Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Vilnius (1655)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Iulius (talk | contribs) at 10:50, 10 April 2009 (→‎Requested move). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconLithuania Stub‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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.LithuaniaWikipedia:WikiProject LithuaniaTemplate:WikiProject LithuaniaLithuania articles
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Russian & Soviet Stub‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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 articles
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: not checked
  2. Coverage and accuracy: not checked
  3. Structure: not checked
  4. Grammar and style: not checked
  5. Supporting materials: not checked
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
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)[reply]

Name

Almost all English works use Wilno instead of Vilnius in this context: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. Fewer use Vilna: [12], [13]. 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)[reply]

There are plenty reputable academic books using Vilnius in this context, contrary to your claims. Like: [14][15][16][17][18], 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 [19]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yeah, initially it was "I can't find a single good English work"...M.K. (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Personal comments? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Piotrus has presented sources which support his point. Somehow you have failed to notice them. Tymek (talk) 04:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personal comments? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Requested move

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 no consensus on this highly contentious topic. Reliable sources seem split on this issue. Editors on this topic are cautioned to refrain from nationalist or anti-nationalist rhetoric. -- Aervanath (talk) 05:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) PS. Second choice, the Ruthenian Battle of Vilna (1655); consider also that we have Truce of Vilna (1656). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia's naming conventions.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
First: according to whom? Random surnames don't help much. Second: 19th or 20th centuries are very, very different compared to the 17th. Lithuanian National Revival was not even on the horizon in 1655. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
a)It is not my problem that you don’t recognize those people b) Revival was not in full momentum then statics were taken. c) I still waiting for the source regarding ”Lithuanian name is quite modern” (based on my past experience I have no hope for getting any) M.K. (talk) 12:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For Lithuanian National Revival to happen there should have been decline first (one cannot revive if there was nothing before). And it did happen after 17th century wars, continued in 18th century, was partially on reverse on the end of 18th century and worsened in 19th century. As for the language preferences - circa 40 percent of Lithuanian nobility in ethnic Lithuanian lands in the end of 19th centurystill considered Lithuanian their mother language, even after 30 years of ban of Lithuanian language and [Russification]]. And yes you're right 19th century is very different from 17th, when Lithuanians had their state.--Lokyz (talk) 10:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Get your facts right. "The late GDL is often called a Slavic country, alongside Poland, Russia etc. In time,the adjective "Lithuanian" came to denote a Slav of the Grand Duchy. Eventually the Lithuanian speakers came to be known as Samogitians (see also Samogitian nobility), after the province in which they were the dominant majority." (academic source) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate what exactly does "late" mean in this particular politologcic evaluation? And I know my facts - the state was established by Lithuanians hence it was Lithuanian. For the record - there are at least several scholarly schools that do have rather different views on this subject, and Polish author of this evaluation is representing one of them. BTW Samogitian nobility should be merged into Lithuanian nobility article, as it is requested.--Lokyz (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As it is well explained in Grand_Duchy_of_Lithuania#Languages_and_demographics, from at least 14th century Lithuanian was the language of a minority, and not of the ruling classes, neither.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As it is presented by selected sources, just if you'd notice Lithuanian_nobility#In_the_Grand_Duchy_of_Lithuania in the middle of 16th century there was more than a half of GDL army provided by ethnic Lithuanian lands. There was (and still is) also a quite different infrastructure in Ruthenian lands and Lithuanian lands, being much more dense in ethnic Lithuanian lands. The question about the "late" GDL remains still open, since there was no answer.--Lokyz (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
You'll see the evidence if you actually look. With all due respect, pasting the names of the portion of your refences who are not Polish hardly proves your case, any more that me naming all the South Americans in the Ukrainian league would prove that most footballers in Ukraine were South American. Davies btw did his Ph.D. in Kraków. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. You said "Piotrus' references", so I listed them and your statement does not apply to them. I guess what you mean is that there is a whole lot of OTHER references by Polish historians which use the term "Wilno", not brought up yet in this discussion. Piotrus did not list these in a, perhaps misguided, attempt at fairness. But, sure, sources by Polish historians use Wilno for this time period. That doesn't change the fact that sources from non-Polish historians do so as well as Piotrus' original list was meant to illustrate. I guess we could call Davies half-educated at Poland, half in England, not that this actually matters.radek (talk) 06:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]
  • Please try to keep your cool, Piotrus. I know you have edit-warred on this guideline page precisely on this issue [25]>, 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)[reply]
Go to Vilnius University and look to books like shown below M.K. (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
one picture speaks thousand words
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)[reply]
Uhu. Initial it was "modern name" invented in 20th century, now it is almost never used in print. I see a progress. Not much, but a little progress. For historical accuracy, I will note, that Lithuanian print was actually flourishing, as in Koningsberg etc .... M.K. (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
The problem is that both are used: [26] and [27]. I think that more reliable sources use Wilno, as it was a correct historical name, both more popular and more official in 1655, hence it should be used in the naming of this article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, the concept of official language wasn't around in 1655. That Polish officials used Polish and called Vilnius by a Slavic form of the name is not surprising, nor relevant to this discussion, which is about usage in the English language in the 21st century. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More relevantly, what name did officials of the GDL, Lithuanians, use at the time? Vilna? Or Wilno?radek (talk) 06:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would depend on what officials, who they were talking to and where. They'd use Vilnius or Vilna/o depending on whether or not they needed a the grammatical ending. Not relevant to this discussion though! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And you base tbis on what?? Plenty of sources in GDL and PLC articles (linked serveral times here) note that Ruthenian (Vilna) and Polish (Wilno) were the languages used on almost all GDL official documents of that period (and some German in diplomatic correspondence). Nobody has provided any proof that Lithuanian was popular; in fact, it was used by about a third of the peasantry, and almost no higher classes - cities were full of Jews and German speakers, and nobility was Ruthenized or Polonized. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Peasantry in cities? I'm afraid the whole "official" argument rests on historical misunderstanding. Official documents are written in the language of the people meant to understand them. [and if the Lithuanian language was marginalised, then transactions in that language would have been purely oral and thus wouldn't have been recorded]. If this is pre-Reformation churchmen, it is Latin or Rus'ian Slavonic, burgesses German, officials from Poland, then Polish Slavonic. Likewise, in England before the Tudor period documents were almost always in either Latin or French, but the everyday language was English. That the elite of Commonwealth Rus'ia spoke "Ruthenian" and "Polish" is not in dispute, but Vilnius is in a densely populated ethnic-Lithuanian heartland, and Slavonic speaking ethnic Lithuanians would be comparable to French speaking English barons. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Peasantry around Vilnius might have spoken Lithuanian in 17th century (do you have a source for that?), but it is much more likely that most of them spoke Ruthenian - after all, close to 90% of the Duchy peasants were Ruthenian, not Lithuanian. Same goes for most inhabitants in the city. It was certainly multi-lingual, and Lithuanian was a notable language, but there is no proof it was the language of majority. I am not even sure if we can speak of one language of the majority - big chunks spoke German/Yddish, Ruthenian, Polish, and yes, Lithuanian. But to give Lithuanian some kind of primacy is an unreferenced OR at best, I am afraid. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The LGD had territory stretching from the Baltic to the Black Sea; most of its population spoke Rus'ian because the ethnic-Lithuanians conquered half of the densely Rus lands with its big cities. That doesn't mean Lithuania-proper's population changed, and in fact, anthropologically, it suggests that this area had a high-birth rate being unleased on Rus lands. I have multiple sources for Lithuanian c. 1400 (I possess no books or articles for the period after Vytautas), but Vilnius is quite deep in ethnic-Lithuanian territory c. 1400, and displacement of this rural population by c. 1600 would require a significant influx of Rus peasants to the Lithuanian countryside, something that doesn't seem to me very likely and I've never heard claimed. Do you have sources that discuss this or argue that this happened? Cities, everywhere from the Volga to Ireland, often have populations imported from outside and are not representative [which doesn't change until the Ind. Rev.'s population explosion and country-city drift]. But in the mid-to-late 1300s, even the city of Vilnius was predominantly Lithuanian, with a large military residence and pagan infrastructure; in addition to a central pagan temple, an Orthodox church (St Nicholas) for the "Russian quarter" and a Catholic Church (also St Nicholas) for the Rigan and Saxon merchants residing in "German Quarter", who dominated the commercial life of the city. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All very well, but considering the plethora of sources for low use and spread of Lithuanian language, and the penetration of Ruthenian language through the upper stratas of GDL society, unless you can provide a source that states that Lithuanian was dominant in Vilna in 14th century, our current sources support the conclusion that it wasn't. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rowell debunks the idea that Rus'ian had penetrated Lithuania in this era (Lithuania Ascending, p. 295 et passim). The presence of a Lithuanian temple, the main building in the city in the reign of Gediminas, the monopoly of Lithuanian place-names (like Vilnius itself), doesn't exactly favour anything but the natural conclusion that Lithuanian was still spoken there. Rusification occurred in Lithuanians settled in Rus from the early 14th cent., not those who remained in Lithuania-proer (same source). You're talking like you're disputing the content of an article, when really at this stage this is just chit-chat. The GD was using Rus'ian in documents in the later 14th century because the pagan priestly elite were illiterate, because most of their territory [and almost all of their territory where documents were traditionally used] was at that stage in Rus and because the Gediminid monarchy took most of its scribes from the Orthodox literati it could recruit in its territory (having limited supply of and wish to recruit Latin Catholics). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All very interesting, although those are just the claims in an academic debate by one historian, not an estabilished consensus. In any case, since we are getting off topic with this 14th century discussion, how does it relate to Vilna in 1655? By that time the trends, primarily lessening of the use of Lithuanian language, where much more prominent. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware, no serious scholar thinks or has ever thought the language around Vilnius was anything but Baltic in this period. The only potential controversy seems to be around the language spoken by the rulers. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What percentage of literate people would you suppose was there in GDL in 17th century? And another question - were there any records of the law on "official language".--Lokyz (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No-one made laws on official languages. That's a age of nationalism thing. The closest thing I suppose would be the ruler telling his officials to conduct all official business in a certain language, but even if they had the inclination governments in the era didn't have the power to force officials to use only one language in realms with multiple languages. I.e. in late medieval Ireland and Wales, the English passed laws favoring English over Irish and Welsh, but the kind of official who interacted with communities didn't have a choice but to use those languages as he simply wouldn't have been able to get anything done otherwise. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Semantics and the definition of "official language" are hardly important; the fact remains that Lithuanian language was hardly used in a written form. Few if any contemporary observers would write about the battle of "Vilnius", or in the Lithuanian language at all. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not me who is using "official language" as an argument. The semantics here are important because "official language" has weight in a modern context; the pre-18th century meaning has no weight, unless you want to use Latin names for Polish cities. There's no significant difference between literacy in Polish Slavonic and Lithuanian in the Middle Ages anyway. Both societies confined writing largely to other languages, the languages of the Catholic and Orthodox churches (Latin and Rus'ian). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. While Lithuanian was hardly used, Polish significantly replaced Latin. Polish-Lithuania_Commonwealth#Languages_of_the_Commonwealth and related refs. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to read my statement more carefully here. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do wonder how many contemporary observers were left alive after the Muscovite forces were forced out from Vilnius, and I do also repeat the question - how much of the population was literate during the historical period? Following the previous question, I would like to know by what scientific methodology do you determine popularity (since you've used a rather audience survey rather than historical linguistic term) of the language?--Lokyz (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Reasoning below. Novickas (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Briefly: naming conventions mentions six criteria. 1) Major EN-language encyclopedias agree; this is met. 2) Gbooks and Gsholar show a 3-fold advantage - not met for Wilno. In Gbooks Vilnius gaining ground after 1990 and clear lead after 2000. A 3-fold advantage is met for Gscholar Vilnius seventeenth century (1,840 vs. 578) and Gscholar Vilnius 17th century (1,030 vs. 177) 3) Consult Cambridge Histories; the Library of Congress country studies, and the Oxford dictionaries relevant to the period and country involved. Two of three met, last awaits. 4) news sources, irrelevent for this era. 5) Consensus at RM - unlikely. 6) Criterion not clear as written. Novickas (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Novickas (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also: The Library of Congress Classification Outline: History lists only Vilnius, altho for other cities it does list alternate names: Gdansk (Danzig). Saint Petersburg, Leningrad, Petrograd. Istanbul (Constantinople). [28] Page 11. Goes to the principIes of "generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize" and "article names should be chosen for the general reader, not for specialists". LOC is both scholarly and aimed at the general reader. Novickas (talk) 02:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Perennially, 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Comment - More than 1/2 the population of today’s Vilnius before WW2 was could you elaborate what this statistic does have to do with 17th century?--Lokyz (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vilnius have been a Polish center for hundreds of years and had a Polish speaking majority to whom the battle with Muscovites was for Wilno.--Jacurek (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hundreds of years? Based on pre WWII statistics and harsh Polonisation. It is unconvincing.--Lokyz (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I see your point and I understand your concerns. It is not that easy (for me) to decide which way to go but I still think that it should be Wilno just because of the Vilnius's history, but this is just my opinion.--Jacurek (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - pilling up analogies with Staliningad or Istambul are totally misleading. The name did not change upside dows. Plus if anything, the argument should be made for "Vilna" and not "Wilno". Renata (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I've read the discussion and saw the sources, it appears Wilno is more frequent and should be included in the name of the article. Of course, in the intro paragraph there should be a mention after Wilno similar to "(today Vilnius)".--Avg (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak support. NCMH (V,574) summarizes these events: In 1655 the succession of victories continued. Minsk and Wilno (Vilna), the Lithuanian capital, were conquered in July,... That is as close to a neutral POV as we are likely to come, such as it is (especially since it's on the chapter on Russia). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hardly, the author of that chapter is the Polish-German historian Jablonowski. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the chapter on Russia, by Werner(?) Philipp of the Free University of Berlin; but the nomenclature appears to be consistent throughout the volume. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you're right there. Still, do you think a work written published in 1961 is representative of the issues under discussion? Those historians spent most of their lives with Vilnius under either Polish or Soviet "occupation". Predominant usage in English since 1990 is clearly Vilnius (see Novickas' survey), and Vilnius is outside historic usage the name English speakers know. Small cities in eastern Europe are difficult enough for the average English reader to remember without confusing them further by interchanging Baltic and Slavic names based on principles that are far from clear even to the editors; I'm honestly really surprised you're supporting this (given what I thought I knew about your philosophy), even if it's only weak. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    True, it's not like the rest of the names in the Baltic States, which had been used since 1920 or so; that justifies very weak (But surely Vilnius was the Soviet name of the city; the Russian wikipedia article is ru:Вильнюс.) I'd rather go with NCMH than with the google counts; I can see the false positives by the score. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you prefer a work published in 1961 to works published by Cambridge historians in the 2000s? [29] and [30]? Novickas (talk) 02:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe he prefers Oxford :D [31], [32]... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe you should dispute the naming conventions' page suggestion about Cambridge Histories. You might also want to dispute their encyclopedia suggestions, which support Vilnius. Novickas (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good arguments by Piotrus and Radek. LUCPOL (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Lithuanian wasn't the official language at the time. Loosmark (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Lucpol. Tymek (talk) 03:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I don't see how this RM nomination can pass with 14 support and 8 oppose votes right now. It doesn't look to me like the consensus can be reached even though the idea makes a lot of sense… with so much scholarly literature on the subject suggesting a more appropriate name for this article.[33] --Poeticbent talk 04:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support per the wikipedia convention to use historical names (which I do not like but we should be consistent). Still, Vilna would be my preference in the context of this battle, per Halibutt and Renata. It would be so much easier if we used only the modern names throughout the wikipedia ... Anyway, seeing the same arguments again and again I have no hopes for any consensus over the RM. --Lysytalk 07:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And...you...are...being...serious...?radek (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a new phenomenon. Nationality based vote analysis and strategic voting. Dr.K. logos 03:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, you might be right. Perhaps we should move New York to Nowy Jork since I'm sure there are more American editors than Polish ones. Better yet, let's move Moscow to Moskwa (wait...no! Not that one...) since the same thing is probably true for Russian ones. But perhaps I'm being nationalistic about it. We need to take this to its logical conclusion. I wonder what Tuvaluanians call Vilna/Vilnius/Wilno? I mean, back in the 17th century?radek (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vilna Lituaniae, Metropolis, 1576
