Wikipedia talk:Stress marks in East Slavic words: Difference between revisions

This essay is a personal (and very biased) opinion of Mike Novikoff. Things wouldn't be so bad had the user not reverted other people's edits and referred to this essay as if it were an established rule or something. This is why I strongly suggest that the essay be moved to Mike Nofikoff's user space or elsewhere. Moscow_Connection Nfitz SebastianHelm Liz Any comments/suggestions? Taurus Littrow (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I've tried to move the essay to Mike Novikoff's userspace, but he moved it back. Maybe it should be just deleted. Cause if it is not deleted, it will continue to be used as justification for controversial edits. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleting it will be just fine. Note that he also added the link to it here: Romanization of Russian, and when Stephen_MUFC tried to remove the link, he put it back and even left a warning on the user's page! Very dishonest and uncooperative behavior. This is a serious encyclopedia, not Mike Novikoff's personal blog. I wonder if something could be done about this user. Taurus Littrow (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • > even left a warning
      Content removals shouldn't be unexplained, be it within the mainspace or elsewhere. And
      no personal attacks please. — Mike Novikoff 22:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Mike Novikoff, would you just stop victimizing yourself? You're harassing other users, you're removing other people's edits just because those edits don't agree with your personal opinion, you wrote a highly biased essay (original research) to justify your opinion, and yet you have the cheek to accuse other people of attacking you. The problem clearly lies with you, not with others. Taurus Littrow (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please see
          WP:AVOIDYOU (arguments should not be personalized; that is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people). — Mike Novikoff 05:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
          ]
  • > but he moved it back
    ...and an admin had told you to stop. — Mike Novikoff 22:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I've never said it's an established rule, I just use a shortcut within my edit summaries to explain my point. — Mike Novikoff 22:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This essay is clearly original research, so you can't possibly use it to justify your reverts of other people's edits. The problem with you is that it's not an honest mistake; you obviously realize that your behavior is dishonest and misleading, and yet you persist at it. Not a good thing. The essay should definitely be removed. Taurus Littrow (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe you'll start with explaining your own edits first? When you add these stress marks, you don't explain why you are doing this. Please also note that
      WP:OR does not apply to essays. — Mike Novikoff 23:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • OK, I guess I'll just write my own essay (which will state exactly the opposite) and then use it as a justification for reverting other people's edits, no problem. P.S. The arguments for using stress marks were listed by Moscow_Connection on your page, so you're obviously familiar with them. I'll include them into my essay, sure enough. Taurus Littrow (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please do. I really wonder what rationale your essay will contain except the obvious "It is common practice for Russian encyclopedias to mark stresses", and will it convince anyone in English encyclopedia. — Mike Novikoff 00:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Read what I said below. The arguments (plenty) were provided by Moscow Connection (something I pointed out on your talk page at the very beginning). Please don't ridicule and belittle them by misquoting them out of context. That's obviously against the rules. Taurus Littrow (talk) 06:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I saw this at
  WP:MFD where one possible result might be "userfy", that is, move to the creator's user space. Johnuniq (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Perhaps a disagreement is not so significant as it may seem from ANI. In fact, I'm doing this kind of spelling corrections for a couple of years already, and I use the shortcut to this essay since September, yet there are only two (or three?) users who oppose, one of them never saw it before yesterday and none of them have provided valid arguments. On the other hand, there are tens if not hundreds of users who saw my edit summaries with a shortcut, and I dare say they form a kind of
    WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. — Mike Novikoff 04:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    None of them have provided valid arguments – Come on, Moscow Connection provided plenty of valid arguments on your page, and I said I agree with them. And now you're just trying to ridicule them, misquoting them and claiming they are not valid. And have you actually asked the opinion of those "tens if not hundreds of users" you are referring to? Have you made a poll or something? Really, your conduct is very dishonest and misleading. Taurus Littrow (talk) 05:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest that anyone wanting this essay changed should start a new section on this page with a proposal. Do not mention previous trouble or other editors. Do not mention other pages. Stick to one or two relatively simple points that you think need improvement or correction. Include an example of how the essay was used to (in your view, incorrectly) justify an edit to an article. People should then respond and discuss the points raised, preferably in a way that others could follow even if we don't understand the details. After that, an RfC or MfD could be considered. I'll watch this page for a while. Johnuniq (talk) 08:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johnuniq Thanks for your suggestion, it seems reasonable, and I might do it. But frankly, the entire essay is quite one-sided and very biased, so it would be easier just to move it elsewhere or simply delete it. One important argument for using stresses: They are used in adapted books for foreigners who study Russian, so it is perfectly normal to use them here, on English wiki, as well. Taurus Littrow (talk) 09:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is unlikely the community would support a forced move of the essay unless a reasonable discussion could be seen with reasons clearly set out, and with minimum drama. The above mentions a discussion elsewhere but this talk is the proper place and I suggest starting again by paraphrasing the best points here. Ideally you would have two reasonably recent examples of different articles being edited per this essay and where you believe the result was incorrect, and you would outline the problem. Johnuniq (talk) 09:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Johnuniq OK, I just started a new topic where I listed my arguments and a possible solution. Let's see what other users say. Thanks. Taurus Littrow (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I read the first sentence but stopped there because it is a massive fail. First, experienced editors expect new topics to be at the bottom of the page. Please use "new section" or however it appears in your browser. Second, the idea of a discussion is to discuss, not to start (or continue) a fight. We know that you think the essay is shit so you don't need to say it. Further, saying it is pointless (what happens if someone else says they like it?). It guarantees that no reasonable discussion can follow. Please read my earlier comment again.
          WP:AGF is not just a policy, it's something you have to do. Johnuniq (talk) 09:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
          ]

