Talk:Pact of Vilnius and Radom

Title 1
Is the title of this article appropriate in the English Wikipedia? Does the word Union make any sense in the the information presented to the reader? Dr. Dan 15:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is a perfect example how how an article or subject becomes missnamed, if it is left unquestioned. And then when someone tries to rationally change it 5000 (ha, ha) years later, all hell breaks loose. First there is indignation. Then a few people rent their clothes (tear them open), others count google hits. Someone else says "its been written like that for years". Another demands to have their anatgonist present "acceptable sources" (acceptable to them). Finally there is a "vote", and nothing is changed.

What does the signing of a document in one city and ratified in another one, have to do with the "Union" of anything? Dr. Dan 13:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the Act of Union signed in Vilna and Radom could be a better title, yet I don't really see a need to rename it. Care to be more specific?  // Halibutt 15:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

How more specific can one be? The name of the article absolutely makes no sense. Period. Dr. Dan 15:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Should it be the "Vilnian-Radomian Union" ? (pardon the neologisms) --Lysytalk 16:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Can I assume by this question of yours, Lysy, that you agree the title has a nonsensical quality to it, in the English language? Or are you saying something else? Dr. Dan 16:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What say you, Piotrus?
 * And Halibutt? Dr. Dan 16:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe that this is mistranslated. As you know Polish, there's a semantic difference between "unia Wilna i Radomia" and "unia wileńsko-radomska". While the first indeed would translate into the "Union of Vilnius and Radom", the latter does not. Would you agree ? --Lysytalk 16:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, this is precisely my point. Nothing more, nothing less. Back at UJ when I was learning Polish, the English speaking group (boy were we naive and green), couldn't understand why we couldn't translate He had a good time to On mial dobry czas, and our pretty teacher said no, it's On bawil sie (forgive my lack of proper diacritics/spelling). I have no hidden purpose in trying to copy edit and correct poor English translations. It's actually overwhelming. In some cases dealing with Russians, I gave up, because of their stubborness. If someone is so certain that their poor translation (that sounds goofy to boot), cannot be challenged or changed, fine. But it actually detracts from the seriousness of the subject matter, and the article, right from the get go. Dr. Dan 17:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Still I'm not sure what the correct English name should be. "Vilnian-Radomian Union" seems awkward, doesn't it ? We do not have any well established English usage either, do we ? --Lysytalk 17:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Nor, am I sure what the correct English name should be. This one is really, really difficult. You see, most languages have idioms and most of them can not be translated literally. Wie befinden Sie sich?, can't be translated literally into English any more than Jak sie masz?, yet this is the basis of the resistance to correct these poor translations from Polish into English. Dr. Dan 20:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course. The correct thing would be to lookup the English literature of the subject. Do you have an English language History of Lithuania or Poland, at hand ? I suspect it might be called " The Union of Vilnius" or something similar, but of course guessing is not the right thing to do. --Lysytalk 20:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I suspect it might be called “Agreement (or Treaty) of Vilnius-Radom” M.K. 22:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Lysy, Lysy, don't make me scream! It's the word "Union," that is the point of contention here, not Vilnius or Radom.


 * You think that it is contentious but what is the name used in English language sources again ? --Lysytalk 21:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC) P.S. I always appreciate and admire you correcting my spelling, grammar or other mistakes, even in the alk pages :-)

