Talk:Okhrana

Okhrana or Okhranka?

I'm pretty sure that Okhrana is the more usual transliteration, and I have struggled to find the spelling Okhranka in my books and notes on the subject. Perhaps I'm being foolish but having just checked again in Pipes and Figes it is the only spelling I've come across. Driller thriller

"Okhrana" was never used in Russian, because it's general word for "guards" in the meaning of "stationed security team". It was either full "Okhrannoye otdelenie" or dimunitive "Okhranka", often used as a disdainful name by the revolutionaries. I'm moving the article back. DmitryKo 09:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Point taken, and you are absolutely right, however this is an English language encyclopedia and Okhrana is the most common, if not the only, spelling used in English language accounts of the subject, the fact it wasn't used in Russian is perhaps beside the point. I'm sticking to my guns on this one I'm afraid. Driller thriller

I am afraid that you are quite unfamiliar with the subject. For example Encyclopedia Britannica defines okhranka, see eg here. Therefore please don't be afraid and stop moving the page from where it belongs. mikka (t) 17:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I didn't move it, merely voiced an opinion in the discussion page, Encyclopedia Britannica may give "okhranka" but my point was that Okhrana is most common, nothing more. Driller thriller

Driller Thriller is surely right! This is an English language site and okhrana is the common english usage. the page should be moved ASAP to avoid further inaccuracies and confusion

Agreed. You can't just say "oh Britannica spells it Okhranka". If Britannica were to jump off a cliff, are you suggesting we should all follow suit? Just to be fair, I did the honour of looking it up in a number of relatively authoritative texts. It is spelt 'Okhrana'. Alzclarke

Fortunately, Britannica is right. If it said "Okhrana", I would use the same metaphor of jumping off a cliff because it would be an obvious mistake. The only reason why "охранка" may appear in English as "okhrana" is а mistake (possibly because the word "охрана" is found in Russian dictionaries much more often). There is simply no need to invent another word while the original is "okhranka". --Yms 11:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Охранка is a jargon word that's strictly associated with state security units of MVD, while охрана is a very general word for "protection" and "security (team)". --Dmitry 16:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well there seems a majority in favour. Let's move the page. How about you do it Driller Thriller as it was your idea first. DmitryKo, I hope that's ok!

Well, "the majority" used to call the Soviet Union simply Russia and the Soviet people were all "russians" etc. - is that OK to move it as well? --Dmitry 16:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You are talking about the majority of random people. Any academic work refrring to the Soviet Union would not call it Russia, as that term is inaccurate. The accepted English academic term is okhrana without a second 'k'. Sorry if you like the other spelling, but put that in the Russia version of wikipedia.

Dmitry and Yms are correct. "Okhrana" is a generic word for guard, while "Okhranka" is specific to Tsarist MVD (informal as it carries diminutive/derogatory connotations). This is a fact and not a matter of someone's preference or voting. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

From WP:RM: What counts here is normal English usage, since this encyclopedia is to rad by English-speakers. That seems clear; Okhrana. Septentrionalis 04:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica shows that some academics got it right. It seems that WP editors DmitryKo, mikka, Yms, Humus sapiens think that it should stay as Okhranka. Even according to the CIA monograph, The term Okhranka, which was sometimes used interchangeably with Okhrana... Far from "That seems clear". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I've only just got back into this debate considering how much it's taken hold recently, apologies if I've been a bit slow on the uptake with something that should so readily appeal to my pedantry. Humus, the CIA passage that you quote only uses the term Okhranka in relation to the Paris office and in fact does so simply to explain the transliteration of Zagranichnaia okhranka or agentura, the fact that Okhrana is used without qualification throughout the rest of the article demonstrates how widely accepted it is in English Language sources on the subject; the fact that Okhranka is sometimes used in English is besides the point, we should aspire to use the most common term, and by doing so, the most correct term. On a brief examination of the CIA page, one finds at least 10 books, articles and other sources referenced that give the term Okhrana either in their title or their text, while none give Okhranka; in addition we find that the Hoover Institution's extensive collection on the subject is the Okhrana Collection. Hope this helps. Driller thriller 23:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I strongly oppose moving the article to Okhrana just for the reasons of Googling around for "most common usage". If you insist on using English term, move it to "Security Section of Imperial Russian MVD". --Dmitry 09:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The English term, as used by native speakers (Rebecca West, for example) is invariably Okhrana. There are other palces to argue the Russian term. Septentrionalis 17:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Dmitry, you are wholly wrong. As an academic who studies Russia/ the Soviet Union I can assure you that the academic term is okhrana. Any English usage, especially in historical terms is 'okhrana'. 'okhranka' should be in the russian version of wikipedia not the english one!

