Talk:Treaty of Nöteborg/Archive 1

Archive 1

Vyborg / Viborg / Viipuri

I modified the strange-looking naming conventions in the article before noticing related discussion here. I think it is proper to use the names currently approved as the official ones in Wikipedia, unless really required otherwise. I do not see that exceptions should be made here. Wikipedia uses the name "Vyborg" for the city. If there is a conflict over the name of the city, that discussion should be held at Talk:Vyborg. --Drieakko 18:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Very good reason to use the same naming convention everywhere is already the fact that if someone is searching for information in Wikipedia on a certain subject, he can be confident on getting it all using the name officially declared by Wikipedia. Complicating Wikipedia's role as an effective encyclopedia is just not welcome. --Drieakko 18:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Article's name

Why is the name of the treaty in Swedish in the article? Orechovets didn't belong to Sweden before or after the treaty. Is there any argument for the Swedish article name? If KhoiKhoi and others think that the Finnish name of the treaty or Viipuri should not be mentioned then according to the same logic the article's name should be "Treaty of Orechovets". --Jaakko Sivonen 02:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments? --Jaakko Sivonen 20:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

KhoiKhoi has lost his mind

He is on a rampage reverting every edit he sees.[1] How is this non-neutral? It mentions both Finnish and Swedish names as a compromise (although only Finnish names should be used). I really think you should get a life and seek professional help. --Jaakko Sivonen 07:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop personal comments. User:Khoikhoi is completely right. --Drieakko 07:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrong --Jaakko Sivonen 07:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Please say how is this not neutral?[2] --Jaakko Sivonen 07:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You have that issue commented right above this thread. Also since you claim in your edit comments that your motivating factor behind your actions is that you "will not accept Russian occupation and pro-Russky vandalism nor Svecomania in Wikipedia." your edits can not be considered neutral. --Drieakko 07:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that school book example of argumentum ad hominem - my possible motivations have nothing to do with the neutrality or the validity of my edits in this article. Now, I'd like to know why you want to work against the Finnish nationality by removing Finnish names from articles where they ought to be mentioned (articles regarding Finland and Finns). --Jaakko Sivonen 20:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not argumentum ad hominem when you yourself stated it as the reason for your edits. This is English Wikipedia. Usage of naming conventions is primarily in English and secondarily in original languages. In this case, Finnish names do not fall in either category. Links to the same articles in other languages, Finnish included, appear on the left menu for those interested in the content written in them. --Drieakko 12:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

My motivations do not change the validity of my edits or arguments. Finnish was the language of the people directly affected by the treaty, the treaty affected Finland as much or more as it did Sweden and Novgorod. In Riga the Estonian and Russian names of the city are mentioned together with the Latvian one. All in all, it hurts no one to have one sentence in brackets, now does it? --Jaakko Sivonen 15:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'd appreciate it if "KhoiKhoi" would discuss like civilized users instead of revert warring with the same old non-logical arguments. --Jaakko Sivonen 19:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Guys, warning you: you're approaching a limit you don't want to hit. Patstuart^talk|edits 02:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment moved from article

The following comment was embedded in the article: "Some eminent historians suppose the borderline did not end in the Gulf of Bothnia after all. According to this view, the area forming the northern part of modern Finland was rather considered to be an area where Novgorod and Sweden shared the right to tax the population."

If someone can find a source that supports it, perhaps this should be included somewhere.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 18:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have seen that in several history books, It shouldn't be that hard to find it. MoRsE 20:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It is discussed and dismissed in the provided reference here. --Drieakko 21:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Reasons are simply that: Novgorod had no reason to agree on that kind of border in 1323; both Latin and Russian sources are against the Swedish source; Swedes' hypothetical rights in the north were not in any way present in the treaty between Novgorod and Norway 3 years later. However, Finnish Wikipedia mentions (without reference) Jarl Gallén and John Lind to have supported Swedish priority in the 1960s. --Drieakko 21:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The book is Gallén, Jarl: Nöteborgsfreden och Finlands medeltida östgräns, Helsingfors 1968. Later together with Lind: Gallén, Jarl; Lind, John: Nöteborgsfreden och Finlands medeltida östgräns, vol. 2-3, Helsingfors 1991. It seems that their main thesis was not to challenge the border itself but to interprete the treaty so that regardless of the border both Sweden and Novgorod would have maintained joint rights to the northern Lappland. --Drieakko 21:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Also Professor Jukka Korpela seems to support that theory. In fact, right now a fierce debate is going on in Finland.--217.112.249.156 23:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion related to the poll

I said my main points in my vote comment above. Basically there is no reason to remove the Finnish name:

1. It hurts no one
2. The treaty concerned Finnish territory
3. The treaty concerned the Finnish people
4. The treaty is an important event in the history of Finland

I am the one who has supported a compromise solution, mentioning all names. --Jaakko Sivonen 16:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Because it goes against wiki principles and a gross violation of WP:POINT its like adding a Vietnamese title to some hotel in Dubai just because a Vietnamese national has stayed there. --Kuban Cossack 17:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Kuban Cossack. See entry above about the Versailles Treaty.JdeJ 17:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Versailles treaty is a bad analogy here. The border drawn by this treaty existed in area that was totally Finnish speaking. Tuohirulla puhu 18:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggest arbitration at this point. This debate, and user Jaakko, have been disruptive enough, IMO.

