Jump to content

Talk:Antin Holovaty

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

Name

[edit]

Antin Holovaty is a Ukrainian figure. His surname is a Ukrainian name from the word Holova meaning head. Spelling his name through a Russian transcription is doing him a disservice. Bandurist 21:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may have reasons to start a name change discussion but what you did instead, creating rival fork articles twice and warring with cut-n-paste moves, was very counterproductive. --Irpen 21:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was very frustrated that my article, which was originally under Holovaty for which I got a barnstar in August was removed and cut to shrds by mr Kubam

Barnstar

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
For your excellent work on Antіn Holоvaty. Thanks for picking up the ball and running with this project...Thank you. Odessaukrain 01:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bandurist 04:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bandurist, I believe you made a good faith error but you got the timing wrong. It is easy to see that this article was started on August 3 [1] . On August 4, you started a rival article under a name you think the article should have been [2] . Creating forks is not the way to go, we need just one article per person, not two under different names. Now, Kazak merged some of the info from the second article into a first one and turned it into a redirect. You are free to expand on that and carry the discussion on the name at the same time. But it is plain wrong to have two articles on one person with Russian editors developing one and the Ukrainian editors developing another. I hope we agree on that. --Irpen 06:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read what I wrote carefully before jumping to conclussions KK, Bandurist (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was that directed to Irpen or me? --Kuban Cossack 17:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Irpen Bandurist you don't WP:OWN any articles. Also Bandurist the article is a stub! Giving someone a barnstar for a stub is not imo a professional thing to do.
I support the move, why should his name be written the Russian way? Ostap 04:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well now that we are discussing, why indeed? Well we have famous people of one ethnicity written in transcription of the country which they helped to form. Golovaty was the founder of the Black Sea Cossack Host, founder of the Kuban's colonisation. He was a loyal Russian Cossack commander. You don't even have a Russian (or Buryat) title in the lead of Yuriy Yekhanurov, why? Because despite being ethnic Buryat all his life contribution that made him notable was to Ukraine. Same way we don't have a Ukrainian of Nikolay Gogol, same reason: life's contribution to Russian literature. Golovaty's life contribution was to Russian military, and Russian expansion. Catherine II of Russia we don't title her as Sophie Friederike Auguste von Anhalt-Zerbst now do we. Same logic here. --Kuban Cossack 13:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression Gogol was written in the Russian transcription because that is the most common english form of his name, for whatever reason. I am not aware of wikipedia policy describing naming based on contributions to certain nations, remember the name needs to be written to benefit anglophones. Neither Golovaty or Holovaty is common enough to make a difference to an English speaker. It seems that you have admitted he was a Ukrainian, so why so bent on keeping that information out? However, you argument is semi-convinving, but I want to see Bandurists evidence also. Ostap 14:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I don't mind giving the alternative (Ukrainian) spelling in the lead, however I believe that the title should be Russian, because despite being Ukrainian (in fact that does not really matter, as ethnically you can be whoever) he is remembered as a commander of Russian Cossack Host, as a Russian military figure. Look at it this way ethnically you are X, you were born in Y (Kiev was part of the Russian Empire back then) and you spend your life in Z, people remember you because of what you did to Z. Is Rurik remembered as Rørik? He was not even Slavic, yet he founded the Kievan Rus. Now do we remember him for his Varangian part of life whatever it was, or for the fact that he would become the first ruler of Rus? Same here, moving the article to Holovaty is like moving Rurik to Rørik. It simply makes no sense. --Kuban Cossack 15:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is anyone still doubting the present title? Otherwise I will remove the RM from this artcile. --Kuban Cossack 19:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our naming conventions call for us to use the unambiguous name that will be the most familiar and recognizable to English speakers. When I check Google, I get the most hits for "Anton Golovaty", but it's <100 hits, so that doesn't mean much. I note that the page's one external link is not in English, most of the article apparently being unsourced. How do English language sources spell his name? Which spelling will more English speakers recognize? -GTBacchus(talk) 07:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only English language source I have found is the Encyclopedia of Ukraine which uses a Ukrainian transcription. In Russian culture he is a minor figure who often has no citation in Russian encyclopedias. Bandurist (talk) 11:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that Encyclopedia of Ukraine uses Ukrainian transcrptions universally. That is not the case with wikipedia. Moreover the versions that that encyclopedia uses are different from modern Urkainian themselves: e.g. Konotip instead of Konotop, Tahanrih instead of Tahanroh, and so on. That's the issue, the refrence is not an English source. It's like this. I have explained why this above why I think the person should be named as Russian, after all his contribution to Russian history is massive compared to Ukrainian one.--Kuban Cossack 12:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, there is no english version of any Russian encyclopedia that I know of. Holovaty has entered Western culture through the articles in the Ukrainian encyclopedia. Also keep in mind that the name Holovaty is a common Ukrainian name as a google search will testify http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=Holovaty&meta= which gives 489 thousand hits. Bandurist (talk) 13:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you having a laugh? The first hit is some Adrian Holovaty? How is a web developer related to a Russian Cossack leader? Certainly if we follow your logic we should rename all articles titled with Volodymyr this or Volodymyr that to Vladimir this and Vladimir that becuase Vladimir entered the western culture from Russian language. That is just pure nonsense and a direct violation of WP:NC. --Kuban Cossack 13:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Read my statement carefully before jumping to conclussions. Bandurist (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can we include a citation to the Ukrainian encyclopedia? If that's the one English source, we should by all means let our readers know about it. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedia of Ukraine - University of Toronto Press, Volume II G-K, 1988 p.209

