| Revision as of 16:51, 5 September 2007 editPiotrus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers285,769 edits →Kievan Uprising?← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 15:48, 9 September 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,264,436 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 5 WikiProject templates. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Russia}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
| (263 intermediate revisions by 36 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
{{WikiProject Poland |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
| class = B |
|
|
|
|action1=GAN |
|
| importance = Mid |
|
|
|
|action1date=13 September 2007 |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|action1result=not listed |
|
{{WikiProject Russian History|class = B| importance = Mid}} |
|
|
|
|action1oldid=157449504 |
|
{{WPMILHIST |
|
|
|class = B |
|
|
|Medieval-task-force=yes |
|
|
|Polish-task-force=yes |
|
|
|Russian-task-force=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{GAonhold|2007-09-01}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action2=GAN |
|
==Old talk== |
|
|
|
|action2date=00:40, 21 October 2007 |
|
I fixed a number of problems with this article resulting from Ghirlandajo's recent edits. Among them were: |
|
|
|
|action2result=listed |
|
# Neither Thietmar nor Gallus mention any popular uprising or plundering of the city (and it is to be noted that Thietmar seems to hate Boleslaus really deeply). Indeed, Ruthenia was plundered as Boleslaus was heading towards the city, but the city itself (though probably plundered as well) was kept in a good shape and there are no traces of a popular uprising. Especially that Sviatopolk kept the throne even after the Poles left (though lost it soon afterwards). |
|
|
|
|action2oldid=165953327 |
|
# Also, Boleslaus withdrew from Kiev not because of some alleged popular uprising but because he had problems with Germans of Henry II and even more important problems with pagan reaction to christianization. ]] 12:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action3=WAR |
|
|
|action3date=06:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Boleslaw I's intervention in the Kievan succession crisis, 1018 |
|
|
|action3result=Approved |
|
|
|action3oldid=230960987 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|currentstatus=GA |
|
Again speculations? I don't think that Thietmar was particularly concerned about domestic problems of "antiquus fornicator" as he styles Boleslaus. Furthermore, the historian died by the time of Polish retreat. Anyway, here go appropriate translations from Russian sources: |
|
|
|
|topic=War |
|
#"Недовольство народных масс владычеством иноземцев вынудило польские войска оставить Русь" (]), |
|
|
|
}} |
|
#"Болеслав, с частью войска, оставался некоторое время на Руси, и только когда русские стали избивать поляков, ушел домой, захватив имущество Ярослава и заняв по дороге червенские города." (]). --] 13:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=A|1= |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Russia|importance=low|hist=yes|mil=yes}} |
|
When outside talk pages or national notice boards please use English not Russian-which isn't understood by many people(including me). |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Poland|importance=Mid}} |
|
--] 13:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Ukraine|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=A|A-Class=pass|Medieval=yes|Polish=yes|Russian=yes}} |
|
::LOL! Initially I wanted to accuse you of using the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, but thought you might feel offended. But now that you admit it yourself... ]] 13:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Middle Ages|importance=low}} |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
:::LOL indeed. Basing on this "source" you may contribute "successfully" to articles like ], ] or ] as well. =) This encyclopediae can be used only as a source in 1. maths 2. history of propaganda. And by the way: please, write in English. Greets, ] ] 07:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I fail to see why you find the GSE's coverage of the 11th-century topics deficient. It is as good a source of information as any others. At least it knows how to tell Kievan Rus from Ruthenia, unlike some editors here. Anyway, here go some more reputable sources, including the ]: |
|
|
|
|
|
#Поляки вызвали среди населения Киевщины возмущение; русский народ стал избивать поляков «отай», т. е. тайно от властей, которые, по вполне понятным причинам, при создавшемся положении не могли стать на сторону восставших. Болеслав вынужден был поспешно возвратиться к себе домой, захватив, однако, Червенские города, недавно отвоеванные у Польши Владимиром Святославичем. (Academician ], ) |
|
|
|
|
|
#В новелле ПВЛ виновником ухода Болеслава представлен «безумный Святополк», который дал приказ избивать «ляхов» по городам, в результате чего Болеслав «бежа ис Кыева, воизма имение и бояры Ярославле и сестре его, и Настаса пристави десятиньного къ имению, бе бо ему вьверилъ лестью» . --] 14:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
----- |
|
|
|
|
|
Here goes ]'s version of events - for processing: --] 14:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
За несколько месяцев до того времени страшный пожар обратил в пепел большую часть Киева: Ярослав, озабоченный, может быть, старанием утешить жителей и загладить следы сего несчастия, едва успел изготовиться к обороне. Польские Историки пишут, что он никак не ожидал Болеславова нападения и беспечно удил рыбу в Днепре, когда гонец привез ему весть о сей опасности; что Князь Российский в ту же минуту бросил уду на землю и сказав: не время думать о забаве; время спасать отечество, вышел в поле, с Варягами и Россиянами. Король стоял на одной стороне Буга, Ярослав на другой; первый велел наводить мосты, а второй ожидал битвы с нетерпением - и час ее настал скорее, нежели он думал. Воевода и пестун Ярославов, Будый, вздумал, стоя за рекою, шутить над тучностию Болеслава и хвалился проткнуть ему брюхо острым копьем своим. Король Польский в самом деле едва мог двигаться от необыкновенной толщины, но имел дух пылкий и бодрость Героя. Оскорбленный сею дерзостию, он сказал воинам: «Отмстим, или я погибну!» - сел на коня и бросился в реку; за ним все воины. Изумленные таким скорым нападением, Россияне были приведены в беспорядок. Ярослав уступил победу храброму неприятелю, и только с четырьмя воинами ушел в Новгород. Южные города Российские, оставленные без защиты, не смели противиться и высылали дары победителю. Один из них не сдавался: Король, взяв крепость приступом, осудил жителей на рабство или вечный плен. Лучше других укрепленный, Киев хотел обороняться: Болеслав осадил его. Наконец утесненные граждане отворили ворота - и Епископ Киевский, провождаемый духовенством в ризах служебных, с крестами встретил Болеслава и Святополка, которые 14 Августа въехали торжествуя в нашу столицу, где были сестры Ярославовы. Народ снова признал Святополка Государем, а Болеслав удовольствовался именем великодушного покровителя и славою храбрости. Дитмар повествует, что Король тогда же отправил Киевского Епископа к Ярославу с предложением возвратить ему сестер, ежели он пришлет к нему дочь его, жену Святополкову (вероятно, заключенную в Новогородской или другой северной области). |
|
|
|
|
|
Злодеи не знают благодарности: Святополк, боясь долговременной опеки тестя и желая скорее воспользоваться независимостию, тайно велел градоначальникам умертвить всех Поляков, которые думали, что они живут с друзьями, и не брали никаких предосторожностей. Злая воля его исполнилась, к бесславию имени Русского. Вероятно, что он и самому Болеславу готовил такую же участь в Киеве; но сей Государь сведал о заговоре и вышел из столицы, взяв с собою многих Бояр Российских и сестер Ярославовых. Дитмар говорит - и наш Летописец подтверждает, - что Болеслав принудил одну из них быть своею наложницею - именно Передславу, за которую он некогда сватался и, получив отказ, хотел насладиться гнусною местию. Хитрый Анастас, быв прежде любимцем Владимировым, умел снискать и доверенность Короля Польского; сделался хранителем его казны и выехал с нею из Киева: изменив первому отечеству, изменил и второму для своей личной корысти. - Польские историки уверяют, что многочисленное войско Россиян гналось за Болеславом; что он вторично разбил их на Буге и что сия река, два раза несчастная для наших предков, с того времени названа ими Черною... Болеслав оставил Россию, но удержал за собою города Червенские в Галиции, и великие сокровища, вывезенные им из Киева, отчасти роздал войску, отчасти употребил на строение церквей в своем Королевстве. |
|
|
Please translate the text into English. |
|
|
