Polish–Muscovite Wars (1605–1618) is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
This Â
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Anybody up to a job? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:41, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Battle of Moscow 1612 briefly described in Polish here. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
To Russian speaking friends: can you see if there is any relevant info here or here? I can understand some of this, but not enough to make details clear. Perhaps there is some useful info? Names, places, descriptions? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I also found one page which has a terrible POV. It is in Englsh, so you may read it here. At first I wanted to take some details about Mozhaysk battle from this place, but after I read the parts like 'In XIV-XVII centuries Poles and Lithuanians were scrupulously engaged in obliteration of Russia' I am not sure if any info from this page is credible. Can anybody find anything else about the battle/sieges of Mozhaysk? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Dymitriads seems to be the name invented, well, by me :) by translation of the Polish name. Perhaps we should move it to Polish-Muscovy War (160?-1618)? Btw, what is the recognized start date - 1605 or 1609? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:09, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
IMO the name must be symmetric: "Poland-Muscovy" or "Polish-Muscovite". The latter is preferrable, since this style seems to be common for wars: Polish-Swedish, Russo-Turkish, etc. mikka (t) 19:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Done. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Not entirely sure why Poitrus reverted my edits. All I did was fix the Main article wikilinks. Atleast now they point somewhere. -- Kross 18:02, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
What are you talking about? The {{main|[[article name]]}} didn't link to *anything*. I was using the proper template. Look at the version before mine, the main article links were messed up. -- Kross 22:01, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
My mistake, there are no [[]] tags in the template, it should be {{main|article name}}. It does seem there was an error with the templates used. Fixed now. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Please pick one of three: Ladislaus, Wladyslaw, Wladislaw, and stick with it. mikka (t) 17:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I will eventually write an article on this idea (from 1572 to 18th century). It is quite amazing - many ppl heard about this war, but few heard about the union proposals. Apparently, they were quite popular on both sides in that time. What a shame it never worked out (peacefully...). The Malec book I added to references covers this fairly extensively (until 1650s proposals), with some interesting details (i.e. what exactly was proposed, what was agreed, when, by whom), so if anybody wants any details on this leave me a message. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I found a source saying that Dobrynicze was an important battle during the First Dymitriad. Any info on this, including a Russian/English name of the place? Date would be nice. Battles for the Second Dymitriad and later war that we may be missing: Zajmiszcze, Rohatyn, Briańsk. Again, it would be nice if sb could add dates to those battles (and see if he can find any sources on the other battles from warbox for future reference). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Zarajsk 1608 and Briańsk 1615 seem to be ([http://www.pulsar.net.pl/kawaleria/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=311 Polish source] (link being blocked by spam filter) among the battles of Lisowczycy. After Zarajsk, Lisowczycy were defeated at Niedźwiedzi Bród, then with Jan Piotr Sapieha failed the siege of Lawra Troicko-Siergiejewska and retreated near Rachmancewo. Then came successes (pillages) at Kostroma, Soligalicz and some other cities (those battles took place around 1608-1609). He took Psków in 1610 and clashed with Swedes operating in Muscovy during the Ingrian War. Lisowczycy were essential in the defence of Smoleńsk in 1612, when most of regulars (wojsko kwarciane) mutined and joined the konfederacja rohatynska. For the next three years Lisowski's forces were important in the guarding of the Polish-Muscovy border against Muscovy incursions. In 1615 Aleksander Józef Lisowski gathered many outlaws and invaded Muscovy with 6 'choragiew' of calvalry. He lied siegeo to Briańsk/ Bryansk and defeated the relief force of few thousadns soldiers under kniazh Jurij Szachowski near Karaczewo. Then Lisowski defeated the front guard of a much larger force (several times larger then himself) under the command of khniaz Dymitr Pozarski, who decided to defend instead of attack and fortified his forces in a camp. Lisowczycy broke contact with his forces, burned Bielów and Lichwin, took Pieremyszl, turned north, defeated Muscovy army at Rzew, turned to Kara Sea, then to Kaszyn, burned Torzek, returned to Poland without any interruptions from Muscovy forces. Until autumn 1616 Lisowski and his forces remained at the Polish-Muscovy border, when Lisowski suddenly fell ill and died on 11 October. Since then the formation was called after him Lisowczycy. Despite the death of Lisowski, his forces remained a singinfiant threat: in 1616 they captured Kursk and defeated Russian forces at Bolchow, in 1617 relieved Smolensk besieged by Russian forces, which lifted the siege and retreated to Biała soon after receiving news that Lisowczycy, then commanded by Stnaisław Czapiński were in the neighbourhood. When Czapiński died at Kaługa, Lisowczycy elected Walenty Rogawski for the new commander. They accompanied Władysław forces in 1617, and while he retreated, they came as far as Obu (?-wrong name? Abu?]], where they were impressed by the giant golden statue (possibly a Buddha statue]].
Uff. Translated and summarized Lisowczycy history relevant to this war, now I have to incorporate this into tha article - and I am not even thinking of all the name fixing :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Ummm, I think we need to change the beginning date to 1604, since it appears Dmitry [...] rode to Russia on June 1604 (from False Dmitry I). Also, see Talk:Truce of Deulino#date? for an issue regarding the date of the truce (1618 or 1619)? And I'd still appreciate comments on my above inquiry regarding battle places. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of changing the battlebox to use the new warbox template. I've also removed the "unknown" and "various" entries from various fields (since this allows the warbox to remove unneeded rows); feel free to revert if this information is, for some reason, necessary. Kirill Lokshin 02:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Political climate of what time? Should we rather say in "today's political climate"? The statement isn't clear. -- Irpen 20:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Check this then.
Check also "Ğ¡Ñылки по теме" -- Irpen 20:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC) .
For a review, check this link: http://lenta.ru/articles/2005/11/02/narodnoe/ "Ğовый краÑный день Что мы празднуем четвертого ноÑбрÑ"
Quotes:
As you see, nothing about Poles. Read on and you will also find:
I hope this is convinsing enough. -- Irpen 20:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I am not a historian, but the link to the very article I posted says in the very beginning: "4 ноÑĞ±Ñ€Ñ (26 октÑĞ±Ñ€Ñ Ğ¿Ğ¾ Ñтарому ÑтилÑ) польÑкий гарнизон, оÑажденный в Кремле, ÑĞ´Ğ°Ğ»ÑÑ Ğ¾Ğ¿Ğ¾Ğ»Ñ‡ĞµĞ½Ğ¸Ñ ĞœĞ¸Ğ½Ğ¸Ğ½Ğ° и ПожарÑкого".
Maybe Poles surrendered on the 4th and left on the 7th. I don't know.
