Jump to content

Talk:Maria Kalesnikava

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

Requested move 7 September 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Maria Kalesnikava. Although it may not be the most commonly used form in sources, the subject's self-identification and the fact that the page was moved without discussion tipped the consensus position. No such user (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Maria Kolesnikova → Maria Kalesnikava – Move it back, because she has always used Kalesnikava on her https://www.facebook.com/maria.kalesnikava https://www.linkedin.com/in/maria-kalesnikava-35a110136/ and throughout her established music career https://triovisavis.com/en/maria-kalesnikava/ https://interakt-initiative.com/info ... It should be noted that this RM section was started only 7 minutes after the page was moved without consensus.--RZuo (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The Russian version is by far more popular than the Belarusian one, by a factor of ten (10) according to Google. I suppose she is not very known as a musician. Taurus Littrow (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also according to Google, no results of the spelling Kolesnikova could be traced to her before 2020, because she has never used that. She has romanised her name using Kalesnikava for years. I repeat this link https://triovisavis.com/en/maria-kalesnikava/ which is her own English biography. Her name doesnt change even if her fame skyrocketed since June 2020 for her political activism.--RZuo (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you, but on Wikipedia we use commonly recognizable names. Read this: WP:COMMONNAME. "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used." Taurus Littrow (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both are commonly recognizable as lots of English sources using either name can be found. However, the subject has never undergone a name change, so some news events would not necessitate changing her name from her established spelling Kalesnikava.--RZuo (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You should read WP:NAMINGCRITERIA and use less bold text. Kalesnikava fits the criteria better since it's less ambiguous and more recognisable over the years.
And Google results are skewed exactly because Maria Kolesnikova is rather common in Ukraine, Russia etc.: hedge fund manager, Kyrgyz activist, Ukrainian singer, Russian designer... They all share the same name, so more results are found.--RZuo (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You still need to prove that the Belarusian form is more common than the Russian one (I strongly doubt it), and that the major media outlets prefer the Belarusian name over the Russian (quite the opposite is true: see DW, NYT, Reuters, CNN, etc.). Taurus Littrow (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support: she's Belarusian, not Russian. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 18:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So is Lukashenko. It has nothing to do with the name used on Wikipedia. Taurus Littrow (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Names of Belarusians should be transliterated into English using Belarusian forms" - Where does it say so? I thought the recognizability in English is what matters. Lukashenko, Gomel and Mogilev, just a few examples of names transliterated from Russian. P.S. @Bzweebl: Could you please comment on this? Taurus Littrow (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The closest existing en.Wikipedia policy is probably Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people). The question is whether Кале́снікава is much more widely known in English in reliable sources in the transliteration of one of these two versions of her name rather than the other, or if both are widely used. There's an extra factor in this case: the two different romanised transliterations are almost identical, and anyone aware of the double language use in Belarus would easily be able to associate one with the other. Another factor is that Кале́снікава has only become widely known in English sources in the last few months, so respecting her clearly expressed preference for "Kalesnikava" would seem reasonable. This is not a situation like the name Bill Clinton ("William Jefferson Clinton" would be unrecognisable to many people who say that they have heard of "Bill Clinton"). There are certainly mainstream English-language sources using "Kalesnikava", such as Atlantic Council, Channel 4, Wall Street Journal. Boud (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Russian version is used at a much greater scale, I don't think anyone would argue with that. And since the Russian version is the most common, it must be used according to the Wikipedia policy. Period. Taurus Littrow (talk) 09:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The word is generally, not must. To reassign the bold in your quote: "Wikipedia ... generally prefers the name that is most commonly used." The situation with two nearly identical spellings and two very closely related languages used in a country does not have any obvious precedent in en.Wikipedia. The sudden burst in media attention does not override usage prior to 2020 and it does not imply long-term future stable usage. We don't know what the most common long-term usage is; google hits are only a very loose guide. Boud (talk) 03:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can prove anything using that kind of logic. Taurus Littrow (talk) 08:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The situation with two nearly identical spellings and two very closely related languages used in a country does not have any obvious precedent in en.Wikipedia." Ever heard of Ukraine? Or Spain (Catalonia)? Taurus Littrow (talk) 08:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"We don't know what the most common long-term usage is". Yes we do. It's the Russian version, judging by the major news sources like DW, NYT, Reuters, CNN, etc. You can barely see the Belarusian form in any media at all. Taurus Littrow (talk) 09:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Read this: WP:COMMONNAME. "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used." And the most common name (by a large margin) is obviously Kolesnikova. DW, NYT, Reuters, CNN, they all prefer it. Taurus Littrow (talk) 09:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See above: the key word is "generally". The community decision here is allowed to take all factors into account. Boud (talk) 03:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See above: you can prove anything using that kind of logic. Taurus Littrow (talk) 08:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sam lowry2002: Please don't edit your comment if one has already replied to it. Answer to his/her comment instead. I'm talking about the "DW, NYT..." part. Biased or not, those news agencies do use the Russian form. Besides, most of the Belarusian sites are in Russian, too, including such a popular opposition site as tut.by. Taurus Littrow (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Taurus Littrow: please see WP:BLUDGEON, you don't need to reply individually to each editor supporting the revert of your un-discussed move. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per op. We don't get to decide how to spell her name she does blindlynx (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why was there no discussion (per WP:RM#CM before the page was moved???? blindlynx (talk) 22:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support In fact, it should be moved back without discussion because it was moved here without discussion. We can then discuss whether it should be moved to this spelling. Arianna the First (talk) 22:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - She uses the Belarusian transliteration for herself and several news organisations use the Belarusian form. Tāwhiwhi (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Use of a name in bibliography as a criterion for deciding the name of a title presupposes that the two names which we are comparing in bibliography, have had equal chance of representation internationally. That's not true in the case of M. Kalesnikava. She has chosen to be known with the Belarusian variant of her name because she identifies with it, but for reasons unrelated to her choices, it has not been used proportionally in the media. There's a problem of WP:SYSTEMIC: some cultures, topics and perspectives tend to be underrepresented on Wikipedia.. We have to acknowledge the problem of underrepresentation of certain cultures and address it in a straightforward way: Strong Support.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, agreed. Let's do the same with the Irish, Scottish and Welsh cultures. They are very underrepresented here. Let's write all their names in their respective languages. Same thing with Latin America, the USA and Canada. The hundreds of Amerindian languages and dialects are grossly underrepresented and have been unjustly replaced by the English and Spanish languages. This should change. P.S. We should do something similar with the Cornish language, which has been recently revived and needs strong support on our part. Fully agreed. Taurus Littrow (talk) 12:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is this relevant? We are not discussing any of the languages you mentioned above, we are discussing the situation with this one person who, as the creator of the request, has shown to self-identify with the last name Kalesnikava, transliterating it as such into English for years prior to exploding in popularity due to the recent events. Sennowa (talk) 22:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
we understand your argument and disagree there is no need to be WP:UNCIVIL about it. blindlynx (talk) 10:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Blindlynx: Speak for yourself. It should be "I", not "we". You're not a representative of an organization or something. Taurus Littrow (talk) 06:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. English sources favour "Kolesnikova" by a large margin. Vpab15 (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Birth name in infobox

