Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:25, 5 April 2009

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

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

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)

Yeah, initially it was "I can't find a single good English work"...M.K. (talk) 16:57, 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)

I didn't notice any "personal comments" either, except for Tymek's. And what is "so please take care of these sources instead of yet another personal attack": User:Tymek, supposed to mean? Dr. Dan (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Dr Dan please do not play a fool. Piotrus has provided sources which explain his point, and Deacon failed to respond in appropriate way. He predictably limited himself to admonishing Piotrus. Tymek (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Tymek, please don't call other editors fools. Deacon hadn't taken an opinion at that stage, and, for what it's worth, M.K. had provided sources. Failing to add more sources to support an opinion you don't have before a certain time does not constitute "personal comments". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

If participating in this discussion with you, Tymek, makes me a "fool", so be it. Now all you have to do is demonstrate where the Deacon made a "personal attack" in this thread. And, btw it seems you even upped the ante a little with ..."He predictably limited himself to admonishing Piotrus". How so, and how "predictably"? Perhaps a forthcoming explanation of all of this might even absolve you of actually later being accused of making personal attacks. Dr. Dan (talk) 19:51, 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)

a) Lithuanian name of the city is not "modern" b) Vilnius was part of Poland only once, in 20th century then it was occupied and annexed M.K. (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Lithuanian name is quite modern, as Lithuanian language was dominant only in early history of GDL (although that is not certain - see Grand_Duchy_of_Lithuania#Languages_and_demographics) and in parts of the 20th century. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have academic source for the "Lithuanian name is quite modern"? Regarding, Lithuanian language was dominant only in early history of GDL, actually even in 19th century Lithuanians predominated in Vilnius region, according to contemporary statics carried out in 19th century we have – according to Lebedkin 71 % there Lithuanians, by Korev - 67 %, D’Erkert - 66%.M.K. (talk) 18:05, 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, Grolier "Russian armies seized Vilnius from 1655",
• Europe 1450 to 1789: Encyclopedia of the Early Modern World, Charles Scribner's Sons now Thomson Gale (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 Grove Dictionary of Art. Vilnius was devastated and plundered by the Russians in 1655
• Encyclopedia of Russian History, Thomson Gale
• General History books uses Vilnius as well in this context, like:
• A History of Ukraine. University of Toronto Press
• Acquaintance with Lithuania, 1999 p.46
• The history of Lithuania, Baltos Lankos' 2002 ISBN 9955429755
• Eastern Europe, 2005, ABC-CLIO p.172 ISBN 1576078000
• Historical dictionary of Ukraine, Scarecrow Press 2005, p.249 ISBN 0810853876
• Unmaking Imperial Russia, University of Toronto Press 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)
  • Care to present proof to your allegations about unreliablility of my sources? Educated in Poland? Since when is this a crime? How many of authors I cite have ties with Poland? Norman Davies, who is probably one of the foremost expert on history of that region? Sigh. M.K's "broad basis of English language historical writing" includes "Volodymyr Kubiĭovych, Shevchenko Scientific Society Staff, Naukove tovarystvo im. Shevchenk"... (now removed - I wonder how many of the above sources will prove unreliable after closer examination?).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, let me clarify ... broader base includes some writers who aren't native English speakers but don't come from either Poland or Lithuania. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh, Norman Davies was educated at Oxford, England. He was a student of AJP Taylor's, one of most renown historians of previous century.radek (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, I fail to see any evidence of Deacon's assertion that "Piotrus' references are mainly from writers educated in Poland (in Davies' case) or Polish writers/historians writing in English". Let's see

• William Young "International Politics and Warfare in the Age of Louis XIV and Peter the Great"
• Robert I. Frost "After the Deluge"
• Perry Anderson "Lineages of the Absolutist State"
• Icon Group International, Inc. "Pillaging: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases"
• Jarmo Kotilaine (as far as I can tell, neither Polish nor educated in Poland but I could be wrong) "Russia's foreign trade..."
• Geoffrey Russell Richards Treasure "The making of modern Europe, 1648-1780"
• Paul Bushkovitch (born in Moscow, educated mostly in US) "Religion and Society in Russia"
• F. L. Carsten "The New Cambridge Modern History"

So out of the 11 sources Piotrus originally listed only 1 is by "Polish writers/historians writing in English" and only 2 are by ... well, Norman Davies, who was NOT educated in Poland. Unless Deacon knows something about the above people that I don't, but generally people with English names get educated in non-Poland. So this actually makes me wonder if Deacon even bothered looking at the sources listed by Piotrus before making up his mind?

