Talk:Great Stand on the Ugra River

Requested move

See discussion below - in a nutshell, the context indicates a standoff rather than a Great Stand. Uebergeek 00:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If I were renaming, I would use Ugra Standoff. It's short, clear, says exactly what happened, and is used by Khodarkovsky, who is the most readily available source. 'Stand' inplies a one-sided action (Custer's Last Stand, take a stand). This was a standoff in the normal sense. 'Great' may be good Russian ('Great Patriotic War'), but it is odd in English and adds no extra information. The Russian wiki drops the 'great'.Benjamin Trovato (talk) 03:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge?

This seems to be a copy of Great standing on the Ugra river - the two ought to be merged. -- Beardo 12:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

moving the page

I created the page because I was editing the phrase in the page and then realized that the page has to be renamed, which I have proposed but since I cannot get into my old account (nlight) I am considered a new member and cannot make a move.

nlight2

It was requested that this article be renamed but the procedure outlined at WP:RM#How to request a page move did not appear to be followed, and consensus could not be determined. Please request a move again with proper procedure if there is still a desire for the page to be moved. Thank you for your time! -- tariqabjotu 01:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Article's name

So is it Great standing or Great stand? Can someone finally clarify this? A native English speaker, perhaps? KNewman 10:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

note - perhaps what is meant is "stand off"

From the context of the article, either term "The Great Stand" or "The Great Standoff" could apply. Given that there was no military battle, I'd recommend "The Great Standoff", since "The Great Stand" carries implications not only of standing up to (facing off against) a foe, but also winning a battle or contest of some sort, whereas a "standoff", in English, means more of a deadlock or tie (which is what appears to have happened here). Uebergeek 00:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Didn't know that Britannica simply refers to it as the Battle of the Ugra... KNewman 16:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Of the three possibilities suggested so far ("Great Stand on the Ugra", "Great Standoff on the Ugra" and "Battle of the Ugra"), the "Great Stand" is the most widely-used name, according to Google. It would be nice to have some better sources for this, and we shouldn't be making up our own names for historical events. It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. --Stemonitis 17:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Is "The Great Stand" the most common on google? When I did a search, it appeared that the top link was "The Great Stand" - but it pointed to this wikipedia article. The next few slots were mixed between Great Stand and Great Standing. I presume (since I don't speak Russian) that the Russian version translates literally to "Great Standing" (especially since the sites ending in .ru seem to use this terminology). Regardless, I think the *context* better supports a translation of "standoff" rather than "stand". Uebergeek 07:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It's "The Great Standing" if properly translated from the Russian term. 'Стояние' is a continuous form of the verb stand, hence standing would be most appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.100.249 (talk) 03:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

map

while the miniature is nice...

a map showing the location of this "standoff" would be nice...

~~yuri~~

Muscovy versus Russia

@Mellk: As you requested, let's discuss following the sources. As noted, there are lots of unsourced claims in the article, so for those we can reasonably follow Wikipedia's other articles, which indicate that as of 1480, the state in question was called the Grand Duchy of Moscow, or Muscovy for short (1263–1547). The Nesin source is in Russian, so it cannot tell what we should write in English. The Khodarkovsky source page 80 is not accessible online. That means the only source mentioned that can be checked is Janet Martin (without page numbers). What did she write about the Ugra River confrontation? Page 339:
Casimir was, nevertheless, outraged when Muscovy engulfed Novgorod. He not only refused to recognize that latest stage in Muscovy's progressive expansion, but pledged to assist Ahmad of the Great Horde in a joint campaign against Muscovy in 1480, which will be discussed below. Nevertheless, while Amhad was waiting for Casimir's forces at the Ugra River... and, rather than exploding into a decisive battle, the confrontation between the armies of the Great Horde and Muscovy at the Ugra fizzled into mutual retreat. After 1480, Lithuania remained hostile towards Muscovy.
I would say that is pretty clear. No mention of 'Russia' or 'Russian' anywhere; Martin consistently wrote 'Muscovy'. This article should too. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I have added a couple of references, I will add some more later when I have time. Muscovy only refers to one specific Russian principality. Mellk (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for addng some references, I'll add some, too. Yes, writers such as Martin write "Muscovy" when they only refer to one specific Rus' principality (instead of a larger concept in a context where it doesn't apply). Some render it as "Muscovite Rus'" to indicate it was Moscow's area on the territory of the former Rus' state. That is also the case when e.g. Kievan/Kyivan Rus' has its capital city in its name, why the Principality of Turov is also called "Turovian Rus'", why some scholars refer to the early Grand Duchy of Lithuania as "Lithuanian Rus'" etc. Claiming to be the prince/king/emperor "of all Rus'" and thus the legacy of Kievan/Kyivan Rus' is very much like claiming to be the Imperator/Princeps/Caesar/Augustus/Dominus/Rex Romanorum, as countless folks have done in a great variety of places throughout ancient through early modern history in order to claim the legacy of the Roman Empire. The Byzantine rulers continued to refer to themselves as "Roman" emperors (even though the spoke Greek and resided in Constantinople), but we call them "Byzantine" by way of historiographic convention to distinguish them from other claimants. Similarly, Danylo of Galicia also claimed to be the "King of all Rus'" (and some call his state "Galician Rus'"), but on English Wikipedia we still refer to his realm as the Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia by convention. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nederlandse Leeuw I see many abuses in Mellk attempts to preserve pro-russian and Russian imperialistic centrist point of views. He doing it a lot of times, in many pages and my edits. Could you help me do something with it, because, I'm not good at wikipedia. Bodia1406 (talk) 23:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Bodia1406 as Bbb23 already said on your talk page, The appropriate venue for complaining about another editor's conduct is WP:ANI. Bear in mind that your conduct may be scrutinized as well. The fact that your own userpage has only the text My goal is to change your opinion about Ukraine! doesn't bode well for your own compliance with WP:NPOV. My interactions with @Mellk are my own responsibility, and though we may have occasional disagreements, we have also been working together quite well on several topics. I'm not recruitable for pushing a pro-Ukrainian POV, and I'm not going to let you disrupt whatever interactions Mellk and I are having. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Please don't do ad hominem attacks here. That @Bodia1406 feels strongly (or even patriotic?) about Ukraine doesn't mean he doesn't care about NPOV style. The issue is whether it is fair to call one participant of the Grand Stand to be called Russia. And I certainly don't think so. Muscovy (or Moscovite Rus) seems like a good alternative.

Ceplm (talk) 08:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Result

Dear @Mellk: I don't think this edit was warranted. Template:Infobox military conflict#Parameters "Result" does not say the result must state either "X victory" or "Inconclusive", but this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". (...) In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). I was already thinking that something like this might be a better option because my description was getting rather wordy, and admittedly non-standard. In addition, the edit is an unexplained removal of cited content (WP:UCR) and replacing it with unsourced claims that contradict it, which is usually not done, because it could have the effect of WP:POV pushing. However, moving that content to the Aftermath section is a good idea. So let's go for the "See the Aftermath section" option, shall we? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I do not see how it is does not accurately describe the outcome. Only the importance is disputed. For example in Russia: a reference guide from the Renaissance to the present, it states: "Despite later attempts by Muscovite chroniclers to embellish the military aspects of Ivan's victory, the importance of the Battle of the Ugra River was mostly symbolic. Mongol power had already been declining for the past century, but despite the Muscovite victory, the Mongols would continue to threaten Moscow through most of the 16th century". Mellk (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The differences between sources are quite significant. Borrero is not summarising a consensus (if there is any, which I doubt), but taking a particular position, namely:

• There was a "battle", not just a "staring contest" or a "non-battle".
• The belligerents were "Muscovites" (rather than "Russians") and "Mongols" (rather than "Tatars").
• The result was a "Muscovite victory" rather than a "Russian victory", "Indecisive", or "Inconclusive".
  • The "victory" was "symbolic" (rather than the "formal" or "informal end of the Tatar yoke" (here Borrero disagrees with traditional Russian historiography, but also woth modern historians that it was a "victory" in the first place).
• I don't know what Borrero writes about retreating, but some sources say only "Ahmad retreated" and others say "both sides retreated" or "mutual retreat".
• The Muscovite chroniclers "embellished" the event (here Borrero agrees with modern historians and disagrees with traditional Russian historiography).
  

I could go on, but it is clear that Borrero is not representative of what all or even most historians/sources are saying. There is so much disagreement here that Borrero is not mentioning, covering, explaining, summarising etc. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

It is also known as the "Battle of the Ugra", for example the Britannica article uses this name[1]. Also he said the "the importance of the Battle of the Ugra River was mostly symbolic", not that the victory was mostly symbolic. There are no sources here that dispute that it was a victory for Ivan III, they just say the event itself was insignificant while the importance was exaggerated in the chronicles. Mellk (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Also I do not think the YouTube video falls under WP:RS, no matter how many subscribers the channel has, it also falls under WP:SPS. Mellk (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Muscovy versus Russia, take 2

I came here with an issue, but I see someone else already pointed it out, but the discussion sizzled. Now, takke 2: The belligerentes were the Horde and the Grand Duchy of Moscow or Muscovy, for short. There was no Kingdom of Russia at this time. therefore the use the term Russian/Russia/Russians, creates an anachronism. While professional historians will not be duped, an anerahge Wikiopedia reader may get a false idea that it was Russia. Therefore I suggest to unify the terminology: Grand Duchy of Moscow it was and must be called so, adjectives and all, throughout the whole article (with the exception of quotations, of course).

Pinging prev participants: User:Nederlandse Leeuw, User:Mellk, User:Ceplm. --Altenmann >talk 01:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

This will not mislead anyone, because the terms are synonymous with each other. Baron Augustine Mayerberg described in his work (1661) that the Russian Tsardom, which is also called Moscow (i.e. Muscovy, in the text he described it below). (Quote from the 1874 reprint) The problem is that foreigners studying Russia at that time did not separate the Moscow principality (before 1547) and the Russian Tsardom (after 1547) and equally considered it a continental empire, calling Ivan the Terrible "emperor", that Ivan 3 "kaiser" and "emperor». In the infobox, we need to put the victory of the Muscovites, but in the article you can and should use both terms, as for example here.

Also about how the Russian monarchs were called.

• Penskoi V. «The Centurions» of Ivan the Terrible (2021), p. 12: Venetian Ambassador Marco Foscarini wrote that "at present, Emperor Ivan Vasilyevich reads a lot from the history of the Roman and other states, and has learned a lot from this. Later, the author adds that the Russian tsar "consults a lot with German captains» according to the author, we are talking about the 1550s.
• Khoroshkevich A. Russia in the system of international relations in XVI century, p. 14: In such a distorted form, the fact of concluding an agreement with Maximilian in 1514, in which Vasily Ivanovich was indeed named Kaiser, reached the end of the XVII century. In this case, the term distorted is applied to the interpretation of the document later, allegedly that Vasily was ready to convert to Catholicism. Dushnilkin (talk) 07:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Not only it is clearly misleading any naive reader for whom the encyclopaedia is primarily intended. It is even promoting the myth of Muscovy as the continuity of the Kievan Rus’ originating (according to Timothy Snyder in his Yale university 2022 lectures) from Innocent Gizel (perhaps?) all the way to the Putin’s essay “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians”. Therefore using I hugely prefer using historicaly more acurate and NPOV term Muscovy. I have also my doubts on which side I stand in terms of the other side of the conflict: Mongols or Tatars, but that’s another story. Ceplm (talk) 09:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

If the source says Russian, we will write Russian. We will not engage in WP:SYNTH. We also do not write Great Hordians or whatever, even though there were other khanates that existed. Not all troops were from Moscow. Blanket changes that contradict what the source says is pure disruption.

It is even promoting the myth of Muscovy as the continuity of the Kievan Rus’. Kievan Rus is not mentioned in the article. Mellk (talk) 10:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I will not discuss in this case the debatable question of who is the successor of Rus' and who is not. According to the already mentioned source, Muscovy is the new center of the Russian principalities, replacing Kiev. And the term Kievan Rus' appeared later in the literature, initially the division is into white and black Rus'. Both territories were part of the so-called Kievan Rus'.

The Venetian adventurer Ambrogio Contarani, describing his journey to Moscow in 1475-1477, The full text is published in viaggio del magnifico messer Ambrosio Contarini" из сборника Delle Navigationi et Viaggi, V. 2, Venice, 1559: His father-in-law (Uzun Hasan, the Iranian Padishah) called us on the 26th day (June, 1475), and before the audience began, we examined the simple silk products newly prepared on his orders. Then three gifts appointed by him: one to the Duke of Burgundy for the Patriarch, another to our Lordship, the third to a certain Russian Mark, who came as an ambassador from the Prince of Moscow, the sovereign of White Russia... [2]

The analysis of the trip can also be read in Russian here.[3]

And to be honest, there is really not a word about Kievan Rus in the text, a country nation can safely have two ethnonyms (like an Iranian and Persian) and both of them will be true. Besides, I'm not sure that Putin's texts are worth attention at all, let's take into account normal historical works.