--] 14:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:Molobo or Moloobo (I'm kinda confused with your names), I'm not a professional translator to render classical works of literature in English. Translating Karamzin is not easier than translating Mickiewicz, if you know who the latter is. I advise you to go to a local library (probably for the first time in your life) and to obtain a Polish translation. On the other hand, your own comments in this project, desultory as they are, should be written in English. --] 14:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
I am sorry but this is english Wiki and if you want to use a reference you have to translate its important fragments into English if you want to discuss it with other people.Not many know Russian. |
|
|
'Moloobo' |
|
|
That was a vandal that tried to abuse my name. |
|
|
--] 14:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
----- |
|
|
|
|
|
:::(]) |
|
|
Tsarist and Soviet Historiography |
|
|
What historical legacies did Ukrainians and Russians inherit from the former USSR |
|
|
which they now have to grapple with? Indeed, what are these profound and often |
|
|
disturbing legacies? The Russian historian, Yury Afanasev, complained that, ‘there is |
|
|
not, nor has there ever been a people and country with a history as falsi ed as ours |
|
|
is …’10 Soviet historiography after 1934 largely returned to the Tsarist Russian scheme |
|
|
of history. It was a historiography, ‘which could, for the most part, be read with |
|
|
approval by the tsars themselves’, Lowell Tillet commented.11 Soviet historiography |
|
|
after 1934 served the goals of the Communist Party’s nationalities policies in the |
|
|
elaboration and inculcation of new myths and legends. Crucial elements of this |
|
|
‘elaborate historical myth’ which Soviet historiography aimed to propagate were:12 |
|
|
· rehabilitation of the past; |
|
|
· superiority of ‘Great Russians’ as natural leaders; |
|
|
· the lack of ethnic hostility now or in the past; |
|
|
· help in the creation of a new Soviet patriotism; |
|
|
· there were no conquered territories, only ‘unions’ and ‘re-unions’. Friedrich Engels, |
|
|
Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin had been wrong to condemn Tsarist Russian ‘expansionism’. |
|
|
The views of Bolshevik historians in the 1920s, such as Mikhail |
|
|
Pokrovsõ´kyi, who had condemned Tsarist expansionism, were also condemned; |
|
|
· these ‘unions’ and ‘re-unions’ brought only positive bene ts or, at a minimum, were |
|
|
the ‘lesser of two evils’; |
|
|
· greater centralisation was a positive development; |
|
|
· nationalist agitation was against the wishes of the narod; |
|
|
· the non-Russians were incapable of creating their own state; |
|
|
· the Russian mission civilisatrice was bene cial; |
|
|
· the History of the USSR was in effect that of the History of ‘Russia’. The Russian |
|
|
Federation did not therefore have its own separate history which dealt purely with the |
|
|
‘Great Russians’ or Muscovites; |
|
|
· non-Russian histories were treated as regional histories of ‘Russia’; |
|
|
· Russian control over Ukraine and Belarus was never perceived as ‘annexation’; |
|
|
merely the recovery of the Tsar’s patrimony. In 1947 and 1954 new theses codi ed |
|
|
112 T. Kuzio |
|
|
the eastern Slavs as historically belonging to one Rus’kii narod. Use of the terms |
|
|
Russian, Rus’ian and east Slavic became inter-changeable;13 |
|
|
· Ukrainians and Belarusians are not separate peoples, but branches of the east Slavic |
|
|
Rus’kii peoples. Therefore, they should not have their own independent states, which |
|
|
are only ‘temporary’, but should be in union with Russia.14 |
|
|
From: |
|
|
http://www.taraskuzio.net/academic/history.pdf |
|
|
--] 13:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
''I fail to see why you find the GSE's coverage of the 11th-century topics deficient. It is as good a source of information as any others. At least it knows how to tell Kievan Rus from Ruthenia, unlike some editors here'' |
|
|
History under Soviets in relation to Russia, Ukraine, Belarus was falsfied for propaganda goals.Also please translate Russian text if you want to discuss it. |
|
|
--] 15:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Article's name== |
|
|
The article has just been moved to <] and I moved it back with no prejudice to the editor who moved it. I just think the move has to be proposed at talk first so that others who watch this article could have a say on the issue. This issue was discussed to a degree at ]. Please check the discussion there too if interested. --] 00:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I believe you mean ]. The reason for the move is to improve the awkward English and to give the article a name that is found in the historical literature. ] (]) 01:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
All I am saying, is that such moves have to be proposed first. If there is no resistance, it will be moved. If there are objections, they could be discussed. I simply object to uniletaral moves, except in cases of typos and other similar reasons, and ask everyone to propose their moves first. --] 01:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:It's been over a week without any comments or objections, so I have moved the article. ] (]) 19:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Move page == |
|
|
|
|
|
] insists on moving this article to ]. I asked him to use the talk page to propose the move, but he accuses me of making "undiscussed", "whimsical" moves, even though no one objected to my proposal above. ] (]) 20:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I agree there is no need to add nationality here, unless there are several Kiev Expeditions by various nations that could confuse people.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 06:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Now there's more edit summary accusations, but for some reason Ghirlandajo still refuses to use this talk page. This is becoming frustrating. ] (]) 14:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::PS, I can't communicate with him on his talk page because he deletes my messages. ] (]) 14:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Actually both titles are bad. Obviously ] doesnt know Polish history: yet another "Kiev Expedition" was made by ] as stated e.g., at . Or from academic references: "Kutrzeba, T., Wyprawa Kijowska 1920 Roku, Warszawa 1937". In en: wikipedia it is known as ]. At the moment I have no better proposals. "Battle/invasion/operation/offensive" seem not good for this case. But one thing is for sure: Just as with kings, there should be a decent naming system for maning battles: clearly each major city was a place of dozens of battles. |
|
|
|
|
|
Therefore I suggest that is issue must be resolved not here, but in the wikiproject "Military History", which actually has ]. Who has friends there? `'] 21:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
From what I wrote above and saw in MilHist page, in our case the proper name would be ]. `'] 21:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
P.S. What amuses me, not a single ] is linked to Polish wikipedia. Oh, yeah, here they are: ] and, amazingly, a third ''wyprawa'': ]. `'] 21:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
In addition, the 1018 is actually known as "wyprawa na Ruś Kijowską", i.e., ] `'] 21:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Hehe; acording to ], it turns out there was Wyprawa Kijowska of 1013, which fizzled. So only Polish Kiev Expeditions, there were at least four. In view of these findings, there must be ], ], ], and ]. `'] 21:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
And I strongly suspect that "Kievski pokhod"/"pokhod na Kiev" will bring us a dozen more dates. Does anyone have a Cyrillic keyboard to do a google search for these phrases? `'] 22:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
On a funny note, google says there was a "Czech trolleybus invasion of Kiev", in addition ot Nazi and Mongol ones :-) `'] 22:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Mikkalai, I do in fact know a bit of Polish history, and even if I didn't, ] is linked from the See Also section of the short article, so it's hard to miss. Ghirlandajo, too, knows that there were multiple battles at Kiev (I know this because he mentioned it on my talk page), but, strangely, instead of adding a year to the title in order to disambig, his solution was to add "Polish", which does not disambig. |
|
|
|
|
|
