Talk:Battle of Storkyro

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST 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.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Finland (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finland, a WikiProject related to the nation of Finland. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Sweden (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Use of modern Finnish placenames[edit]

I don't think it's historical correct to use modern Finnish placenames for events that took place 300 years ago. What is now Finland was part of the Swedish Empire at that time. This battle of Storkyro didn't take place in modern Finland. It took place in the Swedish Empire. Just like the battle of Stalingrad took place in Soviet Union and not in modern Russia. And the Germans sieged Leningrad, not St Petersburg. Närking (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It took place in Isokyrö which was and is a unilingually Finnish place. Also, almost all of the soldiers in Sweden's army in the battle were Finnish. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
The battle took place in the Swedish Empire. And the soldiers mainly came from the Swedish cavalry regiments of Nyland-Tavastehus, Viborg-Nyslott and infantry regiments of Viborg, Tavastehus, Åbo, Savolaks, Björneborg and Nyland. A majority of the soldiers probably were ethnic Finns, but of course there were ethnic Swedes there as well. And they all were part of the Swedish army. The battle was between Sweden and Russia, not modern Finland and Russia. Remember this is a historical article. At the time places were known by their Swedish names, like Åbo, Storkyro, Vasa, Helsingfors etc. Changing them to modern ones would be like talking about the Battle of Volgograd instead of the Battle of Stalingrad. Närking (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
And within the Swedish Empire it took place in Isokyrö, a Finnish speaking parish in Finland. All those regiments were gathered in Finland, from Finnish men. This battlefield was certainly not known by its Swedish name to the Finnish speaking inhabitants of Isokyrö. Also, this battle was very important to the history of Finland, since it directly led to the period of the Greater Wrath, more important, one might say, than to the history of Sweden. Sweden did regain Finland in 1721, but the awful memories of the occupation were burned forever to the minds of the Finns. Isokyrö is not only the modern name, it was the name in the 18th century as well for all the inhabitants of this region. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the people there probably said Isokyrö, but outside the parish it was known by the Swedish name. And yes, it was an important battle for the Swedish empire and for the people who lived in the occupied territories, both Finns and Swedes.
Since this is a historical article we should use the names that was used at the time. And it was common practise to use the Swedish names also for areas that were only inhabitated by ethnic Finns. Even their names were translated to Swedish, just like with my ancestor Markus Påvelsson who most probably said something else himself. Närking (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Your example concerning the translation of Finnish names into Swedish in the official records doesn't help your case: I'm a Finnish student of history and our lecturers on the topic of parish records of the era advice us to translate the Swedish names back to Finnish when referring to the persons who lived in Finnish speaking areas. So if I were writing a study about the peasants of Isokyrö in the 1700s and were to encounter a peasant called Anders Persson in the parish records, I would be advised to write his name in the form Antti Pekanpoika, since that is what he would have called himself. -- (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
The very same issue pervades everything in Finnish history with places having at least two names. Since the Finland was part of Swedish realm at the time in question and since the language of that realm in most respects was Swedish it would seem to be proper to call persons/places like they would have been called in Swedish - ie. according to Swedish names - when outside of Finnish wikipedia. That is not to say that fully Finnish names shouldn't be noted when they appear (for example: Åbo ({{lang-fi|Turku}}) -> Åbo (Finnish: Turku)) - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any problem at using the Swedish place names. The parties in the war were Sweden and Russia and using of Swedish is logical due to the context. The event took place in Finland but it belongs to Swedish rather than Finnish history. Using of Swedish names is not confusing anyone here as you can simply make a link from Storkyro to Isokyrö. But if there is an article about a Finnish-speaking peasant who lived in the area it is more logical to use the Finnish names because of the context. I have faced the same issue when I have written something about a native German in Bohemia during the Austro-Hungarian empire. Then I decided to use the German names of the cities (for example Reichenberg instead of Liberec). If I had written about a native Czech I would have used the Czech names. I know that this is not always simple but I think it is a good guideline. --Gwafton (talk) 07:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
If we are talking of persons in clearly their local element then perhaps however this issue gets muddled real quickly. For example the battle of Gangut, Swedish commander is usually known as 'Nils Ehrenskiöld' - also according to fi-wiki fi:Nils Ehrenskiöld - however there are several sources which call him 'Niilo Ehrenskiöld', changing the Swedish 'Nils' into Finnish 'Niilo'. Or Georg Magnus Sprengtporten who is alternatively known as 'Yrjö Maunu Sprengtporten' in some Finnish sources. Which is the reason why i think it would be best to stick with the Swedish name (or even English if there is one) even if the person in question would be of Finnish origin (both persons used as examples were born in Finland) since those are generally the names the persons are known in literature (apart from Finnish) - besides it does not really matter which alternate form of the name is being used as long as they are all noted. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what has been the original reason to translate Ehrenskiöld and Sprengtporten into Finnish, to me it makes no sense. Sometimes the name issue can be problematic because some people are better known with their translated than native names. For example in Austria-Hungary many non-German people had German speaking alternative names which they used in parallel with their native names. Therefore Hungarian Pál Járay is better known with his German name Paul Jaray. Some people translated their names officially and then there is no problem but many just lived between different cultures and to them it was natural to use a different name in a different context. --Gwafton (talk) 08:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
The difference is that both Ehrenskiöld and Sprengtporten had Swedish as their native language, whereas the peasant in question would have been a native Finnish speaker. -- (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I wonder, Närking, would you rename the article on the edict of Milan as the edict of Mediolanum? -- (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
See WP:TITLE in case of article titles & WP:PLACE when discussing geography. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


I followed Niktin to this article and am surprised that a dispute even exists - in this case sources from both sides do not even contradict each other, only complementing the dead/wounded ratio. What's the problem with leaving the more precise data (as absolute numbers appear the same)? --Illythr (talk) 23:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have so far mainly added real references instead of a reference to, which of course never can be used as a reference here. I have also added that the battle took place within the borders of the Swedish Empire, instead of just saying it took place in Finland, which didn't exist at that time. I think that's rather important to know for the reader, since earlier most of the Swedish battles took place in other countries. Närking (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Uhh, I didn't take time to examine the "source" Niktin was adding: "The source of this article is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The text of this article is licensed under the GFDL." --Illythr (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that astronomy page was just a mirror of the Wikipedia article! Good sourcing! Närking (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Finland has existed since she rose from the sea. A country does not need to be independent to exist. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Finland came into existence only when people formed a concept of a territory called Finland. A loose concept of Finland started to evolve around 15th century or so, but in the first phase it included only the present South Finnish regions. I am not certain if Ostrobothnia was considered to be a part of Finland already in the early 18th century.-- (talk) 14:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)