Jump to content

Talk:Pereiaslav Agreement

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Pereyaslav Council)

dab

[edit]

I think this should become a disambig for Treaty of Pereyaslav (1654) and Treaty of Pereyaslav (1659). Any comments?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I object. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And why?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was also the Treaty of Pereyaslav (1630) (see Taras Fedorowicz). We most certainly do need a disambig.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course if there were other treaties the DAB is useful but there is certainly one treaty (this one) that ring most bells. So, if there is a dab, it shoud be under the Treaty of Pereyaslav (disambiguation) and this article should stay where it is with "otheruses" at the top. --Irpen 05:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is so evident that hardly needs discussing. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like a good idea.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  07:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I copied the paragraph "Second Treaty of Pereyslav" and created a new article Treaty of Pereyaslav (1659). If there are three, namely

why is the 1659 treaty called "Second"? Also, there are a lot of links coming in to Treaty of Pereyaslav. How do we know they really mean to link to the 1654 treaty? TrueColour (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the context of those articles. We should read them and when needed, pipe those inks to appropriate disambiguated articles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing bold moves

[edit]

Britannica is only one tertiary source amidst a plethora of WP:RS. Before making WP:BOLD moves such as changing the article name to "Pereyaslav Agreement", discuss them. Google Scholar returns this for "Treaty of Pereyaslav", this for "Pereyaslav Treaty", and this for "Pereyaslav Agreement". I'd say that it's a hands down win for "Treaty of Pereyaslav", or at least some convolution with the use of "Treaty" as opposed to "Agreement". For the sake of consistency with the 'other' Treaty of Pereyaslav, a discussion needs to take place. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

After a few days′ of attempts to instil the modicum of common sense in this article as well as some related ones, it is now obvious that this and the related ones on history of the territory now under Ukraine, are owned by a group of editors who obviously pursue their ideological agenda; the edits blatantly ignore sources and introduce utterly unsupported and nonsensical statements. The cited source (Britannica) says "Pereyaslav agreement", the edit ([1]) has it "treaty" despite the fact that a few lines below it goes to say that "no treaty" was signed. Is this activity in line with the Resource′ policies and aims?Axxxion (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense? We are talking about renaming the article without discussion based on your own WP:OR. As for casting WP:ASPERSIONS and accusing editors of being involved in a cabal and WP:OWN: take it to the ANI and make your case there. Given your editing history, it will most definitely make for interesting reading and a lively debate... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From my perspective your history is way more funny. But this is irrelevant. What is the basis to call this event (SIC!) a "treaty"?Axxxion (talk) 14:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How about a case of COMMON ENGLISH USAGE? also see Magocsi and Subtelny.--Lute88 (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do not get what you mean, but I would suggest "Council of P." as this is what it was. There was not treaty, moreover there couldn′t possibly be a treaty as a treaty presupposes two sovereign sides.Axxxion (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I already addressed your 'concerns' about the title in the section above. Rather than continuing the discussion under that section, you chose to start a new section invoking WP:OWN. Judging by your editing behaviour on this (and various other articles surrounding the subject of Ukraine and Ukrainian history), the issue is not that of other editors OWNing articles, but that of your WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude and attempts to turn articles into WP:COATRACKS.
WP:COMMONNAME in English sources has nothing to do with your own WP:PPOV. It's not down to you to make decisions as to appropriate titles based on a conflation of contemporary understandings of what constitutes a treaty under international law: wrong era by over 350 years. I've already demonstrated that 'treaty' is in common usage in multiple English language academic sources... so what are you actually railing against? That it doesn't fit your concept of 'treaty'? That's a non-argument for content. Also, it would be appreciated if you were to stop the "Do not get what you mean" arguments as WP:NOTGETTINGIT is a reflection on your competence, not other editors' competence. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Behind the smokescreen of the emotional tirades against me and legalistic claptrap, lies a simple and undeniable fact: This article is not about any treaty, as no treaty was signed, or even discussed. Common English Usage does not wash here, as the subject is perfectly unknown in the English-speaking world to anybody outside the relevant ethnic communities and a handful of relevant-area academics. Moreover, if this "common term" exists indeed, perhaps about time this be rectified because it is misleading and outright wrong. The USSR throughout its history (except arguably a few last years) was commonly known in the West as "Russia" - Is this a valid reason for moving the USSR accordingly?Axxxion (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 December 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Treaty of Pereyaslav → Pereyaslav Agreement – Page was improperly renamed by User:Axxxion by circumventing Wikipedia policy guideline regarding potentially controversial moves such as this. However, it looks like the recently published references confirm that the proper name of this article is not Treaty of Pereyaslav but rather the Pereyaslav Agreement. See: [2] [3] [4] and Ukraine By Andrew Evans. The endonym treaty, which pertains to two sovereign states, was introduced probably in the Soviet literature of the fifties. Poeticbent talk 22:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pointy editing practices

[edit]

This article has been given the WP:POINTy treatment by one particular editor. Please note: WP:OR, pointy edit summaries like this to justify WP:POV changes to content are not appreciated... as are the edit summaries for trashy tags like this, this, and this added with no edit summary. Personally, I don't care if the editor doesn't understand the etymology of the word "Ruski" when ethnic groups who emerged from the old Rus' state continued to identify as the Rus' (not "Russians"), but his/her own ignorance of the history of these regions is not an excuse for WP:BATTLEGROUND trashing of article content. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

THe real point is that both you and User:Lute88 have been destroying the encyclopedic character of this article, as is obvious from your multiple reverts here. Just stop making statements that are not supported by RS, i.e. start complying with WP:V, to start off. Then read WP:NPOV, and start complying with it.Axxxion (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree. POV, and especially pointy ruPOV are a lot more harmful to wiki.--Lute88 (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 February 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– Appears to be the most WP:COMMONNAME, is consistent with the spelling of the eponymous city Pereiaslav and the other Treaty of Pereiaslav (1630) (supported by WP:CONSISTENT), conforms to standard Ukrainian romanization (per WP:UKR), and also corresponds to the modified LOC romanization used in many academic and popular-academic sources. The version with capitalized Agreement was more common in the first two pages of results, in Google Advanced Book Search for English-language sources.

Also, the version with capitalized Articles was about 3× more common on the first two pages of results.

 —Michael Z. 02:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 06:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica still uses Pereyaslav Agreement [5], so we have to be careful by separating academic literature. Google search does not provide this difference.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Britannica uses BGN romanization, with exceptions (e.g., Kyyiv is given as an alternate spelling), because it is British and conservative. It doesn’t represent current common practice, as the BGN itself adopted the Ukrainian standard in 2019. (Much British academic usage largely follows LOC [“Pereiaslav”] since the British Library adopted that standard in 1975.) —Michael Z. 16:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here are results in Google Scholar, chiefly academic sources. The number of sources is smaller. The results are not the same, but I don’t believe the results contradict or outweigh my conclusions above.
 Articles:
 My own close second choice for a new title would be Treaty of Pereiaslav. Pinging participants User:Ymblanter and User:RicardoNixon97 after this update. —Michael Z. 18:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Britannica, it spells the city’s name Pereyaslav-Khmelnytskyy, with alternate spelling (=Wikipedia: Pereiaslav). —Michael Z. 19:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Based on these data, I will oppose for the time being, looks too soon to me.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ymblanter there was no name change. Do you mean too soon after the previous move request, five years ago? —Michael Z. 19:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean, at some point the usage of Pereyaslav Council will probably take over, but this has not happened yet.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pereiaslav_Agreement&oldid=1186410139"