:I agree with your proposal to add the year to all the Kiev Expedition articles. See how many entries there are for ], and it seems to work well enough. ] (]) 22:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Good. Surely this approach simplifies naming conventions. A year IMO is enough for disambig. If there are two batles same place/same year, one can add month as, e.g., in ] I keep forgetting to make a stub. `'] 23:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I certainly support year version, it makes the most sence.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 00:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Lord knows I've had my differences with Ghirla in the past, but I'm going to have to back him up on this one. It seems common sense that given the number of campaigns aimed at capturing Kiev by different parties (Polish 1013, Polish 1018, Mongol, Timurid, Crimean, German WWI, Polish, Soviet, German WWII, Soviet again...) the identity of the campaigners should be included. I think the date should be included as well. ] ] ] 20:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Like I said above, we have ]. And like I said too, every major city has the same problem of being sacked numerous times by various foes. So there is no reason to invent special rules for Kiev and I say let's follow the suggestian of MilHistWikipedians, who probably slept over the issue much longer than we. `'] 22:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::] seems quite reasonable if there's a need to disambiguate with other "Kiev Expedition"s, as far as I can tell; using the year avoids messy disputes over the exact names of the parties involved. :-) ] 14:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Is there such a dispute? --<font color="FC4339">]</font> <sup><font color="C98726">]</font></sup> 15:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I'm not sure, personally; Sviatopolk's role in all this isn't very clear from the article, but it could be that the expedition is universally regarded as "Polish" regardless. |
|
|
::::(Having said that, from the discussion above it seems that there have been multiple Polish expeditions to Kiev; so adding "Polish" to the title wouldn't help to disambiguate, as we'd still need a date. Unless there's some particular reason why the Polish aspect needs to be indicated in the title, I think we ought to go with the normal naming convention and use just the geographic name and the year.) ] 16:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
We now have four (Mikkalai, Piotrus, Kirill Lokshin, and myself) in favor of moving to ]. Briangotts opposes, and it seems that Ghirlandajo does too. Shall we make the move? ] (]) 19:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I oppose, too. There were plenty Kiev expeditions. What about the ], the ]. You need to be more precise. Misplaced Pages is not an egocentric Polish schoolbook. ] 19:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::The year provides the precision. Can you explain what about the proposed title is egocentric and Polish? ] (]) 19:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Yes, I am suprised our esteemed editors from the east are supporting 'Polish something' in the title - usually they are the ones clamoring for removal of 'Polish' part. Why the change of heart?--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 23:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::No, it's the absence of a specification like ] that is highly polonocentric. The Poles obviously think that it is self-explaining to everybody that everything refers to them and that they are the navel of the world. ] 18:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Indeed. --<font color="FC4339">]</font> <sup><font color="C98726">]</font></sup> 07:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
Let me reiterate and expand my argument: the title does not necessarily have to reflect the content in full exactness. Unlike the "Muskovite Wars" example "Kiev + year" sufficiently narrows down the event. Take a look into ]. Does it really matter that the title must say that it was battle between these and these. I think it is a Russian mentality that forces to use words "elektronno-vychislitelnaya mashina", where an American says "computer". Of course, the Russian term is more exact, but it is totally unusable. Even "EVM" is terrible: you cannot create an adjective or verb from it. `'] 23:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:We now have four in favour of ], three against. Is this sufficient to make the move? ] (]) 19:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::No. Voting is evil. Search for consensus. --<font color="FC4339">]</font> <sup><font color="C98726">]</font></sup> 11:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Requested move == |
|
|
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:polltop --> |
|
|
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the {{{type|proposal}}}. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. '' |
|
|
|
|
|
{{{result|The result of the debate was}}} '''No consensus''' ]<span style="font-size:70%;">]</span> 10:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
---- |
|
|
] → ] — Concise title with a date to disambig between other expeditions to that city (including more than one by the Poles). ] (]) 18:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Survey=== |
|
|
:''Add <tt><big><nowiki># '''Support'''</nowiki></big></tt> or <tt><big><nowiki># '''Oppose'''</nowiki></big></tt> on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. Please remember that this survey is ], and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
====Survey - in support of the move==== |
|
|
# '''Support''' per nom. ] (]) 18:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
# '''Support''', although I would prefer ]. --]<sup>]</sup> 23:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
# '''Support'''. No need for longer name unless there is a disambig problem. We try to put as little info in the name as possible, see manual of style.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 20:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
# '''Support''': I would support ] if it is any clearer. We should not use ''Kyiv'' under any circumstances; this is the English Misplaced Pages. The present name is ambiguous with the actual entry into Kiev in 1920. ] <small>]</small> 22:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====Survey - in opposition to the move==== |
|
|
#'''Oppose''' as the proposed title is less informative. --] 19:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
#'''Oppose'''. There were many Kiev expeditions: by ], by ] and ]. We should mention the attacking side in the title, everything else is a Polish attempt to place oneself in the middle of the universe. Maybe good enough for Polish schoolbooks but not good enough for English wikipedia. ] 23:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
#:Voyevoda, may I suggest you vote on the merits of the proposed name and not on your view of my intentions in proposing it? ] (]) 01:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
#'''Oppose'''. Doesn't seem to be an improvement, and less informative. Sounds more like an expedition from Kiev to go explore the wilds somewhere, maybe something like the ] a millennium later, only you forgot to put in where this expedition was going. ] 03:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
#'''Oppose''' - likely to cause confusion and less informative.. ] ] ] 14:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Discussion=== |
|
|
:''Add any additional comments:'' |
|
|
What about ] if there are other expedition articles? — <span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:1px;">]</span> 06:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::] is a highly ambiguous word and the first association I have with it is ''not'' a military campaign but lots of other things. I think ''Capture'' would be a better word. --] 07:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I didn't like expedition either but assumed it was a pre-established term. Capture yes, but what about "conquest" as in ]? I would prefer ], ], or something to that effect to avoid anachronistic national labels for events in pre-national eras but I doubt that would fly in the hypernationalism of Misplaced Pages. — <span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:1px;">]</span> 19:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I have to disagree with Irpen, "expedition" is commonly used in a military context (). I don't think "conquest" would work as it implies longevity, and the Poles were there only briefly. In fact, as the article states, "historians sometimes dispute whether Boleslaus entered the city at all". ] (]) 19:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I am not saying that the expedition is the "wrong" word that is not applicable. The military voyage is indeed one of the definitions of the word but it is not the most common one. "Capture" in the context of the "capture of Kiev" in the title leaves no ambiguity of what this article is about while "expedition to Kiev" may mean a whole set of things totally different. --] 19:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I see one Google Books result for "Capture of Kiev", which is about as good as what I think I saw for "Kiev Expedition". I think "Kiev Expedition" sounds better, but I am not dead set against your proposal. ] (]) 19:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