          Oh well, I tried my best. That wasn't intentional. Maybe people could just list their arguments pro and contra? Also, I moved the new topic to the bottom. P.S. The problem is that I don't see how the article can be possibly rewritten. Every sentence just makes me cringe. It would be a colosal work to discuss every sentence and propose edits to it. The whole thing should be moved to the user's space (or deleted altogether), this is my solution. Taurus Littrow (talk) 10:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd also ping a couple of users who might be interested in the discussions on this matter: @AveTory and Retimuko. — Mike Novikoff 10:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This essay looks very biased and one-sided, and it obviously enjoys no consensus. What is worse: it is often used by the author as a justification to revert other people's edits and remove the stress marks in Russian names or words: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. etc. Now, the author claims he does not use this essay as a guideline, but that's definitely the impression one could get. So this is why I propose either to rewrite it or move it to the author's userspace (or maybe even delete it altogether). Here are some of the reasons for using stress marks in Cyrillic forms. Stresses are used:

• by the modern Great Russian Encyclopedia;
• by the highly prestigious Great Soviet Encyclopedia;
• in major Russian explanatory dictionaries, such as those by Dal, Ushakov or Ozhegov;
• on Russian wiki;
• in adapted books for foreigners who study Russian (all polysyllabic words are stressed).

My solution is that stress marks can be used on English wiki for guidance purposes, but not on a mandatory basis. That is, if you see stress marks in an article, leave them as is; and if you don't see them, you can add them if you believe it will help non-Russian users. Anyway, no one should engage himself or herself in a crusade of removing or adding stresses to every article and (what is worse) reverting other users' edits. Taurus Littrow (talk) 09:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That's what this essay should look like. If it is not userfied, you should rewrite it like this. You can explain that stress plays an important role in the Russian language, but it doesn't follow any kind of pattern, and therefore Russian encyclopedias have stresses marked, etc. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that those Russian resources are not good examples to follow in English Wikipedia. Those resources are targeted for Russian speakers, all of whom, with rare exceptions, understand that stress marks are for pronunciation only and must be ignored for spelling purposes. Russian is a largely phonetic language. This means that a word's pronunciation can be predicted from its spelling and its spelling from its pronunciation in most cases. Because of this there is no established practice to have an elaborate pronunciation guides such as IPA (except some special linguistic literature). Which syllables should be stressed might be the only uncertain part in some cases, especially in proper names. That is why those Russian resources traditionally use stress marks in proper names, again, implying that everyone understands that they are not a part of spelling and should be used for pronunciation only. You will never see stress marks in reliable sources such as newspapers, magazines, books (except language learning books) and so on.

