A fact from Ostrów Agreement appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 25 November 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Current tile is alien to English historiography. Even silly google game proves that there is no single hint on this so called Ostrów Agreement [1], [2], [3] [4] while Treaty of Astravas quite well established [5]. So my question is there any opposition to speedy rename this article to Treaty of Astravas? M.K. ( talk) 11:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
BTW couldn't it be so that the correct Lithuanian gender did not survive and it is not known whether it was Astrava or Astravas. Iulius ( talk) 12:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
We seem to have enough material to split and stub the civil war. How should it be entitled? Civil war in Lithuania (1390-1392)?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 20:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I would like to see original and translated citations for these claims:
Switch sides? Vytautas was fighting for his rights. So that this means switch sides? Fight for the Jogials's rights? Curiously current statment references with 19th century publication. Definately would like to see original citations and translations concurring current statment.
I also would like that contributors pointed to me there exact Stone's used citations in his publication for these:
Apart from already requested citation I would like to see exact citations for these:
Reliability of source. I would like to know how reliable this added source. And then forums is allowed on WIki? I also want to see exact original citations and translations which would support presented statements. Who is author of this article and his.her educational background? M.K. ( talk) 10:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, all. I'm here from Wikipedia third opinion to see if we can't untangle some of this.
So as I understand the issue, M.K is disputing some of the claims that are/were in the article and asking for sources. Piotrus has provided some sources, but they are in another language, and M.K doubts their reliability. Once source is in the public domain, but Google Books (the site linked) does not allow for browsing. However, it does allow for limited searching, which once again brings us back to the language problem. Likewise, the new source added it of unclear verifiability to M.K because he does not speak Polish and thus cannot verify the reliability of the site.
Per WP:V, all information likely to be challenged or actually challenged requires sources. Piotrus has provided them in this case. In addition, non-English sources are explicitely allowed provided that no comparable English sources exist; unless someone can prove a comparable English source, I think Piotrus should be given the benefit of the doubt. In short, Piotrus has responded appropriately to M.K's concerns about the sources and adhered with Wikipedia policy in doing so (although direct links to the pages in the online book cited would help make verification easier, it's not explicitely required...but I suggest it anyway).
However, M.K is also well within his right to challenge these sources. Although accessability of sources is not grounds for challenging them--after all, offline books would be prohibited if that were the case--the fact that they are in another language and thus unintelligible to him is grounds enough. To this end I suggest first visiting WP:BABEL, as there are several Polish-to-English translators listed there. I suggest asking first for verification of the nature of the website linked and second for help in finding and understanding the content of the book linked.
If this is not satisfactory, your next step should be to visit the reliable sources noticeboard, where you can list the sources in question and get feedback from other editors. I suspect this would not be as productive as the translation suggestion, though, as Polish language skills would be necessary to verify the contents. You might see if your Polish-English translator would stick around and help with the decision. I would also suggest that any inquiry focus less on the book (presuming it is not self-published) and more on the website. After all, the closer you are to a historical event the more direct your information is likely to be. However, judging from M.K's statements above it seems there may be some contradiction between sources. If this is the case, then the two sources in conflict should also be raised there.
And finally, a little bit of WP:COOL is always a good recommendation. M.K., I suggest trying your best not to get too worked up over this issue. Piotrus, I suggest a little more effort on your part to help M.K. work this out. As a Japanese speaker, I have to constantly remind myself that what looks perfectly comprehensible to me is complete gibberish to most people--I suggest you try and keep the same thing in mind.
If you have any other questions or comments, feel free to contact me on my talk page or in this thread, as I'll be watching this page for a week or so. -- jonny-mt( t)( c) I'm on editor review! 09:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
This is the main problem in short, that original sources do not confirm findings provided in article, despite the claims that they do. Could you provide opinion on this? Cheers, M.K. ( talk) 10:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi guys,
My apologies for the long delay; I've been waiting until I have a solid enough chunk of uninterrupted time on Wikipedia to really sit down and go over all of this before I respond. Sadly, that won't be tonight, but if you can wait until tomorrow night, then I'll come back and see if I can't help sort this out a bit. My apologies for the failings in my original opinion; I make a personal rule of relying on the talk page discussion over the article content in order to make sure I remain as neutral as possible, but it seems a bit more background on the subject was needed to really understand the disagreement. So I'll spend tomorrow reading up and hopefully be able to help you out a bit better than I have. -- jonny-mt( t)( c) I'm on editor review! 15:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
My apologies for the delay again--let's see if we can't get this sorted out somehow.
I've read through the issues again and think I have a (somewhat) clearer grasp of what's going on. I appreciate both of you taking the time and effort to go through the dispute resolution process, and hopefully I can actually be of use this time :)
Let's get the easy one out of the way to begin with--accessibility is not related to verifiability. In other words, the fact that this source is not downloadable, while lamentable, does not mean that the citation is not valid. If you have concerns about it, I suggest using the {{ Verify source}} template to alert other editors so the content can (hopefully) be verified.
As for the references and the statements in the article, after reading through the sources cited and comparing them with their presentation here, it seems they qualify as OR in the form of synthesis. While the explanations put forth by Piotrus seem perfectly logical to me, the fact is that logic is less important in article writing than verifiability. As the sources cited do not say specifically that Vytautas was supported by Lithuanians who resented, among other things, forced baptism, this statement is therefore unverifiable and must be removed along with the other similar unsourced statements.
Now, if Piotrus can come up with sources supporting his explanations, then I would strongly encourage him to include those points in the article. However, it must be remembered that our job at Wikipedia is not to analyze, interpret, or explain--it is simply to gather existing knowledge into a single place.
I hope this helps. If you have any more questions, please feel free to contact me. If you are unsatisfied with my answer and would like another third opinion participant to review it, I'd be more than happy to arrange that as well. And finally, if you'd like to take it to the next stage in the dispute resolution process, I'd be perfectly willing to participate as an outside party. Thanks! -- jonny-mt( t)( c) I'm on editor review! 16:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Some research results:
From that is said we can draw the conclusions: a) current invented name cant stay. b) Astravas enjoys the biggest support among EN sources. c} as village in Belarus and Belarussian name is used in EN publications (in this context), logical way is to use Belarussian name, especially if the same name used today. M.K. ( talk) 10:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Could we discuss why we should not change this article's name, given the prevailing EN-language usage demonstrated above? Novickas ( talk) 16:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Do any of the article's contributors object to renaming it to Astrava Agreement? We all seem to be active on WP at this time, so if no objections are filed, in a week, say? Novickas ( talk) 17:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
With the recent reinstatement of OR'ish claims, old and solved OR problem once again reappeared. I will repeat myself (for compete picture see Talk:Ostrów_Agreement#Third_Opinion) that statment, which is repeatedly reinserted, Vytautas was supported by Lithuanians who resented Polish interpretations of the recent Union of Krewo and baptism of Lithuania, tying Grand Duchy of Lithuania to the Kingdom of Poland is not supported by presented source in this context. My initiated Third party comment also concluded that As for the references and the statements in the article, after reading through the sources cited and comparing them with their presentation here, it seems they qualify as OR in the form of synthesis and As the sources cited do not say specifically that Vytautas was supported by Lithuanians who resented, among other things, forced baptism, this statement is therefore unverifiable and must be removed along with the other similar unsourced statements. Therefore such reinserted statment violates one of the core WP policies WP:NOR. Even more the same volunteer, which keeps inserting this statment, clearly and in no uncertain terms said that Regarding the content issue, as I wrote above, I don't care much if you want to remove that content and specifically the current issue: Regarding the support for V. coming from opponents of baptism, as I wrote above, I don't care much if you want to remove that; it is indeed not that clear. Therefore current attempt to preserve OR claims is not acceptable. M.K. ( talk) 13:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
For some time, single contributor attempts to remove a tag [24], which was placed due to biased article name as indicated by multiply contributors [25], [26], [27] etc. As off 2008-03-02 none of these contributors agreed that current, Polish name-invention, should stay. Therefore problems of article name still opened and not resolved, even more no official WP policies suggest that tags should removed even then problems still opened, under motivation “stale tag”. Tag not only warns readers on improper name , but also can give opportunity to attract more contributors for solving this dead end. Therefore tag restored. M.K. ( talk) 11:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The article states: "The treaty granted Vytautas the status of Grand Duke of Lithuania while Jogaila retained theoretical political supremacy"
Here's a source which contradicts this claim. pg. 204 [28]: "Vitold received the Duchy of Troki and ... the main part of Volhynia with its chief castle at Luck....Vitold himself began very soon to exercise in fact the authority of a grand-duke, although this title was not yet allowed to him officially." (my emphasis).
