Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:44, 4 April 2009

Lithuania Stub‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lithuania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LithuaniaWikipedia:WikiProject LithuaniaTemplate:WikiProject LithuaniaLithuania Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Russian & Soviet Stub‑class

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 Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked Associated task forces: /  Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.

Part of

Was this part of the Chmielnicki Uprising or the Russo-Polish War (1654–1667)? In either case, it should be included in the relevant infoboxes.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Name

Almost all English works use Wilno instead of Vilnius in this context: , , , , , , , , , , . Fewer use Vilna: , . I can't find a single good English work that uses Vilnius in 1655 context (update: I found one). Hence, please stop moving this article to articles per "I like the modern name better" and please respect WP:V. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty reputable academic books using Vilnius in this context, contrary to your claims. Like: , even such source as The Cambridge History of Russia ISBN 0521812275, 2006 p.502 uses Vilnius, as well as Warfare, state and society on the Black Sea steppe, 1500-1700 ISBN 0415239869 2007, p.115-121; Historical Dictionary of Lithuania, ISBN 0810833352 1997, p. 200. Of course German publication uses Vilnius in such context as well . So original name of article is used in dozens of sources, if you have a problem with it - use WP:RM instead of your move warring. M.K. (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, Breastfeeding Is Lovemaking Between Mother & Child is a very relevant and academic source... Wilno sources outweight Vilnius by 2:1 or more. It's quite clear which version is more popular in English.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, opposition to your move Piotrus was inevitable. The best thing to do is avoid edit-warring and take it to an WP:RM, where the matter will get the broader input that should prevent the debate becoming another Polish-Lithuanian dispute. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The best thing is to stop personal comments Deacon. Piotrus provided a handful of sources, so please take care of these sources instead of yet another personal attack. Tymek (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Personal comments? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Piotrus has presented sources which support his point. Somehow you have failed to notice them. Tymek (talk) 04:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Personal comments? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

Battle of Vilnius (1655) → Battle of Wilno (1655) — Keeping it short and simple: 1) most sources (as presented in the section above) use Wilno, not Vilnius, in this context and 2) Lithuanian was not a popular nor official language in that historical context, Polish and Ruthenian were (see Grand_Duchy_of_Lithuania#Languages_and_demographics). Since none of the English sources use the Ruthenian variant, but most use Polish, so should we. This also confirms to WP:NCGN (battle of Stalingrad, not "battle of Volgograd" logic. — _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Misplaced Pages's naming conventions.

• Nominator support per above.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support per historical accuracy and sources presented by Piotrus. Battle of Vilna (1655) could be a reasonable compromise solution IMHO, but the sources are all for Wilno. //Halibutt 09:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support though the compromise mentioned by Halibutt would be fine too. Sources use Wilno and this would be just following standard Wiki naming conventions. We have Siege of Breslau rather than Siege of Wroclaw and I think that's the appropriate title there (and I say this as a Wroclawiak), so similar logic applies here. Breastfeeding is Lovemaking between... what the f...?radek (talk) 09:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support. These are not different names. These are variations of one and the same name. In this context, it makes more sense to use the common historic name rather than attempt to "normalise" the name into the present. If somebody still has any lingering concerns that some reader might not make the connection between Wilno and Vilnius (which I believe is unlikely), I would recommend that he should read the very first sentence of the article. If, to the contrary, we would assume that our readers don't read our articles, why then do we write them in the first place? Narcissism? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 09:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Instead of insisting on the "modern" name of the city, the article title should follow the usage in the sources. Also, there's already a Battle of Wilno (1939) that uses the Polish name because the city was then a part of Poland. Jafeluv (talk) 10:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose . First of all. Vilnius enjoys wide support among academic sources, published by top quality publishers Cambridge University Press: The Cambridge History of Russia ISBN 0521812275 ,and multiple encyclopedias such as:
• Encyclopedia Americana "Russian armies seized Vilnius from 1655",
• Encyclopedia of Ukraine published by University Of Toronto Press
• Europe 1450 to 1789: Encyclopedia of the Early Modern World (Vol. 4) as well as Vol. 6 The general decline of Vilnius began with the Muscovite occupation of the city ( 1655-1661)
• The Dictionary of Art: In 34 Volumes Vilnius was devastated and plundered by the Russians in 1655
• Encyclopedia of Russian History
• General History books uses Vilnius as well in this context, like:
• A History of Ukraine.
• Acquaintance with Lithuania, 1999 p.46
• The history of Lithuania, 2002 ISBN 9955429755
• Eastern Europe, 2005, p.172 ISBN 1576078000
• Historical dictionary of Ukraine 2005, p.249 ISBN 0810853876
• Unmaking Imperial Russia, 2005 p.283 ISBN 0802039375
• Republic Vs. Autocracy: Poland-Lithuania and Russia, 1686-1697, 1993 p.71 Harvard University Press and so forth (see others sources as well )
• And even in official publications of the United States Congress Russians seized Vilnius in 1655. M.K. (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose M.K.'s references are more convincing than Piotrus'. M.K.'s represent a broad basis of English language historical writing, whereas Piotrus' references are mainly from writers educated in Poland (in Davies' case) or Polish writers/historians writing in English, who prefer the name for the same reason the stack above prefer it. The vast majority of our readers in this case will not know that "Wilno" is the Polish name for the city more familiar as Vilnius, so I don't see the value in confusing them. If it's so important to Polish users to stress that Vilnius was a predominantly Polish-speaking city for a period of time (was it in 1655?), say that in the article, not in name titles. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, given the sources M.K. has cited I cannot see a preponderance of "Wilno" that would be strong enough to force us to adopt a naming divergent from the standard Wiki-wide name of the place, as evidenced in its article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: only 8 of those sources are verifiable online, 1 fails verification, 1 is a Russian translation from 1963, and the entire post is misleadingly constructed into a list where in fact some bullet points are not new positions. So there are 6 sources for Vilnius - I have presented about double that much for Wilno, and I was using only most reliable, modern and limited preview (not snippets) books from Google Print. If I were to use snippet or no previews, or less reliable works, we would have many, many more. And that's not counting the point about language and naming convention linked above. Please note that our convention for names specifically states that modern names are not always applicable in the historical contexts (Volgograd vs Stalingrad...), citing Misplaced Pages:NCGN#Use_modern_names: "we have articles called Gdańsk, Volgograd and Vilnius, these being the modern names of these cities, although their former names (Danzig, Stalingrad, Wilno) are used when referring to the appropriate historical periods"). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Stub-Class Lithuania articles
• High-importance Lithuania articles
• Stub-Class military history articles
• Stub-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
• Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles