Jump to content

Talk:Polish–Russian War (1609–1618)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articlePolish–Russian War (1609–1618) is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Article milestones
November 6, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
November 18, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
July 26, 2008Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article


  • 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 1609-1618 war
  • Expand on interesting battles, like Moscow uprising or the siege of Smolensk
  • Estimated strength of belligerents? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody up to a job? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:41, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I started Tsaryovo-Zaimishche, Klushino, Mikhail Shein and Dmitry Shuisky to patch up some glaring omissions. --Ghirlandajo 14:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Moscow 1612 briefly described in Polish here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To Russian speaking friends: can you see if there is any relevant info here or here? I can understand some of this, but not enough to make details clear. Perhaps there is some useful info? Names, places, descriptions? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also found one page which has a terrible POV. It is in Englsh, so you may read it here. At first I wanted to take some details about Mozhaysk battle from this place, but after I read the parts like 'In XIV-XVII centuries Poles and Lithuanians were scrupulously engaged in obliteration of Russia' I am not sure if any info from this page is credible. Can anybody find anything else about the battle/sieges of Mozhaysk? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Name, start date?[edit]

Dymitriads seems to be the name invented, well, by me :) by translation of the Polish name. Perhaps we should move it to Polish-Muscovy War (160?-1618)? Btw, what is the recognized start date - 1605 or 1609? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:09, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If the Polish/Russian term is not ok, then I'm fine with the current one, but I guess we should set some things straight. Shouldn't it be "Polish-Muscovite Wars"? Halibutt 20:50, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
I am not sure what is the Russian name. Polish Dymitriady which are rarely translated into English, and besides, they are the proper name only for the conflict between 1605-1609. This would be too small for a proper FA, so I decided to move it to a more general name. I am not sure about the difference between Muscovy and Muscovite, but I think you are right, the latter being and adjective would be more proper. Anybody care to change it and move the page? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the name must be symmetric: "Poland-Muscovy" or "Polish-Muscovite". The latter is preferrable, since this style seems to be common for wars: Polish-Swedish, Russo-Turkish, etc. mikka (t) 19:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amen. logologist 03:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Whence attempting to correct the ahistoric term “Tsardom Russia” to the period accurate name Tsardom of Muscovy, it immediately gets reverted.
Why is that so? (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted article back[edit]

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 {{main|[[article name]]}} 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)

What are you talking about? The {{main|[[article name]]}} didn't link to *anything*. I was using the proper template. Look at the version before mine, the main article links were messed up. --Kross 22:01, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

My mistake, there are no [[]] tags in the template, it should be {{main|article name}}. It does seem there was an error with the templates used. Fixed now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Please pick one of three: Ladislaus, Wladyslaw, Wladislaw, and stick with it. mikka (t) 17:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but which one. Oh well, for now I will use Wladislaus, as this is the name of his article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Władysław," please. I don't know whether you realize how comical these "-laus" latinizations sound in English, rhyming as they do with "louse" (in Polish, literally wesz; in English, "louse" also denotes a despicable person). The last thing that serious Polish subjects need is this kind of humor. logologist 03:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Do you think we should make this change in other articles, up to moving the article on the prince itself? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 06:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's a convention we adopted a long time ago... At the time we discussed it, there were two options: use the original latin spelling or anglicize the names of Polish monarchs by force. Should we use Polish names in all cases as well? Halibutt 09:29, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Unia troista[edit]

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)[reply]

Dobrynicze, Zajmiszcze, Rohatyn[edit]

I found a source saying that Dobrynicze was an important battle during the First Dymitriad. Any info on this, including a Russian/English name of the place? Date would be nice. Battles for the Second Dymitriad and later war that we may be missing: Zajmiszcze, Rohatyn, Briańsk. Again, it would be nice if sb could add dates to those battles (and see if he can find any sources on the other battles from warbox for future reference). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zajmiszcze seems to be another (Polish) name of Tsarovo (it has plenty of variants: Tsarowo, Carowo, Carowa, Cariewo), since my google search reveals quite a few references to Carowa-Zajmiszcze (Russian and English versions of Zajmiszcze spelling appreicated). Dobrynicze must evidently ben erroneous spelling, because I cannot find any google hists to it other then one page listing Polish battles (btw, date for it is 31 January 1605, and it also has some other dates: Smolensk IX 1609 r. – 13. VI 1611, Tsarow-Zajmiszcze VI – VII 1610, Kłuszyn 4. VII 1610 r., Rohatyn 17. V 1615 r, Briańsk Bryansk?) IV – VIII 1615 r). Rohatyn may be a battle of between Polish royal forces and Polish confederated forces (of konfederacja rohaczewska (?-problem with googling the name!) under Karwicki, note the similiarity of names - rohatyn, rohaczewska... - but to add some confusion, it seems to also be a site of a 16th century battle (around 1530, see [1]), besides, konfederacja should have ended in 1614, so why the battle date is 1615??), while Brańsk seems like a Polish-Muscovy battle (Muscovy commander: kniaź Jurij Szachowski). Brańsk seem to deserve more research since our article currently states there were no significant Polish-Muscovy battles from 1612 to 1617. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tsaryovo-Zaimishche seems to be a reasonably well-known location. The yandex search gives tinyurl.com/8pnzv 10,365 Russian hits. --Ghirlandajo 15:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Map: you can find Rohatyn and some other places on this map (Lwów - Olesko - Podhorce - Poczajów - Krzemieniec - Wiśniowiec - Zbara¿ - Tarnopol - Trembowla - Czortków Skala Podolska - Borszczów - Kamieniec Podolaski - Żwaniec - Okopy Św. Trócy - Chocim - Czerniowce - Sniatyn - Kołomyja - Stanisławów - Halicz - Bursztyn - Rohatyn - Lwów - Żółkiew). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Found a useful page with description of some Polish battles (in Polish) [2] (the site also contains sometimes lists of casualties). Below is a list of info to add to the article (still no info on Dobrynicze 1605):
Rohatyn update: found another source giving date 17.V.1614 (this makes sence): Defeat of confederated units of wojsko kwarciane under Karwacki. Koniecpolski sent the leader in chains to Żółkiewski..
Carowo-Zajmiszcze update: July 1610 Żółkiewski convinced Muscovy forces, much stronger then the ones at Kłuszyn, to capitulate and swear an oath of loyality to Władysław. Then he incorporated them into his forces and moved towards Moscow.
Dorohobuż (Dorogobuzh): October 1617 r. Jan Karol Chodkiewicz captures the fortress, local boyars swear loyality to Władysław.
Nowogród Siewierski - 1604 - victory of First Dimitrii. I am assuming it's the site of the unnamed place of the first (and only?) major victory of Dimitri I.
Smoleńsk - siege from 29 Sep 1609 to 13 June 1611. On that day kawaler maltański (?-English?) Bartłomiej Nowodworski inserted a mine into sewer canal (my guess - apparently successfull :) ). Jakub Potocki first on the walls.
Zarajsk - spring 1608 r. Aleksander Kleczkowski, future leader of Lisowczycy, leading few hundred of Don Cossacks (kozacy dońscy) defeats army of Wasyl Szujski under command of Zachar Lapunow. Captures Kołyma and moves on to the blocade of Moscow.

