Talk:Pact of Vilnius and Radom

message: 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)
replies: text: Jeez, revolution. Some discuss, some move. What a great collaboratiwe work:/--Lokyz 21:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Btw Lysy, do you want to say that original 1401 document has the name union ?  M.K. 21:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

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

text: Yes, but not an invention of wikipedia. Again, read WP:OR, please do, seriously. --Lysytalk 22:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: No, you are right. But what's your point then ? --Lysytalk 22:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Point - our original research M.K. 22:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: By Jove

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: TITLE

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