If it were a word of English ethimology, I'd have no concerns. Since it's a Russian word, there's no need to corrupt it to comply with old and obviously erroneous usage. And please don't push words like "invariable" and "wholly wrong", you failed to prove it. --Dmitry 18:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I think you kind of shoot yourself in the foot, Dmitry, given your knowledge of English is clearly so limited that you think etymology is 'ethimology' [sic]. Since it's a Russian word, it's the English usage that counts. The CURRENT English usage is okhrana - if you wrote okhranka in an English language paper on the subject then that would be incorrect. Hence, as I have said before, okhranka is in fact incorrect for an English version of wikipedia. So you are wholly incorrect.

So he misspelled "etymology", ah! big deal. IMHO, anon "academic who studies Russia/ the Soviet Union" but seems to be clueless of the difference between okhrana and okhranka has shot himself in foot first when discarded Encyclopedia Britannica as "wholly incorrect". In this case, Dmitry is among those who know what they are talking about. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No no, I never said Britannica was wholly incorrect, but rather that to ignore the accepted English academic usage is. You still haven't addressed that point, despite numerous opportunities! And to be lectured by someone who clearly doesn't know one bit of etymology from another is somewhat ironic.

Given a choice between an anon's claimed "English academic usage" and Britannica, I prefer the latter. Incidentally, it just happens to be the proper one. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone copied and pasted this page into Okhrana, I went ahead and put it back for now, when we do move this page, I want it done right without any dodgy chop-shop edits. Driller thriller 23:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It's been moved back already, fair enough, I'm not gonna fight it, considering I agree. Driller thriller 23:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

86.132.11.117 (talk · contribs) hastily renamed the article. Perhaps stabs in the back are acceptable in the course of "academic" disputes, but here it is consiedered impolite at best. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think he meant to "stab you in the back", I'd like to see some consensus though before we move the page, even if I don't see moving it as quite that level of betrayal. Driller thriller 00:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I moved this recently because I feel that if Okhrana is a mistransliteration then it is the responsibility of Wikipedia as a knowledge base to set people straight and say that it is in fact Okhranka. Okhrana is too generic and just because it's common doesn't make it correct, I'm sure we could find plenty of other examples to this effect. Zero no Kamen (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Security detatchment vs Security Station

I'm not sure if detachment is a more adequate translation of Otdeleniye. Okhranka stations were not extraordinary or temporary installments assigned for a specific time and/or event; I believe the security station implies that they were permanent offices, much like police station. DmitryKo 11:41, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jewish involvement with Okhranka?

I am confused about something. One part of the article states that "The Okhrank is notoriously known for its agents provocateurs—Dr. Jacob Zhitomirsky (a leading Bolshevik and close associate of Vladimir Lenin), Yevno Azef, and Dmitry Bogrov"...the organization is supposedly very anti-semetic yet, Dr. Jacob Zhitomirsky is almost certaintly a Jew and Lenin had Jewish ancestry. Am I missing something here? How can an organization be partially led by Jews, yet be very anti-semetic? Flyerhell 07:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It can't. It was not even partially led by Jews. The fact that there were agent provocateurs of Jewish origin is pretty useless here. --Yms 11:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree with Yms. Since many revolutionaries were of Jewish origin, it is only natural that some "useful Jews" were recruited as agents. I've never heard of Jews anywhere close to the top in the Okhranka hierarchy. There were also people like Vladimir Burtsev, who fought against the Tsarist Okhranka (he exposed Azef among others), later against the Bolsheviks and later yet against the Nazis. As for Lenin's (and Stalin's too) alleged Jewish ancestry, it was suddenly circulated when the Commies became very unpopular. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Apparently articles with insane headlines like this one are allright in wikipedia, but if you dare criticize the anti semites proxy group, the fake "palestinians" on wikipedia, you get booted off....Anti Semitism is promoted as much as possible on wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.130.56 (talk) 13:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Was Golovinski Okhranka agent?