Russia obviously didn't want Nov 7 anymore. For the last years every novemebr 7th was spoiled by the fringe Communist demostrations, sometimes violent. OTOH, everyone wanted an early-November date. -- Irpen 21:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Ekhem, It was bolshevik Russia that invaded its neighbours... idea of Polish agression against Soviet Russia was born on this day in 1917 Did Bolshevik Russia held some of Polish lands taken in partitions perhaps ? -- Molobo 11:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Polish independence is anti-Russian ? Nice. :)
-- Molobo 11:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, first Irpen explained that the new Russian holiday is not polonophobic, now Ghirlandajo explains that it is. How confusing ... -- Lysy ( talk) 11:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I believe my question should be addressed to Piotrus, who (if I'm not mistaken) submitted the picture of Avraamy Palitsyn defending the lavra. "Avraamy Palitsyn bravely defends..." is not the real name of this painting, you probably know that. Its name is Ğборона Троице-Сергиевой Лавры, (The Defense of the Troitse-Sergiyeva Lavra). I'm asking because my sources tell me that Avraamy Palitsyn was in Moscow throughout the siege and never took part in the actual fighting itself. If I'm right, then the name of the painting as it is now is misleading and incorrect. What do you guys say? KNewman 03:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I can't agree with the statement: "In Poland the Dmitriads campaign is remembered as the height of the Polish Golden Age, the time Poles captured Moscow." In my opinion - and I'm a Pole- in Poland we hardly remember this part of our history. At least when it comes to what is taught at schools. I think that Polish people have been watching the growing importace of this topic in Russia with a bit of amazement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.4.2.3 ( talk) 13:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Hah, I have an image question myself :) Found a picture, but the related Polish page has no info on what, when, by whom. Context makes it likely that this is some event related to the fall of Polish garrison in Moscow. Can anybody give more data? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
And as long as we are discussing pictures, any information on source/author of Image:Husaria pod Kluszynem.jpg would be appreciated. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I am wondering about the passage:
Lisowczycy broke contact with his forces, burned Bielów and Lichwin, took Pieremyszl, turned north, defeated Muscovite army at Rzew, turned to Kara Sea, then to Kaszyn, burned Torzek and heavy with loot returned to Poland without any further opposition from Muscovite forces.
Are you sure Kara Sea is correct? It is rather far away from the theatre of operations, beyond the Arctic Circle. Balcer 04:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Recently Google Print has made a number of books about Russian history available online, at least in parts, for free. Access to a few pages in each book is restricted in order to protect the book's copyright. Among the books available, there is:
A Short History of Russia's First Civil War: The Time of Troubles and the Founding of the Romanov Dynasty
published in 2004, as well as
Russia's First Civil War: The Time of Troubles and the Founding of the Romanov Dynasty
published in 2001, both written by Chester S L Dunning (I guess the first is an abridged version of the second).
Here is a link to a relevant search page: Google Print link.
This could be very useful to everyone working on improving this article. To access the text you need to have the (free) gmail account. The best thing about this service is that Google can search inside the book for any word you specify. Balcer 21:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
We have a problem with the name of one of the main characters in this story. I have seen 4 viable versions so far:
Which one is the most correct? Clearly the one used currently, Dmitriy, is the one not used by major English references. In my opinion, we should use Dmitri (or possibly Dmitry) as the simplest option. Any other suggestions? Balcer 05:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I'll leave the correct spelling of Dmitri and Dmitriads to our Russian-speaking editors. As for the name of this war, I think the case is clear that there are several of them. Search through scholalry literature will surely be interesting, but at the moment I'd favour Muscovy because it is more descriptive then Russia in this case (i.e. consider the difference between links to Muscovy and Russia).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Just checked a Thirty Years' War article in EB. Quote:
In addition to the fact that these wars are considered related is worth adding to the article, which I did, please note the EB calls the peace treaty the followed Russo-Polish. We just have one more authoratitave reference book that uses Russo-Polish rather than Polish-Muscovite. -- Irpen 19:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I was talking about the name of the war and not the name of the country. I am aware that EB uses Muscovy too. it even has an article under this name. I checked google print. "The Polish Armies 1569-1696" by Richard Brezezinski also uses Russo-Polish War for this particular war [3].The search for Russo-Polish War in google print gives 744 pages (many of which are for other conflicts) but the search for Polish-Muscovy War gives zero counts in google print. -- Irpen 21:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
As I did not argue with the fact that most of the 700+ hits indeed referred to the PSW. I did not go through 700+ books but several other books in the list, in addition to the one I quoted above, use the term Russo-Polish War for what we in Wikipedia call
Smolensk War (same historic time, hense supposedly similar terminology). And it is important that the use of Polish-Muscovy War could not be found at all. Could be that there is no established view in historiography to consider the 1605-18 events as one war (as the article says already) or many view a conflict broader and include Smolensk war too. Even if 1605-18 events are not established solidly in historiography as a one war, rather than a series of smaller wars or a part of a larger war, it's no reason to modify what this article is about. However, if we want to see it as a war, I suggest we use the title for which some usage is found, that is
Russo-Polish War (1605-1618). Another title, a descriptive one, may be Polish intervention... or
Polish Invasion of Russia (In line with
Napoleon's Invasion of Russia and
Mongol invasion of Rus). However, if this seems like a POV title to the Polish editors, I am fine with the "Russo-Polish War..." above. Speaking of POV titles sensitivities, we had a
Massacre of Praga article for almost a year and it didn't seem a POV title for its authors and editors. OTOH, I must admit that there were no complaints when I raised the issue at talk and finally moved the article to a more neutral title. --
Irpen 02:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
As I said above, there aren't many sources that I found that treat the the events between exactly 1605 and 1618 as events of one war. Perhaps, this is because it is often viewed as a combination of several wars or a part of a bigger war. Among sources that do take it as a 1605-18 single war, we have already two cited that call it "Russo-Polish":
Additionally "The Encyclopedia of World History. 2001". Uses "Polish intervention in Russia" I haven't found any other books that use exactly same time period to refer to a single war but I didn't go through 700+ entries of google print search (most indeed are about the 20th century PSW). However, I also found several sources that use "Russo-Polish war" for Smolensk War (same historic time, hence supposedly same terminology) and several that use this term for the later war that ended in 1667 ( Treaty of Andrusovo). Do we have to go and count for exact numbers and go through 700+ search results? Is Russo-Polish was disagreeable for any reason? On the side note, I found only one mention of the term "Polish-Muscovite War" but it was also in relation to a different war (1654-1667). I can post links if necessary. -- Irpen 03:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
I stated my reasons above. While I still think Muscovy/Muscovite is more descriptive, I won't object if the Russian editors want to use Russia instead of Muscovy. But - wouldn't this logically require us to change all intext references to Russia as well? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 07:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
The article have just became an FA, does it mean that my proposal for name change to Russo-Polish War (1605-1618) or to Polish invasion of Russia (1605-1618) are thrown out? I haven't seen anyone really objecting to the first one. Or are there objections? -- Irpen 07:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Furthermore, if you read carefully the quote you included, it's clear that it was the
Smolensk War which was closely related to the
Thirty Years War. But this war was not. After all, it was over before the Thirty Years War began. Besides, I do not think this is important enough to mention in the lead.
Balcer 19:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Is it OK then to have it in the name section? You can rephrase my text if you like. -- Irpen 20:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Why is the siege of Bely listed in the Polish-Russian War of 1605-1618? AFAIK, it happened during the Smolensk War in 1634... Was it sieged twice? Please, clarify. One more thing. Why is it called Bely? I think it was called Belaya (Ğ‘ĞµĞ»Ğ°Ñ ĞºÑ€ĞµĞ¿Ğ¾ÑÑ‚ÑŒ, or White fortress) and later renamed to Bely (Белый). And why are there different dates above and under the map (1609 and 1605)? KNewman 22:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18Â mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.<div class="references-small"><references/></div>
.
