Talk:Ostrów Agreement

Rename

Current tile is alien to English historiography. Even silly google game proves that there is no single hint on this so called Ostrów Agreement[1], [2],[3] [4] while Treaty of Astravas quite well established [5]. So my question is there any opposition to speedy rename this article to Treaty of Astravas? M.K. (talk) 11:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite well estabilished - you mean, used only by a single author (Simas Sužiedēlis) in a single publication (Encyclopedia Lituanica). Riiight.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

a) Simas is not "the sigle author" of the Encyclopedia b) Encyclopedia Lituanica is not the single pulication b) Stone uses Astravas as well. conclution - yes it is much more established in English historiography then current name-invention. Riiight indeed. M.K. (talk) 09:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that either Belarusian either Lithuanian spelling shoul be used.Iulius (talk) 11:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Belarussian name is good too. I have no problems with it. M.K. (talk) 11:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)p.s. there is another invented name here here too

I actually manage to "find" Astravets in English wiki; the reference seems to be correct. If not please correct, as there is no Dzitva River somewhere nearby.Iulius (talk) 12:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The village was near Lyda. M.K. (talk) 12:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Does it still exist? I can find no contemporary references on this particular settlement (manor). Astraviec near Vilnius and Lithuanian border seems to be mentioned much later in 1468 for the first time. Iulius (talk) 12:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean Astraviec in Hrodna Voblast? It's Polish name is Ostrowiec, similar but not the same as Ostrów. Not that it rules its out. But per my post below, another name we should consider is Vostrava.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure if Vostrava is currently used in Belarus we should move current name-invantion to Threaty of Vostrava, especialy then such formulation [6] exists, not so popular as Astravas, but I have no problem moving current name-invension to Vostrava. M.K. (talk) 09:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW couldn't it be so that the correct Lithuanian gender did not survive and it is not known whether it was Astrava or Astravas.Iulius (talk) 12:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Treaty of Ostrów used in English, ex. here: [7]. If you'd like to rename it, try WP:RM. I asked a Belarusian editor to write a stub on the village few days ago; the Belarusian name is Vostrava([8]).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.Iulius (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Do we know how the village was called in the 15th century? With regards to naming, it seesm we have one English work for each of the names (Ostrów, Astravas, Vostrava). Should we toss a coin? :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It is impossible due to the simple fact of absence of "official names" in a "state language" in these times. People used to call the settlements in the language they spoke, as a rule of thumb.Iulius (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• So far, I didn't yet find out which modern village Vostrava out of 4 corresponds to the "possession (oldbel: Острово) Ostrovo near Lida". None of those is close enough geographically to make a guess, too. Yury Tarasievich (talk) 07:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The research of L. Lanid suggests the site of the ruins of the posession to be east of village Yantsavichy near Lida. Text was published in Belarusian "Nasha slova", May 2007, http://pawet.net/book/hist/wostrau/wostrau1.html, German and Polish maps are also used, so fairly comprehensible to intl. reader. Yury Tarasievich (talk) 07:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yury, would you support my initiative to move this polonized name to Threaty of Vostrava? M.K. (talk) 10:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd consider this to be better solution anyway than the current, employing the Polish name. Albeit I'll have to repeat myself that even more consistent practice in such cases would be to employ the transliteration of the oldbel./ruth. name (here, Ostrovo).

I also think we should seek some sort of general resolution. We can't go through all this time and again, with each respective article having this problem. Yury Tarasievich (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Treaty of Ostrovo. I like it.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Civil war

We seem to have enough material to split and stub the civil war. How should it be entitled? Civil war in Lithuania (1390-1392)?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

So far a few lines in the History of Lithuania on this matter would suffice.Iulius (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Request citations

I would like to see original and translated citations for these claims:

• to negotiate with Vytautas and convince him to switch sides

Switch sides? Vytautas was fighting for his rights. So that this means switch sides? Fight for the Jogials's rights? Curiously current statment references with 19th century publication. Definately would like to see original citations and translations concurring current statment.

• Henry became friends with Vytautas, and fell in love with his sister Ryngałła same goes with this. Modern scholar notes that it was done to avoid suspicion. And again current ref is 19th c.

