Jump to content

Talk:Odesa

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 81.245.194.9 (talk) at 21:30, 28 May 2010 (→Sviatoslav Richter). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

population history needed

id like to know historical census figures for Odessa could any one say when the population first reached 10,000 or 100,000 people ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.51.212.6 (talk) 01:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sviatoslav Richter

As far as I know, Richter was of German origin, not Jewish. --Tamas 20:03, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

On Richter's page, it says he was born in Zhitomir, not in Odessa. I am not sure which one is correct, but unmistakinly one of them is wrong. 81.245.194.9 (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More than 50%

I find the following statement in the article a bit naive and problematic:

In fact, more than 50% of Soviet/modern Russian musicians, composers, producers, etc. are Jews and Ukrainians born in Odessa and other Ukraine's cities.

I mean: has there ever been such a count made? Is there somewhere a list of "Soviet/modern Russian musicians, composers, producers, etc."? The words "in fact" and the number 50% give the impression that this is some scientific fact, but it is more likely just a personal impression and thus very POV. Moreover, this statement is more about Ukraine as a whole than Odessa itself.--Tamas 10:05, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, I got your point, Tamas. Let's reshape the frase retaining its sense. Would you like to do it? As for a count, it is problematic, but in political sense. I just can't be mistaken, seeing characteristic faces and hearing specific Ukrainian and/or Jewish pronounciation, reading the typical lastnames etc. But all these people may be officially recorded as Russians. So this is a big ethnopolitical problem, and I agree with your NPOV appeal. AlexPU
Sure you can't be mistaken? What exactly is a 'characteristic' Ukrainian face? What characterizes a 'specific Jewish pronounciation'? I agree, sometimes it's obvious that a person is Jewish, but could you tell based only on one's surname? (Or tell an Arab or an Armenian from a Jew, if they both dressed alike?) For example, Kilimnik or Bachinski -- are these names Ukrainian or Jewish? (I personally knew both Ukrainians and Jews under the said names, and, looking at my late Professor Bachinski, you'd say he was a true Zaporozhian Cossak, mustashes and all, though he was Jewish, not to mention he spoke Ukrainian better than most Ukrainias I heard.) My point is: if you don't know exactly about every single person's ethnicity, don't rush to any conclusions. --barbatus 18:10, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Names in the first sentence

I would like to know what WP policy or other considerations call for Greek and Turkish name in the very first line of the article. I am not in rush to remove them as I would like to give some time to editors who inserted them to respond. Obviously, similar disputes are not new. I've been following and was involved in several and from that I conclude that these names do belong to the article, but not in the first line. See for example Talk:Kiev/Archive02#Kijów in Kiev article. --Irpen 03:36, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

More about names and history

I agree with Irpen absolutely: it's like the Turks call the city 'Haçibei' still, and the Greeks insist on 'Odessos'!

And what's that talk about 'patronymic' is about? What patronymic? 'Odessos' is patronymic?

Now, where that information about the 14th century Crimean Tartars' trade is from? If memory serves me, the future Odessa region was mentioned only once (or may be twice) in the Latin chronicle by Jan Długosz, that is, that Polish king sent a transport of corn to the besieged by the Turks Constaninople, and it was about a single event, not a regular 'trade'; local lakes (or limans), though, were named as a long-known source of salt. Yet again, there was no mentioning of a town named Hajibei (or any other variation of that name). Have any other references been found? If so, they should be cited.

Plus, I think that the Ancient Greek settlement (name unknown) and Turkish fortress Yeni-Dunia both worth mentioning in the article. Traces of the Greek town were found during the earthworks near the Odessa Cityhall, and it was the Turkish fortress, not just the town Hajibei that was taken during the Russo-Turkish war.

"Between the 1970s and 1990s, the majority of Odessa's Jews migrated to Israel, United States and other Western countries, abandoning entire apartment blocks."

This, excuse me, is utter nonsense. It gives an impression that Jews in Odessa populated those 'entire apartment blocks' they later allegedly abandoned. There were no ghettos in Odessa; Jews (never more than 10% of the city's population in the post-war decades) lived as dispersed as other ethnic groups of Odessa.

--barbatus 17:07, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Barbatus! Could you just correct the article? I am not an expert on Odessa and would have to research first, before doing it myself. Also, I would say that Turkish and Greek names belong somewhere in the article (maybe a separate name Etymology section), so I would rather move them down then delete. But having them in the first line makes little sense. Please check the discussion at talk:Kamianets-Podilskyi on very similar issues. Thanks, --Irpen 17:12, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Hello Irpen! I would make corrections as soon as I'm more familiar with editing guidelines. But I'd sure prefer to hear from the original authors first. --barbatus 18:15, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Just read the Be bold .. but don't be reckless! guidline and proceed with editing. Others, myself included, will correct/revert if you mess up. Cheers, --Irpen 18:49, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, sure ... but, being a historian by my university background, I'd prefer to do some research first, and see what info is available on the Web. --barbatus 19:56, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Selected English Bibliography and Minor Changes

I've added some books about Odessa. The most important is the Odessa: A History by Patricia Herlihy (whom I've even had an honour to meet some years ago).

Now, back to the names. After 1991, some maps changed the English spelling to supposedly Ukrainian, with one 's,' which, I think, is absolutely incorrect. By the same logic, Moscow, for example, should be spelled 'Moskva' and Warsaw must be 'Warszawa.' There is a traditional Western European spelling, used by many authors from Honoré de Balzac (in Père Goriot) to Bee Gees (Odessa), and let's stick to it.