Zarajsk 1608 and Briańsk 1615 seem to be ([http://www.pulsar.net.pl/kawaleria/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=311 Polish source] (link being blocked by spam filter) among the battles of Lisowczycy. After Zarajsk, Lisowczycy were defeated at Niedźwiedzi Bród, then with Jan Piotr Sapieha failed the siege of Lawra Troicko-Siergiejewska and retreated near Rachmancewo. Then came successes (pillages) at Kostroma, Soligalicz and some other cities (those battles took place around 1608-1609). He took Psków in 1610 and clashed with Swedes operating in Muscovy during the Ingrian War. Lisowczycy were essential in the defence of Smoleńsk in 1612, when most of regulars (wojsko kwarciane) mutined and joined the konfederacja rohatynska. For the next three years Lisowski's forces were important in the guarding of the Polish-Muscovy border against Muscovy incursions. In 1615 Aleksander Józef Lisowski gathered many outlaws and invaded Muscovy with 6 'choragiew' of calvalry. He lied siegeo to Briańsk/Bryansk and defeated the relief force of few thousadns soldiers under kniazh Jurij Szachowski near Karaczewo. Then Lisowski defeated the front guard of a much larger force (several times larger then himself) under the command of khniaz Dymitr Pozarski, who decided to defend instead of attack and fortified his forces in a camp. Lisowczycy broke contact with his forces, burned Bielów and Lichwin, took Pieremyszl, turned north, defeated Muscovy army at Rzew, turned to Kara Sea, then to Kaszyn, burned Torzek, returned to Poland without any interruptions from Muscovy forces. Until autumn 1616 Lisowski and his forces remained at the Polish-Muscovy border, when Lisowski suddenly fell ill and died on 11 October. Since then the formation was called after him Lisowczycy. Despite the death of Lisowski, his forces remained a singinfiant threat: in 1616 they captured Kursk and defeated Russian forces at Bolchow, in 1617 relieved Smolensk besieged by Russian forces, which lifted the siege and retreated to Biała soon after receiving news that Lisowczycy, then commanded by Stnaisław Czapiński were in the neighbourhood. When Czapiński died at Kaługa, Lisowczycy elected Walenty Rogawski for the new commander. They accompanied Władysław forces in 1617, and while he retreated, they came as far as Obu (?-wrong name? Abu?]], where they were impressed by the giant golden statue (possibly a Buddha statue]].

Uff. Translated and summarized Lisowczycy history relevant to this war, now I have to incorporate this into tha article - and I am not even thinking of all the name fixing :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

This question is still valid. Please comment.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

Modern legacy[edit]

However due to the political climate of that time, some observers, especially in Poland, interpreted this festivity as having anti-Polish undertones

Political climate of what time? Should we rather say in "today's political climate"? The statement isn't clear. --Irpen 20:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think of the time when the holiday was invented. It's first celebrated this year. --Lysy (talk) 08:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Than it should have said "today's political climate" for clarity. However, this perception has nothing to do with reality. The main reason is that they were looking for some date in early november because people were used to Nov. 7 (October Revolution) dumped recently. --Irpen 16:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, but the Polish garrison left Moscow on November 7th exactly, so what's the point ? What actually happened on November 4th then ? --Lysy (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I've just briefly searched the Russian web for the commentaries, and one of the first articles that I've found was: "Поляки в Кремле ели мертвецов". Seems quite emotional for a title of the article about the new national праздник, don't you think ? :-( --Lysy (talk) 19:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check this then.

"Cегодня в центре Москвы прошёл "Правый марш", организованный националистическими организациями... Участников "Правого марша" забросали наполненными водой презервативами... На первый взгляд, количество сотрудников милиции не уступало числу демонстрантов... Большинство участников митинга не смущало обилие фото и видеокамер. Некоторые не стеснялись своего участия в акции... Двенадцать человек были задержаны милицией".

Check also "Ссылки по теме" --Irpen 20:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC) .[reply]

For a review, check this link: http://lenta.ru/articles/2005/11/02/narodnoe/ "Новый красный день Что мы празднуем четвертого ноября"


было распространено обращение, в котором лидеры конфессий призвали установить новый государственный праздник - День национального единства. Была выбрана компромиссная дата, позволившая не перемещать заветный осенний выходной: 4 ноября. В обращении говорилось, что в этот день в 1612 году была освобождена Москва, и "патриотические настроения народа нашей страны, единение всех граждан, независимо от происхождения, веры и положения в обществе, сплочение и солидарность сыграли особую роль в судьбе России".

As you see, nothing about Poles. Read on and you will also find:

Нетрудно представить, на какие компромиссы пришлось пойти законодателям, чтобы выбрать в качестве нового государственного праздника 4 ноября. Во-первых, необходимо было сохранить осенний праздник и выходной день, а во-вторых, найти наименее спорную дату из возможных. Поскольку конфессиональная составляющая событий 1612 года не затрагивала ни иудеев, ни мусульман, ни, тем более, буддистов, то Межрелигиозный совет России поддержал эту дату. На пресс-конференции представителей трех главных религий России 2 ноября 2005 года митрополит Смоленский и Калининградский Кирилл отмел предположения, что праздник народного единения несет признаки полонофобии.
Центр празднования Дня национального единения оказался, между тем, не в Москве, а в Нижнем Новгороде. Именно там в 1611 году усилиями Минина и Пожарского были преодолены сословные разногласия и собрано единое войско для похода на Москву. То есть, в Нижнем празднуют отчасти свой собственный праздник.