I also would like that contributors pointed to me there exact Stone's used citations in his publication for these:

• Neither Jogaila nor Vytautas had gained clear advantage, territories of Grand Duchy affected by the civil war were being devastated, and only the Teutonic Knights were gaining power.
• and convinced him of the need to ally himself with Poland once again. Did not find these in his publication. M.K. (talk) 09:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Apart from already requested citation I would like to see exact citations for these:

• Vytautas was supported by Lithuanians who resented Polish interpretations of the recent Union of Krewo and baptism of Lithuania, tying Grand Duchy of Lithuania to the Kingdom of Poland. Particularly to second part and baptism of Lithuania, tying Grand Duchy of Lithuania to the Kingdom of Poland. provided source do say this.
• and convinced him of the need to ally himself with Poland once again for this one too as Stone do not say this as well.

Reliability of source. I would like to know how reliable this added source. And then forums is allowed on WIki? I also want to see exact original citations and translations which would support presented statements. Who is author of this article and his.her educational background? M.K. (talk) 10:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Follow Google Print links provided for most references via footnote (cite.php) system to find your answers.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

So, it will be no problem to you to present the requested citations per The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material., I will wait for the while and if nobody presents the requested citations, which would support claims I will remove such claims. M.K. (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The burden of evidence is provided via inline citations.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Which not support material provided in article.M.K. (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I beg to disagree.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Piotruś, inline citations are satisfactory. Btw what is such controversial in this article MK still bombards it with so many "fact" templates? Did Piotruś so to your articles at least a one time? I can't recall such event. - Darwinek (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

a) it is not a matter of in line citation amount. b) Provided sources which should reference facts presented in article not corresponds with each other c) provided 19th century source contradicts to capital published work and is not accessible d) was used potentially unreliable forum type source [9] in foreign language. e) Contributor who added this material refuses to point and provide exact text which he used, including to discuss reliability of the source and provide translated citations. Per WP:V such text can be tagged. f) Per WP:OWN no one "owns" any part of any article, so classification of article by "his" "mine" etc, has no ground. M.K. (talk) 11:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

a) The more, the better, per WP:V. b) please provide specific examples how they contradict each other c) please clarify what is contradicted by what; the PD source if fully accessible for browsing and download d) the source is not highly reliable, yes, but the information doesn't seem to be controversial e) please request help at WP:PWNB; besides as has been shown before you know Polish language and can verify and translate relevant parts yourself f) nobody claims to OWN the article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Hi, all. I'm here from Wikipedia third opinion to see if we can't untangle some of this.

So as I understand the issue, M.K is disputing some of the claims that are/were in the article and asking for sources. Piotrus has provided some sources, but they are in another language, and M.K doubts their reliability. Once source is in the public domain, but Google Books (the site linked) does not allow for browsing. However, it does allow for limited searching, which once again brings us back to the language problem. Likewise, the new source added it of unclear verifiability to M.K because he does not speak Polish and thus cannot verify the reliability of the site.

Per WP:V, all information likely to be challenged or actually challenged requires sources. Piotrus has provided them in this case. In addition, non-English sources are explicitely allowed provided that no comparable English sources exist; unless someone can prove a comparable English source, I think Piotrus should be given the benefit of the doubt. In short, Piotrus has responded appropriately to M.K's concerns about the sources and adhered with Wikipedia policy in doing so (although direct links to the pages in the online book cited would help make verification easier, it's not explicitely required...but I suggest it anyway).

However, M.K is also well within his right to challenge these sources. Although accessability of sources is not grounds for challenging them--after all, offline books would be prohibited if that were the case--the fact that they are in another language and thus unintelligible to him is grounds enough. To this end I suggest first visiting WP:BABEL, as there are several Polish-to-English translators listed there. I suggest asking first for verification of the nature of the website linked and second for help in finding and understanding the content of the book linked.