--barbatus 17:17, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I moved N.American Odessas you added to Odessa (disambiguation). The naming dispute is a long story. Map publishers are free to do what they please and Ukrainian Gov is free to try to legislate English, as it is doing trying to introduce Kyiv and "Odesa". We cannot judge who is "correct". We only have to report a current prevailing usage in WP. While some media outlets followed suite, kiEv and odeSSa for now remain the only two UA major cities mostly spelled unaltered since independence and WP uses the more common name in English as the city name, giving an alternative in parantheses. We had long debates here and they are more or less settled. If you are interested, you can read more here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ukrainian_subdivisions#How_the_city_name_.D0.94.D0.BDi.D0.BF.D1.80.D0.BE.D0.BF.D0.B5.D1.82.D1.80.D0.BE.D0.B2.D1.81.D1.8C.D0.BA_is_spelled_in_English and next chapters. Also, archives at talk:Kiev have more. Please do not respond at the referred page. It is kept for archival purposes only and all discussions are now at Ukraine portal. Regards, --Irpen 17:52, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Aha! Now we are talking :)
I wouldn't call it 'References,' for I (let alone previous authors) have not referred to any of those books in the article. Should be 'bibliography' or something like that, I think. It's just what it is: books I suggest to read.
--barbatus 18:42, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Bibliography is good indeed. Why did you remove the info about feminine name? Is it questionable? As for the rest, I moved it to your talk page to keep this page more connected to its orginal purpose and will respond there too. With best regards, --Irpen 22:18, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've been out of touch for some time, so I must refresh my memory on many things, but that particular story sounds very dubious to me regardless. It's probably just an anecdote, albeit curious one, and it can easily be restored if some good source of the story could be found; but it definitely wrong to call a 'masculine' form of a name 'patronymic' in that context (according to the Webster Dictionary, it's 'a name derived from that of the father or a paternal ancestor'); not to mention that in Greek or Latin all city-names were feminine, which, I believe, Her Imperial Majestry knew very well. --barbatus 00:20, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
OK, I see you had your reasons, but instead of having this deleted I will have it moved to talk for comments. --Irpen 01:02, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
In naming the city, the Tsarina, never one to accept subordinance of gender, put her personal stamp on the name by discarding the patronymic and creating the feminine form Odessa.
I'd say I had good reasons, but let's wait for a reference to some reliable source. ... Speaking about anecdotes, I've heard another one, which derives the name 'Odessa' from the word-play: in French, 'enough water' is 'assez d'eau'; if said backwards, it sounds similar to that of the Greek colony's name (and water-related pun makes perfect sense, because Odessa, though situated next to the huge body of water, has very limited fresh water supply). Yet again, it was French, not Ancient Greek, which was spoken at the court. --barbatus 02:49, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, could we select a shorter list of books to keep them in the article (maybe 2 or 3) and move the rest to a separate list article, titled for example: List of English Bibliography on Odessa, Ukraine or similar. The new article will be linked from Odessa article, but will make a main article look cleaner. Thanks! --Irpen 19:47, August 18, 2005 (UTC) Selected English Bibliography

Think so? Hmmm ... I don't think there will be more entries any time soon. And what do you mean by 'cleaner'? Lemme sleep on it. --barbatus 14:08, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Odessos

With all respect, Odessa in not Odessos (Bulgarian Varna is). I'm not sure how Greeks call Odessa now, but that Greek version of the name is misleading. Should we list here the city's name in all possible languages? I've created a link to the future Greek article on Odessa: should be enough. --Barbatus 19:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Much better, but way to go ...

Thank you, LuiKhuntek, it is much better now. But still:

  • why start pre-history of Odessa from the 14th century AD? There is archaeological evidence of existence of the ancient Greek colony in the very center of the modern city (though the name that colony is unknown);
  • Chadžibėjus is not Lithuanian, it is a Latinized form of Turkish Hacibey; to say that "Odessa was then a town known as Khadjibey" is not exactly correct: known to whom? Tartars? Lithuanians? Russians?
  • also, the phrase "Odessa was then a town known as Khadjibey" implies that there was a continuity; of course, a town did exist before Odessa was founded, but had it been inhabited throughout all those centuries (if memory serves me, Evliya Çelebi described ruins of a settlement there)? hasn't the population changed with the foundation of the Russian port? Sure, you can call Hacibey a predecessor of Odessa, but Odessa never was known as Hacibey (or under whatever variation of that name, except, of course, as Gadjibey—briefly, for few months);
  • Deribasovskaya, though probably the most famous of Odessa streets, is not the main street of the city.

-- Barbatus 23:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sister Cities

Hello everyone! How can I add on the website that there is another sister city for Odessa - Vancouver!!! And they really are very much alike :) (not sure about Chisinau though at all). Thanks :) Regards to all odessity! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.195.60.68 (talk • contribs)

Like you mother said: if you want something done--you need to do it yourself--people ignore these talk page 99.9% of the time.Travb 18:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are more then one sister city for Odessa. List of sister cities (in Russian language) --TAG 02:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about some information that the twinning with Vancouver was one of the first official international twinning arrangements? -- Purplezart 09:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{User:Travb/If I had a nickel}}

Signed:Travb (talk) 09:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find that less than constructive, Travb. Simply knowing that information is out there does not imply that I have that information. --Purplezart 09:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you are the 1% and get you answer, I used to ask questions all the time, and never get answers. Travb (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is possibly reliable source of requested information - U.S. Mission to Italy - Sister Cities To Mark 50 Years of Citizen Diplomacy, July 11, 2006. This can explain why Odessa has so many sister cities - first everybody wanted to help rebuild it [1] - then it become common for Odessa to connect with others cities. --TAG 00:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
three cheers for TAG. I nowikied my template. Thanks. Travb (talk) 04:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the official site of the Odessa city council it is written that Odessa has sister cities and partner cities. I don't know what the difference is between them, but I believe that it exists. Should we divide sister and partner cities? Now they are mentioned all together.Elefante bianco 16:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

modify

I modified this cite:

  • "Odessa City Council Commission of European integration and foreign relations (Head of the Commission)". Retrieved April 29, 2006.

I am not sure why it was added. First it is in Russian, which is okay, but secondly it seems to have little relevance to the entire page. If someone disagrees they are welcome to add it back, but please explain why it is on the page.Travb 18:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I placed the link to the Official site of the city council to the second place (maybe it should be at the first?) because I believe it is more important than anything below it. Besides I removed Odessa links at the Open Directory Project because it is not informative and guides to another links catalogue.Elefante bianco 16:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Caption

The caption of the image Potemkinstairs.jpg ends with "It is the set for admittedly the most celebrated short sequence ever filmed." How can it possibly be defined as the 'most celebrated short sequence ever filmed'? Such a claim is purely based on opinion. Furthermore, 'admittedly' is misleading, as the sentence is not an admission, merely an unsourced claim of opinion. The caption holds the same informational value without the line in question, so I think it should merely be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schnabeltier Angriff (talk • contribs)

Potemkin stairs

Barbatus wrote: If you don't know, just click on the picture, and READ what is written there: "l'escalier Richelieu" (OK, this is in French), and "Ришельевская лестница" (hope you read Russian)

I do read Russian, poorly.

l'escalier Richelieu must be be French. I have never read this before in the five English guidebooks.

Should we also include the names: "Boulevard steps", Primorsky stairs, or the "Giant Staircase" in the short blurb below this picture too? I think the whole thing is kind of silly.

Anyway, thanks for the correction. Odessaukrain 03:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4th largest?

If I recall, before this article said it is the third largest, now this edit was added:

Odessa (Template:Lang-uk, Russian: Одесса; also referred to as Odesa) is the fourth-largest city in Ukraine.