Holovaty, Antin [Holovatyj], b. 1744, d. 19 February 1797. Military leader. Educated at the Kievan Mohyla Academy, he served as chancellor of the Zaporozhian Host and colonel of the Boh Cossack Army. In 1787 he helped organize the army of Loyal Cossacks, which was renamed Black Sea Cossacks. His assistance to the Russian Army in the Russian-Turkish War of 1787-91, particularly in capture of Berezan fortress, gaining the tsar's favour. After the war Holovaty conducted the resettlement of the Cossacks to the Kuban region. In 1796 he was elected otoman of the Black Sea Cossacks and participated with two regiments in the Russian campaign against Persia. According to tradition, Holovaty was the author of as number of popular songs.Bandurist (talk) 01:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be at odds with our article here, for example regarding his year of birth. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The encyclopedia of Kozakdom also has the 1744 date. It had

HOLOVATY, Antin (Anton) Andriyovych (1744-1797) - Ukrainian military activist. Born into a military family. He received a good education which helped to further his career. In his 13th year Holovaty enters the Kushchiv kurin of the Secret Sich (1757). This may have happened in order to complete his education because he knew that education was required for success. In 1760 Holovaty was elected the Kurin Otoman which allowed him to continue raising his rank. In 1764 because of his knowledge of writing and his intelligence he received the rank of. ... The article is almost a full page.

The confusion over the date 1715 is because of another Holovaty - Pavlo Holovatyj who was born in 1714 who was a military judge of the Zaporozhian cossacks and who was arrested by the Russians in 1775 after the destruction of the Sich and sent to Tobolsk where he died. Bandurist (talk) 13:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you add those two sources to the article, and adjust the contents accordingly, then I'll move it per the sources used. At this point, I can't tell what the article is based on. It would also be good to see a translation of the Large Soviet Encyclopedia article that is currently cited in the one footnote. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ, first of all both of the translations cited by Bandurist are Ukrainian based, like per them it would be sensible to move Nikolay Gogol to Mykola Hohol, but that would violate WP:NC. There are countless other examples of when people born in one country but made a significant contribution to the latter, and wikipedia would always use the one nation that that individual had most impact on. Encyclopedia of Ukraine, or Cossackdom is not reliable here because the topics are centred on Ukraine. They use Ukrainian transcriptions (some of which incorrect) for titles that wikipedia would write in Russian, Polish, Belarusian etc. names. A good example would be Encarta, Britannica, however as the person might not be WP:NOTABLE enough to have his own article we simply have to use our common sense and apply the same convention as we would in other cases, my example above with Rurik proves this point. --Kuban Cossack 11:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support — per nomination. Available sources give the name as Holovaty. As well, I think those who claim available sources are biased, should present neutral academic publications to support this Russian name, rather than accusing others of bias. As is noted above, this person is WP:NOTABLE for Ukrainian academic publications and should stay with the name provided in them. --Hillock65 (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Language and transcription discussion

