Talk:The Motherland Calls/Archive 1

Archive 1

Requested move

This discussion has been archived. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
The result of the proposal was Move to The Motherland Calls. Duja► 12:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Mother Motherland Is Calling → The Motherland is Calling — Mother Motherland is Calling is a word-for-word translation of the name of the statue, however, when translating from the Russian the entire context needs to be looked at and The Motherland is Calling is the more correct translation as Родина-мать literally means The Motherland (and in other contexts can also mean Mother Russia) —Russavia 05:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Survey Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions. Weak Support. definitely better than the present one. But a (spelling) alternative may somewhat preserve the motherly idea: "Your Mother Land is Calling (You)". --Pan Gerwazy 15:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC) I switch my support to another one resembling this proposal: "The Motherland calls". That wins the google test hands down. --Pan Gerwazy 20:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC) Oppose Mother Motherland should be moved to Mother Motherland (disambiguation), and Mother Motherland Is Calling should be moved to Mother Motherland. Ewlyahoocom 05:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC) Mild oppose - Based on what appears to be the most commonly used name, following the Google results below, "Mother Motherland" seems the most likely option. Rename the current "Mother Motherland" to Mother Motherland (disambiguation). Magnetic hill 19:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC) Support the idea to remove duplicates. In Russian Родина-мать is a single idiom, and you can't translate them literally. Родина is closer to homeland, "the place where you were born", and the overall meaning of Родина-мать is most properly conveyed by The Motherland. I have no definite opinion on the verbal formation; "is calling" possibly is better, as the name represent a slogan used during the War, not a permanent conception; however, the Russian name also includes the exclamation mark, so The Motherland is calling! would be the most prudent translation (again, no opinion on capitalization). Notice also that in Russian Wikipedia, ru:Родина-мать is dedicated to a concept/slogan, ru:Родина-мать зовёт! to a poster that first used the phrase, and the statue is located under ru:Родина-мать (Волгоград), although ru:Родина-мать зовёт! (Волгоград) would have been better, IMHO. Súrendil 13:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC) Discussion Any additional comments: --Russavia 05:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Why not introduce some pronouns? "Your Mother Land is calling you", eg, immediately looks and sounds less typically Russian (though perhaps some want to keep that Russian-ness? --Pan Gerwazy 15:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Starting with "your" this is obviously a neologism, and as such cannot be the titele of a wikipedia article. Withdrawn. --Pan Gerwazy 20:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC) Comment If we base this on the most commonly used name, which is how pages should be named (according to WP:COMMONNAME), we get the following results from Google (including the different suggestions on this page) - 631 results - "Rodina Mat" 584 results - "Mother Motherland" 23 results - "Mother Motherland Is Calling" 6 results - "Mother Russia is calling you" 5 results - "The Motherland is Calling" 2 results - "The Motherland is calling you" 0 results - "Your Mother Land is calling you" I included "Volgograd" in the searches to keep the results specific to this statue, but if Volgograd is replaced with the former name "Stalingrad" then the above results are similar. Google isn't an exact test, but it's a good indicator and it shows the two most obvious choices. Magnetic hill 19:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC) Comment Normal google text searches aren't a good test, as you mention, as it is unknown how many of the "Mother Motherland" results are as a direct result of people consulting this article in finding an English name. Perhaps a more accurate search is by using scholar, books and news. Google news find no relevant results for "Mother Motherland", but finds plenty of relevant results for The Motherland is Calling. Google books finds plenty of relevant results for The Motherland is Calling, and only one relevant result for Mother Motherland. Google scholar finds a couple of relevant results for Mother Motherland, and a couple of dozen relevant results for The Motherland is calling. The only real question is whether it should be "The Motherland is Calling" or the "The Motherland is Calling You", and I believe it should be simply The Motherland is Calling as the statue is based on the poster with the same name which was used during the Great Patriotic War, in which it wasn't calling individual Soviet citizens, but calling ALL Soviet citizens. --Russavia 20:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC) Comment Magnetic hill, a correct google count does not count Wikipedia pages or wikipedia mirrors! That would be self-referencing. And you checked Stalingrad and Volgograd separately, but you should have OR'ed - otherwise pages where Volgograd and Stalingrad occur, get two votes! So let us do your work over, but adding the possiblity "calls " instead of "is calling": Volgograd OR Stalingrad "The Motherland Calls" -wiki -> 275[1] Volgograd OR Stalingrad "The Motherland Is Calling" -wiki -> 109[2] Volgograd OR Stalingrad "Mother Motherland Is Calling" -wiki -> 96[3] Volgograd OR Stalingrad "Mother Motherland Calls" -wiki -> 6[4] Volgograd OR Stalingrad "Mother Russia Calls" -wiki -> 62[5] Volgograd OR Stalingrad "Mother Russia Is Calling" -wiki -> 8[6] So, I think we should go for "The Motherland Calls". "The Motherland Is Calling", however, contrary to what you think, is actually the highest placed of the ones we checked until now.--Pan Gerwazy 20:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Volgograd and the Motherland statue.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Родина Мать зовет.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Почтова марка "Родина-мать зовёт!" ГДР 1983.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• The motherland calls Mamayev Kurgan Volgograd.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• The Motherland Calls.webp

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Мамаев курган (4).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Motherland Calls/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Joeyquism (talk · contribs) 16:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jaguarnik (talk · contribs) 00:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I will take on this review. Jaguarnik (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Jaguarnik; I very much appreciate it. Looking forward to your review. joeyquism (talk) 02:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Well-written:

Encyclopedic style of writing is maintained throughout the article, lead summarizes all important points of the article.