You're welcome. Dr. Dan 21:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

When Vilnius and Radom made union, what was the resulting double-town called?
The present name gives me an impression that two municipalities were joined. Did it lower the municipal tax rate in either of them? Did they receive state subsidies for infrastructure and other public bribes to encourage them to join their forces? From which one of these two the next mayor was chosen? Maed 15:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a great comment, Maed! :D Juraune 21:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Bah, thanks pal. At last I know what was Dan writing about. The names of diplomatic documents are often as bizarre as names for wars. In this case the phenomenon is called that way after two towns it was signed in, much like all the other documents that constituted the Polish-Lithuanian Union. Most other notable documents in Polish-Lithuanian history are also known by the place they were signed in rather than by the people to sign it, just like all other major documents in European history. Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was an exception rather than a rule. Note that Locarno Pact was not signed by certain Locarno, nor was the Treaty of Versailles signed by anyone by the name of Versailles. Also note that the War of the Roses was not fought by the flowers, nor was it fought with the flowers.  // Halibutt 01:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Now wer'e talkin' pardner, an' I like it! The Treaty of Kreva or Krewo, (makes a lot of sense). Read your examples, your English is excellent. The Treaty of Versailles (makes sense). The Locarno Pact (makes sense). The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (kurwy syny, makes sense). The Union of Vilnius and Radom (does not make sense). Dr. Dan 01:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC) p.s. I can't believe that it took Maed's edit to make you aware of where I was coming from. I think it was Calcagus who once told me that I was giving too much credit to some people participating in Eng-Wiki, to operate in English. Maybe it was some else, don't remember. Less you think I mean you, I don't (your English is superb, in fact magnifique. In any case Halibutt, my problem with the title has nothing to do with the substance of this agreement. The facts are the facts. It's the title, that's B.S. (and I don't mean Bachelor of Science). Calling all editors! Calling all editors! Where's the Pro-Konsul when you need him?


 * Don't get me wrong, but the problem is not with giving too much credit. It's with too little facts dipped in a sauce of digressions, sarcasm (often in its purest form, that is wrongly targeted), and irony. Very often do I have a problem with understanding what is it that you actually mean. But perhaps it's just me, and I admit I'm quite a simple guy who looses track after reading too many nicely-written off-topic comments with a pointer to the general idea hidden somewhere in the middle.
 * Anyway, what would be the name (and the convention, as this title closely follows the rules used in dozens of other articles) you propose?  // Halibutt 01:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes! Eta vapros (sic). The chicken has to hatch from the egg first (at least in this case). The first issue is the Union of Krewo. This has to be somewhat resolved to go to the next step. And it's truly complicated. Juraune has brought forth some substantial information suggesting the document is in fact a treaty, rather than a Union of any kind. If so, this later treaty, the Union of Vilnius and Radom, actually a treaty (signed in Vilnius), and its ratification (signed in Radom), needs to be put in that light. I don't consider my opinions to be the alpha and omega, nor the final arbiter of these discussions. Let others weigh in too, and give their opinions. Dr. Dan 02:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC) p.s. lots of people have been getting sarcasistic and ironic, not just me, or haven't you noticed? It's nothing personal, but there has been a chauvinism and smuggness that has been challenged now, from many quarters, regarding a perceived agenda, that is continuing to fight old wars and steer English Wikipedia in a certain direction. I'm not going to give examples for a tit for tat, like Elonka and Piotrus did a few days ago. But that's the way I feel at the moment.
 * As to sarcasm and irony, I have nothing against them, in fact I am a kind of sarcastic guy myself. However, it's kind of difficult to understand comments of a user who tends to focus on irony and sarcasm instead of adding them to his or hers (hopefully) constructive comments. Nothing personal and please take it lightly :)
 * As to the name: I don't think the Kreva/Kreve/Krewa/Krewe/Krewo/Krew naming dispute should affect this problem much as it's a completely different matter. There we're discussing whether the articles on historical documents should reflect the most modern spelling of toponyms. Here the axis is the question of how to call all historical pacts. Whichever system we adopt here, we could still go either way there. And the other way around.
 * Anyway, I guess the naming of the set of articles I mentioned above is a result of how they are called in Polish historiography. What in fact was a "set of documents regarding a step forward in Polish-Lithuanian union signed in the town/castle/area of XXXX" is usually called simply "Union of XXXX" or "XXXX union" in Polish (ie. "unia wileńsko-radomska", "unia lubelska"). The same system is applied to other documents: Proclamation of Połaniec ("uniwersał połaniecki"), Lithuanian Statutes ("statuty litewskie"), Statutes of Nieszawa ("statuty nieszawskie"), Privilege of Koszyce ("przywilej koszycki") and so on. I doubt they have their fixed names in English at all, so we are free to design our own naming scheme here. The current one has a merit of reflecting the original names in at least one language used there. On the other hand most of these names are purely descriptive as the documents in question barely ever had a title, so we are free to name them the way we please. Any suggestions?  // Halibutt 03:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