[edit]
The principle we use to decide titles is not, "On which country did the subject have the most effect?," but rather, "What name is used in other English-language sources?". Your example of Nikolai Gogol would make more sense if our only English language sources on him were the Ukrainian encyclopedia, but that's not the case. We have an abundance of sources referring to Gogol as "Gogol". Can you provide English-language sources that refer to the subject of this article as Anton Golovaty? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note
The (English version of the) Encyclopedia of Ukraine uses Gogol rather than Hohol, because it is what is better known in English. Bandurist (talk) 05:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but I am afraid that the sources that Bandurist provided give an insignificant portrail wrt WP:NCGN. The point is that the figure might not be so significant to warrant himself a separate article, but if Britannica ever does write about him, they will undoubtedly use Golovaty, because of the reasoning that I put above. Also can I ask that Bandurist cease his revert warring. The article's present state is a status quo, and unless you want me to request for it to be locked I would like to wait until consensus. There is no point in reverting it, if the final version might call for it to be reverted back. If its done with consensus, I will agree to the changes. Otherwise its just a violation of WP:FAITH and WP:EQ. --Kuban Cossack 21:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holovaty is a minor figure in Russian history, however in Ukrainian history he hasd acheived a significant place. The problem stems from the fact that Russian does not officially have the H sound, and H sounds from other languages are usually converted to a G. (Ukrainian however has both H and G). As a result in Russian they use Gitler insted od Hitler, Gomosexual instead of Homosexual, Gegel instead of Hegel, Gaydn instead of Haydn, Gendel instead of Handel, Gag instead of The Hague etc, etc .

It would be silly to insist on using Gitler in English because he is a significant figure in Russian history. I see no need to butcher the Ukrainian language by using a Russian transliteration of Holovaty's name, the surname of an ethnic Ukrainian who would have pronounced it as Holovaty (as do all his contemporary kinsmen). Bandurist (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its irrespective of where the name was derived from. If hitler was a major figure in Russian history to such a degree that all of his life-work would be remembered in Russia, then yes, wikipedia would title him as Gitler. However that is not case with Adolf, but it is the case with Golovaty. He is known in Russia as Golovaty, and I gave a source above, so no need to give false statements such as he was a minor figure in Russian history. His life work was for Russia, and not for Ukraine. --Kuban Cossack 21:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As mentined before, Russian doesn't have the H. As a result Hydro Electric Station become Gydro Electric Station, Harmony becomse Garmony, The city of Havana becoems Gavana. Hawaii becomes Gavayi, Haiti becomes Haiti, Helen becomes Gelen. Harry Potter become Gari Poter,, Hamburg, becomes Gamburg, and a hamburger is a gamburger, Hamlet, becomes Gamlet,, Hannover - Ganover, harlem- garlem, harmony - garmonia, harpoon - garpun, The Hebrides - Gebretejski ostrova, Haidelburg - Gejdelberg, Hector - Gektor, Helicopter (invented by Kievan Sikorsky) - Gelikopter, Henry - Genri, Herman - German, hertzogovina - Gertzegovina, Hygiene - Gigiena, all the hydro words are gidro,, Hymilayas - Gimilayi, Hymn - gimn, hypothesis - gipoteza, holography - golografiya, Honolulu - Gonolulu, Humanitarian -gumaniy,humanist-gumanist, The list goes on and on.
There is no reason to transcribe a Ukrainian surname via Russian, especially if materials are available with the correct spelling.
What is also silly is that Holovatyj would have only pronounced his name with an H, and all the Ukrainian cossacks in Kuban which he help settle would have too, and the Ukrainian Cossacks in Kuban continue to use H when speaking his name.
What you are doing is forcing your Russian Imperial POV KK. This is a not scholarship. Bandurist (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Please stop your senseless accusations about POVs. Anyway your argument about the Ukrainian origin of the name does not hold. First of all the surname Golovaty is not uncommon in Russian. Second in the Kuban we actually do pronounce the G- sound not the H-, in western stanitsas, whislt south eastern ones muffle them altogether. The only place an H- is heard is the border region between the Don and Kuban territory. The reason of national origin does not hold, otherwise you will have to rename Rurik to his Scandinavian name.
Based on the sources User:Bandurist has provided, I support the move. User:Kuban kazak, it seems that Bandurist has credible sources referring to this man as Holovaty, yet all you have is an unverifiable opinion that he made more of an impact for Russia. This is not a naming guideline found in any wikipedia rules that I am aware of. He is referred to in scholarly sources as Holovaty, so that’s what the article should be called. This cannot be about your own personal reasoning(WP:OR), it must be about the sources. Cheers, Ostap (talk) 01:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are two basic approaches in transcribing the Proper nouns of non-English origin into an English encyclopedia. The first one should be based on the most common usage in the English language if such usage is significant enough that it can be established. The second option which is used only if the name is too obscure to have an established English spelling is to transliterate the name. The example of the former case (established English usage prevails over transliteration) are Leo Tolstoy (instead of transliterated Lev) or Piotr Tchaikovsky (instead of transliterated Chaykovskiy).

