Talk:Second Jassy–Kishinev Offensive/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Second Jassy–Kishinev Offensive. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Rename proposal (2008)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Arguments for renaming

The current name of the article, "Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive", is not used in English literature: 0 hits in Google books.
"Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive" yields only Wikipedia mirrors and Romanian sites (Google Yahoo).
"Jassy-Kishinev Operation" is the most popular English name, with 41 Google Books hits.
"Yassy-Kishinev Operation" yields only 18 books, but is the correct transliteration of the original name of the operation.
The two cities were better known as "Jassy" and "Kishinev" in the English-speaking world in 1944, when the operation took place ( 1860 GB hits vs 981 GB hits for the period of 1901-1980).
Iaşi-Chişinău contains diacritics which are not accessible to general speakers of the English language.
Within the context of article subject, and primary source origin of the proper name of the historical event there is no source for Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive.

Comments on supporting arguments

6. Iaşi-Chişinău contains diacritics which are not accessible to general speakers of the English language.

For the record I'm against this specific argument. - Francis Tyers · 21:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Me too. The diacritics issue is, IMHO, out of place at this level. --Illythr (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This argument goes against Wikipedia's policies and practices. -- AdrianTM (talk) 07:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Diacritics are being used more and more in English materials particularly where there hasn't been wide coverage in the past (i.e., central Europe). Regardless, the issue is whether to use "point in time" names or "per current" names for the title.—PētersV (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest this be stricken of as it was not really an issue?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Arguments against renaming

"Iaşi" and "Chişinău" are currently the most commonly used names of the cities in English.
The official names of these two cities have always been "Iaşi" and "Chişinău".
The name of the operation is not an indivisible noun, it is composed from the names of the cities, which were and are "Iaşi" and "Chişinău" and this is the common usage for the names in Wikipedia (because of point 1 and naming conventions).

Comments on opposing arguments

Summary of comments on arguments against renaming

"Iaşi" and "Chişinău" are currently the most commonly used names of the cities in English.
- Not subject of the article or proposed move.
  The names of the cities are part of the name of the article. -- AdrianTM (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The official names of these two cities have always been "Iaşi" and "Chişinău".
- Factually false.
  As Illythr explained he meant that they were called officially like that at the time of the event and nowadays. They were always called like that in Romanians/Moldovan/Moldavian -- 15:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The name of the operation is not an indivisible noun, it is composed from the names of the cities, which were and are "Iaşi" and "Chişinău" and this is the common usage for the names in Wikipedia (because of point 1 and naming conventions).
- The name of the event is a proper noun (or proper name), and not a 'composed noun' (no such concept in English). The word "offensive" is excluded in the argument although it too is a noun, and an integral part of the name. The name of the operation is not commonly used in Wikipedia because it is a unique name for the article. The assertion is therefore logically untrue.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  The name contains two names of the cities you can't claim that "Yassy-Kishinev Offensive" is a word that entered English vocabulary, you can't find it in an dictionary, moreover Yassy and Kishinev are names of two cities that according to Wikipedia naming convention are treated in a specific way here, there are article about Iaşi and Chişinău not about Yassy or Kishinev. While Wikipedia cannot be used as reference I merely say that it's good to use the same names for the same cities. -- AdrianTM (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

mrg3105, please stop making fake summaries, you are not unbiased to be able to make an unbiased and balanced summary, leave that to somebody like Illythr who already proved that he can be balanced in his arguments and interpretations. -- AdrianTM (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Adrian, its not an unbiased summary, but a summary of logical conclusions about comments made so far on arguments against renaming. If Illythr wants to add, or dispute this summary, he most welcome to it.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't agree with your summary. I think it's disingenuous to make such summaries, I didn't start making a biased summary of your points, so please don't do that with my (our) points. -- AdrianTM (talk) 05:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Clearly you do not agree, and you have put forward your (plural) arguments, of which this is a summary. You are free to summarse also in case I have it wrong. This is not a summary of the discussion.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I added my comments, however as you see these points were opened bellow, why make another personal summary before and reopen the same points, that's kind of annoying. -- AdrianTM (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

1."Iaşi" and "Chişinău" are currently the most commonly used names of the cities in English.

The current commonly used names of cities is not in fact the subject of the article or the proposed move.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Since those are the names of the cities and since we used the most commonly used name for the cities it makes sense to use the same names in the name of this article. -- AdrianTM (talk) 00:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Adrian, you are continuously comparing apples, and the apple cart! In military history the operation, and its objectives, even if they were the two cities, which they were not, are not one and the same. This article is about the the 'apple cart', and on this occasion aside from 'apples', it also had 'oranges', and a couple of 'melons'.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

That's actually my point if it was called "Яблоко cart" before and English used for a limited time the transliteration "Yabloko cart", but now "Яблоко" is translated as "Apple" then it makes sense to use the name "Apple cart" not "Yabloko cart" that doesn't mean anything anymore. -- AdrianTM (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

2. The official names of these two cities have always been "Iaşi" and "Chişinău".

Does always mean 1944-present, 1944 and 2008, or literally always? Or is this a joke? — AjaxSmack 23:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess it depends on who you ask. To the Russians and pro-Russian Moldovans/Bessarabians, it's Kishinev, to the Romanians or pro-Romanian Moldovans/Bessarabians, it's Chişinău. nat.utoronto 23:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The point is that at the time of the offensive the city was part of Romania and the official name was "Chişinău", now it is part of Moldova and the official name is "Chişinău", so from both points of view: name at the time of event and name at present time the official form was and is the same. Iaşi was and is part of Romania and it had the same name at that time. -- AdrianTM (talk) 03:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That's why I attemted to clarify that these names are (and always were) official 'in Romanian'. --Illythr (talk) 17:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The official name of Chişinău during its history as part of the Moldovan SSR was Kishinev as attributed by the official declaration of name change following its proclamation of separation from the former Soviet Union. The statement is therefore factually false. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

However, the point is that the official name of the cities at the time of the operation and now were and are "Iaşi" and "Chişinău", I think Illythr didn't explain that very clearly, but that was the idea. -- AdrianTM (talk) 00:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but, mrg3105, Romanian was not the official language of the Moldovan SSR - "Moldovan" was. Romanian sources (ie, from Romania), even in the 1950s, probably spoke of "Chişinău". So Illythr is correct: "these names are (and always were) official 'in Romanian'". Biruitorul (talk) 03:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

And what was the official language of the Red Army in 1944? I am really looking forward to te end of this, because your arguments are becoming increasingly disingenuous. All military maps (read all maps) of the Moldovan SSR were printed in Russian, maps being considered secret documents. If you really must go there, all republics of the Soviet Union had two official languages. Its even on the Soviet state crest!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You know the answer of your question, why ask silly questions? That's not anything that anybody here contests, nobody here contests the Russian name, however the city was in Romania at that time, not in Russia. Moreover, in English Wikipedia we don't use either Romanian or Russian names, we use English names, since Kishinev is not considered to have entered English in any significant way per Wikipedia's rules we use the local name, the local name is now, and was in 1944, "Chişinău", end of discussion. -- AdrianTM (talk) 05:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Your 'logic' is too twisted to reply to! However, if "nobody here contests the Russian name', and "we use English names", what is the English version of the Russian name? That, is the question. The fact that the citis are now or were then known by other names is immaterial because the Russian speakers didn't use them, and neither did the English speakers. And guess what, they still don't use them!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I really don't understand you, guys. Who cares what language was official in the Red Army? Who cares what names of the cities were official (in Romanian or Russian) at any point in history? As long as the operation is known in English exclusively as "J-K" or "Y-K", there's really nothing to debate or invent here. --Illythr (talk) 08:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The point is that that name is not an indivisible proper name, if you have a train that goes from Iaşi to Chişinău and English sources referred to it as Yassy-Kishinev train at some point in history, if the cities are called here Iaşi and Chişinău then you talk about the Iaşi-Chişinău train. "Yassy-Kishinev train" is not a proper name that cannot be touched, it's a composed name that uses the names of the cities, if in this Wikipedia we use a specific name for those cities then I think it would be useful to talk about the Iaşi-Chişinău train, same thing with this operation. I'm curious about one thing, if we talk about the city in 1944 do we talk about Iaşi or Yassy? How come English name has changed, when did it change? -- AdrianTM (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I am also curious, how do you decide which name is an indivisible noun and which isn't? How come all of those names contain "Bucureşti" in them, despite obviously being composed from what is known in English as Bucharest? Should we rename all those articles as well, to conform to this standard of yours? Anyhow, as of right now, you have zero sources supporting your point and dozens contradicting it. Had it really been as you claim, then, surely, the situation would be the opposite, no? --Illythr (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I could have sworn that the name in English was "Steaua Bucharest" not "Steaua Bucureşti", I would support moving that to Steaua Bucharest, of course there would be a issue to translate "Steaua" too, for example I know about the team "Red Star Belgrade", that was translated, but anyway, this is not the subject of this discussion... but yes, my opinions are consistent if that's what you are worried about... -- AdrianTM (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

As for how and when did the name change, I have no idea. I can surmise that something similar to that Peking-Beijing thing took place somewhere around the '90s. --Illythr (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

3. The name of the operation is not an indivisible noun, it is composed from the names of the cities, which were and are "Iaşi" and "Chişinău" and this is the common usage for the names in Wikipedia (because of point 1 and naming conventions).