[edit]

Regardless of how the discussion above turns out, the fact that this article uses the Russian transliteration of her name is irrelevant to the 'birth name' infobox parameter and does not need to match for consistency. Her birth name is Belarusian. See Alexander Lukashenko's article for an example. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Taurus Littrow: Your reasoning for reincluding the Russian transliteration is moot; the lead mentions both the Russian and Belarusian transliterations. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The name must be consistent throughout the article. The birth name is not an exception, otherwise it will look as if she changed her name. As to Lukashenko's article, this is what it says: "Born: Aleksandr Grigoryevich Lukashenko". This is the Russian version, which matches the article's name, so your reasoning is completely wrong. The lede is irrelevant, and there's absolutely no reason to prefer the Belarusian name over the Russian. Also, what do you mean by saying that "her birth name is Belarusian"? How can you tell a Belarusian name from a Russian one? I already explained in the edit description that she was born in the Soviet Union, not Belarus, as you incorrectly claimed. Belarus was not a country in 1982. Taurus Littrow (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake re. Lukashenko, I see I misread his article. The lead is not irrelevant; it disputes your reasoning – it didn't look like she'd changed her name because both names are already mentioned. She was born in the Byelorussian SSR, not the Russian SFSR. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 18:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat, the lede is irrelevant and it has nothing to do with her birth name, which must be the same as one used in the article's name (since she didn't change it). So why exactly is my reasoning wrong? And where did I claim that she was born in the RSFSR? I mentioned the Soviet Union as her country of birth. BSSR and RSFSR were republics, not countries on their own. P.S. A lot of info from the infobox is repetitive and is mentioned elsewhere in the article; it doesn't mean we need to remove all those repetitions. Taurus Littrow (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, being born in the Belarusian SSR doesn't make one and one's name Belarusian by default. Kolesnikova/Kalesnikava, it even sounds the same. It's a surname which is both Russian and Belarusian. Had it been Moldova or Armenia, things would have been different, of course. Their name are clearly different from Russian. But it doesn't work for Belarus, not in this particular case. Taurus Littrow (talk) 19:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Patronymic

[edit]

Maria's patronymic is not Alexeyevna, it is Aleksandrovna. Here are the proofs that her father's name is Aleksandr: 1, 2. Could you please fix the patronymic and its IPA in the article? -- НСНУ (talk) 21:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)--НСНУ (talk) 21:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks much. Taurus Littrow (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The IPAs have not been done for the Russian and Belarusian patronymics. I don't know how to do them, so if someone else could? Thanks. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 13:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I performed a post-move cleanup, changing the instances of her surname to "Kalesnikava" in the text, but the lead section might need additional tweaking to clarify various forms and transliterations, including the patronymic. No such user (talk) 14:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The patronymics were there, in both languages. The problem is that she uses the Belarusian surname (Kalesnikava) but the Russian first name, Maria (in Belarusian, it's Marya). Very confusing. I wonder which of the two patronymics she prefers. Taurus Littrow (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are three versions of her patronymic aamof: Aleksandrovna in Russian, and Alyaksandrauna and Alaksandraŭna in Belarusian. Taurus Littrow (talk) 07:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryja_Kalesnikawa -> Karlspreis

[edit]

The most prestigious prize, the Karlspreis, is missing in the list. see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryja_Kalesnikawa 77.190.107.60 (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Added Charlemagne Prize to list of awards. Vpab15 (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maria_Kalesnikava&oldid=1257002942"