The subject of this article is rather obscure outside Ukraine and Russia. With only two citations, both in rather obscure works, we cannot claim that the established English usage exists and we should go by transliteration. Whether we should go by Ukrainian or Russian transliteration is a real issue here. In the former case it should be Holovaty, in the latter - Golovaty. But the debate on which language should be used as primary for transliteration into English is a real question we have to decide upon, not how he is called in English because there is simply not enough on him in English to claim an existence of established usage. --Irpen (talk) 03:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there are not many references to him in English does not mean you should completely disregard the references that we do have. Ostap (talk) 03:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And then there is Vladimir Horovitz who was born in Ukraine, spoke Russian and is known in Russia as Gorovitz. He could have been known as Gorovitz - but in Yiddish his name started with an H. Bandurist (talk) 05:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vladimir Horowitz is written because that was how he was known in English, another classic example is Nikita Khruschev which correctly per WP:RUS would be Nikita Khrushchyov. Yet wikipedia chooses the spelling that is most common in English. The reason why the refrences Bandurist provided can be disregarded is because they only use archaic Ukrainian transcptions, such as Tahanrih and Konotip, (wikipedia would uses Konotop and even if Taganrog was part of Ukraine, it would be Tahanroh, but not Tahanrih.) Thus the refrence provided is unreliable, even though its written in English. --Kuban Cossack 12:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that, though you clearly don't like it, these scholarly sources are in English. I am slightly reluctant to take your opinions about the reliability of the Encyclopedia of Ukraine as truth. Notice you have provided no scholarly english sources to back your point. So far all you have proven is that consensus exists on other issues. This is not about Rurik or Khruschev. We cannot simply disregard academic sources because they are opposed your personal preferences. Cheers, Ostap (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Ostap R, I agree that we shouldn't disregard the one English reference that we do have. However, Irpen is correct that, when there is no established English name, WP:COMMONNAME loses much of its force, and we tend to look to other factors more than we might otherwise.

In this case, we seem to have two (?) English sources, both spelling our subject's name "Holovaty". Besides that, the article cites the "Large Soviet Encyclopedia", which is presumably in Russian? That seems to be the extent of our sources, so further arguments seem to hinge on whether he is more a part of Polish history or of Russian history. Is that a fair appraisal of the situation? Are there other factors we should we be considering? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DONTLIKEIT does not apply here. The problem is that so far the sources provided are already "-centric", ie. with a POV. Ukrainian language, and wikipedia do not use names like Oziv, Tahanrih, Sevastopil (the latter is actually incorrect). That's why it cannot be used a reference for spelling. I am not questioning its sizible volume of information. I am questioning its titling criteria. --Kuban Cossack 13:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure I wasn't citing WP:DONTLIKEIT. What did I say that seemed that way to you? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was actually I who cited it. I will retract the link to that essay, but that principle still pretty much applies here. Ostap (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Which principle is that? You're claiming that the Ukrainian sources are biased. On what do you base this claim? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now I am so confused. Kuban Kazak is claiming the sources are biased. These are academic sources and I really don't kno how he came to this conclusion, nor what effect it really has here. I was saying that he just doesn't like the fact that the sources refer to this man as Holovaty. Ostap (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holovaty's analogy

[edit]


Why can't Anton Golovaty per his massive contribution to Russian history be part of that trend? BTW the same trend goes in reverse for those living in Urkaine, for example Olena Teliha. --Kuban Cossack 12:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other analogies

Look at Ivan Pidkova and you get Ioan Potcoavă with diacritical marks that don't look English at all. Then have a look at the Russian and Polish sites. He didn't leave much of a legacy in Romania at all yet... Or Dmytro Bortniansky who spent the bulk of his life in Petersburg Or Maksym Berezovsky (not Maxim or Maksim. or Mykhailo Hrushevsky who was born in Chelm or Leonid Hrabovsky composer