If this is not satisfactory, your next step should be to visit the reliable sources noticeboard, where you can list the sources in question and get feedback from other editors. I suspect this would not be as productive as the translation suggestion, though, as Polish language skills would be necessary to verify the contents. You might see if your Polish-English translator would stick around and help with the decision. I would also suggest that any inquiry focus less on the book (presuming it is not self-published) and more on the website. After all, the closer you are to a historical event the more direct your information is likely to be. However, judging from M.K's statements above it seems there may be some contradiction between sources. If this is the case, then the two sources in conflict should also be raised there.

And finally, a little bit of WP:COOL is always a good recommendation. M.K., I suggest trying your best not to get too worked up over this issue. Piotrus, I suggest a little more effort on your part to help M.K. work this out. As a Japanese speaker, I have to constantly remind myself that what looks perfectly comprehensible to me is complete gibberish to most people--I suggest you try and keep the same thing in mind.

If you have any other questions or comments, feel free to contact me on my talk page or in this thread, as I'll be watching this page for a week or so. --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)I'm on editor review! 09:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Hey, jonny-mt thanks for opinion. But the problem is a bit different. For instance:
• In article provided sentence Vytautas was supported by Lithuanians who resented Polish interpretations of the recent Union of Krewo and baptism of Lithuania, tying Grand Duchy of Lithuania to the Kingdom of Poland. with source Medieval history source [10], however in the provided source there is only The resistance of members of the Lithuanian dynasty to the Polish interpretation of the Union of Krevo let to opposition formulated by the king’s cousin, Vytautas, son of Kestutis, who sought the support of the Teutonic Knights in oder words source did not talk about that opposition was due to tying Grand Duchy of Lithuania to the Kingdom of Poland, and baptism of Lithuania. Source do not talk about these events in the provided context. This means it is contributors' interpretation, this results WP:OR.
• Similar with this one: in article we have statment: The Lithuanian defeat at the Battle of the Vorskla River against the Golden Horde made him abandon his hopes of breaking union with Poland and becoming king of his own, and convinced him of the need to ally himself with Poland once again with referencing source: [11]. However in the source we have only such statment: …he lost the important battle of the river Vorskla, near the Don River, against the Tatars in 1399 despite three years of preparation and the assistance of Polish, Muscovite and Teutonic Order troops. Vytautas suffered such losses in the battle that he could no longer pursue and eastern empire. His weakened position made him abandon dreams of breaking the union with Poland and becoming king in his own right , but he retained control over Lithuania and the provided source do not state anything about and convinced him of the need to ally himself with Poland once again and contributor insisting that the source does. In my view its WP:OR on the second part of the sentence.
• Another one: The territories of the Grand Duchy affected by the civil war were being devastated, and only the Teutonic Knights were gaining power. with the same source (p.10-11) as above; there is no assertion in provided source that only the Teutonic Knights were gaining power.

