Talk:Russo-Polish War (1654–67)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Russia / History / Military (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Lithuania (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lithuania 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Poland (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Untitled[edit]

I like this article, Ghirlandajo. You have done a good job here. However, the article could be even better if we tried to avoid sweeping statements without much justification. Thus: During the 1660s, the international situation was more favourable to Poland than ever. Really, better than at any time throughout its whole history since 966? Or: These brilliant feats of arms — utterly unprecedented in Russo-Polish relations - "brilliant" is a bit POV, considering the Commonwealth was exhausted by the war it was embroiled in since 1648. And "utterly unprecedented" is also a bit misleading, considering previous episodes, such as the Polish occupation of Moscow. Balcer 13:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your first complaint. As for the second, well, the Russians never occupied the capital of Lithuania before that. And this time they held it for some six years! So, from a Russian point of view, their success was unprecedented and brilliant. The whole situations is a mirror of the war of 1606-12, when the Poles held Moscow for two years while Russia was weak and experienced its own deluge (i.e., Time of Troubles). --Ghirla -трёп- 13:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I suppose anything that happens for the first time is "utterly unprecedented". But you are right, the success was unprecedented and brilliant from the Russian point of view. Yet I thought that Wikipedia was to be written from the neutral point of view. I think it would be a good idea to avoid bombastic statements, even if they appeal to one's patriotic feelings. Do you see any statements like "unprecedented" and "brilliant" in the Polish-Muscovite War (1605–1618) article when the successes of Polish military units and the Polish occupation of Moscow are discussed? (Of course if they are there and I missed them, they should also be removed)Balcer 15:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to second Balcer here, both commending Ghirla on this nice contribution, and agreeing that some of the language here is a not too encyclopedic - a bit too much words like 'brilliant', for example (we don't describe the events of 1606-12 as brilliant, do we?). Nothing major, though.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Question[edit]

We have Fyodor Sheremetev but Ukrainian wiki has uk:Шереметєв Василь Борисович. 2 different people, or is Fyodor incorrect? Balcer 18:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I shall post the article about the Sheremetev family sooner or later and will try to sort it out there. --Ghirla -трёп- 12:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Title of the article[edit]

Why the title is Russo-Polish War? The name of the country was still Muscovy. Compare this to two other articles about the same country and virtually the same wars: Muscovite-Lithuanian Wars, Polish–Muscovite War (1605–1618) - and than all of a sudden it is Russo-Polish? The difference is only 40 years? What has fundamentally changed? In particular, the article about Muscovy clearly states: Muscovy (Moscow principality (княжество Московское) to Grand Duchy of Moscow (Великое Княжество Московское) to Russian Tsardom (Царство Русское)) is a traditional Western name for the Russian state that existed from the 14th century to the late 17th century. Events described in the article are clearly the late 17th century, so why is the name of the country wrong? Is anyone afraid or ashamed of name Muscovy?--Hillock65 21:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong as well as the Muscovy article. The Muscovy is the correct name for the Moscow Principality. CHeck the EB's Muscovy article on that. More, Ivan IV and later rulers where crowned not as the princes of Moscow but as the Souvereigns of all Rus'. More, the Muscovy EB article claims that even Ivan III was effectively a ruler of the Russian proper. --Irpen 22:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
In that case we have a major problem here. We either will have to correct all the numerous mentioning of the name Muscovy in Wikipedia and/or ammend the article about Muscovy, where it clearly states that the name was used up until the end of 17 century. Secondly, Rus is not Russia. The name Russia has been used almost exclusively in relation to modern Russia, not Rus. During the reign of Ivan IV and many others the country was still known as Muscovy. All documents of the time call it by that name. --Hillock65 22:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we have a problem here. IMO, it lies primarily with the Muscovy article that needs cleaned up. As for Rus/Russia, the former is the broader term than the latter, obviously. And Russia is certainly a proper name not only in the modern but also in the historic context and multiple sources confirm that. Also, it was a self-appelation of the nation from well before the 17th century. This debate is old and ongoing on many pages and we should settle this once and for all. --Irpen 22:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Why should self-appelation matter here? This is English Wikipedia, so what should matter is how the country was called in English during that historical period. And the name used in England at the time was Muscovy, as evidenced by the name of the primary entity for trading with that country, Muscovy Company (note it is not the Russian Company). This is of course reflected in the large number of historical works in English which use the term Muscovy for precisely that reason. Balcer 23:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, the English sources have been shown to you and Piotrus multiple times at various talk pages. Endless arguing aimed at simply tiring your opponent does not cut much ice. --Irpen 23:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, not the dreaded we have proved you wrong many times elsewhere argument. At least provide links to the pages where this alleged refutation has been carried out if you want to convice anyone. That should not be that hard.Balcer 23:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I see this argument is a very touchy issue. By pushing the name back and forth it only adds to the confusion. The majority of articles in this encyclopedia dealing with that period and with that country call it Muscovy, (see the citations on top), now all of a sudden it is Russia. I propose to tag it NPOV and discuss util the title is in agreement with this encyclopedia and other articles. A title like this is clearly not NPOV and only adds to the confusion.--Hillock65 23:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to second Balcer on that. As far as I know the sources are conflicted, especially as we move into the second part of the 17th century. I think that leaving the 1605-1618 war when Russia was still in the Times of Troubles as Muscovy, and calling this one - when it was evidently on the rise - as more Russia - is as good as distinction as any, although for the record, my personal and non-encyclopedic POV is that proper, modern Russia should be used for the country that emerged after the reforms of the Peter I of Russia (and before somebody accuses me of trying to show that Russia did not exist before 18th century, I'll also say that I prefer not to use 'Poland' for the times before partitions (before PLC there was the Kingdom of Poland, to be specific).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not see the global tag is warranted over this issue here. I will find the links for Balcer though. --Irpen 23:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no other way but to tag this article as NPOV as the Muscovy-Russian issue seems to be affecting a number of articles and cannot be ignored forever. I continue to isist that we follow the practice on English Wikipedia, namely assigning names as they are used in the English languaged for certain periods and certain countries. Plese see my arguments for Muscovy above with examples from this Encyclopedia. Unfortunately this issue cannot be ignored any longer.--Hillock65 10:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Also I would like to cite sources in support of name change for the article. I apologise they are in Russian, but trust most will understand the issue anyway:
  • 1. A famous Russian historian Sergey Solovyov in his work ПРОДОЛЖЕНИЕ ЦАРСТВОВАНИЯ АЛЕКСЕЯ МИХАЙЛОВИЧА in his description of the events that this article covers describes the country as Moscow, or Muscovy. Not a single time does he use the word Россия (Russia). You may search the document with the search engine, curiously enough Russian only pops up when he is talking about Ukraine (Малороссия), but contrary to the title of this article, not a single instance of describing Muscovy as Russia. Not even one! And he is a Russian historian, and a famous one too.
  • 2. Another Russian historian, Nikolai Markevich in his coverage of the same time period also doesn't mention Russia by its present name - it is invariably Moscow. You can view his work here.

