Talk:Battle of Vilnius (1655)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Where's the explanation for using "Wilno" instead of "Vilnius"? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Interesting, but my questions left unanswered, so far. M.K. (talk) 08:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

<-- 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)

Cracow, too? Dr. Dan (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

'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)

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)

Did you ask? I'm inclined to ask - where?--Lokyz (talk) 06:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 [1]. 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)

• 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)

• 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)
  • ...or how many people spoke Lithuanian in Wilno in the 1650s? --Folantin (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)
          • 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)
    • (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 [2] 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)
      • Well, it's not exactly my area of expertise either, but I had to ask the same question elsewhere [3]. 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)
        • 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)
          • 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)
            • 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)
              • 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)
                • 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)
              • 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)
                • Yes, I added it :) Until late 17th century, some nobles were bilingual. Nobody is denying that Lithuanian was a major, if minirity, language in the PLC. But there is no reason we should use a name from a minority language for a contemporary location or event.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

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) [4]: "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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

LOL. That's classic. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It would be funny it it wasn't so true :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

I think that list has plenty of sarcasm to go around.radek (talk) 07:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you be more clear? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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.

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

No, answer the question. I've answered yours. You answer mine. --Folantin (talk) 07:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

Another Frost rationale

From the highly specialist After the Deluge: Poland-Lithuania and the Second Northern War, 1655-1660. Read the rationale here [5]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I feel so unappreciated LOL M.K. (talk) 08:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

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: [6]. 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)

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)

Are you suggesting moving Vilnius to Wilna? No? Then what's the relevance?radek (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I too would like to thank Radek for taking the time to provide us with the "old maps"[7] , 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)

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)

What the point of putting thousands of derivatives of the name of Lithuanian capital???

The original city name is Vilnius and always was so. Wilno, Vilna, Vilne, Vilnia, Vilnie, Vilniu, Vilnui, Vilnoi, Vilni, Vilnu, Vilny, or any other variants one may invent, would be only derivatives from the original name, that has a meaning only in Lithuanian language. What the point of putting alternative names other nations created because they were not able to pronounce some letters in their languages correctly and had to shorten or change the name? Should we put under every article of Polish cities and towns Ukrainian, German, Lithuanian, Belarusian, Latvian, Czech names? Warszawa or Varšuva or Варшава or Warschau? An absurd... I also object to put under London articles form the middle ages alternative names like Londres, write Санкт-Петербург or Saint-Pétersbourg based on the language spoken at some period of time by some fraction in the city as if the spoken language changed the name of the city... An absurd.

Please stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Žemėpatis (talk • contribs) 19:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)