of English is clearly so limited that you think etymology is 'ethimology' [sic]. Since it's a Russian word, it's the English usage that counts. The CURRENT English usage is okhrana - if you wrote okhranka in an English language paper on the subject then that would be incorrect. Hence, as I have said before, okhranka is in fact incorrect for an English version of wikipedia. So you are wholly incorrect.
No no, I never said Britannica was wholly incorrect, but rather that to ignore the accepted English academic usage is. You still haven't addressed that point, despite numerous opportunities! And to be lectured by someone who clearly doesn't know one bit of etymology from another is somewhat ironic.
Perhaps somebody should finally expound on this issue in the body of the article itself. The "widely used in English literature" Okhrana is plain wrong, a mistake, an error, (as if the opinion of the Britannica wasn't enough...) and it'd be kinda cool if the Wikipedia did it's part in rectifying it. 83.149.2.102 ( talk) 04:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC) P
I'm not sure if detachment is a more adequate translation of Otdeleniye. Okhranka stations were not extraordinary or temporary installments assigned for a specific time and/or event; I believe the security station implies that they were permanent offices, much like police station. DmitryKo 11:41, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I am confused about something. One part of the article states that "The Okhrank is notoriously known for its agents provocateurs—Dr. Jacob Zhitomirsky (a leading Bolshevik and close associate of Vladimir Lenin), Yevno Azef, and Dmitry Bogrov"...the organization is supposedly very anti-semetic yet, Dr. Jacob Zhitomirsky is almost certaintly a Jew and Lenin had Jewish ancestry. Am I missing something here? How can an organization be partially led by Jews, yet be very anti-semetic? Flyerhell 07:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Apparently articles with insane headlines like this one are allright in wikipedia, but if you dare criticize the anti semites proxy group, the fake "palestinians" on wikipedia, you get booted off....Anti Semitism is promoted as much as possible on wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.130.56 ( talk) 13:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The claim that Matvei Golovinski was Okhranka agent is hardly verifiable. There is no evidence for this. Moreover, later he worked for bolsheviks, and it is unlikely that bolsheviks would hire Okhranka agent. DonaldDuck 02:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
DonaldDuck 04:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Rutenberg was one of organisers, maybe more important than Gapon. Here is a good article about him http://www.peoples.ru/finans/undertake/rutenberg/ In his memoirs Rutenberg writes that he had planned the path of demonstration, encouraged Gapon and gave orders to workers. DonaldDuck 03:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Sources which use Okhrana:
More broadly, a JSTOR search for "Okhrana" yields 380 results, as compared to 13 for "Okhranka". Google Scholar for English pages including the words "Okhrana" and "police" yields 379 results. the same search with "Okhranka" yields 29. Whatever "Okhrana" may mean in Russian, in english it is the term used for the secret police. Russian usage is completely irrelevant. john k 00:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
"Okhranka" may be correct Russian, but it is not correct English. Of the small number of books available to me at my parents' house:
Sadly, that's all I can find that have "Okhrana" in the index. But I wasn't able to find any that had "Okhranka". I imagine if you were to look at a representative sample of scholarly works, you'd find that they all use "Okhrana," because that is the English name. Note that "Google" is not on the side of Okhrana; it is Google Scholar, which collates results from scholarly journals and such like; and JSTOR, an archive of scholarly journals, that give the nod to "Okhrana." If scholars who speak Russian, and translators of Russian works like that of Rogovin, use "Okhrana," we should follow them, not Britannica and some insistent Russian wikipedia editors. john k 16:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I shouldn't reopen the name debate again, but I just wanted to point out that Mossad and Irgun are also widely-used jargon words that have a more general meaning in their original language ("institution" and "organization", respectively), yet their specific meaning in an English text is fairly obvious and there's no need to give the full name ("Hamosad Lemodi'in Uletafkidim Meyuhadim" and "Irgun Tzva'i Le'umi"). There are lots of examples of words changing their meaning in different ways when borrowed by another language.
Anyway, more importantly, the name "Okhranka" that is used in the title appears only once in the body of the article, while the (arguably more prevalent in English literature) "Okhrana" is used throughout the article. Whatever term you are using, at least make it consistent throughout the article.-- 192.114.91.226 09:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Did he order, organize and/or simply did not report the assassination of V. K. Plehve on July 15, 1904. There seem to be different views on this subject. BernardZ ( talk)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm pretty sure that Okhrana is the more usual transliteration, and I have struggled to find the spelling Okhranka in my books and notes on the subject. Perhaps I'm being foolish but having just checked again in Pipes and Figes it is the only spelling I've come across. Driller thriller
Driller Thriller is surely right! This is an English language site and okhrana is the common english usage. the page should be moved ASAP to avoid further inaccuracies and confusion
Agree. Охранка is a jargon word that's strictly associated with state security units of MVD, while охрана is a very general word for "protection" and "security (team)". -- Dmitry 16:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Well there seems a majority in favour. Let's move the page. How about you do it Driller Thriller as it was your idea first. DmitryKo, I hope that's ok!
You are talking about the majority of random people. Any academic work refrring to the Soviet Union would not call it Russia, as that term is inaccurate. The accepted English academic term is okhrana without a second 'k'. Sorry if you like the other spelling, but put that in the Russia version of wikipedia.