Fred-Chess 17:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that would be a good idea. Khoikhoi 20:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems that some of the users taking part in the discussion mix the name of the town and the name of the treaty. --Drieakko 20:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Kuban Cossack's analogy isn't even specious, I'm afraid. It's difficult to see what non-partisan reason there could be for the emotional rejection of the addition of the Finnish name here. I's not necessary to add it, but I can't say why or how it offends against Wikipedia's principles. Citing WP:POINT only makes sense if it has already been determined that the addition constitutes disruption. No other Wikipedia policy has been cited; can anyone cite one?
  A better analogy might be somthing like Hadrian's Wall, which is called by its modern English name (followed by its original name, in parentheses) even though it was built by the Romans in a place that was neither England (which didn't exist) nor ethnically English. But even that isn't directly relevant. The point is that it's polite, at least, to give the Finnish name for a treaty that concerned part of what is now Finland. All this talk about what language people spoke at the time is simply irrelevant to that main point. The article doesn't even mention Finland at any point, which is absurd. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• As an uninvolved editor, I agree completely with Mel Etitis here. There is nothing but specious reasoning provided for not including even a mention of the fact that this treaty involves what is now Finland, let alone including a Finnish name. It is not "counterhistorical"; rather, it is comprehensive to do so.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 18:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I took the bold step of mentioning in the article that the lands involved here are now part of Finland. I hope this isn't a contentious edit, as this is not actually the subject of the current edit war.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 18:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for great work. Please check if I merged additional edits successfully. Note that the last addition really was a bold move since southeastern part of the territory is today Russian and certain groups in Finland would be happy to see it taken over by Finns again. --Drieakko 19:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Attention: Meatpuppets affect poll

The Some users putting their named under the "Support" heading have probably been recruited by Jaakko, maybe from Finnish Wikipedia. Neither of them just happened to drop by this page. Fuzzybyte had made one edit in the last two months [3] and had not been involved with this article at all, while Tuohirulla hadn't edited for a month [4] and had also no prior history on this page. / Fred-Chess 19:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree, see this: [5] (translation: "Finnish oppositing wills have removed the Finnish names from the [Treaty of Nöteborg] article. Restore it, I can't right now due to a blocking." MoRsE 10:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yaakko, you are hurting your chances by the poor way you're handling this situation: canvassing, accusing of vandalism, anti-Finnish bias, and other nonsense. Keep in mind, I voted along with your side in the poll. Please don't do that, otherwise, we'll never get an agreement. Patstuart^talk|edits 03:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Copy edit

Hi, I copy edited the article, fixing run-on sentences, correcting spellings, everything a copy edit requires. I took down the tag but Mel Etitis put it back up and indicated that there was still work to do. I'm not sure what he means. I understand that this is a contentious issue and perhaps there are tone problems but that's not what the copy edit tag is for. If the article is written in standard english with no misspellings or typos, why does it need a copyedit tag?-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 03:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it looks like someone reverted my edits to the previous non-copyedited version. When did that happen? I guess I'll do it again.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 03:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay I copyedited it again, can we remove the tag now? -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 03:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, first, the copyedit tag is for tone, as well as style and voice (as it clearly states), but secondly there were still grammatical and vocabulary problems (that might have been because someone had reverted your edits; not unheard of on this article). I've tidied up the last little things, and removed the template. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:LAME

Couldn't help myself: Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars#Ethnic feuds. Congratulations! Patstuart^talk|edits 20:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Amen to that. --Scimitar | parley 21:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I can't help observing that we all keep saying how unimportant we think this debate is, yet we do cast our votes - don't we? Perhaps this is not a lame debate after all? It would be more convincing if someone who did not particpate in the debate nominated it.--Bothnia 03:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is very easy for Americans and people from Western Europe etc. to be cavalier about ethnic fueds that lead to edit wars. Put yourself in the place of someone from Macedonia or Armenia or Moldova or Kashmir or even a historically much-put-upon country like Finland; not being allowed to call your country what everyone calls it there because a different country has written your history must be VERY frustrating. Oh chuckle chuckle, these silly editors can't agree on what language to include on a silly treaty that we don't care about, but it's clearly quite important to them or edit wars like this wouldn't happen. (Not meaning to be snide or anything but this is part of the American/Brit bias that is inherently part of en.wikipedia)-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm Canadian, and both of my maternal grandparents were first generation Finn immigrants. This is still a stupid edit war. Anyways, your argument is the crux of my vote; if it's important to Finns to have the treaty name in Finnish, than why not? --Scimitar | parley 15:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

A dubious statement

I'm not sure about the following sentence, which sounds like a unencyclopedic or even a weasel statement to me: "Finnic tribes living on both sides of the border, mainly Karelians, Finns, and Tavastians, had no say in the treaty." Perhaps this is standard in Wikipedia to have statements like this, but are we to assume that it was the norm to consult people affected by a treaty in medieval Europe? Was somehow the "Swedish people" (whatever that is supposed to mean this early) consulted, but not the "Finnish"? This is almost 600 years before Wilson and Lenin denounce secret diplomacy and advocates self-determination.