I am not familiar with Gisel's personality, but if we use primary sources in this discussion, then we must take him into account, although there are no references to him yet. Dushnilkin (talk) 12:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Although I would agree that 'Muscovite', 'Muscovy', 'Principality of Moscow' etc. would be a more accurate description of the Slavonic participants of this confrontation in the given historical context, most WP:SECONDARY WP:RS used as sources in this article do use the adjective 'Russian'. The arguments and links to WP:PRIMARY sources Altenmann and Ceplm have provided for changing it have not persuaded me, nor am I very inclined to agree with Dushnilkin and Mellk's arguments nor references to WP:PRIMARY sources for definitively settling on 'Russian'. (Kievan Rus' was gone, but the Tsardom of Russia didn't exist yet as such). Therefore, I think we should maintain the status quo. The compromise that Mellk and I worked out in January 2023 still stands. We follow what the secondary RS say, we do not engage in OR or SYNTH based on primary sources wherever those cannot be taken at face value, etc. I do expect future RS to make more clear distinctions between Muscovy and Russia (a trend seen since the 1990s, boosted in 2014 and 2022 for obvious reasons), at which point WP:AGEMATTERS could be invoked to give less weight to older sources that still predominantly use 'Russian' rather than 'Muscovite'. But we are not there yet. At the moment, we should maintain the status quo. Good day to everyone. NLeeuw (talk) 15:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  Well, I don't hold a definite position on this, as I wrote above, we can use both terms in the article, all I wrote here is an attempt to explain the synonymy of the terms. If we talk about modern historical science, then we can refer to the article by Anna Khoroshkevich, published in the journal Acta Baltico-Slavica in 1976, the author claims that the term Muscovy was used by foreigners as an abbreviation for "white Russia" and only in the 16th century, in a certain environment, he became an instrument of propaganda (usually Lithuanian) in order to deprive the then Moscow principality of the opportunity to claim the lands of Ukraine and Belarus, for which there were constant wars. (p. 53)

  You can also find literature (mostly after 2014 but before 2022) on who used the terms "Russian" in relation to the Moscow army during this campaign. It seems to me that this trend will not change in the future, and historiography will retain a similar description. The situation you described also leads to the politicization of historical processes, which is actually sad, since it does not allow a wide range of people a sufficient number of modern academic-level monographs to study history. We have to turn either to outdated (works of the Long nineteenth century and 20th century) or to works that are still new, but have lost their relevance. (2000s)

  My consensus on this is simple, since the users of the English Wikipedia are both residents of eastern and Western Europe, we can use both terms without creating a conflict between them. For me, the term "Russian" is closer, for you "Muscovite" are words with the same meaning, so why create a fictional conflict between them? We can use both. Dushnilkin (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  Well, it all depends on historical context. Sometimes Russian and Muscovite are synonymous, sometimes they are not, and sometimes you could use both, but one is more historical-contextually appropriate than the other.

  Similarly, sometimes Rus' and Russian are synonymous, sometimes they are not, and sometimes you could use both, but one is more historical-contextually appropriate than the other. Sometimes it may be better to use Ruthenian instead of Rus' (or Russian, Belarusian or Ukrainian), sometimes not.

  It all depends. We need to look at these things case by case.

  Many of these historical processes were/are inherently "political", as is the historiography about them. When Kievan Rus' fell apart in 1240, multiple states claimed its legacy exclusively for themselves, including Galicia-Volhynia, the GD of Lithuania, Vladimir o/t Klyazma, Tver, Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod-Suzdal, etc. Moscow was eventually most successful in rebranding itself Russia in the late 15th and early 16th century, but that doesn't mean everything and everyone was always Russian in that part of Eastern Europe, especially not outside of the political and military control of the Principality of Moscow.

