Talk:Muscovite–Lithuanian Wars

Polish name
I'm curious whether the pl name was used during the wartime or it was created later. --Brand спойт 01:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I plan to expand the article; hopefully during my research I will find out other names. I'd guess that name is used primarily in Polish historiography, what - if any - is used in Russian, Lithuanian or English I am not sure, but based on my experience I would not be suprised to find out there is no English name for that series of war at all... update: it appears the name is used, if sparringly:, , --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be too polonocentristic. Voyevoda 11:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Considering Piotr's record in this project, I see it as a deliberate provocation. Since he finds it prudent to assign Polish names to wars of which Poland was not even a party, I would not be surprised if he moves French invasion of Russia to something like Polish-French liberation of Muscovy. The subject is so boring that I don't feel the slightest desire to discuss it. We've been through it all thousand times before. -- Ghirla -трёп-  14:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you find a more popular name used in literature, I will support moving it. For now as I have shown above the term 'Muscovite wars' is used. And while I see no need to address Ghirla's insinuations, his argument that 'Lithuanian wars' is less 'one-sided' and that Poland was not part of that conflict has a logic that escapes me :> PS. I looked through literature, I found one reference using the term 'Lithuanian wars' for the wars of that period (I found several more for other periods, just as I found several other 'Muscovite wars' that are for other wars and which I did not link above). Now if we just find 'Polish wars' we will have a nice all round set :> Perhaps Lithuanian-Muscovite-Polish wars would be a compromise, but I don't think that's a text used in literature...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not essential for the war's name to list all the participants. Muscovite-Lithuanian Wars includes both forms used in Western historiography and so should be a good compromise solution here. Balcer 18:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like this will be an interesting article. As usual, this rather obscure series of wars is poorly discussed in Western historiography and there does not appear to be an established name for them as a group. I think the best title would be Muscovite-Lithuanian Wars, since Muscovy is the commonly accepted term for the Russian state centered on Moscow at that time. Wikipedia seems to agree, as our article on the history of Russia in that period is under Muscovy. So let us stay consistent. Balcer 18:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Balcer, your "compromise" solution is original research and will be promptly reverted. I was not able to spot a single reliable source using the term. Polonization of the article is not really an option. Muscovy remains where it is only as long as I think the term appropriate. If you talk about consistency, you should look on Russo-Swedish Wars, Russo-Kazan Wars and Russo-Tatar Wars, among others. So your title is an exception not a rule. Furthermore, I saw you again engage in incivility. Gratuitous removal of {inuse} tags is very incivil. -- Ghirla -трёп-  18:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the "inuse", I thought you were done and simply forgot to remove it. No harm done, I hope.
 * Anyway, if you want reputable references, why not look at The New Cambridge Modern History (relevant page here. It uses the term "Muscovite" constantly to refer to the Russian side of this war.  Anyway, Muscovy at that time did not include all Russians, since many of them lived in Lithuania and sided with Lithuania.  So Muscovite-Lithuanian is the correct name for this war which accurately reflects what happened. Balcer 18:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "Russian" and "Muscovite" are interchangable terms but the former is more accurate and neutral, while the latter is obsolete and polonocentric. I don't know about "many Russians" who sided against Russia between 1514 and the end of the century. Could you be more specific as to what you have in mind? -- Ghirla -трёп-  18:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "Muscovite" polonocentric? Do you have any evidence to support this claim?  I thought that Muscovy is simply the established term for Russia of that time in Western historiography, and Polish historians do not have that much influence on its use.  But I would welcome references to the contrary.  Plus, it cannot be all that obsolete, since Cambridge Modern History published in 1990 uses it (plus many other references as well).