  • Oppose as per the nominators presentation of 11 pro Wilno sources, while stating he "can't find a single good English work that uses Vilnius in 1655 context", conceding only a token one after several were shown to him, by MK and others. It seems no single good use of NPOV was made here. And even in those 11 selected sources, most acknowledge the existence of different names, as in "capture Wilno (Vilna/Vilnius) in August 1655". Three are by Norman Davies resp. his pupil Frost ("My greatest debt is to Professor Norman Davies, who suggested a topic and then supervised and guided me through the thesis upon which this book is based"), proliferating Polish sympathies, while "Pillaging: Encyclopedic Usage: History of Vilnius. In 1655 Wilno was captured by the forces of Russia and was pillaged, burned and the population was massacred. [WP]" stems from an author seemingly named Wiki Pedia. Speaking of en-WP articles: Does listing one work by by Oskar Halecki & Antony Polonsky imply an imminent move request of Krakòw back to Cracow, for the sake of consistency, as their "A history of Poland" is using Cracow And Wilno in one sentence"? (BTW: "city of Krakau" is not uncommon, too) Also, as I came across it again recently: about a year ago, Piotrus had deleted/merged/moved [34] the 1454 Battle of Konitz to Battle of Chojnice by using his admin powers, leaving behind an unsourced article with Polish POV, and unanswered questions on the talk page. Battle of Chojnice (1656) and Battle of Chojnice (1939) remain unsourced, too. Back to sourced names: see Vilna Lituaniae, Metropolis, 1576, and other maps, for a quick overview. I've seen no old map using Wilno, this is apparently a modern Polish name applied in hindsight to the Lithuanian city. One wonders why English authors accept this. -- Matthead  Discuß   05:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So English authors Davies and Frost don't count because they "proliferate Polish sympathies" (I believe that's called Begging the question) but M.K.'s Breastfeeding is Lovemaking Between Mother and Child counts??? And the difference between the name of the article on the contemporary city of Krakow and historical articles is well explained in several places on this talk page already. As far as old map, a 10 second search found an 'old map' that uses 'Wilna' (which, as it's been said, would also be fine, whether with V or W): [35]. Not that hard if one actually looks.radek (talk) 06:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have problems with: Breastfeeding is Lovemaking Between Mother and Child. there is another article on this Motherhood--Lokyz (talk) 07:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I got a problem with it, it sounds like a hippy book. (In case someone tries to make a big deal out of this comment: I'm assuming Lokyz is joking and I'm joking back).radek (talk) 07:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Matthead - I wonder what brought you here, so far from the German topics? You do realize, I hope, that by opposing historical name Wilno, and supporting historical name Danzig, you are not being very coherent? Please consider the wider implication of your argument, and of this vote. Talk:Gdansk/Vote is already contracting some of WP:NCGN. I am trying to argue that it should be kept as a rule, not as an exception, but if case is made for Wilno being an exception, that I am afraid there is little reason not to revisit the Gdansk vote again.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you know, Matthead, if 17th century Polish called it Vilna or Vilno (as it does now, spelled Wilno)? Note also, as I tried to point out before, Slavic and Lithuanian use different nominative endings here, the former's use of an "a" for feminine nouns it shares with Latin where "-a" endings are more or less expected for place-names. The two/three names, Vilnius and Vilna/o, are actually identical, which is why it doesn't make sense to claim parallels with cities where the name is actually different. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deacon, obviously if Vilnius, Vilna and Wilno were identical then we would not be having this discussion, nor would scholarly sources discuss the issue. This argument is absurd - if these are identical then you shouldn't care whether it's Vilna or Vilnius. Or is this like "all animals are equal but some are more equal than the others"?radek (talk) 06:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure you grasped the point here, Radeksz. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe cuz the point wasn't there to grasp. The two/three names are obviously not identical along a number of dimensions. And the upshot is that those parallels with Breslau or whatever are totally appropriate. They are identical only if you're wedded to a particular view of the world.radek (talk) 07:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite clear that recent English-language scholarship either uses Wilno or Vilnius when talking about the city in the 17th century. This is a question of historical periodisation vs. modern usage. That's the issue. Not how many Lithuanian or Polish users (and their respective allies) vote on either side. (NB: by Matthead's" ad hominem logic, Frost must be a "German nationalist" too because he uses Danzig, not Gdansk). --Folantin (talk) 07:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, Matthead's logic about Frost is worth stating (though opinion of weight will vary). It is my experience that scholars adopt the attitudes and practices of their mentor, I know this at first hand experience besides observing it. ;) The weight comes because it may partially explain why this particular scholar has chosen such and such a practice, and why he differs from the more common post-1990 historiographic usage. Dismissing it as merely ad hominem is harsh. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Harsh but accurate, given my previous experience of Matthead's methodology. Although, to be fair to him, he didn't start the ad hominem dismissal of sources which use Wilno for the 17th century. It might just be possible that the scholars who use Wilno are focussing on 17th century history: Frost The Northern Wars: 1558-1721; Frost After the Deluge: Poland-Lithuania and the Second Northern War, 1655-1660.; Perry Anderson: Lineages of the Absolutist State; G.R.R. Treasure: The Making of Modern Europe, 1648-1780. All Wilno/Danzig users but not, I imagine, "Polish/German nationalists". --Folantin (talk) 08:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As Rober Frost is being talked about again, so I think following example would be interesting. In Warfare, state and society on the Black Sea steppe 1500-1700 by Brian Davies 2007, Robert Frost also participated (in some extend) in creation of that book, however in that book Vilnius used all across, but not Gdansk, but Ganzig... M.K. (talk) 08:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional* Support I support the move proposal. The sources provided by Piotrus seem reliable. Also if it could be done for Constantinople (Siege of Constantinople and not Siege of Istanbul) I cannot see why it cannot be done here. * Vote will be withdrawn if nationality-based analysis is undertaken at the end of the poll to analyse the poll results Dr.K. logos 14:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I support the move proposal in general but opt rather for Vilna than for Wilno. Wilno as a primary name is also ok. But both these variants should be named in the article. The sources are reliable. The variant "Battle of Vilnius" is just non-historic. CityElefant (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that there are dozens if not hundreds of works that mention this event, a selection of 15 vs 20 or such is hardly compelling. Also, please carefully consider my comment to Matthead above. You cannot have a cake and eat it, I am afraid. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15 vs 20??? Changing numbers arbitrarily is unscientific. I presented 22, not 20 and I even numbered them - how could you possibly still get that wrong? And you presented 11, not 15 - they're also numbered. So it would be 11 vs 22. If you want to make a comparison, don't just increase your number some more while decreasing mine. And don't suggest you picked your sources randomly out of a pool of hundreds, because I have also looked for Wilno in this context and you have certainly found most of what could count as an acceptable source (make more research and maybe you can find 15 and state it with a good conscience ...). Google books doesn't at all yield compellingly more modern-day English sources in this context for Wilno than it does for Vilnius - enough said. Sciurinæ (talk) 02:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Vilnius is the only well-documented Lithuanian name for the capital of Lithuania and its precursor GDL. Furthermore, it is also strongly favoured in modern English use. See no point in discussing which other name is "more right" in this context.Iulius (talk) 10:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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: [36] "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 [37]
Actually Britannica uses Wilno in a lot of its articles though not always the titles. For example: "the Livonian Order and Sigismund II Augustus concluded the Union of Wilno (Vilnius) in 1561" and "Between the wars, Vilnius was a part of Poland and had the name of Wilno.", "(born 1926), U.S. medical research scientist, born in Wilno", [38]. Basically they seem a bit schizophrenic about it (and who can blame them?). And I don't think the convention "use Vilnius in article title but use Wilno in the article itself" is one that would garner much support here.radek (talk) 00:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Columbia Encyclopedia Vilnius: [39] "In the third partition of Poland (1795), Vilnius passed to Russia, where it became a provincial capital (1801–1815)."
    • Encarta Vilnius article: [40] "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 [41]
...but The Cambridge History of Poland uses Wilno: [42].radek (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 [43]
    • Wilno Russia 1655 - Gbook 519 hits [44]
    • Vilnius Russia 1655 - Gscholar 204 hits [45]
    • Wilno Russia 1655 - Gscholar 63 hits [46]
    • Wilno battle 1655 - 69 Gbook hits [47]
    • Vilnius battle 1655 - 66 Gbook hits [48]
  • Although Vilnius prevails in books published after 2000:
    • Vilnius battle 1655 - 24 hits [49]
    • Wilno battle 1655 - 12 hits [50]
  • Results for Vilnius/Wilno 17th or seventeenth century - Vilnius gains considerably after 2000:
  • Vilnius seventeenth century, books published 2000-2009: 586 [51]
  • Wilno seventeenth century, books published 2000-2009: 266 [52]
  • Vilnius 17th century, books published 2000-2009: 373 [53]
  • Wilno 17th century, books published 2000-2009: 157 [54] Novickas (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • More Gscholar results - narrower focus, sample is smaller but offers more precision. Two major events took place during this battle, see article. A major fire and damage to the cathedral. Also the Swedes were involved during that year. Vilnius prevails as a place name. Novickas (talk) 00:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 81 English pages for Vilnius fire 1655. [59]
    • 41 English pages for Wilno fire 1655. [60]
    • 39 English pages for Vilnius cathedral 1655 [61]
    • 20 English pages for wilno cathedral 1655 [62]
    • 137 English pages for Vilnius swedes 1655 [63]
    • 54 English pages for wilno swedes 1655 [64]