For those of you who have wondered about "agendas", this is exactly what puts people off. Just because ethnicity and nationality are tremendously important to people today, we somehow assume that people 600 years ago were as concerned as we are. Why should we? We can have differing opinions about this, but we should not present our assumptions or orginal research here. Instead we should focus on the factual and historically relevant information.--Bothnia 13:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is completely ok to mention that entities whose faith was decided in the treaty were not present to agree upon it in any way. The listed three tribes appear as separate entities in the documentation contemporary with the treaty, making alliances, waging wars and loosing battles. --Drieakko 14:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is a valid point, but singling out this fact makes it look like religious freedom was even an option in medieval Europe, which was clearly not the case. The idea of Cuius regio, eius religio was firmly established at the time and only a couple of centuries after the treaty, the Treaty of Augsburg enshrined the principle that the people follow the religious faith of their ruler - or move somewhere else. If the sentence on the Karelians, Finns and Tavastians is to be kept, it needs to be qualified by some kind of statement on what was the norm at the time. History is all about context, I don't think it is appropriate to pass judgment on a historical period so far removed from our own times.--Bothnia 16:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Tribal names are consistently used by e.g. Russian sources of that time and that is also the reason why tribal names are used here. Those tribes did not form "states" yet so putting it like "Karelia, Finland and Tavastia had no say in the treaty" would be false. See e.g. Prehistoric Finnish wars how medieval Russians refered to Finns. The fact is not "singled out" since the treaty de facto and de jure divided Finnic tribes in Fennoscandia for good. --Drieakko 17:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with mentioning that the people who were directly subject to a treaty did not have a say in it. It's simply a fact, even if to some historically-minded editors it is a self-evident fact. It is actually going through extra intellectual hoops to avoid putting in such information because "to include it implies that there was a non-existant freedom of self-determination in medieval Europe." -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 02:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Yes, and every time we mention a medieval king or other leader, we could add a disclaimer that they were not elected by a majority of the people they were ruling over. Just in case someone got it wrong.--Bothnia 03:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Is the point here that it was so natural for Finns, Tavastians and Karelians to be ruled by Russian and Swedish administrations that it does not need to be mentioned? Despite all the earlier information about fully ethnocentric fighting? --Drieakko 07:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The fact that Finland ended up under Swedish rule was of course the result of military conquest and political maneuvering, make no mistake about that. But there was nothing remarkable about that at the time. If you look at a 14th century map of Europe you will find that all borders were determined by war, diplomatic maneuvering and sometimes marriage alliances. I went out and hand a look at bunch of treaties out there and I found no statement that no one bothered to ask the people in the area what they thought. Of course they didn't! From our perspective that is of course terrible, but we won't change anything by imposing our worldview on events six or seven hundred years ago by emphasizing that something that was not even an option at the time (democratic consultation) did not happen. To put it a bit bluntly, in historical articles, I think it is more important to be historically accurate than to be politically correct.--Bothnia 12:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

All historical publications conveniently use names of nations, like "Russians", "Swedes" etc, doing this and that regardless of whether their political system at the time was democratic or not. I don't get the point here. About "imposing our worldview" on the past events, the tribes at the time were heavily ethnocentric and are described as single units from external points of view in the contemporary sources. When Finns attacked Novgorod in 1228, all Finns that were captured were killed off. When Swedes attacked Estonia in 1220, all Swedes that were captured were killed off. Ethnical hatred was at the extreme regardless of who was fighting whom.

I agree, you didn't get the point here. As far as I know, most of these wars took place under religious pretexts and were called crusades. Christian kings - like Charlemagne - had no problems killing people considered pagan. Why should we assume that the wars you mention here took place because of ethnic hatred? You are assuming the point that you should prove.--Bothnia 01:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether someone was "christian" or "pagan" was only an excuse at the time for killing. As soon as christians needed to wage wars against each other, the enemy were labelled as pagans at the very moment. --Drieakko 06:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Following your own reasoning, would it then be equally justified to say that this ethnical labelling was also just a pretext of killing? In any case, you are assuming that ethnical hatred is primary to religious affiliation rather than proving it.--Bothnia 12:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments that there was "nothing remarkable" about the fact that Finnic tribes were divided for good by the treaty over their heads, I heavily disagree. The treaty ended up being the single most crucial treaty in their history. If that looks unremarkable anyway, that's another issue.

Again, you are mixing things up. When the Treaty of Nöteborg was concluded there was nothing remarkable at all to conclude treaties "over the heads" of native populations, it was the rule. Yes, in hindsight, the treaty was beginning of the division of Finnic tribes between Russia and Sweden. But in 1323, no one could tell that this would be one of the most important treaties in the history of a nation that did not yet exist.--Bothnia 01:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

So historical articles should not evaluate the events with knowledge what happened later? --Drieakko 06:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That depends on what you mean. Of course, we can state that the Treaty of Nöteborg in due course would permanent the division between different Finnic peoples - that's a fact. But to condemn the failure of Sweden and Novogorod to consult the Finns against the background of subsequent events - that is completely anachronistic.--Bothnia 12:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

They divided the area right then and there and decided the border to be permanent. How is it "completely anachronistic" that it actually became permanent? How is the article "condemning" that Novgorod and Sweden ignored what Finnic tribes thought about their treaty? --Drieakko 14:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you give an example of a medieval treaty in which two nations decided the position of a third one, without need to mention whether the third one had a say in the process or not? --Drieakko 16:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't, because there were no nation states in the medieval period, only empires and territorial states, which often contained several ethnic and linguistic groups.--Bothnia 01:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Please mention one ethnically neutral medieval state in Europe. --Drieakko 06:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a common myth that there was no ethnic chauvinism prior to the rise of nationalism. If people bothered to read the primary sources rather than secondary sources intended for the general public, the myth would probably not exist.--Berig 11:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Drieakko, what is "ethnically neutral" supposed to mean?