 * As for your question, one look at the map of Lithuania at that time will convince you that Lithuanians were not in the majority in that state. Hence Lithuanian armies must have included a significant number of people that you would consider Russian, that were loyal to Lithuania. Especially if you consider the wars that took place before 1514. Balcer 18:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If Muscovy is polonocentric, please move that article to a better, neutral term, than you can start de-polonizing Wikipedia by removing its uses elsewhere. Until than, if you have no evidence that using Muscovy is polonization, I will stay by the multitude of sources that don't seem to have a problem with that term.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, it has been explained to you that Muscovy is a proper term for Russia in the time of the Moscow Principality. Substituting it for Russia in a later context has a strong POV flavor. --Irpen 03:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * From article on Muscovy, unless it has been recently vandalized, I gather it's a term applicable from the 14th century to the late 17th century. This war which covers 15th-16th centuries seem to fit quite well within the use of term 'Muscovy', so I find the current name - utilising both of the common variants (Lithuanian-Muscovite) - a reasonable compromise.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The article of Muscovy needs a cleanup. That's all. Do not add articles to the list of articles in need of cleanup. --Irpen 03:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, than also cleanup is needed at Princeton's WordNet; Columbia seems to note a slightly shorter period (ending with half of the 16th century) but nothing about it being offensive, and it fits most of the wars described in that period anyway.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, I don't think we should explain the same issue over and over again. That's precisely what certain sort of editors want us to do. Such tactics have been exposed for what they are on Requests for comment/Halibutt and have been strongly reprimanded by the community. For my own part, I maintain strict policy in such cases and I'm not going to go over the issue again. Suffice it to say that "Muscovite" is an acceptable synonym for "Russian" when we talk about the period until Ivan III's subjugation of Novgorod and other medieval Russian states. In most contexts, "Russian" is preferrable to "Muscovite" for the sake of clarity. Those who have no respect for Occam's razor have a proclivity to multiply terms for identical things, so as to make identical things seem dissimilar. A result of such approach is Balcer's assertion above that some Russians fought against "Muscovy" in the 16th century. The term "Muscovy" was introduced in Poland-Lithuania and spread to certain countries of Europe for one simple reason: Grand Duke of Lithuania and later King of Poland included in his official title the words "Rex Russiae" or something along these lines. There was a voivodship of Rus(sia) in PLC. As everywhere else in Europe, the fake title was designed to justify the sovereign's claims on the throne of a neighbouring country and had pejorative connotations for that country's ruler. If Sigismund styled himself duke of Russia of course he would not accord that title to any other sovereign or country. There had to be a term coined for true Russia and that artificially invented term was "Muscovy". That's how the term came into being and was spread through Latin-Polish-Jusuit propaganda to other countries, where it never became really popular or supplanted the original term Russia, known in major Latin texts from the 10th century. The "Muscovites" were represented in Papist propaganda as wild wood dwellers who kill true Christians. In English discourse, the term was more or less neutral, especially when designating the inhabitants of the city of Moscow. The main drawback of the term in modern times is that some ignorant or Russophobic editors tend to abuse it. From here follow such remarks as "Muscovy (later Russia)" which I encountered in the text of this article. In order to avoid racist connotations, I would recommend to purge the term from all Poland-related articles, because it is in these articles (and in these only) that the term is abused and becomes controversial. Case closed and I'm not going to reopen it anymore. -- Ghirla -трёп-  16:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be so nice to see some references that would back up these claims. So far this sounds like a very interesting example of original research.  Somehow, I doubt Poland would have had enough influence to cause the word "Muscovy" to come into use in England.  After all, the English were able to deal with Muscovy directly, by trading through Archangelsk, so they would have been more than capable to come up with their own word to describe the country.