You could slice and dice this in probably dozens of other ways. For instance, Vilnius 17th century - 683 book hits; [65]; Wilno 17th century also 683 book hits [66]. Or Vilnius/Wilno Castle 1655 - 66 versus 42 [67], [68]. Or Vilnius/Wilno fire 1655 - 40 vs 26 [69], [70]. 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)[reply]

Novickas, actually I very much agree with you - a Gdansk-style vote is very much needed. Once it's held, the issue of this article's name would fall under any conclusions and would be solved.radek (talk) 00:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All encyclopedias use Wilno: [71], [72], [73], and as you've showed, so do many publications. That non-Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
When it comes to article names Britannica uses Vilnius exclusively, as far as I can see, [74][75], M.K. (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC) P.S including and The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition[reply]
For article names, yes, but it tends to use "Wilno" within those articles. Personally I think that's weird and probably not a good guide. I don't think you'd support that kind of practice either.radek (talk) 00:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Where's the explanation for using "Wilno" instead of "Vilnius"? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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 [v]) 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)[reply]
No, that's not the case. Lithuanian wasn't an official language of Poland-Lithuania so it doesn't appear much in the documents of the time. Likewise,at the time (and up to the early 20th century) Tallinn was known by the German name Reval because of the similar status of Estonian in the various states which ruled it. Vilnius/Wilno/Vilna/Vilnius is a matter of historical era: compare Saint Petersburg/Petrograd/Leningrad/Saint Petersburg, Lwów/Lemburg/Lvov/Lviv, Pressburg/Pozsony/Bratislava, Koloszvár/Cluj, Byzantium/Constantinople/Istanbul and so on. --Folantin (talk) 07:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's not the case? "Official language"? No such thing. And unless the survey is based on documents in the English language, it's not particularly important. And as I also pointed out, Vilnius, Vilna/o, and not different names, like the other examples you give. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Six languages were recognised for legal purposes in Poland-Lithuania: Polish, Latin, German, Ruthenian, Hebrew and Armenian. Do you know what the literacy rates were for Lithuanian in Wilno in the 17th century? My guess is "not high".--Folantin (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going for the so called "official language" argument I suggest, that somebody start changing "Kraków" to Cracovia, as Latin was "official language" during various time periods, like in medieval Latin was "official language" not Polish. Other note, can anybody say which place names are not included in Frost's motion "mainly"? Anybody? M.K. (talk) 08:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A sample of names used in The Northern Wars: Kiejdany (not Kėdainiai), Werki (not Verkiai), Reval (not Tallinn), Memel (not Klaipéda), Pernau (not Pärnu), Dorpat (not Tartu), Danzig (not Gdańsk), Elbing (not Elbląg), Marienburg (not Malbork), Lwów (not Lviv), Königsberg (not Kaliningrad, obviously). --Folantin (talk) 08:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, but my questions left unanswered, so far. M.K. (talk) 08:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Piotrus, please don't try to disrupt this debate by throwing around accusations of nationalism. It wouldn't likely serve your purpose in any case, since you are a Polish user trying to get a Lithuanian city renamed to a Polish name (as are all but one of your supporters), while most of the opposers (including myself) don't even come from eastern Europe. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except no one - no Polish user - is trying to "get a Lithuanian city renamed to a Polish name". Vilnius is Vilnius and no one is proposing that it'd be moved to anything. What is being proposed is that a name of a historical event be moved to its historical name, used by the majority of today's source. Two different things. Please do not misrepresent what this discussion is about.radek (talk) 08:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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[12]... has been characterized either as Polish[14][15] 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)[reply]
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[12]... has been characterized either as Polish[14][15] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Good, you're calm, my bad. Lest 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)[reply]