You claimed that in the Middle Ages there were "only empires and territorial states" which were not "nation states". What are the medieval empires and territorial states that were not nation states in a sense that a certain nationality would not have been in undeniable control? --Drieakko 14:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Berig, could you please prove your point instead of just stating it? I'm not denying the fact that ethnicity existed prior to nationalism, all I'm saying is that we should careful not project present nations and nationalisms back several hundred years.--Bothnia 12:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing new in nationalism except that someone decided to make an ism out of it. --Drieakko 14:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Bothnia, here is some recommended reading for you in a Scandinavian context: Gesta Danorum or why not the part on the opening of the Battle of Svolder in Olaf Tryggvason's saga. You can also read Helpful Danes and Pagan Irishmen: Saga Fantasies of the Viking Age in the British Isles, where Elizabeth Ashman Rowe writes about how Scandinavians wrote sagas where superior Scandinavians helped inferior English kings. In Anglo-Saxon Wessex, Ine of Wessex's law treated the indigenous Celts as inferior in an apartheid-like system, and Gesta Danorum book 13 describes how the Swedes considered the Geats to be a lesser nation without right to influence the election of their kings.--Berig 14:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yikes! It seems that primordialist history writing is alive and kicking here on Wikipedia. No wonder the likes of our banned rogue editor are having such a great time here on Wikipedia. Apartheid in Wessex? The article says nothing about racial segregation. What's next? A quote from the History Channel? Perhaps some of us should go back and read a little bit of Benedict Anderson or Eric Hobsbawm for a change. Not that their works are the last word on the question of nations and nationalism, but it would provide some common ground for discussion.

I never said that ethnicity didn't exist or that it didn't matter before the modern era, all I have said premodern states as a rule were not built around the concept of ethnicity as we know it.

I think I will call it a day for the time being, I don't find this discussion particularly productive anymore. Ciao!--Bothnia 20:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry that you react so emotionally to my stating facts and call it "primordial history". I understand that you would prefer a more politically correct history writing than the one found in primary sources. I am also sorry that you did not find any information about Ine of Wessex's laws in his proper article, but 'Apartheid' slashed Celtic genes in early England is an article in New Scientist that can explain more to you. The article says for instance:

For example, these laws stated that if an Anglo-Saxon was killed, the "blood money", or "Wergild", payable to the family was up to five times more than the fine payable for the life of a native Celt.

I strongly doubt that you truly believe that the concepts of "tribes", "clans", "kinship" and "language" were irrelevant to early state-building.--Berig 20:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You actually proved my point. The New Scientist is exactly the kind of source that has produced so much "bad history" on Wikipedia. (Perhaps not as bad as History Channel, but almost.) What you are referring to here as a "fact" based on "primary sources" is a bold hypothesis launched by a biological anthropologist. As the article points out, the hypothesis rests on a number of assumptions and there may be alternative explanations. The New Scientist is journalism, nothing more and nothing less.

You seem to think that we can find "the truth" by just reading the primary sources "as they are" - that is a very naïve way of treating historical material. I'm sure that you have read more early medieval European history than I have, and you probably have some more juicy quotes you can share with us all. But have you read any of the texts you refer to here in the original language? Then you should be aware of the fact that concepts such as "nation", "tribe", "clan", etc., are malleable. The same word or concept can have drastically different connotations in a different context. When a historian reads a text like the one you just quoted, they do not just take the text at face value. They ask questions such as "is this text descriptive or normative?"; "how far removed is the text from the event it describes?"; "does the text rely on other texts of a similar nature?", etc. That is why it is a good idea to find out what the best historians have to say about a given original text and not just dismiss their work as secondary sources.

To return to where this thread started, all I'm trying to do is to inject dose of healthy skepticism about what we can actually know about the peoples that lived in what is Finland today. Many of the claims made on this talk page about the state of the Finnish nation in 1323 rest on a number assumptions that are hard to prove and I don't think this is the place to launch new innovative theories about that either. I think that is all I wanted to say.--Bothnia 01:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Well said! I am a Finn, and proud to be one, but I have always been very unhappy with the nationalist historiography imagining a primordial and essentialist Finnish (or Swedish, or Russian) national identity existing before 19th century. I am astonished to see that Drieakko, generally a very well-informed and intelligent editor, makes a non-sensical and anti-historical claim like this: "There is nothing new in nationalism except that someone decided to make an ism out of it".128.214.17.121 10:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing non-sensical about Drieakko's statement "There is nothing new in nationalism except that someone decided to make an ism out of it". The dark side of human social behavior and chauvinism have existed since the dawn of man, AFAIK.--Berig 13:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I am really so unable to explain my point? There might very well be a dark side inside of a man, but nationalism is a very special form of identification, and it is a relatively recent phenomenom. It is meaningless, in fact stupid, to identify all forms of chauvinism and prejudice with modern nationalism!!! Nowadays there is a lot of interesting historical and anthropological research of etnic identities and other group identities in the early medieval Europe. They are stressing just this point: ethnicity in the past was different than ethnicity in the world of modern nation-states and nationalistic ideologies.--128.214.17.121 10:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. You mean that the brutal and chauvinistic tribalism that existed in the early Middle Ages is a completely different thing from, and totally unrelated to, modern Nationalism? If you mean that the two are essentially different phenomena, I beg to differ.--Berig 12:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

