Talk:Nerchinsk

Multiple language headings

Ghirlandajo, I saw you edit on Nerchinsk and you seem to imply that a multiple language heading do not conform to WP:MOS. Could you please specify what you mean? It is quite standard to have headings like this, please refer to Gdańsk or İzmir.--Niohe 21:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Gdansk and Izmir are not very good examples. Gdansk was once a German city called Danzig, and Izmir was once a Greek city called Smyrna. Note that the article on Vilnius does not mention its Polish, Belorusian or Yiddish name - while all three are historically relevant. On average, you should not not stuff a small town's article with foreign versions of the name, and capital cities are also usually left alone (except if they are legally bilingual like Bruxelles-Brussel, of course).

Now, what's relevant here? Historically, in the Gdansk-Izmir way, only the Russian one. Perhaps you can add the Chinese one on account of that treaty in 1689. Was that the name the Chinese used then, or did they use the Manchu one in their version of the treaty? You cannot have it both ways. On second thoughts, since Jesuits were involved, perhaps the name was on the Chinese side was mentioned in ... Latin?

If, however, relevance is supposed to be dependent on proximity to other countries, then I suppose the Mongolian name may be very relevant. If you do not have the Mongolian name, why add the Chinesone? Mentioning the Manchu name (how many native spekaers in the neighbourhood of this Russian town, I wonder?) because of proximity would be like adding the Scottish Gaelic name to towns in Cumberland or Northumberland. --Pan Gerwazy 10:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, why don't we add the Polish and the other names to Vilnius? Nerchinsk was situated in territory which was disputed by the Qing Empire and Russia. As for the names, these are the Chinese and Manchu names the town is known for in China. What's the problem with that?--Niohe 10:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The interesting thing is that I had exactly this discussion in relation to Dalny in China, ooops, can't say that! It is of course Dalian. Anyway, among other things, I justfied the inclusion of the Russian name with the inclusion of the Russian name in Harbin.--Niohe 13:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, just try to add one of these names for Vilnius. If you want to start a Chino-Lithuanian war, of course. Whether such names are relevant, depends on the town. This is a small town. The point being that if you want to add Chinese names (sorry, but adding the name in a language that has fewer than 1,000 native speakers is a joke), you'll have a lot of work to do, even if you confine yourself to territory once claimed by China. Territory once claimed is a bad argument, by the way. Belgium was for centuries a part of Spain, which CLAIMED at the time that the Netherlands were also part of that territory. At English Wikipedia, we do not put the Spanish names for places in these two countries. Though Spaniards may conceivably say that Antwerp and Ghent are so important in Spanish history, that "Amberes" and "Gante" should also be mentioned. The reason why Spanish speaking people do not insist, is very simple: when you are at Antwerp, "Amberes" is just a click away. And when you are at Ghent (note that English Wikipedia mentions the older English version "Gaunt" - it is an ENGLISH Wikipedia after all) "Gante" is only a click away. Also a click away is "Gandawa" (Belgium was Austrian for a century, and so was Cracow).

Now what is a small town, of course. Confining myself to Belgian examples, I see that English Wikipedia mentions the French name of a Flemish town when the town is legally bilingual or when it has well over 20,000 inhabvitants (Ronse, Geraardsbergen, Oostende). However, for Scherpenheuvel-Zichem, 22,000 inhabitants, neither the French nor the widely accepted German version (Scherpenhövel) are given. Nieuwpoort, 10,000, no French name - though the Dutch version mentions it (Nieuport). There is some politics involved here, of course. Small wonder therefore that the German entry for Scherpenheuvel does not mention its German name (perhaps the author was afraid of being called a nazi?) and that the Breton version of Wikipedia does NOT mention the French name for Nieuwpoort, the name most inhabitants of Bretagne would recognize (there is a harbour for sailing boats there, and Bretons dock there). I hope we can avoid the acrimony this sort of discussion causes in East European articles. In any case, if we apply the rules that were followed there most of the time (Lithuania is an exception), the Chinese or Manchu names do not belong in the title. I suppose that is what Ghirla is referring to)