In contrast, English is not a phonetic language, and there is established practice to use IPA for pronunciation purposes. So we should rely on that here in English Wikipedia. Retimuko (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"This means that a word's pronunciation can be predicted from its spelling and its spelling from its pronunciation in most cases."
— Stress placement cannot be predicted.
"That is why those Russian resources traditionally use stress marks in proper names"
— Yes, my concern is mainly about proper names. There are many articles about Russian people that don't have a Russian version. That's because the Russian Wikipedia is much smaller and because it has much stricter notability rules for people, especially artists and sportspeople. So if you delete all the stress marks from everywhere, there often will be no way to determine the correct pronunciation. And please don't forget about the Spanish, Catalan, Greek, etc. wikipedias. The people there need to know the correct stress placement to name the articles properly. If you delete stress marks from everywhere in the English Wikipedia, these smaller wikis will suffer. --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Moscow Connection: Yes, a word's pronunciation obviously CANNOT be predicted (unlike claimed by Retimuko). Even native speakers have problems with some words.
• Retimuko said: "You will never see stress marks in reliable sources such as newspapers, magazines, books (except language learning books) and so on." – Yes, but you always see stress marks in other reliable sources such as dictionaries, encyclopedias, books for small Russian kids, reading books for foreigners, etc. As I point out below, using stresses is obviously not "forbidden" or "illegal"; stresses just can seem excessive in some cases, but in other cases they actually can be (and are) used as an aid.
• Retimuko said: "I believe that those Russian resources are not good examples to follow in English Wikipedia." – This is a very strange statement. We can't pretend that English Wikipedia is in a vacuum or something. We definitely can and must consider the 200-year-old Russian practice of using stresses for guidance purposes, a practice which is still in common use, as evidenced by the recently published Great Russian Encyclopedia in 36 volumes. Taurus Littrow (talk) 08:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

> if you delete all the stress marks from everywhere, there often will be no way to determine the correct pronunciation
If a research is so unique and original, it definitely has no place in Wikipedia, that's what

WP:OR is all about. — Mike Novikoff 16:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

And please note that Mike Novikoff doesn't add an IPA transcription when he removes stress marks. I can't help but wonder what are his motives cause what he is doing doesn't improve Wikipedia a little bit. --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why do you bring up Spanish, Greek and other Wikipedias. We are discussing English Wikipedia, aren't we? My opinion is that stress marks should not be used if IPA is present or added. I am not quite sure what to do if there is no IPA, but I am leaning towards consistency. Retimuko (talk) 06:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that stress marks are used in Russian reading books for foreigners, where EVERY polysyllabic word is stressed. Really, there's nothing wrong in using stresses in Russian words, especially in encyclopedias and dictionaries; this has been a common practice for the last 200 years. The Great Russian Encyclopedia, published only recently, between 2004 and 2017, by the prestigious Russian Academy of Sciences, also uses accents. So I don't see why we should set up a rule expressly forbidding the use of accents, ignoring the 200-year-old common practice, just because a couple of users here don't like it. Also, as correctly point out by Moscow Connection, it's quite difficult for a foreigner to tell where a stress falls. As to the IPA (as well as the audio pronunciation), it can be used, of course, but as an addition to the stresses, not as a replacement. Otherwise it would be like forbidding one to walk on foot just because he/she has a car. Taurus Littrow (talk) 06:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia is not just the one in English. --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"I am not quite sure what to do if there is no IPA, but I am leaning towards consistency."
— Then the English Wikipedia articles should be consistent in having stresses marked. Cause if you remove stress marks in an article that doesn't have an IPA transcription, the article becomes much less informative. Proper pronunciation is crucial in languages like Russian. What's the point in having a developed article about a Russian person if the readers won't even know the person's correct name from it? --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you prioritize pronunciation? Do you believe that most readers come here to learn how to pronounce a name? Perhaps, most come to learn how to spell that name. So they copy-paste the name not realizing that the marks must be removed. To borrow your phrase, "what's the point in having a developed article about a Russian person if the readers won't even know the correct spelling of the name?". If IPA is present, the presence of the marks is a duplication at best. And I still fail to understand what practices in English Wikipedia have to do with wikis in other languages. Why do you bring this up at all? Retimuko (talk) 06:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"If IPA is present, the presence of the marks is a duplication at best." – No, it's not, as I pointed out above. The IPA can be used as an additional aid (along with the audio pronunciation), but not as a replacement of such a simple (and commonly used) solution as using stresses. I repeat, there is nothing wrong in using stresses in Russian words; they indeed seem excessive in some cases (in "normal" books for Russians, newspapers, magazines, etc.), but they can be (and are) used as a guidance in encyclopedias and dictionaries, as well as in books for foreigners. So the question should be not whether it is "forbidden" or "illegal" to use stresses (it's obviously not), but whether stresses can be used for guidance purposes here. And since they are used in books for foreigners, as well as in encyclopedias and dictionaries for Russians (who are supposed to know how these words are pronounced, so the stresses could actually seem excessive), I don't see why we can't use them here, to help non-Russian speakers. What is not forbidden, is allowed. Taurus Littrow (talk) 07:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think people come here to learn many things, including pronunciation. --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we are going in circles. I stated my opinion. I am not convinced by your arguments. I am not inclined to spend more time on this. Perhaps, you could try an RFC to have a broader discussion. Retimuko (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need a RFC. I personally just wanted to stop Mike Novikoff from removing stress marks. I hope he has stopped. Taurus Littrow may also want to rewrite this essay so that it reflects the real situation. It should probably say that stress marks help to determine the correct pronunciation and that in the case of Russian proper names they are even indispensable. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. They are dispensable if IPA is present, even harmful, since most readers don't realize that the marks should be ignored for spelling. And IPA does much better job describing pronunciation including stress, and it is a standard practice in English Wikipedia (unlike Russian Wikipedia). However I have already stated that above. There is no consensus for what you call "real situation". Please gain consensus before changing the essay. Thank you. Retimuko (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Novikoff doesn't