 * At any rate, whatever the origin of the word, it is in wide use today by scholars and as such clearly cannot have negative connotations in the English language. Case closed. Balcer 17:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That's why I see no point in explaining my position to Piotr and Co, especially when it's pretty obvious. One may post tons of arguments and spend the whole day arguing with you (as Irpen often does) - it's quite useless, I have never seen you admit that your opponent is correct. Since you start to clamor for citations that should be provided for talk page disputes (is it a novel guideline for our discussions?), I see that it's time to leave you and Piotrus alone on this page. -- Ghirla -трёп-  18:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We ask for citations for your controversial edits to the article, which you have failed to provide so far.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Propagandistic pictures


I see Piotrus continues to insert the "nice picture" (as he styles it) into the article. May I ask why should the article about the wars between Lithuania and Russia have two images illustrating the same event, both of them by Polish artists? Was Poland really a party to these wars? Why Polish editors are so active editing articles about the history of Russia and Lithuania? What if Russian and Lithuanian wikipedians start as actively edit the articles about Polish history, adding self-coined appelations of Poles and pictures by Russian nationalist artists into the articles about Polish history? (I bet they would not because they have a keen feeling of neutrality and decency left in them.) In short, I ask Piotrus and his followers to desist from polonizing the article. Such tricks have been exposed in the past and there is no reason to believe they will succeed this time around. -- Ghirla -трёп-  17:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * First, we have room for both pictures. Second, the Matejko's one is prettier (IMHO) and he is a more famous painter. Third, to question Polish involvment in the series of wars indicates a level of ignorance I would not have expected from you; we have refs for that so I will not even ask if you want to 'erase' refs to Jan Tarnowski or Stefan Batory... Fourth, the siege of Pskov did not 'force Batory to sue for peace', Muscovites sued for peace as shown by their significant concessions at Peace of Jam Zapolski; Batory's failure at Pskov simply meant that the Muscovites deafeat was not total (like 20 years later). Last but not least, your 'caption' is full of POV pushing and original research, please stop inserting it into the article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a fair description of the painting. Do you dispute Romantic nationalism of your favourite artist or anything else? Your arguments about "who is more famous" and which painting is "better" are childish. If you bother to search for Брюллов in Cyrillic, you will get 234,000 hits, which is pretty impressive, considering that google' performance on Cyrillic search is limited. Furthermore, Brullov is a unique French-derived surname which only the painter and his relatives had; while Matejko seems to be a fairly common name in Poland. At least I found in my google hits many Matejkos which have nothing to do with painting. -- Ghirla -трёп-  17:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Looking at the definition of Romantic nationalism, it seems to me that Jan Matejko's picture is much less 'romanticly nationalist' then Karl Brullov's. If you have a reference for Matejko's paintings, particularly this one, being 'Polish propaganda' and such, please, add them, otherwise it is your controversial personal POV. As for fame, this is English Wikipedia, so please use english websites/books and such; I am sure in Russia he is much more famous than Matejko, but that's irrelevant here (and my search was done with quotes, there are few others "Jan Matejko"'s out there). And yes, fame has little to do with quality of the individual painting - so I ask you once again for refs to prove this painting is not relevant to this article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So you now accuse The Last Day of Pompeii of "romantic nationalism"? I'm not aware of any other Brullo's paintings on Russian history. He did not have a drop of Russian blood and spent most of his life in Rome. As for Matejko... he is the personification of "romantic nationalism", i.e., of the exaggerated glorification of one nation and romantization of its past at the expense of others. Can you demonstrate a single painting of his where he is critical of Poland or Poles? As for your google search arguments, they show that you are unable to understand that the Russian painter should be googled for in Cyrillic (because his nation uses this script), while the Polish painter should be googled for in Latin (because his nation does not use Cyrillic). The majority of sites are Russian and Polish, respectively. This has