A news item involving Sinking of Dalniy Vostok was featured on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the In the news section on 3 April 2015.
Wikipedia
This article is written in
American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a
WikiProject dedicated to coverage of
Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the
project page, or contribute to the
project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
shipwreck-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShipwrecksWikipedia:WikiProject ShipwrecksTemplate:WikiProject ShipwrecksShipwreck articles
When I created the article a few days ago, I named it "Sinking of the Dalniy Vostok", because Dalniy Vostok was the most common name used in press accounts. Another editor, in good faith, moved it to what they believed was proper. This appears to all come down to the fourth word in the title, and its correct spelling in Russian. I added the relevant "name" template on the articles main page so that editors with knowledge of the Russian language can provide input. Thanks!
Juneau Mike (
talk)
15:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)reply
I won't argue this, but the name is printed as "Dalny Vostok, Dalniy Vostok, Dalniy Vostok and Dal'nij Vostok" in news sources. Only the last would be used by experts. Simply count the actual numbers of Russian symbols. Since /l/ and /l'/ are totally different sounds in Russian (as different as ch and j in English) and y is the vowel ы, somwhat like the vowel in English "sick", and not the sound found in you which is symbolized by the ҋ found in the Russian spelling, the Dalniy spelling is as sloppy and ignorant as spelling
jalapeño "halapeno"; in other words, typical arrogant English parochialism and ignorance.
μηδείς (
talk)
01:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Yeesh.... I consider that a personal attack. A misdirected one at that, as I'm a native Russian speaker. As for the merits of your position, you're simply rearguing the discussions behind
WP:RUS. Palatalized consonants are very hard for non-speakers of Slavic languages, and the little apostrophe doesn't help the English/parochial crowd pronounce it correctly. I prefer Dalny myself, but Dalniy is good enough. Save your vitriol. -- Ynot?01:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)reply
That's Sheesh, not Yeesh. And if you are a native Russian speaker who can spell Russian and understand the IPA, you know that ль /ʎ/ and л /l/ are entirely different
phonemes (pol'ka vs polka), as are /ы/ and /ӣ/ There's also the IPA transcription that makes it clear that ˈdɑlʲnʲɪj vɐsˈtok is nowhere near the same as ˈdɑlnɨ vɐsˈtok], or the absurd ˈdɑlniɨ vɐsˈtok].
WP:RUS is a mere essay, which I believe is indeed ignorant and parochial.
Pretty sure I meant Yeesh, an interjection of apprehension or displeasure at the sudden appearance of an ad hominem attack in a conversation about romanization convention. Not Sheesh, a dismissive interjection. -- Ynot?10:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)reply
I am saying that we wouldn't purposefully mis-transcribe French, German or Spanish, so why should we slaughter Russian, when the expert transcription is well known? It's as wrong as saying "down, ye!" and "doll knee" are the same in English. As I said, I won't argue the point, as in file an RfC, but I think expressing my objection is what this talk page is for, not kowtowing to sloppiness.
μηδείς (
talk)
02:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Medeis You have made many, many fine additions to this article. As for my part, I have only made small changes to your prose (replacing "ice-cold water" with "frigid", etc.) Your changes have been positive ones, and you have edited in good faith. That being said, bringing the articles title in line with how things are done on the English Language Wikipedia seems like a pretty minor change. When I saw that the name was in dispute, I asked for discussion. I cannot read or write Russian, and I know about 5 words of the language. Needless to say I am not the one to make such a decision about a page move. I assume there is a Russian Wikipedia, and if this article is mirrored there, it will be interesting how the ships name will be spelled there. While I see the argument in support of the page move here, and have supported it, as this is the English Wikipedia, in this case I see no problem with the common name being used in the English language press being used here. Thanks again for your help with this article. I mean that sincerely.
Juneau Mike (
talk)
04:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)reply
I guess the best way to look at my opinion is that I think we should have different words for Iron and Steel, while most people have no idea of the difference. I still think the actual, academic transcription would be better, and I think
Y's arguments are specious at best. If he actually writes Russian and understands IPA he should say so. I speak the
Русиньскый язык as a third-generation American, and am trained in po-moskovskiRussian and linguistics at the post-grad level.
What matters is our readers. I'll probably just end up adding a proper professional transcription, as is given at wiktionary, identical to my transcription at the
phonemic level. The title doesn't matter per se as long as the redirect exists; the real problem I see is that none of Dalny, Dalniy, or Dalni even approximates reality, in the ways I have described above. We don't pull this nonsense with Vietnamese or Spanish or German, and we shouldn't be pulling it with Russian.
μηδείς (
talk)
05:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)reply
I see that the eruption of vitriol has continued. I understand the IPA and I precisely understand your points. You're quite right from a technical phonetic perspective, but you're wrong from an encyclopedia writing perspective. We need to give the average reader something they are capable of grasping, which is why
WP:RUS calls for Dalny. It omits a lot of detail, but it gets the point across. Dal'nij is a bit much for parochial people, and will have them thinking the damn thing ends with ʤ. Not good. -- Ynot?10:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Very interesting though the above may be to those interested in academic and technical transliteration, are we forgetting that this is the name of a ship? The name is what the registration authorities say it is, regardless of whether it is spelled correctly or not. The Russian registers give the name of the ship in both Cyrillic and Latin scripts: ДАЛЬНИЙ ВОСТОК and DALNIY VOSTOK.[1]Davidships (
talk)
01:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Great point, Davidships. On Page 141 of that registry, the ship is listed as Dalniy Vostok. That settles it, this article has an accurate title. Thanks for your help!
Juneau Mike (
talk)
02:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Thanks for pointing it out. I did not realize that a Russian ship would have a official title in latin characters. Agree with using whatever the ship's registration uses. -- Ynot?13:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)reply
They were
trawling, which means whatever gets caught in the net, which might largely include flatfish and crustaceans if they were bottom trawling, and
oilfish if the net was near the surface. Once on board the catch would be separated by category, and unwanted things thrown back. One source has a picture of a crewman holding some sort of crab or lobster, so it seems likely they were bottom trawling.
μηδείς (
talk)
02:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)reply
The reports are saying "pollock" which is probably the
Alaskan pollock which is a Pacific relative of the true pollock of the Atlantic, and a member of the cod family. They are
whitefish, which is associated with feeding at depth.
μηδείς (
talk)
00:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)reply
I'm glad we have a map centering on the sea of Okhotsk. Should we keep the pretty topographical map as is, or use the plain map, illustrated here, which better shows the international boundaries and location?
μηδείς (
talk)
02:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Reactions
Do we have to have completely non-noteworthy condolences from i.a. Armenia and the Seychelles? In fact, none of them, except Putin's of course, have any particular relevance to this particular maritime tragedy and add nothing of importance. Just routine political gestures. Where are the statements by the governments of Myanmar, Vanuatu, Ukraine and Latvia whose citizens perished? Hmmm.
Davidships (
talk)
19:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Well obviously we don't have to list every one we find, but I find it notable that the large number of lives lost has brought about reactions from world leaders. And the sections position at the bottom of all other content means that any page visitors can easily ignore it if they are not interested. Thanks for your question.
Juneau Mike (
talk)
06:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)reply
The death toll has been revised to 57 by Russian authorities. Turns out that 2 bodies were placed in the same "container". The new death toll is 57, with 12 missing. I have revised the article accordingly.
Juneau Mike (
talk)
12:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)reply
it's true? need showing titanic how sinking
i don't know but it's true article but only look where sink no how looking but ship sinking
can show how sinking ship like RMS titanic? well i want see and that titanic — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Silviu200530 (
talk •
contribs)
20:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)reply