Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Polish-Muscovite War (1605-1618)

Polish-Muscovite War (1605-1618)

It has been some time since my last self-nom, but here it is: yet another mostly forgotten event dealing with the history of Central/Eastern Europe that determined the fate of this continent few hundred years ago. We have maps, more pictures then you can shake a stick at, and quite a lot of intriguing details. Your comments, as always, much appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Great article about a fascinating conflict. Balcer 05:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I agree, another great article on a complex and very important war. Interesting it ended in 1618, just as the Thirty Years War was commencing in central and western Europe. But the long-term implications from this war, were argueably much greater. Once again you impress me, Prokonsul, with your intellect and energy--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 01:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Minor object~~: the article needs to be thoroughly copyedited for grammatical mistakes (I've tried my hand at the first few sections). A few questions:

Dmitri's name is spelled a dozen different ways throught the article. Is this due to spelling mistakes, multiple possibilities for transliteration, or something else?
There seems to be some confusion regarding the use "Muscovy" versus "Muscovite" as an adjective; I was under the impression that only the latter is correct, but the article predominantly employs the former.

Once the copyediting is done, I will have no problems supporting. Kirill Lokshin 06:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support after the latest round of changes. Kirill Lokshin 03:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Ditto. --Lysy ^(talk) 12:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The English is not very good; I corrected a good many typos, and the whole thing has a non-native speaker ring to it. I would fix more, but I don't know much about the subject and wouldn't want to screw up any info by changing some wording. But in terms of content and facts, it seems good. Everyking 08:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say go ahead and try to fix more. If you break anything there will be always someone watching over to bring it back :-) --Lysy ^(talk) 16:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Majority of English mistakes and non-native speaker is beacouse I am not a native speaker - so unfortunatly I cannot address this objection. I did however unified the spelling to Dmitriy/Dmitriads, as Dmitriy is the current name of the relevant articles, as well as changed Muscovy (noun) to Muscovite (adj) where appopriate. I do hope that a native speaker will take care of the remainin copyedit, though. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Minor object. There are a lot of red links, especially in the warbox and in #The Second Dymitriad (1607-1609). Could you create brief articles for those battles and for some of the other figures who have links but no articles? NatusRoma 21:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been doing this for a past year or so :) While I'd love to see all of those red links being developed into articles, I simply don't have enough data to do so. I will try creating stubs for the remaining Polish nobles. But if we object to FAing articles with red links, then should we would not be able to FA almost anything. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - And a great job you've done, make no mistake! However, there are more than 50 red links in this article, while War of the League of Cambrai, a recently featured article about two thirds of the size of this one, has three. Even a stub would be sufficient. NatusRoma 00:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Minus few more by now. However, with maybe <5 exceptions, the remaining 40 is about about people from Russian history and small places in Russia, on which few if any English or Polish sources exists. I am afraid I cannot fix most of the red links. Eastern European history is not as covered as that of the Western Europe, I am afraid, so there are more red links in the relevant articles. However, I think that this should not stop us from featuring relevant articles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The copyright on most of the images is clear, but when were Image:Lissner.jpg and Image:Odsiecz Smolenska.jpg created? --Carnildo 06:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- In the case of Lissner's painting, it doesn't matter, because he lived in the Russian Empire and Stalin's Soviet Union. If the work was published before 1917, than it is PD-old. If it was published after 1917, then the sovietPD template should be applied. --Ghirlandajo 09:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- In the case of Kossack's painting, the painter died in the 19th century. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Minor object. The article should be stripped of conspicuously non-English names. I don't understand why Lisowczycy should be preferred to the Lisowski gang, szlachta - to Polish nobility, and unpronouncable Rokosz of Zebrzydowski - to Polish Civil War (1606-1608). All these foreign words do not improve the text. I would also vote for the article to be moved to Polish-Russian War (1605-1618) or, still better, to Polish invasion of Russia, on the par with the Mongol invasion of Russia and Napoleon's invasion of Russia. --Ghirlandajo 09:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- to be moved to Polish-Russian War (1605-1618) or, still better, to Polish invasion of Russia
- As for the move, this is not the right place for it. The title has been discussed on the article's pages and preference has been given to Polish-Muscovite War. It is the most correct and descriptive name, and I see no point why we should move it to a dumbed down name like Polish-Russian War, or a misleading one like Polish invasion (there were very few Poles involved in the war until 1609). Second, Wikipedia should not invent new names: if there is no English names, we should use the local name (as per Wikipedia:Naming guidelines), hence Lisowczycy should remain Lisowczycy (and they were not a gang, but a mercenary outfit, if you want a more descriptive name). Szlachta is used in English publications, but if you think that boyarss should be moved to Russian nobility, then I'll reconsider. Rokosz is less known, I'll do some research on the usage (or lack of it) of term in English publications. However unless the term Polish Civil War (1606-1608) is used instead, I don't think it would be a better name (although a redirect certainly would be in order). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - We also have Fronde, not French Civil War (1648-1653). Hence I see no problem with using Rokosz of Zebrzydowski. The fact that it is hard to pronounce is not an issue on Wikipedia. Balcer 19:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't agree we could not find a way to English Lisowczycy. In Russian publications, they are styled "Lisowski's bandits". Your analogy of szlachta and boyarstvo is completely wrong. The Russian equivalent of Szlachta is dvoryane. You can see that we don't use the name every now and then. --Ghirlandajo 13:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - This being English Wiki, not Russian, if there is no English name, we use the local one. As Lisowczycy were Polish mercenaries, not Muscovite, the name we use is the Polish one. As for szlachta and dvoryane, I think you are just proving my point :) It has its article, so it should be linked, not a redirect (unless you want to move them to Russian nobility, and boyars to Russian artistocracy?). Granted, the first time term 'szlachta' is used, it should be explained it means 'Polish nobility - and so it is. Problem sovled. The term 'boyar', on the other hand, is not explained in the article - thank you for making me notice that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is at that time it was still Muscovy, perhaps a more fitting change to the name should be Polish intervention in Muscovy Civil War ?--Molobo 12:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the 17th century, there was no civil war, and there was no Muscovy either. The term Muscovy was never that popular in English. Shakespeare speaks of Russia, Chaucer speaks of Russia, Sir John Mandeville speaks of Russia, Roger of Hoveden and other ancient Anglo-Norman chroniclers speak about Russia. Only Poles and their sovereigns speak about Muscovy, because they reserved the title of "rex Russiae" for themselves. Prince Wladyslaw used it, for instance, in 1612. --Ghirlandajo 13:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again, dumbing down is again our policies. By the same token, we should refer to Ottoman Empire as Turkey, Holy Roman Empire as Germany, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth as Poland, and United States of America as America. Muscovy is not the same as Russia - follow the links to find out. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the Phillips & Axelrod Encyclopedia of Wars has it under "Russo-Polish War" (with some portions under "Time of Troubles"). Kirill Lokshin 12:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Polish-Russian War article is not yet ready for FA. A lot has to be changed in it, like names, for example. I can't understand either why there's a Polish name next to every Russian name or last name. Is it necessary or was this article copied from a textbook? E.g., Battle of Klushino sounds like Battle of Klyushkin (Russian speakers will understand the pun). And why Polish names are given in Polish spelling with all the stresses and apostrophies and whatever-those-things-are-called on top of the letters. Some people are not even sure how to pronounce it, let alone how to write it. And some of them don't have Polish language support, so all they see is little cubes instead of certain letters. This had to be changed. KNewman 12:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably because this is as much a Polish topic as a Russian one, and Polish sources would refer to the Polish names? I don't think trying to fight against using multiple names or full Unicode spelling would be a productive use of anyone's time; remember Danzig? Kirill Lokshin 13:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The predominance of Polish terms is because majority of this article was written by me using Polish sources. This is why I did ask you and other Russian-speaking users for help with adding Russian (and English, if they exist) names for Russian-related places/people, as you would be more familiar with them, and I thank you for your help. I do think it would be useful to retain Polish names for Russian them (in parenthesis or such), especially if their corresponding articles have no Polish names (or wiki interlink), simply beacuse it makes it easier for me and other Polish editors to check my sources. I don't however insist on this, but definetly all Poland-related names should retain their correct spelling and direct links to their articles, not some redirects - after the last update, Wiki is quite capable of supporting Polish unicode on all computers around the world.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Really nice work. Minor objections are noted, but Piotrus is always quick to quickly address them. 172 | Talk 08:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support after my objections have been addressed. Well done. --Lysy ^(talk) 22:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Despite some problems with a few extremely long and exuberantly detailed sentences, this article appears comprehensive, NPOV, encyclopedic, well organized, and extremely informative. It was a pleasure to read. There are certain minor issues: there are some mispellings and typos (I corrected some of them), and some sentences are hard to follow. The red links should be stubbed out, and perhaps a slight illumination of the text with inline cites may not hurt. Notwithstanding these, the article has my overwhelming support. Cheers. Saravask 06:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks like a good, solid article.--Kross | Talk 23:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]