A few nitpicks:

• infobox says near Mamayev Kurgan, rest of the article indicates it's on Mamayev Kurgan

• Yeah, you're right. Just a bit of an oversight in parameter usage; I've fixed this.

• Despite the scale of the losses in Stalingrad, the battle was quickly mythologised in Soviet culture, why "despite"? I don't think the two oppose each other. Much of the Soviet/Russian narrative of the USSR focuses on the fact that the USSR lost millions of people for the cause against fascism; I don't have access to the original source so I don't know what the author meant to say.

• Removed the first clause. This reads rather strangely to me too after a bit of time away from it.

• Do brick, elevator, plaza, and banner need to be wikilinked? It seems unnecessary (see MOS:OVERLINK - everyday words should not be wikilinked.) Additionally, plaza links to "town square", which I don't think is the intended definition here.

• "Plaza" is synonymous with town square, so that is the appropriate link, in my opinion. The other instances of overlinking are pretty ridiculous to me too, so I've de-linked them.

• a decision that further intensified the already-excessive budget for the project. In my opinion, this sentence doesn't make sense, consider changing "intensified" to "increased"

• Good point. Changed.

• this was later changed to be a concrete statue of a lone Mother Russia - Palmer says on pages 390-392 that this change occurred in 1961, or at the very least, that Vuchetich announced the change in 1961 (although the appearance was finalized in 1962), I would mention this instead of "later".

• Changed to but was changed in 1961 to be a large concrete structure at nearly double the height - let me know if this wording suffices; I'm not exactly on my writing A-game right now, lol.

• The edit works well.Jaguarnik (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• The planned sculpture also attracted criticism from Soviet writers, including Stalin Prize-winning author Viktor Nekrasov, I think it's irrelevant that he's a Stalin Prize-winning author, it wouldn't necessarily make him more of an expert on the subject. Personally, I would remove it, but I don't insist on it.

• Removed.

• the need to ensure the foundation's durability and soil stability, particularly given the presence of mellite clays on Mamayev Kurgan. Could more detail be given on this, for readers who don't have context for why mellite would threaten the soil stability of the foundation?

• Palmer states that This latter issue was particularly important given the high content of mellite clays atop Mamaev Kurgan. The hill's soil could provide a suitable bed for the structure only if its moisture content was kept to a minimum. I've appended the following: ...the hill could only support the structure if the moisture of its soil remained low.

• Rasul Akhiyaretdinov faced criticism from pro-Russian online circles after he petitioned on social media for Vladimir Putin to redesign the statue - again a nitpick, but according to the articles cited, he wasn't asking for Putin to personally redesign the statue, but to give the order to modify it. Additionally, I think it should be mentioned that a criminal investigation was opened against him (as per the article); it wasn't just criticism that he received. (There's also an article from Bloknot Volgograd about the criminal investigation against him.)

• You're right; it does read like he asked Putin specifically to redesign it. I've rephrased it as after he petitioned on social media for Vladimir Putin to order that the statue be redesigned. Do you have the source from Bloknot Volgograd?

• Bloknot Volgograd: Bastrykin gave the order to open the criminal investigation.

• Added A criminal investigation against Akhiyaretdinov was initiated on 10 May 2024 following orders from Alexander Bastrykin.

• due to the visible depiction of the statue's nipples depictions are necessarily visible, no? The phrasing feels redundant.

• Good catch. I've removed "visible".

• In the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, a video game development company in Belarus was forced to remove the statue from its game after receiving backlash from users on Twitter. "was forced" feels odd here, as there wasn't anything like a government order to remove the statue; that can be removed.

• Changed to just "removed".

Source spotcheck

I don't have access to every single source, so I'll do a spotcheck of sources.

• Palmer, Scott (2009). "How Memory Was Made: The Construction of the Memorial to the Heroes of the Battle of Stalingrad". The Russian Review. 68 (3). Wiley: 373–407.

Citations 4-24; 26-35; 37-40; 45 were checked. I fixed some minor page errors; otherwise, all statements match the source and everything looks good. Y

• Riabov, Oleg; Riabova, Tatiana; Kleshchenko, Liudmila (2022). "'Save the Children!': The Symbol of Childhood and (De)Legitimation of Power in Russian Protests, 2017–21". Region. 11 (2). Slavica Publishers: 235–252.