In short, I fail to see why the Chinese name is relevant here. The town was founded by Russians, was always a Russian town, and no one is claiming there is a Chinese speaking minority in the town. The Chinese name could be added to a list of alternative names for towns in Asia or Europe or Siberia. Or it could be added as a sort of foot note to the 1689 treaty ("called ...." in Chinese). As this is a small place, and we do not have the name in Mongolian or Buryat, there is no reason for a chapter "alternative names" (which is how a row like this is sometimes solved).--Pan Gerwazy 12:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict). In fact, I am doubtful about the Russian name for Dalian. Did the name Dalian exist before the Russians took that place (as is suggested on the talk page)? If it did, then the Russian version is probably a phonetic variation, with some folk etymology added. Like Pytalovo, derived from the German Neu-Lettgallen, which inspired Gallenveld (Gallen-pole), which in its turn the new Russian settlers mistook for "Galgenveld" (mesto pytok) since there were gallows there... Well, phonetic variants are not usually put in titles. That rule could even be applied to the Japanese name there. By the way, the Russian name, or version of it, is already mentioned in the history of the town -another argument NOT to put it in the title. But in any case there is a difference between Dalian and Nerchinsk. From its foundation, the inhabitants of this place have always called it Nerchinsk. The other names were given by people who were never at the place.--Pan Gerwazy 12:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Etymology of Dalian was formerly discussed in the article, until the relevant data was wiped put by Chinese wikipedians. As for Pytalovo, User:Peteris Cedrins tried to persuade me that Pytalovo is the original Baltic name of the settlement (see Talk:Pytalovo). --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

If your point is that Dalny should included in the article, I'm completely with you. As to whether this is the "original" name, I think it is immaterial for the discussion. That is a territory which should try to stay away from.--Niohe 16:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

On Pytalovo: well, I did suggest there was more to it. The "mesto pytok" etymology is obvious for anyone who speaks Lower Germanic languages. In the Dutch version, I got away with saying that "mesto pytok" was the most plausible etymology (that was easy: Van Dale Dutch-Russian actually gives "mesto pytok" as translation for "galgenveld"). The kind of German spoken by Baltic Germans in Letgallen would have been a Lower Germanic dialect, closer to Dutch (and even English) than the official German language nowadays, which is much closer to High German. In other Wikipedias, I am afraid my analysis would be "Original Research", I am afraid. (Though it may be OK to put it on the Russian talk page). Well, I am glad I did not want to get involved in the argument over Dalian. Judging from that diff, it does not seem like a phonetic variant. In any case there is a big difference between Dalian and Nerchinsk. Glad to see you "at work" again, by the way.--Pan Gerwazy 13:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see why we take upon us to acertain the etymology of this or that city, who was "first", etc. It's not about finding out the "truth" trhough oroginal research, but presenting information that is relevant and verifiable right?--Niohe 13:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

adding the name in a language that has fewer than 1,000 native speakers is a joke

You're wrong, if we include the speakers of Sibe. And there are millions of people in China with Manchu ancestry. But that's not the point. If you apply that logic strictly, I guess we have to delete to all Latin place names in Europe, North Africa and the Middle East, why don't we start with Gdansk while we're at it?

I also know the Sibe do not like their language being called "related to Manchu". Latin is often the only language found in old documents and the official language of one European state.--Pan Gerwazy 13:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would dispute the fact that the Sibe language is related to Manchu. Written Sibe is virtually identical to Manchu, whereas the spoken language has evolved. Of course, that does not make them "Manchu" anymore than an English-speaking Irishman is English, and many Sibes don't think of themselves as Manchu by ethnicity. Nevertheless, a variety of Manchu has survived and there are far more native speakers of Manchu around than there are native speakers of Latin.

And no one disputes the fact that the speakers of Sibe do not like the fact that they and their language are being used by Manchu nationalists. And the number of people at the Vatican who speak Latin day in day out is higher than the number of people who speak Manchu the whole day.--Pan Gerwazy 19:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

As for official languages, I hope I don't need to remind you that Manchu was one of the official languages of the Qing Empire.

OK, that is why and where you got the Manchu name. Now tell me: what name is used in the Latin version?--Pan Gerwazy 19:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Datum apud Nipchou anno Cam Hi 28^-o 7^-ae Lunae Die 24 (Treaty of Nerchinsk)--Niohe 20:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Now we are getting somewhere. Apud ("at", or "near") is normally followed by the accusative (I know that from such documents. Trust me on this one.). The accusative of Nercha (the river) is Nerchu in Russian, possibly pronounced "nirchu". So the only clear difference with the Latin seems to be the "p" versus the "r" (=Cyrillic "p"). Do you guess what I am thinking now? But of course, it could be the other way round. The Russians coming to this place could have mis-spelled the name of the river. We'll need to know what the river is called in the local language, and no that would not be Manchu. Ewenk? In any case, the Latin seems to indicate that the Chinese side took their names from the river name. --Pan Gerwazy 22:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

From Treaty of Kiakhta (1727), first paragraph:

• ...которой прежде сего при Нипкове [Нерчинском] между обоими заключень был...
• ..quae iam pridem Nypkou [Nercinski] inter utrumque Imperium inita fuerat...

Your conclusion?--Niohe 23:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Traduttore, traditore? Obviously, this treaty's original language was Latin. The translation in Russian seems to try to make sense of this Nipku. Kyahta is almost 30 years later, long enough for a mistake (if it was a Jesuit making that mistake, I agree) to have stuck. Difficult to use as an argument too, because somehow the Jesuits or their successors have mistaken "ch" for "k". Perhaps someone thought that "ch" had been the way to represent Cyrillic "x", a spelling used in many Germanic languages? (Is the change in the Chinese alphabet connected to this misunderstanding, as the Manchu and Chinese pronunciation have switched back to "(t)ch"?) We now have two Latin names, by the way - or even three since the person translating into Russian seems to have thought that he had to Russify "nipkoa".--Pan Gerwazy 10:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, while I wouldn't argue that any Latin placename be deleted, following your logic, we could do away with those cities that do have contemporary names in European vernaculars. Just wonder how that would come across with many Wikipedian. --Niohe 17:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean. No one is talking about doing away with cities or even their names. Amberes is in Wikipedia. Montaigu is in Wikipedia. Unfortunately, Scherpenhövel is not, but that can be mended fast, provided no one thinks I am a nazi.--Pan Gerwazy 19:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the names should be added because they are historically relevant and this was a border town which was quite naturally known in many different languages. But I'm openminded as to how we include Chinese and Manchu (or Mongol) names in this article. When I read your contribution, it sounds like Nerchinsk was founded in a complete vacuum only to be discovered by the Russians. Then, where did the Manchu and Chinese names come from?

And exactly how are these Belgian parallels relevant? If you want to include those Spanish or French or Flemish names, well go ahead and do it! It sound like a terrific idea. I think as a rule of thumb, we should be inclusive, not exclusive.--Niohe 13:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I just read the article Samuel Bentham, which had a interwiki link on the page. If we are top believe this entry, Bentham studied things Chinese, such as shipbuilding, in Nerchinsk, a fact which indicates a substantial Chinese presence in the region at the time. I don't know how far you want to take this discussion, but I can try to find sources on this guy and see what the say about Nerchinsk in the 18th century. I don't think we will find an ethnically pure twon, but rather a quite typical border town with many ethnic groups...--Niohe 13:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Verchinsk was founded by Russians. Where did the Manchu and Chinese names come from? I do not know. There are hundreds of Russian-founded towns in Kazakhstan which got a new Kazakh name recently. I suppose there were names for hills and plains before the town was put on them. And of course folk etymology did play a role. The Belgian town "Brugge" has a name NOT derived from the Dutch word for "bridge", but from the Celtic word "heather" (still to be found in the French word "bruyère"). If the part of the Bentham story you quote holds, then things are different of course, but I see you have already been editing at Kyakhta, so you know how this sort of thing is done.--Pan Gerwazy 13:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, you are saying that Nibcu, etc, is based on folk etymology? If you bother to read the treaty in its Manchu original, that's what the town is called. This was, and still is, an area inhabited by Tungusic people, not anything stranger that there is a Manchu name at all, they didn't need to invent a name based on the Russian. I would suspect the other way around. Moreover, Nibuchu is what the that is called in Chinese now and that's how it was called then. And it was an important trading town, so why wouldn't there be a Chinese name for it?!