nothing to do with "using english websites/books and such". We should mention at least that Matejko represents an event which never happened, rather his romanticized vision of the Polish history and his (racist) dreams about the crawling bearded "Muscovites". -- Ghirla -трёп-  17:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So you now accuse Image:Cyryl i Metody.jpg of Polish nationalism? Indeed, some of Matejko's paintings fit the definition of 'romantic nationalism' (and there is no denying he was a Polish patriot), although being somewhat of an art dilletante I'd like to see refs confirming that he represented the 'romantic nationalism' style; that is however beside the point. He is well known for his quite accurate and beautiful depictions of historical events (,, or more case to the point, The Political Censorship of Jan Matejko, Danuta Batorska, Art Journal, Vol. 51, No. 1, Uneasy Pieces (Spring, 1992), pp. 57-63), thus it is obvious his paintings are a valuable representations of historical events and should be kept in articles. The question of the caption is another issue, but unless you can show that this painting is considered biased I see no reason to include your original research/POV in the caption. PS. Again, I remaind you of WP:CIV; accusing a person - even a dead painter - of 'racist Polish nationalism' only reflects bad on yourself.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ghirlandajo, regarding your question "Why Polish editors are so active editing articles about the history of Russia and Lithuania?", per WP:OWN, any editor is free to constructively edit any article. In the spirit of collaboration, please try to work out any problems with your fellow editors. Your suggestion to limit participation goes against WP policy. Appleseed (Talk) 20:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Appleseed, of course the problem is not Polish editors' editing the Russia's article per se. The problem is Tendentious editing exemplified by some here. Unwarranted Polish stuff is added to the Russia-related articles by the same 2-3 editors as if this is not an international encyclopedia, but a Polish school textbook where everything is viewed from the Polish perspective. It is not about excluding Polish editors or Polish themese from the Russian articles. It is about the undue weight that Polish issues receive by being overblown when the Russian, Ukrainian and Lithuanian history is written from the Polish POV. --Irpen 20:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is why Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and while articles can get started by a person with a particular POV, other editors will join in to produce a final product that (hopefully) reaches a reasonable standard of NPOV. Yes, it would be great if we had completely impartial editors not connected at all with Poland, Russia, or Lithuania, who would write neutral, even-handed articles on contentious issues in East and Central European history.  Unfortunately, that is not likely to happen any time soon, if ever, since there is simply not too many such people.  So, we are stuck with the current model.  Let's accept this, and most importantly avoid the hostility.  Instead of experiencing a daily fit of rage over the latest "provocation" some  "nationalist editor" has produced, let's accept that we are all biased here, and work towards producing neutral articles by correcting each other's excesses. Balcer 20:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I attempted to correct Piotr's excesses but was instantly reverted in the most incivil manner. So far I have seen nothing but blunt POV-pushing by a handful of Polish editors who, for some reason that I fail to understand, try to monopolize the article about the Russo-Lithuanian Wars. After you have forced your POV and original research title on the article, to talk about neutrality is somewhat cheap and hypocritical. -- Ghirla -трёп-  18:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I looked over the history but could not find the excesses or incivilities you're referring to. Could you point them out? Appleseed (Talk) 18:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you think this comment is civil, then we have different notions of (in)civility. -- Ghirla -трёп-  18:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ghirlandajo, I think it's reasonable to request an explanation for a POV tag. Appleseed (Talk) 18:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I am going to restore the valid caption to mainspace. No arguments have been provided to disprove its content. Furthermore, I saw Piotrus eagerly labelling numerous images as "Soviet propaganda" just a few days ago (although images are usually not categorized in this project). Since he is so good at detecting Soviet propaganda in Wikipedia (without bothering to provide appropriate citations), I may say that I'm no worse at detecting Polish propaganda here. -- Ghirla -трёп-  18:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ghirlandajo, that