From WP:RM: What counts here is normal English usage, since this encyclopedia is to rad by English-speakers. That seems clear; Okhrana. Septentrionalis 04:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Dmitry, you are wholly wrong. As an academic who studies Russia/ the Soviet Union I can assure you that the academic term is okhrana. Any English usage, especially in historical terms is 'okhrana'. 'okhranka' should be in the russian version of wikipedia not the english one!
If it were a word of English ethimology, I'd have no concerns. Since it's a Russian word, there's no need to corrupt it to comply with old and obviously erroneous usage. And please don't push words like "invariable" and "wholly wrong", you failed to prove it. -- Dmitry 18:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Well I think you kind of shoot yourself in the foot, Dmitry, given your knowledge of English is clearly so limited that you think etymology is 'ethimology' [sic]. Since it's a Russian word, it's the English usage that counts. The CURRENT English usage is okhrana - if you wrote okhranka in an English language paper on the subject then that would be incorrect. Hence, as I have said before, okhranka is in fact incorrect for an English version of wikipedia. So you are wholly incorrect.
No no, I never said Britannica was wholly incorrect, but rather that to ignore the accepted English academic usage is. You still haven't addressed that point, despite numerous opportunities! And to be lectured by someone who clearly doesn't know one bit of etymology from another is somewhat ironic.
Perhaps somebody should finally expound on this issue in the body of the article itself. The "widely used in English literature" Okhrana is plain wrong, a mistake, an error, (as if the opinion of the Britannica wasn't enough...) and it'd be kinda cool if the Wikipedia did it's part in rectifying it. 83.149.2.102 ( talk) 04:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC) P
I'm not sure if detachment is a more adequate translation of Otdeleniye. Okhranka stations were not extraordinary or temporary installments assigned for a specific time and/or event; I believe the security station implies that they were permanent offices, much like police station. DmitryKo 11:41, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I am confused about something. One part of the article states that "The Okhrank is notoriously known for its agents provocateurs—Dr. Jacob Zhitomirsky (a leading Bolshevik and close associate of Vladimir Lenin), Yevno Azef, and Dmitry Bogrov"...the organization is supposedly very anti-semetic yet, Dr. Jacob Zhitomirsky is almost certaintly a Jew and Lenin had Jewish ancestry. Am I missing something here? How can an organization be partially led by Jews, yet be very anti-semetic? Flyerhell 07:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Apparently articles with insane headlines like this one are allright in wikipedia, but if you dare criticize the anti semites proxy group, the fake "palestinians" on wikipedia, you get booted off....Anti Semitism is promoted as much as possible on wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.130.56 ( talk) 13:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The claim that Matvei Golovinski was Okhranka agent is hardly verifiable. There is no evidence for this. Moreover, later he worked for bolsheviks, and it is unlikely that bolsheviks would hire Okhranka agent. DonaldDuck 02:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
DonaldDuck 04:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Rutenberg was one of organisers, maybe more important than Gapon. Here is a good article about him http://www.peoples.ru/finans/undertake/rutenberg/ In his memoirs Rutenberg writes that he had planned the path of demonstration, encouraged Gapon and gave orders to workers. DonaldDuck 03:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Sources which use Okhrana:
More broadly, a JSTOR search for "Okhrana" yields 380 results, as compared to 13 for "Okhranka". Google Scholar for English pages including the words "Okhrana" and "police" yields 379 results. the same search with "Okhranka" yields 29. Whatever "Okhrana" may mean in Russian, in english it is the term used for the secret police. Russian usage is completely irrelevant. john k 00:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
"Okhranka" may be correct Russian, but it is not correct English. Of the small number of books available to me at my parents' house:
Sadly, that's all I can find that have "Okhrana" in the index. But I wasn't able to find any that had "Okhranka". I imagine if you were to look at a representative sample of scholarly works, you'd find that they all use "Okhrana," because that is the English name. Note that "Google" is not on the side of Okhrana; it is Google Scholar, which collates results from scholarly journals and such like; and JSTOR, an archive of scholarly journals, that give the nod to "Okhrana." If scholars who speak Russian, and translators of Russian works like that of Rogovin, use "Okhrana," we should follow them, not Britannica and some insistent Russian wikipedia editors. john k 16:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I shouldn't reopen the name debate again, but I just wanted to point out that Mossad and Irgun are also widely-used jargon words that have a more general meaning in their original language ("institution" and "organization", respectively), yet their specific meaning in an English text is fairly obvious and there's no need to give the full name ("Hamosad Lemodi'in Uletafkidim Meyuhadim" and "Irgun Tzva'i Le'umi"). There are lots of examples of words changing their meaning in different ways when borrowed by another language.
Anyway, more importantly, the name "Okhranka" that is used in the title appears only once in the body of the article, while the (arguably more prevalent in English literature) "Okhrana" is used throughout the article. Whatever term you are using, at least make it consistent throughout the article.-- 192.114.91.226 09:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Did he order, organize and/or simply did not report the assassination of V. K. Plehve on July 15, 1904. There seem to be different views on this subject. BernardZ ( talk)