Talk:Ostrów Agreement

message: We seem to have enough material to split and stub the civil war. How should it be entitled? Civil war in Lithuania (1390-1392)?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So far a few lines in the History of Lithuania on this matter would suffice.Iulius (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Civil war

message: Some research results:
* Astrava treaty  (CLIOH is a branch of the SOCRATES programme).
* Astrava treaty  The University of Vilnius publishing house. The second half of the webpage is in English.
* Astrava agreement  - summaries are in English
*Astrava treaty  a periodical issued by the University of Vilnius
*Astravas (Ostrowo) agreement at  and   (the Washington University one is a reprint from the book)
*Astrava in Encylopedia Lituanica 
*Astrava agreement in Lituanus 
*Treaty of Vostrava 
*Ostrow in Encylopedia Brittanica  Stricken out, since I cannot find it in EB as of today.
*Ostrow in this book 
*Ostrowo in this book  - Novickas (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: so far Astrava is most prevalent although it seems that it cannot be called an established name in English with certainty.Iulius (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Moreover, I am fed up with that Agreement vs. Treaty issue. As legal logic is concerned, a treaty should be a document signed between parties acting as representatives of their countries and signed on behalf of their countries with another subjects. Should something similar be used to unify the  terms in wikipedia on Lithuanian topics? What do you think, Novickas, and others?Iulius (talk) 07:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem is that various authors use those terms without looking up definitions, and we are stuck with various variants - not so different from the very fact that we have different geographical names for the same entity. Or consider various 'truces', 'peaces' and 'armistices'. On the bright side, redirects help a lot. On the dark sides, disputes over which variant should be the name of the article on Wiki can waste enormous amount of time and effort.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  However I would like to add, that it is by no means a decisive argument for keeping the article at its current name. Iulius (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course not. As far as I am concerned all variants are equally as problematic and the discussion on which one is best will most likely resemble the old well-known 'my POV vs. yours' debate we have seen on too many pages already.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: There are rules governing event names in WP, rather than our opinions. By these rules the place-name Astrava prevails, as does the word treaty. It is often called an agreement, a pact, a meeting, a peace, etc. but treaty is the most commonly-used word. Piotrus, do your comments mean that you will not oppose a name change? Novickas (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I consider the prevailing naming rules met in this case and see no decisive arguments against the rename.Iulius (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Which rule would that be, exactly?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Feel free to start a WP:RM to fully gauge the consensus of the community.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  19:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of town in English

message: With the recent reinstatement of OR'ish claims, old and solved OR problem once again reappeared. I will repeat myself (for compete picture see Talk:Ostr%C3%B3w_Agreement#Third_Opinion) that statment, which is repeatedly reinserted, Vytautas was supported by Lithuanians who resented Polish interpretations of the recent Union of Krewo and baptism of Lithuania, tying Grand Duchy of Lithuania to the Kingdom of Poland is not supported by presented source in this context. My initiated Third party comment also concluded that As for the references and the statements in the article, after reading through the sources cited and comparing them with their presentation here, it seems they qualify as OR in the form of synthesis and As the sources cited do not say specifically that Vytautas was supported by Lithuanians who resented, among other things, forced baptism, this statement is therefore unverifiable and must be removed along with the other similar unsourced statements. Therefore such reinserted statment violates one of the core WP policies WP:NOR. Even more the same volunteer, which keeps inserting this statment, clearly and in no uncertain terms said that Regarding the content issue, as I wrote above, I don't care much if you want to remove that content and specifically the current issue: Regarding the support for V. coming from opponents of baptism, as I wrote above, I don't care much if you want to remove that; it is indeed not that clear. Therefore current attempt to preserve OR claims is not acceptable. M.K. (talk) 13:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research continues

message: For some time, single contributor attempts to remove a tag , which was placed due to biased article name as indicated by multiply contributors , ,   etc. As off 2008-03-02 none of these contributors agreed that current, Polish name-invention, should stay. Therefore  problems of article name still opened and not resolved, even more no official WP policies suggest that tags  should removed even then problems still opened, under motivation “stale tag”. Tag not only warns readers on improper name , but also can give opportunity to attract more contributors for solving this dead end. Therefore tag restored. M.K. (talk) 11:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of tags continues

message: The article states: "The treaty granted Vytautas the status of Grand Duke of Lithuania while Jogaila retained theoretical political supremacy"
Here's a source which contradicts this claim. pg. 204 : "Vitold received the Duchy of Troki and ... the main part of Volhynia with its chief castle at Luck....Vitold himself began very soon to exercise in fact the authority of a grand-duke, although this title was not yet allowed to him officially." (my emphasis).
 Volunteer Marek  07:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  grand duke?