The liost goes on and on. Bandurist (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Liost? Well Hrushevsky actually fits my criteria, whilst per Irpen's comment below, I would certainly support the move of Bortiansky, and Berezonsky to their Russian versions, per the criteria of my list. --Kuban Cossack 13:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re Bortnyansky and Berezovsky, the current names of the articles are debatable at least. I am not saying we should run into renaming them, let's deal with issues one at a time, but Amazon search for CD's with their music shows that they are known to the music lovers in the English speaking words not exactly under the Ukrainized names. Same can be said about one of my favorite Ukrainian artists, Mykola Pymonenko. Despite being born and having lived most of his life in Kiev he seems to be better known as Nikolai Pimonenko in the west. I wrote a short stub on him myself and I used the Ukrainian name. To be more exact the entry existed as a substub titled by a weirdly mixed Mykola Pimonenko and I moved it into a name that is at least consisten and expanded it. Should I have moved it to a Russified rather than Ukrainianized name based on the common English? Perhaps but these fights are just not worth so much time and they usually do not happen until the committed renamer, like user:Horlo picks such entry for his crusade. I think Pidkova is now under a bad name and, perhaps, we should consider renaming it too. Hrushevsky is a good example. Despite being born in Chelm, he is best known in the en-speaking word under the UA-based version of his name precisely because he is associated primarily with Ukrainian history.

But let's put it off for later. Here we have to decide on two things. Should we base the article title on the common usage or on transliteration and, in the latter case, if we use the transliteration method, which language should be a basis for such transliteration. Note, that these are two separate questions. Are two rather obscure sources a sufficient basis to claim that the established English usage exist? --Irpen (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how obscure the Encyclopedia of Ukraine is. Is it obscure beceuse it is about Ukraine?. I feel that those dealing with Eastern Europe should have access to it. It is published by the University of Toronto (a pretty credible institution) and is available in all the Academic libraries in the Major North America and now online. Bandurist (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any information in it that isn't already included in our article? Is there material in the article that can be cited to it? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No its not obscure in its information that it holds, (for most part), but it is obscure in the spellings that uses for titles, such as Oziv, Tahanrih and Sevastopil (the latter is 100% wrong, as the ending -pil comes from the Ukrainian -field that's why Ternopil is correct. The -pol and Sevastopol comes from the Greek -pol for city. The official Ukrainian langauge uses Sevastopol, but Encyclopedia of Ukraine chooses to use the incorrect Sevastopil.) Naturally wikipedia would follow the logical guideline. --Kuban Cossack 13:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that it is also spelled Holovaty in Subtelny's History of Ukraine and also in Magosci's History of Ukraine - both University of Toronto Press - and then there is the big Hrushevsky History translation project with the English version of his volume on the Ukrainian Cossacks translated. He also has Holovaty

Regarding additional information: Yes. There is about another half page of information from the Kozak encyclopedia, and the Shevchenko 2 volume encyclopedia which I previously had started to translate and was putting into the article before all the matter of transcriptions came up and my previous edits were lost in all the kefuffle. I also have Kashchenko's and Yavornystky's books which I hope to get to as well.Bandurist (talk) 04:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again the same argument goes, those sources are Ukrainian-centric. Find me a source from say Britannica or Encarta that would use Holovaty instead of Golovaty and you will have a sound argument, otherwise its a simple convention that I am pressing. --Kuban Cossack@
Kuban, there is no Britannica or Encarta article for this man. (And, Encarta uses Kyiv, so it must be Ukrianian-centric too!) I am not aware of a naming guidline that says a user must provide Britannica or Encarta. However, there are academic and credible English sources that say Holovaty. What you are recommending is that we disregard these English sources, due to some claim of Ukraine-centrism. That is not right. If you have credible English sources for Golovaty, please provide them. It seems to me that your argument is not sound at all: the sources that use Holovaty are supposedly "Ukrainian-centric", therefore lets go with Golovaty, despite no sources. That is not a good argument. And please don't start with Gogol or Rurik, those are established English names used in scholarly sources. Cheers, Ostap (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Using Kyiv is not being Ukraino-centric, but using Sevastopil and Tahanrih and Katerynodar is. --Kuban Cossack 11:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of Golovaty in English