At least they were very dissimilar phenomena: ethnicity was defined by different criteria; cultural representations of ethnicity were very different; ethnic practices were different; just about anything was different expect the fact that the "others" could be sometimes treated with xenophobia. Please read some books on this, or at least try to avoid dismissing them without reading them.--130.234.75.164 12:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Jaakko's latest edits

Actually, I thought they were rather balanced and NPOV. I had no problems with them, and I don't see any problem with mentioning the name of the treaty in other languages. That is common practice in many other articles. JdeJ 02:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

See above. Khoikhoi 02:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• A concensus was not reached in the vote.
• Wikipedia is not a democracy. --Jaakko Sivonen 13:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

As I have said many times before, KhoiKhoi holds personal hatred towards me. --Jaakko Sivonen 13:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Jaakko, kindly stop personal comments. --Drieakko 14:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll stop them when you and KhoiKhoi stop terrorizing this article. --Jaakko Sivonen 15:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Treaty of Shlisselburg

Shlisselburg is the English name of the fortress where the treaty was signed, why isn't the article called Treaty of Shlisselburg? --Jaakko Sivonen 15:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Because English publications use the name "Treaty of Nöteborg" for the treaty and this is English Wikipedia. We are not supposed to invent our own names for established naming conventions here. --Drieakko 16:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Drieakko lies

He claims that my edits are "Nationalistic". Let's see now what I have recently edited.

• Added mentions of the Finnish and also Russian name of the place.
• Corrected the wrong use of the word Finnic in stead of Finnish and corrected misleading links: varsinaissuomalaiset, hämäläiset and karjalaiset were all Finnish tribes, not just Finnic.

Drieakko seems to push a pro-Swedish Revisionist line. I will not allow him to use Wikipedia for his sick intentions. --Jaakko Sivonen 19:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Noting you about WP:NPA. --Drieakko 20:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

And I'm noting you about Vandalism and Historical Revisionism. Either that or then you're just very, very stupid indeed (not a PA, just stating the options). --Jaakko Sivonen 00:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Karelians are not Finnish people, they are Finnic people. Read articles on Finnic languages and Finnic peoples. They are only considered as Finnish people by the Greater Finland hopeful. --Drieakko 20:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the Karelian people, I am talking about Finnish Karelians! The Finns who f.ex. inhabited the Finnish Karelia up to 1944 and whose area this concerns! They were one of the three Finnish prehistoric tribes. Do you not know anything about Finnish history? See here[6] if you don't believe me. And still you think you're fit to edit here? I don't think calling you uncivilized can be interpreted as a PA in this case... P.S. I just had to share this.[7] --Jaakko Sivonen 00:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm still wondering why you and your meat/sock puppet(?) KhoiKhoi think that mentioning the Finnish name about a treaty concerning Finland is Nationalism, even together with the Swedish and the Russian names, but mentioning the Swedish name is not? --Jaakko Sivonen 00:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Poll

User:Jaakko Sivonen has expressed that the article needs to state also the Finnish name for the treaty in question. Please take part in the poll to decide over the matter.

Question: does the article need to mention the Finnish name for the treaty?

Users in favor with their reasoning:

1. Strongly support. I don't know what Drieakko means by "unhistorical". Pähkinäsaari has always been Pähkinäsaari in Finnish as far as I'm aware. Finns were not a participant in the way that Finland did not sign the treaty (having the Finnish name mentioned doesn't claim this in any way!), but the people living in the area were all Finns and spoke Finnish. The treaty concerned the territory of Finland. It is normal in Wikipedia to mention many names: in Riga three names are mentioned besides the English name, although only one of them is the official name of the city. Most of the readers of the article do not speak Finnish and thus cannot go and read the Finnish Wikipedia. I am curious to know why it hurts Drieakko so deeply to have one sentence of his mother tongue in brackets in an article concerning his fatherland. I would also like to point out that Wikipedia is not a democracy and the outcome of this vote is not binding - the Finnish name ought to be mentioned in either case. --Jaakko Sivonen 15:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
2. support. the treaty is a part of Finnish history and so the Finnish name should be mentioned. --Fuzzybyte 15:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Support The name given by indigenous natives of area affected by treaty should be primary or at least mentioned. Tuohirulla puhu 18:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Support - we're making a mountain out of a molehill. What the heck is the problem with adding the Finnish language name for a Finnish town treaty on Finnish soil? Perhps we should just doing a Coin toss, and whichever it comes to, go with that. Patstuart^talk|edits 20:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

   The article is not about a Finnish town. Khoikhoi 20:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

   Corrected.