Also it's worth noting that MK's list LOOKS bigger because he repeats couple sources and presents his sources in the form of a bullet list (which I used here as well) rather than the succinct listing used by Piotrus.radek (talk) 03:28, 5 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)

• What's being online got to do with anything? Anyway, Vilnius was always part of Lithuania (as the "Grand Duchy" and the Commonwealth) until it became part of the Russian Empire, so Danzig/Gdansk is not really a great parallel. This aside, Misplaced Pages:NCGN#Use_modern_names conclusively favors Vilnius here rather than Wilno Vilna or Wilna. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Care to cite which part of the policy suggest this bizzarre interpretation? Sure, Vilnius is indisputable... for post-1945 period. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Please try to keep your cool, Piotrus. I know you have edit-warred on this guideline page precisely on this issue >, and I know and understand that it matters a lot to you; but "For an article about a place whose name has changed over time, use the modern English name (or local name, if there is no established English name), rather than an older one." does it for me. As the representation in English is not consistent (in non-Polish sources, mostly Vilnius), the modern name (also Vilnius) is clearly preferable based on this guideline. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Please keep the personal attacks off this project. One revert is not edit war - I did simply what I did to your

• Just a small note, at that time Lithuanian name of the city as already used. So Lithuanian name is historical. M.K. (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Proof? We have plenty of sources that note that Lithuanian was barely written and unofficial in that period. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Go to Vilnius University and look to books like shown blow M.K. (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Huh? The exceptions are all good for proving it was a minority language, not used officially, almost never used in print, and not used by the noble elites nor the majority of the burghers. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Uhu. Initial it was "modern name" invented in 20th century, now it is almost never used in print. I see a progress. Small, but a progress. For historical accuracy, I will note, that Lithuanian print was actually flourishing, like in Koningsberg etc .... M.K. (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Guys, this sub-thread is all a red herring. Nobody cares whether Lithuanian was used or official back at the time. It's completely irrelevant for our question. The issue is not who used what back then, the issue is exclusively what modern English sources use when talking about back then. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. M.K.'s sources illustrate that Vilnius is more common usage. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Reasoning below. Novickas (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Perenially, we have to examine the desire of some Polish contributors to WP concerning the use of "Wilno" as opposed to Vilnius. This is now the case with this relatively new article at the encyclopedia. The RM starts with the request to move the "Battle of Vilnius (1655") to the "Battle of Wilno (1655)" with the reasoning that to do so would be..."Keeping it short and simple", obviously suggesting that changing the original long and cumbersome name to something easier to undertstand (especially if one likes the toponym Wilno better) is the way to go. But in a flash we get ...the "Battle of Vilna (1655) could be a reasonable compromise solution IMHO", user: Halibutt, and that "reasonable compromise" is quickly seconded with..."Support though the compromise mentioned by Halibutt would be fine too", User:Radeksz. Yes, that would be fine alright, with you. Truly keeping it short and simple (and uncomplicated) would favor Vilnius. Vilna has nothing to do with the issue. As I have often stated in the past, the issue is actually that some people so prefer the sound of "Wilno" to Vilnius, that they are willing to make "reasonable compromises." Ergo, even substituting "Vilna" for Wilno is better than having to deal with the Lithuanian name for that most "un-Lithuanian" city. Funny, that bringing up the inconsistencies of these editors when it come to historically naming Kraków on English encyclopedia, becomes OT, but using Gdańsk, Volgograd, etc., are not. Dr. Dan (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No, "Vilna" is a reasonable compromise because it's the Ruthenian - of the time - name of the city. The reasons for the proposed move is the fact that "Wilno" is used by sources which refer to the city in the given time period, not to "Keep it short and simple". The "Keep it short and simple" obviously refers to keeping the list of REASONS short and simple as should be very obvious from what Piotrus wrote. Once again you engage in distorting what others have said, try to change the topic and ascribe some nefarious motives to those who disagree with you. After awhile this really does add up to a form of passive-aggressive incivility.

And while we're discussing other cities, I've already pointed out the case with Wroclaw/Breslau. Additionally, if you go to the Wroclaw article, right there in the lead, after the article title it says (German: Breslau). Now go to the article on Vilnius. Does it says (Polish:Wilno) or (Ruthenian:Vilna)? No, because any attempts to insert text that is standard for other cities with complex histories was staunchly resisted in this particular case - presumably because we can't have the Polish language polluting the lead and the name of an article of this city (sort of how the Lithuanian government insists that Poles living in Lithuania cannot spell their names in Polish). Likewise Krakow has "Cracow" right there in the lead. I happen to think that the German name of Wroclaw belongs in the lead as does Cracow for Krakow. And Wilno belongs in the lead of Vilnius. And it belongs in historical articles of the appropriate period. So who's being inconsistent here Dan? (I apologize for the OT nature of the second part of this comment but it was Dan who was the one changing - once again - the topic).radek (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Essentially I agree with Jafeluv (talk · contribs) that we Wikipedians should not debate and then make up our own views about this sort of thing, but defer to what is already reflected in a preponderance of the reliable sources. Cirt (talk) 05:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