[edit]
  • The PMR in its English language website defines an official ceremonial coin as Golovaty. That is despite Ukrainian being one of its official langauges. ref: n image of a close-up portrait of Anton Golovaty , the ataman of the Black Sea Cossack Army, against the background of a fortress attacked by the group of Cossacks .A circling inscription “Anton Golovaty» in Cyrillic is to the left of the portrait along the edging. A circling inscription «Ataman of the Black Sea Cossack Army» in Russian is to the right of the portrait and a circling inscription “1732-1797” indicating Anton Golovaty’s life years is below the inscription “АТАМАН ЧКВ”. An inscription “Transdniester region, Cossacks’ land” in Russian written on the stylized ribbon along the edging is under the portrait and an image of the Emblem of the Black Sea Cossack Army with an inscription “1787” indicating the year of forming of the Black Sea Cossack Army is in the middle of the ribbon. . Actually this is quite nice to add to the article. --Kuban Cossack 12:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say that this evidence is rather weak, and in other cases, it would not be enough in a naming dispute. But in this case, I could find only a very limited amount of information on both, in fact these sources provided by Kuban are most of what there is. If someone wants to move the article, please give a good explanation as to why, either by citing the naming guidelines or by finding more sources supporting the other name. TSO1D (talk) 15:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked by Kuban to provide some feedback on this issue. Having read through the discussion above and having done a bit of research on my own, I'd say "Holovaty" would be a more appropriate spelling for this article's title. As the above discussion indicates, while "Golovaty" spelling is occasionally used, it is used primarily in non-academic sources (coins descriptions, a private wiki, a private website on narod.ru, etc.). "Holovaty", on the other hand, is used in Encyclopedia of Ukraine (per above), in A Survey of Ukrainian History by Dmytro Doroshenko & Oleh Gerus (Humeniuk Publication Foundation 1975), and in Russia and Ukraine: Literature and the Discourse of Empire from Napoleonic to Postcolonial Times by Myroslav Shkandrij (McGill-Queen's Press 2001). Granted, these are books in English written by Ukrainian authors, but in absence of any comparable materials which would use Russian-based spelling, I'd say the choice is easy to make. So, unless better sources using the Russian-based spelling come to light, my choice is to use "Holovaty". Hope this helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised that such evidence as names on coins (!) and another obscure wikipedia is used to counter other academic sources like the Encyclopedia of Ukraine [4] in reference to the name of Holovaty. Please refer to WP:V as to what sources are valid in this encyclpedia. Unless there are academic sources to support Golovaty, I second the above opinion to move the article. --Hillock65 (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, as I said before there are not very many sources about this issue, however, at least the sources that Ezhiki mentioned above have an academic character. To use a random PMR website or a coin as a source is probably not enough to counter the other sources. So as of now, I agree, the article should be moved. TSO1D (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Holovaty is a significant person in Ukraine but in Russia where he is known as Golovaty he is a nobody. Just compare the Ukrainian Wikipedia article to the Russian one. KK should put his effort there. Bandurist (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody? I doubt that. Why is there an Anton Golovaty street in Krasnodar? He played a historical role and he is remembered for what he has done. Here is my proposal for consensus: We move the article to Anton Holovaty. Then we keep Holovaty up till 1775 and in the Taras Shevchenko part. After 1775, when the Host of Loyal Zaporozhians was formed he became known as Golovaty, and until his death we refer to him as such. In the title we do "Antin Holovaty (uk: Головатий) also known as Anton Golovaty (ru: Головатый) was ..." does this compromise suit everyone? --Kuban Cossack 12:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fining with having also known was in the introduction. However, using different names for the same person in one article (and where the issue is not even a name change but an issue of transliteration) seems a bit strange to me. So I support everything in your proposal but that part. TSO1D 13:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The question is about the academic and valid WP:SOURCES, which overwhelmingly point to Holovaty. Should we twist the sources to suit personal biases? Is the city of Kiev transliterated as Kyiv after 1991 in WP article? He was and is Holovaty, his name didn't change, you are free to add that some Russians spell his name differently, no one objects to this. --Hillock65 13:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no owerwhelming pointing, and the the validy is questionable. Also as pointed out to you before Kiev is an English name, Kiyev is Russian, Kyiv is Ukrainian. English name for Golovaty would be Anthony which I disagree with because it violates WP:CYR unless he is known as such. I proposed to use Golovaty because of his impact in creating one of the largest Russian Cossack Hosts. I don't see a problem with using two names in one article, that has been done before in wikipedia. --Kuban Cossack 15:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The weird thing is that despite the fact that Holvaty spent his final 5 years in what is now Russia, he would have continued to speak Ukrainian with his fellow Cossacks. Indeed, even today in the Kuban, I would estimate that 90% of the population of Kuban would pronounce his name Holovaty rather than Golovaty.Bandurist 18:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we stop this bickering, the sources speak for themselves, and there seems to be a consensus for the name change. So, let's just wait for the admin's decision. --Hillock65 20:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Even Kuban agreed with Holovaty. How do we get an admin to come and make a decision? Ostap 20:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ask one :) (I can't do it because I was involved in the discussion).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be odd having the Russian corruption Anton Golovaty next to his older brother Pavlo Holovaty. I guess next they'll try to change his name to Golovaty because after the destruction of the Zaporozhian Sich he taken to Moscow and imprisonned and died in Russia. It would be nice to unlock the site and add the information about this monument they put up for him in Odessa, Ukraine [5] Bandurist 01:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm vaguely involved, although I haven't taken a stance. Would it be inappropriate if I close it? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do go ahead. I believe there is a consensus on this page. Read on and make your decision. --Hillock65 02:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the page is moved. Thanks to everyone for participating in the discussion and getting this question worked out. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The question still stands on particular cases. Can please draw Bandurist, who claims that the person has zero importance in Russia, to this photo gallery [6]. --Kuban Cossack 17:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What a horrible travesty that monument is! Cossacks depicted as praising their enemy, who destroyed the Zaporozhian Sich and even forbade them to call themselves Cossacks! No comments... --Hillock65 17:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very authentic POV, like erecting a monument to an equal enemy that killed quarter of a million Poles? And an equal number of ethnic Ukrainians? Please save that for the Live Journal. Fact is, the Kuban Cossack Host had and has regiments named in her honour. --Kuban Cossack 18:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to pervert history any way you want, it is none of my concern. Please stick to the subject matter of this discussion and avoid posting unrelated stuff. This page is designed for issues regarding the improvement of this article not to vent one's POV. Thank you. --Hillock65 18:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, let's have a neutral observer comment on that one, I put a photo gallery of a memorial which clearly depicts that Golovaty is not "nothing" to Russia's history, you respond in exactly the same way I did, yet you call me perverted... Shame on you. Actually wrt improvement why did you carry out a complete revert of my edits, that included messing up the refs and messing up the succession box. --Kuban Cossack 18:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please, for crying out loud, read what it says! I didn't call you perverted! Don't make a victim out of yourself!--Hillock65 18:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting monument. But there are a lot of errors. Three cossack leaders in cossack scalp cuts. Holovaty was called chubatyj because he never cut his hair. The blind kobzar is called Hrytsko Nechesa. That was Poiomkin"s name in the Zaporozhian Sich before he became a nobleman. Catherine sure is skinny here in comparison to her paintings. Bandurist 04:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