{{subst:js|User:AndyZ/monobook.js/footnotehelper.js}}
to your monobook.js file (mine is located at
User:AndyZ/monobook.js) and then bypass your browser's cache by pressing: Mozilla/Safari/Konqueror: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R), Internet Explorer: press Ctrl-F5, Opera: press F5. In editing mode, click on the "Footnote creater" tab that appears.I would like to raise the issue of moving this mage to the Polish invasion of Russia (1605-1618). The move could be done without any admin involvement and does not require a WP:RM listing but I would like to find the stand of the editors involved in the article before imposing the name on the community by making a move. At the same time let's try to avoid the WP:RM listing unless necessary and see whether the involved editors can agree.
The details of this discussion are at Talk:Polish September Campaign#Requested move. Basically, the issue, as I see it, is whether for the events where the invading party is clear it's OK to use the "invasion" in the article's titles. As my frequent opponent Halibutt said at the referenced talk page, he disputes the usage of the term "invasion" "only in the cases where it was absolutely not clear who "invaded". Since there is a complete historic clarity on who invaded whom in this particular case, please express your opinion whether the proposed article's move would be a good idea. If you did not vote at Talk:Polish September Campaign#Requested move yet, please consider reading and voting on that related issue as well. A related discussion is also at Talk:Kiev Offensive#Article's title.
The clarity of who is an invader he is such that even two most authoritative English language encyclopedias use the term in their article as follows:
Since both encyclpedia are clear about it, this is as referenced as anything can possibly be. -- Irpen 03:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Krill that the early part of the war was hardly an invasion - it was more like unofficial intervention of some mercenaries. Still, as long as we are discussing name, please check #1604?? - there is the issue of whether this war (or whatever) begun in 1605 or 1604.--  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk 08:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
See this very page past discussions as well as an answer to your question which seems you have not bothered to read. ALso check this Eb article. It is not too long. -- Irpen 04:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Piotrus, your question was answered and by the last entry you merely repeated it. The EB's article says: "Muscovy became a distinct principality during the second half of the 13th century under the rule of Daniel..." and end with "By the end of Ivan's [III] reign [1505], the prince of Moscow was, in fact, the ruler of Russia proper". Also, and it has been told you before as well, Ivan IV, and all the Russian rulers afterwards, was crowned the Russian Tzar not the Grand Prince of Moscow. -- Irpen 05:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I am talking about this article here. Not the Lithuanian wars for now. -- Irpen 05:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The issue has been discussed ad nauseum on the Polish noticeboard, on the Russian noticeboard (last month) and on numerous talk pages. I am not going to feed the trolling and raise the issue again. If you want to discuss the same issue over and over again, until you received a POV result you favour, please go to Talk:Jogaila. -- Ghirla -трёп- 16:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Piotrus, I brought this up to you at least 5 times. I can't believe you "forgot" and your calls for diffs is just WP:DFTT#Pestering, a "continual questions with obvious or easy-to-find answers". In any case, Eb sites 1505, Columbia (mid-16th century), this article is about 17th century, so what's your problem? -- Irpen 18:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, Piotrus, I generally make it a habit to not feed the Pestering but I made several exceptions for you in the past and I will make one more. How many diffs you want? 3? 5? 7? I can do any of this. -- Irpen 20:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Piotrus, I can and will do it but I will note that you decided to waste my time on this meaningless work. I deliberately offered some lower numbers as an alternative, hoping that your goal is not to force me to waste time on digging diffs from months ago. Will be back. -- Irpen 21:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Piotrus, it took me only five minutes to find many times where the issue was brought to you personally. I am sure more can be googled out. The sources were also discussed at the same time. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. I hope forcing me to waste time to bring up top you the links which you already knopw gave you enough satisfaction. Seeing this attitude on your part did not make me happy but I suppose you don't care, do you? Anyway, I fulfulled your request aimed at nothing but getting myself busy.
Now, I am really sick and tired of this sneaky POV pushing through titling the articles. Invasions and massacres of Poland and Poles, while "wars" and "battles" with Russia and Ukraine has created too much drama. The only solution I see starts from limiting the M. word to where it belongs, the times of the Grand Principality of Moscow. All the war and battle articles get renamed to wars and battles. If, however, someone here persists with the massacred, invasioned and martyrdomed titles, this article's title has to be invasioned as well. Or "interventioned", your choice. Either we strive to avoid bad blood and stick to "wars" or we accept the "invasions" and "occupations" and apply them universally. And Piotrus, please no more DFTT#Pestering requests. -- Irpen 01:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
As I thought, you did not read the diffs and provided an unrelated answer. So much you value my time spent on looking for them.
Enough, I am POV-titling this as well as the Soviet invasion of Poland (1939) and I since I made multiple proposals in search of the meaningful compromise I do not expect my tags removed lightly. -- Irpen 01:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Piotrus, note, that I not simply objected to the titles but made several proposal backed by sources and WP conventions. You counter it by an empty statement. Propose new titles and I will be happy to consider them. I view French invasion indeed non-optimal as the Grand-army was not purely French. -- Irpen 04:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I suggest discussing the title of this article here. It is a totaly separate issue from splitting the article which formerly contained arbotraly pasted together two periods of Russian history into Grand Duchy of Moscow and Russian Tsardom.
As far as this article is concerned, I see three options. The former name (1), the current name (2) and the title which would include the words "Polish invasion" or "Polish intervention" (the latter has also many sources that support it). How this war is called elsewhere was analyzed at the talk above several times and I invite users to review the past analysis. Personally, I consider the current title to be just an OK one, "Polish intervention" being the most favored and the former title the least favored.
Should we start a straw poll? If someone just itches to return in to the Muscovy-containing russophobic name immediately, I will not interfere. The move was not made with salting the earth and since the talk page follows the article unobstructed, this should not affect the discussion. So, three options: M-word, R-word and i-word. Straw poll? -- Irpen 04:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Kirill for the sobering comment. But let's get back to the serious business :).
Perhaps the issue about the dash will be rendered moot as the article might end up at the Polish intervention in Russia which I think is the optimal name. Right, Piotrus? -- Irpen 05:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Not Muscovy, Piotrus. Muscovy is out of question. Not only it is offensive (see talk:Muscovy but also incorrect for the times post-Moscow Principality. -- Irpen 18:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
No straw polls, we have had enough problems with them at Jogaila article. WP:RM is simple. If you want to move it, and there is no majority support for the move from talk, start a RM and see if you can gather enough support. I reverted the move to the old name that was given community approval during the FAC process. PS. I will of course not object to a hyphen move, if somebody fixes double redirects and talk page templates. PS2. I am still looking for a single reference that would state that 'Muscovy' in a title is russophobic...--  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk 13:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
As for the other civil war, Poland did not manage to reach any of the Russian proper. That was Polish invasion in Ukraine and Polish invasion in Belarus. So, Polish intervention in Russia best applies to this article. -- Irpen 18:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Piotrus, did you change your mind or you still object to Russo-Polish War (1605-1618)? -- Irpen 01:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
There is also WP:PRO. What's your problem? WP:RM is not required since this move can be accomplished without the administrative interference. Informal consensus of the concerned parties at talk is needed though. I am trying to gauge it. -- Irpen 05:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I am just asking. Some people change their minds. You are one of them. You said before that you don't object to such rename. Than you said later that you do. How difficult is to just say, whether you object to such a name now. Note that the article about the contemporary Russian state is now correctly called Russian Tsardom and the Grand Duchy of Moscow (Muscovy) took no part in the war. But that's aside. You think the RPW is a bad name, yes or no? -- Irpen 06:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
From Halibutt's statement, the most precise name would then be Polish intervention into the Russian Civil War (1605–1618). Would that be acceptable? -- Irpen 19:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I think Polish intervention in Russia's Time of Troubles would be a good title. Anyone objecting seriously? -- Irpen 01:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Piotrus, the article about the respective time in the Russian history is called the Russian Tsardom. Muscovy belongs to the Grand Duchy of Moscow which was over in the previous century. -- Irpen 02:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
We are using the descriptive title here because if we go by the most common name, it would be the Polish invasion of Russia (see above). -- Irpen 04:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Because Time of Troubles affected more than just Moscow but the whole country. Read an article for a start. -- Irpen 04:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
About a PA invocation, please be more specific in what exactly constitutes a PA or just cut this unwarranted civility talk. About Davies, are you saying that he thought the country's name was Moscow? -- Irpen 05:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Appleseed, I chastised you enough for wikilawyering and unwarranted invoking of civility issues. I will try just ignoring the empty talk and ask a direct question. Would you tell the scholars who called it Polish invasion of Russia to "read Davies" for a start? Try to tell it to, say, the authors of the articles in Britannica [11] which says:
Also, do not forget to tell this to the authors of the Columbia Encyclopedia article [12] where we find:
Note not only the Rus-word but also an inv-word there. So, based on this, should we go back to the Polish invasion title proposal? Now, just say plainly what is your problem with using the Rus-word in the title?
So, are you still claiming that there is no enough scholarly use to justify Russia in the title? Please try to answer a question and stay on topic. Unwarranted civility and gratuity talk is unhelpful. TIA, -- Irpen 09:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Ignoring OT stuff as promised, the current proposal is not Polish invasion of Russia. For now, I suggest merely Russo-Polish (1605–1618). This title first both as a descriptive name and is used in literature to refer to the conflict. Please state the objections if there are. (Oh, and please no tricks of turning this red link into a redirect with a history). -- Irpen 04:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Piotrus, please as a personal favor to me explain why you object to Russo-Polish war even if you have done that and I did not see. TIA, -- Irpen 05:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
One more source for this discussion - Dictionary of Wars by George C. Kohn (Revised edition, July 1999) names this war "Russo-Polish War of 1609-1618" - this book is the best one-volume encyclopedia of military conflict. Really it's very strange to see old and never commonly used (in history science) term Muscovy in Wikipedia. This term is often used in political discussions whem smb would like to offence Russia but WIKI should be an encyclopedia, not newspaper -- Ioakinf 16:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Is anyone objecting to moving this to Russo-Polish War (1605–1618)? Just checking. -- Irpen 02:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
That was months ago. My question is whether anyone still objects. Please answer for yourself. Do you object to such name? -- Irpen 02:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
What about GDL? Xx236 ( talk) 09:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to rename this article to: Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth-Muscovite War Samogitia ( talk) 11:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 01:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
The top image does not explain in either its description or on its own page what the colours mean. It can be assumed that the green is Russia, but what are the yellow, red and pink areas? Which of this is the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, and why are parts of it striped? There is no info whatsoever. Prinsgezinde ( talk) 19:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
The colors are also misleading, if the legend is any indication. Most of the pink areas immediately to the east of Kiev were part of the Polish Kingdom (and of the Grand-Duchy of Lithuania before 1569) and were not part of the territories gained by the Commonwealth as part of the wars in the title of the article. On this map, the boundary between white and pink areas from approximately Kiev to the south are the boundaries set at the Treaty of Andrusovo in 1667 and which remained the eastern boundary of the Commonwealth in Ukraine until the Partition of 1772 (Zigoto). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.253.82.48 ( talk) 17:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Surely the Livonian War was a major sign of rivalry between Poland and Russia, so the sentence including: "first major sign of rivalry and uneasy relations between Poland and Russia" should be revised? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyHoc ( talk • contribs) 07:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I've moved Siege of Borovsk from draft into mainspace. It would be good if editors with knowledge of the war could help improve it and further integrate it with other articles. I've added it to the see also section of this article. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 17:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
The term "Muscovy" is not quite correct in the context of historical events. After the establishment of a unified centralized authority, the country called itself the Tsardom of Russia, not Muscovy. Such a name was relevant only during the times when Moscow existed independently, but the formation of the Tsardom of Russia happened long before the war. This can also confuse the reader since the article refers to Tsardom of Russia, which uses a different designation. Additionally, it should be clarified that this term was often used by the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth during the conflict between it and the Tsardom of Russia for propaganda purposes, as the term clearly implies feudal fragmentation of the state. Nowadays, the term is also used as a derogatory term towards Russia - https://www.svoboda.org/a/ukraina-moskoviya-i-drugie-yaroslav-shimov-o-borjbe-za-vostok-evropy/32330846.html, https://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2022/11/29/7378557/.