I hope this is convinsing enough. --Irpen 20:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm only happy if this is not polonophobic (funny word, by the way). I'm already quite upset by the political tension between Warsaw and Kremlin since the Orange Revolution and would be happy to have it over. Hopefully Putin will use the new government in Poland as the excuse to stop this policy. The question remains, what happened on November 4th if Poles left Kremlin on 7th ? --Lysy (talk) 21:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a historian, but the link to the very article I posted says in the very beginning: "4 ноября (26 октября по старому стилю) польский гарнизон, осажденный в Кремле, сдался ополчению Минина и Пожарского".
Maybe Poles surrendered on the 4th and left on the 7th. I don't know.

Russia obviously didn't want Nov 7 anymore. For the last years every novemebr 7th was spoiled by the fringe Communist demostrations, sometimes violent. OTOH, everyone wanted an early-November date. --Irpen 21:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIR they surrendered on 6th and left on 7th. But maybe Russian historians differ on this, I would not be surprised ;-) Whatever. Thanks for the explanations. --Lysy (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the holiday is partly a reaction to November 11, a Polish holiday with strong anti-Russian undertones. Some say that the idea of Polish agression against Soviet Russia was born on this day in 1917. --Ghirlandajo 08:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ekhem, It was bolshevik Russia that invaded its neighbours... idea of Polish agression against Soviet Russia was born on this day in 1917 Did Bolshevik Russia held some of Polish lands taken in partitions perhaps ? --Molobo 11:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the holiday is partly a reaction to November 11, a Polish holiday with strong anti-Russian undertone

Polish independence is anti-Russian ? Nice. :)

--Molobo 11:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, first Irpen explained that the new Russian holiday is not polonophobic, now Ghirlandajo explains that it is. How confusing ... --Lysy (talk) 11:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A question about the image[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Sorry, Ghirlandajo, no offense. Just trying to establish the fact :). KNewman 12:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't agree with the statement: "In Poland the Dmitriads campaign is remembered as the height of the Polish Golden Age, the time Poles captured Moscow." In my opinion - and I'm a Pole- in Poland we hardly remember this part of our history. At least when it comes to what is taught at schools. I think that Polish people have been watching the growing importace of this topic in Russia with a bit of amazement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Related picture?[edit]

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)[reply]

Seems to be a detail of this one. --Ghirlandajo 08:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tnx! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And as long as we are discussing pictures, any information on source/author of Image:Husaria pod Kluszynem.jpg would be appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Geographical question[edit]

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)[reply]

Seconded. --Ghirlandajo 08:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Should be towards Kara Sea - this should clarify the confusion, I hope. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Let's say "towards the north", OK? The Kara Sea is irrelevant. --Ghirlandajo 13:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New resources[edit]

Recently Google Print has made a number of books about Russian history available online, at least in parts, for free. Access to a few pages in each book is restricted in order to protect the book's copyright. Among the books available, there is:

A Short History of Russia's First Civil War: The Time of Troubles and the Founding of the Romanov Dynasty

published in 2004, as well as

Russia's First Civil War: The Time of Troubles and the Founding of the Romanov Dynasty

published in 2001, both written by Chester S L Dunning (I guess the first is an abridged version of the second).

Here is a link to a relevant search page: Google Print link.

This could be very useful to everyone working on improving this article. To access the text you need to have the (free) gmail account. The best thing about this service is that Google can search inside the book for any word you specify. Balcer 21:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note: Norman Davies and his masterful God's Playground: A History of Poland is also available (in parts at least) on Google Print.

Name of the Pretender? and of the article[edit]

We have a problem with the name of one of the main characters in this story. I have seen 4 viable versions so far:

Which one is the most correct? Clearly the one used currently, Dmitriy, is the one not used by major English references. In my opinion, we should use Dmitri (or possibly Dmitry) as the simplest option. Any other suggestions? Balcer 05:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would slightly favor Dmitry. More importanly, we need to decide whether the current article name is an optimal one as opposed to a Russo-Polish War, for example. There are lively discussion at both FAC monination and at Portal:Russia/Russia-related_Wikipedia_notice_board#Polish_invasion_of_Russia. The fact that the M-word is viewed annoying for many of the Russian community, has to be considered in the name debate. Personally, I think that a good English name for that's time country is Muscovite Russia. So, since this is still Russia (even if Muscovite) the Russo-Polish war seems reasonable (as pointed out in the dicsusion, it is so called at Phillips & Axelrod Encyclopedia of Wars). OTOH, if it is called PMW in most of the English L historiography we should keep the name then. --Irpen 06:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see no particular problem with the term Muscovy. It is widely used in recently published scholarly works. Searching for Muscovy in Google Print, I get the following titles:
  • Modernizing Muscovy: Reform and Social Change in Seventeenth Century Russia (2004)
  • Muscovy and Sweden in the Thirty Years' War, 1630-1635 (1995)
Furthermore, the search returns 271 books in which the word is used. Keep in mind that the Google Print sevice has only started recently and they by no means yet have all the books in the English language indexed. I hope this demonstrates conclusively that the use of the word is not just a Polish invention, as some of the contributors to this discussion have suggested. Balcer 07:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The question is how the war is called in the literature. One academic ref cited above uses Russo-Polish. Let's see what other refs use. --Irpen 08:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Many references describe the events in this conflict as occuring between the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Muscovy. Hence Polish-Muscovite war would seem a logical name to use if we are focusing on that particular conflict as part of the complex set of events that made up the Time of Troubles. Balcer 08:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Other refs describe the events as occuring between Poland and Russia. See this article in "The Encyclopedia of World History. 2001". It uses "1609–18 Polish intervention in Russia". --Irpen 08:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Let me suggest then Muscovy and Sweden in the Thirty Years' War, 1630-1635 by B F Porshnev, published by Cambridge University Press in 1995. As the title suggests, this book uses Muscovy almost uniformly, practically on every single page.
Look, I am sure we will be able to find references to support the use of either Muscovy or Russia. As I said, there are dozens of recent historical books which use the term Muscovy to describe the Russian state during this period. The point is: which term is more accurate? Can you offer any arguments? Clearly the transition from Muscovy to Russian Empire was continuous and there was no sharp dividing point, though of course the Empire was officially proclaimed only in 1721, which is the date I would use. Balcer 08:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave the correct spelling of Dmitri and Dmitriads to our Russian-speaking editors. As for the name of this war, I think the case is clear that there are several of them. Search through scholalry literature will surely be interesting, but at the moment I'd favour Muscovy because it is more descriptive then Russia in this case (i.e. consider the difference between links to Muscovy and Russia).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At this point we have different versions mixing in the article, which is clearly confusing. I don't mind any of the above 4 versions, but we should be consistent. Balcer 18:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked a Thirty Years' War article in EB. Quote:

Meanwhile the conflict widened, fueled by political ambitions of the various powers. Poland, having been drawn in as a Baltic power coveted by Sweden, pushed its own ambitions by attacking Russia and establishing a dictatorship in Moscow under Wladyslaw, Poland's future king. The Russo-Polish Peace of Polyanov in 1634 ended Poland's claim to the tsarist throne but freed Poland to resume hostilities against its Baltic archenemy, Sweden, which was now deeply embroiled in Germany.

In addition to the fact that these wars are considered related is worth adding to the article, which I did, please note the EB calls the peace treaty the followed Russo-Polish. We just have one more authoratitave reference book that uses Russo-Polish rather than Polish-Muscovite. --Irpen 19:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, both (Russia and Muscovy) can be found in historical literature, and both can be used. The question is: which one is better? Could you state your reasons for preferring one over the other? Balcer 19:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Both are used but note that we already have three reference books (including Columbia and Britannica) that are supposed to have analyzed the academic usage before choosing one term over the other. They chose to use Russo-Polish rather than Polish-Muscovite. Additional reason is that the using of Muscovy and Muscovite is viewed by many Russians as hostile. The latter issue by itself is not a sufficient reason if "PM" would have been a prevailing usage elsewhere. But it is not. --Irpen 19:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please, check very carefully before you make sweeping statements. Encyclopedia Britannica uses the term Muscovy very frequently when referring to this period.
Here is the beginning of the relevant section of the Russian History article:
History > From the beginnings to c. 1700 > Rurikid Muscovy > The Time of Troubles
The events of 1606–13 cannot be captured in a few words. Chaos gripped most of central Muscovy; Muscovite boyars, Polish-Lithuanian-Ukrainian Cossacks, and assorted mobs of adventurers and desperate citizens were among the chief actors. In May 1606 a small-scale revolt supported by popular indignation at the foolishly insulting behaviour of Dmitry and his Polish garrison… Balcer 20:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about the name of the war and not the name of the country. I am aware that EB uses Muscovy too. it even has an article under this name. I checked google print. "The Polish Armies 1569-1696" by Richard Brezezinski also uses Russo-Polish War for this particular war[3].The search for Russo-Polish War in google print gives 744 pages (many of which are for other conflicts) but the search for Polish-Muscovy War gives zero counts in google print. --Irpen 21:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These word games are getting tiresome. It appears there is no well established English name for that war. In particular, the specific, exact term Polish-Muscovite War is very rarely used and does not show up in searches, though there is no strong competing term that I have come across. On the other hand, there are dozens of highly respectable books which, when they discuss the events of this period, use the word Muscovy to describe Russia at the time. There are other books which simply use the word Russia. Given that, it seems to me we are free to choose Polish-Muscovite or Polish-Russian, of course choosing the term which is the most accurate. You have still not provided any reason why one is better than the other, except for stating that one name will be offensive to Russians. True or not, that is not a consideration when choosing a name in English Wikipedia. Balcer 22:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It appears there is no well established English name for that war...
As I have shown above the Russo-Polish War seems to be rather established and I provided several references with this exact wording. I do not deny that the word Muscovy is sufficiently established for the country name However, I do not see any established usage of the Polish-Muscovite War and I see that there is an established usage for the Russo-Polish War. This is the reason why I think the latter term is better to use than the other. --Irpen 22:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Except that most of the hits in this search and this search actually refer to the Polish-Soviet War of 1919-1921. How many specific cases did you find where the name your are proposing is used for specifically the (1605-1618) war? (what exact name are you proposing, anyway?). By well established, I meant having a name for the war which is universally used in dozens of English sources. Balcer 22:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I did not argue with the fact that most of the 700+ hits indeed referred to the PSW. I did not go through 700+ books but several other books in the list, in addition to the one I quoted above, use the term Russo-Polish War for what we in Wikipedia call Smolensk War (same historic time, hense supposedly similar terminology). And it is important that the use of Polish-Muscovy War could not be found at all. Could be that there is no established view in historiography to consider the 1605-18 events as one war (as the article says already) or many view a conflict broader and include Smolensk war too. Even if 1605-18 events are not established solidly in historiography as a one war, rather than a series of smaller wars or a part of a larger war, it's no reason to modify what this article is about. However, if we want to see it as a war, I suggest we use the title for which some usage is found, that is Russo-Polish War (1605-1618). Another title, a descriptive one, may be Polish intervention... or Polish Invasion of Russia (In line with Napoleon's Invasion of Russia and Mongol invasion of Rus). However, if this seems like a POV title to the Polish editors, I am fine with the "Russo-Polish War..." above. Speaking of POV titles sensitivities, we had a Massacre of Praga article for almost a year and it didn't seem a POV title for its authors and editors. OTOH, I must admit that there were no complaints when I raised the issue at talk and finally moved the article to a more neutral title. --Irpen 02:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we are clear: how many references did you find that describe the 1605-1618 war as the Russo-Polish War, using precisely that name? A link to a source that uses that exact wording would be ideal. And incidentally, the Smolensk War occured 14 years after the end of the 1605-1618 war, so it was clearly a separate war. Just like the I World War is separate from II World War, though obviously they are strongly related. Balcer 03:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, there aren't many sources that I found that treat the the events between exactly 1605 and 1618 as events of one war. Perhaps, this is because it is often viewed as a combination of several wars or a part of a bigger war. Among sources that do take it as a 1605-18 single war, we have already two cited that call it "Russo-Polish":