If you look higher in this page, there were at least four Polish "expeditions", some of which sizzled, i.e., no capture. "Expedition" is quite applicable in military context. There are even quite a few "]" articles. `'] 19:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Again, I am not saying "Expedition" is the wrong term. I am saying it is not the best for the title due to its ambiguity. "Capture" is by far more clear. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Or is it that only ambiguous terms may be used if the Polish side was attacking and only when Poland was attacked the article titles are "invasions" and "massacres"? --] 19:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Let's not start this again. Please focus on this article. ] (]) 19:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Disambiguation page links=== |
|
|
In the article on ]/]/], a link to "see ]" was redirected to the disambiguation page at ] rather than to this article. I disambiguated it, but the ] disambiguation page still has oodles of links to it. ] 16:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Originally, Kiev Expedition was a redirect to this article. However, based on our discussions I saw fit to change it to a disambig. I later discovered the disambig Battle of Kiev. It didn't make sense to have two disambigs, so I redirected Kiev Expedition to Battle of Kiev. Your thoughts? ] (]) 17:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::For now, just remain aware that it's a problem area that needs to be policed every now and then, sending those links to the proper articles. I haven't followed all the discussions, don't know all the potential pitfalls. My main reason for coming here was that the proposed change seemed less informative and more likely to cause confusion than the current name. ] 19:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::In that case, may I respectfully suggest you review the discussion so that you're able to cast an informed vote? I believe I addressed all your concerns above. To review, "expedition" is often used in a military context, not just for "exploring the wilds". Also, despite being shorter, the proposed title is more informative than the current one for several reasons. First, there was another "Polish Expedition to Kiev" in 1920 (]), so having "Polish" in the title is ambiguous. Second, the parenthesized date provides the necessary disambiguation across the various armed conflicts in the history of Kiev, including the ones in which the Poles took part. ] (]) 23:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::As someone else pointed out, the problem isn't that expedition doesn't have that meaning, but that it has other meanings as well, so using it for a name isn't all that helpful. Having "Polish" in the title narrows it down to two; not having Polish in the title is more ambiguous. Putting the year there may reduce the "ambiguity" but it will not increase recognizability, won't help someone pick the one they want out of a list. Having both there is clearly one better choice; there may be others that would work as well. I still don't think the proposed name is an improvement over the existing one, so there is no reason to change my opposition. ] 02:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Having both there also helps narrow down the meaning of "expedition". Perhaps a change in preposition to something other than "to" is the missing ingredient that would make a better title? How about ], maybe with dates or some other method of narrowing it down? In any case, that's another reason to oppose it; the "expedition" should be lowercase, since "Polish Expedition" isn't really a proper name used by anybody. ] 02:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:pollbottom --> |
|
|
|
|
|
==Requested move (take two)== |
|
|
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:polltop --> |
|
|
:''The following discussion is an archived discussion of the {{{type|proposal}}}. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. '' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] → ] — We couldn't reach a consensus half a year ago, so let's try again. Reason behind the move is simple: ] should be a disambig, as the title can just as well refer to ]. It is common wikipedia naming convention to disambiguate military operations by year, not participants name - see also ], where titles like ] or ] redirect to. Note also Polish and Russian titles on their respective wikis: ''Wyprawa Kijowska (1018)'', ''Киевский поход (1018)''.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 16:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Survey 2=== |
|
|
:''Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with'' <code><nowiki>*'''Support'''</nowiki></code> ''or'' <code><nowiki>*'''Oppose'''</nowiki></code>'', then sign your comment with'' <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>''. Since ], please explain your reasons, taking into account ].'' |
|
|
|
|
|
*However, if my suggestion below isn't included then I would '''support''' the move. I think that the current title is a bit to wordy and that the proposed title would be better. But I would still prefer the title I suggested below. ] 22:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose'''. Did anything change since the last proposal was defeated? Why "expedition"? It was not a picnic. Why not ''invasion'' or ''plunder''. Any other reason than the '']''. Changing one bad title for another one makes the situation worse since it makes a false impression that the problem is being addressed. --] 07:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Support'''. Rename per nom. - ] 18:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Support'''. Accurate and concise. ] (]) 19:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Support''' per Irpen. ''<font color="#901">//</font>'']] 19:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*: ]ing again? --]<sup>]</sup> 06:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Move''' to ]. Since Polish editors above are known for advocating ], this approach would only be fair, wouldn't it. --]<sup>]</sup> 06:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*:For the record: "" - 0 hits in literature. "" - 0 hits. "" - 0 hits. "" - ditto. "" - 1 hit. "" - 2 hits. " - 200 hits :) --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 12:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
**"For the record", in the lack of the single established name of the article's subject, we go by descriptive names. The proposed name is even less descriptive than the current one since it removes the perpetrator AND continues using an ambiguous word. "Expedition" can be an number of things such as picnic, field-trip, or a research enterprise to discover/describe the unknown frontiers. The current title is bad but the proposed one is worse. Moving from one bad name to another is not an improvement but the opposite. Finally, the 17th century Polish invasion of Russia is called such all around, in books, encyclopedias (even in EB) and in research papers. I hope to see now a push for the name change promoters to rename that article as well. After the successful cleanup of the geographic misnomer terminology there, this step has yes to be accomplished. --] 18:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Support (nominator).'''--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 12:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Oppose''' per above. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 12:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Discussion 2=== |
|
|
:''Any additional comments:'' |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Comment'''. I think that maybe ] might be a good title because it also highlights who the attacker was. ] 22:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
: Does not highlight well enough imo, needs to be highlighted stronger. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 12:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the {{{type|proposal}}}. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:pollbottom --> |
|
|
''The purpose of choosing an article title is not to highlight aspects which we, the editors, choose to highlight. Naming is all about finding the most frequently used name in reliable sources.'' ''This article has been renamed {{{{{subst|}}}#if:Polish Expedition to Kiev|from ] to ]}} as the result of a ].'' --] 15:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Misleading title replaced== |
|
|
It was not an ], it was full-scale invasion, headed by king imself. All over the world such a nice military walk of a full-blown army are called "invasion". `'] 15:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Mikka, please respect the ]. You can of course start another one, but I very much doubt such a long descriptive name will gain consensis. As I have shown above, English literature seems to use "expedition" pver "invasion", too.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 16:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::There is no widely known absolutely stable and universally accepted title for this event. A descriptive title is quite reasonable. `'] 17:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The literature prefers "expedition" to "invasion".--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 17:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Mikka's name change is against RM consensus, and seems to try to promote OR title |