And I didn't do the original section on Kiakhta, that was done before me. I just added the Manchu name. --Niohe 13:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, I checked some sources from the Qing dynasty and I managed to find a memorial to the Qianlong emperor from 1757, which complained that the rendering of Nibuchu into Chinese characters was inelegant. The name was subsequently changed from 泥樸處 or 尼布杵 to 尼布楚, which is the spelling most commonly used in China today. There are also references going back to the Kangxi period, of course. What is significant is that this trading post was frequently mentioned in Chinese (and Manchu) documents, and should be included.--Niohe 16:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, thousands of Spanish documents mention Monaco (München), thousands mention Amberes, and many more mention Gante (379,000 on Google). It is simply not what we do on the English Wikipedia. Only when it has been an official name for the city do we mention it in the title. Exceptions: a country's capital (except when it is officially bilingual today), towns in Lithuania (they are kept immune) and English names, which always get mentioned (even when they are a bit old-fashioned).

Here we are dealing with a small town founded by Russians in an area which is now 89% ethnically Russian and less than 1% non-European. Check here. I am sorry I answered so late, but I got first an edit conflict and then Wikipedia's server broke down.--Pan Gerwazy 19:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I followed the link and it referred back to Wikipedia as a source, so I don't really know what to believe. Are we quoting ourselves as an authority?

I never denied that Nerchinsk has a predominantly Russian population, but it started its life as a trading post with the Qing Empire and the town would never hav existed in the first place if it weren't for the trade with China. As for Manchus, these were the people that were running the empire and when you dealt with China in the periferi, you were most likley to encounter Manchus. If you read the treaties, they were signed by Manchu officials, there's not a single Han Chinese. We should include historically relevant information, and that is what I belive that I have done.

Furthermore, I don't really know what you are talking about when you say that adding names in different languages "is simply not what we do on the English Wikipedia". Says who? Of course, English names and usages are given priority in most cases (except for Taiwan!), but please remember that Wikipedia has no firm rules. I have quoted a number of cities with multiple language headings, so this is definitely a judgment call and nothing else.--Niohe 00:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, these statistics are not on Wikipedia. Not in the languages I checked. The source is not Wikipedia but the 2002 census (contrary to what I thought, the ethnological composition is also mentioned in the English version on the census website). The Buryats were left out on the Norwegian site numbers (perhaps because these were in the Agin-Buryat okrug). In any case, I fail to see the Tungusid people you claimed wer there still. As for the start of the town, the article and many sources say something different: it was started as a trading post with the cossacks further East. Note that the Dutch version says that when it was founded in 1658, it started as a relocation from the village of Nelyudski on the right bank of the Shilka to an island in the Nercha. It seems obvious that there was nothing on that island yet. Nelyudski was founded by cossacks and was abandoned afterwards, the place is now called Kalinino. As for the cities you quoted (Gdansk, Smyrna and Dalian) they all changed national allegiance and that influenced the offical name used locally. The Belgian towns I quoted are 99% Dutch speaking and have been so for centuries, but they also have the French name in their titles because from 1792 to 1815 and from 1830 until 1919 they were in a monolingual French-speaking state. The city records were mainly in French. When they were ruled by Spain or Austria, the city records were in Dutch. By the way, do you not think that the energy you are putting up here could be better directed towards writing articles about these towns (we are not only talking about Nerchinsk anymore) in the Chinese and Manchu Wikipedias. Then there would be links here to Nipchu. Like there are links to Amberes, Gante, Monaco and let's hope the sky does not fall on my head, Wilno. I have no problem with a separate chapter mentioning the Latin, Chinese and Manchu name (let us hope someone finds Mongolia, Buryat and Ewenk names). I have no problem with redirects from Nipchu, Nibuchu, "treaty of Nibchu" or whatever. I may be adding a link from Nelyudski when that info has been added to this version.--Pan Gerwazy 10:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I somehow fail to see where these excursions into European and Russian historical demographics are taking us. I'm arguing in favor of an inclusion of these two names on the basis of historical context.