<-- 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)[reply]

Cracow, too? Dr. Dan (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"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, Lawn mowers, 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)[reply]
Battle of Wilno is already in the lead of the disputed article so I don't see what the problem is. Care to evaluate more?--Lokyz (talk) 05:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean "care to elaborate more"? Sure. The article Kraków is about the present day city of Kraków. Just like the article Vilnius is about the present day city of Vilnius. As it should be. But per naming conventions we usually list historical names of present day cities in the lead after the main name. For example, Kraków ([ˈkrakuf] ( listen), in English also spelled Krakow or Cracow or Wrocław [ˈvrɔt​͡swaf] ( listen) (German: Breslau (Image:Ltspkr.png listen); Czech: Vratislav; Latin: Vratislavia or Wratislavia; Yiddish: ברעסלוי / Brasloi) and Vilnius (Vilnius.ogg ['vilɲus] (help·info)) is the ... wait a minute. Hmmm. Well, anyway, this particular article is about a historical event. Now, per naming conventions, in those cases we use either the name as it was used at the time (i.e. Vilna) or as it is used in most present day sources that describe that time period (i.e. Wilno) and then list the present day name of the city in the lead (as in "also known as Battle of Vilnius"). So. The difference is that the article Kraków is a an article about a present day city - hence, we use present name in the title and mention historical name in the lead - and this article is about a historical event - hence we use the historical name as the title and mention the relevant present day name in the lead.
Now, since I took time to answer your question, would you mind explaining to me why, unlike for Krakow, Wroclaw, Poznan, Szczecin and other Polish cities - whose articles all list the historic German (or other) names in the lead after the present day name, the articles on Vilnius, Kėdainiai, Trakai and Alytus DO NOT list the historical names of Wilno/Vilna, Kiejdany, Troki or Olita in the lead? Or in some cases anywhere in the article? It just looks like a double standard - old German names of Polish cities are fine in Polish city articles (and their leads) but old Polish names of Lithuanian cities absolutely must not appear in the lead or sometimes even the articles themselves. Just wondering.radek (talk) 05:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now, since I took time to answer your question is this some sort of blackmail - if I read your's you shoul'd read mine? Short answer - familiarise yourself with toponyms, the local populace preserved the original names instead of polonised]. Cheer up, the spring is all around.
No, blackmail would be if I had some kind of dirt on you and insisted that you do something, else I spill the beans. Mine was a simple request for a courteous quid pro quo. Your assertion that it was blackmail (what do I have to blackmail you with?!?) is another display of lack of good faith. And once again you are instructing me to 'familiarize' myself with something - but I already know what a toponym is - rather than answering my question (note again that I answered yours). The local populace used "Vilna" if anything at the time of this battle, later "Wilno" and only by the end of 19th century did it start using "Vilnius" (and even that was the region, not the city).radek (talk) 06:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since you insist, I'd like you to find any contemporary sources after Muscovites have pillaged the city. That would be an act of heroic proportions.----Lokyz (talk) 06:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Contemporary' sources (more precisely, primary sources) are not limited to what the people in the city wrote. Other people of the time also wrote stuff and referred to this event. We are also talking about today's sources discussing what the people of the time used.radek (talk) 06:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And you still haven't answered why 'Breslau' in Wroclaw's lead is just fine, but not 'Wilno' in Vilnius or 'Kiejdany' in Kėdainiai. Rather than telling me to 'familiarize' myself with something, can you please explain it here in your own words?radek (talk) 06:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you ask? I'm inclined to ask - where?--Lokyz (talk) 06:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth: Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Yeah because those are different cases. Free City of Krakow was a free city and since its inhabitants were Polish it is called by its Polish name. Grand Duchy of Cracow was controlled by Austria, although the city's inhabitants were Poles, so it's a split (and Cracow in that one is a compromise). And Dan, I think you've been warned before about use of sarcasm. If nothing else it makes your comments even harder to understand.radek (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I threw that Frost quotation into the mix to see what happened (it's been in the archives of my user sub-page for over a year now). I think it's interesting because I've rarely seen anyone bring actual academic discussion of naming conventions to these arguments. I have no plans to get heavily involved in the naming dispute here but I see clear parallels between Wilno/Vilna/Vilnius and the Gdansk/Danzig issue (as does Frost, we may presume), i.e. per the Talk:Gdansk/Vote, if Gdansk is Danzig between 1308 and 1945 then something similar might apply to Wilno/Vilnius. BTW I have no problem with Lithuanians [76]. FWIW Here's another quotation I found in my user page archives which may or not have a bearing on the wider Polish-Lithuanian arguments on Wikipedia:

An oral researcher, interviewing the local shoemaker in a village near Kaunas (Kowno) in 1885, recorded a most revealing conversation:


-What tribe do you belong to?
-I am a Catholic.
-That's not what I mean. I'm asking you whether you are a Pole or a Lithuanian.
-I am a Pole, and a Lithuanian as well.
-That is impossible. You have to be either one or the other.
-I speak Polish, the shoemaker said, and I also speak Lithuanian.
And that was the end of the interview.


(Norman Davies God's Playground: A History of Poland)

