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 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!'' --  tariq abjotu  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
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 I don't think this edit was warranted. Template:Infobox military conflict "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. 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)