  1. Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod, "Encyclopedia of wars"
  2. Richard Brezezinski "The Polish Armies 1569-1696"

Additionally "The Encyclopedia of World History. 2001". Uses "Polish intervention in Russia" I haven't found any other books that use exactly same time period to refer to a single war but I didn't go through 700+ entries of google print search (most indeed are about the 20th century PSW). However, I also found several sources that use "Russo-Polish war" for Smolensk War (same historic time, hence supposedly same terminology) and several that use this term for the later war that ended in 1667 (Treaty of Andrusovo). Do we have to go and count for exact numbers and go through 700+ search results? Is Russo-Polish was disagreeable for any reason? On the side note, I found only one mention of the term "Polish-Muscovite War" but it was also in relation to a different war (1654-1667). I can post links if necessary. --Irpen 03:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would still say that two references is a very low number, and it just shows that the name for this war is not well established in Western historiography. Furthermore, our discussions have shown that many reputable references in the English language use the term Muscovy to describe Russia of that time. It is clear to me then that we have the freedom to choose the name we are going to use. I personally have no particular preference, though since I do not see anyting offensive in the word Muscovy, I would prefer Polish-Muscovite as it would nicely distinguish this particular war from many later wars known as Russo-Polish in English-language publications. Still, if Piotrus has no objections to changing the name, then I will not object either. Balcer 07:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I stated my reasons above. While I still think Muscovy/Muscovite is more descriptive, I won't object if the Russian editors want to use Russia instead of Muscovy. But - wouldn't this logically require us to change all intext references to Russia as well? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 07:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How will the name change affect the FAC voting? Balcer 07:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article have just became an FA, does it mean that my proposal for name change to Russo-Polish War (1605-1618) or to Polish invasion of Russia (1605-1618) are thrown out? I haven't seen anyone really objecting to the first one. Or are there objections? --Irpen 07:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to repeat the question above. --Irpen 03:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that Google Print for [ http://books.google.com/books?q=Polish-Muscovy+War&btnG=Search+Books&hl=en Polish-Muscovy War] yelds 0 results, and so should be changed. What are pros and cons of the alternatives? Btw, please note that regarding the naming I have asked (twice) a question myself regarding the date (shouldn't it be 1604-1618)?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, I would change it to Polish-Muscovite War as that's the grammatically correct version of the adjective. Polish-Russian War seems factually incorrect from any perspective but the modern Russian as Poland was waging a war against only one of Russias, the Muscovite one. Halibutt 02:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relation with 30 yr war[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It was in the name section! Never I added that to the lead. Go check[4]. 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)[reply]
You are right of course, it was in the name section. My mistake. Balcer 20:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is it OK then to have it in the name section? You can rephrase my text if you like. --Irpen 20:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Siege of Bely[edit]

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)[reply]


  • 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: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.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
    • To assist you with this, add {{subst:js|User:AndyZ/monobook.js/footnotehelper.js}} to your monobook.js file (mine is located at User:AndyZ/monobook.js) and then bypass your browser's cache by pressing: Mozilla/Safari/Konqueror: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R), Internet Explorer: press Ctrl-F5, Opera: press F5. In editing mode, click on the "Footnote creater" tab that appears.

Article's title[edit]

I would like to raise the issue of moving this mage to the Polish invasion of Russia (1605-1618). The move could be done without any admin involvement and does not require a WP:RM listing but I would like to find the stand of the editors involved in the article before imposing the name on the community by making a move. At the same time let's try to avoid the WP:RM listing unless necessary and see whether the involved editors can agree.

The details of this discussion are at Talk:Polish September Campaign#Requested move. Basically, the issue, as I see it, is whether for the events where the invading party is clear it's OK to use the "invasion" in the article's titles. As my frequent opponent Halibutt said at the referenced talk page, he disputes the usage of the term "invasion" "only in the cases where it was absolutely not clear who "invaded". Since there is a complete historic clarity on who invaded whom in this particular case, please express your opinion whether the proposed article's move would be a good idea. If you did not vote at Talk:Polish September Campaign#Requested move yet, please consider reading and voting on that related issue as well. A related discussion is also at Talk:Kiev Offensive#Article's title.

The clarity of who is an invader he is such that even two most authoritative English language encyclopedias use the term in their article as follows:

  • "[...]Sigismund, changing his mind, demanded direct personal control of Russia and continued the Polish invasion (autumn 1610). This finally stimulated the Russians to rally and unite against the invader." (from: "Troubles, Time of." Encyclopædia Britannica)
  • "During the “Time of Troubles” (1598–1613), [Pozharsky] fought against the Poles, who, taking advantage of unstable political conditions, had invaded Russia. In 1611 he took command of a national militia formed on the initiative of the merchant Kuzma Minin of Nizhny Novgorod. With his improvised army he marched on Moscow (1612) and drove out the Poles, ending the effort of King Sigismund III to subjugate Russia." (Pozharski, Dmitri Mikhailovich, Prince", Columbia Encyclopedia)