--Folantin (talk) 08:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Folantin, my father's been saying the same thing most of his life. They weren't shoemakers, which takes some color out of the story. Individuals can express ambiguity but WP has a problem with it. Re scholarly, Frost is good, but naming conventions specifically mentions the Cambridge histories, and we have one that uses Vilnius for this event. Novickas (talk) 14:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Folantin, it's a great anecdote, one's got to love it. Just the same, I wonder how many shoemakers in Cracow (Krakau) or Warsaw (Варшава), spoke both Polish and Lithuanian in 1885? Dr. Dan (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...or how many people spoke Lithuanian in Wilno in the 1650s? --Folantin (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • How many Polish cities didn't have German as their main language in the 12th and 13th centuries? Anyways, as I understand it, Polish wasn't the main language of Vilnius except in the period between the 18th and 20th centuries, post-dating our battle in any case. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Folantin...or did you mean how many people spoke litewski we Wilnie in the 1650s? In any case we do know that Marshall Pilsudski thought there were enough Lithuanian speakers in Vilnius in 1919, to issue his proclamation bilingualy. Seems rather odd since only 2% of it's population was Lithuanian (or so the story goes). Dr. Dan (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • It was a proclamation to the "inhabitants of the former territory of GDL", not to inhabitants of Wilno only, and nobody denies that Lithuanian language was widespread north of Wilno, in Lithuanian proper. Please, no more straw men. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's not a straw man because you say so, prokonsul. However it's nice to know that you are putting Lithuania proper north of Vilnius today. Reread the article on the proclamation, and where it was distributed. Besides that it wasn't distrbuted "widespead north of Wilno" what good would have that been to the "illiterate" population that was only then in the process of "inventing" a language. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • (ec)...well, Frost also uses Danzig, Marienburg, Elbing etc. I used Breslau and Danzig first myself when I wrote this stub on a 17th-century German poet from Silesia. "Polish wasn't the main language of Vilnius except in the period between the 18th and 20th centuries". I'd be interested to see a source for that (seriously, I am curious about the prevalence of the Lithuanian language during the period between the Middle Ages and modern times). My understanding, having read Davies and this essay on Mickiewicz [77] by the Lithuanian poet and academic Tomas Venclova is that it was mainly confined to peasants until the attempt at a revival in the 19th century and Lithuanian literature was pretty thin on the ground before then.--Folantin (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, it's not exactly my area of expertise either, but I had to ask the same question elsewhere [78]. It'd also be interested to know what the percentages were for German/Yiddish speakers. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • German was low, Yddish maybe a third. Polish replaced Ruthenian around 17th century, and was replaced by Lithuanian only after the repatriations of Poles in the 1945. Let me stress the primary point here: Polish didn't replace Lithuanian, it replaced Ruthenian... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yiddish is German, despite the fact we normally distinguish them today. Re "Ruthenian", if Rus Slavonic was predominant in the 17th century it could not have been for very long, because it certainly was not the language of the area in the early 1400s when we know it was Lithuanian. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • We means who? Because it certainly doesn't mean scholars. Please see the well-referenced Grand_Duchy_of_Lithuania#Languages_and_demographics. As early as the 14th century, Lithuanian dominated the small northern province of Lithuania Proper, which constituted about 10% of the GDL territory, and was spoken by about 10-20% of GDL population, at best. It also not a language of administration or representation. From 14th till 17th century Ruthenian was the dominant language, and it was increasingly supplanted by Polish. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Despite all the figures that go around, we don't actually know the population of the GD and it's all guess work. But yes, the Rus lands had a much bigger population, and probably the percentages are roughly accurate. The area around Vilnius was however part of Lithuania-proper; it wasn't in one of the Rus sub-principalities. You understand that these Rus territories in the 14th century were principalities administered semi-independently by junior members of the Gediminid clan, right? You should see the Lithuanian "Grand Duchy" as more like a collection of protection contracts where Rus cities handed overlordship over to Gediminids in exchange for protection (from other Lithuanians or Tatars or other Rus cities). Lithuania wasn't a centralised autocracy and it really would have no significance even if the Rus lands had 100 times the population. Anyway, Greek and Gaulish were more spoken in the 1st cent. Roman Empire than Latin, but doesn't mean we favour Greek and Latin names for Italian cities.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Perhaps, but once again - even if peasants around Vilna spoke Lithuanian (ref? none has been provided for that yet...), sources agree that ruling classes and official documentation used different language. So why use Vilnius? "Because this is the modern city's name" is not the best argument, yet it is the only one backed up by refs so far... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Indeed - and last king of the Duchy, Zygmunt August, maintained both a Polish and Lithuanians speaking court. It's referenced, check it out.--Lokyz (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General comment: I'm just kicking a few ideas around. I'm doubt if I'll even vote. I see a lot of these talk page arguments but I rarely see any scholarly rationales for naming conventions brought up. Looking at a few of them, it seems Frost favours historical context (Wilno, Danzig) with obvious exceptions (Moscow, Warsaw). Davies argues likewise at great length (God's Playground Vol. 2 pp.510-517) concluding "Ideally the 'name' should always reflect the dominant cultural and political connections of the 'place' at the moment in question. If this involves talking in Chapter Three of 'Vratislav' , in Chapter Twenty of 'Breslau' and in Chapter Twenty-Three of 'Wrocław', the searcher after precision should not be deterred." On the other hand, Daniel Stone has a different take in The Polish-Lithuanian State 1386-1795, favouring the use of modern place names (with some notable exceptions) [79]: "The aim of this volume […] is to provide information useful to readers who are not specialists in Eastern European history. To assist such readers, geographical names usually appear in their year 2000 form […] Hence for example, Vilnius (not Wilno) and Lviv (not Lwów or Lvov). I have kept some place names in the form that is most familiar to English readers: Cracow (not Kraków), Vasa (not Waza) and Königsberg (not Kaliningrad)". But it's worth noting that, by the same token, Stone uses Gdańsk (not Danzig) and Wrocław (not Breslau or whatever). --Folantin (talk) 16:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For our purposes, our aim should be to make things easy for the general reader, not trying to indicate unverifiable language balances through article names. Davies is the same guy who calls Stephen of England Etienne. Small cities in eastern Europe are difficult enough for the average English reader to remember without confusing them further by interchanging Baltic and Slavic names based on principles that are far from clear even to the editors. Danzig fine, Constantinople fine, these names are well known. "Wilno" is not like that. It would be best if all the editors put aside their patriotisms and national allegiances and thought of the normal English reader, the high school student, the security guard in Minneapolis passing his time following links and interests. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is I'm not sure "Danzig" is in that category any more, which is why Stone favours "Gdańsk". --Folantin (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not. My own experience, which may be unrepresentative, is that it tends to be known because of its role in the beginning of WWII ... a topic well known because the origins of WWII have been for a long time one of the most taught things in high schools. E.g., in Scotland, the topic constitutes between 1/3rd and 2/3rds of high school history exam (typically, 1/3rd is "Appeasement and the Road to War", another is "German nationalism" and the other is either "democracy in Britain"/"Scotland"). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yet Stone, who claims to be specifically writing for the benefit of 21st-century readers, uses "Gdańsk" (as well as "Vilnius", of course).--Folantin (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem here is that the usage in English by the "average reader" has also changed over time. But not exactly in the way that would be favorable to Vilnius for this or other articles. At least Americans went from using Breslau/Danzig/Wilno (or Vilno) in the early 80's to Wroclaw/Gdansk/Vilnius by the early 90's as part of the opening up of Eastern Europe. But this is all in relation to the current names of these cities, not to their historical names, which, like it or not, have always been a subject for specialists and historians.radek (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forget the usual naming conventions. A case like this calls for the application of WP:Seven rules of place naming. — AjaxSmack 03:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. That's classic. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be funny it it wasn't so true :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I gotta say, Piotrus, I'm really surprised you'd find it funny, esp. as the one trying to get a Lithuanian city renamed to your own language's version based on your own country's previous alleged ownership. That's exactly what those quotes satirize! Am I missing something? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that list has plenty of sarcasm to go around.radek (talk) 07:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be more clear? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that the "nationalist" issue is that relevant here. As Radek says it's a matter for specialist and historians which is why it's more fruitful to look at the rationales they give for their choice of geographical names. Perry Anderson uses "Wilno" and I have a hard time believing he's any kind of nationalist. --Folantin (talk) 07:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, Henri Minczeles wrote a history of the Jewish community in the city (in French). Its title is Vilna Wilno Vilnius : La Jérusalem de Lituanie. One of the chapters is called "De Vilnius à Wilno" ("From Vilnius to Wilno") and mentions the 1655 events as occurring in "Wilno" (on the same page described as a "centre of Polishness" - centre de la polonité). If Minczeles uses three different names for the city in his title, then it's hardly a simple matter and is, as I've said, more like Gdansk/Danzig, Lwów/Lemburg/Lvov/Lviv or Pressburg/Pozsony/Bratislava etc. --Folantin (talk) 11:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And? Niendorf uses Vilnius, Plokhy uses Vilnius, Rowell uses Vilnius etc. Are you really believe, that using argumentation like Frost you will manage to change "Kraków" to Cracow, for instance? M.K. (talk) 12:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about showing us why they use Vilnius. I've clearly demonstrated scholars use two versions: either Vilnius or Wilno. This choice is not based on "nationalism" but whether to use the common modern name (Vilnius) or to use the name of the city in the historical period discussed (Wilno). Those are the options according to the experts, who are not engaged in the war between Lithuanian and Polish editors on Wikipedia. Nobody else here has bothered to explore the rationales academics have given for their choices. --Folantin (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There would be quite a few scholars to query. See Gscholar results above. It's an interesting question, but why not assume they use the same rationale as WP does - the ease of the English-speaking reader? Novickas (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will look around for the rationale why they picked up those place names, but it may took some time. In the mean time, please answer, should we apply same motion as proposed by Frost on different place names, particularly Cracovia. Thanks, M.K. (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As it happens, the parallel between Cracow/Kraków and Wilno/Vilnius is not that close. "Cracow" is merely the long-established English spelling of "Kraków". It was never used by locals (unlike Vilnius/Wilno/Vilna), cf. Warsaw, Moscow. Now there are signs that the old spelling is disappearing in favour of "Kraków", just as "Leghorn" disappeared in favour of Livorno and Mayence in favour of Mainz. Has that change happened yet? I think it's too close to call, which is why I don't really care either way. As I've repeatedly stated the parallel which applies here is between Gdansk and Danzig (i.e. historical periodisation), so I'd be interested to see whether you favour using Gdansk during the 17th century (when Frost, Anderson and others use "Danzig"). (If you want to adopt Frost's naming conventions wholesale - for this period of history at least - then I wouldn't object). --Folantin (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Cracow" is merely the long-established English spelling of "Kraków". I am skeptical with this your thesis, it is more likely that it is long established named originated from Latin from. It was never used by locals, indeed, such spelling as "Kraków" was not used by Poles nor in 12th century etc, but it is used all across WP in that context, and no single attempt to correct this, on “historical justice” grounds. As Dr. Dan pointed out there is no single chance to introduce not only proper English forms, nor historical ones there (at times Cracovia was know as Cracovia lithuanorum, meaning Lithuanian Cracovia). Regarding, Danzig and Vilnius. Those cases are completely different, Danzing was for centuries in German related states, the only instance the Vilnius was part of Poland was in 20th century, then Poland occupied and subsequently annexed the city (occupation lasted for 17 years , while city counts more then 680 years history). Regarding scholars motives. Plokhy notes “Toponyms are usually transliterated from the language of the country in which the designated places are currently located. As a rule, personal names are given in forms characteristic of the cultural traditions to which the given person belonged.” Some examples: Vilnius – but not Wilne etc., Cracow- but not Kraków; Moscow – but not Moskva; Gdansk (Danzig) – but not Gdansk. So even Plokhy notes Danzig as the special case. As user:Novickas already presented, Vilnius predominates over other variants of spellings in this context. The case is closed. M.K. (talk) 12:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC) P.S. I will look around for more rationales, why one or another spelling was used in academic materials.[reply]
Sorry, the parallel between Cracow/Kraków and Vilnius/Wilno are very close. In these perennial discussion the same people use totally conflicting arguments. One day, it's Wilno is more "commonly" used in English. On another day, it's what the locals spoke (impossible to prove in a multi-cultural city where many inhabitants were bilingual, or even tri-lingual). On another day it's we have more google hits. If the argument is that Vilnius is a new name in English and that is why it should not be used here, but Kraków is not a new phenomenon (as far as English is concerned), I beg to differ. Yet the preponderance of the use of Kraków on English WP, for any historical period is indisputable. Any attempts to change this is met with fierce resistance. A comment such as: "Cracow" is merely the long-established English spelling of "Kraków"... pretty much sums it up for me. It's really quite telling. The "long-established English spelling" is meaningless when compared to what the locals spoke. How nice.Dr. Dan (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The 'long-established English spelling' is meaningless when compared to what the locals spoke." No, this is clearly not the case. "Cracow" is simply an anglicised version of "Kraków". It's peculiar to English. Cracow was famous enough, like Lyons, to have its own spelling. Has it changed to "Kraków" yet, as Lyons has to Lyon? The jury is out. There is no equivalent with Vilnius. There the options are based on historical periodisation: Vilnius (Lithuanian), Wilno (Polish), Vilna (Russian/Ruthenian), Wilno (Polish again) and Vilnius (Lithuanian). AFAIK "Vilnius" was certainly not the common spelling in English until the late 20th century. --Folantin (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe then I'm not clear then on your bringing up Frost. Frost suggests using Wilno. Frost suggests using Cracow. We should therefore use Wilno, but not Cracow (because the jury is out)? Dr. Dan (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to use Frost as a basis for naming conventions, that's fine by me (as I said above "If you want to adopt Frost's naming conventions wholesale - for this period of history at least - then I wouldn't object"). As I say, I think Cracow/Kraków is a separate issue. Indeed, Frost numbers it among his "exceptions" (with Moscow, Warsaw and Kiev, I think). In 20 years time I predict "Cracow" will probably be obsolete. But I certainly have no problems with it all at the moment. --Folantin (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I say, I think Cracow/Kraków is a separate issue - to think against the proposed RS is one thing, to assume what will come next is the other. My point is - either you accept it as a whole, or drop it. This is not an assembly of future-seers. Either we do rely on RS as it is published, or we do count it as unreliable and ignore it as the speculations. I'd suggest to choose your standpoint, otherwise it is rather shaky.--Lokyz (talk) 05:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moscow, Warsaw, Kiev, Cracow are English toponyms. Cracovie, is not. Warszawa is not. Kraków is not. Roma is not. What are your pedictions concerning "Wilno" in twenty years? Dr. Dan (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)Look, read the rationale Frost gives again: "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)". --Folantin (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand Frost's rationale. That is his choice. That is his preference. Other scholar's have their's. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Even you with ..."In 20 years time I predict "Cracow" will probably be obsolete". But what I fail to understand is a dual standard that is continually applied on English WP. Nothing illustrates it better than the Cracow/Vilnius issue. Futhermore I would like to bring up the nonsense concerning "Alternate Names" for many cities, when in reality they are simply foreign language versions of cities, most with established English names. A good example is Munich. Monachium is not an "alternate name" for Munich. Both Monachium and Munich are foreign language variants of München. Cracovie is not an "alternate name" for Cracow. ווילנע is not an "alternative name" for Vilnius. Yet this absurdity remains unchallenged. At least call these entities what they are. Dr. Dan (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've already explained at great length why the issue is not so much Vilnius/Kraków as it is (a)Vilnius/Gdansk or (b)Wilno/Danzig. Perhaps you could tell me your thoughts on this. Do you prefer (a) or (b) for the 17th century? --Folantin (talk) 06:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I prefer is not as revelant as understanding why Cracow in the 17th century should be called Kraków on the 21st century English Wikipedia, and Vilnius should be called Wilno. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, answer the question. I've answered yours. You answer mine. --Folantin (talk) 07:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look my friend, we're not on the playground, with one child threatening to take his ball back and go home. One of the problems that I've often encountered on these different WP talk pages is a demand from a contributor to have his or her questions answered, while ignoring to answer questions posed to them. Do any come to mind? Dr. Dan (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another Frost rationale