I propose renaming the article to Polish–Russian War (1605–1618). Please note that such a title exists in almost all translations of this article; it is named as such in Russian, and in Polish as well. To summarize, the title may be politicized and clearly does not reflect either the tone of the article or the realities of that time. PawelSULKUL ( talk) 00:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
It has been proposed in this section that
Polish–Muscovite Wars (1605–1618) be
renamed and moved to
Polish–Russian War (1605–1618). A bot will list this discussion on requested moves' current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{
subst:requested move}} . Do not use {{
requested move/dated}} directly. |
Polish–Muscovite Wars (1605–1618) → Polish–Russian War (1605–1618) – The term "Muscovy" is not quite correct in the context of historical events. After the establishment of a unified centralized authority, the country called itself the Tsardom of Russia, not Muscovy. Such a name was relevant only during the times when Moscow existed independently, but the formation of the Tsardom of Russia happened long before the war. This can also confuse the reader since the article refers to Tsardom of Russia, which uses a different designation. Additionally, it should be clarified that this term was often used by the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth during the conflict between it and the Tsardom of Russia for propaganda purposes, as the term clearly implies feudal fragmentation of the state. Nowadays, the term is also used as a derogatory term towards Russia - https://www.svoboda.org/a/ukraina-moskoviya-i-drugie-yaroslav-shimov-o-borjbe-za-vostok-evropy/32330846.html, https://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2022/11/29/7378557/. PawelSULKUL ( talk) 21:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Please provide evidence that these conflict are primarily referred to by the proposed name, the sources in the article tend to use 'Moscovy' slightly more that 'russia'— blindlynx 00:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Polish–Muscovite Wars (1605–1618) is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
This Â
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Anybody up to a job? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:41, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Battle of Moscow 1612 briefly described in Polish here. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
To Russian speaking friends: can you see if there is any relevant info here or here? I can understand some of this, but not enough to make details clear. Perhaps there is some useful info? Names, places, descriptions? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I also found one page which has a terrible POV. It is in Englsh, so you may read it here. At first I wanted to take some details about Mozhaysk battle from this place, but after I read the parts like 'In XIV-XVII centuries Poles and Lithuanians were scrupulously engaged in obliteration of Russia' I am not sure if any info from this page is credible. Can anybody find anything else about the battle/sieges of Mozhaysk? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Dymitriads seems to be the name invented, well, by me :) by translation of the Polish name. Perhaps we should move it to Polish-Muscovy War (160?-1618)? Btw, what is the recognized start date - 1605 or 1609? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:09, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
IMO the name must be symmetric: "Poland-Muscovy" or "Polish-Muscovite". The latter is preferrable, since this style seems to be common for wars: Polish-Swedish, Russo-Turkish, etc. mikka (t) 19:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Done. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Not entirely sure why Poitrus reverted my edits. All I did was fix the Main article wikilinks. Atleast now they point somewhere. -- Kross 18:02, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
What are you talking about? The {{main|[[article name]]}} didn't link to *anything*. I was using the proper template. Look at the version before mine, the main article links were messed up. -- Kross 22:01, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
My mistake, there are no [[]] tags in the template, it should be {{main|article name}}. It does seem there was an error with the templates used. Fixed now. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Please pick one of three: Ladislaus, Wladyslaw, Wladislaw, and stick with it. mikka (t) 17:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I will eventually write an article on this idea (from 1572 to 18th century). It is quite amazing - many ppl heard about this war, but few heard about the union proposals. Apparently, they were quite popular on both sides in that time. What a shame it never worked out (peacefully...). The Malec book I added to references covers this fairly extensively (until 1650s proposals), with some interesting details (i.e. what exactly was proposed, what was agreed, when, by whom), so if anybody wants any details on this leave me a message. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I found a source saying that Dobrynicze was an important battle during the First Dymitriad. Any info on this, including a Russian/English name of the place? Date would be nice. Battles for the Second Dymitriad and later war that we may be missing: Zajmiszcze, Rohatyn, Briańsk. Again, it would be nice if sb could add dates to those battles (and see if he can find any sources on the other battles from warbox for future reference). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Zarajsk 1608 and Briańsk 1615 seem to be ([http://www.pulsar.net.pl/kawaleria/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=311 Polish source] (link being blocked by spam filter) among the battles of Lisowczycy. After Zarajsk, Lisowczycy were defeated at Niedźwiedzi Bród, then with Jan Piotr Sapieha failed the siege of Lawra Troicko-Siergiejewska and retreated near Rachmancewo. Then came successes (pillages) at Kostroma, Soligalicz and some other cities (those battles took place around 1608-1609). He took Psków in 1610 and clashed with Swedes operating in Muscovy during the Ingrian War. Lisowczycy were essential in the defence of Smoleńsk in 1612, when most of regulars (wojsko kwarciane) mutined and joined the konfederacja rohatynska. For the next three years Lisowski's forces were important in the guarding of the Polish-Muscovy border against Muscovy incursions. In 1615 Aleksander Józef Lisowski gathered many outlaws and invaded Muscovy with 6 'choragiew' of calvalry. He lied siegeo to Briańsk/ Bryansk and defeated the relief force of few thousadns soldiers under kniazh Jurij Szachowski near Karaczewo. Then Lisowski defeated the front guard of a much larger force (several times larger then himself) under the command of khniaz Dymitr Pozarski, who decided to defend instead of attack and fortified his forces in a camp. Lisowczycy broke contact with his forces, burned Bielów and Lichwin, took Pieremyszl, turned north, defeated Muscovy army at Rzew, turned to Kara Sea, then to Kaszyn, burned Torzek, returned to Poland without any interruptions from Muscovy forces. Until autumn 1616 Lisowski and his forces remained at the Polish-Muscovy border, when Lisowski suddenly fell ill and died on 11 October. Since then the formation was called after him Lisowczycy. Despite the death of Lisowski, his forces remained a singinfiant threat: in 1616 they captured Kursk and defeated Russian forces at Bolchow, in 1617 relieved Smolensk besieged by Russian forces, which lifted the siege and retreated to Biała soon after receiving news that Lisowczycy, then commanded by Stnaisław Czapiński were in the neighbourhood. When Czapiński died at Kaługa, Lisowczycy elected Walenty Rogawski for the new commander. They accompanied Władysław forces in 1617, and while he retreated, they came as far as Obu (?-wrong name? Abu?]], where they were impressed by the giant golden statue (possibly a Buddha statue]].
Uff. Translated and summarized Lisowczycy history relevant to this war, now I have to incorporate this into tha article - and I am not even thinking of all the name fixing :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Ummm, I think we need to change the beginning date to 1604, since it appears Dmitry [...] rode to Russia on June 1604 (from False Dmitry I). Also, see Talk:Truce of Deulino#date? for an issue regarding the date of the truce (1618 or 1619)? And I'd still appreciate comments on my above inquiry regarding battle places. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of changing the battlebox to use the new warbox template. I've also removed the "unknown" and "various" entries from various fields (since this allows the warbox to remove unneeded rows); feel free to revert if this information is, for some reason, necessary. Kirill Lokshin 02:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Political climate of what time? Should we rather say in "today's political climate"? The statement isn't clear. -- Irpen 20:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Check this then.
Check also "Ğ¡Ñылки по теме" -- Irpen 20:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC) .
For a review, check this link: http://lenta.ru/articles/2005/11/02/narodnoe/ "Ğовый краÑный день Что мы празднуем четвертого ноÑбрÑ"
Quotes:
As you see, nothing about Poles. Read on and you will also find:
I hope this is convinsing enough. -- Irpen 20:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I am not a historian, but the link to the very article I posted says in the very beginning: "4 ноÑĞ±Ñ€Ñ (26 октÑĞ±Ñ€Ñ Ğ¿Ğ¾ Ñтарому ÑтилÑ) польÑкий гарнизон, оÑажденный в Кремле, ÑĞ´Ğ°Ğ»ÑÑ Ğ¾Ğ¿Ğ¾Ğ»Ñ‡ĞµĞ½Ğ¸Ñ ĞœĞ¸Ğ½Ğ¸Ğ½Ğ° и ПожарÑкого".
Maybe Poles surrendered on the 4th and left on the 7th. I don't know.