I removed this edit, does anyone have a source for this? Travb (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been reading the entry on Donetsk, and that is also described as the fourth largest city in Ukraine, they can't both be right. --172.143.166.219 23:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think our article is wrong. I will add a fact tag, and see what I can find. Travb (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've more recent and official source About number and composition population of UKRAINE by All-Ukrainian Population Census'2001 data. Kyiv 2611, Kharkiv 1470, Dnipropetrovsk 1065, Odesa 1029, Donetsk 1016. TAG 10:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per About number and composition population of UKRAINE by All-Ukrainian Population Census'2001 data: Kyiv 2611 Kharkiv 1470 Dnipropetrovs'k 1065 Odesa 1029 Donets'k 1016

I will revert my edit. Travb (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed

The following was removed from the article:

One of the last Ukrainian Jewish authors who write in Yiddish, Aleksandr Abramovic Bejderman, born in 1949, also lives in Odessa. He writes in Ukrainian and Russian, too, but the main part of his work is actually written in Yiddish.

Signed: Travb (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


And why was this removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.61.178 (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Language and ethnicity

To what degree, and in what spheres, has Ukrainian supplanted Russian in Odessa since 1991? The article indicates a particulrly Odessa accented Russian. Is this less true today? There is reference to the majority of the Jews leaving. Beg pardon, but the mayor is Hurvits? I am assuming Jewish? Also there is reference to in-migration of Ukrainians from the countryside. Is there a source for population by ethnicity or nationality? Jd2718 19:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian is not popular in Odessa. Some goverment signs use it, but generally almost everyone speaks Russian. Even ukrainian maps (like the Mista Ukrainy series) use the russian name of the city (Odessa not Odesa) and russian place names, not to mention all other economic activity. The ukrainization of Odessa has failed to date. However this does not mean that Odessa wants to be part of Russia. The people don't want that. They would like the Ukraine goverment to stop the "ukrainization" (change names on signs, on stations - back) and give Russian an official status in the area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.255.254.41 (talk) 10:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Greeks

More about the Greek colony is needed...--Jack Upland 23:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, sure ... but virtually nothing is known, besides the fact that there was an ancient Greek settlement there. Very little had been found during construction and repair work in the historical center of Odessa, where a comprehensive excavations are all but impossible. There were comparatively recent speculations about the possible name of that colony, but, unfortunately, the literature is out of my reach and it is not available online.--Barbatus 00:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jabotinsky

I just added the following: Ze'ev Jabotinsky, a Zionist leader, author, orator, soldier, and founder of the Jewish Legion in World War I, was born in Odessa. 17 December 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.102.227 (talk • contribs)

Why you have added it ? There are already Category:People from Odessa. Simply put it on corresponding articles. There is no way to put everybody in one article. --TAG 10:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures: How many is too many?

I see that recently quite a few pictures have been added to the article. Are they really that necessary? (Not to mention, some captures are just badly written and misspelled.) Probably it would be better to move some of them to the Commons?--Barbatus 17:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there probably are too many pictures in this article, and they are causing layout problems with the "edit" links. OrangeDog (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template change

the city should be changed to the City in Ukraine template :Template:City in Ukraine


"Infofobox"

"Information" is misspelt here: Infoformation. I do not know how to correct this. Would an admin or any "wizard" peform this correction?

Italians?

http://www.mellenpress.com/mellenpress.cfm?bookid=6095&pc=9

Fair use rationale for Image:Odesa emblem.gif

Image:Odesa emblem.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 14:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chto u diyka vidno s lyuka?

? `'Míkka 01:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leninsky Komsomol Park in Odessa

I am wondering:

  1. what the present name of Leninsky Komsomol Park in Odessa is
  2. If this lenin bust graveyard is still there (if it is not where did the busts go?)

Here is a Photo: [2]

Here is the caption of the photo:

An unidentified man carries his child as he walks along a line of Lenin busts in Leninsky Komsomol (Ленинский Комсомол) Park in Odessa, southern Ukraine, Wednesday, Feb. 12, 1997. The dozens of statues and busts of the Soviet founder in an Odessa park form a unique museum - or graveyard - for the many monuments to Vladimir Lenin that were hastily pulled down in Ukraine after the 1991 Soviet collapse.

Thanks in advance. Odessaukrain 18:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found the answer to number 1: „Leninsky Komsomol" CRP 65033, Odessa city, Melnitskaya, 32b[3]
Anyone know if the lenin bust graveyard is still there? Odessaukrain 00:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: after visiting Odessa, the Lenin bust graveyard is gone, along with the Lenin statue next to the train station. There are two Lenin statues in Ленинский Комсомол, but according to locals the largest one will be removed this fall Odessaukrain 14:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting to "Odessa"

I think the renaming of this article to "Odesa" violates English language norm and needs to be reverted. Please express your opinion. Thanks. Kulikovsky 22:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that it should remain as Odesa, since this is the correct translation from Ukrainian to English. And Ukrainian is the only official language of Ukraine. Odessa, if I am not mistaken is a town/city in USA, therefore it would be much more convenient to use Odesa as the name of this article, as 1. It’s correct spelling 2. To differ two articles. --MaksKhomenko 14:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The entire English language world refers to Odessa, Ukraine as Odessa. The Ukrainian spelling is irrelevant. Odessaukrain 14:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yet the proper way to say is Odesa, and should be changed to such. Dont forget that the USSR fell apart, and we got to use UKrainian terms now.
Mona23653 14:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)mona23653[reply]
I put a message on your talk page. Once the current and future English authors begin spelling Odessa "Odesa", then the page move would be substantiated and warranted. But unforunatly, I can't think of a single article or author who uses the term "Odessa" over "Odesa".
Be content to know that "Odesa" redirects to "Odessa" and there is an explanation in the very first sentence that there is an alternate spelling.
I care little about the foolish language argument in Ukraine now. Odessaukrain 14:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody in English-speaking world spells ODESSA.--Assedo 00:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As, today, it is a Ukrainian city, I would side with the Romanisation of the Ukrainian spelling rather than the Russian spelling -- that is, "Odesa". --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 20:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Official language

Though Russian is largely spoken here and elsewhere, Ukrainian is the sole official language in Ukraine. Like many others about Ukraine (like Byelorussia and many more, by the way), this article does not reflect this fact, noticeably with the location names. I see no problem about giving the Russian names, anyway, but: A) Ukrainian alone has been repeatedly declared official, and any official status has been denied to Russian by successive governments, whatever their color; B) Other languages are spoken for 'some' time in Ukraine, like Tatar, Gagauz, etc. but those do not receive the same treatment as Russian in this encyclopedia. As it can be seen in the history, the first Odesa has been moved to Odessa, which is incorrect and inconsistent with the spelling used in about 90% of the articles (just check…) and with the results given by Google. The Russian spelling will send you in most cases to Texas. Would it be too much disturbation to take this into account, as Wikipedia is intended to give CORRECT information? Korenyuk 16:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about the correctness since all commonly used names are correct. This is about common usage as per WP:NC(UE). --Irpen 17:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your country should still be a part of Russia anyway. 24.183.178.138 03:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The official name is Odessa - you can see official city page --Assedo 12:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. They can claim all they want about their official languages, but there is only one state language in Ukraine and it is Ukrainian, so all other claims are not official. —dima/talk/ 18:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like really though, Since when was Russian ever Declared the offical Language of Modern Ukraine? I Realize that Russian is spoken more Fluently in Ukraine(Which is Terribly sad, one of the bad things the USSR Brought.), but Why spell Everything the Russian way? The City's name is Odesa. The only reason that it is spelled the Russian way is because people in the English Speaking world don't know the Difference between Russia and Ukraine. Until Russian is Declared either an offical state language, or a de facto, it should be written in the Ukrainian form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.69.57 (talk) 07:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The official name is Odesa, which is what should be used in the article. The general naming convention adopted on Ukranian cities (see L'viv or Kharkiv)is to adopt the official name. An exception may possibly be justified for Kyiv / Kiev, as the capital city (in the same way that Rome is used rather than Roma), but not, surely, for Odesa / Odessa.

