Talk:Polish–Russian War (1605–1618)

message: * More pics, preferably showing something else except the victories of the Commonwealth (I could find only them online, but I expect a Russian speaker will be able to find more)
* Expand the battlebox to cover Second Dimitriad and Insert formula here1609-1618 war
* Expand on interesting battles, like Moscow uprising or the siege of Smolensk
* Estimated strength of belligerents?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.245.91.170 (talk) 04:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I started Tsaryovo-Zaimishche, Klushino, Mikhail Shein and Dmitry Shuisky to patch up some glaring omissions. --Ghirlandajo 14:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requests 

message: Not entirely sure why Poitrus reverted my edits.  All I did was fix the Main article wikilinks.  Atleast now they point somewhere. --Kross 18:02, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
: Errr, what do you mean 'fix'? You replaced the  template with Main article: article name string. While the difference to a reader is null, I think templates are more useful, if only because they can be easily modified using 'what links here' function (and the main article template does need help, i.e. dividing between main article and subarticle confusion). Please correct me if I am wrong here and explain why your version is better? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted article back 

message: I will eventually write an article on this idea (from 1572 to 18th century). It is quite amazing - many ppl heard about this war, but few heard about the union proposals. Apparently, they were quite popular on both sides in that time. What a shame it never worked out (peacefully...). The Malec book I added to references covers this fairly extensively (until 1650s proposals), with some interesting details (i.e. what exactly was proposed, what was agreed, when, by whom), so if anybody wants any details on this leave me a message. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unia troista 

message: Ummm, I think we need to change the beginning date to 1604, since it appears Dmitry [...] rode to Russia on June 1604 (from False Dmitry I). Also, see Talk:Truce of Deulino#date? for an issue regarding the date of the truce (1618 or 1619)? And I'd still appreciate comments on my above inquiry regarding battle places. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This question is still valid. Please comment.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 1604??

message: I've taken the liberty of changing the battlebox to use the new warbox template.  I've also removed the "unknown" and "various" entries from various fields (since this allows the warbox to remove unneeded rows); feel free to revert if this information is, for some reason, necessary. Kirill Lokshin 02:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warbox 

message: I believe my question should be addressed to Piotrus, who (if I'm not mistaken) submitted the picture of Avraamy Palitsyn defending the lavra. "Avraamy Palitsyn bravely defends..." is not the real name of this painting, you probably know that. Its name is Оборона Троице-Сергиевой Лавры, (The Defense of the Troitse-Sergiyeva Lavra). I'm asking because my sources tell me that Avraamy Palitsyn was in Moscow throughout the siege and never took part in the actual fighting itself. If I'm right, then the name of the painting as it is now is misleading and incorrect. What do you guys say? KNewman 03:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This picture (:Image:Miloradovich.jpg) was uploaded by User:Ghirlandajo. I hope our Russian editors can shine more light on this, as my sources are not up to this job. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: KNewman, you shouldn't confuse the title of the painting with the caption I provided. Having consulted the BSE, I admit my error, although I never called the painting "Avraamy Palitsyn bravely defends...", if you read carefully. You are welcome to write an article on Avraamy, for its been long overdue. --Ghirlandajo 08:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Ghirlandajo, no offense. Just trying to establish the fact :). KNewman 12:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A question about the image

message: Hah, I have an image question myself :) Found a picture, but the related Polish page has no info on what, when, by whom. Context makes it likely that this is some event related to the fall of Polish garrison in Moscow. Can anybody give more data? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to be a detail of this one. --Ghirlandajo 08:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Tnx! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related picture? 

message: I am wondering about the passage:
Lisowczycy broke contact with his forces, burned Bielów and Lichwin, took Pieremyszl, turned north, defeated Muscovite army at Rzew, turned to Kara Sea, then to Kaszyn, burned Torzek and heavy with loot returned to Poland without any further opposition from Muscovite forces. 
Are you sure Kara Sea is correct?  It is rather far away from the theatre of operations, beyond the Arctic Circle.   Balcer 04:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. --Ghirlandajo 08:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be towards Kara Sea - this should clarify the confusion, I hope. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's say "towards the north", OK? The Kara Sea is irrelevant. --Ghirlandajo 13:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geographical question 