Since both encyclpedia are clear about it, this is as referenced as anything can possibly be. --Irpen 03:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, without touching on what's happening on the other articles, I don't think that name would really be accurate for the article's scope. Something like Polish invasion of Russia (1609-1612) might have worked (and so might re-titling one or more of the appropriate sections here); but the scope of the article is somewhat broader than this. The 1605–06 period, for example, would be better described as (being pedantic) Polish intervention in Russia (1605-1606) and the 1612–17 period isn't really defined by a Polish invasion but by a Swedish one (along with some other general nastiness). Thus, I don't think that naming the entire article as "Invasion"—Polish or otherwise—would be an improvement.
Having said that, I do wonder if the current name is really an accurate one in English; given the events described, my gut instinct would be to call it "Polish-Muscovite Wars (1605-1618)" (or something of the sort), as this seems to be multiple (if contiguous) conflicts. Do we have any good sources for what this should be called? Kirill Lokshin 03:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill, I researched the issue and there is some info at #Name of the Pretender? and of the article above. --Irpen 03:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Disclaimer: I have not read the works referenced in this article, and have only a passing knowledge of these events):
I'm beginning to wonder whether it's really the best arrangement to have a separate article on the Ingrian War. Going by what's available in these articles, I would have merged that here and presented the conflict as a period of Russian-Polish-Swedish warfare going from 1605 to 1618 (with a succeeding phase of Polish-Swedish warfare from 1617 to 1628?). That would also, incidentally, open up a wide variety of new naming choices (things like "Polish-Swedish [intervention in/invasion of] Russia (1605-1618)", for example). Is there some fundamental reason why the Polish and Swedish aspects of this conflict need to be split? Kirill Lokshin 04:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Krill that the early part of the war was hardly an invasion - it was more like unofficial intervention of some mercenaries. Still, as long as we are discussing name, please check #1604?? - there is the issue of whether this war (or whatever) begun in 1605 or 1604.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  08:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, until we decide on the invasion in the title (it seems to me that invasions for the wars are only allowed by some editors if it is follow by "...of Poland"), I suggest to remove at least a controversial word from the title and rename it to Polish–Russian War (1605–1618) or Russo-Polish War (1605-1618)), It has been explained to Piotrus and others several times, why the M.. word for the post-Principality of Moscow time is misleading and, due to its political flavor, loaded and offensive. One of the two is the red link, the other is a redirect but with the earth unsalted, so we can move it either way without the admin intervention. --Irpen 22:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain to us all what's wrong with the M. word? I admit I forgot when it was explained to me - I do remember asking about it at Portal:Russia some time ago but I don't recall receiving any useful explanation. As far as naming goes, I would like to raise the issue discussed at #1604?? above that among other problems, the starting year may be in need of correction (from 1605 to 1604).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See this very page past discussions as well as an answer to your question which seems you have not bothered to read. ALso check this Eb article. It is not too long. --Irpen 04:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that I was the last person to post on that page, I'd rather say that it is you who have not bothered to read it; as for Britannica, it's only part of the non-free article, the largest version I could find truncates around the 15th century without mentioning anything about when the period discussed ends.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, your question was answered and by the last entry you merely repeated it. The EB's article says: "Muscovy became a distinct principality during the second half of the 13th century under the rule of Daniel..." and end with "By the end of Ivan's [III] reign [1505], the prince of Moscow was, in fact, the ruler of Russia proper". Also, and it has been told you before as well, Ivan IV, and all the Russian rulers afterwards, was crowned the Russian Tzar not the Grand Prince of Moscow. --Irpen 05:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside various inconsistencies in the sources you mention, we have, at best (or worst :>) a wars that most certainly begun as the Lithuanian-Muscovite wars, and that according to some sources would be ending as Lithuanian-Polish-Russian wars. As the name applied to them in literature is Lithuanian or Muscovite (unless you can show its reffered to as Russo-something?), I still think that either Muscovite or Lithuanian-Muscovite is the best solution.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about this article here. Not the Lithuanian wars for now. --Irpen 05:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...which redirects here...your point being?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not fantasize. Lithuanian wars do not redirect here. --Irpen 18:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that the word Muscovy is somehow offensive really puzzles me. If that is the case, how come there is no outcry against books with titles like:
  • Muscovy and Sweden in the Thirty Years' War 1630-1635, Cambridge University Press, 1995
  • Modernizing Muscovy: Reform and Social Change in Seventeenth Century Russia, Routledge (UK), 2004
and hundreds of recent books (published after 1990) containing the word Muscovy and Muscovite.
If anyone wants to make a case for "Russo-" vs "Muscovite-", fine with me, but claiming that one is somehow "insulting" is simply cheap and not credible.
Anyway, as the examples I just cited show, in Western historiography Muscovy is simply one of the widely used terms to describe the Russian state of that time, and it has no negative connotations. Why can't we just accept that, and move away from these fruitless discussions? Balcer 06:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue has been discussed ad nauseum on the Polish noticeboard, on the Russian noticeboard (last month) and on numerous talk pages. I am not going to feed the trolling and raise the issue again. If you want to discuss the same issue over and over again, until you received a POV result you favour, please go to Talk:Jogaila. --Ghirla -трёп- 16:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No satisfactory answer has been given to support your POV in the one brief discussion at the Russian noticeboard; it would be appreciated if instead of trying to argue otherwise or skirting the issue somebody would finally give us such an answer.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has been explained to you ad naseum indeed, including at your talk. It has also been noted that both EB and Columbia note that the time of Muscoivy ended by the 16th century, when the Moscow rulers became rulers of the Russian proper. Ivan III was the last one to be enthroned as the Grand Prince of Moscow. Ivan IV and all after him were enthrones as the Russian Tzars. I am sorry that historic truth seems to you an unsatisfactory answer but so it was. --Irpen 18:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Diffs would be nice to back up your claims of 'ad naseum'; the last time I checked Columbia it noted 'half of the 16th century', not 'by 16th century' ([5]) - your arguments are not only very selective (you ignore vast body of work in English historiography that uses that term in 16th and 17th century, as Balcer pointed out above) but even misinterpret sources like Columbia (not for the first time, re: our discussion about starting date of the PSW). I am afraid you will have to do better than that to convince anybody of your point.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, I brought this up to you at least 5 times. I can't believe you "forgot" and your calls for diffs is just WP:DFTT#Pestering, a "continual questions with obvious or easy-to-find answers". In any case, Eb sites 1505, Columbia (mid-16th century), this article is about 17th century, so what's your problem? --Irpen 18:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think some editors here simply prefer using pejorative terms for Russians, such as ruskis, moskali, etc. I've seen plenty of racism in the project. You may talk with them for as long as you like but their attitude won't change. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Others, similarly, accuse anybody who disagrees (but particularly Polish editors) with them of nationalism, trolling and spreading propaganda. Indeed, it is a saddening behaviour which shows no signs of change, neither.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, you didn't, and your failure to provide diffs only underscores your faulty memory (I am sure you would not be misleading us on purpose). As for the title, there are many references to the usage of Muscovy in 17th century, books provided by Balcer, which you ignore, are just one of many available refs. I am afraid it is your arguments which are more alike WP:DFTT#Pestering than you think.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Piotrus, I generally make it a habit to not feed the Pestering but I made several exceptions for you in the past and I will make one more. How many diffs you want? 3? 5? 7? I can do any of this. --Irpen 20:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you say 7, why not :) Please provide 7 examples of where you have used references (to which nobody presented contrary ones) that 1) Muscovy is not used in 16/17th century and 2) it's offensive. Please use examples from before our discussion in the past day or so. Thank you,-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, I can and will do it but I will note that you decided to waste my time on this meaningless work. I deliberately offered some lower numbers as an alternative, hoping that your goal is not to force me to waste time on digging diffs from months ago. Will be back. --Irpen 21:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen: one would usually be enough ususually but since you accuse me of ignoring your comments 'ad naseum' and WP:DFTT#Pestering, either apologize or prove your accusation.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, it took me only five minutes to find many times where the issue was brought to you personally. I am sure more can be googled out. The sources were also discussed at the same time. [6][7][8][9][10]. I hope forcing me to waste time to bring up top you the links which you already knopw gave you enough satisfaction. Seeing this attitude on your part did not make me happy but I suppose you don't care, do you? Anyway, I fulfulled your request aimed at nothing but getting myself busy.