Skinsmoke (talk) 12:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, silly contemporary nationalist language arguments in Ukraine are irrelevant to what the overwhelming majority of the English speaking world calls "Odessa".
The Ukraine/Russian debate is an inexpensive ploy of politicians to instill a sense of patriotism in a country which is barely 10 years old. It is the same tactic used most recently by Georgia, but which has been used by all countries. It is a time honored way to make the population docile, obedient and less critical.
Look at the way Ukraine is constructing expensive nationalist monuments while many Ukrainians starve.
This entire language debate looks so ridiculous to non-Ukrainians.
Please take irrelevant nationalist arguments elsewhere. Odessaukrain (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Odessa should move to Odesa with one s. --68.37.192.216 (talk) 00:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support renaming the article from Odessa to Odesa - the current spelling with two s supports the colonial efforts of the former Russian Empire. I am not sure if any country would like to be constantly reminded of its colonial past, particularly when we are talking about Wikipedia as the most commonly used first source of information worldwide. Oleh k (talk) 11:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Christmas in Odessa

I removed this sentence, added by anon:

Emannuel Anton Galitsky put out the platinum cd "Christmas in Odessa"

Maybe someone can add it back somewhere else. Odessaukrain (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odessa / Odesa population on 01.01.1913

Twenty largest cities in Imperial Russia on 01.01.1913 (14.01.1913)

Imperial Central Bureau of Statistics show these figures.

  • 1) Moscow 1.635.000 inhabitants
  • 2) Saint Petersburg 1.500.000 inhabitants
  • 3) Warsaw 771.000 inhabitants
  • 4) Odessa 510.000 inhabitants
  • 5) Lodz 328.500 inhabitants
  • 6) Kiev 323.000 inhabitants
  • 7) Riga 283.000 inhabitants
  • 8) Harkov 207.000 inhabitants
  • 9) Saratov 198.000 inhabitants
  • 10) Tiflis 197.000 inhabitants
  • 11) Vilna 183.000 inhabitants
  • 12) Buzuluk 165.000 inhabitants
  • 13) Tashkent 165.000 inhabitants
  • 14) Kazan 162.000 inhabitants
  • 15) Ekarinoslav 157.000 inhabitants
  • 16) Astrakhan 147.000 inhabitants
  • 17) Helsinki / Helsingfors 137.000 inhabitants
  • 18) Rostov on Don 129.500 inhabitants
  • 19) Kisinjev 129.000 inhabitants
  • 20) Baku 128.000 inhabitants
  • Tula 110.000 inhabitants
  • Ufa 103.500 inhabitants
  • Jaroslavl 102.000 inhabitants
  • Minsk 100.000 inhabitants
  • Tsaritsyn 99.500 inhabitants
  • Nikolajev 99.000 inhabitants
  • Kokand 99.000 inhabitants
  • Samara 95.500 inhabitants
  • Nizhni Novgorod 92.000 inhabitants
  • Dvinsk (Dunaburg) 90.000 inhabitants
  • Zhitomir 88.000 inhabitants
  • Orel 82.000 inhabitants
  • Vitebsk 81.000 inhabitants
  • Voronezh 79.000 inhabitants
  • Bialystok 78.500 inhabitants
  • Kovno 76.000 inhabitants
  • Irkutsk 76.000 inhabitants
  • Orenburg 74.000 inhabitants
  • Jekaterinodar 71.000 inhabitants
  • Jelisavetgrad 69.500 inhabitants
  • Revel 69.000 inhabitants
  • Sevastopol 68.000 inhabitants
  • Tomsk 68.000 inhabitants
  • Taganrog 65.500 inhabitants
  • Samarkand 65.000 inhabitants
  • Andizan 65.000 inhabitants
  • Libau 65.000 inhabitants
  • Penza 64.500 inhabitants
  • Smolensk 63.500 inhabitants
  • Kremenchug 63.000 inhabitants
  • Omsk 63.000 inhabitants
  • Simferopol 62.000 inhabitants
  • Tver 60.000 inhabitants
  • Kronstadt 60.000 inhabitants
  • Lublin 59.500 inhabitants
  • Kursk 57.000 inhabitants
  • Blagovjeshchensk 57.000 inhabitants
  • Simbirsk 56.500 inhabitants
  • Tambov 52.000 inhabitants
  • Kaluga 52.000 inhabitants
  • Novocherkassk 51.000 inhabitants
  • Poltava 50.500 inhabitants
  • Stavropol 50.000 inhabitants
  • Mohilev 50.000 inhabitants

The list less than 100 years ago (2008) looks quite different than 2008 population figures. In many cases the population has increased by tenfold of 1913 figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.198.226 (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Odesa

Hello. Current, Official, Native (Ukrainian) name of the city is Odesa. Need links to the Supreme Council which represents every vote-legible citizen?

As for "widespread" English usage – although being completely irrelevant - Odesa is more widespread: Before accusations on "cherrypicking" pour in - check how many languages use latin alphabet, and see how many of them use Odessa (for one reason or another). But we only concern ourselves with English, right? And we're only talking about Odesa in Ukraine (and not the one in Texas), right?

Odesa - 1,070,000 http://www.google.com.sg/search?hl=en&num=100&q=odesa+%2Bukraine&btnG=Search&meta=lr%3Dlang_en&aq=f&oq= Odessa - 655,000 http://www.google.com.sg/search?hl=en&num=100&q=odessa+%2Bukraine&btnG=Search&meta=lr%3Dlang_en&aq=f&oq=

Any questions?