request unlock

[edit]

The text now does not agree with the title. Can an admin unlock the article, or at least change his name in the article? Thanks, Ostap 02:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's unprotected now. I didn't notice that bit. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although I support the unprotection, I disagree with the first edit that once again added a set of contradicting information and removal of refrenced sources. --Kuban Cossack 16:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[edit]

The Odessa monument image is definite 100% copyright violation. A photo of a 1990s monument cannot be pd-old. --Kuban Cossack 18:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, I thought you found "copyright paranoia disruptive" :) Ostap 18:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to clear violations then yes, there are things that have to be done, what I mean is the first criterion for fair use, when people begin to claim replacible, and when people attack whole licenses, such as PD-USSR. (you can find it in archives) --Kuban Cossack 18:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well if it is a violation, wait until it gets deleted. It is not for you to decide, though. --Hillock65 18:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no if! Pd-Old means 70 years after the author's death. That tag will be true after the photographer dies and 70 years pass. Moreover freedom of panorama applies here. If the original author of the image agreed to let the image be used, we need correct attribution and permission. Well if it makes you happy I'll wait for it to be deleted. It is a useful image, but it will be very short-lived. --Kuban Cossack 18:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could always file an image request for a free replacement. Someone on Wikipedia must live in Odessa. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use is our friend. For the lack of others, but still.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 01:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded it from another wiki project and the wrong copyright notice went up. I must have done it wrong/ It came from the http://www.2odessa.com/wiki/images/5/54/3445_27.jpg. I have since put the (hopefully) the correct copyright notice. The Odesa wiki site id hard to port into this wiki. Thank you for bringing my attention to this. Bandurist 04:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bandurist 14:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birth date

[edit]

There seems to be quite a contradiction on his birth date: Точная дата рождения Антона Андреевича окончательно не установлена. Одни историки утверждают, что А.А. Головатый родился в 1742 г., другие, среди которых и Ф.А. Щербина, называют 1732 г. Вторая дата представляется более достоверной, так как в противном случае в Запорожскую Сечь, Головатый был принят 15-тилетним, что выглядит маловероятным. Не установлена и настоящая его фамилия, известно лишь, что родился Антон Головатый на Полтавщине в селении Новые Санжары и происходил из козацкой старшинской семьи. also can someone make an article on his birthplace Novi Sanzhary, there is already one at uk wiki: Нові Санжари.--Kuban Cossack 13:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also can I please have some more detailed source information on "zaporozhtsi" refrence, since it does not say anything, and how about a biography infobox?
Antin Holovaty - Anton Golovaty
Антiн Головатий - Антон Головатый
Host Judge of the Black Sea Cossack Host
3rd Ataman of the Black Sea Cossack Host
Preceded byZakhary Chepiha
Succeeded byFeodor Bursak
Personal details
BornBetween 1732 and 1744
Novi Sanzhary, Russian Empire (modern Ukraine)
DiedJanuary 28, 1797
Kamyshevan, Persia (modern Kura Spit (landform) Azerbaijan)
NationalityZaporozhain Cossack
Black Sea Cossack
SpouseUlyan Grigoryevna Prokhna
Childrensix sons
OccupationCossack leader