  Nor did it necessarily have to happen this way. In historiography, we need to avoid teleology: the idea that everything was destined to happen, and that we can already call A 'B' thousands of years before A became B. We cannot know the future (WP:CRYSTAL), nor could the people who lived before us. At Wikipedia, we should maintain a WP:NPOV, and base ourselves on WP:SECONDARY WP:RS wherever possible. NLeeuw (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  Well, I have nothing against sometimes separating such ethnonyms from time to time, but they should not be opposed to each other, as they try to put it above. In the period from 1480 to 1547, I would prefer to use "Muscovy", and after that Russia. The same is the case with Rus', there are many secondary sources that call this period (Moscovite) the same way «Rus» (Moscow Rus' to be more precise) But that doesn't mean we should use it in the article, it means we shouldn't confront them.

  As for the text below, if you refer to WP:RS, then the term Russian will be universal for any period. Dushnilkin (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The state in question here is the same state as the one in the following centuries. The only difference is that it becomes more centralized and the official title of the monarch changes. From grand prince, to tsar, then emperor. Indeed, there will be some people who insist on using 'Muscovy' and 'Muscovite' until the reign of Peter the Great because, for example, it aligns with Ukrainian nation-building, particularly when it comes to the myth of the 'stolen name'. Others do this for other reasons, for example to contrast pre-Petrine Russia (but in this case both 'Muscovite' and 'Russian' is used). The point of contention now is only about the Kievan state. Mellk (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, as I wrote above, the Moscow Principality and the Russian Tsardom they were so similar in essence, and in fact, that foreigners describing the country of that time did not share their royal titles in the same way, using the term "emperor".

I will not go into details about your dispute, which may (?) have touched on the topic of Ukrainian national identity, but I will leave it to you with @Nederlandse Leeuw. Dushnilkin (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, there are significant institutional differences between the Principality of Moscow, the Tsardom of Russia, the Russian Empire, the Russian Republic etc. and the Russian Federation. Just as there are for the County of Holland, the Dutch Republic, the Batavian Republic, the Kingdom of Holland, and the Kingdom of the Netherlands. It may all sound the same to someone who is not familiar with constitutional law or legal history, and usually treats 'Holland', 'Netherlands' and 'Dutch' as synonyms, but there are good reasons for having separate, stand-alone articles for all these states, and it's not just because they have fancy different names.

the myth of the 'stolen name'. That's an interesting way to describe it. I don't think a name can be 'stolen' if it is not anyone's 'property' to begin with. Anyone can call themselves Rus' if they like. The Tverians did, the Muscovites did (later modified to Russia after ancient Greek Rhosia), the Galicians and Volhynians did (latinised to Ruthenian), the Lithuanians did, etc. There is no patent on it. Just like anyone can call themselves Roman after the split of the Roman Empire in 395, the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 etc. Essentially the whole Holy Roman Empire is one big rebranding of medieval and early modern 'Germany' and surrounding areas after the ancient Roman Empire. The Byzantines, the Sultanate of Rum (meaning "Rome"), the Empire of Nicea etc. etc. all did the same. But I digress.

Scholars call this phenomenon translatio imperii, or just translatio. I'm calling it "rebranding" here, because it's essentially just marketing. Moscow was just more dedicated and successful in rebranding itself as Rus' and later Russia than the rest, because it annexed Tver; meanwhile, Galicia and Volhynia (which rebranded themselves Kingdom of Rus'/Ruthenia, as you know) were annexed by the PLC in the 14th century, and in the PLC the Polish elements eventually outweighed the Lithuanian, Ruthenian (and Cossack), and other elements; it just lost interest in rebranding itself Rus', which its predecessors GDL and KGV still attempted. But that doesn't mean Moscow was always Russia, nor that it was the only exclusive real genuine legitimate unique etc. 'successor' of Kievan Rus'. That is a myth. It is just as much a myth for Moscow/Russia as it was for Tver, KGV, GDL, PLC, or modern Ukraine. Neither the Russian Federation nor modern Ukraine is any more Kievan Rus' than that the Federal Republic of Germany is the Roman Empire. NLeeuw (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I was referring more to works like "Украдене ім'я: Чому русини стали українцями" ("Stolen name: Why did Rusyns become Ukrainians") and "Країна Моксель, або Московія" ("Country of Moksel, or Moscovia"), the more extreme nationalist interpretations of history. Mellk (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh. Yeah, uk:Країна Моксель, або Московія#Відгуки does seem like a very poor understanding of the past. We should not regard such books as RS. NLeeuw (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)