![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is the title of this article appropriate in the English Wikipedia? Does the word Union make any sense in the the information presented to the reader? Dr. Dan 15:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
What does the signing of a document in one city and ratified in another one, have to do with the "Union" of anything? Dr. Dan 13:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
How more specific can one be? The name of the article absolutely makes no sense. Period. Dr. Dan 15:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Can I assume by this question of yours, Lysy, that you agree the title has a nonsensical quality to it, in the English language? Or are you saying something else? Dr. Dan 16:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, this is precisely my point. Nothing more, nothing less. Back at UJ when I was learning Polish, the English speaking group (boy were we naive and green), couldn't understand why we couldn't translate He had a good time to On mial dobry czas, and our pretty teacher said no, it's On bawil sie (forgive my lack of proper diacritics/spelling). I have no hidden purpose in trying to copy edit and correct poor English translations. It's actually overwhelming. In some cases dealing with Russians, I gave up, because of their stubborness. If someone is so certain that their poor translation (that sounds goofy to boot), cannot be challenged or changed, fine. But it actually detracts from the seriousness of the subject matter, and the article, right from the get go. Dr. Dan 17:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Nor, am I sure what the correct English name should be. This one is really, really difficult. You see, most languages have idioms and most of them can not be translated literally. Wie befinden Sie sich?, can't be translated literally into English any more than Jak sie masz?, yet this is the basis of the resistance to correct these poor translations from Polish into English. Dr. Dan 20:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Lysy, Lysy, don't make me scream! It's the word "Union," that is the point of contention here, not Vilnius or Radom.
You're welcome. Dr. Dan 21:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The present name gives me an impression that two municipalities were joined. Did it lower the municipal tax rate in either of them? Did they receive state subsidies for infrastructure and other public bribes to encourage them to join their forces? From which one of these two the next mayor was chosen? Maed 15:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Now wer'e talkin' pardner, an' I like it! The Treaty of Kreva or Krewo, (makes a lot of sense). Read your examples, your English is excellent. The Treaty of Versailles (makes sense). The Locarno Pact (makes sense). The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (kurwy syny, makes sense). The Union of Vilnius and Radom (does not make sense). Dr. Dan 01:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC) p.s. I can't believe that it took Maed's edit to make you aware of where I was coming from. I think it was Calcagus who once told me that I was giving too much credit to some people participating in Eng-Wiki, to operate in English. Maybe it was some else, don't remember. Less you think I mean you, I don't (your English is superb, in fact magnifique. In any case Halibutt, my problem with the title has nothing to do with the substance of this agreement. The facts are the facts. It's the title, that's B.S. (and I don't mean Bachelor of Science). Calling all editors! Calling all editors! Where's the Pro-Konsul when you need him?
Ah yes! Eta vapros (sic). The chicken has to hatch from the egg first (at least in this case). The first issue is the Union of Krewo. This has to be somewhat resolved to go to the next step. And it's truly complicated. Juraune has brought forth some substantial information suggesting the document is in fact a treaty, rather than a Union of any kind. If so, this later treaty, the Union of Vilnius and Radom, actually a treaty (signed in Vilnius), and its ratification (signed in Radom), needs to be put in that light. I don't consider my opinions to be the alpha and omega, nor the final arbiter of these discussions. Let others weigh in too, and give their opinions. Dr. Dan 02:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC) p.s. lots of people have been getting sarcasistic and ironic, not just me, or haven't you noticed? It's nothing personal, but there has been a chauvinism and smuggness that has been challenged now, from many quarters, regarding a perceived agenda, that is continuing to fight old wars and steer English Wikipedia in a certain direction. I'm not going to give examples for a tit for tat, like Elonka and Piotrus did a few days ago. But that's the way I feel at the moment.
By Jove! I think he's got it. Henq's got it. Duh! Pact of Vilnius and Radom. Really brilliant. I think when this is presented appropriately even sources outside of Wikipedia will agree this is the best English translation for the current stub. Bravo Henq! Dr. Dan 21:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The problem with your complete lack of logic, Lysy, is that unless we leave it the way it is (which many people, maybe even you, know is wrong), Any change has to be "invented". For that matter, the original translation from anything into anything, especially in the case of idioms, is "invented". Or wouldn't you agree? Dr. Dan 21:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Lysy, if you are referring to me, please note that I have not renamed anything in these currently discussed issues. And I've done a lot of "discussing" with you all, for a while now. Would the recent sockpuppetry, of Logologist be a more acceptable a subject, than your claim that I'm instigating a revert war? As for the remark "complete lack of logic" being an insult, I will be happy to apologize, when you tell me what part of you remarks were "logical". Until then, the statement stands, and it is true, also. Dr. Dan 22:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC) p.s. Go up to the top of these talk pages, and read my second paragraph. Maybe then you can understand my position a little clearer.