Adrian, a name of an event is not an indivisible noun, but a proper name in English, or a proper noun.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The point is that's a composed name and the components are treated in a specific way in Wikipedia. If we use a specific form for those components in Wikipedia that's kind of silly (granted, not against the rules or policies) to use another form when you use them in a composed name. -- AdrianTM (talk) 04:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The point is that it is not a composite name, because there is no such concept in the English language. How components are used elsewhere as nouns is another story. Consider your logic which I dreaded to bring up lest I be accused of being condescending, but according to you the title of the article would be Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive! Those, are three separate articles that do not represent the event which is the subject of this article at all. As an example, Wikipedia does not use National Aeronautics and Space Administration, right?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, I don't think I see your point, mrg3105, but I think Adrian misses the point as well - as already demonstrated in numerous examples all over this page, a name built from of components, that are renamed at some later time, tends to remain in its original form. Moreover, as I said at the very beginning of this argument, any kind of original research into this name would've been justified only if an English name didn't exist at all, or there existed numerous variants of it. This is not the case here, however. --Illythr (talk) 07:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that's true for names that are common and entered the English vocabulary, I don't think you can claim that "Jassy-Kishinev Operation" entered the English vocabulary. Yes, "Peking Duck" entered the English vocabulary, the operation is not part of English vocabulary -- I don't think you'll find it in a dictionary. Also that's the case for names that were different at that time, like Stalingrad, in this case the cities had the same names only that at one time historians used Russian transliteration and now they use Romanian/Moldovan spelling. Why use the obsolete imperial spelling now? Beside making Russian speakers happy it doesn't serve any purpose. While I am concerned about the state of spirit of Russian speakers I don't think that's enough a reason to use an obsolete form. -- AdrianTM (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

While it can be argued that the name of the operation is not particularly widespread in common English, what English sources do exist, they all use this name. And it is not the place of Wikipedia, as a tertiary source to "correct" existing usage. The purpose of the move is to uphold the reliance of Wikipedia articles on reliable sources, not personal preferences of Wikipedia editors. --Illythr (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

But Wikipedia already uses a specific form for "Iaşi" and "Chişinău", since it's about the same cities that had the same names at the time, have the same name now why use a different form only because that form was used in the past? I don't think you can claim that Iaşi and Chişinău names are "original research" then Iaşi-Chişinău is not original research either. If for example you have an article about railway and about "Iaşi-Chişinău train" wouldn't we use the name of the cities as they were then and as they are now? Even if in Russian they would have called it "Yassy-Kishinev train"? Even if some English sources would have used the Russians sources and used a transliteration at that time, it's about the same cities that we call in Wikipedia "Iaşi" and "Chişinău" according to Wikipedia naming convention, otherwise is confusing, isn't it about the same cities? And at the same time you can't claim that the name of the train was "Yassy-Kishinev" and that is a "proper name" it's pretty obvious it's a composed name, it's pretty clear that we use a specific form for those names here in Wikipedia, even more if we talk in general about Iaşi or Chişinău cities of year 1944 we'd still use this form not Yassy/Jassy or Kishinev (we use Kishinev for Kishinev pogrom but that is a different story, Kishinev was at that time part of Russian empire) therefore my argument is that we should use the same form for the cities in operation, if we use the same form for the cities individually. -- AdrianTM (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

While I could say that building the name "Iaşi-Chişinău train" without such name explicitly being mentioned in the English sources would be WP:SYNTH, this would be still open to discussion had no English name existed at all before. However, if all existing English sources would use some other name for that train, that name would have to be used in Wikipedia as well. Here's a flaw in your reasoning: (we use Kishinev for Kishinev pogrom,..., Kishinev was at that time part of Russian empire). Try to apply that to Jassy and see for yourself. There is also a difference between some, most and all sources. Some can be argued with some others. Most or all - cannot. --Illythr (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Please, get the main point: All of the con arguments would have been valid only if no name for the operation existed in English before, or a comparable number of English sources used the current name. Then we could have debated on which one is proper, which one we like and should be used. As all sources, modern and historical alike, use "*assy-K" - there is simply nothing to debate (except to choose 'Y' or 'J'). --Illythr (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You forget that Chisinau was official only for the first 4 days, while Kishinev was the official one for the other 14. However, I think we should use the title used by English sources (that is J-K O).Xasha (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Kishinev was the official name of the city during the war while its occupation by the Axis troops was disputed by the Red Army.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

That's your POV, the official name of the city was Chişinău while it was "occupied" by Romanians, which incidentally is the same name of the city now that's "free", at the time of the offensive the city was officially called Chişinău. -- AdrianTM (talk) 00:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It is your POV on the definition of "free". There was a war going on over the fact that it, and thousands of other cities, all renamed into German (Kischineff), were occupied! We can argue over occupation elsewhere, but Kishinev was renamed by force in 1941, and that is a fact.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

How relevant is here how a city was named? By the way do you also claim that Iaşi was renamed by force? And even if both were renamed by force, how is this important here, the issue is that they were called officially Iaşi and Chişinău. -- AdrianTM (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - please "get it", the name of the cities is not the subject of this article or discussion. The article is about a military operation executed by the Red Army in 1944. Neither of your 'points' are therefore very relevant. The Red Army knew what the names of the cities were in Romanian, but still chose to use Russian in planning and execution of the operation. Go figure. As if there was a possibility that these plans could have fallen into the Romanian or German intelligence hands...--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't talk like this with us, we are not dumb children. Second of all, please don't crappify this discussion. The arguements were presented in a orderly way and in a neutral manner, the arguments have been made, why restart them all over? Nobody cares how the Red Army called the cities, you can't argue that the name of the military action is an indivisible and established noun like "Peckin duck", that has entered into the general vocabulary, when you talk about "Offensive" very few people will think "yes, yes, like the Jassy-Kishinev one", the point made is that the cities are called in a specific way in Wikipedia because this is the most common usage, in addition the official name was the same at that time as it is now, it's probably not beneficial to Wikipeida to transliterate those names in a way in an article and in other way in another article. Battle of Stalingrad is another type of example, that's a well known name, that was the official name of the city at that time, therefore we don't call the article "Battle of Volgograd", but in this case it's not of general public knowledge, it's just an offensive that happened to bear the name of two Romanian cities at that time, that now, in Wikipedia are presented in this very form because this is the most common usage (if it were otherwise, if the main article would be called "Kishinev" then I would have agreed to change the name of this article too), it's all about presenting information in a consistent way, you talk about same cities that had the same name at that time, they have the same name now, it's only normal to use the same form. Again, I don't think you can claim that the name of the offensive is an indivisible noun that needs to taken as a whole, it's clear that's a composed title and the components are names of cities, those names are used in a specific way in Wikipedia, they should be presented in the same way here. That's all. AdrianTM (talk) 07:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the name of the operation is like "Peking duck". No matter what happens to the cities, or the states in Europe, and no matter what language humanity will speak 1,000 years from now the operation will always be known as Ясско-Кишиневская стратегическая наступательная операция. The full name is ЯССКО-КИШИНЕВСКАЯ СТРАТЕГИЧЕСКАЯ НАСТУПАТЕЛЬНАЯ ОПЕРАЦИЯ 20-29 августа 1944 г. The Large Soviet Encyclopaedia opens its article with Ясско-Кишиневская операция 1944, стратегическая наступательная операция советских войск во время Великой Отечественной войны 1941—45 (Yassy-Kishinev operation 1944, strategic offensive operation of Soviet forces during the time of the Great Patriotic war 1941-45). The reason it is strategic is because it came in two operational parts: Yassy-Fokshany offensive operation, and Kishinev-Ismail offensive operation. There is a reason for the full name. At the completion of the offensive phase, the forces assume the defensive (this is true for any military operation), and that was called the Yassy-Kishinev strategic defensive operation. Of course it is not written about much because it was a phase of the offensive operation that lasted until the next offensive was resumed by the forces involved, but in Soviet and now Russian military history, when you get down to nitty-gritty [1] of it, that is what it was called. Any post-29 August actions on this sector of the front, such as Axis counterattacks are recorded as part of the Yassy-Kishinev strategic defensive operation.

I again repeat that this has nothing to do with the names of the cities. The taking of the Yassy and Kishinev will be eventually covered in separate articles, but will still have nothing to do with the names of the cities. They were operations, that is a particular type of historical event, military historical event. There are other historical event names. For example there is the Flooding of the Danube, The Danube has about 85 recorded floods. These affected at various times several areas in Europe that speak different languages. In English they are simply known by the year of the flood using the Danube name, and not the German: Donau', Celtic *dānu, Slovak Dunaj, Hungarian Duna, Romanian Dunăre, Turkish Tuna, or ancient Greek Istros. English use the French name although the river doesn't flow through France.

There is nothing consistent about history! Individuals have different names depending on periods, roles and which culture is writing about them. Cities change names in history all the time. Events too change names, sometimes. The best know is the Battle of Britain. "Operation Adler was the code name designated by the Luftwaffe for their air offensive against Great Britain in the summer of 1940. Many of us are more familiar with the defensive side of this operation, better known as the Battle of Britain. This offensive was part of an ambitious campaign, namely the amphibious invasion of England (Operation Sealion)." (NAVAL WAR COLLEGE, NEWPORT RI, USA) Compare its entry and Battle of Britain. Victors write the history is nowhere more profoundly illustrated then here. No, it has not entered general vocabulary, but maybe it will eventually, as will the Yassy-Kishinev strategic offensive operation. What was the name of the defensive operation of the German and Romania forces during this period?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me repeat the basic point that seems to escape you. If we translate a Russian text that contains the names of the cities Яссы and Кишинёв, we would translate that here in Wikipedia as Iaşi and Chişinău because those are the forms that are most commonly used, the best example, if you click on Яссы -- the Russian article and you click on the English link what do you get? You get Iaşi article. When the English link will point to Jassy or Yassy then I would consider normal to translate it as such. Defensive operations usually have the "save your ass" name, but we don't use the Russian name here, we translate it [u]not[/u] transliterate it, and since Yassy/Kishinev is not considered to have entered English language in a significant way and we use Iaşi/Chişinău in the main articles then we translate them as such (or at least that's my view) -- AdrianTM (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Before attempting to translate or transliterate we check existing sources to avoid inventing new names. And these sources clearly give preference to the proposed name. Had the names "Jassy" or "Kishinev" not entered English usage as you claim, there wouldn't be more than twice as many English books that prefer them to "Iasi" and "Chisinau". But this really concerns only the individual cities. English usage of name of the operation itself is quite unambiguous. --Illythr (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to express my confusion here, if the names have entered into English like that, why are they not used as such in the articles about the cities themselves? It also seems absurd to translate from the same language, Russian, the same names of the cities, but to translate them with different names for different periods. Example, if we have an article with Russian news where the word Яссы appears, do we translate that as "Jassy", "Iassy", or "Iaşi" if we include the material in Iaşi article? -- AdrianTM (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The articles about the cities use the names that are most popular now (certainly true for Chişinău, somewhat moot for Iaşi). In a historical context I see that contemporary (i.e. old) names are often used, especially in conjunction with historical events (like treaties and such). Basically, since Iaşi seems to be the accepted name of the city, we should generally use "Iaşi" when referring to it. When the name is part of a historical event (or some other name like the aforementioned Peking Duck or Leghorn chicken, etc), however, the accepted name of that event takes precedence. --Illythr (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, I really do, however I don't think this is a noun like Peking Duck that entered into the common vocabulary. It's a name of an operation that happens to contain the name of the cities that need to be translated the same way from 1944's Russian as from 2008's Russian. AdrianTM (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, Jassy comes from German. Your first sentence is offset by the sources provided - sure the operation's not as popular as the duck among English speakers, but what existing sources do mention it, they all use the proposed name (with insignificant alterations). To the second sentence - we only invent names when we are absolutely forced to, like when the place or event is obscure enough to have no English name. In this case, however we have a sufficient number of books to determine that this name is not some particular author's fancy, but a consistently used name in scholarly circles. Therefore, there is no need to "re-create" the name of the operation using modern realia. --Illythr (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"Peking Duck" is a proper name, not a noun. The common noun equivalents would be Beijing, and duck. "It's a name of an operation that happens to contain the name of the cities that need to be translated the same way from 1944's Russian as from 2008's Russian.", but translated into English, not Romanian. This is English Wikipedia for God's sake!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, what's the English name for Iaşi? -- AdrianTM (talk) 02:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

