This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I personally beleive it should be oprichniki because that is the Russian plural. Why would we use English rules of grammar on a word that is not even English? Anyway, hopefully the person who keeps changing it back will explain himself here and either convince me or be convinced. Alexandre-Jérôme — Preceding undated comment added 04:25, 28 February 2007
I'm copying the lead as i found it onto this talk pg, to encourage topic-experts to check for my having left out something whose pertinence i don't yet appreciate:
A lead section must start with a to-be sentence, usually a dict-def. If the "core" title is ambiguous among topics that should be separate articles, Dab'g can be accomplished by a highly structured HatNote, or assigning the core title to the Dab page instead of to a primary topic for that title. For an article to look like this one, tho, one of three things must be the case:
In this case the solution is so clear that it's tempting to imagine that it demonstrates a law of thought: if the title has multiple senses too intertwined to be split into separate articles, the most comprehensive sense is the topic, and the other senses are sub-topics within that. (In reality, i don't doubt that one of the first dozen readers of this will come up with a killer counterexample, but i'm satisfied that this article is not such a counterexample, and i'm embarrassed to have spent this long talking about it before doing it.)
Here's my plan:
The term Oprichnina, which Ivan coined for this policy, derives from the Russian word "опричь" (oprich), meaning apart from, except of. The six thousand political police enforcing the policy were called oprichniks, and the term Oprichnina was further applied to the territory in which the Czar ruled directly and his oprichniks operated.
I've detatched the two footnotes from the text, since they need not appear in the lead secn, as long as they appear further on to document a more thoro treatment of the same matters.
--
Jerzy•
t 10:11, 24 November 2008
References
On 16 May 2007 an editor commented out most of one 'graph and all of two more. The most visible discussion was this edit summary:
which is a decent summary of the single paragraph that was added in the edit. The remainder of the edit was unsummarized, and consisted of hiding existing material in comments, and adding commentary in the comments on that material.
My interest in this (as one who remembers Ivan, Peter, boyars, and the Crimean Tatars, but little else) is that it involved dreadful procedure regarding material that is sensitive because of its relation to nationalist and political PoVs. After-the-fact comment on this talk page, regarding the quality of the suppressed material, would be desirable.
--
Jerzy•
t
20:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
In the Organization section (a title, by the way, that does not fit its section), I find this sentence:
It's not clear whether this refers just to Novgorod, or to the entire Oprichnina (which would seem to be a gross underestimate). Also, we ought to mention somewhere the wholesale slaughter of high government officials in 1570. Elphion ( talk) 16:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
From what I've read, the main reason for the start of the Livonian War is not their failure to pay tribute. Swyilk ( talk) 02:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I propose merging the poorly-cited Oprichnik page into this one. There's no need to have both articles. The only section from that page that would add useful content to this one is the section Appearances in modern media, which could be combined with cultural depictions.-- cel25 ( talk) 01:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
This appears towards the end, with no indication of what it is. Should be explained. -- 2607:FEA8:FF01:4B63:616C:468A:C31:55BC ( talk) 14:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I personally beleive it should be oprichniki because that is the Russian plural. Why would we use English rules of grammar on a word that is not even English? Anyway, hopefully the person who keeps changing it back will explain himself here and either convince me or be convinced. Alexandre-Jérôme — Preceding undated comment added 04:25, 28 February 2007
I'm copying the lead as i found it onto this talk pg, to encourage topic-experts to check for my having left out something whose pertinence i don't yet appreciate:
A lead section must start with a to-be sentence, usually a dict-def. If the "core" title is ambiguous among topics that should be separate articles, Dab'g can be accomplished by a highly structured HatNote, or assigning the core title to the Dab page instead of to a primary topic for that title. For an article to look like this one, tho, one of three things must be the case:
In this case the solution is so clear that it's tempting to imagine that it demonstrates a law of thought: if the title has multiple senses too intertwined to be split into separate articles, the most comprehensive sense is the topic, and the other senses are sub-topics within that. (In reality, i don't doubt that one of the first dozen readers of this will come up with a killer counterexample, but i'm satisfied that this article is not such a counterexample, and i'm embarrassed to have spent this long talking about it before doing it.)
Here's my plan:
The term Oprichnina, which Ivan coined for this policy, derives from the Russian word "опричь" (oprich), meaning apart from, except of. The six thousand political police enforcing the policy were called oprichniks, and the term Oprichnina was further applied to the territory in which the Czar ruled directly and his oprichniks operated.
I've detatched the two footnotes from the text, since they need not appear in the lead secn, as long as they appear further on to document a more thoro treatment of the same matters.
--
Jerzy•
t 10:11, 24 November 2008
References
On 16 May 2007 an editor commented out most of one 'graph and all of two more. The most visible discussion was this edit summary:
which is a decent summary of the single paragraph that was added in the edit. The remainder of the edit was unsummarized, and consisted of hiding existing material in comments, and adding commentary in the comments on that material.
My interest in this (as one who remembers Ivan, Peter, boyars, and the Crimean Tatars, but little else) is that it involved dreadful procedure regarding material that is sensitive because of its relation to nationalist and political PoVs. After-the-fact comment on this talk page, regarding the quality of the suppressed material, would be desirable.
--
Jerzy•
t
20:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
In the Organization section (a title, by the way, that does not fit its section), I find this sentence:
It's not clear whether this refers just to Novgorod, or to the entire Oprichnina (which would seem to be a gross underestimate). Also, we ought to mention somewhere the wholesale slaughter of high government officials in 1570. Elphion ( talk) 16:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
From what I've read, the main reason for the start of the Livonian War is not their failure to pay tribute. Swyilk ( talk) 02:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I propose merging the poorly-cited Oprichnik page into this one. There's no need to have both articles. The only section from that page that would add useful content to this one is the section Appearances in modern media, which could be combined with cultural depictions.-- cel25 ( talk) 01:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
This appears towards the end, with no indication of what it is. Should be explained. -- 2607:FEA8:FF01:4B63:616C:468A:C31:55BC ( talk) 14:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)