This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War 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.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Rudolf Abel is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) 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.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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.
Why is his "real name" Vilyam "Willie" Genrikhovich Fisher? He was born William August Fisher. Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher is a Russian version of his name. He was famous as Rudolf Abel, and the Soviet postage stamp, in fact, calls him Abel. Who actually called him Vilyam Genrikovich Fisher?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Though born in United Kingdom he was of mixed German and Russian blood. When he was formally employed by the OGPU he was asked:
"In this document you say that you're German. Here you say your Russian. Here British. What are you?"
"I don't know what I am according to your rules. I'll be whatever you say I am."
"You're Russian."
As far as the Soviet Union were concerned William August Fisher became Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher.
Arthey, Vin. (2004). p. 73. Like Father Like Son: A Dynasty of Spies. St. Ermin's Press in association with Little Brown. London. ISBN1-903608-07-4. Adamdaley (talk) 03:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A "W" (Cyrillic В) is pronounced more like the English "V" (Cyrillic У). It would be more common to pronounce the name as the English "Villy".
The English Name "William Wordsworth" spelled in Cyrillic is『Уильям Вордсворт』but spoken in Russian as "Уильям Уордсуорт".
Also, as he is more ethnic German his 'real surname' would be spelled "Fischer", having been changed to 'Fisher' after immigrating to UK to anglicize the spelling.
THE REAL question is why the use of the "Abel" name - If his real name and codename are "Fisher"? - I can find no clue to source of Abel in the Russian and/or German Interwiki either, just seems to magically appear. 80.5.219.60 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
His use of the alias "Rudolf Abel" is explained under "Capture". He became famous as Rudolf Abel, and that is why this article is called "Rudolf Abel".--Jack Upland (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From his fathers side, he was genetically and linguistically German, so his name would be Fischer (German), of which the Englisch translation would be Fisher. Which name Fisher or Fischer is written down in his birth certificate? Or did he or his father change his family name during the time in England? --Gunnar (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It says "Fisher" on his birth certificate[1].--Jack Upland (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Marbe166 – When I originally came across this article, I wanted to improve it greatly. That being said, I also debated whether it should be American English and date-style... compared to British English, etc. Therefore, I made it all American English and date-style rather than British. Can people accept that me knowing a whole lot about Rudolf Abel, than others? If people would like to re-write the article and is far more detailed, than what currently stands then by all means, use British English. Otherwise, accept the article "as is" on a Good Article nomination. Adamdaley (talk) 08:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
American English, yes, American date format, no, not for non-American subjects. Improving articles is good, and you clearly know more about him than I do, but what was your reasoning for using American English in this case? --Marbe166 (talk) 08:16, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you don't have ownership of an article just because you have a lot of knowledge on a subject. --Marbe166 (talk) 08:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Marbe166 - I suggest you go read some books and not mess with such non-sense. So what if he was born in the United Kingdom? So are millions of other people. Lets say, if we had a Kiwi soldier article, we would do it Australian English. I suggest, go bother someone else. I've never claimed "ownership", I am more knowledgable about the subject and you'll won't be the first or last person to screw around with the article. Adamdaley (talk) 08:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I did this all in "American English" and included the dates in American-style, was because if Reino Häyhänen didn't get him into trouble in America, then I wouldn't have done it all in American-style. No-one ever pulled me up that I had to do it this way, or that way. You only have the problem with it, not me. If thousands of others have accepted it before recently with you, then why not you? Adamdaley (talk) 08:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gentlemen, please stop reverting. The correct process is bold-revert-discuss. Marbe66 you were bold, which is fine, and Adamdaley reverted, which is also fine. At that point, you should both stop and calmly discuss on the talk page before changing things again, in order to establish consensus. Personally, I can see arguments for and against either format (although, I will be honest with you, I don't really care either way as date formats are a pretty minor point, IMO). Please stop changing things and wait for consensus to develop. You can each have your say, and then see what others say. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk)
Adamdaley Please refrain from personal attacks, thank you very much. You claim "ownership" by being aggressive towards me, even though were not even arguing about content. Also, I am not saying that the article shall be re-written in British English. It is standard to use dmy dates for European subjects, and mdy for American subjects, regardless of which style of English the article is written in. Have a look at other articles on Soviet subjects and you'll see that they are using dmy date formats. --Marbe166 (talk) 09:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then why do we now have inconsistency with dates? All because one person decides it should be that way, without lifting a finger or doing anything "constructive" to improve the article. Brilliant. Next article, I do I'll make sure Marbe166 gets a say in it cause I hate to do all that late night Wikipedia editing to be for nothing. Adamdaley (talk) 09:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe his strong connection to the US, plus the long-standing use of US-style dates (per WP:DATEVAR going back to 2012 at least, makes it preferable that this article use US-style dates. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just wrap them all in {{date}} and let the user's preferences determine the display format? — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 14:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've done this on all occurrences of day, month, and year together to demonstrate what I mean (see version here). Of course, feel free to revert if necessary. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 17:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, there is a combination of American and British-style dates. Why couldn't anyone just leave it as it was? I'll be biased but it was fine the way it was until someone who doesn't like it that way, changes it and then draws out irregular date-styles throughout the article. Adamdaley (talk) 05:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As per Peacemaker67, I think the article's link to the US warrants the use of US-style dates. Zawed (talk) 08:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest, I don't think you can rule either way based on his link to the US. He is also linked to the USSR, which uses dmy. He was born in the UK, which uses dmy. I don't think there is any conclusively determining criterion besides "What format was it first?". Nonetheless, I still think the use of {{date}} wrappers provides a solution for a large number of readers (certainly logged-in readers). — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 08:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was all American-style, in both English and date-style of American. Adamdaley (talk) 09:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Quote from article: "The Soviet ethnic system was dual—primordialist on one hand (a premodern view of race carried over from Tsarism/pre-1917) and "Soviet" or socialist on the other. The fifth line on all Soviet passports listed the holder's ethnicity, which was called "nationality." This (the word "nationality" to describe ethnicity) in itself was also a misnomer which was based on at least some primordialist ideas of race."
No source!
Ethnicity/nationality = The text of the passport is in Russian. One can not argue from the meaning of the words in English.
Primordialist argument = Opinions of the author
The whole paragraph is, in my opinion, redundant in an article about a Soviet intelligence officer.
Shall I delete the paragraph? Luke (talk) 00:20, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