From naming conventions:

• "Consult English-language encyclopedias (we recommend Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta, each as published after 1993). If the articles in these agree on using a single name in discussing the period, it is the widely accepted English name." These three encyclopedias agree in using Vilnius in this era:

• • Britannica Vilnius article: "Subsequently rebuilt, Vilnius received its charter of self-government in 1387, and a Roman Catholic bishopric was established there. The town and its trade flourished and grew..underwent many calamities—Russian occupation in 1655–60, Swedish capture in 1702 and 1706, French occupation in 1812, and recurrent fires and plagues. In 1795 Vilnius passed to Russia..." EB uses Vilnius throughout history of Lithuania article

• • Columbia Encyclopedia Vilnius: "In the third partition of Poland (1795), Vilnius passed to Russia, where it became a provincial capital (1801–1815)."

• • Encarta Vilnius article: "Although the site of the city was probably settled earlier, the traditional founding date of Vilnius is set at 1323, when Gediminas chose it as the capital of the principality of Lithuania. It soon developed into an important trade center, and after the union in 1569 of Lithuania and Poland the city became known as a center not only of Polish culture but also of Jewish learning. During World War I the city was occupied by German forces from 1915 to 1918. After the German retreat, Vilnius was controlled successively..."

• From Naming conventions: "We recommend the Cambridge Histories; the Library of Congress country studies, and the Oxford dictionaries relevant to the period and country involved). If they agree, the name is widely accepted."

• The Cambridge History of Russia uses Vilnius in this context
• The LOC Country study Lithuania mentions the town name only twice in History and Chronology sections - both times uses Vilnius. (Can't permalink results).
• The Oxford dictionary - pay-to-view.

• From naming conventions. "Consult Google Scholar and Google Books hits (count only articles and books, not number of times the word is used in them) when searched over English language articles and books where the corresponding location is mentioned in relation to the period in question. If the name is used at least three times as often as any other, in referring to the period, it is widely accepted." The results below don't show a 3-fold difference.
  • Vilnius Russia 1655 - Gbook 462 hits
  • Wilno Russia 1655 - Gbook 519 hits
  • Vilnius Russia 1655 - Gscholar 204 hits
  • Wilno Russia 1655 - Gscholar 63 hits
  • Wilno battle 1655 - 69 Gbook hits
  • Vilnius battle 1655 - 66 Gbook hits

• Although Vilnius prevails in books published after 2000:
  • Vilnius battle 1655 - 24 hits
  • Wilno battle 1655 - 12 hits

You could slice and dice this in probably dozens of other ways. For instance, Vilnius 17th century - 683 book hits; ; Wilno 17th century also 683 book hits . Or Vilnius/Wilno Castle 1655 - 66 versus 42 , . Or Vilnius/Wilno fire 1655 - 40 vs 26 , . Or Cossacks Vilnius/Wilno 1655, etc, etc. But why? If we spend hours analyzing Gbook/Gscholar results and arguing here, it supports the assertion that we're in dire need of a Gdansk-style vote, but how does it help this article? Novickas (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

All encyclopedias use Wilno: , , , and as you've showed, so do many publications. That non-Misplaced Pages institutions have no equivalent of WP:NCGN and often use non-historical names in historical settings is confusing, but this confusion should not impact us. In 1655, few called Wilno/Vilna Vilnius, per Grand_Duchy_of_Lithuania#Languages_and_demographics, and hence we should use the historical, not modern name (i.e., battle of Stalingrad, not battle of Volgograd). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The encyclopedia hits you show above all redirect to Vilnius. The 3 Vilnius encyclopedia articles all show Vilnius thruout, except when they mention that it was known as Wilno during the interwar period. You seem to be proposing a new naming policy based on what the upper classes spoke at the time. That discussion should take place at naming conventions. Novickas (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to article names Britannica uses Vilnius exclusively, as far as I can see, , M.K. (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC) P.S including and The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition

For what it's worth: an academic opinion on naming conventions in NE Europe in the 17th century

Not sure this issue is entirely worth bothering over but here's the opinion of Robert I. Frost, who's a scholar of the military history of North-Eastern Europe in the 17th century (and who wrote the book After the Deluge cited in this article). AFAIK Frost can read all the major languages of the documents of this time and area, yet he has no particular national affiliation that I'm aware of. I'm sure there's something to offend everybody here. Frost uses "Wilno".