Redirect OR at least refrain from vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.14.200 (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odessa is Russian way of spelling Ukrainian city Odesa. It should be moved back to ODESA with one S!!! --68.37.192.216 (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia uses the most common English spelling. That is based on a number of factors and definitely not on google searches, which are worthless. Usage in English atlases, encyclopedias, scholarly journals, secondary works, etc. all point at this time to Odessa being the most common English spelling. It doesn't matter what Ukraine likes (I lived there for a year actually), but only what common English usage is. Until common English usage shifts to Odesa, the article must remain at Odessa. (Taivo (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
So, US BGN database shows Odesa as BGN standard and Odessa only as variant. BGN is supposed classification is supposed to be an objective reflection of current usage of the city name in English. Therefore, what else do we need before the change is made? Anyone objects? What else do we need to do in order to change the city name on the main article?--Andriy155 (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus for move and edging toward consensus against. Moreover, the citation to atlases/maps and BGN are unconvincing as indicators of what English sources show as the common name. A look at a cross section of English newspaper sources, for example, resricted to the last five years and to English news sources returns results showing approximately a 3:1 ratio favoring the English usage of Odessa over Odesa ([4] vs. [5] and a 2:1 result for books [6] vs. [7], and even completely raw search engine results are far more useful and accurate in the sphere of usage of a name in sources, than they are for other purposes such as determining notability of a topic. Here we are concerned with what general English usage is because we want the most people searching for an article by a particular name to reach their intended target directly and without surprise, rather than concerned with reliability of the sources found through a search.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Odessa → Odesa — Current, Official, Native (Ukrainian) name of the city is Odesa. This name is also shown as Standard in US BGN geographic names database. Odessa is only shown as variant. This is a reflection of wide-spread usage of Odesa rather than Odesa in the English Language. Andriy155 (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is not true, BGN reflects the most common usage of the name in English language.--Andriy155 (talk) 07:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some BGN standards are "Firenze" for Florence, "Köln" for Cologne, "Moskva" for Moscow, and "København" for Copenhagen. Not exactly an indication of common usage in English. Jafeluv (talk) 09:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me there is a wee confusion here. BGN database lists all existing names fo a geographic entity. However, it also has markers (BGN Standard, Conventional and Variant). BGN Standard, in the absense of conventional, refers to the most common name of the city currently used in the English language. The variant is alternative spelling, which is also used and is primarilly transliteration from the language of the origin. However, when conventional marker appears, it takes priority over the standard marker. To take your examples: Moskva, København and Köln all show up in BGN as standard; however, Moscow, Copenhagen and Cologne all show up as Conventional. So this latter set is mostly used in English language press. For Odesa this is not the case. Odesa shows up as standard and Odessa as a variant, not conventional. Therefore, according to BGN, Odesa is most widely used in English language.--Andriy155 (talk) 23:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Funny enough, I support for the very same reasons :)--Andriy155 (talk) 06:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose this silly edit war over names has gone on for years. Odessaukrain (talk) 06:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. I lived in western Ukraine for a year and understand the issue and the sensitivities of Ukrainians to Russian spellings. Some Ukrainian articles are at the Ukrainian spelling (Rivne and Uzhhorod, for example) so it is confusing. Rivne and Uzhhorod are rarely used in English, however, and both are clearly within the Ukrainian-speaking part of Ukraine. Odessa is not like Rivne and Uzhhorod since many English speakers actually know where it is (the Potemkin Stairs scene from "Battleship Potemkin" is well-known, for example). The Russian spelling is longstanding in English. But another reason why Odessa should stay where it is is that the city itself is part of Russian-speaking Ukraine, so the majority of inhabitants of Odessa actually spell it with two с's (Одесса). (Taivo (talk) 06:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Yet, Google ranking shows that Odesa dominates Odessa and US BGN shows that Odesa is used more often in English than Odessa. How about that? As for Odesa being part of Russian-speaking Ukraine, how about changing Lviv to Lwow and Uzhhorod to Ungvar? I would be curious to see what Ukrainian speaking Odesits have to say about your statement. On behalf of all Ukrainians I apologise for confusing you with the usage of the Ukrainian rather than Russian language in the names of Ukrainian cities. Also, following your logic, Lviv is not known to Western Europeans and North Americans?--Andriy155 (talk) 07:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not confused, Andriy155, I understand the difference between Ukrainian and Russian and the difference between the regions of Ukraine where Russian is the predominant language (southern and eastern) and where Ukrainian is the predominant language (western). Ukrainian-speaking residents of Odessa are in the distinct minority. Lviv and Uzhhorod are both in the Ukrainian region and neither is widely known outside Ukraine. Most English speakers are only really familiar with Kiev and Odessa (with Yalta a close third). Google searches are worthless as indicators of usage and always have been. They are not reliable. Most common usage in English is determined by a wide variety of references. Right now, the spellings of Kiev and Odessa are slowly (and I emphasize slowly) shifting to Kyiv and Odesa, but they are very, very far from common at this time. In school, American and British students are still learning the Russian spellings. Wikipedia only reflects most common English usage and despite your nationalist feelings and desires, that is still Kiev and Odessa. It takes much, much more than Google hits and BGN usage to change (and prove) most common English usage. (Taivo (talk) 10:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Really? From my impression, Kyiv, Lviv and Yalta are mostly known, not Odesa. No offence to the Odesits though. I completely agree with you regarding the role of WP as reflective rather than prescriptive. Hence, it was really important when BGN, which is not politically affiliated with Russians or Ukrainians to actually show that Odesa is more common in English language than Odessa. --Andriy155 (talk) 23:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not bound by any government proclamations, but only by common English usage, which you haven't proven. BGN is not a measure of common English usage, but is a reflection of government policy. That is different. Just because the US government supports Ukrainian spelling doesn't make it standard usage. You must look at a wide variety of encyclopedias, atlases, media usage, academic usage, etc. in order to put together a proposal for changing the name. Just stating that Ukrainian spelling is X and the BGN uses X doesn't make a convincing case for common English usage. You've used two or three data points out of hundreds of possible ones. You must make a much stronger case for Odesa as the most common English usage before other editors here at Wikipedia will even begin to listen to you. (Taivo (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
And again, I am repeating what has already been written here: "A quick trip to Chapters, local chain of bookstores, showed that most maps use Odesa and not Odessa.". As for BGN, my understanding is that this not something dictated by the American government. Let me give you an example. US government has been using Kyiv instead of Kiev for some time now. Yet BGN clearly states Kiev as conventional name. This is not the case for Odesa. Please specify the exact number of sources required to convince you that usage of Odesa has grown enough to overshadow Odessa. Just saying we need much stronger case is rather vague, don't you think?--Andriy155 (talk) 03:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note as well that almost all sources used in this article use the "Odessa" spelling. Jafeluv (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Hammond company also calls Macedonia "F.Y.R.O.M." (and is the only American map publisher that does), so companies have POVs as well. Change of usage is not an overnight thing. Sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't. It cannot be judged on one or two sources, it must be judged across a very broad spectrum of sources. For example, modern media still use the Russian spelling. You've got to have a wide range of evidence, not just Ukrainian official policy plus a tiny handful of sources. (Taivo (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