According to the majority of authorities on the subject of Second World War Eastern Front operations the English name is Yassy.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That's irrelevant since now in Wikipedia we use the word "Iaşi" for that city no matter what was called in English at that time. Change that and I will agree with this change too. -- AdrianTM (talk) 00:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result of this move poll was a clear majority for a move to Jassy-Kishinev Operation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Dumitru I.S (see references ) was a Romanian tank commander in the battle of Romanian 1st Armoured Division against Soviet tanks and he described the battle in his book "Tancuri în flăcări. Amintiri din cel de-al doilea război mondial." (Tanks in flames. Memories of the Second World War). Bucharest, Nemira 2004. According to Dumitru I.S, battle took place near Scobalteni village in vicinity of a town called Podu Iloaie, on August 20. Romanian division destroyed 60 Soviet tanks and lost 30 tanks. At the end of the day, Romanians decided to retrait to south after an analysis of the military results of the day. Readder (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Support the rename in general...

...and specifically to:

Yassy-Kishinev Strategic Offensive Operation

--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC) (1st choice)
Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC) (1st choise unless there is a demonstrable academic tradition that this is known as the "Jassy-Kishinev Operation" in English)
This translation of the official long name of the operation yields 1 Google Books hit. See "pro" argument #3. --Illythr (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia, being a work of reference, is obligated not to blindly repeat mistakes of others thus perpetuating a belief in the face of a fact, regardless of the number of Google hits.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"J/Y-K Op" is just as correct as this long official version. On Wikipedia, it is customary to use the better known name if a number of them exist. --Illythr (talk) 08:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is contravened by the Pluto decision. The best known name is not always correct. This includes long-standing theories. Ideally Wikipedia should aim for quality, and not convenience.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

What does a change of an object's class have to do with its name? Even in Russian, the common name is "Ясско-Кишинёвская операция", and judging by its usage in, say, the Great Soviet Encyclopedia [2], I wouldn't call it incorrect. --Illythr (talk) 08:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose rename

--Eurocopter (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
AdrianTM (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Nergaal (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Biruitorul (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
(after changing my mind several times in the process) At first, I strongly supported moving the article to the name the operation had when it was executed: Yassko-Kishinevskaya Operation. However, I was given irrefutable evidence that the scholarly usage does not take into consideration the name back then. Scholarly usage seems (correct me if I am wrong) to use the names of the cities at the time that scholarly work was written, which is usually before 1990s, when Chişinău - then in the Soviet Union - was written Kishinev. Nevertheless, I suggest to reconsider re-naming once again in the near future. (I don't like the idea of having to decide by some date, this discussion should just go on.) What we need to do in mean time (in fact, right now) is select the sources that use Jassy-Kishinev Operation AND Chişinău whenever they refer to the city. Because the ones that use Jassy-Kishinev Operation AND Kishinev for the city work as proof for not renaming the article. Dc76\^talk 22:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC) (I feel a deep moral obligation to support Illythr at first sight, so you might be imagining what is going now inside myself - I see the flames of Hell - but I hope that ultimately my questions would help sort the grain of truth from a sea of emotions)
You probably misunderstood the point about "the name the operation had when it was executed". Seeing as how I could find no sources that used this form, I can assume that historians did not transliterate the name as you did here. Instead, they used the names of the cities prevalent in English at that time. - split Illythr's comment (Dc76's italisization)
That is exactly what I am saying. You definitevly have proven me that. Dc76\^talk 16:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Take a look: these books were written within the last 10 years and they use "J-K". On the other hand, this bunch (no time constraint) uses "I-C"... and is entirely in Romanian. - split Illythr's comment
What I meant is this: [3]. That kind of hits sipport the move, because they show they are aware how the city names are spelled today, and yet with that in mind, they continue to hold on to Jassy-Kishinev. Try other variations of this, can you maybe get more hits? That would be the proof! Dc76\^talk 16:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Same as to Adrian, I suggest you to apply your "oficialness" logic to Jassy and see for yourself why it doesn't hold water. --Illythr (talk) 08:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I am obviously aware of this. But look, when you take the spelling of 2 cities, you do not borrow them from two different languages: you borrow it from one to be consistent. All sources, IMHO, obviously used the Russian spelling of Iasi. Dc76\^talk 16:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Dc76, if you have "irrefutable evidence that the scholarly usage does not take into consideration the name back then", please share it with the rest of us. Otherwise, its just your POV.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Illythr has proven me that: there are no hits in GB to Yassko-Kishinevskaya Operation (name=name of the operation). Dc76\^talk 16:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The poll is scheduled to end on 15 March 2008, 18:00.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

General comments

Feel free to add new arguments or correct those in the "against" section. --Illythr (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's very constructive comment. Oberiko (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I make a poor devil's advocate, so it's only fair to let the other side to correct me, or present their arguments themselves. Perhaps some restructuring may be in order, so that arguments coming from different users may be, er, differentiated. --Illythr (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: My position is well known from the previous request for move based on the following points:

The name of the operation is a name of a historical event, and is therefore according to convention established in the discipline of History retains the name it was given by its participants, in this case the Red Army. Unsurprisingly this is supported by Wikipedia existing policies given it is a reference work. To create a new name for the event in an English reference source such as Wikipedia is to contradict the larger History discipline community.

Historical events are not to be renamed retroactively to comply with naming policy of the new authority responsible for the place on which events took place. This is particularly true where the new authority is not motivated by either correct English spelling, or historical authenticity. For example the European Union does not refer to the Battle of Britain as the Battle of United Kingdom.

Source quality should count for more then source quantity (Wikipedia policy). Although Jassy is the more often encountered use in Google searches, Yassy is the correct transliteration into English using the International Phonetic Alphabet, and is the version most often used by recent specialist military historians, particularly those with Eastern Front published works. It is the version that has been used in teaching NATO officers, and is exemplified by numerous works by Col. David Glantz (rtd.) which have become the most authoritative English works on the subject. It is also the version used by the Osprey Publishing in its most widely available English publications that provide brief overviews of campaigns and their participants. Jassy or Jassi remains the German transliteration based on the use of J for phonetic transliteration of the Russian Я (Ya) letter, not to be confused with the German word ja (yes).--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
If Jassy is in fact more often used for this subject in English as a whole, then it is correct English usage, certainly for our purpose, which is to communicate. The idea of a correct transliteration (presumably from the Russian) makes my head hurt (there are at least five different schemes that I know of, and I don't speak Russian), and it has no more power than the claim below of correct spelling in Rumanian; these two arguments cancel, which is why we don't follow either of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess it comes down to knowledge of sources. One can pull any reference off the Internet, or one can actually read books on the subject.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yassy is the correct transliteration into English using the International Phonetic Alphabet. This is incorrect. IPA is [jaʃʲ], as stated in the article Iaşi. For the record, IPA is used to transcribe pronunciation, not for transliteration. Jasy jatere (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I suppose mrg meant a transliteration of Яссы... --Illythr (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Naming the article should reflect the nature of the operation. In this case the operation was an offensive one, of strategic importance, and consisted of two smaller operational level operations

It is not true that "Jassy" is only a German transliteration as might be surmised from other comments. It is the traditional English exonym for the city (cf. Treaty of Jassy).

An interesting case comparison is the Mukden Incident of 1931. Mukden was not the official name of Shenyang in 1931 and is not the official or common name now but is still widely used for that event in relevant literature. — AjaxSmack 23:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree on both points. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect for AjaxSmack's maps, I'd like to point out that they are not particularly relevant since they predate the event! In strictly historical sense sources that predate the event can not be used to support its naming. Hence I have not used any references to either Yassy or Kishinev dating before 1944. And how could I? The article is about a historical even that occurred in 1944, so no sources to it (including maps) can be used. This is particularly true because the maps of the region were redrawn several times. Only English usage since the Second World War can be used as relevant sources.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: There are names which are stuck in time forever and ones which evolve. The observations that Iaşi is evolving in expert military history sources regarding the offensive to a current usage of "Jassy" support the view this is an evolving name. That said, I don't believe the function of WP is to anticipate future evolution, so I can't support keeping the "Iaşi-Chişinău..." title based on the concept that military historians will eventually catch up.
The crux of the naming issue (and I hesitate a bit on "of course") is what makes the most sense to the primary/sole English speaker. Here, Kishinev presents a problem. As far as I've seen that usage is now pretty much archaic. So, what happens when someone enters the now far more preferred "Chisinau" without diacritics in a WP search? The article with current naming shows up (magnificently!) in 4th place.
Perhaps we can frame the discussion around which takes precedence:

conforming to the latest military (book) source that we might all agree is definitive: so, Jassy-Kishinev..., versus
maximizing the opportunity to attract general Wikipedia readers to the article: so, Iaşi-Chişinău...?