Read your note at my talk page, sorry you're not feeling well (wikistress), I feel fine. Perhaps some fine Polish Vodka might help. I just had a setka myself (z żiemiaków), and I'm not done yet, not while I'm still thinking about it anyway. I think even Halibutt thought you came into the discussion on the "late side" of it. Let me be short and blunt. Correcting an obvious idiomatic translation error that makes no sense, is not Not Original Research. Is that clear? If this insignificant footnote to history (U o V&R), had any importance to anyone in the larger picture of things in the English speaking world, you can be sure it would have been changed long ago. This is not a reason not to do so now. I think our own ukochany, Piotrus, recently told me, quoting a great Chinese scholar: "The longest journey begins with the first step". Dr. Dan 23:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC) p.s. When you're feeling better, perhaps you can help change Kraków back to Cracow.
This is not a case of Lysy being right or wrong, or Henq being right or wrong. This is about correcting an error being protected by smuggness and stupidity. And I am not about to mince words and pussyfoot around with the truth, and be afraid to call it what it is. If the consensus is to leave it in its nonsensical form, so be it. "So we are free to name them anyway we please". Was there ever a more hypocritical remark spoken on the subject of the Union of Vilnius and Radom? I doubt it. Dr. Dan 02:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
In response to a request to comment on this page title, I must admit Dr. Dan is correct. The English title implies that there was a Vilnius and Radom were united in some way. Union of Kalmar is perhaps a good parallel example, but in what senses is this "treaty" (or are these "treaties") a "Union" or "Pact"? The article says nothing about any union, saying it was only an amendment to the Act of Kreva. So the title is rather silly in English (for all I know, it may make perfect sense in Polish). Am I missing something? Calgacus ( ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 09:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes Lysy, accords would be fine. And my apologies for losing my cool. As I said earlier, I had no hidden agenda in changing the title. It was awkward and devoid of logical meaning in English. I didn't think it was a big deal to change it and correct it. And why did I lose my cool? Because I felt I was being baited, asked for a alternative, and upon agreeing with Henq's choice, told No Original Research. It struck me as being devious. This, plus the duplicity in the recent Sock puppet voting, angered me, immensely. Should have taken the whole picture, and the way things "work" in WK from the get go, in mind. Dr. Dan 15:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC) p.s. Thanks Calcagus, for your input, and as usual, your historical, scholarly contributions in the English Language.
In historical context, shouldn't it be Vilna - i.e. Union of Vilna and Radom?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 20:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
In lurking about off the beaten path, I see this discussion has reason to be freshened up a bit.
As I understand it, the primary agreement was the Astravas (Ostrowo) Agreement in 1392 where Jagiełło and Vytautas settled their differences. In reading Stone's history of the Polish-Lithuanian state, the 1401 agreement "largely restated the Astravas Agreement of 1392. It also made provisions for the future. Jogaila would inherit Lithuania if Vytatuas dies first, and Vytautas was to be consulte on the election of of a Polish king if Jagiełło died first. Lithuanian boyars confirmed the arrangement at Vilnius, as did Polish nobles at Radom." (Astravas/Ostrowo is Stone's nomenclature.)
Stone does not particularly single out the 1401 agreement. It's not surprising, then, that one finds all sorts of Vilnius-Radom (for whatever reason, very few Vilno-Radom) variants: union, compact, accords, agreement, pact, treaty among them. It does seem to me that "union" overstates things a bit, since Ostrów was the primary agreement in that regard.
Taking a step back, if the primary purpose of the Vilnius-Radom was to restate a prior agreement with the addition of terms regarding succession of monarchies, the article may overstate the agreement's historical significance (Astravas being the primary). Moreover, there needs to be much better continuity and integration between the Ostrów Agreement and here. For example, Stone makes it clear that 1401 specifically freed Vytautas to launch his military campaign against the Teutonic Order—a fact which is completely absent in the Ostrów Agreement article, although it is present here. (Nor is it made clear @Ostrów that 1401 was the intended reaffirmation of 1392, whatever the subsequent actual historical circumstances.)
And not completely as an aside, "Vilnius and Radom" implies cities. Standard usage, union/compact/etc. aside, looks to be "Vilnius-Radom whatever". I do have to say that as this is a direct follow-on to the "Ostrów Agreement", "Vilnius-Radom Agreement" might work here as well. (Considering myself both pro-Polish and pro-Lithuanian—that does not mean, however, exaggerating the merits of either position in the absence of the other—I therefore consider myself neutral in this matter.)
Just some thoughts.