A quick trip to Chapters, local chain of bookstores, showed that most maps use Odesa and not Odessa.--Andriy155 (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support I reckon the matter at hand is much simpler than that. As a former linguist and now a natural scientist, I can confidently state that English spelling of personal names from a give county should be solely based on the pronunciation of the names in the language of the country. Ukrainian is the official language of Ukraine. In Ukrainian language pronunciation of the personal name to denote the city of Odesa does not have the elongated s which the Odessa spelling suggests. Therefore, Odessa does not accurately reflect the pronunciation of the name of the city and therefore should be changed to Odesa. This spelling does not only agree with the one found in most of the contemporary maps and atlases, but also is in line with the spelling on the road signs alongside highways in Ukraine.--Odmytrenko (talk) 04:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The official language of Ukraine is, indeed, Ukrainian, but the majority language of Odessa is Russian. And, Andriy155, you have a tiny number of sources for your assertions. Wikipedia is not tied to BGN or any other government source. You must prove your assertions with an abundance of evidence. Doing a Google search and popping down to Chapters does not make a convincing case. (Taivo (talk) 04:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
And once again I ask you what abundance of evidence means. Are you being vague on purpose? As to your definition of 'Language of Majority', give me a source for that - preferably statistics from a census. Good luck to the tourists looking for OdesSa on the road signs in Ukraine. With regards to BGN, as explained above, BGN reflects common usage in English language and does not prescribe it. Please explain why this should be ignored.--Andriy155 (talk) 04:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I are ignoring my point about BGN. It is only one data point. Your Hammond atlas is only one data point. Your trip to Chapters doesn't have a list of atlases and maps you consulted--they might have all been published by Hammond. If so, then it is still just one data point. Read this for more guidance on the kinds of evidence that you will need for a convincing proposal to use Odesa as the spelling. And my wife is Ukrainian, I have travelled in Odessa, I have seen the signs and heard the language in Odessa. The majority of people in Odessa speak Russian as their first language. It was a city founded by the Russians and not by Ukrainians. It is not much different than Dnipropetrovsk--founded by Catherine the Great at about the same time. (Taivo (talk) 05:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Not sure why you are saying 'your Hammond atlas'. This was not written by me but by another user. I will go back to Chapters and will list the maps and atlases. please let me know how many sources would suffice and whether or not you need photos or scans. Notice that you are still being vague and do not state what exactly is needed: number of sources would be great. You have not explained why BGN should be ignored- they already do a review of how common a name is. As for the road signs, have you really seen any English-language official highway signs saying Odessa? I do not mean to offend, but I do not believe that. Please provide a source. Here is what I am talking about: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.mostobud.com.ua/content/images/f7e132855a4c70268535b7478d14f75a.jpg&imgrefurl=http://euro2012highway.blogspot.com/2007/10/blog-post_25.html&usg=__KO5Y2342o050TnGjKIMBtiq-AfQ=&h=414&w=700&sz=127&hl=uk&start=8&sig2=SSOUxz5GHxgv7qhgyky6eQ&um=1&tbnid=dqmjbE8J1tVNGM:&tbnh=83&tbnw=140&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%25D0%25BA%25D0%25B8%25D1%2597%25D0%25B2%2B%25D0%25BE%25D0%25B4%25D0%25B5%25D1%2581%25D0%25B0%2Bodesa%2B%25D0%25B4%25D0%25BE%25D1%2580%25D0%25BE%25D0%25B3%25D0%25B0%26hl%3Duk%26lr%3D%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.gentoo:uk-UA:official%26hs%3DVAn%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1&ei=P_1GSu2RN434Ma_w0YYC I am including this long url for the image so that I don't get accused of photoshoping anything. As for Dnipropetrovsk, go ahead and start a campaign to change the city name on WP as well. But please provide non-vague reasons for that. Also, I am missing your point about the city being founded by Russians. Most of the city got developed bya Frenchman, actually, but that's besides the point. Some claim that Kyiv was founded by vikings. Why not change its name to Konugard?! --Andriy155 (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, in similar situations, Kharkiv and Dnipropetrovsk have been chosen for WP over their Russian-language counter-parts. Why should odesa be any different?--Andriy155 (talk) 06:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, to your point about Russian-speakrs having a majority in Odesa. I searched on Wikipedia and here is what I found. Here is a map showing percentage of native Ukrainian speakers according to the 2001 census: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ukraine_cencus_2001_Ukrainian.svg and here is the maps for native Russian speakers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ukraine_cencus_2001_Russian.svg I must admit, it is quite close, but the share of Ukrainian speakers is greater. I would encourage to provide facts and figures and avoid unsupported statements like 'my wife is Ukrainian'. Personally, howevere, I believe that the decision of what name the article should bear should depend on how wide the name is used in English and not on the number of Russian speakers as you are suggesting. --Andriy155 (talk) 06:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a democratic country with equal representation, an official language is the language of the majority. All the official documents, official correspondence, court trials, higher education and alike as well as street signs, advertisement, labels, product descriptions, brand names and so forth in accordance to law must be in and without exception are reserved for the official language. A democratic government will support any other language spoken by any given group of people residing on the territory of that country. However, any such language will be restricted to a private sphere. Therefore, if Russian is the majority language in Odesa, it will not be reflected in the official name of the city. By pleading my case, I make a broader appeal to rid this encyclopedia from bias and personal preference. Instead it should always be governed by logic. The other day I have been to the COOP bookstore at Harvard Square and checked the available maps of Ukraine. All of those I have seen provided spelling based on the Ukrainian pronunciation, often supplying a phonetic transcription in the brackets. I do not see why Wikipedia should be any different. --Odmytrenko (talk) 05:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You two guys are just spitting into the wind right now. I have provided you with a place to look for marshalling your evidence ([8]) in accordance with Wikipedia policy. It's not my fault if you are not willing to gather appropriate evidence according to that policy. Until you can convince a majority of editors with properly gathered and presented evidence, then you are just wasting your time with this effort and it will fail again. (Taivo (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
If you are actually serious about presenting evidence and not just whining because Wikipedia doesn't follow Ukrainian spelling for this city, then look at this as a good example of how to gather and present evidence. (Taivo (talk) 07:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
This is worth a shot. Thanks for the link. I would encourage you to refrain from the comments like 'just whining because Wikipedia doesn't follow Ukrainian spelling for this city' in future. There is a lot that can be said about stating that somebody has a Ukrainian wife as a reference for the proportion of Russian speakers in a city.--Andriy155 (talk) 08:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the "whining" comment. I deal with several nationalist issues here and it's not often that someone is actually serious about pursuing the work needed to actually prove common English usage. Usually it is just "whining". But I've been in Odessa and walked its streets and visited its markets. The language you hear all around you is Russian, not Ukrainian. Sure the street signs have to be in Ukrainian, but the language that surrounds you on people's tongues is Russian. It's a Russian-speaking town like Donetsk, Kharkiv, Sevastopol, Dnipropetrovsk, and the other eastern and southern Ukrainian cities. But good luck in your research. (Taivo (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I have to acknowledge the disrespectful tone of the user Taivo. It is unacceptable that learned discussion in this esteemed encyclopedia is carried out in not an impartial manner. I ask the user to refrain from any further offensive comments.--Odmytrenko (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Odmytrenko, just adding a link or two isn't going to make your case (and please note the difference between your tone and Andriy155's above). Look at the level of evidence that is necessary by clicking on the link I provided above. That's the minimum standard which you must reach in order to demonstrate common English usage. (Taivo (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