   It wasn't on Finnish soil at the time either. :-) Khoikhoi 20:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

   That's because Finland didn't really exist (if I understand my history) - it was swallowed up in Sweden. But the people existed, right? Patstuart^talk|edits 20:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

   Finland didn't exist as a state prior to being "swallowed" by Sweden. It's just as anachronistic to talk about "Finns" at that time as it is to talk about "Swedes" during the Viking era. Besides, no written Finnish language existed before the 16th century, so we don't know exactly what language people spoke there. Russian is also a very new language and when the Treaty of Nöteborg cloncluded it was more or less indistinguishable from eastern Slavonic dialects.--Bothnia 02:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

   Well, actually toponymic and linguistic evidence tell us what language they spoke.--217.112.249.156 10:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

   I just browsed through the Swedish text of the treaty and I didn't find the word Finland or Finnish mentioned once.--Bothnia 02:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

   You should notice, that all place names are in finnish.--80.248.105.135 10:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

   Yes, I saw the Finno-Ugric place names, just as you did. But the question is: should we project the Finnish language back in time and assume that these are Finnish names, or, shall we regard these place names as reflections of the local Finno-Ugric languages that were spoken there at the time, which in due course would develop into Finnish, Ingrian, Karelian, Estonian, etc.--Bothnia 12:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

   We do not need to think about that at all, as linguistic historians have their own detailed theories of the development of Finnic languages, and it is not Wikipedia´s business to criticize them. During the 14th century a distinct Finnish language has evolved.--217.112.249.156 10:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

   ...and your evidence?--Bothnia 13:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

5. Support: the arguments of those opposing seem to me to be flimsy at best (in particular, Drieakko's claim concerning the implications of mentioning the name, and MoRsE's claim that mentioning the name is "revisionism"); the common name given to the treaty by those living in the region now is a perfectly reasonable addition. (That one or more supporters of the addition have acted badly is, of course, no reason to oppose it, and my support does not imply support for their behaviour.) There's clearly partisanship on both sides, and it's really not helpful. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

   As seen before, supporting this kind of additions would be regarded by certain groups as a justification to spread nationalistic name feuds to all articles mentioning the names. If in any way feasible, I'd support having conflicts of place names handled in the respective articles only and other articles to use a) established conceptual names, like "Siege of Leningrad" or b) names given in Wikipedia article as the primary name, like Saint Petersburg. --Drieakko 17:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

   Refusing to allow a reasonable edit on the basis that it might provide a precedent for other edits isn't good policy. We should do what's right, and if people wrongly take it as a precedent for doing other things that are wrong, we should explain that and stop them.

   The rapidity (and discourtesy) with which my initial edit (before I saw this discussion, and including an improvement of the English and a request for a citation) was reverted, as well as some of the reasons given for opposing the proposal, suggests that the problems here are not only on one side. The article is in somewhat broken English in places, but as editing it seems to be forbidden by its current owners, I'll simply stick {{copyedit}} on it, and hope that someone else does the work. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

   You requested reference to the "permanent peace" citation. Please note that treaty's oldest Latin and Swedish versions are available as an external link, and that is said in both texts. If someone knows an English translation available, please add there. --Drieakko 18:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

   Comment - I can see your point, Mel Etitis. I chanced on this poll and decided after some agonizing to oppose the inclusion of the Finnish name. Usually I'm in favor of including multiple language names in articles, especially when it comes to contested areas. I have been involved in edit wars on the "inclusionist" side on several occasions. However, having read the arguments above, I decided against inclusion simply because it is ahistorical to use the Finnish name or the Russian name too for that matter.

   One editor wrote on his talk page: The treaty was known as Pähkinäsaaren rauha in Finnish since it was signed. - Can someone please prove this instead of just stating it? This is a name invented long after the treaty was signed and long after Finnish was created as a written language; the modern Finnish name carries no historical significance what so ever. We already have an article about the treaty in Finnish.

   This is the way Wikipedia works; the burden of proof is on those who want to include a name, not on those who want to exclude. On those occasions I have been on the "inclusionist" side, I have willingly carried that burden. If someone can show that the term Pähkinäsaaren rauha has been in use since the treaty was signed or long before Finland became an independent nation - and this is a historical article - I will change my position. I don't consider this debate particularly important, but if I have to chose, I chose not to include Pähkinäsaaren rauha.--Bothnia 01:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

6. Support. I don't understand why this is so contentious; all we're talking about is adding a Finnish language name to the introduction, and given that the area covered by this treaty is currently in Finland it doesn't seem like much of a concession to me.--Scimitar | parley 20:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

   The Battle of Halys took place in what is now Turkey, so should we add the Turkish name for the battle as well? Khoikhoi 02:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

   If there were a bunch of Turks really pushing for it because they felt it was important, than why not? --Scimitar | parley 15:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

7. Support ... "Treaty of Pähkinäsaari" is commonly used name for this treaty. "Treaty of Nöteborg" is wikipedianism. --Tbonefin 13:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Neutral, sort of... Would it be an acceptable compromise, to include a note that the name of the place is Pähkinälinna in Finnish? Since there were Finnish tribes living around, by the time. (Though I strongly doubt that the place, as Jaakko claims, would have had a name in Finnish before it had any in Swedish, since there were no fortress ("linna") before the swedes built one). The locals by that time most probably didn't give a damn in which language the place was addressed, as long as the knights bought their agricultural products. To include the complete expression in Finnish för the treaty; Pähkinälinnan rauha, would IMO though be nonsense, as people generally reading en:wp don't understand Finnish, and those who do, mostly understand English as well. In addition the expression used in any encyclopedia in English simply is "treaty" and nothing else. -Islander(Scandinavia) 23:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

   Kindly note that the many different names of the town today known as Shlisselburg are already extensively discussed in the related article for anyone interested in them. The fact that English-speaking history has hand-picked "Nöteborg" to be used in the name of the treaty is another issue. --Drieakko 05:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Users against with their reasoning