PЄTЄRS J V ►
TALK
15:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is the title of this article appropriate in the English Wikipedia? Does the word Union make any sense in the the information presented to the reader? Dr. Dan 15:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
What does the signing of a document in one city and ratified in another one, have to do with the "Union" of anything? Dr. Dan 13:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
How more specific can one be? The name of the article absolutely makes no sense. Period. Dr. Dan 15:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Can I assume by this question of yours, Lysy, that you agree the title has a nonsensical quality to it, in the English language? Or are you saying something else? Dr. Dan 16:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, this is precisely my point. Nothing more, nothing less. Back at UJ when I was learning Polish, the English speaking group (boy were we naive and green), couldn't understand why we couldn't translate He had a good time to On mial dobry czas, and our pretty teacher said no, it's On bawil sie (forgive my lack of proper diacritics/spelling). I have no hidden purpose in trying to copy edit and correct poor English translations. It's actually overwhelming. In some cases dealing with Russians, I gave up, because of their stubborness. If someone is so certain that their poor translation (that sounds goofy to boot), cannot be challenged or changed, fine. But it actually detracts from the seriousness of the subject matter, and the article, right from the get go. Dr. Dan 17:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Nor, am I sure what the correct English name should be. This one is really, really difficult. You see, most languages have idioms and most of them can not be translated literally. Wie befinden Sie sich?, can't be translated literally into English any more than Jak sie masz?, yet this is the basis of the resistance to correct these poor translations from Polish into English. Dr. Dan 20:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Lysy, Lysy, don't make me scream! It's the word "Union," that is the point of contention here, not Vilnius or Radom.
You're welcome. Dr. Dan 21:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The present name gives me an impression that two municipalities were joined. Did it lower the municipal tax rate in either of them? Did they receive state subsidies for infrastructure and other public bribes to encourage them to join their forces? From which one of these two the next mayor was chosen? Maed 15:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Now wer'e talkin' pardner, an' I like it! The Treaty of Kreva or Krewo, (makes a lot of sense). Read your examples, your English is excellent. The Treaty of Versailles (makes sense). The Locarno Pact (makes sense). The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (kurwy syny, makes sense). The Union of Vilnius and Radom (does not make sense). Dr. Dan 01:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC) p.s. I can't believe that it took Maed's edit to make you aware of where I was coming from. I think it was Calcagus who once told me that I was giving too much credit to some people participating in Eng-Wiki, to operate in English. Maybe it was some else, don't remember. Less you think I mean you, I don't (your English is superb, in fact magnifique. In any case Halibutt, my problem with the title has nothing to do with the substance of this agreement. The facts are the facts. It's the title, that's B.S. (and I don't mean Bachelor of Science). Calling all editors! Calling all editors! Where's the Pro-Konsul when you need him?
Ah yes! Eta vapros (sic). The chicken has to hatch from the egg first (at least in this case). The first issue is the Union of Krewo. This has to be somewhat resolved to go to the next step. And it's truly complicated. Juraune has brought forth some substantial information suggesting the document is in fact a treaty, rather than a Union of any kind. If so, this later treaty, the Union of Vilnius and Radom, actually a treaty (signed in Vilnius), and its ratification (signed in Radom), needs to be put in that light. I don't consider my opinions to be the alpha and omega, nor the final arbiter of these discussions. Let others weigh in too, and give their opinions. Dr. Dan 02:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC) p.s. lots of people have been getting sarcasistic and ironic, not just me, or haven't you noticed? It's nothing personal, but there has been a chauvinism and smuggness that has been challenged now, from many quarters, regarding a perceived agenda, that is continuing to fight old wars and steer English Wikipedia in a certain direction. I'm not going to give examples for a tit for tat, like Elonka and Piotrus did a few days ago. But that's the way I feel at the moment.
By Jove! I think he's got it. Henq's got it. Duh! Pact of Vilnius and Radom. Really brilliant. I think when this is presented appropriately even sources outside of Wikipedia will agree this is the best English translation for the current stub. Bravo Henq! Dr. Dan 21:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The problem with your complete lack of logic, Lysy, is that unless we leave it the way it is (which many people, maybe even you, know is wrong), Any change has to be "invented". For that matter, the original translation from anything into anything, especially in the case of idioms, is "invented". Or wouldn't you agree? Dr. Dan 21:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Lysy, if you are referring to me, please note that I have not renamed anything in these currently discussed issues. And I've done a lot of "discussing" with you all, for a while now. Would the recent sockpuppetry, of Logologist be a more acceptable a subject, than your claim that I'm instigating a revert war? As for the remark "complete lack of logic" being an insult, I will be happy to apologize, when you tell me what part of you remarks were "logical". Until then, the statement stands, and it is true, also. Dr. Dan 22:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC) p.s. Go up to the top of these talk pages, and read my second paragraph. Maybe then you can understand my position a little clearer.