The claim that Matvei Golovinski was Okhranka agent is hardly verifiable. There is no evidence for this. Moreover, later he worked for bolsheviks, and it is unlikely that bolsheviks would hire Okhranka agent. DonaldDuck 02:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it is easly verifiable. All you need is google and a little bit of NPOV. I provided the ref. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Googling is a fallible method of finding out whether someone was an agent of secret service or not. To prove or disprove this you need some official documents, not unsupported allegations which were very common in revolutionary circles and then were published in some newspapers.

DonaldDuck 04:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This has been reported. Please review WP:RS. At this point, the burden is on you to prove this wrong. Until then, good bye. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Where this has beed reported?DonaldDuck 05:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

In the press: Protocols of Zion forger named by Patrick Bishop (Daily Telegraph) November 19, 1999. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Pyotr Rutenberg

Rutenberg was one of organisers, maybe more important than Gapon. Here is a good article about him http://www.peoples.ru/finans/undertake/rutenberg/ In his memoirs Rutenberg writes that he had planned the path of demonstration, encouraged Gapon and gave orders to workers. DonaldDuck 03:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was wrong; but he was not an Okhranka agent (this article is about Okrnanka), so this fact is less important. However, in the present form this statement in article is correct. --Yms 10:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Name again.

Sources which use Okhrana:

1. Spartacus Schoolnet
2. The Central Intelligence Agency
3. Columbia Encyclopedia
4. John Reed, Ten Days that Shook the World
5. Encarta, apparently
6. a scholarly article in the Slavic Review from 1971
7. an article in the Russian Review

More broadly, a JSTOR search for "Okhrana" yields 380 results, as compared to 13 for "Okhranka". Google Scholar for English pages including the words "Okhrana" and "police" yields 379 results. the same search with "Okhranka" yields 29. Whatever "Okhrana" may mean in Russian, in english it is the term used for the secret police. Russian usage is completely irrelevant. john k 00:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think, if Enc. Britannica uses the correct name, we can be bold to ignore the incorrect versions, even if Google is on their side :) --Yms 05:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"Okhranka" may be correct Russian, but it is not correct English. Of the small number of books available to me at my parents' house:

1. Richard Pipes, The Russian Revolution and Russia under the Bolshevik Regime both use "Okhrana"
2. Vadim Z. Rogovin, 1937: Stalin's Year of Terror uses "Okhrana"

Sadly, that's all I can find that have "Okhrana" in the index. But I wasn't able to find any that had "Okhranka". I imagine if you were to look at a representative sample of scholarly works, you'd find that they all use "Okhrana," because that is the English name. Note that "Google" is not on the side of Okhrana; it is Google Scholar, which collates results from scholarly journals and such like; and JSTOR, an archive of scholarly journals, that give the nod to "Okhrana." If scholars who speak Russian, and translators of Russian works like that of Rogovin, use "Okhrana," we should follow them, not Britannica and some insistent Russian wikipedia editors. john k 16:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought that, since Britannica uses the other spelling, we have some freedom of choice. --Yms 17:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I don't see why that freedom of choice should go in Britannica's favour. It's fairly clear that the most common name, even among academics, is 'Okhrana'. So I can't really see much justification for having this article at 'Okhranka'. I notice that all the people arguing in favour of 'Okhranka' are native Russian speakers, and so, understandably, to say 'Okhrana' feels wrong to them. But really you have to remember that this is the English language Wikipedia and we should use the best accepted English language word for them. BovineBeast (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Name...

Maybe I shouldn't reopen the name debate again, but I just wanted to point out that Mossad and Irgun are also widely-used jargon words that have a more general meaning in their original language ("institution" and "organization", respectively), yet their specific meaning in an English text is fairly obvious and there's no need to give the full name ("Hamosad Lemodi'in Uletafkidim Meyuhadim" and "Irgun Tzva'i Le'umi"). There are lots of examples of words changing their meaning in different ways when borrowed by another language.

Anyway, more importantly, the name "Okhranka" that is used in the title appears only once in the body of the article, while the (arguably more prevalent in English literature) "Okhrana" is used throughout the article. Whatever term you are using, at least make it consistent throughout the article.--192.114.91.226 09:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)