Now, I am really sick and tired of this sneaky POV pushing through titling the articles. Invasions and massacres of Poland and Poles, while "wars" and "battles" with Russia and Ukraine has created too much drama. The only solution I see starts from limiting the M. word to where it belongs, the times of the Grand Principality of Moscow. All the war and battle articles get renamed to wars and battles. If, however, someone here persists with the massacred, invasioned and martyrdomed titles, this article's title has to be invasioned as well. Or "interventioned", your choice. Either we strive to avoid bad blood and stick to "wars" or we accept the "invasions" and "occupations" and apply them universally. And Piotrus, please no more DFTT#Pestering requests. --Irpen 01:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, please ready my requests carefuly. I am not interested in the posts where you have described why you feel Muscovy is not adequate, I asked about places where you presented references (preferably English and academic) that would support your POV. I'll make it even simpler for you: don't bother with diffs, just give us some books/articles (w/ page numbes and quotes which you like so much, if you could).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I thought, you did not read the diffs and provided an unrelated answer. So much you value my time spent on looking for them.

Enough, I am POV-titling this as well as the Soviet invasion of Poland (1939) and I since I made multiple proposals in search of the meaningful compromise I do not expect my tags removed lightly. --Irpen 01:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will you POV-title the French invasion of Russia (1812) and Mongol invasion of Rus, too? I am afraid I cannot take your actions seriously if you forget about those...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, note, that I not simply objected to the titles but made several proposal backed by sources and WP conventions. You counter it by an empty statement. Propose new titles and I will be happy to consider them. I view French invasion indeed non-optimal as the Grand-army was not purely French. --Irpen 04:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, we have replied to your sources and conventions with others. It has been shown that Muscovy is a very popular term for this period. Please, first rewrite article on Muscovy than start changing article names, and instead of showing one or two sources to support your thesis, show that majority of English language sources use Russia instaed of Muscovy for that period.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  12:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article's name continued[edit]

I suggest discussing the title of this article here. It is a totaly separate issue from splitting the article which formerly contained arbotraly pasted together two periods of Russian history into Grand Duchy of Moscow and Russian Tsardom.

As far as this article is concerned, I see three options. The former name (1), the current name (2) and the title which would include the words "Polish invasion" or "Polish intervention" (the latter has also many sources that support it). How this war is called elsewhere was analyzed at the talk above several times and I invite users to review the past analysis. Personally, I consider the current title to be just an OK one, "Polish intervention" being the most favored and the former title the least favored.

Should we start a straw poll? If someone just itches to return in to the Muscovy-containing russophobic name immediately, I will not interfere. The move was not made with salting the earth and since the talk page follows the article unobstructed, this should not affect the discussion. So, three options: M-word, R-word and i-word. Straw poll? --Irpen 04:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, if/when this gets moved again: the first en-dash in the title (between "Polish" and "Russian" at the moment) should really be a hyphen; en-dashes are not used for compound names of wars. I'm not moving it now because I'm not sure where this should end up; but please do change it when the time comes! Kirill Lokshin 05:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is a relic of the grand moving hysteria by User:Leandrod. Although some efforts at normalizing the titles have been made after my WP:ANI posting, I still encounter some problematic titles from time to time. --Ghirla -трёп- 16:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kirill for the sobering comment. But let's get back to the serious business :).