Russia obviously didn't want Nov 7 anymore. For the last years every novemebr 7th was spoiled by the fringe Communist demostrations, sometimes violent. OTOH, everyone wanted an early-November date. -- Irpen 21:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Ekhem, It was bolshevik Russia that invaded its neighbours... idea of Polish agression against Soviet Russia was born on this day in 1917 Did Bolshevik Russia held some of Polish lands taken in partitions perhaps ? -- Molobo 11:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Polish independence is anti-Russian ? Nice. :)
-- Molobo 11:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, first Irpen explained that the new Russian holiday is not polonophobic, now Ghirlandajo explains that it is. How confusing ... -- Lysy ( talk) 11:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I believe my question should be addressed to Piotrus, who (if I'm not mistaken) submitted the picture of Avraamy Palitsyn defending the lavra. "Avraamy Palitsyn bravely defends..." is not the real name of this painting, you probably know that. Its name is Ğборона Троице-Сергиевой Лавры, (The Defense of the Troitse-Sergiyeva Lavra). I'm asking because my sources tell me that Avraamy Palitsyn was in Moscow throughout the siege and never took part in the actual fighting itself. If I'm right, then the name of the painting as it is now is misleading and incorrect. What do you guys say? KNewman 03:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I can't agree with the statement: "In Poland the Dmitriads campaign is remembered as the height of the Polish Golden Age, the time Poles captured Moscow." In my opinion - and I'm a Pole- in Poland we hardly remember this part of our history. At least when it comes to what is taught at schools. I think that Polish people have been watching the growing importace of this topic in Russia with a bit of amazement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.4.2.3 ( talk) 13:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Hah, I have an image question myself :) Found a picture, but the related Polish page has no info on what, when, by whom. Context makes it likely that this is some event related to the fall of Polish garrison in Moscow. Can anybody give more data? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
And as long as we are discussing pictures, any information on source/author of Image:Husaria pod Kluszynem.jpg would be appreciated. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I am wondering about the passage:
Lisowczycy broke contact with his forces, burned Bielów and Lichwin, took Pieremyszl, turned north, defeated Muscovite army at Rzew, turned to Kara Sea, then to Kaszyn, burned Torzek and heavy with loot returned to Poland without any further opposition from Muscovite forces.
Are you sure Kara Sea is correct? It is rather far away from the theatre of operations, beyond the Arctic Circle. Balcer 04:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Recently Google Print has made a number of books about Russian history available online, at least in parts, for free. Access to a few pages in each book is restricted in order to protect the book's copyright. Among the books available, there is:
A Short History of Russia's First Civil War: The Time of Troubles and the Founding of the Romanov Dynasty
published in 2004, as well as
Russia's First Civil War: The Time of Troubles and the Founding of the Romanov Dynasty
published in 2001, both written by Chester S L Dunning (I guess the first is an abridged version of the second).
Here is a link to a relevant search page: Google Print link.
This could be very useful to everyone working on improving this article. To access the text you need to have the (free) gmail account. The best thing about this service is that Google can search inside the book for any word you specify. Balcer 21:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
We have a problem with the name of one of the main characters in this story. I have seen 4 viable versions so far:
Which one is the most correct? Clearly the one used currently, Dmitriy, is the one not used by major English references. In my opinion, we should use Dmitri (or possibly Dmitry) as the simplest option. Any other suggestions? Balcer 05:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I'll leave the correct spelling of Dmitri and Dmitriads to our Russian-speaking editors. As for the name of this war, I think the case is clear that there are several of them. Search through scholalry literature will surely be interesting, but at the moment I'd favour Muscovy because it is more descriptive then Russia in this case (i.e. consider the difference between links to Muscovy and Russia).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Just checked a Thirty Years' War article in EB. Quote:
In addition to the fact that these wars are considered related is worth adding to the article, which I did, please note the EB calls the peace treaty the followed Russo-Polish. We just have one more authoratitave reference book that uses Russo-Polish rather than Polish-Muscovite. -- Irpen 19:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I was talking about the name of the war and not the name of the country. I am aware that EB uses Muscovy too. it even has an article under this name. I checked google print. "The Polish Armies 1569-1696" by Richard Brezezinski also uses Russo-Polish War for this particular war [3].The search for Russo-Polish War in google print gives 744 pages (many of which are for other conflicts) but the search for Polish-Muscovy War gives zero counts in google print. -- Irpen 21:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
As I did not argue with the fact that most of the 700+ hits indeed referred to the PSW. I did not go through 700+ books but several other books in the list, in addition to the one I quoted above, use the term Russo-Polish War for what we in Wikipedia call
Smolensk War (same historic time, hense supposedly similar terminology). And it is important that the use of Polish-Muscovy War could not be found at all. Could be that there is no established view in historiography to consider the 1605-18 events as one war (as the article says already) or many view a conflict broader and include Smolensk war too. Even if 1605-18 events are not established solidly in historiography as a one war, rather than a series of smaller wars or a part of a larger war, it's no reason to modify what this article is about. However, if we want to see it as a war, I suggest we use the title for which some usage is found, that is
Russo-Polish War (1605-1618). Another title, a descriptive one, may be Polish intervention... or
Polish Invasion of Russia (In line with
Napoleon's Invasion of Russia and
Mongol invasion of Rus). However, if this seems like a POV title to the Polish editors, I am fine with the "Russo-Polish War..." above. Speaking of POV titles sensitivities, we had a
Massacre of Praga article for almost a year and it didn't seem a POV title for its authors and editors. OTOH, I must admit that there were no complaints when I raised the issue at talk and finally moved the article to a more neutral title. --
Irpen 02:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
As I said above, there aren't many sources that I found that treat the the events between exactly 1605 and 1618 as events of one war. Perhaps, this is because it is often viewed as a combination of several wars or a part of a bigger war. Among sources that do take it as a 1605-18 single war, we have already two cited that call it "Russo-Polish":
Additionally "The Encyclopedia of World History. 2001". Uses "Polish intervention in Russia" I haven't found any other books that use exactly same time period to refer to a single war but I didn't go through 700+ entries of google print search (most indeed are about the 20th century PSW). However, I also found several sources that use "Russo-Polish war" for Smolensk War (same historic time, hence supposedly same terminology) and several that use this term for the later war that ended in 1667 ( Treaty of Andrusovo). Do we have to go and count for exact numbers and go through 700+ search results? Is Russo-Polish was disagreeable for any reason? On the side note, I found only one mention of the term "Polish-Muscovite War" but it was also in relation to a different war (1654-1667). I can post links if necessary. -- Irpen 03:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
I stated my reasons above. While I still think Muscovy/Muscovite is more descriptive, I won't object if the Russian editors want to use Russia instead of Muscovy. But - wouldn't this logically require us to change all intext references to Russia as well? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 07:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
The article have just became an FA, does it mean that my proposal for name change to Russo-Polish War (1605-1618) or to Polish invasion of Russia (1605-1618) are thrown out? I haven't seen anyone really objecting to the first one. Or are there objections? -- Irpen 07:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Furthermore, if you read carefully the quote you included, it's clear that it was the
Smolensk War which was closely related to the
Thirty Years War. But this war was not. After all, it was over before the Thirty Years War began. Besides, I do not think this is important enough to mention in the lead.
Balcer 19:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Is it OK then to have it in the name section? You can rephrase my text if you like. -- Irpen 20:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Why is the siege of Bely listed in the Polish-Russian War of 1605-1618? AFAIK, it happened during the Smolensk War in 1634... Was it sieged twice? Please, clarify. One more thing. Why is it called Bely? I think it was called Belaya (Ğ‘ĞµĞ»Ğ°Ñ ĞºÑ€ĞµĞ¿Ğ¾ÑÑ‚ÑŒ, or White fortress) and later renamed to Bely (Белый). And why are there different dates above and under the map (1609 and 1605)? KNewman 22:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18Â mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.<div class="references-small"><references/></div>
.