|
|
--] 16:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:There was no consensus. There was Polish consensus which happily ignored Russian consensus. From russian and Ukrainian point of view it was act of invasion of one state into another, not some jolly szpacer. `'] 17:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Mikka, the RM was done according to procedure. It was advertised at . Interested editors agreed above that a shorter name is preferrable to a lenghty descriptive that has no hits in any sources. You can start another RM, but please no wheel-warring. PS. This is English Misplaced Pages, adhering to ]. We don't use names to show what certain parties would like to call articles.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 17:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::There was a talk some time ago where many people disagreed with shorter uninformative title. Nobody from them indicated that they changed their opinion. Disregarding their clearly expressed opinion is not a friendly attitude. `'] 18:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::My alleged canvassing: it is a historically sad fact that many people, such as Poles, Jews, Armentians, Italians, etc, stick together, while Russians just don't care. It is especially clearly seen in emigration. When I wrote "Polonocentrism" there is nothing negative: it is a "phenomemon of nature", neither good, nor bad. What is bad is that you don't recognize it, just as for millenia people breathed air and did not recognize it. Yes in your Polish eyes it was "Kiev expedition": walk across a river, sack a couple of villages along the way, big deal. For Ukrainians it was "plundering of Kiev". It was invasion and let's call things with their proper names. `'] 18:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Through this not on topic, I'll just remark that I have seen plenty of evidence for Russians acting together on Wiki; and I certainly don't mind it - as long (and this applies to all such groups, Polish included) as it does not lead to a "us against them" mentality, which your recent posts (unintentionally as that may be) may suggest and foster. Polish historiography refers to this event as expedition. Russian may well use the term invasion. English, as I shown above, seems to prefer expedition over invasion; as it is an English Misplaced Pages, expedition should be used. Since there seem to no non-Polish expedition, we don't need this in title; year is needed as there were 3 (or even 4) such events. You seem to be implying that the Polish editors have some nefarious reasons for trying to replace "Polish invasion" with "expedition". There are no such reasons: it is simply Misplaced Pages policy to use short names dominant in English sources. On the other hand, one could argue that some users want to disregard policy and use a less neutral title to emphasize "how bad Poles were". This, certainly, should not be our philosophy in writing articles.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 18:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::"How bad Poles were": in these historical times nearly every king tried to sack some other king. It was neither good nor bad by criteria of these times: it was way of life. And the term "invasion" is a neutral one that describes what really happened: one ruler invaded into lands of another ruler to do something useful for himself.<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:{{{2|}}}| {{{2}}}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
|
|
:::::True, it was a common occurrence, but names for such events vary. Some are called invasions, some expeditions, some wars, some conquets, some are even stranger. It appears that this one is called "expedition" in English historiography more often then "invasion". It is not our job to correct or introduce new names - hence ], not "Polish September Campaign" or "Polish Defensive War", for example.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 18:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::And I don't say "us agains them". I said "you look from your POV at the events and fail to recognize that it is your POV". There is nothing wrong with having a POV, just as you don't forget that others have their POV as well. Since I don't see Russians and Ukrainians rushing to defend their POV despite my reminder (which you call "canvassing"), I am halting my "expedition" into this page. May I remind you that I am neither Russian nor Ukrainian. `'] 18:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
==GA Review Notes== |
|
|
These are just some things In notice as I'm going through the article: |
|
|
#The intro is decent, however preferably the second sentence would be listed first, as it actually details the event. |
|
|
#There are a decent number (given the articles length) of grammatical faults. Including punctuation and statements like, "Boleslaw, wanting to ensure that friendly to him Sviatopolk takes over the Kievan throne," |
|
|
#Again strange wording - "Sviatopolk withdrew to the court of his father-in-law, Boleslaw I of Poland. Boleslaw, however, had to first deal with the Germans; in the meantime he tried another avenue" Court and avenue? While grammatically correct avenue is not exactly the best word to use, and I'm not even really sure what is meant by "court". Also, who is he? Sviatopolk or Boleslaw? |
|
|
#The Thietmar of Merseburg and Powiesc Doroczna accounts should probably be split into sub-sections |
|
|
#A few more sources could be used - it seems to be all from the same book on different pages. |
|
|
Until clarity and the above aspects are improved (although I think I got most the first one myself), I'm placing the article on hold.--<small>]]</span></span></small> 20:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
===Good article nomination on hold=== |
|
|
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of September 1, 2007, compares against the ]: |
|
|
|
|
|
:'''1. Well written?:''' Could use more clarity (see above) |
|
|
:'''2. Factually accurate?:''' Seemingly accurate - could use a bit more sources though. |
|
|
:'''3. Broad in coverage?:''' check |
|
|
:'''4. Neutral point of view?:''' Check |
|
|
:'''5. Article stability?''' Check |
|
|
:'''6. Images?:''' Check |
|
|
|
|
|
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be ]. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article '''''may be failed without further notice'''''. Thank you for your work so far.<!-- Template:FGAN --> |
|
|
— <small>]]</span></span></small> 20:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
===GA Discussion=== |
|
|
I am afraid that there are no native English speakers among the main contributors to that article. Could you, by any chance, take care of the language issues?--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 23:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Honestly it would be best if you got someone else to for two reasons: 1) It would disqualify me from reviewing the article, and 2) Some of the statements I wasn't sure what they meant - see if you can find someone from a wiki project, and if not, I guess I can give it a go ...--<small>]]</span></span></small> 02:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I will ask around, but I know very few copyeditors and all of them are busy :( As for the 'use of one source' - I had this source at hand and based the article on it. It is pretty reliable (series of articles by modern Polish scholars), and while more sources would be nice, I think the article passess the bare criteria for being reliably referenced.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 02:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::One source just really isn't enough - perhaps if you cited the individual articles however, that would be different. Still, I'm sure you could find something on google. Try the Wikiprojects that cover this page for copy editors, and also remember to split the section as said above.--<small>]]</span></span></small> 02:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I am not familiar of any aspect of ] or ] that states that one (reliable) publication is not enough to source an article? As for splitting the article into subsections based on the sources, I disagree: this article is not based on primary sources; it is based on secondary ones and they don't always specify which fact comes from which primary source. This would require a major shift in structure and rewriting - I believe that the current account, merging various primary sources (and noting when and where they diverge significantly is the best possible.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 02:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
