Talk:Lake Peipus

Fresh or salt?

I'm just curious, is Lake Peipus a fresh water or salt water lake? The article doesn't say at this time. Deco 00:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a fresh water lake. 193.40.10.182 11:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Why German name?

Why to use a German name for Estonian/Russian lake?

Because it's a language used in the region historically, see World Water Assessment Programme (2003). The United Nations World Water Development Report. Berghahn Books. pp. pp. 404. ISBN 9781571816276. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)--Termer (talk) 05:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Why to name this lake in German/Estonian?

This lake is located on the border between two states of incomparable sizes, so why not to stick to the language of the largest of the two? Moreover, I can not see when exactly was the German language most widely spoken in the area of question. Slavic and finno-ugric languages were actively used there far earlier than German. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuniq (talk • contribs) 10:27, 1 December 2008

Larger of the two? You mean Russia? That's a stupid idea. As far as Russia is concerned it's a small lake somewhere far removed from Moscow and for Estonia it's a major tourist place, very close to all major cities. And also the Estonian name is somewhat the offical name in the whole European Union, as Estonia is a EU member state and Russia is not. So suggesting only the russian name is way over the top. As for the German name. English wikipedia states German names for most places in the Baltic States and northern Poland. A large German minority has lived there for years and most of the names are still well known to the local population as well as used by official sources in promoting tourism, so why remove them here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.149.218 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 1 December 2008

The article names sticks to the name used by the largest of the two. European Union population 499,021,851 vs. Russian Federation population 142,008,838. --Termer (talk) 06:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. I could state: European Union 499,673,300 vs. Shanghai Cooperation Organisation 1,526,000,952. It is not the matter of nations/unions, it's the matter of languages anyway.

Let's count the people who know about the lake only.

For Russia it is not "a small lake somewhere far removed from Moscow", it's a legendary lake every Russian knows about (see the Battle of the Ice).

For the former Soviet Union in case of conflicting names the former "Soviet" (i.e. Russian) name is preferred because the one is shown on the older pre-conflict maps (like Nagorno-Karabakh is known in Russian, even though this language is official in neither Azerbaijan nor Armenia). The lake would be called in Russian even if it were located on Estonian-Latvian border. Hellerick (talk) 14:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It's the matter of languages anyway? Exactly, since this is English Wikipedia, how exactly would Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and "legendary lake every Russian knows about" be relevant to the name of this lake in English? And in English Battle of the Ice is known as Battle of Lake Peipus, exactly like the most common name of the lake in English is 'Lake Peipsi' -605 returns at google books vs 113 on "Lake Chudskoe", that is the name in Russian clearly spelled out also in the article.--Termer (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Why the German name? Because Estonia was part of the Holy Roman Empire from about 1207. German was the dominant language until about 1917 or even 1939. ...and don't ask me why the Romans spoke German? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Reopen name discussion

I believe there are three possible names for this article:

1. Peipus (13,900 hits on Google books, English books only) - is the German name (Peipussee = Peipus sea) from the years of Germanic dominance of the area; it has the largest number of hits on Google Books and is supported by Britannica. However, this name is historical, and likely refers to one part of this 3-part lake: for example, restricting the Google book search to recent years reverses the ratio of hits for Peipus/Peipsi from 13900/4160 (all years) to 1880/1990 (last decade).
2. Chudsko-Pskovskoe (769 hits on Google books for Chudskoe lake) is the Russian name for the two major parts of the lake, and most area of these lakes lies within Russia. However this name has very minor usage in English-speaking literature.
3. Peipsi-Pihkva (4,160 hits on Google books for Peipsi lake) is the Estonian name.
   As I understand, there are no clear international conventions on internal lakes. Thus please express your opinion (vote) below.

• To start, I suggest reverting the recent unilateral move to the past name Peipsi-Pihkva, which was also supported by these refs. [1] [2] [3] in the past text. WP:PLACE guides us to the most common usage in English language, but it also mentions that this usage should be recent. Materialscientist (talk) 07:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, there are several lakes, not one as the current title seems to imply. The page should be split into separate pages about ru:Чудское озеро, ru:Псковское озеро, etc. I don't expect any meaningful discussion below, since the Estonian editors heavily outnumber the Russian ones in this particular wikipedia. Still, Lake Peipus is preferrable as a traditional name in English-language sources. We prefer Kiev to Kyiv, Odessa to Odesa and Minsk to Mensk for similar reasons. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, double names above reflect the two parts. Splitting them might be a good call (with its quirks such as many stats are available for the whole entity only, and thus many other wikis keep one article), but is a separate issue from naming. Materialscientist (talk) 08:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