{{subst:js|User:AndyZ/monobook.js/footnotehelper.js}}
to your monobook.js file (mine is located at
User:AndyZ/monobook.js) and then bypass your browser's cache by pressing: Mozilla/Safari/Konqueror: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R), Internet Explorer: press Ctrl-F5, Opera: press F5. In editing mode, click on the "Footnote creater" tab that appears.I would like to raise the issue of moving this mage to the Polish invasion of Russia (1605-1618). The move could be done without any admin involvement and does not require a WP:RM listing but I would like to find the stand of the editors involved in the article before imposing the name on the community by making a move. At the same time let's try to avoid the WP:RM listing unless necessary and see whether the involved editors can agree.
The details of this discussion are at Talk:Polish September Campaign#Requested move. Basically, the issue, as I see it, is whether for the events where the invading party is clear it's OK to use the "invasion" in the article's titles. As my frequent opponent Halibutt said at the referenced talk page, he disputes the usage of the term "invasion" "only in the cases where it was absolutely not clear who "invaded". Since there is a complete historic clarity on who invaded whom in this particular case, please express your opinion whether the proposed article's move would be a good idea. If you did not vote at Talk:Polish September Campaign#Requested move yet, please consider reading and voting on that related issue as well. A related discussion is also at Talk:Kiev Offensive#Article's title.
The clarity of who is an invader he is such that even two most authoritative English language encyclopedias use the term in their article as follows:
Since both encyclpedia are clear about it, this is as referenced as anything can possibly be. -- Irpen 03:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Krill that the early part of the war was hardly an invasion - it was more like unofficial intervention of some mercenaries. Still, as long as we are discussing name, please check #1604?? - there is the issue of whether this war (or whatever) begun in 1605 or 1604.--  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk 08:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
See this very page past discussions as well as an answer to your question which seems you have not bothered to read. ALso check this Eb article. It is not too long. -- Irpen 04:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Piotrus, your question was answered and by the last entry you merely repeated it. The EB's article says: "Muscovy became a distinct principality during the second half of the 13th century under the rule of Daniel..." and end with "By the end of Ivan's [III] reign [1505], the prince of Moscow was, in fact, the ruler of Russia proper". Also, and it has been told you before as well, Ivan IV, and all the Russian rulers afterwards, was crowned the Russian Tzar not the Grand Prince of Moscow. -- Irpen 05:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I am talking about this article here. Not the Lithuanian wars for now. -- Irpen 05:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The issue has been discussed ad nauseum on the Polish noticeboard, on the Russian noticeboard (last month) and on numerous talk pages. I am not going to feed the trolling and raise the issue again. If you want to discuss the same issue over and over again, until you received a POV result you favour, please go to Talk:Jogaila. -- Ghirla -трёп- 16:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Piotrus, I brought this up to you at least 5 times. I can't believe you "forgot" and your calls for diffs is just WP:DFTT#Pestering, a "continual questions with obvious or easy-to-find answers". In any case, Eb sites 1505, Columbia (mid-16th century), this article is about 17th century, so what's your problem? -- Irpen 18:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, Piotrus, I generally make it a habit to not feed the Pestering but I made several exceptions for you in the past and I will make one more. How many diffs you want? 3? 5? 7? I can do any of this. -- Irpen 20:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Piotrus, I can and will do it but I will note that you decided to waste my time on this meaningless work. I deliberately offered some lower numbers as an alternative, hoping that your goal is not to force me to waste time on digging diffs from months ago. Will be back. -- Irpen 21:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Piotrus, it took me only five minutes to find many times where the issue was brought to you personally. I am sure more can be googled out. The sources were also discussed at the same time. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. I hope forcing me to waste time to bring up top you the links which you already knopw gave you enough satisfaction. Seeing this attitude on your part did not make me happy but I suppose you don't care, do you? Anyway, I fulfulled your request aimed at nothing but getting myself busy.
Now, I am really sick and tired of this sneaky POV pushing through titling the articles. Invasions and massacres of Poland and Poles, while "wars" and "battles" with Russia and Ukraine has created too much drama. The only solution I see starts from limiting the M. word to where it belongs, the times of the Grand Principality of Moscow. All the war and battle articles get renamed to wars and battles. If, however, someone here persists with the massacred, invasioned and martyrdomed titles, this article's title has to be invasioned as well. Or "interventioned", your choice. Either we strive to avoid bad blood and stick to "wars" or we accept the "invasions" and "occupations" and apply them universally. And Piotrus, please no more DFTT#Pestering requests. -- Irpen 01:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
As I thought, you did not read the diffs and provided an unrelated answer. So much you value my time spent on looking for them.
Enough, I am POV-titling this as well as the Soviet invasion of Poland (1939) and I since I made multiple proposals in search of the meaningful compromise I do not expect my tags removed lightly. -- Irpen 01:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Piotrus, note, that I not simply objected to the titles but made several proposal backed by sources and WP conventions. You counter it by an empty statement. Propose new titles and I will be happy to consider them. I view French invasion indeed non-optimal as the Grand-army was not purely French. -- Irpen 04:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I suggest discussing the title of this article here. It is a totaly separate issue from splitting the article which formerly contained arbotraly pasted together two periods of Russian history into Grand Duchy of Moscow and Russian Tsardom.
As far as this article is concerned, I see three options. The former name (1), the current name (2) and the title which would include the words "Polish invasion" or "Polish intervention" (the latter has also many sources that support it). How this war is called elsewhere was analyzed at the talk above several times and I invite users to review the past analysis. Personally, I consider the current title to be just an OK one, "Polish intervention" being the most favored and the former title the least favored.
Should we start a straw poll? If someone just itches to return in to the Muscovy-containing russophobic name immediately, I will not interfere. The move was not made with salting the earth and since the talk page follows the article unobstructed, this should not affect the discussion. So, three options: M-word, R-word and i-word. Straw poll? -- Irpen 04:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Kirill for the sobering comment. But let's get back to the serious business :).