Well the biggest one I can think of is] - "All editors and all sources have biases" - meaning this article fails ] because it only has one source. And the article is not based on secondary ones, it's based on a secondary one - however two varying accounts are made in a confusing way, and I assume both of these accounts are mentioned in the one source you provided - so yes, splitting them would be the best thing to do for clarity. --<small>]]</span></span></small> 02:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:As I wrote above, the source is a collection of articles by several historians, so in fact you get views by different authors. Yes, published in one anthology (collection), but different POVs.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 03:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Then cite them separately - include the author's names. However I would still recommend more sources - there's no way to tell if the overall project has a pov - and per the above guideline we must assume it does.--<small>]]</span></span></small> 03:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Looking at the talk page above, more sources would seem to be essential, particularly some that discuss this event from a Russian perspective. Writing an article on a potentially controversial subject using a single source, even if this source is reliable, is unwise. ] 03:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
Ok Here's a source: http://www.ruvr.ru/main.php?lng=eng&q=2000&cid=125&p=19.11.2004 --<small>]]</span></span></small> 15:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:If you want to expand the article using a news article from a radio station, go ahead - but I feel that the current version, referenced with academic publication, is good enough, per ]. As for POV, if you can show that the current publication has some POV (and show examples of it), then NPOV would be the case; but until then NPOV doesn't kick in.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 16:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The above NPOV bias link proves POV - as there's only one source. There are those above five things that need to be fixed before I pass this article. Period. By submitting your article to GA Review you opened it to criticism, if you are unwilling to take any criticism then there was no point in submitting. Two users have now said that multiple sources are needed. End of discussion.--<small>]]</span></span></small> 18:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Hmmm. Above you wrote: ''Neutral point of view?: Check''. So are you now changing your opinion? --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 19:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::This problem could be solved very simply. The description of the book you are citing says it has multiple authors. If each author contributed one chapter, why not just cite the different authors and give each author's viewpoint on the events described? The fact that the article cites one book would be acceptable if it is clear that many different viewpoints are collected together in this one volume. ] 19:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I placed the criticisms of the sourcing in "Factually accurate" - however, Piortrus, what I wrote is insignificant, what the policy says is. I agree with TimVickers - it's best if each author is cited.--<small>]]</span></span></small> 19:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*This is an overreading of ]. The admission that all sources have biases was not intended to lead to this conclusion, merely to deflate the ] world-view of Good Unbiased Sources and Evil Biased Sources. Neutrality does not kick in until there is an actual controversy to be neutral about. (If the phrasing violates ] or its relatives, that's another matter; but I don't see it on skimming.) It would, however, be good for the article to include some of these English sources, even if redundant, so that the reader can inquire further without wielding a Polish dictionary. ] <small>]</small> 19:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::The accounts of history are almost always controversial - however TimVickers already commented on this. I don't care what language the sources are - because that doesn't have to do with policy.--<small>]]</span></span></small> 20:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Indeed, you can satisfy the policy with a single reliable source in a foreign language, but scraping by in this way isn't a characteristic of a Good Article, which should do a bit more than the minimum. ] 20:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I am not aware of any English language source that contains anything new that is not already covered in the article. If you can point me to reliable sources that containt material that can be used to expand the article further, or sources that make claims contradicting the article, we can claim that the article is biased/uncomprehensive. In my research for this article I didn't find anything that would merit the claim that the source I used is not comprehensive and neutral. Instead of citing the policies I am were aware of, please cite the articles that would suggest problems with content. PS. As for attributing articles by individual historians, I don't have access to the publication and will not have it after Xmas.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 20:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Alternative sources don't have to contain anything new, alternative sources supporting the same points would be entirely acceptable. But can you see our concern? Here is an article that deals with a conflict between two nations that is sourced entirely from a few pages of a book we cannot read. Moreover, the book appears to have been written by authors from one side of the conflict. Look at that from our point of view and I'm sure you can see why we would be happier with the inclusion of at least some alternative sources. ] 20:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
Piotrus - I already showed you an article above - you said you weren't willing to add it.--<small>]]</span></span></small> 20:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I have yet to see a single academic source criticizing modern Polish historiography take on a 1000-year old events. That of course doesn't mean that there are no such claims, Polish historiography (as any national historiography) has its biases, but as I said - I reviewed English sources available to me and I haven't seen anything that was portrayed differently then in the Polish source I used to expand, verify and reference this article. I don't have access nor language skills to read Russian / Ukrainian historiography, but until an editor can show that they differ, I would think that ] applies and the article can be considered NPOV (think also in terms of ], not guilt). PS. Daniel, as for your article above: it has no claims that would be relevant to this article, it's on a different subject and published by a media outlet, not an academic work. I would of course not oppose if you want to link it in external links or add something to the article, if you did in fact find something relevant in it.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 20:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I'm the guy reviewing the article - I don't care what's in the external links - I'm just saying find a another source. And it doesn't matter what type - it doesn't have to be an academic work.--<small>]]</span></span></small> 21:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I'd suggest you read up on our policies like ] before reviewing articles. It does matter what type of sources we cite, it matters a lot.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 21:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::No - it doesn't, some are preferred, but regardless, all reliable sources are allowed - my point was it doesn't have to be an academic work.--<small>]]</span></span></small> 21:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