The linguistic complexity of northeastern Europe and the political changes which have taken place since 1721 mean that several variants of place names exist, and the preference for one form over others is inevitably controversial. Since whatever choice is made will upset somebody, I have tried to balance consistency with the requirements of writing for a largely anglophone readership. Where there is a generally-recognised English form, modern or early modern, I have used it (Cracow, Moscow, Kiev, Malmo, Copenhagen, Samogitia, Livonia). Otherwise I have mainly preferred the form as it appears most frequently in contemporary documents. The greatest problems are posed by Livonia and Estonia, where I have preferred German to Estonian and Latvian forms, and Poland-Lithuania, where I have used the Polish form except for Royal Prussia (thus Danzig, not Gdańsk) and the Ukraine (which in this book denotes the palatinates of Kiev, Volhynia, Bratslav and Chernihiv), where I have used the Ukrainian forms. I have used the term 'Muscovy' to refer to the Russian state until 1667, when the acquisition of the right-bank Ukraine marked the start of the transition to the modern Russian empire. The choices are made entirely on academic grounds. Where strict adherence to these principles would involve absurdities, or where a particular form is solidly grounded in the English-language scholarship, I have departed from them. Thus the battle of Fraustadt (1706) does not become the battle of Wschowa, and I prefer Brest (Litovsk) (the Russian form) to Brześć (Litewski) (Polish). Nationalists may curse me and pedants may excommunicate me if they wish, but I am not writing for them. (Robert I. Frost The Northern Wars 1558-1721, Longman, 2000), Preface, page VIII

--Folantin (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem we have is that dozens of other writers who have no particular national affiliation use different forms too. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but Frost is an expert in this specific area so his ideas are worth considering. Plus we have an expert here actually discussing his choice of names. --Folantin (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, lots of the others are experts too. I haven't looked over these, but it is quite common for naming choices to be explained in introductions and in this case, Frost hasn't actually given a reason to use "Wilno" instead of "Vilnius". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes he has: "The greatest problems are posed by Livonia and Estonia, where I have preferred German to Estonian and Latvian forms, and Poland-Lithuania, where I have used the Polish form except for Royal Prussia (thus Danzig, not Gdańsk) and the Ukraine...". Frost is an expert specifically in the military history of Poland-Lithuania in the 1650s (as the book After the Deluge shows). --Folantin (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Where's the explanation for using "Wilno" instead of "Vilnius"? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

"I have mainly preferred the form as it appears most frequently in contemporary documents." Now where are the discussions of naming conventions from the other sources?--Folantin (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not an explanation for this example, and wouldn't make sense in any case; the name of the city is virtually the same in all languages, i.e. Vilna/o (the Polish alphabet, based on the German one, using "W" for ) but in Lithuanian has a Lithuanian grammatical ending ... it'll have whatever ending depending on what language the source is in. As I said, authors tend to explain (if at all) naming forms in their intros. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Folantin, excuse the related digression. I would like to focus on Frost's preface to his Northern Wars 1558-1721, and this sentence..."Where there is a generally-recognised English form, modern or early modern, I have used it (Cracow, Moscow, Kiev, Malmo, Copenhagen, Samogitia, Livonia)." Perhaps it would behoove us to seek some consistency on English WP and follow his example in other places as well. There are a plethora of articles that insist that "Kraków" (replete with diacritic) is the correct historical usage in English. Would Frost's example be well served by changing this toponym back to Cracow? Dr. Dan (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Folantin, thanks for the interesting addition from Frost - but remember that no amount of logic and evidence will change the opinion of a nationalist true believer. For some, Vilnius was forever 100% pure Lithuanian Vilnius, likely created that way when the universe begun. I've had a Lithuanian editor tell me that their heart bleeds when they see or hear the string "Wilno". What can you discuss when presented with such mindsets? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth: an academic opinion on Anything

With no disrespect meant to Folantin or anyone else, an academic opinion is above all an opinion. It is especially relished when it concurs with one's own viewpoint on any given subject. I seem to recall that the academic opinion of Norman Davies (who is being cited as one scholar for this move), was hardly worth the ink it was printed on when speaking of Jozef Pilsudski: "He condidered himself a Lithuanian of Polish culture". Davies' scholarly "opinion" was not embraced on that occasion. I forget if it was because his opinion was considered this or that. Dr. Dan (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