From the highly specialist After the Deluge: Poland-Lithuania and the Second Northern War, 1655-1660. Read the rationale here [80]. It's pretty much the same as The Northern Wars except he adds, "With regards to cities and provinces whose ethnic composition has changed radically I have preferred as far as possible the form used by the dominant linguistic group in the seventeenth century." He uses Wilno and Danzig. --Folantin (talk) 12:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A short question - was there no one else to evaluate those Eastern European names, or is it one of the many scholarly speculations.--Lokyz (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A short answer - Frost is only one of many scholarly "opinions" of how the matter should be dealt with. At the moment only a part of his viewpoint seems to be in vogue. I suspect that his preference for using Cracow will not be implemented on English WP in the near future. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A shorter answer. Nobody else has bothered to look up the scholarly rationales. Instead we've had plenty of original research and the predictable split between Lithuanian and Polish users. --Folantin (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
R'u sure? Did you take a look at Discussion? Did you read the Historiography in the introduction of the every of the presented books. (It's a must for historian before evaluating single source). I wonder if you did.--Lokyz (talk) 07:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK the only other user who has bothered to investigate the scholarly rationale behind the naming conventions is Novickas (on my talk page). --Folantin (talk) 07:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I feel so unappreciated LOL M.K. (talk) 08:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of summing up