is an odd accusation to make against Piotrus. The image in your diff (Motherussia.jpg) is already linked from Soviet propaganda during World War II... and you're the one who added it to that article. Appleseed (Talk) 18:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The caption is not valid, it represents your original and controversial research, or rather, views, as we cannot claim unreferenced statements 'research'. Labelling images, while lacking behind, is a perfectly normal procedure, as many thousands of images in Category:Wikipedia images show; ideally all images should be categorized with identical categories here and on Commons; and I don't see anything controversial in my categorization of the mentioned images, also if you think (per Irpen's comments below) that Category:Soviet Union or another is more applicable, please recategorize the images.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as pics are conserned, it seems to me as well that Piotrus' labeling the posters by Viktor Koretsky (this and this one for instance) as "propaganda" is offensive but I attribute it to the cultural difference rather than an intentional offense. As Lysy noted at Halibutt's RfC different nations have different sensitivities. For Lithuanians it may be their language, for Poles the genetically ingrained fear of loosing their statehood one more time, for Russians and Belarusians it is the memories of the Great Patriotic War since in every family someone was killed there. So, be it "clock/watch jokes", or labeling the sacred images "propaganda", I guess it takes time to learn sensitivities. As for the image of Matejko, I see Ghirla's point that it is counterhistoric. Either we explain it in the caption of we remove the image. The goal of the images in the articles about history is to illustrate historic events. If they misillustrate history, they belong to the author's pages but not to the historic articles. --Irpen 19:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Irpen, are you saying that Piotrus is insensitive because he categorized the images that you added to Soviet propaganda during World War II (1 and 2)? As for the images in this article, I don't see how the Matejko is more counterhistoric than the painting of a man with a cross rallying the defenders of Pskov. However, the former has been getting all the attention from you and Ghirlandajo. Appleseed (Talk) 19:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It was not my intention to offend anybody by categorizing those images as Soviet propaganda. I saw an uncategorized image and as my standard modus operandi, I decided to add a category that seemed most applicable; war posters are usually considered propaganda (not all propaganda is strictly 'evil'); in retrospective Category:Soviet art is perhaps better, also this raises the issue if we should not make Soviet propaganda a subcategory of Soviet art? With regards to Matejko's picture; I certainly agree that many of his paintings were 'patriotic' (or 'nationalist') - after all it was me who provided relevant refs for that above (and expanded Matejk's article); however he is also renown for attention to historical details; unless you can present a ref that Matejko's painting cannot be used to illustrate the siege of Pskov because..., that the painting stays; and unless you can present a ref that this painting is nationalistic/propaganda, we don't add it here just as we don't add info that Matejko is known for his elaborate attention to historical details (clothes, faces), just as we don't add half of the slightly relevant facts from every artists article to caption of their images.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Appleseed, I welcome scrutiny of my earlier edits and I am happy to explain them to you or anyone who asks. I intended the images to be used for the Eastern Front or one of its subarticles but the EF is in such a disgusting shape, that I ended up not wanting to touch it. Lots of places seem like written by Joseph Goebbels himself. Not wanting to have the images orphaned (and lost) I added it to the article where similar images where already posted as a temporary solution.

Matejko's pic is counterhistoric, because it shows Russians crawling and kneeling in the situation where they could not have possibly done so. If used as an illustration of facts, it is false. Even as an euphemism it is false because the Russians in Pskov were in no position to crawl. Brullov pic symbolizes that Russians view their war with Poles as the defence of their Orthodox values from Papism. This is what it really was for Russians to a large degree. --Irpen 19:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Irpen, thanks for explaining why you added the two images to Soviet propaganda during World War II. In the future, you may wish to link orphan images from your user page. However, I hope you can understand why I was puzzled by your statement that categorizing the images in a way that matches the article title is offensive.