The Zaporozhtsi citation is the article about Holovaty by Kvitka Osnovnianenko. It is quite interesting. Aparently Holovaty knew Kvitka Osnovnianko's father (they studied together at Mohyla) and on his way to Petersburg he would stay at their house. Kvitka Osnovnianenko would remember the songs and the gifts they had on the way back etc. An eye openning reference. Bandurist 15:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding his date of birth. There are a number - but could a person of Holovaty's erudition and education complete his studies at 13? And then be elected to a position at 14. Highly unlikely. It would be more like 23 and 24. Bandurist 15:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Antin Holovaty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History of Antіn Holоvaty

[edit]

Was deleted at RFD without the history being preserved; since there was an old merge here, I requested an undelete to preserve the history. Here's the history from before it was deleted:

12 August 2023

   curprev 00:43, 12 August 2023‎ Duckmather talk contribs‎ 444 bytes +43‎ Updating RFD template: discussion was relisted (XFDcloser) undothank

18 June 2023

   curprev 23:57, 18 June 2023‎ Headbomb talk contribs‎ m 401 bytes +335‎ →‎top: RFD undothank Tags: AWB Removed redirect

14 July 2012

   curprev 20:59, 14 July 2012‎ Gorobay talk contribs‎ 66 bytes +38‎ typo undothank

1 December 2007

   curprev 02:46, 1 December 2007‎ GTBacchus talk contribs‎ m 28 bytes 0‎ snapping double redirect undothank

4 August 2007

   curprev 13:03, 4 August 2007‎ Kuban kazak talk contribs‎ 28 bytes −1,560‎ ←Redirected page to Anton Golovaty undothank

   curprev 08:07, 4 August 2007‎ RHaworth talk contribs‎ m 1,588 bytes +10‎ moved Anton Holavaty to Antіn Holоvaty undothank

   curprev 03:06, 4 August 2007‎ Bandurist talk contribs‎ m 1,578 bytes +2‎ No edit summary undothank

   curprev 03:06, 4 August 2007‎ Bandurist talk contribs‎ m 1,576 bytes −10‎ No edit summary undothank

   curprev 01:30, 4 August 2007‎ Thijs!bot talk contribs‎ m 1,586 bytes −2‎ robot Adding: ru:Головатый, Антон Андреевич undothank

   curprev 01:29, 4 August 2007‎ Thijs!bot talk contribs‎ m 1,588 bytes +58‎ robot Adding: ru:Головатый, Антон Андреевич undothank

   curprev 01:19, 4 August 2007‎ Odessaukrain talk contribs‎ 1,530 bytes −2‎ No edit summary undothank

   curprev 01:12, 4 August 2007‎ Bandurist talk contribs‎ m 1,532 bytes 0‎ ←Created page with ''''Antin Andriyovych Holovaty''' (1732 - 9 (19). ІІ.1797) - (uk lan: Головатий Антін Андрійович) (ru lan: Golovaty, Anton Andreyevych) wa...' undothank

   curprev 01:10, 4 August 2007‎ Bandurist talk contribs‎ m 1,532 bytes −9‎ No edit summary undothank

   curprev 01:08, 4 August 2007‎ Bandurist talk contribs‎ m 1,541 bytes +4‎ No edit summary undothank

   curprev 01:08, 4 August 2007‎ Bandurist talk contribs‎ m 1,537 bytes +27‎ No edit summary undothank

   curprev 01:07, 4 August 2007‎ Bandurist talk contribs‎ m 1,510 bytes +1,510‎ ←Created page with ''''Anton Andriyovych Holovaty''' (1732 - 9 (19). ІІ.1797) - Holovaty, Anton Andriyovych (uk lan: Головатий Антон Андійович) (ru lan: Golova...' thank

Cheers! Skarmory (talk • contribs) 23:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antin_Holovaty&oldid=1201035656"