1. Oppose. Using an unhistorical Finnish name for the treaty gives the wrong impression that Finns were a participant in the treaty and that it existed in Finnish. Neither case is true. Treaty's Finnish name and related information in Finnish are available in the Finnish article which is linked to the English one, for those interested in that. --Drieakko 15:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose per WP:POINT, what is the point of having a third party just because it was affected by it? That would mean you would have to have a header longer than an introduction on the Treaty of Versailles or the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, because over a dozen countries were affected by them. --Kuban Cossack 17:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose. It is true that the treaty affected Finland, but it was a treaty between Sweden and Russia and its Finnish name is of no interest to an encyclopedia in English. The Versailles treaty affected most of Europe, using the same logic the article about the Versailles-treaty should include its name in English, French, German, Dutch, Danish, Polish, Czech, Slovak, Italian, Slovenian, Croatian, Bosnian, Serbian, Macedonian, Albanian, Hungarian, Romanian, Bulgarian and Greece. At least. All these countries were affected by the treaty, but that's not the point here. The point is that we use the established English names.JdeJ 17:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

   Yes, this is english Wikipedia, why there should be russian name in this article, because "russian is a very new language and when the Treaty of Nöteborg concluded (between Sweden and Novgorod, not Russia) it was more or less indistinguishable from eastern Slavonic dialects."--80.248.105.135 11:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

   Yes, you got a point there.--Bothnia 12:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

   And a good point. I'd keep just the English name in the article with notes that it was originally written down in Russian, Swedish and Latin. --Drieakko 13:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

4. Oppose per Drieakko. Khoikhoi 19:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose - per Drieakko. Besides, how do we know that the people living in the area were Finns and spoke Finnish? No written Finnish language existed at the time.--Bothnia 22:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose - Wikipedia is not the place for revisionism MoRsE 10:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Sh*t polls like this one will never end in Wikipedia... KNewman 18:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

   Er sorry? Note that this isn't a vote — it's a discussion. You need to say why you oppose, as that's what will be taken into account. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

   I know too well where such discussions lead - edit wars, ArbCom, bye-bye some prolific user(s) who dared to oppose those who voted support in cases like this one. Oppose says it all. KNewman 19:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

8. Oppose using counterhistoric terms. --Irpen 18:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose The treaty is known in English by the Nöteborg name. The Finnish name was not used in English literature (as no written Finnish language existed at the time) and never used now. Alex Bakharev 12:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose The treaty of Brest-Litovsk does not mention the Polish name of the town. The town's article does. Another example: we have no article yet on the Treaty of Lille. Actually, there were two Treaties of Lille (28 Jan 1437, between Burgundy and Lorraine and 1513 between England and Spain/Burgundy but against France). Some have suggested that a new European treaty should be "hosted" in Lille. All three treaties would then involve or have involved ALL Dutch speakers in Europe - and Lille WAS a part of Flanders even officially when the first two were signed. (Brest-Litovsk did mean something for the Poles too.) However, I do not think anyone would suggest that English wikipedia should also mention the Dutch name of Lille in the article on any of the treaties. And of course, the English article on Lille mentions the Dutch name. Let us stick to a known encyclopaedic procedure, I would say.--Pan Gerwazy 15:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose. This is English Wikipedia and not the Finnish one. Jaakko Sivonen should explain why he did not suggest the Saami name as well since it is just as (ir)relevant as the Finnish one.--Berig 16:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ореховский мир

Name "Ореховский мир" is repeatedly put to the article as the historical Russian name of the treaty. As I am not capable of reading Russian, I can not confirm this. No historical source that I am aware of says that "Ореховский мир" would have been used by any of the participants about the treaty. If it is only a modern name for the treaty used in the contemporary Russian language litterature, it belongs to the left column like the name of the treaty in any other language. --Drieakko 20:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Swedish-Finnish historians

The following POV is repeatedly put to the article without a reference:

"Swedish-Finnish historians were anxious to prove that the border in the wilderness was not meant to be as strict as the line across the Karelian Isthmus --"

which I keep restoring to:

"Some historians have speculated that the border in the wilderness was not meant to be as strict as the line across the Karelian Isthmus --"

As per reference, this is a view of a small minority (mainly Gallén and Lind), so making a generalization like this is out of place. If the supporters of the previous claim want to promote general anxiousness of the Swedish-Finnish historians to dillute the treaty, kindly provide a reference that backs that instead of just pushing the POV. --Drieakko 20:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:NC

The lead is rather idiotic: how could the treaty have been signed in Shlisselburg, if that name came into being five centuries later? This runs counter to our naming conventions and should be modified. We don't say that Kant lived in Kaliningrad or that the Nazis besieged St. Petersburg, do we? Furthermore, the treaty is known as Orekhovetsky dogovor in Russian. That should also be reflected in the lead. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, IMHO, using dead or rare place names is no benefit to the Wikipedia audience so unless there is an official rule established for usage of a certain place name other than its default, I'd keep the default Wikipedia names for the readability and simplicity of the text, and to avoid the tiresome quarrel about which name is "right" in which context. --Drieakko 21:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Quote fromm WP:NC: "-- use modern English names for titles and in articles. Historical names or names in other languages can be used in the lead if they are frequently used and important enough to be valuable to readers, and should be used in articles with caution." --Drieakko 21:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