message: Furthermore, if you read carefully the quote you included, it's clear that it was the Smolensk War which was closely related to the Thirty Years War.  But this war was not.  After all, it was over before the Thirty Years War began. Besides, I do not think this is important enough to mention in the lead. Balcer 19:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not say that it was part of the war. I said it is related because although the was is conventionally considered to have started in 1618, some struggles that that lead to it started years earlier. Also, you have reverted wholesale including the corrections I added to the previous sentence. --Irpen 19:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that in its first years the Thirty Years War was essentially just a rebellion in Bohemia and it was localized there.  It was not yet related to the Polish-Muscovite conflict, except of course in the sense that all historical events in Europe occuring at that time were to some extent related.  If you want to mention that relation in the lead, you really should provide some solid reasons.  The passage you quoted does not provide those reasons.  Balcer 20:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Related to the time period does not mean related (closely) to another war. Most of what I have read cleary states that Commonwealth was not involved with the TYW (exception being Sigismund privately orderning Lisowczycy to the aid of Habsburgs), and I have yet to see a single reference to Muscovy involvement in this war. I guess the discussion or lack of therefore may make an interesting paragraph (in the name section, perhaps?) but not in the lead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was in the name section! Never I added that to the lead. Go check. And Balcer when reverting me didn't even bother to keep other small changes in the section I made like the word "conflict" was twice in the same sentence and name in cyrillic I removed as unnecessary. --Irpen 20:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right of course, it was in the name section.  My mistake.  Balcer 20:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

text: In my opinion, it is not necessary to bring the Thirty Years War into the article.  It will only confuse readers.  The Thirty Years War only started to seriously affect the Sweden/Poland/Russia diplomatic triangle (so to speak) after Sweden entered the war in Germany in about 1630, having made peace with Poland in 1629.  That was 12 years after 1618.  If you want to mention Thirty Years War, please give some reasons for making the connection. Balcer 20:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Relation with 30 yr war

message: Why is the siege of Bely listed in the Polish-Russian War of 1605-1618? AFAIK, it happened during the Smolensk War in 1634... Was it sieged twice? Please, clarify. One more thing. Why is it called Bely? I think it was called Belaya (Белая крепость, or White fortress) and later renamed to Bely (Белый). And why are there different dates above and under the map (1609 and 1605)? KNewman 22:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Siege of Bely

message: *The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.
*Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.
*Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
*Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
*Please alphabetize the categories and interlanguage links.
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. 
*You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas. 
*Thanks, Andy t 21:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions 

message: What about GDL? Xx236 (talk) 09:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polish? 

message: I think it would be a good idea to rename this article to: Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth-Muscovite War Samogitia (talk) 11:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that title is misleading, also possible variant could be just using "Polish–Lithuanian" without  "Commonwealth". M.K. (talk) 10:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Polish-Russian war, not Muscovite.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.25.53.138 (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename 

message: 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| talk to me 01:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: B-class review

message: The top image does not explain in either its description or on its own page what the colours mean. It can be assumed that the green is Russia, but what are the yellow, red and pink areas? Which of this is the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, and why are parts of it striped? There is no info whatsoever. Prinsgezinde (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Unhelpful picture

message: Surely the Livonian War was a major sign of rivalry between Poland and Russia, so the sentence including: "first major sign of rivalry and uneasy relations between Poland and Russia" should be revised?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyHoc (talk • contribs) 07:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prior rivalry between Poland and Russia 

message: I've moved Siege of Borovsk from draft into mainspace. It would be good if editors with knowledge of the war could help improve it and further integrate it with other articles. I've added it to the see also section of this article. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Siege of Borovsk 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 06:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Polish–Muscovite Wars (1605–1618) →  – The term "Muscovy" is not quite correct in the context of historical events. After the establishment of a unified centralized authority, the country called itself the Tsardom of Russia, not Muscovy. Such a name was relevant only during the times when Moscow existed independently, but the formation of the Tsardom of Russia happened long before the war. This can also confuse the reader since the article refers to Tsardom of Russia, which uses a different designation. Additionally, it should be clarified that this term was often used by the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth during the conflict between it and the Tsardom of Russia for propaganda purposes, as the term clearly implies feudal fragmentation of the state. Nowadays, the term is also used as a derogatory term towards Russia - https://www.svoboda.org/a/ukraina-moskoviya-i-drugie-yaroslav-shimov-o-borjbe-za-vostok-evropy/32330846.html, https://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2022/11/29/7378557/. PawelSULKUL (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

text: I also ask you to pay attention once again to the fact that we have the correct name in all languages, including Polish and Russian, the correct name is Polish–Russian War (1605-1618). There is nothing to discuss here, this title is standard and reflects the essence of the article, unlike the current one, which misleads the reader PawelSULKUL (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Also i'm not clear on why the articles you linked are relevant, could you please clarify?—blindlynx 00:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 12 April 2024