Piotrus everyone has said you need another source, now there are two paths here: one, you argue about it this whole time - in which case tell me if you plan on doing so tell me - because there's no point in putting on hold for seven days if you have no intention of fixing it. Or, you can find a source. Either the one I found above or another source is fine.--<small>]]</span></span></small> 21:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Two for, two against - hardly everyone. I believe the article is sourced well enough, feel free to fail it so I can continue my work. There is indeed no need to keep it open for several days, as I certainly don't have access to my historical books, nor time to look for others until XMAS.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 21:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::It's not 2 for and 2 against- its 3 against you. Each editor said there should be an english source. Well, actually I jsut said anysource -and that stands--<small>]]</span></span></small> 21:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::By the way i'd try to hurry up on this - as there are 4 other things you need besides another source.--<small>]]</span></span></small> 21:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::What I said was that an English source would improve the article — not that it should be required to be a good, or even acceptable, article. I would prefer not to be misquoted in this fashion. Danielfolsom should also bear in mind that nothing in GA warrants uncivil demands. ] <small>]</small> 16:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Fine - an English source would improve - however, Pmanderson - you should bear in mind what civil is - as saying another source is required is hardly uncivil - but if you really think so I guess you could nominate all those templates for deletion ...--<small>]]</span></span></small> 20:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
===Section break=== |
|
|
Piotrus - I realize things might have gotten slightly confusing up there given the abundance of different suggestions. In some more clarity, I'm just going to list what needs to be done to get this to GA status - which is very likely to happen. |
|
|
#<s>The intro is decent, however preferably the second sentence would be listed first, as it actually details the event.</s> |
|
|
#Clean up grammatical faults. |
|
|
#Clean up wording - "Sviatopolk withdrew to the court of his father-in-law, Boleslaw I of Poland. Boleslaw, however, had to first deal with the Germans; in the meantime he tried another avenue" While grammatically correct avenue is not exactly the best word to use. Also, who is he? Sviatopolk or Boleslaw? |
|
|
#The Thietmar of Merseburg and Powiesc Doroczna accounts should probably be split into sub-sections - as currently it's unclear |
|
|
#One more source is needed - I don't care what language - but having only one book isn't really worthy of GA status |
|
|
There are still a few days before I pass or fail this - which should be plenty of time for you to make the changes--<small>]]</span></span></small> 20:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Grammatical/wording problems have been greatly resolved by copyediting from yourself, Olessi and other editors. As I said before, not being a native speaker, I cannot help in this regard. |
|
|
:I don't see how the Thietmar vs Powiesc split could be accomplished; the text seems well integrated to me and where the sources differ, it is clearly mentioned in text. However if any editor would like to rewrite the article based on the above suggestion, be my guest. |
|
|
:There are no policies that we need to have 2+ sources. I can add several further readings, but there is no point in double - triple - and so on citing the same facts, just to show they are mentioned in several books and they don't differ. Remember, we are not doing original reserch here, having one source is perfecty ok with all our policies.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 21:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Keep in mind however GA articles aren't articles that meet the bare requirement - they go above and beyond - and regardless the policy would be the NPOV one. As to the sections - when I said some sections should be reworded because they aren't clear - you said you couldn't do that because you're not a native speaker - however somehow you can say that the other text does make sense? Well hey - actually don't worry about it. I'll wait till the 7 days is up and maybe someone else will do it - if they do I'll pass the article.--<small>]]</span></span></small> 21:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::There is one thing that I don't understand. What kind of references do you want? I used a publication dedicated to the event; I doubt there is an English equivalent. There are however lots of mentions of Bolesław expedition to Kiev in 1018 in various English works, it's enough to click , or better, and , to see that the event is not invented and verify all basic facts. Not a single of the English language publications, however, goes into as much detail as the Polish sources, therefore I see no reason to double verify several facts in the article with English sources. If there are some controversial facts, or something is unclear, we can expand the section and referencing, but I don't see any need to waste time verifying what is already verified. WP:GA should reflect our policies, there is no requirement that we need to be 'above' them (and note that multiplie references for the single fact are far from a good writing practice anyway). If it makes you happy, I can double reference several facts based on this notable publicatin (), - although I fail to see the point in it.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 00:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::'''You don't need English sources''' - I'm just asking for one more source - even if it says the exact same thing as the source you have - just put it in there.--<small>]]</span></span></small> 02:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Copyediting == |
|
|
|
|
|
I cleaned up the grammar and spelling in the article. I have no background knowledge of the article and have no preferences in terms of content. Because "Volhynia" was referred to as a town, I added a link to ] (]); please correct if necessary. ] should be moved to a better title (] is an option). ] 19:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Thanks for the copyedit, the link to Wołyń is incorrect: as far as I remember the sources, they refered to a settlement of that name, but in the ] region (presumably a ] that gave its name to the region); ] is a village in the middle of Poland and most certainly far, far from Volhynia region and Bug River.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 20:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Kievan Uprising?== |
|
|
It seems that some editors want to insert a claim about Kievan Uprising against pillaging Polish troops (). Not a single one of my modern Polish and English sources mentioned this event, which is why I removed it few weeks ago during a rewrite of this article. The ] from 1900s is hardly modern, and obviously POVed - it is even more inaccurate then 1911 EB, which we obviously stopped using as a source (per ]) and even Jimbo's recent critique of it in NYT ( - ''One thing I have looked at before is that when we started the project we thought we could use the 1911 Britannica which is in the public domain. Use that as a base to get some articles. And frankly they were unusable. They were just out of date.''). So please: either present modern acadmic sources noting that there was an uprising against Boleslaw in Kiev, or don't insert such dubious claims into this well referenced article. PS. There is a claim that the uprising is mentioned in ; please provide specific page, translation of the citation (as Darwinek suggested), Konstantin Ryzhov academic creditentials, and other things that would help us estabilished reliability of that source (particulary, if he writes about the uprising, what are his sources for it? I do hope he is not citing the Brockhaus encyclopedia...).--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 20:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Piotrus, BritannicaPOV and other old-POV stuff talks about POV and not factual accuracy. Read Loki's entry at the Polonization talk. We are not passing the judgmental tone from the source. We are referring mere facts and you agreed with Loki on that. Now, please stop revert warring and ask your friends to do so too. --] 21:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::No, Irpen, old POV are also about factual accuracy, too. Modern sources don't seem to mention the uprising - I would be very interested in seeing some modern Western academic sources repeating such claims. So far we have two Russian offline sources - a 1900s encyclopedia and a 1999 publication of unknown reliability; even if confirmed they fail ] - "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." If mainstream historians writing about this even don't mention the uprising, it is rather obvious that it the uprising is nothing but some mistake/translation error/etc. that krept into the old encyclopedia and was republished in by some more modern book. As for POV, language like ''pillaging'' is not neutral. Oh, and last but not least: why restore the unreferenced and out of place statement at the bottom of the para: ''s Gallus has it, the war started when Boleslaw was refused Predslava's hand, but this testimony is not given credit by most historians. The Polish duke also took the treasury of Kiev with him.'' ?--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 21:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I would urge editors to use modern objective sources. We already had enough problems with Warsaw Uprising fables about churches that weren't there.--] 21:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:OK, Piotrus. I will live a message at Loki's talk to ask him to look at it. --] 21:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::What Loki?? ]? I am not familiar with that editor, or anybody with similar name, contributing to relevant articles. And why would our discussion merit informing this person??--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 22:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I meant ] whose comments at talk:Polonization were very thoughtful as even you admitted. --] 22:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