As per the name of the treaty, this is English Wikipedia and names of concepts like treaties in other languages are available in the menu on the left. As discussed above. --Drieakko 21:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't give a hoot what was discussed above, but I know the naming conventions of Wikipedia. If you want to have another Talk:Gdansk/Vote, go for it. Frankly, we should move the article to Treaty of Oreshek. That's how the serious scholars refer to it.[8] --Ghirla^-трёп- 22:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that you carried out the proposed move already without discussion. Kindly discuss and possibly vote about it before proceedings. Please also read the WP:NC because it contradicts what you claim about it. --Drieakko 20:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

As for the name, [9] seems to beat out your suggestion 11:5. --Drieakko 20:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Adding [10] to it, the situation is already 39:5. --Drieakko 20:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The names

Why do we give Finnish a priority here just because these cities are part of Finland today? This was a treaty between Swedan and the Novgorod Republic. Khoikhoi 00:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Because they were always ethnically Finnish. Why should we give priority to imperialism? By the way, what's "Swedan" (in bold letters)? --Jaakko Sivonen 22:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"Imperialism"?! You do not seem to know your ancestors own history very well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.69.204.187 (talk) 10:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Because these are the official names.

"Official names" today do not matter in historical contexts. We don't call Siege of Leningrad the Siege of Saint Petersburg, do we? Should we replace Konigsberg with Kaliningrad in the articles about the Teutonic Order? Please consult WP:NC for naming conventions used in Wikipedia. Those who disrupt the guideline will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That page seems so long. I don't see anything there saying official names cannot be used. Could you be more specific? --Atabata

Naming conventions apply to the names of pages, not the descriptions of things on the page. There aren't any guidelines I can think of on the latter, but presumably the most commonly used names for the places/events described make sense. That is, we would not title a page Siege of Saint Petersburg because that isn't the name the event was known by... but we would, and do, refer to current events on that page by the modern 'Saint Petersburg' and historical events by the 'Leningrad' name of that time. In any case, both modern and past names ought to be noted. --CBD 12:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Your understanding of policy is deficient. Saying that Kant was born in Kaliningrad is nonsense. Saying that Kant was born in Konigsberg (Kaliningrad) is not wikipedian, because the link to Konigsberg will anyway lead our readers to Kaliningrad. Please check Talk:Gdansk/Vote for a wider context. I would appreciate more thoughtfulness in comments on issues of such importance. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You apparently didn't understand what I was saying. For your Immanuel Kant example... my comments above would lead to sentences like, 'Kant was born in Konigsberg (now Kaliningrad)' but 'Kant's tomb can be found in Kaliningrad'. The historical name for the historical event (his birth) and the modern name for current issues (location of his tomb). Which... is consistent with what that article actually does, the Gdansk discussion you link above, and usual practice. --CBD 13:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

As one of the most experienced editors of Wikipedia, I may tell you that "now Kaliningrad" part would be removed by anon editors who think that such disclaimers are redundant with our system of redirects. And they would be correct. This is not a paper encyclopaedia. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

As someone who knows how to use an edit history I can tell you that it has been there since the start of this year. :] --CBD 14:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyways, just because the city is called Turku today, does not mean that we should write history backwards. Ironically, in this edit, Atabata changed the name to "Turku", but also linked to the redirect Viipuri, rather than where the page actually lies (and the official name for the city), Vyborg. If we're going to apply standards somewhere, we should do it for all the names, not to have it in a way where the the world revolves around Finland. As I said before, why give the Finnish names priority? The Swedish names are no less important. Khoikhoi 04:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so the city was "100%" Finnish at the time, so what? Does that stop the fact that it was part of Sweden? Khoikhoi 02:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It's population was Finnish, it was in Finland and the population spoke Finnish -> Finnish name. --Jaakko Sivonen 02:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions don't work that way, see WP:NC. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 02:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

That is how they work in a neutral Encyclopedia, I guess this isn't one. Using Swedish and Russian names = supporting imperialism. --Jaakko Sivonen 02:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to fight with the injustice of the past. Your definition of "neutral" doesn't fit here. Pavel Vozenilek 05:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Jaakko would care to tell us which enclyclopedia in English that refers to Vyborg as Viipuri. As has been explained many times, applying the same principles to all placenames is neutral and encyclopedic. Inserting Finnish names and changin the motives according to one's own agenda is neither neutral nor encyclopedia. Unfortunately Jaakko and Atabata have practiced the latter. JdeJ 11:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"Treaty of Oreshek"

As the article states, "'Treaty of Oreshek'[3] is a similar translation from the Russian Ореховский мир [Orekhovskiy mir]," meaning Peace (or Treaty) of Orekhov.

The footnote itself simply provides a Google search that shows that Oreshek and Orekhov are two names for the same fortress, Russian Wikipedia refers to the fortress as "Oreshek" https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Орешек_(крепость) but the Treaty as "Orekhov" https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ореховский_мир

A Google search for "Ореховский мир" returns 129,000 results, while a search for "Орешекский мир [Treaty of Oreshek]" shows results for Ореховский мир and when one directs Google to search for Орешекский мир rather than Ореховский мир only 73 results are given.

Given that "Treaty of Orekhov" appears to be the far more common Russian name for this treaty, I would suggest changing all references to "Treaty of Oreshek" to "Treaty of Orekhov." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.27.194.231 (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)