By Jove
By Jove! I think he's got it. Henq's got it. Duh! Pact of Vilnius and Radom. Really brilliant. I think when this is presented appropriately even sources outside of Wikipedia will agree this is the best English translation for the current stub. Bravo Henq! Dr. Dan 21:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Jeez, revolution. Some discuss, some move. What a great collaboratiwe work:/--Lokyz 21:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Certainly not. We are not here to invent new names, however nice they might seem. Check out WP:OR. --Lysytalk 21:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Btw Lysy, do you want to say that original 1401 document has the name union ? M.K. 21:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I doubt if the original document was written in English. --Lysytalk 21:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So, it is  an invention already M.K. 21:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but not an invention of wikipedia. Again, read WP:OR, please do, seriously. --Lysytalk 22:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 *  Both Union of Vilnius and Radom and Pact of Vilnius and Radom are the fruits of our original research  - I missed something ? M.K. 22:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No, you are right. But what's your point then ? --Lysytalk 22:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Point - our original research M.K. 22:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * All right, all right, I admit I'm not following you (and will soon be accused of lack of logic again). You copied my sentence. Is it that you did not understand it, or did I write something wrong there ? --Lysytalk 22:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with your complete lack of logic, Lysy, is that unless we leave it the way it is (which many people, maybe even you, know is wrong), Any change has to be "invented". For that matter, the original translation from anything into anything, especially in the case of idioms, is "invented". Or wouldn't you agree? Dr. Dan 21:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Both Union of Vilnius and Radom and Pact of Vilnius and Radom are the fruits of our original research. The latter has the advantage of sounding better, but you're missing the point. The correct English name to be used as a title for the article would be the one that is used in scholarly English language publications on the subject, not the one that we (with all due respect) think would sound nice. Therefore I oppose the change, and I'm frustrated that the person who pushes these renames does not even care about discussing it first, which of course does not prove his good faith and could be considered as and invitation to a revert war. I also take your comment on my "complete lack of logic" as an intended personal insult, but maybe it's your style. --Lysytalk 22:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Lysy, if you are referring to me, please note that I have not renamed anything in these currently discussed issues. And I've done a lot of "discussing" with you all, for a while now. Would the recent sockpuppetry, of Logologist be a more acceptable a subject, than your claim that I'm instigating a revert war? As for the remark "complete lack of logic" being an insult, I will be happy to apologize, when you tell me what part of you remarks were "logical". Until then, the statement stands, and it is true, also. Dr. Dan 22:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC) p.s. Go up to the top of these talk pages, and read my second paragraph. Maybe then you can understand my position a little clearer.


 * No, I was not referring to you, regarding the forced renaming, ignoring the ongoing discussion. As for your comment on my lack of logic, once again, I beg you to read the WP:OR as I believe you either misunderstand or are not aware of the policy. Can you do this for me ? --Lysytalk 22:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Look Lysy, I like you, and respect you. I don't think you have a thin skin, God knows I don't have one. So, let's not play games either. The English name for this article is ridiculous and not appropriate. Various parties are trying to correct the idiomatic error. You pretend to agree, you give rhetorical alternatives, and ask if someone has a better one. Then, when an excellent solution is presented, you pull the rug out from under us all, and WP:OR us. Give me a break! A little late, and very unfair, and suspect too. Dr. Dan 22:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Not at all. That was my point from the very beginning and that is why I wrote: "The correct thing would be to lookup the English literature of the subject. Do you have an English language History of Lithuania or Poland, at hand ?" but you've either missed or chosen to ignore it. And now you're saying that WP:OR is a novelty to you ? --Lysytalk 22:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Read your note at my talk page, sorry you're not feeling well (wikistress), I feel fine. Perhaps some fine Polish Vodka might help. I just had a setka myself (z żiemiaków), and I'm not done yet, not while I'm still thinking about it anyway. I think even Halibutt thought you came into the discussion on the "late side" of it. Let me be short and blunt. Correcting an obvious idiomatic translation error that makes no sense, is not Not Original Research. Is that clear? If this insignificant footnote to history (U o V&R), had any importance to anyone in the larger picture of things in the English speaking world, you can be sure it would have been changed long ago. This is not a reason not to do so now. I think our own ukochany, Piotrus, recently told me, quoting a great Chinese scholar: "The longest journey begins with the first step". Dr. Dan 23:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC) p.s. When you're feeling better, perhaps you can help change Kraków back to Cracow.