I'd be interested to hear what editors see as our priority. —PētersV (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Archaic names are ok for historical events, Battle of Britain yet again.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This particular issue is easily amended by leaving the current name as a redirect (as well as mentioning the apparently more popular modern names in the article as well, which is already done). This way, both points are solved without the need to lower Wikipedia's standards of accuracy in hope of increasing this article's popularity. Besides, it's linked from the Chisinau article itself. --Illythr (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

In fact, the move likely won't affect the results of searching for "Chisinau", because "Chisinau" will be mentioned in the very first sentence (as a link; huh, why isn't it now?). --Illythr (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

On further reflection, I think it's a bit premature to vote between (Y/J/I)assy at the moment. Could we change the poll to just "Use English" v. "Use Romanian" and then discuss the merits of the various translations afterwards? Oberiko (talk) 13:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that I structured the poll with this partition already provided: all of the (Y/J/I)assy versions are subsections of "Support rename in general", meaning that 15 people definitely oppose continued usage of the current name. --Illythr (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: the current name should stay for two reasons, historiography and policy. The sources are divided on what name to use, but since the names of those cities were in 1944 and are today "Iaşi" and "Chişinău", and since modern Western usage, for instance the BBC, seems to be coming around to standard Romanian-language usage, I believe the status quo should be maintained. The debate has good arguments on both sides, though, and should be revisited from time to time. As for policy: it's too soon for this fight. Even for moving a country they waited longer. One user here has been fighting a relentless campaign to move the page, exacting single-minded retribution when the first move attempt failed, and I frown upon such lack of collegiality. My advice: relax, come back in a few months' time! (Well, it looks like the move would succeed, but really, such combativeness isn't productive.) Biruitorul (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The sources aren't divided. It's 41 against 0. The Romanian language branch of BBC is free to come around to anything it wants, it doesn't affect English language usage in the slightest. Fighting: I admit it is somewhat frustrating to see such stiff opposition to a simple statement of fact (that is, backed by 100% of English sources (so far)). I'm not sure what do you mean by retribution, btw (seeing as how I supported your RFA and all). --Illythr (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No, not you - not at all. I've thanked you for your RfA support, and continue to do so. This isn't about retribution, it's about editing in a non-confrontational atmosphere. Biruitorul (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That'd be the unreachable ideal for articles about history, politics and religion. I just didn't expect such heat here, over something that doesn't really have any political meaning or is controversial in any way (at least for me). Then again, it can be even sillier. --Illythr (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that sort of silliness almost makes Wikipedia charming at times - what would we be without months-long fights over diacritics? Biruitorul (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment on sources

In general I do not approve of using Google tools to support any argument. In this case with a title change being advocated on quantity over quality, I would like to give an example why. John Erikson's work not withstanding, another source that seems to be authoritative is this Military planning in the 20th Century: proceedings of the eleventh military history symposium 10-12 October 1984 edited by Lieutenant Colonel Harry R. Borowski, USAF, Department of History, United States Air Force Academy. It is probably safe to assume that this symposium included participation by professional military historians. The submission of interest here is the paper by P.H.Vigor "Soviet planning successes in the Great Patriotic War: The results of correct formulae?" As befits the interest of US forces in 1984 during the introduction of the AirLand doctrine, the author primarily examines the deep operations, and their associated consequences, the encirclements. On page 94 the author gives an example of his deliberations by examining the Vistula-Order operation as an example of a deep operation. On page 100 the author says "For my example of the encirclement I have chosen the Jassy-Kishinev operations (Yassko-Kishinevskaya Operatsiya). In the next paragraph however the author refers to the "Jassy-Kishinev operation". The source for much of the information on the operation for this paper was taken from the IVOVSS which stands for Istoriia velikoi otechestvennoi voiny Sovetskogo Soiuza (History of the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union, 1975), a multi-volume Soviet publication. Why is this interesting? Because the most commonly available version of this work in the West came in the German edition! This is the same work used for Hitler's Nemesis: The Red Army, 1930-1945 by Walter S. Dunn Jr.; Praeger Publishers, 1994. p.133. So, Mr.Vigor quotes directly from the source for the operation name, but transliterates in brackets into English as Yassko-Kishinevskaya. Why? Well, because he is presenting for the English speaking audience. Why is the operation first given in plural and then in singular? Because the offensive had two operational pincers that were separate Frontal operations, but they culminated in a single strategic encirclement, the subject of the example.

However, in Soviet Blitzkrieg: The Battle for White Russia, 1944 (by Walter Scott Dunn Jnr., he uses Iasi-Kishinev in the text because his source for this (the main subject of the book being the Operation Bagration) is "Red Storm Over the Balkans: The Failed Soviet Invasion of Romania, Spring 1944" by Glantz, David M. And what does Mr.Glantz do with it? The use of this name is from p13 "The 2nd and 3rd Ukrainian Fronts' Iasi [Iassy]-Kishinev Offensive (Tirgu Frumos and Dnestr River Bridgeheads) (8 April-6 June 1944)". Usually Iasi is only used as a reference to the city, and its actual taking as part of the "2nd Ukrainian Front's Iasi (Tirgu Frumos) Offensive (2-8 May 1944)" by simply using the Romanian name spelled in English (i.e. unaccented). However, in the index the Iasi is also given as Iassy, and Jassy. Why? Because the Tirgu Frumos is barely mentioned in Soviet military history, but is a very popular success story for the Axis in this sector of the front, so being a good historian that Mr.Glantz is, he cites and quotes sources, and these are (where this operation is concerned) by and large either German or Romanian. The change from Yassy-Kishineve in Glantz's other 1989 book published by Frank Cass to Iasi-Kishinev in 2006 is undoubtedly due to Glantz's new editor's behest, and not due to the change of the name of the operation's spelling in English because Iasi does not represent the correct usage in International Phonetic Alphabet, or the correct spelling in Romanian. It is doubly incorrect! So much for the University Press of Kansas editorialship. Maybe Mr.Glantz should keep this in mind for his next book.

This sort of basic source analysis is part and parcel of what history students are taught during their courses at university, but is absent here, replaced by the "raw" hit count! If the 41 sources given or use of Jassy-Kishinev are analyzed, you will see that fully half are derived either from direct translations from German of German authors. One source comes from the World Marxist Review, half-dozen are Russian translations. Only a dozen would be helpful in editing the Wikipedia article. Hardly a plentiful field of references for the unwary Wikipedia user.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The poll is scheduled to end on 15 March 2008, 18:00.

I don't understand why this discussion was reopened, I see that there was a Move poll that was closed in January. Why reopen it, anything new happened in the meanwhile? -- AdrianTM (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There was no consensus back then, so it was suggested to wait for awhile. I intend to take this to mediation and this section should be the quintessence of the huge debate above. --Illythr (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, something has changed. Straw polls and voting in general is no longer recognised as a means of reaching consensus. Consensus is to be reached based on agreement founded in better logic and facts.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

To be more precise, Consensus is the general agreement of all participating editors, which means if there is one or more editors with a dissent position on the subject and has provided verifiable arguments with reliable sources to provide that opposition, then there is no consensus amongst the editors. nat.utoronto 22:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Frankly the notion of consensus is highly temporally and culturally biased. While it has its uses, brute force should be considered in certain situations. — AjaxSmack 23:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Nat's position is one ideal; it is not, and I doubt it ever can be, our practice. Its effect would be to give any opinion, with an argument which seems valid to its holders, a veto, even against many more reasons, held by many more editors, on much more evidence. This is unacceptable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

But that is what Consensus is. That is also how organizations such as NATO operate. The notion of a majority vote violates one of our key policies WP:DEMOCRACY, which states "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys may actually impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, if at all, and will not necessarily be treated as binding.". Reaching consensus is often a long process, but in order to have a stable article, it must be carried out or the result will be an edit war, a high unstable article, and ppl getting hurt in the process. nat.utoronto 00:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

In adition, the number of votes is irrelevant especially in such a nationalistic loaded context, just imagine assuming that China had good and free internet access how many votes would they get in Taiwan related articles... -- AdrianTM (talk) 07:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't even go there ;) The China/People's Republic of China/Republic of China/Taiwan articles are the most volatile articles I've ever seen. Only recently have we brought those articles under control from the different/multiple edit wars and anon. issues that were going on for the last few months. nat.utoronto 08:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I was only talking hypothetically, but I see I am not very far from the truth :D AdrianTM (talk) 08:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I also think this poll was opened in an individual hurried action, without consulting the other editors involved in this discussion. Then, should we close this poll and declare it null? --Eurocopter (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Eh, why would you want to do that? As for nationalist POV concerns above, I'd like to point out that the group of users supporting the move is remarkably international. --Illythr (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I observed that between those who support the move there are people who tried to push the ridiculous idea that the name of Romania comes from Turkish Rumelia (without any reference) or that the "correct" name for Romania is "Rumania", or that Romanians have no connection with the Roman colonists in Dacia, small things like that make me uneasy about the motivation behind the actions. I also see one the supporting reasons in comments framed as "the victor gets to name the operation/place" or something like that... I don't want to discuss persons, only ideas, but since you mentioned the international componence of the supporters, I wanted to show that some international people have very strange ideas when it comes to Romanian related topics... AdrianTM (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I will take up the issue of the origins and naming of Romania elsewhere Adrian.

I am guilty of paraphrasing Churchill “History will be kind to me for I intend to write it”, and he did, which is why Operation Adler is called the Battle of Britain.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Another idea

The discussion for this article has been referred to in Biruitorul's RfA by Deacon of Pndapetzim That oppinion has prompted me to reveal my take on the problem here. I did not see it fit to do this before, since I have not participated in the editting of the article, nor do I know all affinities, dispite the fact that I dare to say I know something about the subject. I hope Deacon of Pndapetzim will read this.

Depending on your profession, you might know better or worse the follwoing fact: when someone starts asking you more and more, very specific questions about your take(s)/oppinion(s)/claim(s)/presentaiton, it is usually because your claims make more and more sense to the one who asks. The hardest questions come right before one is ready to accept your take. At that stage you are being asked to prove your claims with an almost mathematical precision. The questions would become very difficult, and you will be asked to defend a lot of details on which your claims are based. On the contrary, someone interested to prove you are wrong, would not be interested to reveal the logical soundness of your arguments. One is asking hard questions, because afterwords, he/she wants to be able to defend with sound arguments the claims he/she is about to embrace.

Again, depending on your profession, you have seen this in one form or another, more often or more seldom. If you never experienced this in real life, then with all due respects, and with express observation that this is a super-super-metaphor, you must have a very s****y job. I hope I did not offend anyone, except maybe someone's employer.