This is the main problem in short, that original sources do not confirm findings provided in article, despite the claims that they do. Could you provide opinion on this? Cheers, M.K. (talk) 10:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Important points:
  • PD text is fully accessible, Google Print allows to fully browse and download pdfs of PD stuff
  • M.K has shown that he knows Polish language enough to translate it, so he can verify the Polish sources himself, and if there are any contradictions, show them here.
  • Regarding the English sources: [12] does mention explicitly opposition to baptism (The collective baptism of the Lithuanian population carried out in 1387 under the personal guidance of King Wladyslaw began the conversion of the ethnically Lithuanian part of the Grand Duchy. At first there was compulsion from the authorities... The numerical sparsity of the clergy, widely spread settlement and the powerful resistance put up by traditional culture meant that full acceptance of the new faith took several generations.) As for tying the GDL to KoP this (and baptism was a part of it) was the reason for dislike of the Union by certain factions in Lithuania. It is of course a simplification, but this is what it boils down to. Or do you have other explanations?
  • If one reads this a little more one finds a passage about After the victorious campaign of 1410 by Lithuania and Poland against the Teutonic Knights. The victory at the battle of Grunwald was a result of the renewed P-L alliance.
  • I am not insisting on this, but it seems fairly obvious - they retained their territories which were not devastated by warfare, so relatively they gained power, as P. and L. were loosing it.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Regarding 19th century source. I can access fully this, this, this and hundreds other old publications, but I cant access this source which is used in article. I find puzzling why original contributor who added this material in main space is refusing to produce requested material especially then contributor dispose this material. It would be time consuming rather then post the same request and receive inconclusive answers.
• Regarding sources others then English, I will continue to request, if necessary, citations for dubious claims. For number of reasons the main are - this concerns main space, original contributor is responsible fro material which he/she is adding, to avoid speculations and false accusations etc. Referencing speculations with forum type source, especially then contributor do not provided any insight about author of this "text" nor the forum itself is wrong approach and such "sources" should be avoided; in such cases Wikipedia has rules.
• Regarding English source (about baptism), yes source discuss the baptism, nobody doubts it, but it do not state that Vytautas was supported by Lithuanians who resented baptism of Lithuania, tying Grand Duchy of Lithuania to the Kingdom of Poland. Source in the 1392 context only states: The resistance of members of the Lithuanian dynasty to the Polish interpretation of the Union of Krevo let to opposition formulated by the king’s cousin, Vytautas, son of Kestutis, who sought the support of the Teutonic Knights. That this formulation might mean or probably means is not to contributors to judge per WP:NOR. Wikipedia rules clearly states the source should be cited clearly and precisely, adding personal editors imagination and beliefs is not allowed. For this reason, in the article should be left only material which is specifically supported by source in proper context. If reader wants to know more about specific union, he/she always can click on the link and read proper article and judge for him/her self about that provoked resistance.
• Regarding another point, but with different source and aging source does not state that Vytautas' defeat in 1399 convinced him of the need to ally himself with Poland once again. Maybe he was not convinced, maybe he was forced or maybe he was preparing for bigger spectacle, or maybe Poland was convinced? There are many for this reason article should really that source actually says, particularly: Vytautas suffered such losses in the battle that he could no longer pursue and eastern empire. His weakened position made him abandon dreams of breaking the union with Poland and becoming king in his own right and personal editors beliefs should be eliminated, particularly per WP:NOR
• Last point, exactly the same problems as per my above statements, particularly - provided source does not support statment and only the Teutonic Knights were gaining power, and that it seems be so is not the argument to keep such OR'irsh claims. Wikipedia is not the place for original research, it is my position. M.K. 09:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys,

My apologies for the long delay; I've been waiting until I have a solid enough chunk of uninterrupted time on Wikipedia to really sit down and go over all of this before I respond. Sadly, that won't be tonight, but if you can wait until tomorrow night, then I'll come back and see if I can't help sort this out a bit. My apologies for the failings in my original opinion; I make a personal rule of relying on the talk page discussion over the article content in order to make sure I remain as neutral as possible, but it seems a bit more background on the subject was needed to really understand the disagreement. So I'll spend tomorrow reading up and hopefully be able to help you out a bit better than I have. --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)I'm on editor review! 15:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem jonny-mt. Take your time, as I waited for few days until someone picks up this request and produces Third opinion so I can wait and few days more. M.K. 09:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for the delay again--let's see if we can't get this sorted out somehow.

I've read through the issues again and think I have a (somewhat) clearer grasp of what's going on. I appreciate both of you taking the time and effort to go through the dispute resolution process, and hopefully I can actually be of use this time :)

Let's get the easy one out of the way to begin with--accessibility is not related to verifiability. In other words, the fact that this source is not downloadable, while lamentable, does not mean that the citation is not valid. If you have concerns about it, I suggest using the {{Verify source}} template to alert other editors so the content can (hopefully) be verified.

As for the references and the statements in the article, after reading through the sources cited and comparing them with their presentation here, it seems they qualify as OR in the form of synthesis. While the explanations put forth by Piotrus seem perfectly logical to me, the fact is that logic is less important in article writing than verifiability. As the sources cited do not say specifically that Vytautas was supported by Lithuanians who resented, among other things, forced baptism, this statement is therefore unverifiable and must be removed along with the other similar unsourced statements.

Now, if Piotrus can come up with sources supporting his explanations, then I would strongly encourage him to include those points in the article. However, it must be remembered that our job at Wikipedia is not to analyze, interpret, or explain--it is simply to gather existing knowledge into a single place.