One further note about evidence: Any website that ends in .ua is pretty useless. We're talking common English usage--that means usage in the United States and Britain principally. It doesn't matter what the Ukrainian government wants people to think. Since this is the English Wikipedia, it's only about what the several hundred million native speakers of English think and what spelling they use. (Taivo (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I'm not being emotional. I've simply pointed out that the evidence you have presented so far is inadequate to prove common English usage. I've provided a link above to show you what minimum level of evidence is necessary to adequately prove that the common English spelling of Odessa has changed. It's up to you to provide the evidence or to continue to accept the status quo, which is the Russian spelling. And Oleh, Ukrainian national policy is immaterial for Wikipedia (see WP:NCON specifically for the statement that political considerations have nothing to do with how Wikipedia names an article). Wikipedia is not the official arm of any government or organization. It simply reflects common English usage. (Taivo (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I agree with Odmytrenko. I also find your tone emotional and somewhat offensive. All of your statements are based on your anecdotal experience (and I can provide a lot anecdotal experience as well and so?). You failed to provide any concrete data or figures. Your statements are confusing. At first you state that you've seen road signs and (if I understand you correctly) they were in Russian. Now you are saying "they must be in Ukrainian". Besides, as has been pointed out before, Wikipedia reflects common usage in the English language rather the language of majority in specific region (which according to the sources I showed is actually Ukrainian). Finally, your comment regarding nationalistic issues is also borderline offensive. There are quite a lot of people for whom keeping it status quo (i.e. spelling induced by the colonising power) is normal but trying Wikipedia to reflect the clear shift in spelling that occurred over the last 5-7 years is nationalism. I would recommend that you avoided such terms and did not rush into such conclusions. Otherwise, I can start saying your position is: revisionist, imperialistic and pro-Russian with regards to Ukrainian issues and therefore nationalistic from Russian viewpoint. Do you want to go down that road?--Andriy155 (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not at all emotional about this. I will just continue to point you to the requirement that you must prove that Odessa is not the most common English usage. I've given you a link (at least twice now) to show you what evidence you need to gather and how to present it. Wikipedia naming policy is crystal clear--most common English usage. It has nothing to do with "colonialism" or "national language" or anything else to do with political issues. It is simply "most common English usage". And I never said I saw road signs in Russian in Odessa--I said simply signs. Of course, street signs, being official, are going to be in Ukrainian. But I've said everything that needs to be said here. Wikipedia's policy is to ignore nationalistic preferences, official languages, national pronouncements, and government policies. The only thing that matters is common English usage. In order to change the title of this article, you must prove your point. I've given you a link to a good example of the data you need to gather and how to present it. It's up to you now if you want to do the work to prove your point. (Taivo (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
This makes sense. What does not make sense is how the discussion by Taivo about what he heard on the streets and his wife being Ukrainian is relevant to establishing the most common English usage.--Andriy155 (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My experience in Odessa wasn't relevant for common English usage. It was relevant to establish that Odessa is more Russian-speaking than Ukrainian-speaking. (Taivo (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Glad this was sorted out. By the way, anecdotal evidence cannot be used to establish anything.--Andriy155 (talk) 20:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Name of the source Odessa Odesa
Oxford Atlas of the World X
The Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World X
National Geographic Visual Atlas of the World X
DK Great World Atlas X
HarperColin New World Atlas X
Hammond fifth Edition World Atlas X
Rand McNally Classic World Atlas X
Ukraine - The Essential Guide to Customs and Culture X
Lonely Planet - Ukraine X
--Odmytrenko (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a start, but only a start. Look at the link I provided above and you will see that there is a great deal more evidence for you to gather before you convince anyone that common English usage has changed. My suggestion is to create a separate workpage so that you can gather the evidence in one place without cluttering the discussion here (like was done at the link I provided above). Then when you have gathered enough evidence, you can simply provide a link here. That way you don't clutter this page with your working data. (Taivo (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
We will collaborate on this. At least, so far we have four people supporting and four against.--Andriy155 (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea to collaborate. Good luck. (Taivo (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I would like to know how the decision is made. How is responsible for making the final move from Odessa to Odesa? Who exactly needs to be convinced about the change of use? Why is no evidence in support of the current naming provided in the format which I was requested to follow? --Odmytrenko (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) But remember that Wikipedia doesn't run on "votes", but on consensus building. A consensus isn't just a 5-4 majority. A consensus is where the overwhelming mass of opinion coalesces around a solution. 9-1 would be a consensus, 5-4 isn't. If you amass good data, then the majority of editors will look at it and say, "That's good and convincing" and a "vote" becomes unnecessary. It's all about good, reliable, verifiable evidence and a good presentation of it based on Wikipedia policy. (Taivo (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Right now there is no consensus, so no move is justified. Once a consensus is reached an admin will oversee the move. The article stays where it is because the "mover" needs to prove that a move is justified. Without someone proving that a move is justified, then articles stay where they are based on status quo. This has been discussed several times in the past already and the consensus has strongly been in favor of the article staying right here. You have to prove that English common usage has changed. (Taivo (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
You've got a tough row to hoe right now because the city itself seems to prefer the Odessa spelling in English. (Taivo (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Sorry, now I am really confused. Taivo earlier on this page wrote: 'One further note about evidence: Any website that ends in .ua is pretty useless. We're talking common English usage--that means usage in the United States and Britain principally'. So?
Your evidence supporting a change of spelling here should not rely on .ua addresses. There's nothing confusing about that. But when Odessa itself uses "Odessa" as the English spelling, that's pretty indicative of how common the Russian spelling is. Indeed, the title of Odessa's official website is Одесса, even on the Ukrainian version of the website. But your evidence must be of common English usage. There's nothing confusing about that. (Taivo (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
