Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Horodok (1655)

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

Polonism in the title

[edit]

Why again? --Irpen 19:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you write some articles instead of complaining about the titles of those created by others? WP:RM is also just a click away. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't write articles? --Irpen 19:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What have you written recently? How many DYKs, GAs, FAs? My memory is a bit unclear on that. Oh, and I do wonder, how did you find this article? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can check my contributions and find for yourself. You check my edits anyway. As for how I found this article, this edit popped up in my watchlist. Despite you watch my edits, I don't give you a reciprocity on this. I have enough stress from what I see on my watchlist. --Irpen
Thank you for that reply. If you can show that another name is used more often, or that a policy requires it, I will certainly support the name. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't this town part of Poland back then? So what is the problem? Tymek (talk) 20:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, it is your duty to demonstrate that the usage of Polish name for the Ukrainian location in the title is warranted per WP:NC. Because by default the foreign names are not used. Until then, please do not remove the tag added in good faith. When I write articles, I take time to study the subject first. When I review the literature, I will expand the article. For now, I am looking forward for your justification of the Polonism for the Ukrainian location. Please do not remove the tag until you justify the usage of the foreign name for the title. The burden of proof lies on the editor who pushes the foreign name, no the other way around. --Irpen 20:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The name is used in Polish sources; I see no problem with translating it. It was within PLC borders at that time, where Polish language was the official language. Again, please cite policies or sources that would justify a new name. Do note that no sources seem to use battle of Horodok. Suggest a new name, or stop questioning the current one, please.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, you have to justify using the Polish name for the Ukrainian location. The Ukrainian one is used by default. The burden of proof lies with an editor who wants to push a foreign name. Until you show the usage of the name being prevalent in English sources the tag stays. It says that the name is disputed in good faith. You cannot deny this being a fact. --Irpen 20:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, your arguments are not in line with our policies (WP:NCGN). Since we are talking about a historical context, when the town was known in Polish, the Polish name seems ok. Now you should show us that Ukrainian or other name is more popular in English historiography. Waiting... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nahid, I agree. Let's settle this calmly. I am as calm as possible and very calmly I request my opponent to show this name;s being popular in English language sources on the subject. TIA, --Irpen 18:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I have very calmly asked you to provide an alternative name and show that it is backed up by anything. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that there is no English name you found? I need to know background from your end in order to make the best proposal. --Irpen 19:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, it's up to you to propose an alternative name if you are not happy with the current one. Martintg (talk) 23:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no name established in English historiography, and no one was able to show otherwise, we go by descriptive name that is Battle of [town name]. The name of the town is Horodok. The proponent of the foreign name has the burden of proof to show that the usage of foreign name is justified by being prevailing in English scholarship in the relevant context. What is used in Polish books is about as relevant as what is used in Russian books. --Irpen 04:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True to some degree, however WP:NCGN states that failing an appropriate "English" name then the appropriate foreign historical name could be used in historical context of the event. The battle took place when the place was known as Gródek Jagielloński, did it not? Or are you suggesting that the Ukrainian town of "Horodok" existed in 1655? Martintg (talk) 05:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it existed. The city was a part of Halych-Volhynia in medieval times, long before 1655. Leningrad analogy is inapplicable. The city was actually renamed. Leningrad and SPB are two different names of the same city and both names and their equivalents in any language reflect that. Grodek and Horodok are not different names. This is the same name rendered into different languages, more like Krakow and Krakau. How the town was "known back then" is irrelevant for our purpose. Sometimes we don't even know. What matters is how the town is referred to in modern scholarship in the particular context. This is more like Chernihiv/Chernigov issue, if you like. When questioned about my usage of Chernigov in the medieval context that was different from Chernihiv in the current one, it was my job to demonstrate that a non-modern name prevails in English scholarship in medieval context. This has not been demonstrated for Horodok. That it is called Grodek in Polish is not an issue here. That Polish Wikipedia calls its article pl:Gdańsk-Prusy Zachodnie does not affect how the relevant article is called in enwiki. --Irpen 05:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Irpen. There doesn't seem to be an established name for this specific battle in English. Gródek Jagielloński is a Polish word with diacritics. It is very unlikely that this would be the English name for the battle anyway. Ostap 05:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ironic you should mention Halych-Volhynia, which is the slavic version of the correct English term Galicia-Lodomeria. English is a germanic language with a strong Latin influence, so it is no surprise that Galicia-Lodomeria gets 645 hits in Google books [1], while Halych-Volhynia gets only 81 hits in Google books [2]. If we were to follow your own recommendation that we should use the term prevailing in English scholarship, then you must agree Galicia-Lodomeria is the correct English term for that region. Martintg (talk) 08:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is interesting, but has little to to with the actual topic. Can we get back to talking about the title of this article, not about Galicia-Lodomeria? The current title of this article is a foreign name of a city. There is very little information on this battle in English sources. I have found none. The mention of it is in Polish sources. If we translate the Polish phrase given "Bitwa pod Gródkiem Jagiellońskim" into English, we get "Battle of Horodok". How is this not in agreement with the naming conventions? Ostap 09:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly a 19th or 20th century battle there would be called "Battle of Horodok". But in 17th century, was it called by its Polish or Ruthenian name? In English sources "Battle of Horodok" is unused just as "Battle of Gródek Jagielloński" is. PS. I would not oppose to a move to Battle of Horodok; now that somebody has actually proposed a decent alternative - as far as I am concerned, it's as good as the GJ variant, and redirects will solve any remaining issues.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 12:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, there are no English sources which confirm usage of this Polish name, so Gródek Jagielloński is absolutely not a widely accepted historical English, per NC then such situation occurs the modern official name should be used and Gródek Jagielloński is not official name. I suggest to eliminate current unfounded polonization of city name ASAP. M.K. (talk) 10:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Battle of Grodek" gets 70 hits in Google books [3], while "Battle of Horodok" gets 0 hits in Google books [4]. English scholarship clearly supports Grodek over Horodok. Given that "Battle of Grodek" also refers to the WW1 battle, I would support renaming this article to Battle of Grodek (1655) Martintg (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please check how many of those claimed 70 hits apply to the century in question. --Irpen 20:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it is the same town, and note that "Battle of Horodok" gets 0 hits in any century. The 70 hits prove that "Grodek" in the proper anglified form of "Gródek Jagielloński", and if we put a date qualifier in the title there will be no ambiguity as to the century in question. Martintg (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, I think "Battle of Grodek" might be appropriate along with sources found in Google hits.--NAHID 21:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does appear that Gródek is more common than full Gródek Jagielloński. I see no reason to skip the diacritic, but I have no objections to moving this to battle of Gródek, neither. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that the use of Grodek in the 20th century warrants the use of Grodek in the 17th is like saying the use of Danzig for the interbellum warrants the usage of Danzig for after the WW2. If the town was prevailingly called Grodek in the context of the time, the name can be used in the article. If no prevailing English usage of Polonism in the 17th century context can be established in English sources, then we should not use the polonism. --Irpen 21:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Search among English books published since 1970s (ensuring modern sources) gives one book with Grodek in relation to this battle:

  • Robert I. Frost, "After the Deluge: Poland-Lithuania and the Second Northern War, 1655-1660", Cambridge, 1993: "Crown army was defeated at Grodek at the end of the month."

Two books use Gorodok:

  • "Muscovy and the Ukraine", University of California, 1973 "At Gorodok the Poles suffered a serious defeat"
  • Paul Wagret, "Nagel's Encyclopedia guide", U of Michigan, 1986: "The road passes through Gorodok... The battle was fought here in 1655."

Two books with Horodok:

  • Dmytro Doroshenko, Oleh W. Gerus, "A Survey of Ukrainian History", Humeniuk, 1975, "He defeated the Polish army near Horodok, and for the second time besieged Lviv"
  • John Basarab, "Pereiaslav 1654: A Historiographical Study", University of Alberta, 1982, "In July 1655 a Ukrainian-Russian army marched into Galicia, defeated a Polish army at Horodok"

As wee see the coverage in English is small, if any, with non-Polish names having a slight advantage. It could possibly be tweaked in either direction by expanding the sources' date range but it is clear that it would not change an overall picture. Either way, there is no evidence to establish the prevailing usage of the Polish name and no justification to alter the name of the town. --Irpen 21:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you say: "If the town was prevailingly called Grodek in the context of the time, the name can be used in the article." Thus the question is: was this town within the Polish realm at the time of the battle. If it was, then the town is referred to by its (anglified) Polish name in the context of the time. Martintg (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was in PLC until 1772. See here for more info on languages of the Commonwealth.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That it was PLC does not by itself make the Polish name prevailing in the context in question. Kijow was also part of PLC. It is never called such in English in the context of any time frame. Lviv, Kharkiv and Ternopil were parts of Ukraine in times of WW2. First two are called by Russian-sounding Lvov and Kharkov in WW2 context in the bulk of modern English literature about the war and the latter is called a very non-Russian Tarnopol (familiar to you name?) in WW2 context. Please demonstrate the similar usage of Grodek in proper context in the modern English literature about this time. This is a different issue from who it belonged to. Varshava also belonged to Russia. --Irpen 04:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Horodok_(1655)&oldid=1206170246"