 * Back on topic, your explanation that the Brullov symbolizes the Russian view of the war is no different than the Matejko symbolizing the Polish view. I would appreciate if you stopped removing the latter from the article. Appleseed (Talk) 20:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't get it. Brullov's picture shows that for the Russians the war was a defence of their Eastern Orthodox ways against the Polish attempts to install Papism. How is that counterhistoric. Now, explain me how and what The Matejko's pic illustrates. What it seems like is the delegation of the besieged city negotiating their surrender to the disdainful king. How close is that to events? --Irpen 20:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Irpen, using the same logic, I could say that the Matejko illustrates Batory's military achievements, while the Brullov shows a man in black holding a cross riding through the city amidst the fighting, which probably didn't happen (unless you have a ref). The article isn't overloaded with images, so I don't see the harm in keeping both of them. Appleseed (Talk) 20:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Bottom line is this is your unreferenced speculation. Siege of Pskov is but a stub, it is quite possible Batory received a delegation and some negotiations were held, and it is rather likely that in 16th century nobles (and even more, townsfolk) would 'growel' before a king, particularly one besieging their city. I claim that the article is perfectly 'historical' - now, prove me wrong with reliable sources, or stop deleting the image.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

What is my unrefed speculation? That the Poles were forced to negotiate and left rather than accepted the Russian surrender as the poses of the characters of the pictures imply? I am not saying the article is counterhistorical. I am saying that the image is. --Irpen 20:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What the pose of characters on the picture imply is your personal interpretation, unless you can show a description of the painting that agrees with your view. Further, I found refs that Batory's siege of Pskov ended in negotiations, not defeat, and Peace of Jam Zapolski was rather favourable for Poles (althugh neithrr side won a decisive victory):, , (most detailed either first (JSTOR), or see also ). Again, I believe that the picture is a good representations of local military commanders negotiating for peace with an enemy king.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal interpretation? Look, please be reasonable. Elementary act of comprehension of what's in the plain view does not consitute the original research as you try to present it. Are you saying that Russians aren't crowling and groveling in the pic that illustrates the historic event which in truth was a succesful defence of the city from the invader? Also, you "think" that's how the commander of the city garrison would have behaved. First it is what you think. Second, I doubt it. --Irpen 20:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I told you it is likely how a negotiations between a commander of the besieged city and besieging king may look like in 16th century. Also, the image is used on dozens of pages discussing the siege of Pskov; it is commonly used to illustrate the event, so please stop your personal crusade against the image, unless you can present an academic research showing thathis image is indeed misleading.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The image definitely does not depict in a realistic way any event that actually occured, as discussed in this link.  Clearly the "groveling" of the Russians in front of Batory is much exaggerated (note the kneeling on a Russian banner, which really is a bit extreme).  Matejko painted this as a historical allegory, and the most significant figure in the image is not Batory but a Jesuit dressed in black, carrying out the policy of the pope.  Still, this image is well known in Poland, and I think it is a good idea that it stay in the article, but with an appropriate explanation of course. Balcer 20:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Matejko was known for historical allegories and such, but as I wrote above - it is both commonly used for the illustration of the event and, whether the Russians really groveled as much or not at all, it contains many important historical figures and background details; here is another acdemic ref commends on the picture which has 'great number of [historical] figures surrounded by closely packed historical details'. And per Appleseed, it is no less alleorical than Brusiov's 'shining crosses rallying Russians'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, note that when Ghirla was trying to provide such an explanation, Piotrus reverted him as well. I will try another shot. --Irpen 21:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Irpen, if you think calling Matejko's painting 'Polish propaganda' and arguing that Batory was defeated at Pskov by 'heroic resistance and forced to sue for peace' (which is contrary to facts, as he ended the siege AFTER the negotiations were finalized, in practice exchanging it for other cities); while not commenting on the allegories in Brusilov's painting, is 'a compromise', than please, think again. I already noted in the article that the pictures present the siege from two different national perspectives, anything more should be discussed in articles about the paintings themselves, not here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Expansion of both captions is a sensible compromise, thank you Irpen for trying to reach it. A word of caution (for various editors): Batory was neither defeated at Pskov, nor victorius. The siege dragged on, and both sides (Batory and Ivan) decided to end the war by negotiations, after which the Poles broke off the siege. While the Poles indeed did not capture the city, we have no way of knowing what would be the result of the siege if the negotiations at did not succeed, the Peace of Jam Zapolski seemes more beneficial to the Commonwealth then to Russia (as it did not make any territorial gains, regaining only some of the lands Batory conquered in the past 3 years), but I think we can agree on 'inconclusive' result for this battle and minor Polish-Lithuanian victory for the war (Batory's campaigns against Russia during the Livonia war).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

B-class review
This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 04:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

NPOV wording
Somebody should probably check the wording. E.g. currently only Mongols and Russians "invade", while Livonians "start offensive".FeelSunny (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Wording is as it should be. Do not you bring factual history in the place of narratives on humans and subhumans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.224.105.244 (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)