This is clearly strange: no site in the ua domain can be used to argue for 'Odesa' but can be used to argue for Odessa. Don't you think this is strange? As for the Ukrainian page, are you now going to argue that it is Одесса in Ukrainian? The fact that they have a banner with Одесса on the Ukrainian page actually shows that they page has not been checked for errors and typos. Therefore, this site cannot be used to establish anything regarding the official spelling of the city in any language.--Andriy155 (talk) 20:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, the status quo has so much evidence that it is incumbent on the proponents of a move to prove that English usage has changed. The official site of the city of Odessa is not the only proof of "Odessa". And it is still true that using .ua references will not make the case for a move. (Taivo (talk) 00:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. Per Wikipedia:NC (geographic names) - Encyclopedia Britannica = Odessa. Also odessa.ua domain name. As well - in contrast to claim made by Andriy155 - Odessa is widely used in all areas - like postal addresses, company names (Odesa Port, Odessa Hotel), universities (Odessa National Mechnikov Univecity , Odessa National Polytechnical). Per guideline listed when widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. Resorting to official name must be done only in case if no widely accepted English name exists. But as I've presented evidences - Odessa name is widely used. Lonely BGN or maps references should not be taken in considerations. Proper Google Test is "Odessa Ukraine" = 499,000 vs. "Odesa Ukraine" = 38,100. Google test without quotes will try to automatically correct Odesa to Odessa, but not from Odessa to Odesa. --TAG (talk) 23:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose. This is being argued using atlases and the Standard Transliteration entries of BGN's Geonet. As WP:NCGN#BGN notes, GEOnet is not a good guide to English usage unless it is discussing a conventional name; it uses Frankfurt am Main and Firenze. So do many atlases.
In so doing, they are acting sensibly for their purposes, not for ours - which include telling foreigners what to call Odessa in English with a hope of not confusing monoglot anglophones. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The provided evidence with entries from Oxford Atlas, The Times, and National Geographic is very convincing. Also, the argument with the Russian spelling (Odessa) reflecting the colonial linguistic policies of the Russian Empire has to be strongly taken into account. I don't know if any formerly colonized country would like for the rest of the world to use in encyclopedic entries (such as on Wikipedia) the names of its cities in the language of the colonizer. To my knowledge, the article about "Alma Ata" on Wikipedia is being automatically redirected to "Almaty" and I don't see anywhere any discussion about it. We should do the same with Odesa: after 1991, consider the official name of the city changed. There are more examples from the Asian countries - former USSR republics - where the old names are not used anymore, although the English speaker would be more comfortable with using them. Wikipedia did a great job implementing those changes by moving the articles and should remain consistent in this regard with this issue as well. Oleh k (talk) 11:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Official Ukrainian policy matters nothing here and the atlas information is insufficient to prove common English usage. And, as I mentioned above, other stuff in Wikipedia is not a sufficient argument (Rivne and Uzhhorod, for example). Your argument is still seriously weakened by the simple fact that the official Odessa website spells their name "Odessa" in English, and the banner spells it Одесса. If the people of Odessa spell their name Odessa, it's hard to argue for "Odesa". (Taivo (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
What does the banner have to do with anything? It is written in Russian (there are some other Russian words written on it). The same Russian-language banner appears on the Ukrainian and English pages. That does not mean that Ukrainian spelling Одесса. Good luck! ps Please avoid generalisations like 'people from Odesa spell something'. You have not conducted a poll nor quoted one here. --Andriy155 (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the city government of Odessa is using the Russian spelling (after all, they pay for the website), doesn't that say something about Odessa being primarily a Russian-speaking city? Anyway, whether the website spells it Odessa or not, you still have marshalled very, very little evidence for a change in English common usage. (Taivo (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Do you get a kick out of repeating the same thing over and over? Once again: you failed to provide any evidence about the number of Russian speakers in Odesa. I have provided you with census results. You simply ignored that. Way to go for someone from the academia. Also, I have no idea why you keep on bringing the issue about the Russian speakers in the first place here since the issue is irrelevant, as you have admitted yourself. Please stop flooding this post with irrelevant and unsupported material.--Andriy155 (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Andriy, this is a warning about civility. (Taivo (talk) 16:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Civility?! Well, you can warn me all you want: the fact remains you keep on repeating the same point that even you admitted has nothing to do with the subject of the discussion. So, again, I'd encourage that you stop 'educating' people about Wikipedia rules (like you did on my talk page) and actually start posting relevant material which is supported by facts. Furthermore, I also warn you about civility regarding your earlier statements. I was not the only one who found them offensive (see comment from Odmytrenko above).--Andriy155 (talk) 22:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and I quickly apologized for my single comment. Is there an equivalent apology in your remarks. No. I don't see an apology for your personal attacks. And the burden of evidence is still on your shoulders. (Taivo (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Oleh k, your arguments about occupation work against you. Odessa since it's foundation was a port - there many cultures and nationalities lived and worked. It was named Odessa since it's creation. Russian Empire had no problems at all with people specking French, German, Italian, Greek and many others languages. In contrast - after 1990's there are huge pressure from Kiev governments to use Ukrainian-only. So - then specking about intervention - it's about current state of affairs - not past. Debates on Wikipedia like this one - is just one more effort to change things how they were for long time (like 200 years) - simply because some officials in Kiev decided so. Will be next step of renaming Odessa in Ukraine - renaming many others Odessa named after Ukrainian one like in Odessa, Texas, Odessa, Delaware or Odessa, Washington? It will be strange to see that there will be many cities named Odessa, but main city change name to Odesa (because of no-longer "occupied" by Russian empire) --TAG (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. With all due respect to Ukrainian sensitivities, we are used to it as Odessa, the Russian speaking Ukrainians of this Ukrainian city spell it as such and just about every other English/American official and unofficial language source spells it as such. (Also the former significant Greek presence also spelled it with two 's' (Οδησσός), but that is just a detail in the overall argument). Politis (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, "Odessa" seems still to be the common English form. Note that atlases (as cited above) are not necessarily good evidence to the contrary: many geographic atlases have editorial policies of sticking to official local forms and their transliterations much more than it is our policy to do; they are the ones that will also present Rome as Roma, Athens as Athēnai or Athina, and Moscow as Moskva. We nevertheless stick with Rome, Athens and Moscow. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Several very relevant links have been removed, links which have appear to have been on this page for years.[9] These include several guides, a link with panaromic maps, a link to dmoz, and a history of odessa. I can understand why hotel or room rental links are deleted, but these sites contain valuable and encyclopedic material. 69.138.243.26 (talk) 04:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Potemkin Stairs

After visiting Potemkin Stairs today (08-31-09) I have to assume the picture of "Potemkin Stairs" on this site has been doctored. The shadowed images of the people on the stairs are smaller than any average sized person would be, giving the impression the stairs are wider and longer than they actually are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.124.253.242 (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catacombs vs. Subway

Although widely believed locally, it's doubtful as stated in the article that the Catacombs are a serious impediment to a subway system. Subways are routinely built in much worse conditions and much deeper excavations, even underneath major water features, and limestone is actually very conducive to tunneling (as evidenced by the very existence of the Catacombs in the first place.) More likely such a system is just economically infeasible because Odessa isn't large enough to make it worth the investment. Dnipropetrovsk is the smallest city in Ukraine to have any sort of underground system, and it is a town of similar population but considerably larger area. Even so, that system only has 6 stations and 8km of track, making it one of the smallest underground systems in the world and a questionable cost/benefit ratio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.60.161.98 (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Odesa&oldid=364737349"