And once again we're trying to change the topic. For what it's worth, some of us were not around for these discussions and there is no quick way to verify if in fact your 'recollections' are correct. Even still, since, you know, some of us were not around for these discussions, I don't see what it has to do with what I, or Folantin, are saying.radek (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The topic here is "academic opinion", and my opinion concerning it. It's not directed to Folantin or to you. I specifically mentioned Norman Davies, as his opinion is being touted as a basis concerning the proposed move. If you care to "verify my recollections" concerning Pilsudski you can go to that article's talk page. If you specifically care to read Davies himself, you'll find the quote in White Eagle, Red Star: The Polish-Soviet War, 1919–1920. London: Pimlico. ISBN 0712606947. Sorry you weren't around for the earlier discussions, I'll try to bring you up to speed whenever I can. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I did check the Pilsudski talk page and nowhere on that page does anyone say that Norman Davies as a source was "hardly worth the ink it was printed on". Once again, you're making stuff up and pretending people were saying what they never were saying. What I do see in the article on Pilsudski is the following: "The impoverished szlachta family... has been characterized either as Polish or as Polonized-Lithuanian" so it's in there, whether referenced to Davies or not. Since on your user page it says "This user is a native speaker of English." I really do not understand where this continued confusion between what people actually say and what you say they say comes from (the "Keeping it short" is another example).

And lastly, who cares, since I think all editors involved in this discussion would agree that Davies is reliable source. Is there disagreement on this? No? Then you ARE changing the topic.radek (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Please calm down. Since I am a native speaker of English, I'm having difficulty understanding half of what your trying to say (especially regarding "pretending people were saying what they never were saying"). Also what does "The impoverished szlachta family... has been characterized either as Polish or as Polonized-Lithuanian" so it's in there..." have to do with Davies saying "Pilsudski considered himself a Lithuanian of Polish culture." Is there disagreement on this? Yes, no, maybe so? Disagreement that this is true? Or disagreement with Davies on this point? Is he a reliable source on this point too, or only when he uses "Wilno" to support your point? "And lastly, who cares", obviously you do, but I dare say not as much as I do. My regard for Poland is very high. Just the same I oppose a continuing attempt to Polo-centrically (sic) twist WP on it's English pages, with a lot of blather and missrepresentations of facts and history, to suit some agenda. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, what makes you think that I am anything but calm? Is this another one of your extrapolations? Now, what exactly is wrong with ""pretending people were saying what they never were saying"". Person A said X. You come around and pretend person A said Y. I point out that Person A never said Y, but X. Not that hard to understand, and all perfectly good English. And as for the rest - that's pretty much it for me here. If you wish to continue talking about it then please do so at the appropriate page - Pilsudski's. I assume that you are NOT contesting that Davies is a reliable source.radek (talk) 23:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Good, you're calm, my bad. Less I again extrapolate what you're saying..." You come around and pretend person A said Y. I point out that Person A never said Y, but X. Not that hard to understand, and all perfectly good English." Very clear now, "and all perfectly good English." Not only am I not contesting that Davies is a RS, but I'll also look forward to you helping me re-instate much of Davies' information concerning Pilsudski's Lithuanian origins at the appropriate articles. Regarding Frost, I assume, all in good faith, that you will aid in applying Cracow in those appropriate articles where Kraków has been implemented too. If so, then I suggest starting a few RM as we'll have a lot of work to do. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

<-- Well, since you seem convinced, as soon as you change your vote above to "Support" moving this to Battle of Wilno (1655)) we can talk about Pilsudski article. First thing's first though.radek (talk) 01:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Cracow, too? Dr. Dan (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

"Cracow" is already in the lead of the Krakow article so I don't see what the problem is. I wouldn't support changing Vilnius to Wilno either. Now, do you wish to also discuss Bollywood, Kittens, Lawnmowerss, the Omaha City Council and List of notable hairstyles before we actually come to the topic at hand (Battle of Wilno/Vilnius) or is that list of red herrings not exhaustive enough? Still waiting for you to change your vote, since you agree with above.radek (talk) 02:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth: Misplaced Pages naming conventions

Quote: "For example, 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, including in article names such as Battle of Stalingrad and Free City of Danzig. " But note that the Wiki guideline text has trouble coming up with a Wilno example - because apparently Wilno is an exception to this general rule. Why? And despite what Dr. Dan says, we do have, for example Grand Duchy of Cracow.radek (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

And these examples too, the Free City of Kraków and the Kraków Uprising. But what the hell, if it's true that Henri IV thought that "Paris was well worth a Mass", surely sacrificing the the city of "Kraków" in order to get "Wilno" would certainly be worth it too. But I suspect that there would be to many objectors to this bargain, as Henri, alas, found out the hard way. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• 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