Read your note at my talk page, sorry you're not feeling well (wikistress), I feel fine. Perhaps some fine Polish Vodka might help. I just had a setka myself (z żiemiaków), and I'm not done yet, not while I'm still thinking about it anyway. I think even Halibutt thought you came into the discussion on the "late side" of it. Let me be short and blunt. Correcting an obvious idiomatic translation error that makes no sense, is not Not Original Research. Is that clear? If this insignificant footnote to history (U o V&R), had any importance to anyone in the larger picture of things in the English speaking world, you can be sure it would have been changed long ago. This is not a reason not to do so now. I think our own ukochany, Piotrus, recently told me, quoting a great Chinese scholar: "The longest journey begins with the first step". Dr. Dan 23:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC) p.s. When you're feeling better, perhaps you can help change Kraków back to Cracow.
This is not a case of Lysy being right or wrong, or Henq being right or wrong. This is about correcting an error being protected by smuggness and stupidity. And I am not about to mince words and pussyfoot around with the truth, and be afraid to call it what it is. If the consensus is to leave it in its nonsensical form, so be it. "So we are free to name them anyway we please". Was there ever a more hypocritical remark spoken on the subject of the Union of Vilnius and Radom? I doubt it. Dr. Dan 02:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
In response to a request to comment on this page title, I must admit Dr. Dan is correct. The English title implies that there was a Vilnius and Radom were united in some way. Union of Kalmar is perhaps a good parallel example, but in what senses is this "treaty" (or are these "treaties") a "Union" or "Pact"? The article says nothing about any union, saying it was only an amendment to the Act of Kreva. So the title is rather silly in English (for all I know, it may make perfect sense in Polish). Am I missing something? Calgacus ( ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 09:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes Lysy, accords would be fine. And my apologies for losing my cool. As I said earlier, I had no hidden agenda in changing the title. It was awkward and devoid of logical meaning in English. I didn't think it was a big deal to change it and correct it. And why did I lose my cool? Because I felt I was being baited, asked for a alternative, and upon agreeing with Henq's choice, told No Original Research. It struck me as being devious. This, plus the duplicity in the recent Sock puppet voting, angered me, immensely. Should have taken the whole picture, and the way things "work" in WK from the get go, in mind. Dr. Dan 15:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC) p.s. Thanks Calcagus, for your input, and as usual, your historical, scholarly contributions in the English Language.
In historical context, shouldn't it be Vilna - i.e. Union of Vilna and Radom?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 20:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
In lurking about off the beaten path, I see this discussion has reason to be freshened up a bit.
As I understand it, the primary agreement was the Astravas (Ostrowo) Agreement in 1392 where Jagiełło and Vytautas settled their differences. In reading Stone's history of the Polish-Lithuanian state, the 1401 agreement "largely restated the Astravas Agreement of 1392. It also made provisions for the future. Jogaila would inherit Lithuania if Vytatuas dies first, and Vytautas was to be consulte on the election of of a Polish king if Jagiełło died first. Lithuanian boyars confirmed the arrangement at Vilnius, as did Polish nobles at Radom." (Astravas/Ostrowo is Stone's nomenclature.)
Stone does not particularly single out the 1401 agreement. It's not surprising, then, that one finds all sorts of Vilnius-Radom (for whatever reason, very few Vilno-Radom) variants: union, compact, accords, agreement, pact, treaty among them. It does seem to me that "union" overstates things a bit, since Ostrów was the primary agreement in that regard.
Taking a step back, if the primary purpose of the Vilnius-Radom was to restate a prior agreement with the addition of terms regarding succession of monarchies, the article may overstate the agreement's historical significance (Astravas being the primary). Moreover, there needs to be much better continuity and integration between the Ostrów Agreement and here. For example, Stone makes it clear that 1401 specifically freed Vytautas to launch his military campaign against the Teutonic Order—a fact which is completely absent in the Ostrów Agreement article, although it is present here. (Nor is it made clear @Ostrów that 1401 was the intended reaffirmation of 1392, whatever the subsequent actual historical circumstances.)
And not completely as an aside, "Vilnius and Radom" implies cities. Standard usage, union/compact/etc. aside, looks to be "Vilnius-Radom whatever". I do have to say that as this is a direct follow-on to the "Ostrów Agreement", "Vilnius-Radom Agreement" might work here as well. (Considering myself both pro-Polish and pro-Lithuanian—that does not mean, however, exaggerating the merits of either position in the absence of the other—I therefore consider myself neutral in this matter.)
Just some thoughts.
PЄTЄRS J V ►
TALK
15:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)