Talk:Okhrana

message: 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)
thread_title: Security detatchment vs Security Station

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Jewish involvement with Okhranka?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Where this has beed reported?DonaldDuck 05:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Was Golovinski Okhranka agent?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Pyotr Rutenberg

message: Sources which use Okhrana:
#Spartacus Schoolnet
# The Central Intelligence Agency
#Columbia Encyclopedia
#John Reed, Ten Days that Shook the World
#Encarta, apparently
#a scholarly article in the Slavic Review from 1971
#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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Name...