Volunteer Marek 07:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
A fact from Ostrów Agreement appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 25 November 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Current tile is alien to English historiography. Even silly google game proves that there is no single hint on this so called Ostrów Agreement [1], [2], [3] [4] while Treaty of Astravas quite well established [5]. So my question is there any opposition to speedy rename this article to Treaty of Astravas? M.K. ( talk) 11:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
BTW couldn't it be so that the correct Lithuanian gender did not survive and it is not known whether it was Astrava or Astravas. Iulius ( talk) 12:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
We seem to have enough material to split and stub the civil war. How should it be entitled? Civil war in Lithuania (1390-1392)?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 20:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I would like to see original and translated citations for these claims:
Switch sides? Vytautas was fighting for his rights. So that this means switch sides? Fight for the Jogials's rights? Curiously current statment references with 19th century publication. Definately would like to see original citations and translations concurring current statment.
I also would like that contributors pointed to me there exact Stone's used citations in his publication for these:
Apart from already requested citation I would like to see exact citations for these:
Reliability of source. I would like to know how reliable this added source. And then forums is allowed on WIki? I also want to see exact original citations and translations which would support presented statements. Who is author of this article and his.her educational background? M.K. ( talk) 10:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, all. I'm here from Wikipedia third opinion to see if we can't untangle some of this.
So as I understand the issue, M.K is disputing some of the claims that are/were in the article and asking for sources. Piotrus has provided some sources, but they are in another language, and M.K doubts their reliability. Once source is in the public domain, but Google Books (the site linked) does not allow for browsing. However, it does allow for limited searching, which once again brings us back to the language problem. Likewise, the new source added it of unclear verifiability to M.K because he does not speak Polish and thus cannot verify the reliability of the site.
Per WP:V, all information likely to be challenged or actually challenged requires sources. Piotrus has provided them in this case. In addition, non-English sources are explicitely allowed provided that no comparable English sources exist; unless someone can prove a comparable English source, I think Piotrus should be given the benefit of the doubt. In short, Piotrus has responded appropriately to M.K's concerns about the sources and adhered with Wikipedia policy in doing so (although direct links to the pages in the online book cited would help make verification easier, it's not explicitely required...but I suggest it anyway).
However, M.K is also well within his right to challenge these sources. Although accessability of sources is not grounds for challenging them--after all, offline books would be prohibited if that were the case--the fact that they are in another language and thus unintelligible to him is grounds enough. To this end I suggest first visiting WP:BABEL, as there are several Polish-to-English translators listed there. I suggest asking first for verification of the nature of the website linked and second for help in finding and understanding the content of the book linked.
If this is not satisfactory, your next step should be to visit the reliable sources noticeboard, where you can list the sources in question and get feedback from other editors. I suspect this would not be as productive as the translation suggestion, though, as Polish language skills would be necessary to verify the contents. You might see if your Polish-English translator would stick around and help with the decision. I would also suggest that any inquiry focus less on the book (presuming it is not self-published) and more on the website. After all, the closer you are to a historical event the more direct your information is likely to be. However, judging from M.K's statements above it seems there may be some contradiction between sources. If this is the case, then the two sources in conflict should also be raised there.
And finally, a little bit of WP:COOL is always a good recommendation. M.K., I suggest trying your best not to get too worked up over this issue. Piotrus, I suggest a little more effort on your part to help M.K. work this out. As a Japanese speaker, I have to constantly remind myself that what looks perfectly comprehensible to me is complete gibberish to most people--I suggest you try and keep the same thing in mind.
If you have any other questions or comments, feel free to contact me on my talk page or in this thread, as I'll be watching this page for a week or so. -- jonny-mt( t)( c) I'm on editor review! 09:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
This is the main problem in short, that original sources do not confirm findings provided in article, despite the claims that they do. Could you provide opinion on this? Cheers, M.K. ( talk) 10:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi guys,
My apologies for the long delay; I've been waiting until I have a solid enough chunk of uninterrupted time on Wikipedia to really sit down and go over all of this before I respond. Sadly, that won't be tonight, but if you can wait until tomorrow night, then I'll come back and see if I can't help sort this out a bit. My apologies for the failings in my original opinion; I make a personal rule of relying on the talk page discussion over the article content in order to make sure I remain as neutral as possible, but it seems a bit more background on the subject was needed to really understand the disagreement. So I'll spend tomorrow reading up and hopefully be able to help you out a bit better than I have. -- jonny-mt( t)( c) I'm on editor review! 15:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
My apologies for the delay again--let's see if we can't get this sorted out somehow.