To the content I have to say the following:

Some time ago, in my interaction with Illythr, there was mentioned Operation Munchen (Romanian-German plans for June-July 1941). I called it Operation Munich, while Illythr pointed me that it should be Operation Munchen. Before that, I have not think about the difference. But Illythr's observation made me realize several things. How do we call German conquest of Poland in 1939? Operation Weiss. We don't call it Operation White. German attack on Britain in 1940 is called Seelev, not Sea Lion, and so on. It does not matter that the operations took part in countries that spoke other languages, or involve cities that have estabished names. The operations are the point here, and they have established names, which maybe with 1-2 exceptions, are the ones in the orriginal language of the army that planned and executed it.

Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive was originally called Yassko-Kishinevskaya Operation. Appart from documents and sources in Russian, one would obviously find many documents and sources in German and in Romanian, so it is absolutely natural that it bacame known also by the name in those languages. Hence, I chanellenge everyone here to present arguments why shouldn't the article be renamed to Yassko-Kishinevskaya Operation, and start like this:

Yassko-Kishinevskaya Operation (English for Iaşi-Chişinău, also known by the German name Jassy-Kishinev) was ...

Whatever "proof" you have that your take is right should contain in it a "proof" that my take above is wrong, or at least that your take is better than mine. Could you, please, present that part of your "proof".

thank you, Dc76\^talk 15:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not as simple as you may think, as plenty of operations have been translated or are better known under different names, in English: Operation Silver Fox or Battle of Britain, for example. That is why I insist on naming this one in accordance with the majority of reliable sources (uncontroversial, in this case). The name you suggest fails this criteria same as the current name (just one source in GB, which uses "Jassy-Kishinev" and mentions "Yassko-Kishinevskaya" as a transliteration of the Russian name).

PS: I applied the same criteria with regards to Operation München back then - I looked for any mention of in on the internet and found "München" as the more frequent name. Now that I looked it up in GB, I see that I may have been mistaken, although it seems that there were several such operations, all having only a few books about them... --Illythr (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

PPS: One more example: Plan Zachód - the Polish counterplan to Fall Weiss - is known in English as Plan West, its Polish name used exclusively by Polish sources, whereas Fall Weiss is accepted as it is. To my uninformed view it seems that names given by the victorious side are preferred. Why, take a closer look at Fall Weiss: two operations of the same name are translated differently! That's exactly why I prefer sticking with the majority, instead of speculating which name "should" be the right one. --Illythr (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The Germans fought the Seelöwe, the British fought the Battle of Britain. That's what happens when two sides have matching contributions to the battle. In our case, it wasn't Romania defending own territory for a long period of time, it was a 4-day offensive of the Soviet army against a combination of German and Romanian troops, the latter dominated numerically by the Germans. The result of this offensive was that Romania switched sides. If one wants to call it Battle of Romania, it should include everything since February 1944, and the Romanian troops would have to show something more, not an annex to German troops. Both Operation Silver Fox or Battle of Britain are established names. Do we have one here? If we do, that's the one. If we don't, I think my take has not been demolished yet. It is bad, b/c little google hits, but overall not worse than the others.

My suspicion is that Jassy-Kishinev is an English term that appeared after the war in articles and books, by trying to do what is now the title of the article: put the names of the cities in the language of the country holding the land. Chisinau was Soviet then, so it was Kishinev. And the Romanian name for Iasi did not matter to them, I guess, because Romanians were not even the second force; also perhaps because they would not take two names of cities from two languages. Actually, where does this originates? In German or not? what scholar/general has used this name first? When was it coined?Dc76\^talk 15:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What does GB stand for? Apparently, I misinterpreted.

To me all this sounds very confusing. I understand each argument, but I fail to see the big picture. Need to think more... :Dc76\^talk 15:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Jassy is of German origin, seeing as how Germans spell J as a Y. It is at least as old as the treaty of Jassy. The names were most likely constructed basing on the most widespread name usage, which at the time was "Jassy" and "Kishinev". As for established name or not - review the pro ans con arguments and make your own decision. :-)

GB = Google Books. --Illythr (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the Seelöwe correction, GB (ok, i was right in regard to google, i did not know you mean Books), and for the umlauts. That Jassy? That is from medieval Latin! All medieval and even 18th, early 19th century maps show Jassy. It was then the established Latin :-) name. I would not say Kishinev was the established name back then, post 1920 maps clearly show Chisinau. But I see no problem with using the Russian name. Whatever the end result, I believe a section of the article should mention this name problem, listing all existing variations. My aim was to force sides to insist more on logical soundness. My personal take is irrelevant if not accompanied by a logical argument, which I am not competent to do here. Dc76\^talk 16:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"Kishinev" - I'd say it was prevalent until the 1990s - even its airport code is KIV. As for the 1920s, don't know much about that period, but Charles Upson Clark refers to the city as "Kishineff" in his 1927 book. BTW, Germans didn't try the Seelöwe...--Illythr (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

His book is about events that mostly take part while the Russian Empire still existed, or was breaking down. Political correctness was not invented at that time, yet, so I guess he did not think to use two spellings in the same book - a different one for the last several chapters. (It would have been stupidity.) As you see in the source that you gave me the other day, in 1991 there was a law on the correct spelling of the names of the localities. So, 1991 would, I believe, be the correct year.

Seeing as how he rather sympathizes with the Romanians, I fail to see a reason for him to prefer "Kishinev/ff" to "Chisinau" other than the latter being completely unknown among the target audience. And that law on names only regulates the state language. English seems to follow the majority usage, but, in some cases, also politics. --Illythr (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

who sympathizes with Romanians, Clark? I'm afraid you got this one very wrong. Dc76\^talk 21:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

He supported the annexation of Bessarabia by Romania. This is a discussion not for this page, however. --Illythr (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. especially since it was not annexed, but chose to unite (just like in 1991 chose not to). However clark's opinions are irrelevnt. We read him as a scholar. we believe the numbers and the names he gives, the description of events. I wonder if more than 1-2 times in the whole book you will see "I think this is/was right/wrong" i haven't notice not even once. Dc76\^talk 21:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to return to a point made above, I suspect "Kishineff" is a French spelling, which would make sense given the historical ties between Romania and France, on which the former based a lot of its administrative structures. This might be the reason it's used in a book covering the 1920s... Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 08:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I would support :(Y/J)assy-Kishinev just like we have Lvov-Sandomierz--Kuban Cossack 18:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I do believe I have been warned of WP:BEANS before... --Illythr (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

May be no consensus here

The bottom line is there are numerous guidelines and conventions and it's purely our choice via consensus what to pick as a title.

Naming the operation from the perspective of the party executing the operation...
Naming the operation from the perspective of how the operation was called at the time in English...
Naming the operation from the perspective ot military historians in English...
Naming the operation from the perspective of the names of the cities per the sovereign authority at the time...
Naming the operation from the perspective of the names of the cities per the sovereign authority today...

So, my personal editing dilemma:

As someone who has been expanding their grasp of military history, I would tend to favor (I/J)assy-Kishinev to mirror those references.
As someone who favors native usage but not have Wikipedia blaze the bleeding edge, Iaşi-Chişinău as a combination is problematic: if I google for that combination, subtract wikipedia, subtract all *.ro sites, subtract all *.md sites, I'm left with less than 200 matches, all in Romanian except for a couple of English stragglers I recognize as WP.
As someone who believes WP articles concerning central Europe should be made searchable by and accessible to the widest audience possible, I would tend to favor Iaşi-Chişinău irrespective of either of my #1 and #2 directly above.

Since we all rank all of this stuff differently in terms of importance, we're going to keep coming up with different answers amongst us. In the meantime, perhaps we can make sure the intro paragraph properly reflects the naming conventions--I don't think it's doing a very good job on "(I/J)assy-Kishinev" in English which is rather just implied as part of the transliteration from the Russian. —PētersV (talk) 01:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

For me, only the points with the word "English" in them are really relevant to the naming issue (the rest should just be mentioned in the leading section). I don't understand your notion of "Jassy-Kishinev" being less serarchable (this seems to be a novel approach). It WILL contain "Iaşi and Chişinău" in the lead and there will be a redirect from the current name. When I look for both "Kishinev" and "Chişinău" on WP, the article about the city comes up first in both cases. Perhaps you mean that looking just for "Chişinău" will not yield this article among the first few hits? In that case I think it's difficult to read the mind of whoever's doing the search to determine that s/he really wants to know about this operation and not one of those other things. --Illythr (talk) 08:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, on "Perhaps you mean that looking just for "Chişinău" will not yield this article among the first few hits?" Some of the most interesting and informative material that I've chanced to read on Wikipedia I've found precisely when not looking for it, only a general topic (name of city, locality, some basic concept,...). That's exactly my concern, that renaming will seriously decrease the article's visibility. There's no point to having a well written article with a super-accurate title that is only found by those that know to look for it. My take on it, at least. It's not just about product, it's also about marketing. Just like google on a larger scale, if you only show up on the second page of a hundred, you might as well not show up at all. —PētersV (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This may be indeed a valid concern. However, I doubt that the article's searchability will fall drastically, if at all, in case of a rename. In my opinion, increased searchability does not justify a Wikipedia-only name (wiki being a tertiary source and all that). Still, feel free to add this to the con arguments section. --Illythr (talk) 08:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, wouldn't a redirect take care of this issue? -- AdrianTM (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd also imagine that users in Central Europe would use the Russian or Romanian language version of this article in the first place. Oberiko (talk) 01:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it would, although I don't know how the search engine works exactly. Oberiko - that doesn't mean we should neglect this one. :-) --Illythr (talk) 07:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems the only thread without BS, so I'll place it here. How about starting the article:

Jassy-Kishinev Operation (cf. most frequent usage by historians), also known as Iaşi-Chişinău Operation (cf. the names of the localities), and Yassko-Kishinevskaya Operation (cf. the name in the military sources of the time) ...

Dc76\^talk 00:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd still want us to check how well the article "rises toward the top" were it renamed. With that caveat (I would not want it to drop out of the top 10) I could support a rename if the article had Dc76's intro. My preference is still the current title but I'm willing to compromise. —PētersV (talk) 01:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Dc76: The focus of the argument is the name of the article. The simplest way to avoid confusion is to link the appropriate cities from the lead and maybe explicitly mention them as well. The Russian name of the article is already there, the official (long) name may be included as well, but I don't see the reason behind the inclusion of the hybrid "Yassko-Kishinevskaya Operation", as it doesn't seem to be used by anyone.

The only way to check this out that I know of is to actually rename it...