Since this page has devolved into sub conversations of sub controversies related to sub arguments influenced by sub personal disagreements, it might be worth while to step back and take look at the big picture. Basically there seems to be two criteria being used to determine the proper name of this article (and I'm not going to bother here with the obvious third one, that it's just all nationalism and bad faith, nor with the off topic fourth, fifth, and nth ones about the fact that the article on Fiji should be renamed to Matanitu Tu-Vaka-i-koya ko Viti) since Krakow is Krakow and not Cracow:

  • 1) The name of the article should follow the convention of 17th century usage - in other words if most of the historical accounts use name X, then this article should follow this usage. A related argument is about who spoke where and when. An example here is Matthead's claim that "Wilno" is not used on any "old maps" or Lokyz demand for primary sources which were burned down along with the city.
  • 2) The name of the article should follow the usage that contemporary historians use for the time period. This is generally followed by stocking up references and trying to knock down the other side's references (I know how I see this - Mother's milk an all that)

Folantin, in my understanding, has been arguing that it should be mostly 2), he has pointed out that yeah, there's some split in contemporary references, and that as a result what is important is WHY various others choose to use the names they do. He has explicitly provided Frost's rationale for using "Wilno" and has asked other editors to provide the same level of information for alternative sources. This request has been brushed aside by Deacon and others with a "everybody does this", "it's how you do an introduction" and "of course everyone has a rationale". Yet, no specific examples or explanations of other authors reasoning have been provided.

But at least in spirit, most editors here don't see it the same way and there seems to be a good bit of importance attached to 1). This has involved some vague assertions that there exist sources which show that in fact, everybody in the 17th... well, at least + or - 300 or 200 years around it - spoke Lithuanian-as-she-is-spoke-today, and that these sources can be produced but in the meantime the skeptics should read an article on toponyms or other subjects, and anyway, that should be sufficient. And there was Polonization in the 19th century. + or -. Another aspect of this argument is Matthead's assertion that he's never seen "Wilno" on an "old map". And he's right, no "Wilno". Here's a good collection of old maps: [81]. You can search through them and you won't see a "Wilno". Of course, nothing even closely resembling "Vilnius" either. Vilna. Vilno. Wilna. But hey, I'll admit it - not quite the the combination of the "W" and the "o" that we're looking for. But no "us" either. So if we do take criteria 1) seriously (despite Folantin's quite reasonable objections) then it's got to be one of those - not Vilnius.

And several editors have indicated that Vilna, or Vilno, (Wilna hasn't made it, but let's throw it's hat into the ring) would be an acceptable alternative. The thing is that the editors on the "support" side who said Vilna or Vilno was fine probably would retain the nature of their vote. But perhaps there are some editors on the "oppose" side who would change their view for Vilna? Specifically, Renata seems to have said that it might be a plausible alternative.

Anyways. Take this as an attempt to refocus the topic.radek (talk) 10:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see Cracovie(a), Cracow, but of course, nothing even closely resembling "Kraków", AFAIK. So you suggesting to rename "Kraków" to Cracovie(a)? M.K. (talk) 11:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting moving Vilnius to Wilna? No? Then what's the relevance?radek (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I've said, I think we should focus on reliable sources, i.e. the names used by recent scholarly specialists of the period and their rationales. Using old maps would be original research. I believe the choice among such scholars comes down to two choices: (a) use Wilno (and Danzig etc.) because it's the 17th century (Frost's rationale); (b) use Vilnius (and Gdansk etc.) because it's the common modern name (Stone's rationale).--Folantin (talk) 11:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
c) use Vilnius as majority of academic sources uses this name in the 17th century context (meats requirements of WP policies) d) use Vilnius and Danzig, as scholars makes exception for Danzig. M.K. (talk) 11:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except, as Folantin and others pointed out, this is just not true. Wilno or Vilna is used in sources. And yeah, sure, for articles on 17th century related events we should use Danzig, per Gdansk/Danzig vote though I don't know what "exception" you're talking about. And in fact using Wilno or Vilna here would be CONSISTENT with the policies established at Gdansk/Danzig.radek (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, did I demand anything? I did ask whether anyone knows a thing of those contemporary sources? If not, by what the language is determined. And, well, since it is getting a bit too far - how about Cracow? Should we start renaming all articles involving that Czech-German city to the proper English name?--Lokyz (talk) 12:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I too would like to thank Radek for taking the time to provide us with the "old maps"[82] , and the extra effort he made. Couldn't find Vilnius. But much more surprisingly, couldn't find Kraków either. Dr. Dan (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with the red herrings. This would be relevant if the proposal were to move Vilnius to Wilno. But it's not. It's a proposal to move Battle of Vilnius (1655), a historical event, to Battle of Wilno (1655), or Battle of Vilna (1655), which are the historical names of the event. Name of present day city. Historical event. A difference. Not that hard to understand.radek (talk) 18:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Vilnius_(1655)&oldid=282952667"