In the majority of Russian scholarly work that I saw, with the exception of modern nationalist ranting, in the description of Muscovy-Poland war of the end of the 17th century the country is named Moscow and never Russia. So, if even Russian historians, as can be seen from sources, call it Moscow, why all of a sudden it should be Russia and in the English Wikipedia! --Hillock65 13:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This is so obvious that I won't bother to discuss your "proposal". Just follow the links above and then consult WP:OR. Thanks, Ghirla -трёп- 18:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
That feeble ploy won't fly. You've got to be kidding if you think anyone will take seriously your brushing away Sergey Mikhaylovich Solovyov - "one of the greatest Russian historians whose influence on the next generation of Russian historians (Vasily Klyuchevsky, Dmitry Ilovaisky, Sergey Platonov) was paramount". This doesn't even come close to WP:OR. You will not impress anyone with your citations of policies. READ THE ORIGINAL SOURCES! And stop deleating and moving things without warning. Regards.--Hillock65 18:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
It is somewhat cheap to cite my own words against myself. You will soon find that probably anything related to Russian history that you would like to cite against me was written by myself. That aside, we should stick to usage preferred in English-language academic sources, not to a single Russian historian of the penultimate century. My links demonstrate that English-language academic sources have to say on the issue. Case closed. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Far from it. The case is just opening, trust me. You cannot brush away a famous Russian historian and now switch to English sources. I have cited my sources. You haven't presented yet a shred of evidence to support your strange behaviour. And by the way, thank you for reminding me of other bias articles that you have written. Let's first deal with this one, shall we? Thank you.--Hillock65 19:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I can't comment on the situation in uk.wiki, but threats do not cut ice in English wikipedia. This is my last comment for you, since you refuse to work constructively and discuss content, always driving discussions to ad hominems and trolling. Either you apologise or I shall post no further comments on this page. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Ghirla, please, stop acusing others of ad hominems and trolling when they have done none; instead, please present evidence that Hillock65 asks for in a civil manner.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Your death threats is a civil manner? --Ghirla -трёп- 19:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
No, it is a mispelling, for which I aplogized. Although I am sure you will remind me of it for the next year or so.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Page move[edit]

I must apologize for the rash move. Sudden move of one of my articles by one of the users led me to believe it wasn't a big deal. I was wrong, my apologies. I will warn next time and will expect the same from other users. Thank you all for the info.--Hillock65 22:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Rename[edit]

I offer to raname this article to Russo-Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth War of 1654–1667 Samogitia (talk) 10:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Inner contradiction and contradiction with Khmelnytsky Uprising[edit]

According to the battlebox of this article, the Crimean Khanate fought on the side of the Commonwealth. However, according to Khmelnytsky Uprising, it fought on both sides.

Moreover, according to this article, the Cossack leader Ivan Vyhovsky fought on the side of the Commonwealth but the battlebox only lists Cossacks on the Russian side.

Top.Squark (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

In regard to the Tatars, I'm pretty sure that by this point (1654) they had switched pretty firmly to the Polish side. With regard to the cossacks, you're right - various factions fought on both sides. I'll add that to the infobox and remove the tag.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Russo-Polish War (1654–1667). Favonian (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


Russo–Polish War (1654–67)Russo-Polish War (1654–1667) – There is no en dash in "Russo-Polish War" because "Russo" is a combining form; see MOS:ENDASH. 50.46.248.86 (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Support, and I suggest speedy closure. A straight and simple case of established Wikipedia styling, consistently applied on WP in conformity with most quality publishing. NoeticaTea? 01:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per MOS:DASH. "Russo" is a combining form, so should be hyphenated, not dashed. Jenks24 (talk) 09:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.