 * I believe Lysy is right on this one. Some terms were apparently imported to English along with their original idiomatic meaning, rather than simply translated and this seems to be the case. At least this set of articles seems to be the case as these pacts tend to be called "Unions" in all related languages, English included. Whether that fits our taste or the taste of native speakers is not that much of a problem here, as we're here to reflect actual usage, at least to some extent, and not reinvent the wheel. Sure, your wheel might be better than the one that is used by the rest of the world - but we're here not to describe the improvements but to reflect the actual usage, at least in cases where it's pretty obvious.  // Halibutt 01:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not a case of Lysy being right or wrong, or Henq being right or wrong. This is about correcting an error being protected by smuggness and stupidity. And I am not about to mince words and pussyfoot around with the truth, and be afraid to call it what it is. If the consensus is to leave it in its nonsensical form, so be it. "So we are free to name them anyway we please". Was there ever a more hypocritical remark spoken on the subject of the Union of Vilnius and Radom? I doubt it. Dr. Dan 02:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not for wikipedia editors to judge whether the name is a result of smuggness and stupidity. If it's used by English language authors, we use it. If there are more alternatives, we can use the une that we consider most reliable. The examples of usage in literature given below include Radom-Vilnius accords used in a more descriptive way and Vilnius-Radom Union used as a proper name. --Lysytalk 12:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Unions all around:) Is it the most popular word, or a religiuos subject, that must be protected by any means?--Lokyz 13:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

TITLE
In response to a request to comment on this page title, I must admit Dr. Dan is correct. The English title implies that there was a Vilnius and Radom were united in some way. Union of Kalmar is perhaps a good parallel example, but in what senses is this "treaty" (or are these "treaties") a "Union" or "Pact"? The article says nothing about any union, saying it was only an amendment to the Act of Kreva. So the title is rather silly in English (for all I know, it may make perfect sense in Polish). Am I missing something? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 09:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, both "Union of Vilnius and Radom" and "Pact of Vilnius and Radom" are incorrect as they are both invented by wikipedia editors (once more, no original research, regardless of whether Dan prefers to ignore or pretends he does not understand). The correct title would be one that is used in English language literature to name it. Maybe it's one of the two above, maybe it's different or maybe there is no literature on the subject in English at all and we are free to use our own, as Halibutt suggested. I'm not in a position to verify it. Therefore, until it's verified I consider both "Union of Vilnius and Radom" and "Pact of Vilnius and Radom" to be temporary and potentially incorrect. --Lysytalk 10:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Jean W. Sedlar in East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000-1500 p. 388, calls them the "Radom-Vilnius accords" ; but it doesn't seem to have an English name.  Daniel Z Stone in The Polish-Lithuanian State, 1386-1795 p. 11, says merely "Lithuanian boyars confirmed the arrangement at Vilnius, as did Polish nobles at Radom."  Radom-Vilnius accords? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 10:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. As far as I'm concerned Radom-Vilnius accords would be fine. Other examples: William L. Urban, Tannenberg and After: Lithuania, Poland, and the Teutonic Order in Search of Immortality. Chicago: Lithuanian Research and Studies Center, 2003. 535 pp. : Vilnius-Radom Union. A quick search of Internet shows that most of the English language sources use either "Vilnius-Radom Union" or "Radom-Vilnius Union" or something similar, so apparently the problem with "Union" is not recognized by other English authors. --Lysytalk 12:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes Lysy, accords would be fine. And my apologies for losing my cool. As I said earlier, I had no hidden agenda in changing the title. It was awkward and devoid of logical meaning in English. I didn't think it was a big deal to change it and correct it. And why did I lose my cool? Because I felt I was being baited, asked for a alternative, and upon agreeing with Henq's choice, told No Original Research. It struck me as being devious. This, plus the duplicity in the recent Sock puppet voting, angered me, immensely. Should have taken the whole picture, and the way things "work" in WK from the get go, in mind. Dr. Dan 15:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC) p.s. Thanks Calcagus, for your input, and as usual, your historical, scholarly contributions in the English Language.