“the Estonian editors heavily outnumber the Russian ones in this particular wikipedia” - Not a good argument per se besides being empirically false, too. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 21:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
But yes, I prefer Lake Peipus, too, based on the arguments brought forth by various users here. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 21:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Lake Peipus. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• I figured this should be a non-issue, as I thought that Lake Peipus is the common English name. However, surprisingly UN et al use Lake Peipsi as the common name. But, as we have the redirects, I think that Lake Peipus is the best name for the article. --Sander Säde 12:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Chud Lake , 274000 mthfking results , btw , web numbs doesnt counts , especially with something like (((yiahoo googl etc))) (who can change , add , delete numbs , statistics on pol basys or either $$ ..... ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.49.220.206 (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Name again

Sorry I moved the page without seein the old name discussion and not addressing them.

I am afraid that there is a confusion between two issues.

• First, whether the English usage should be the word Peipus or Peipsi.
• Second, what is the lake we are talking about.

Let's start from the second issue. I would like to bring your attention to the fact that Lake Peipsi(Peipus) and Lake Peipsi-Pihkva are not one and the same object, and hence the current article title is in grave error. Peipsi-Pikhva is a water body which consists of three parts, one of them being Peipsi(Peipus). In the discussion above and in first ref of the article is a reference to Encyc Britannica aarticle. From its text it is clearly seen that Peipus even for an English mind is but a northern part of Peipsi-Pikhva. And of course nobody in the closer countries would have confused the two. Citing EB: "Lake Peipus, Russian Chudskoye Ozero, Estonian Peipsi Järv, lake forming part of the boundary between Estonia and Pskov oblast (province) of Russia. It is connected by the narrow Lake Tyoploye to a southern extension, Lake Pskov"

Now, about the name, "Peipsi-Pihkva" is clearly outmatches "Peipus-Pihkva", in google, and especially in Google Books and in Google Scholar.

On the other hand, a separate "Lake Peipus" is slightly more common than "Lake Peipsi". Still, I suspect it is an anacronism and must be discussed further, but not here.

Therefore I suggest

• (1) To move this page to the correct title, Lake Peipsi-Pihkva
• (2) To create separate artices for the separate water bodies.
• (3) Fix confusion in the intterwiki links.

Thank you, Lotygolas Ozols (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is much difference, as long as proper redirects exist. I suspect that we should go with the same naming convention as Britannica, though - even though their article is, shall we say, somewhat lacking.

Also, it is Pihkva, not Pikhva.

--Sander Säde 19:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for typo. And I don't see how proper redirects may help us to distinguish different objects. Also I want to write artile about real Lake Peipsi (et:Peipsi järv). What shall I do? Lotygolas Ozols (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Given that this article is about a complex of lakes, I have no real objection to moving this article to Lake Peipsi-Pihkva and creating separate articles for Lake Peipsi and Lake Pihkva, since Google scholar seems to show twice as many hits for "Lake Peipsi" - (1800 hits) as opposed to "Lake Peipus" (945 hits). That said, a formal move request via WP:RM is probably warranted. --Nug (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

In Estonia we say Lake Peipsi, and Lake Peipsi is divided into 3 parts, Peipsi Suurjärv, Lämmijärv (the middle thin part) and Pihkva järv. The reason being hydro-chemical and biological difference. At least when it comes to immunology/hydrobiology etc. (Thou some still say Lake Pihkva because its Russian and we have only small part to sample, so in general its not even clear in Estonia which are exact terms, different groups use terms a bit differently, some offical reports have Lake Peipsi with 3 parts, some have 3 lakes streight up). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.25.254 (talk) 12:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Benthos

Source: Yearly report on Lake Peipsi

71 known benthic spices in 2012 (unfinished report), 63 in 2011. Including chironomus Monodiamesa bathyphila, which does not like eutrophication, it lives in the sandy shores with plenty of wave activity, giving oxygen rich environment (from oligocheta: Lamprodrilus isoporus and Stylodrilus heringianus), giving mesotrophic fauna in north side of lake. Also Paracladopelma rolli, which is a lotic spices. So its not purely eutrophic when it comes to flora and fauna. It is also infested with Dreissena polymorpha. It is big problem in Lake Pihkva, because the bottom is full of old nets where polymorpha can grow in mass. Estonian side has cleaned the bottom from old nets several times. But for decades the profundal benthos has remained pretty similar, it has not turned homogenous (With Chironomus plumosos dominating, microchironomus tener, procladius choreus/ferrugineus, Einfeldia carbonaria, and at Russian side also Cryptochironomus ussiorensis, even few mollusca were lost in the profundal). Unfortunately the report maker group does not have experts in Hydracarina, Micronecta, Valvata, Pisidium etc. so report can not make good conclusions about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.25.254 (talk) 13:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)