Vecrumba, why is there a need to compromise at all? I have helped determine the English name though rigorous application of fact, bringing in what I see as fairly conclusive evidence (zero non-Romanian sources use the current name). I don't even see any kind of propaganda to refute here. To use another one of our (done to death) examples here, "Leghorn chicken" is not linked from the first page of a search for "Livorno", but renaming the critter out of searching convenience is out of the question. --Illythr (talk) 07:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bucharest picture and the Offensive

I think the picture is not related directly, the Soviet troops entered Bucharest peacefully as result of Romanians changing sides, not as a result of the I-C offensive. Sure, a strong case can be made that the Romanians changed sides as a result of the offensive, but I think that's a bit too long a shot here, how about using pictures from the front lines or at least from close by? (if available) -- AdrianTM (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Soviet forced wouldn't've been able to enter Bucharest peacefully, had Romania not switched sides... --Illythr (talk) 08:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, so? Why should we illustrate I-C offensive with a picture from Bucharest, Bucharest is not even close to either Iaşi or Chişinău and the offensive was not carried over in Bucharest, so no Iaşi, no Chişinău, no offensive, shouldn't we use a picture that is related at least to one of these things? -- AdrianTM (talk) 14:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Romania abandoning the Axis side was one of the most important consequences of the operation. Soviet advance to as far as Bucharest was another. This picture has them both. --Illythr (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Think of it this way - sure, we probably can dig up two random soldiers manning a machine gun or some Soviet tanks rolling. But the intro caption is supposed to be unique to the operation and I think the one we have fills the role well. If a more characteristic picture can be found - all the better, but this one is pretty good too, IMO. --Illythr (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that picture is there since the article was named "Battle of Romania" if I'm not wrong, right now I don't think it makes sense unless you make a direct causation link between I-C offensive and Romanians changing sides -- which although is probably a good case to make, it's kind of OR here. (it's also not a direct link in a sense that there was a plan to change sides before the I-C offensive if I'm not wrong, therefore I-C offensive is not a direct cause of Romanian changing sides as the picture seems to imply)-- AdrianTM (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure I've seen pictures of russian tanks on the Romanian front....I wonder if any of them are public domain. Narson (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Technically, the events after the 24th of August were part of a "Romania Operation", a direct followup of this one. This picture would be more at home there, but that article doesn't exist. I doubt anyone can seriously contest that the J-K op had served as a trigger for the coup, whether planned or not, seeing as how such a coup critically depended on the decimation of German forces that were otherwise able to quickly subdue it and reinstate Antonescu. I mean, the coup happened right after Soviet troops set foot in Romania - one helluva coincidence!

Anyhow, do you have a better suggestion? A pic of Soviet forces entering Iasi or Chisinau would be good, too, although Bucharest was of greater strategic significance. --Illythr (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Anything that's more directly related, maybe Romanian prisoners? Or, Russian troops in N-E part of Romania? Or maybe German prisoners since they lost around 200,000 men? -- AdrianTM (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm, best course of action would probably be to bring some samples here and make a (slightly less evil) poll to determine who likes what. --Illythr (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any picture, I will try to find some, but if somebody else has please feel free to add them. -- AdrianTM (talk) 01:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

My edits

Don't use wikipipes as with 2nd Ukrainian Front repiped to Steppe Front.: This will cause problem when separate articles about these fronts will be written. Redirects are invented for reason.
It is a stupid notion that all Soviet POW and prison camps were in Siberia. In fact they were all over the country.

`'Míkka >t 17:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead section

...needs some work. First, the scope of the operation must be determined. 29th of August, is cited by the Russian sources as the successful conclusion of the operation with the Red Army entering Bucharest.

Second, The offensive resulted in a continued strategic advance by the Soviet Army, with the offensive being completely unimpeded in the defender’s territory for the Soviet Army. makes it sound like attackers met no resistance whatsoever, which is obviously wrong.

Third, distinctive qualities of this operation, namely that it was fast, highly successful and incurred relatively few losses should be mentioned in the lead as well, preferably in one or two sentences --Illythr (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

What about the association with the Battle of Cannae? Is it present outside Russian historiography?Xasha (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Good question. Even if it isn't, it probably makes sense to mention that somewhere in the body anyway. --Illythr (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Adrian, don't remove a picture without providing a replacement of some sort! --Illythr (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I explained why is not appropriate, besides a "liberationofBucharest" picture is clear pushing a POV since there was no liberation, Bucharest was already free at that time. -- AdrianTM (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw some remarkably silly names of such pictures on Wikipedia. As long as the caption is correct and neutral, there is no POV-pushing. Additionally, the pic portrays the successful conclusion of the operation (apparently I was either mistaken about "Romanian Operation" above, or it began after the capture of Bucharest), so it is pretty relevant.

Strike that, you are correct, Bucharest was captured on the 31st, after J-K was completed. I will migrate the picture from ruwiki now. --Illythr (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Aw crap, that pic's not free... :( --Illythr (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The original site says material can be copied with the written permission of the administrator. Maybe we can ask for the permission.Xasha (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I sent him an email... Let's see if he replies. --Illythr (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hope he's going to agree, that's a much more appropriate picture for the lead, maybe we can use the Bucharest one in the section that talks about consequences. -- AdrianTM (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. --Illythr (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Mrg, is there a need to clutter the lead with the German and Romanian names? --Illythr (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Mrg, you may notice that Operation Barbarossa does not include the Russian name, nor does Operation Tanne Ost a Finnish one. Standard practice is to include the English name (if one exists) and the name in the original language of the primary participant. --Illythr (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

A title that isn't really a proper name but a descriptive identifying phrase, and where the different language versions are simply straightforward translations of that same phrase and of each other, doesn't need those different translations listed in the lead. Strictly speaking, we don't even need the Russian one, except for the purpose of documenting in what form the term was originally coined. We don't translate "Second World War" into the several dozens of languages of the participating nations, just as we don't translate "Thirty Years War" into German, Swedish, Dutch, Spanish and French, just as we don't translate descriptive identifiers of other historical events, things, concepts or other entities into the languages of the territory with which they happen to be associated. These translations add no real encyclopedic information and clutter the lead in a very cumbersome way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Question about timeline

I see this: "German commander Generaloberst Johannes Frießner stated on 21 August, the day before the attack, that he did not expect an attack, and if there were one, it would be a minor attack." When did the operation start, on August 20 or August 22? -- AdrianTM (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The operation began at 07:40 on 20 August. --Illythr (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, Friessner himself, in his book "Verratene Schlachten", says that the attack was "expected" since 7th August and the line was broken because of the incompetence of Romanian formations (that the Soviet forces prioritized). Need an English book... --Illythr (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Alleged Romanian collapse

Adrian, are you saying the operation had noting to do with the collapse of the Romanian Army and the governing regime?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Where did I say that? And why are you interested in my opinion, I don't think my opinion is important here. -- AdrianTM (talk) 05:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You are right, I am not interested in your opinion, but only the facts and sourced evidence you can bring to improving this article. Since you chose to edit the article, and expressed your opinion, I am asking you to clarify it, and provide evidence. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to enter into discussions with you, when I edit the article I provide the reason in edit summaries, if needed I comment in talk page. -- AdrianTM (talk) 06:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Losses

German losses (KIA) are exaggerated and really need a source. Oddly enough, the Russian article seems in turn to underestimate those. The German article places the death toll between 150000 (Soviet est) and 80000 (German Red cross est, incl MIA). --Illythr (talk) 09:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Operaţiunea Ofensivă Iaşi-Chişinău

Don't actually see any usage for this on Romanian sites.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll do some searches and post soon the exact designation used by Romanian authorities. --Eurocopter (talk) 11:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, why the need for the Romanian name? Scroll three sections up to see the argument. --Illythr (talk) 12:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Because for the rest of the war and during the Cold War the Romanian historians wrote about something that was a significant event in Romanian history.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

And? Operation Barbarossa was a pretty significant event in Romanian, Russian, etc... history, but the only names present are original (not always) and English ones. Same as in every article of this category. --Illythr (talk) 12:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

So add it. Romanian troops participated...unless their op. name was different?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

If operation names in languages other than original and English are not present anywhere else, they shouldn't be here either. Especially since the name is pretty much the same in all involved languages. --Illythr (talk) 13:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, since there are no further comments as to how this operation is different from the rest of them to have names other than in English and original language, I'll just be bold and remove the Romanian name. --Illythr (talk) 14:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This operation is important to the Romanian history and affected the fate of a country. The Romanian authorities use the name "Operaţiunea Iaşi-Chişinău" and therefore should be mentioned here. --Eurocopter (talk) 14:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

See above. Operation Barbarossa is VERY important for Russian SFSR, and all the Soviet republics it affected, yet the name of that operation is not given in some 10 languages. Why, the Second World War itself affected the fate of the whole world, however the English article for it does not contain its name in all the world's languages. --Illythr (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I am also curious what consensus do you mean there? --Illythr (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Does Operation Barbarossa has a different name used by Russian authorities? --Eurocopter (talk) 14:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Does Jassy-Kishinev Operation has a different name used by Romanian authorities? --Illythr (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the official name of the operation is "Operaţiunea Iaşi-Chişinău". --Eurocopter (talk) 15:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the official name of the operation is "Операция Барбаросса". --Illythr (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

That's the same name, translated in cyrillics. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, "Operaţiunea Iaşi-Chişinău" is the same name, translated with diacritics. --Illythr (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

No, the same name would be "Operaţiunea Jassy-Kishinev". So, Iaşi-Chişinău it's different. --Eurocopter (talk) 18:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless you're trying to say that Jassy and Iaşi are two different cities, I have no idea what you're talking about. --Illythr (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

If you are saying that the term "Jassy-Kishinev Operation" is a proper noun, the exact Romanian translation would be "Operaţiunea Jassy-Kishinev". --Eurocopter (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