 * Cool. Let's wait a few days and if there're no more objections, let's rename it to Radom-Vilnius accords. (I'd still make a redirect from Vilnius-Radom Union, hope that's OK). Thanks. --Lysytalk 16:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Vilna
In historical context, shouldn't it be Vilna - i.e. Union of Vilna and Radom?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Title redux and other bits
In lurking about off the beaten path, I see this discussion has reason to be freshened up a bit.

As I understand it, the primary agreement was the Astravas (Ostrowo) Agreement in 1392 where Jagiełło and Vytautas settled their differences. In reading Stone's history of the Polish-Lithuanian state, the 1401 agreement "largely restated the Astravas Agreement of 1392. It also made provisions for the future. Jogaila would inherit Lithuania if Vytatuas dies first, and Vytautas was to be consulte on the election of of a Polish king if Jagiełło died first. Lithuanian boyars confirmed the arrangement at Vilnius, as did Polish nobles at Radom." (Astravas/Ostrowo is Stone's nomenclature.)

Stone does not particularly single out the 1401 agreement. It's not surprising, then, that one finds all sorts of Vilnius-Radom (for whatever reason, very few Vilno-Radom) variants: union, compact, accords, agreement, pact, treaty among them. It does seem to me that "union" overstates things a bit, since Ostrów was the primary agreement in that regard.

Taking a step back, if the primary purpose of the Vilnius-Radom was to restate a prior agreement with the addition of terms regarding succession of monarchies, the article may overstate the agreement's historical significance (Astravas being the primary). Moreover, there needs to be much better continuity and integration between the Ostrów Agreement and here. For example, Stone makes it clear that 1401 specifically freed Vytautas to launch his military campaign against the Teutonic Order&mdash;a fact which is completely absent in the Ostrów Agreement article, although it is present here. (Nor is it made clear @Ostrów that 1401 was the intended reaffirmation of 1392, whatever the subsequent actual historical circumstances.)

And not completely as an aside, "Vilnius and Radom" implies cities. Standard usage, union/compact/etc. aside, looks to be "Vilnius-Radom whatever". I do have to say that as this is a direct follow-on to the "Ostrów Agreement", "Vilnius-Radom Agreement" might work here as well. (Considering myself both pro-Polish and pro-Lithuanian&mdash;that does not mean, however, exaggerating the merits of either position in the absence of the other&mdash;I therefore consider myself neutral in this matter.)

Just some thoughts. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is a pro-Polish or a pro-Lithuanian thing. There's two issues here. One is the nature of the agreement; what did it do, what did it establish. And the other is just simple grammar; "Vilnius-Radom Union" grammatically suggests that the two cities of Vilnius and Radom united into a single entity, which is of course false. The discussion above conflated the two for reasons which I'm not going to go into.
 * Here's some books. I see "Agreements of Vilna-Radom", "Acts of Vilnius-Radom" and also here, Vilnius-Radom Compact, Treaties of Vilnius Radom, Vilnius Radom agreements, Vilnius Radom Pacts, Treaty of Vilna-Radom (not English) and yes, Vilnius-Radom Union.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The implication of it being a city<->city pact does make the Vilnius-Radom Union version a bit problematic. Vilnius Radom agreement, accords, compact even pact are all better. (Pro-either side was more on favoring Vilnius or Vilno/Wilno.) P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really care which one (accords, compact, pact, etc.) it is, and I'm fine with "Vilnius" rather than "Vilna" or "Wilno", as long as the wording doesn't grammatically suggest that it was a union of two towns, rather than a ... thing ... about a union (of Poland and Lithuania) signed in the two cities.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)