Now, for historical context, I found the following information on Ghantimur, a Solon from the Amur tribal region, who defected from the Manchu army and joined the Russians in the 1660s.:

"The Moscow Government put him in charge of some of the Tungus and Mongol tribes of the newly-aquicred Dauria (Eastern Siberia). For permanent residence he chose Nerchinsk (built by Voevoda Athanasy Pashkov in 1656)." Hummel, Eminent Chinese of the Ch'ing Period (1943)

Apparently the city of Nerchinsk and its surroundings was populated by bith Russians and various Tungusic peoples. It is quite natural that the name Nibchu/Nibuchu would come from them.

You wonder why I spend time entering names like these. Actually I doesn't take much time entering names and I spend more time writing actual articles. I would be more interesting why you spend so much energy arguing for the exclusion of perfectly verifiable information and, I would argue, relevant information. Mark my words, you have not contributed with any source relevant to this discussion, except for an article on the present demographics of Nerchinsk.

Anyway, since exclusion is the order of the day, it seems, I deleted the Russian name in Cyrillics, since that can be accessed in the Russian Wikipedia. I rest my case until more interesting information comes up and I may reenter the historical names in the future.--Niohe 12:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

That deletion is in violation of WP:POINT. It is standard to mention the Cyrillic version if it is in the title. Even people who are in the know about Cyrillics need to know where the stress is, so they do not mispronounce the name from the start (partcularly "o" and "e" differ a lot whether stressed or not). If there is a problem with other alphabets (like Chinese) elsewhere on English Wikipedia, I will defend inclusion of them in the title.

Your sources are certainly verifiable, and that is why (I'm sure you noticed, but OK) I changed my mind about an extra short chapter on alternative names. And no, there would be no need to include my suspicion that the names were the result of a Jesuit misunderstanding, as I cannot prove anything until we know what the river was called before Russians arrived. I suppose my contribution was indeed negative in your eyes, because I pointed out why this town is not like Gdansk or Izmir, and why we do not normally put names given by people in far away places in the title. And that the place was empty space before the Russians came (this is the source for the Dutch article, the reason for the first re-location, the Daur knew how to build counterforts, is at the mark 143, just above the first fortification plan: 174. План крепости] Well, I am sorry -cannot be helped, unfortunately. --Pan Gerwazy 13:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of WP:POINT, thanks for pointing it out to me.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that neither Chinese nor Manchus are not far away enough to be excluded, for historical reasons. The Manchu Empire was literally next door in 1689 and the Russians wanted trade. I don't deny that Nerchinsk quite possibly was an empty spave before the Russians came, but that can hardly be a reason to exclude names, if you think about it.

On the point of how we include alternative names, I'm open-minded. I'm personally not happy with the way the names are listed in the Kiakhta article, but I added my modest contribution to the list, following the existing format of the article. I think name boxes on the right like in Changbaishan is preferable in cases where too many alternative names may disturb the flow of the text. But I don't know how to create these boxes, so I enter historical names in the heading for want of a better template. If you could help me out on this (or someone else) I would be very grateful.--Niohe 14:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Both Dutch and Russian Wikipedia have a Russian town template box which could actually be easily enhanced to show alternative names too (though that has not been done yet, strange as it may seem with all these towns who changed names a few times). I do not know how one of them could be imported into English Wikipedia, however. Perhaps a Russian contributor could help? If not, I will contact the person who did the Dutch one (I suppose he copied it from the Russian).--Pan Gerwazy 17:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)