I've read through the issues again and think I have a (somewhat) clearer grasp of what's going on. I appreciate both of you taking the time and effort to go through the dispute resolution process, and hopefully I can actually be of use this time :)
Let's get the easy one out of the way to begin with--accessibility is not related to verifiability. In other words, the fact that this source is not downloadable, while lamentable, does not mean that the citation is not valid. If you have concerns about it, I suggest using the {{ Verify source}} template to alert other editors so the content can (hopefully) be verified.
As for the references and the statements in the article, after reading through the sources cited and comparing them with their presentation here, it seems they qualify as OR in the form of synthesis. While the explanations put forth by Piotrus seem perfectly logical to me, the fact is that logic is less important in article writing than verifiability. As the sources cited do not say specifically that Vytautas was supported by Lithuanians who resented, among other things, forced baptism, this statement is therefore unverifiable and must be removed along with the other similar unsourced statements.
Now, if Piotrus can come up with sources supporting his explanations, then I would strongly encourage him to include those points in the article. However, it must be remembered that our job at Wikipedia is not to analyze, interpret, or explain--it is simply to gather existing knowledge into a single place.
I hope this helps. If you have any more questions, please feel free to contact me. If you are unsatisfied with my answer and would like another third opinion participant to review it, I'd be more than happy to arrange that as well. And finally, if you'd like to take it to the next stage in the dispute resolution process, I'd be perfectly willing to participate as an outside party. Thanks! -- jonny-mt( t)( c) I'm on editor review! 16:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Some research results:
From that is said we can draw the conclusions: a) current invented name cant stay. b) Astravas enjoys the biggest support among EN sources. c} as village in Belarus and Belarussian name is used in EN publications (in this context), logical way is to use Belarussian name, especially if the same name used today. M.K. ( talk) 10:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Could we discuss why we should not change this article's name, given the prevailing EN-language usage demonstrated above? Novickas ( talk) 16:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Do any of the article's contributors object to renaming it to Astrava Agreement? We all seem to be active on WP at this time, so if no objections are filed, in a week, say? Novickas ( talk) 17:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
With the recent reinstatement of OR'ish claims, old and solved OR problem once again reappeared. I will repeat myself (for compete picture see Talk:Ostrów_Agreement#Third_Opinion) that statment, which is repeatedly reinserted, Vytautas was supported by Lithuanians who resented Polish interpretations of the recent Union of Krewo and baptism of Lithuania, tying Grand Duchy of Lithuania to the Kingdom of Poland is not supported by presented source in this context. My initiated Third party comment also concluded that As for the references and the statements in the article, after reading through the sources cited and comparing them with their presentation here, it seems they qualify as OR in the form of synthesis and As the sources cited do not say specifically that Vytautas was supported by Lithuanians who resented, among other things, forced baptism, this statement is therefore unverifiable and must be removed along with the other similar unsourced statements. Therefore such reinserted statment violates one of the core WP policies WP:NOR. Even more the same volunteer, which keeps inserting this statment, clearly and in no uncertain terms said that Regarding the content issue, as I wrote above, I don't care much if you want to remove that content and specifically the current issue: Regarding the support for V. coming from opponents of baptism, as I wrote above, I don't care much if you want to remove that; it is indeed not that clear. Therefore current attempt to preserve OR claims is not acceptable. M.K. ( talk) 13:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
For some time, single contributor attempts to remove a tag [24], which was placed due to biased article name as indicated by multiply contributors [25], [26], [27] etc. As off 2008-03-02 none of these contributors agreed that current, Polish name-invention, should stay. Therefore problems of article name still opened and not resolved, even more no official WP policies suggest that tags should removed even then problems still opened, under motivation “stale tag”. Tag not only warns readers on improper name , but also can give opportunity to attract more contributors for solving this dead end. Therefore tag restored. M.K. ( talk) 11:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The article states: "The treaty granted Vytautas the status of Grand Duke of Lithuania while Jogaila retained theoretical political supremacy"
Here's a source which contradicts this claim. pg. 204 [28]: "Vitold received the Duchy of Troki and ... the main part of Volhynia with its chief castle at Luck....Vitold himself began very soon to exercise in fact the authority of a grand-duke, although this title was not yet allowed to him officially." (my emphasis).
Volunteer Marek 07:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)