While it can be argued that "Jassy-Kishinev" is a proper noun in English (I don't, see points 1 though 5 above for what I'm really saying), a claim that it is also one in Romanian is rather extraordinary. Please demonstrate that Romanian usage of "Operaţiunea Jassy-Kishinev" is notably common (or that it even exists at all). --Illythr (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not common and it doesn't exist. I'm only saying that "Operaţiunea Iaşi-Chişinău" is a designation used by the Romanian authorities, not only a translation. --Eurocopter (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as how general practice is to provide only English and and, if necessary, original language names, there is no need to add any others, to avoid cluttering the (already cluttered) lead section. Anyway, really now, why is this operation so special that you want to make it an exception from the general rule? --Illythr (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not making exception from any rule. It seems perfectly normal and logic to me to add all these names if they are currently used. Question, why is "Kishinev" mentioned in the Chişinău's lead? --Eurocopter (talk) 12:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Because Kishinev still has modern English usage, as well as being useful as a historic reference. On the other hand, "Operaţiunea Iaşi-Chişinău" has none and never had any English usage. And yes, you are making an exception of this article, check the other ones in that category I provided to see how it's normally done. --Illythr (talk) 13:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This operation is an exception itself. Because its name is formed of the names of two cities, it was automatically translated in the language of each involved part. That's why I think we should mention the Russian, German, as well as Romanian designation. --Eurocopter (talk) 13:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. Now, please do take a look at the category list I provided and check the names of the operations that are based on cities. Belostock Offensive Operation, Bobruysk Offensive Operation, Budapest Offensive, etc, etc... --Illythr (talk)

Bobruysk and Budapest are the official names of the cities (this demonstrates that we should use Iaşi-Chişinău for this article) and Belostock is the Russian name for the Polish town "Białystok". --Eurocopter (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I just gave the first three examples where no other name but the one used in English (and maybe original) is given, with the operation taking place outside of the Russian SFSR. Do continue along the list if you still don't get the point, it's pretty long. --Illythr (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't get the point because there is no point. Neither one mentioned by you above is similar to this case. --Eurocopter (talk) 14:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

They all have only one main name (English) and sometimes the original name (Russian, if conducted by the Soviet Army, or German, if by Wehrmacht), regardless of their area of operations or what their names are based on. --Illythr (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No Polish forces fought at Belostock. Yes, Hungarian forces did fight at Budapest, but the English name is the same as the official Hungarian one. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

So, would you insist as strongly as you do here to add Russian names into articles about German operations against Soviet forces, like Fall Blau, or Operation Platinum Fox as well? --Illythr (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a code name, so it's not similar at all to our case. Can we just stop this endless and useless discussion? (WP:AGF) --Eurocopter (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll remove the name in Romanian now, then. It can be added back once properly proposed on the talk page and consensus on its addition is achieved. --Illythr (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The planet Earth is important to the human history and affects the fate of every single human being. Do you believe that the name of the planet in every single human language should be added to the English Wikipedia article Earth? If not, why? --Illythr (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's not be absurd... --Eurocopter (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to demonstrate you the fault in your logic. Many military operations have had a profound effect on more than one or two countries. For example, it can be argued that Operation Neptune, being one of the critical points of the war, affected the fate of the entire Western Europe. Yet, only the English name is provided. --Illythr (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The foreign name that has no significance in the English sources does not belong to the article. If anyone is interested to know the Romanian name of anything, one click on the interwiki or checks the dictionary which WP is not. --Irpen 19:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, it is not a foreign name, it is the designation used by an involved part in the operation. --Eurocopter (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

And again, not a single operation in this category uses any name other than English and (not always) original, no matter how many other parties were involved. Why should this one be any different? --Illythr (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but "Jassy-Kishinev it's not an english name,

It's the one most commonly used in English to denote the operation. To clarify: "J-K Op" is about as English as "Iaşi" and "Chişinău", however, since these names have dominant English usage to denote these things, we use them to name articles about those things. --Illythr (talk) 13:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You are all going in circles. Just agree to disagree and get those names out. There is consensus-minus-one against them, this is hardly going to change. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, already done that. --Illythr (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Last sentence in lead

Regarding the closing sentence: It also forced Romania to switch allegiance from the Axis powers to the Soviet Union. This is only the Soviet position. It may have factored in the concurrent deposing of Ion Antonescu... or along those lines would be a more appropriate summation. It's a Soviet operation, but conclusions regarding its impact should try to avoid glorification rhetoric (there are tinges here and there). —PētersV (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying the operation had no impact on Romania switching sides? Was deposition of Ion Antonescu a "happy coincidence"? --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, the operation started on August 20, the coup took place on August 23, there were 9 plots at that time to take down Antonescu, I doubt they all were made up in less than 3 days, usually there's a need for more time for this kind of plots. While Soviet advance in general is the ultimate motivation for the coup I don't know if this specific operation was the one that "forced Romania" to switch allegiance. I think we need good reference for that, because otherwise it looks at worse like an opinion (and thus, original research), or at best as a Russian POV. So, what are you saying? -- AdrianTM (talk) 02:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The German and Romanian armies in Romania collapsed in the first couple of days. This is a reference article, so I can't start writing about the scale of retreat and desertion in those armies here, but surely the "word" had got to Bucharest fairly quickly. Bucharest was liberated on the 24th, and Romanians seemed to be fairly happy about that [4] a day later. Could the coup have succeeded a week before? Was it necessary a week later? Is it really a "Russian" POV, or history as it happened?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea if a coup would have succeeded before, maybe... But I doubt you can claim that the coup has been planed in 3 days. Maybe it was rushed by the operation, but not caused by it. But anyway, this seems to me like original research, you draw conclusions, we shouldn't draw conclusions (and be careful about WP:SYNTH), we need references -- we need a statement to this effect that is endorsed by majority of historians (or at least mentioned by some reliable sources) -- AdrianTM (talk) 03:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite frankly this is the first time I have heard anyone deny that the coup had nothing to do with the Red Army troops taking Bucharest the next day. Why do you think it was successful on the 23rd? (Clue: no Antonescu supporters to prevent it) :o) --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I won't speculate, speculate all you want. Anyway, Red Army didn't take Bucharest the next day, sorry if this is the first time you find this out. -- AdrianTM (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and when do you think Bucharest was taken by the Red Army?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

August 31, 1944. When do you think? (by the way, it wasn't "taken", Red Army "entered" Bucharest, taken usually means "occupied by force", or in this case Red Army entered following the terms of the Romanian armistice, without fighting in the city or outskirts) -- AdrianTM (talk)

OK, I was going on the operations of the 53rd Army which reached outskirts of Bucharest on the 24th. Apparently the Front commander was told to stop operations in the direction fo the city, and on 31st the Romanian new government declared for Allies.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That's unlikely: Kishinev was taken by 24, Bucharest had to survive a determined Nazi attack during those days. Take a look at the (somewhat more detailed) Russian article. It says that on 24th German forces attacked Bucharest, Romanian authourities asked the Soviets for help and 50 Soviet divisions were sent from the outer ring to aid the new ro govt. It says outskirts of Bucharest were reached by August 27. Whoever made the caption of that photo must've confused the dates. --Illythr (talk) 08:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps some further clarification is in order. One of the goals of the operation was to take Romania out of the war. No one is denying that the coup was planned in advance (Germans complain about "planned Romanian treachery", while Soviet sources mark the "reactionary opposition" as the reason the coup was not executed at an earlier point) and was executed by Romanians (Soviet sources are quite wordy about how the hard-working Romanian people, led by the progressive CPR, threw off the shackles of fascist oppression etc, etc). Point is, there's no also denying that the swiftness of the operation triggered the coup, seeing as how by August 23 it was clear that Soviet forces will be coming into Bucharest within days. --Illythr (talk) 07:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

About the last lead sentence - while there may be some debate over the level of contribution of the operation to the coup, there can be none over the fact that Romania was forced to abandon the Axis side as its direct result. The decision of German commanders to try a counter coup, which has caused the hostilities to erupt, was an important cause for Romania joining the Allies as well, but Romanian leaders themselves have admitted that the switch was forced because (1) they wanted their country to survive and (2) there was this little matter of Transylvania that the Soviet Union promised to "review" in case Romania joins. --Illythr (talk) 07:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The particular source I have just says 53rd Army, but it could have been a platoon of motorcyclists. Need more research, but if you say 31st, and that is when Moscow announced it, then that is ok for the intro section. For the section of Bucharest (not in this article) it would need to be sourced.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

There does seem to be a bit of confusion in some Sovet sources, but the Great Soviet Encyclopedia entry on the op gives the 29th as the date Soviet forces reached Bucharest and Ploiesti, and 31st as the date they entered the liberated Bucharest. Other sources also give 30th as the date Focsani, Ploiesti and Constanta were taken. --Illythr (talk) 09:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

August 24 is highly dubious, even if you drive on road with a BMW at high speed from Northern Moldavia it takes half of day, considering only the road situation at that time and no small matter, the war situation with Germans I doubt the Red Army, no matter how glorious it was, could have made it till Bucharest in one day. Oh, and what "liberation", what did they liberate Bucharest from? -- AdrianTM (talk) 11:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, are you responding to my post (doubtful, because I pointed out that Bucharest on 24 is "unlikely" above)? As for liberated, (*evil grin*) I knew you'd bite. :-P Now read what I wrote. Carefully. ;-) --Illythr (talk) 12:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I was responding to both, sorry if the indentation is confusing. -- AdrianTM (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested move (January 2009)