own this essay. Neither do you. --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Also, I think that if there are any problems, the admins will see that you were summoned here by Mike Novikoff. (He obviously called you here for support.) So you aren't a neutral third party in this discussion at all. --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My ping was much more neutral than the way that

sentence first, discusion afterwards!). — Mike Novikoff 10:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@Moscow Connection: What problems are you referring to? I had this page in my watch list for quite some time. I really dislike your tone here and shifting the discussion to motives of editors from the substance in question. This is an argument ad hominem. Please stay on topic. Thank you. Retimuko (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

> I personally just wanted to stop Mike Novikoff from removing stress marks. I hope he has stopped.
I haven't, and I'm not going to. I just wait for discussions to conclude, so as not to engage in edit wars. — Mike Novikoff 00:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You will be reverted. And eventually blocked for disruptive editing. (See Wikipedia:Disruptive editing.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply here. — Mike Novikoff 09:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At last, I've followed the popular request and opened

Mike Novikoff has used a link to his essay to attack his opponents in the Russian Wikipedia (or maybe even Russian Wikipedia editors as a whole): [1]. (The edit summary says: "And look at

Yes, very childish behavior. I wonder why we should tolerate this user and his whims here. Taurus Littrow (talk) 07:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I've already pointed out before (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1052#User:Mike Novikoff) that this essay looked like an attack page against the Russian Wikipedia. --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's totally inaceptable. Mike Novikoff is obviously under the delusion that English Wikipedia is his personal blog. Hopefully, something will be done about him soon. Taurus Littrow (talk) 07:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should I even comment on this? I really dislike ruwiki, but I had practically left it two years ago and returned to enwiki that has always been my home. I'm focusing on improving the latter, and such thing as "an attack page" is the last thing that would come to my mind. And you guys are both acting very hostile and uncivil, not to mention

WP:AGF. It seems that you are determined to get the essay destroyed one way or another. — Mike Novikoff 14:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Mike Novikoff is now edit warring at Wikipedia:Romanization of Russian over a link to this essay. ([2], [3], [4]). This is really annoying. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moscow Connection To put an end to this, we should either 1) move this essay to Novikoff's personal space or 2) rename Wikipedia to Novikoffpedia. Taurus Littrow (talk) 08:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]