Perhaps the issue about the dash will be rendered moot as the article might end up at the Polish intervention in Russia which I think is the optimal name. Right, Piotrus? -- Irpen 05:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Not Muscovy, Piotrus. Muscovy is out of question. Not only it is offensive (see talk:Muscovy but also incorrect for the times post-Moscow Principality. -- Irpen 18:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
No straw polls, we have had enough problems with them at Jogaila article. WP:RM is simple. If you want to move it, and there is no majority support for the move from talk, start a RM and see if you can gather enough support. I reverted the move to the old name that was given community approval during the FAC process. PS. I will of course not object to a hyphen move, if somebody fixes double redirects and talk page templates. PS2. I am still looking for a single reference that would state that 'Muscovy' in a title is russophobic...--  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk 13:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
As for the other civil war, Poland did not manage to reach any of the Russian proper. That was Polish invasion in Ukraine and Polish invasion in Belarus. So, Polish intervention in Russia best applies to this article. -- Irpen 18:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Piotrus, did you change your mind or you still object to Russo-Polish War (1605-1618)? -- Irpen 01:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
There is also WP:PRO. What's your problem? WP:RM is not required since this move can be accomplished without the administrative interference. Informal consensus of the concerned parties at talk is needed though. I am trying to gauge it. -- Irpen 05:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I am just asking. Some people change their minds. You are one of them. You said before that you don't object to such rename. Than you said later that you do. How difficult is to just say, whether you object to such a name now. Note that the article about the contemporary Russian state is now correctly called Russian Tsardom and the Grand Duchy of Moscow (Muscovy) took no part in the war. But that's aside. You think the RPW is a bad name, yes or no? -- Irpen 06:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
From Halibutt's statement, the most precise name would then be Polish intervention into the Russian Civil War (1605–1618). Would that be acceptable? -- Irpen 19:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I think Polish intervention in Russia's Time of Troubles would be a good title. Anyone objecting seriously? -- Irpen 01:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Piotrus, the article about the respective time in the Russian history is called the Russian Tsardom. Muscovy belongs to the Grand Duchy of Moscow which was over in the previous century. -- Irpen 02:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
We are using the descriptive title here because if we go by the most common name, it would be the Polish invasion of Russia (see above). -- Irpen 04:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Because Time of Troubles affected more than just Moscow but the whole country. Read an article for a start. -- Irpen 04:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
About a PA invocation, please be more specific in what exactly constitutes a PA or just cut this unwarranted civility talk. About Davies, are you saying that he thought the country's name was Moscow? -- Irpen 05:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Appleseed, I chastised you enough for wikilawyering and unwarranted invoking of civility issues. I will try just ignoring the empty talk and ask a direct question. Would you tell the scholars who called it Polish invasion of Russia to "read Davies" for a start? Try to tell it to, say, the authors of the articles in Britannica [11] which says:
Also, do not forget to tell this to the authors of the Columbia Encyclopedia article [12] where we find:
Note not only the Rus-word but also an inv-word there. So, based on this, should we go back to the Polish invasion title proposal? Now, just say plainly what is your problem with using the Rus-word in the title?
So, are you still claiming that there is no enough scholarly use to justify Russia in the title? Please try to answer a question and stay on topic. Unwarranted civility and gratuity talk is unhelpful. TIA, -- Irpen 09:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Ignoring OT stuff as promised, the current proposal is not Polish invasion of Russia. For now, I suggest merely Russo-Polish (1605–1618). This title first both as a descriptive name and is used in literature to refer to the conflict. Please state the objections if there are. (Oh, and please no tricks of turning this red link into a redirect with a history). -- Irpen 04:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Piotrus, please as a personal favor to me explain why you object to Russo-Polish war even if you have done that and I did not see. TIA, -- Irpen 05:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
One more source for this discussion - Dictionary of Wars by George C. Kohn (Revised edition, July 1999) names this war "Russo-Polish War of 1609-1618" - this book is the best one-volume encyclopedia of military conflict. Really it's very strange to see old and never commonly used (in history science) term Muscovy in Wikipedia. This term is often used in political discussions whem smb would like to offence Russia but WIKI should be an encyclopedia, not newspaper -- Ioakinf 16:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Is anyone objecting to moving this to Russo-Polish War (1605–1618)? Just checking. -- Irpen 02:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
That was months ago. My question is whether anyone still objects. Please answer for yourself. Do you object to such name? -- Irpen 02:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
What about GDL? Xx236 ( talk) 09:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to rename this article to: Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth-Muscovite War Samogitia ( talk) 11:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 01:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
The top image does not explain in either its description or on its own page what the colours mean. It can be assumed that the green is Russia, but what are the yellow, red and pink areas? Which of this is the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, and why are parts of it striped? There is no info whatsoever. Prinsgezinde ( talk) 19:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
The colors are also misleading, if the legend is any indication. Most of the pink areas immediately to the east of Kiev were part of the Polish Kingdom (and of the Grand-Duchy of Lithuania before 1569) and were not part of the territories gained by the Commonwealth as part of the wars in the title of the article. On this map, the boundary between white and pink areas from approximately Kiev to the south are the boundaries set at the Treaty of Andrusovo in 1667 and which remained the eastern boundary of the Commonwealth in Ukraine until the Partition of 1772 (Zigoto). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.253.82.48 ( talk) 17:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Surely the Livonian War was a major sign of rivalry between Poland and Russia, so the sentence including: "first major sign of rivalry and uneasy relations between Poland and Russia" should be revised? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyHoc ( talk • contribs) 07:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I've moved Siege of Borovsk from draft into mainspace. It would be good if editors with knowledge of the war could help improve it and further integrate it with other articles. I've added it to the see also section of this article. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 17:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
The term "Muscovy" is not quite correct in the context of historical events. After the establishment of a unified centralized authority, the country called itself the Tsardom of Russia, not Muscovy. Such a name was relevant only during the times when Moscow existed independently, but the formation of the Tsardom of Russia happened long before the war. This can also confuse the reader since the article refers to Tsardom of Russia, which uses a different designation. Additionally, it should be clarified that this term was often used by the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth during the conflict between it and the Tsardom of Russia for propaganda purposes, as the term clearly implies feudal fragmentation of the state. Nowadays, the term is also used as a derogatory term towards Russia - https://www.svoboda.org/a/ukraina-moskoviya-i-drugie-yaroslav-shimov-o-borjbe-za-vostok-evropy/32330846.html, https://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2022/11/29/7378557/.
I propose renaming the article to Polish–Russian War (1605–1618). Please note that such a title exists in almost all translations of this article; it is named as such in Russian, and in Polish as well. To summarize, the title may be politicized and clearly does not reflect either the tone of the article or the realities of that time. PawelSULKUL ( talk) 00:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
It has been proposed in this section that
Polish–Muscovite Wars (1605–1618) be
renamed and moved to
Polish–Russian War (1605–1618). A bot will list this discussion on requested moves' current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{
subst:requested move}} . Do not use {{
requested move/dated}} directly. |
Polish–Muscovite Wars (1605–1618) → Polish–Russian War (1605–1618) – The term "Muscovy" is not quite correct in the context of historical events. After the establishment of a unified centralized authority, the country called itself the Tsardom of Russia, not Muscovy. Such a name was relevant only during the times when Moscow existed independently, but the formation of the Tsardom of Russia happened long before the war. This can also confuse the reader since the article refers to Tsardom of Russia, which uses a different designation. Additionally, it should be clarified that this term was often used by the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth during the conflict between it and the Tsardom of Russia for propaganda purposes, as the term clearly implies feudal fragmentation of the state. Nowadays, the term is also used as a derogatory term towards Russia - https://www.svoboda.org/a/ukraina-moskoviya-i-drugie-yaroslav-shimov-o-borjbe-za-vostok-evropy/32330846.html, https://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2022/11/29/7378557/. PawelSULKUL ( talk) 21:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Please provide evidence that these conflict are primarily referred to by the proposed name, the sources in the article tend to use 'Moscovy' slightly more that 'russia'— blindlynx 00:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)