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 to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 03:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I proposed the move of this article to "Iasi-Khisinev Offensive", the name which is used by David M. Glantz, the military historian who describes most widely this operation, in his book called Red Storm over the Balkans – The Failed Soviet Invasion of Romania, Spring 1944. Secondly, google books scores only three results for the current name of the article, while for the proposed one it scores nine. Thanks, --Eurocopter (talk) 11:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You're googling the wrong current name, Eurocopter. I't's Jassy, with a J~~, and a double s~~. --Illythr (talk) 12:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - "Jassy-Kishinev" was supported by a clear majority of both scholarly sources and wikipedia users participating in the discussion of March 2008. Since then, the positions of the current name have only strengthened - "Jassy-Kishinev Operation" (the name I originally proposed) now yields a solid 119 Google Books hits (against a previous result of 49 in March. If we apply the same loose criteria Eurocopter has used, and look just for Jassy-Kishinev, we'll get even more - 233 hits. Therefore, I would support a move to Jassy-Kishinev Operation, but am also content with the established majority preference "...Offensive," which is the current name. --Illythr (talk) 12:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment - The name of the first city is Iaşi; "Iasi" doesn't exist but is used by Glantz because English-language works often avoid diacritics. The second city is now (and forever has been in Romanian) called Chişinău. So the proposed title, while used by a respectable source, seems a bit of a muddle, a halfway measure between full-bore Russian and full-bore Romanian. I slightly prefer Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive, because whatever searches I performed in the last discussion seemed to turn up a preference for that. But I'd have to go for the current "Jassy-Kishinev" in second place, and "Iasi-Kishinev" in third, simply because of the historical dissonance implicit. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Can you point out those searches? Because the main point in the last huge discussion was exacly zero English sources for "Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive,". One such source has appeared in the meantime, but the number of sources using the J-K name has more than doubled in the same time. --Illythr (talk) 08:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, maybe this? Of course, it's not in English... I seem to be faltering a bit there. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Yup, that was the most annoying part of the discussion - people kept supporting a name that cannot be found in any English language source against one that is found (with slight variations) in all such sources... I'm not sure why Eurocopter decided to revive it - with a unilateral rename, erroneous argument for renaming (the current name is not "Iassy-Kishinev" and yields quite a bit more than 3 GB hits) and an immediate revert war over an unproposed addition of a marginally used name, no less - but, seeing as how nothing has changed since then (well, the ratio did change, from infinity to about 50:1), I think it's a bad idea. Did you guys do something over there on WP:MILHIST to provoke him? --Illythr (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I haven't been provoked by anyone, nor I was involved in a revert war. All I wanted was to add Glantz's book which in my view describes the most accurately and widely this part of the WWII Eastern Front, that's why I considered this naming variant is worth being considered. However, i'm willing to accept this current form (this name mentioned in the lead).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurocopter (talk • contribs)
"Worth being considered" is usually something that, well, is allowed to be considered, as opposed to being doggedly pushed through completely ignoring previously reached decisions, or presented sources. Anyhow, will you close the rename proposal, now that I have demonstrated the clear prevalence of the current name again? Perhaps we can list all the alternative names in a footnote or a separate section... --Illythr (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment - Biruitorul has just spelled it out, I perfectly agree with him. But, to calm the spirits I would like to suggest to put all three titles in the article as names used. X, also called Y, also called Z. Or something of this kind. To Eurocopter: sometimes it is ok to stay with a "wrong" title. Titles are things that can be contested by almost anybody, but the content is what matters the most, and only those who actually read something about the topic can edit. It should be clear from the text of the article when and who calls the thing X, Y, or Z. Many readers are quite intelligent to spot a "wrong" title if the content is well informative. Let the only problem in an article be the choice for the title - WP would be so much better. Dc76\^talk 05:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Respecfully disagree per WP:UNDUE. A usage ratio of 50-100 to 1 against them marks these proposed names as marginal, worthy of a redirect at most. --Illythr (talk) 09:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. The basis of the nomination is a bit weak as it is based on usage in one source plus a Google search result of "Iassy-Kishinev [5], not the current title.[6] Nothing much else has changed since the last go round. — AjaxSmack 22:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

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.

Losses

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Soviet losses

Men:

13,197 irrecoverable
53,933 wounded/sick.

Material:

75 tanks and self-propelled guns
108 guns and mortars
111 aircraft

German losses

Men:

>250,000 men irrecoverable losses, unknown number of wounded.

Material:

83 tanks and self-propelled guns
3,500 guns
3,300 motor vehicles
330 planes

Formations and commands completely or largely destroyed:

Sixth Army
- Command Staffs
  - IV. Armeekorps
  - VII. Armeekorps
  - XXX. Armeekorps
  - XXXXIV. Armeekorps
  - LII. Armeekorps
- Divisions
  - 13th Panzer Division
  - 9. Infanteriedivision
  - 15. Infanteriedivision
  - 62. Infanteriedivision
  - 76. Infanteriedivision
  - 79. Infanteriedivision
  - 106. Infanteriedivision
  - 161. Infanteriedivision
  - 257. Infanteriedivision
  - 258. Infanteriedivision
  - 282. Infanteriedivision
  - 294. Infanteriedivision
  - 302. Infanteriedivision
  - 306. Infanteriedivision
  - 320. Infanteriedivision
  - 335. Infanteriedivision
  - 370. Infanteriedivision
  - 376. Infanteriedivision
  - 384. Infanteriedivision
  - 153. Feldausbildungsdivision
Eighth Army
- 10th Panzergrenadier Division
Luftflotte 4
- 5. Flakdivision

Romanian losses

30 tanks
8,305 KIA
24,989 WIA
153,883 MIA and POW

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moved the section over here for now. It needs sufficient sourcing before inclusion. So far, only the Soviet personnel losses are sourced reliably. --Illythr (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

References

Ref 12 is to the Axis History forum site - are we sure its reliable ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, that post over there does have a bibliography. Ideally, this should be independently confirmed, as most sources say that the initial offensive specifically targeted the Romanian army, and German authors blame the Romanians for the crushing defeat the Axis have suffered... --Illythr (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested move (March 2009)

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 move. JPG-GR (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Considering that a First Jassy-Kishinev Offensive currently exists(and it is a well-written sourced article, currently under A-class review), according to Milhist naming conventions, Multiple battles at the same place in the same year should be called "First", "Second", and so forth (as in First Battle of Zürich and Second Battle of Zürich); alternately, the month of the battle may be used as a disambiguation (as in Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942)). Moreover, the names First and Second Jassy-Kishinev Offensive are used by David M. Glantz, the military historian which describes for the first time the First Jassy-Kishinev Offensive (Red Storm over the Balkans - The Failed Soviet Invasion of Romania, Spring 1944, 2007), elsewhere a military operation deliberately forgotten by Soviet archives/historiography. -Eurocopter (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Support (as initiator) - With the appliance of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (Jassy-Kishinev Offensive link to Second Jassy-Kishinev Offensive, and Second Jassy-Kishinev Offensive have a link at the top to First Jassy-Kishinev Offensive). However, it is simply ridiculous to have a First Jassy-Kishinev Offensive and a Jassy-Kishinev Offensive (August 1944) in the same time. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose the move to "Second..." for the following reasons:
- The name "Second+Jassy-Kishinev+Offensive" yields exactly one Google hit - this very page.
- All existing references to a Jassy-Kishinev Offensive/Operation concern the August one. This is a consequence of the spring offensive being completely unknown until Glantz discovered its existence in 2007. Thus, this is a "by the book" implementation of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline.
- It is also confusing, because the August operation had a second phase.

However, as we do have a problem with disambiguating the two operations, I suggest a compromise outlined in the MILMOS quote provided by Eurocopter above (emphasis changed accordingly): Multiple battles at the same place in the same year should be called "First", "Second", and so forth (as in First Battle of Zürich and Second Battle of Zürich); alternately, the month of the battle may be used as a disambiguation (as in Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942)). The main name should be a redirect to this article per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC cited above. --Illythr (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, since Glantz discovered the operation, we should use on wiki the name he uses as well. As for the argument that the 2nd offensive had a second phase, that doesn't matter, as an operation can have as many phases as possible. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

1) what is the claim Glantz makes to having "discovered" the supposed operation? 2) I won't tell you to read the policy (because you always claim to have already read them all), but WP:UNDUE offers very good reasons why we should not "use on wiki the name he uses as well". Dahn (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

We should use the common name, that is, one used by most English sources, and we have established that name in the two previous move exercises quite thoroughly. As for the "first" operation - I think it should be renamed to Jassy-Kishinev Offensive (April-May 1944) or "...(Spring 1944)" for consistency's sake, until an accepted naming solution is established. --Illythr (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

But "Jassy-Kishinev Offensive (April-May 1944)" would not be in accordance to Glantz, the one who discovered and described the operation for the first time. --Eurocopter (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Discovery isn't the issue here - common usage is. We have it for one operation and lack it for the other. I think it's reasonable that the obscure name that must adapted to solve the resulting ambiguity, not the established one. The ideal solution to me were to use the official Soviet name for the offensive (Glantz cites it, yes?) and then say right away that Glantz was the one who discovered it, coined the name etc.

Besides, not using his names doesn't seem to be that much of a problem: see Operation August Storm for a prominent example and Uman-Botoshany Offensive, for another. The latter even has your vote against the name used by Glantz. --Illythr (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, in this case common usage is inexistent, as Glantz revealed only one and a half years ago that the offensive took place. However, let's see what other people think, because I'm really tired of our endless polemics (actually that's the reason why I requested this move). --Eurocopter (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose This would be the culmination of several unilateral, inconsistent and inconsiderate moves catering to one editor's charades. The rationale for the other article is shaky to begin with (a can of worms I won't open here), and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC most definitely applies. Dahn (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

And such comments would be disregarding WP:RS and WP:MILMOS, as well as ignoring WP:CIVIL and WP:NP. I suggest consulting these guidelines which seems you are not familiar with, and after that try making pertinent comments. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Eurocopter, please don't insult my intelligence with unfounded and inflammatory accusations. I am familiar with those guidelines, with where and how they apply, just as I am familiar with how you misinterpreted these and other policies with the forks and ribbons you created for some obscure reason. I only take suggestions from third-parties. Dahn (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I know you are good at accusing, imposing your POV, make a point, rather than really improving or making something constructive, but please refrain from personal attacks. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It's funny how you manage to urge me not to engage in personal attacks within a personal attack, but whatever. On this page (and many others, as you have acknowledged yourself) I am doing something constructive: I am trying to prevent an unconstructive move. And you may want to read WP:POINT before accusing me of breaking it. But bicker away, I've made my point. Dahn (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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.

Requested move (July 2013)

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 moved. --BDD (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Jassy–Kishinev Offensive (August 1944) → Jassy–Kishinev Offensive – Jassy–Kishinev Offensive currently redirects here; this article is already recognized to be the primary target. As such, the parenthetical disambiguator should be removed. Neelix (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

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.

Rename proposal (2008)

Arguments for renaming

Comments on supporting arguments

Arguments against renaming

Comments on opposing arguments

Summary of comments on arguments against renaming

Support the rename in general...

Yassy-Kishinev Strategic Offensive Operation

Jassy-Kishinev Operation

Yassy-Kishinev Operation

Iassy-Kishinev Operation

Oppose rename

General comments

Comment on sources

Another idea

May be no consensus here

Bucharest picture and the Offensive

My edits

Lead section

Question about timeline

Alleged Romanian collapse

Losses

Operaţiunea Ofensivă Iaşi-Chişinău

Last sentence in lead

Requested move (January 2009)

Losses

Soviet losses

German losses

Romanian losses

References

Requested move (March 2009)

Requested move (July 2013)