Y Looks good.

• Sokolova, Evgeniya (5 August 2019). "Пластическая Операция для «Родины-Матери»: Ей Лечат Глаза и Руку" [Plastic Surgery for The Motherland Calls: Healing Her Eyes and Hand]. Е1.ru

Y

• Heintz, Jim (7 May 2020). "AP Photos: Memorials Weave WWII Into Russia's Psyche". Associated Press.

Y

• Serebryakov, Alexei (17 March 2021). "На Мамаевом Кургане «Родина-Мать» Покрылась Трещинами и Мрачными Пятнами" [At Mamayev Kurgan, The Motherland Calls Has Developed Cracks and Dark Stains]. Bloknot Volgograd (in Russian).

Y

• Statsky, Grigori (15 October 2010). ""Родина-Мать» Ушла на «Больничный"" ["Motherland" on "sick leave"]. V1.ru (in Russian).

Y

• Galpin, Richard (8 May 2009). "Russia's massive leaning statue". BBC News.

Y

• Bickerton, James (16 November 2022). "Fact Check: Does Ted Cruz Book Cover Feature Soviet-Era Monument in Russia?". Newsweek.

I'm hesitant about the Newsweek source. Newsweek is considered a questionable source per WP:NEWSWEEK, and while the policy is to judge each Newsweek article on a case-by-case basis, it is a bit questionable to me that no other sources covered the Cruz controversy besides Newsweek. Additionally, I think a few tweets on Twitter isn't really noteworthy criticism. ?

• Fair point, though I personally feel like it can be kept here as it's relevant to the subject matter. If Vacant0 objects, I'll likely just remove it.

I looked briefly at the other news sources, they all look fine to me.

Copyvio

None that I can see. Earwig at the moment of use was unable to use the search engine to look for copyvio. There's no copyvio from the sources used in the page - the highest result was 25.4% from the UNESCO site, but that's just because of the phrase "Battle of Stalingrad". All good here.

Broad

This article is very well-researched. Everything that I think would be relevant was covered, without being too detailed. Background of what led to the conception of the statue, the history of planning and construction, legacy, etc., all is covered and relevant.

Neutral

Y The style of writing is objective and neutral.

Media check

• All media included has relevance to the article, captions are correct.Y

• The infobox image of Motherland Calls has fair use rationale. Y
• 3D model of Motherland Calls has been nominated for deletion on the basis of potential copyright violation; that should be removed. (If the rationale is proven, there's no issue in adding it back.) Ultimately removed.

• What an unfortunate revelation! I've removed this one - the person that nominated it for deletion has claimed that the user who uploaded the file has a history of false licenses, so I'm apprehensive about keeping it at all.

• The Berlin Treptow image has permission. Y
• Winged Victory should be good. The law is "Photography of ancient monuments and antiquities that belong to the Greek State (all dating before 1453 and most dating before 1830 (Law 3028/2002, Government Gazette issue 153/Α/28-6-2002 articles 2 & 7)) is allowed to be taken for free when non-professional equipment is being used but publishing on the internet is allowed for free when no commercial or economical purpose exists." So this should pass. Y
• Image of Vuchetich has fair use rationale. Y
• Image of Motherland Calls under restoration has fair use rationale. Y

• Just a heads-up (and perhaps a bit of self-tattling): this is under a CC-BY-4.0 license. Russian freedom of panorama restrictions do not apply when "the work is an 'accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject'"; I believe that applies here, as it is not a close-up and the statue is represented as a component of the landscape (this is just the way I see it). Additionally, the image was taken by the Russian government according to the existing licensing, which makes it available under CC-BY-4.0.

• Image of the Manzhouli statue should be fine. As far as I can tell, Chinese freedom of panorama laws include statues. Y
• Volgograd coat of arms is not subject to copyright Y
• Volgograd stamp is not subject to copyright Y
• coin is not subject to copyright Y
• postcard is not subject to copyright Y

Overall

I'm really impressed with the article overall, and once the above issues are addressed, I see no reason not to pass it. Since I am still new at reviewing good articles, I will have a more experienced reviewer check this review for me, to make sure that I gave a fair review and addressed all issues. Jaguarnik (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Will jump in and have a look at the review as a more experienced reviewer. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jaguarnik and Vacant0, thank you so much for taking on this review. I've addressed the comments above; feel free to let me know how I did and if anything else is needed from me. Looking forward to your responses. joeyquism (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Good job on the article. The reviewer has also done a good job on addressing the six criteria. I do not have anything to add, so @Jaguarnik: feel free to promote the article to GA status. If you do not have it installed yet, you can use User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/GANReviewTool to close the GA review more easily. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Joeyquism: Congrats on the pass; thanks for bringing a vital article up to GA status. Jaguarnik (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2024 (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.