must be the passage from the book by Ryzhkov that is relevant here. It is the biography of ]. The rest of the book is also online. Could someone please find where the uprising is mentioned? I do not see it in Yaroslav's biography, which is puzzling, as that is where it would be discussed, it seems to me. ] 22:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Voyevoda it appears on page 104.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 22:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Found this text from Ryzhov's : |
|
|
|
|
|
Вступив в Киев, Болеслав сам стал править русской землей, а дружину свою разослал по окрестным городам на покорм. Святополк же, досадуя на тестя за то, что не дал ему никакой власти, велел своим сторонникам избивать поляков. И начали убивать поляков. Встревоженный восстанием, Болеслав бежал из Киева, захватив с собой всю княжескую казну и всех сестер Ярослава. Увел он с собой и множество простых людей. Святополк же начал княжить в Киеве. Но Ярослав, набрав варягов, пошел во второй раз против него. Без поляков Святополк не мог уже противостоять брату и бежал в степь к печенегам. Там, собрав большое войско, он в 1019 году выступил на Ярослава, и оба войска встретились на Альте. |
|
|
|
|
|
The text contested in this article that is justified by this reference is: |
|
|
|
|
|
''The wide-scale pillaging of the Polish troops caused a massive uprising among Kievan citizens and Boleslaw was forced to leave the city.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
Do they match well enough? My Russian is not good enough to judge for sure, but it seems there are huge discrepancies. ] 22:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Perhaps somebody with fluent Russian can translate the above citation. Also, we are still waiting for information on its authors academic creditentials, and on what source he used in writing the disputed statement.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 22:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:: The above citation mentions nothing about the uprising. "It mentions that Boleslav quartered his troops among the locals in order to sustain them. Sviatopolk, being annoyed that he had been given no power ordered his supporters to attack the Poles. Boleslav fled Kiev and took with him the treasury, all sisters of Yaroslav and many of the local people. Sviatopolk started to reign in Kiev." Hope that helps. --] 02:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Thank you, that's interesting. We can certainly add a note on that to the article, although I'd like to point out that historians are divided on whether Boleslav ruled in Kiev himself or passed the poweer to Sviatopolk (and if so, how much of it).--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 02:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The text above, full translation, says: |
|
|
:''After entering Kiev, Boleslav started to rule the Rus' on his own (perhaps by himself as an alt. translation) and sent his troops to quarter in the neighboring towns. Sviatopolk, vexed that his in-law did not share any power with him, ordered his supporters to attack the Poles. Alarmed by the uprising, Boleslav fled Kiev but took with him the treasury and all Yaroslav's sisters. He also took many commoners with him.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
Also, ] ("Kievan Russia", Yale 1948, {{LCC|DK40 .V44}} V2) mentions that not just sisters but also other nobles loyal to Yaroslav were taken by Boleslav. Vernadsky writes that they were likely taken as hostages. Vernadsky mentions S. "Zakrewski, Boleslaw Chrobry Wielki (Lwow, Warszawa, and Krakow, 1925), p. 297-311." among other refs. Perhaps someone could check the Polish references. I am quoting from the Russian translation of the original Vernadsky's 5-volume work. This volume, as translated, is "Россия в средние века", ISBN 5-85929-016-6. --] 04:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Well then, it would appear then that the statement: ''The'' '''wide-scale pillaging''' ''of the Polish troops'' '''caused''' ''a'' '''massive''' ''uprising among Kievan citizens and Boleslaw was forced to leave the city.'' was a clear example of original research and stretching the content of the reference, and the concerns raised about it were justified. In that light, can we now remove the "accuracy disputed" tag, inserted as protest for the removal of that passage? ] 05:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
You of course understand what does it mean to "send troop to quarter at the town (or village)" in medieval context, do you? It is not inconsistent at all with B&E article on Boleslav, saying: |
|
|
|
|
|
::''"Boleslav took Kiev but instead of transferring it to Sviatopolk, ruled it by himself together with his Poles. Kievans, appalled by the <u>"неистовсвта"</u>'' (this word is difficult to translate, my dictionary gives ''atrocities, rampage, violence, frenzy'', no ''pillage'' in my dictionary but can't say it does not fit the translation either) ''of his troops attacked the Poles and Boleslav was forced to flee."'' |
|
|
|
|
|
I believe we should just say what source says what on the issue and leave it up to the reader to judge. --] 05:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The respectable source notes quartering in the city and nearby villages, and this is what we should state. Of course the troops ate, raped and steal - that was the norm of those days. But this article is not the place to explain that (this is as relevant as describing battle as 'they used melee and other weapons to inflict harm on one another, often showing no mercy, etc.); this should be done in the article on ] - which, unfortunately, we don't have (but surely will one day).--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 16:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::May I ask what you are trying to accomplish with this? We have a reference by Ryzhov published in 1999, but now you go back to B&E from the 19th century claiming that it is more correct. The reference by Ryzhov is definitely better than B&E, don't you think? Anyway, trying to figure out what things meant in medieval context is precisely original research. Ryzhov clearly states that Sviatopolk's wish for more power was reason for the uprising that he ordered against the Poles. ] 05:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::To sum up, trying to back the statement : ''The'' '''wide-scale pillaging''' ''of the Polish troops'' '''caused''' ''a'' '''massive''' ''uprising among Kievan citizens and Boleslaw was forced to leave the city.'' by referencing it with Ryzhov was at the very least incorrect (if not an attempt to push one's POV by distorting a reference). Since you inserted the tag based on the removal of that statement (now shown to be incorrect by the very source that was used to reference it), could you please now remove that tag as a sign of good will? ] 05:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Balcer, I won't edit the article now because there are likely some eagerly looking for a way to show any consecutive edits by me within a 24 hour window a series of partial reverts, like was done before . Pillaging has to be backed up not by Ryszhov, but by B&E. I can reref it to back to B&E but I suggest instead we hammer out the paragraph here and insert the agreed version than have this silly revert war resumed. --] 05:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Vandalism == |
|
:No, we have a 1999 reference for the event, which eliminates the need for using B&E. Let's just use what Ryzhkov wrote, shall we? Misplaced Pages should aim to reflect current research, not 19th century research. I find your particular attachment to a source published over a 100 years ago, with all its inherent bias, rather puzzling. Is there something about the POV prevalent in 19th century Russia that is particularly to your taste? Anyway, since you presented no valid case here as far as I am concerned, I will remove the tag. ] 05:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
edit of course is vandalism. ] (]) 05:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
Thank you, Balcer. I expected better of you, to be honest, but we learn as we go. --] 05:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
.svg)