I hope this helps. If you have any more questions, please feel free to contact me. If you are unsatisfied with my answer and would like another third opinion participant to review it, I'd be more than happy to arrange that as well. And finally, if you'd like to take it to the next stage in the dispute resolution process, I'd be perfectly willing to participate as an outside party. Thanks! --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)I'm on editor review! 16:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional comment, this is that I was talking from the start that contributors should not write that sources are silent about. Regarding old source, as I said I can not download it, there is simply no options like in this source fro browsing or downloading. Could you clarify, can you browse it, or it is just me who cant? Regarding {{Verify source}} tag, I applied it in similar way, but it was removed under pretext of tag spam. Also could you reinsert it, as other more wiling contributor may produce proper citation of that source in the future. And also could you remove from the main space OR'irsh claims about baptism of Lithuania, tying Grand Duchy of Lithuania to the Kingdom of Poland.? Thanks in advance, M.K. (talk) 10:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Technical note: "this source" IS DOWNLOADABLE AND FULLY BROWSEABLE. The only thing that comes to mind is that I have a Google Account (which is free). I tried it without a Google Account and the same applies, big button 'download the pdf', or just start browsing and and all pages are accessible ('big button 'read this book'). Look to upper left corner for those big, gray buttons.

Regarding the support for V. coming from opponents of baptism, as I wrote above, I don't care much if you want to remove that; it is indeed not that clear and the argument is preserved here and future editors will have access to it - and hopefully more time to look into those details than I have now.

Regarding the 1399 defeat resulting in the P-L alliance, this was perhaps not the best way to put it - as this source shows the alliance existed before; the issue is that it once once stronger and once weaker. I hope this edit results in a more acceptable version.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Name of town in English

Some research results:

• Astrava treaty [13] (CLIOH is a branch of the SOCRATES programme).
• Astrava treaty [14] The University of Vilnius publishing house. The second half of the webpage is in English.
• Astrava agreement [15] - summaries are in English
• Astrava treaty [16] a periodical issued by the University of Vilnius
• Astravas (Ostrowo) agreement at [17] and [18] (the Washington University one is a reprint from the book)
• Astrava in Encylopedia Lituanica
• Astrava agreement in Lituanus [19]
• Treaty of Vostrava [20]

• Ostrow in Encylopedia Brittanica [21] Stricken out, since I cannot find it in EB as of today.
• Ostrow in this book [22]
• Ostrowo in this book [23] - Novickas (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

so far Astrava is most prevalent although it seems that it cannot be called an established name in English with certainty.Iulius (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, I am fed up with that Agreement vs. Treaty issue. As legal logic is concerned, a treaty should be a document signed between parties acting as representatives of their countries and signed on behalf of their countries with another subjects. Should something similar be used to unify the terms in wikipedia on Lithuanian topics? What do you think, Novickas, and others?Iulius (talk) 07:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that various authors use those terms without looking up definitions, and we are stuck with various variants - not so different from the very fact that we have different geographical names for the same entity. Or consider various 'truces', 'peaces' and 'armistices'. On the bright side, redirects help a lot. On the dark sides, disputes over which variant should be the name of the article on Wiki can waste enormous amount of time and effort.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

However I would like to add, that it is by no means a decisive argument for keeping the article at its current name. Iulius (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course not. As far as I am concerned all variants are equally as problematic and the discussion on which one is best will most likely resemble the old well-known 'my POV vs. yours' debate we have seen on too many pages already.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

From that is said we can draw the conclusions: a) current invented name cant stay. b) Astravas enjoys the biggest support among EN sources. c} as village in Belarus and Belarussian name is used in EN publications (in this context), logical way is to use Belarussian name, especially if the same name used today. M.K. (talk) 10:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

There are rules governing event names in WP, rather than our opinions. By these rules the place-name Astrava prevails, as does the word treaty. It is often called an agreement, a pact, a meeting, a peace, etc. but treaty is the most commonly-used word. Piotrus, do your comments mean that you will not oppose a name change? Novickas (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I consider the prevailing naming rules met in this case and see no decisive arguments against the rename.Iulius (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Which rule would that be, exactly?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)