Perhaps the issue about the dash will be rendered moot as the article might end up at the Polish intervention in Russia which I think is the optimal name. Right, Piotrus? --Irpen 05:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intervention is certainly an NPOVed term, although I have two problems with this term. First: why Russia, not Muscovy? Second. It was mostly Lithuanian magnates that started the trouble (Dymitriads), and anyway I prefer to not forget about GDL if we can, so what about Polish-Lithuanian intervention in Muscovy? Not that I see it better than the current title, but I think I would not oppose such an RM.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not Muscovy, Piotrus. Muscovy is out of question. Not only it is offensive (see talk:Muscovy but also incorrect for the times post-Moscow Principality. --Irpen 18:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, first, please indulge me after a year or more of asking, and show me a reference which sais that 'Muscovy' is offensive. Second, how article is named on Wikipedia is not crucial to how it is reffered to in other places. As the new articles admit, Muscovy is often used for that latter period. For the same reason some peple abbrevate PLC to 'Polish/Poland' (although I personaly fight this habit), or more to the point, don't write 'in the times of History of Poland (1569-1795) but pipe or redirect this.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No straw polls, we have had enough problems with them at Jogaila article. WP:RM is simple. If you want to move it, and there is no majority support for the move from talk, start a RM and see if you can gather enough support. I reverted the move to the old name that was given community approval during the FAC process. PS. I will of course not object to a hyphen move, if somebody fixes double redirects and talk page templates. PS2. I am still looking for a single reference that would state that 'Muscovy' in a title is russophobic...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  13:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polish Intervention in the Time of Troubles seems to be unobjectionable. Russo-Polish War (1605-1618), like the current title, is not really accurate, and we already have Allied Intervention in the Russian Civil War for the other major Russian Civil War. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This indeed seems to be an optimal solution. --Ghirla -трёп- 16:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually as I have pointed above several times (and receive no responce, never), the 1605 date is problematic (1604 may be more correct), so perhaps getting read of the dates in the title is a good solution. Polish intervention in the Times of Troubles is a long name for the Dymitriads phase (but since 'Dymitriads' are not used in English much, I'll not campaign for it) - but note that the Time of Troubles ended in 1613, thus it would be a misleading name for the second part of the conflict.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I support getting rid of dates as well. Polish intervention in Russia would every of those issues. --Irpen 18:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of my knowledge, Dymitriad is not used at all. This conflict probably lacks a an obvious English-language name, and the same is true of most C17th Russo-Polish wars. Associating it with the Time of Troubles provides a context that other names do not, and most of the fighting falls into that period. Dymitriad would still be a redirect, and if that's the conventional name in a Polish-Lithuanian context, it can be used there. The first thing I'd think of for Polish intervention in Russia would be the other Civil War, but if that's a minority opinion I have no very strong objection to that name. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the Polish-Soviet War article notes that the conflic is called by some soruces as 'Polish intervention in Russia; this specific phrase should become a disambig between those two events, just as Soviet invasion of Poland is.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for the other civil war, Poland did not manage to reach any of the Russian proper. That was Polish invasion in Ukraine and Polish invasion in Belarus. So, Polish intervention in Russia best applies to this article. --Irpen 18:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only English-language book I could find which listed all the "Russo-Polish Wars" (the Osprey Polish Army books), referred to them as the Russo-Polish Wars. It disambiguated them by dates, but as I recall it said 1609-1619 for this. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that phase can be called a war, although 1618 is more correct - the 1619 is the same 'ceasefire than truce confusion' as Polish-Soviet War (fighting stops in 1618/1920, peace is signed a year later).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, did you change your mind or you still object to Russo-Polish War (1605-1618)? --Irpen 01:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RM.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is also WP:PRO. What's your problem? WP:RM is not required since this move can be accomplished without the administrative interference. Informal consensus of the concerned parties at talk is needed though. I am trying to gauge it. --Irpen 05:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. We have been discussing this move for months. What possibly could have made you thing there is any sort of consensus here? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  06:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am just asking. Some people change their minds. You are one of them. You said before that you don't object to such rename. Than you said later that you do. How difficult is to just say, whether you object to such a name now. Note that the article about the contemporary Russian state is now correctly called Russian Tsardom and the Grand Duchy of Moscow (Muscovy) took no part in the war. But that's aside. You think the RPW is a bad name, yes or no? --Irpen 06:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would object such a name because it was not Russia vs. Poland. In fact parts of Russia fought alongside Poland while other parts of Russia fought alongside Muscovy. //Halibutt 14:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Halibutt's statement, the most precise name would then be Polish intervention into the Russian Civil War (1605–1618). Would that be acceptable? --Irpen 19:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, first I would like to see an article on Russian Civil War (1605–1618). Article, not a redirect.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is already such article. I don't see your point though. --Irpen 21:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No response, huh? Are you merely filibustering or what? --Irpen 18:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Davies uses "Polish intervention in Moscow's 'Time of Troubles'". Appleseed (Talk) 18:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that makes more sence, but I am not sure if this is more elegant than our current title.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Polish intervention in Russia's Time of Troubles would be a good title. Anyone objecting seriously? --Irpen 01:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I believe that if we must change the current title, Polish intervention in Muscovy's Time of Troubles is better. And I wonder if our Lithuanian collegues will be happy with that, too...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, the article about the respective time in the Russian history is called the Russian Tsardom. Muscovy belongs to the Grand Duchy of Moscow which was over in the previous century. --Irpen 02:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out, Norman Davies uses "Moscow". Appleseed (Talk) 04:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are using the descriptive title here because if we go by the most common name, it would be the Polish invasion of Russia (see above). --Irpen 04:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that answers my question. Appleseed (Talk) 04:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What question? --Irpen 04:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why your proposed title is better than that of Davies (who uses "Moscow", while you insist on "Russia"). Appleseed (Talk) 04:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because Time of Troubles affected more than just Moscow but the whole country. Read an article for a start. --Irpen 04:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume Davies was referring to the entire country. From your borderline personal attack I take it that you don't have any concrete rebuttals. Appleseed (Talk) 05:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About a PA invocation, please be more specific in what exactly constitutes a PA or just cut this unwarranted civility talk. About Davies, are you saying that he thought the country's name was Moscow? --Irpen 05:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appleseed, never assume (ever heard of the "ass|u|me" principle? no offense, please). If this Davies refers to the entire country when he says Moscow, then he is an idiot, forgive me for saying that. KNewman 20:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunatly Norman Davies has more credibility than both of you combined.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget to add yourself to our credibility club. KNewman 20:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KNewman, I understood "Moscow" to mean "Muscovy", which even today is used to refer to Russia (check a dictionary). But you're right, my assumptions (I suppose that's all they are, since I don't have the book in front of me to verify them) have no place in determining the article title, and they weren't intended to. But I don't need to explain or defend Norman Davies. As for Irpen, perhaps he can direct his ungracious recommendation to "read an article for a start" (as if I had no idea what I was talking about) to the noted historian. Appleseed (Talk) 20:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of Muscovy and Russia according to Britannica and Columbia encyclopedias[edit]

Appleseed, I chastised you enough for wikilawyering and unwarranted invoking of civility issues. I will try just ignoring the empty talk and ask a direct question. Would you tell the scholars who called it Polish invasion of Russia to "read Davies" for a start? Try to tell it to, say, the authors of the articles in Britannica[11] which says:

  • "[...]Sigismund, changing his mind, demanded direct personal control of Russia and continued the Polish invasion (autumn 1610). This finally stimulated the Russians to rally and unite against the invader."

Also, do not forget to tell this to the authors of the Columbia Encyclopedia article[12] where we find:

  • "During the “Time of Troubles” (1598–1613), [Pozharsky] fought against the Poles, who, taking advantage of unstable political conditions, had invaded Russia. In 1611 he took command of a national militia formed on the initiative of the merchant Kuzma Minin of Nizhny Novgorod. With his improvised army he marched on Moscow (1612) and drove out the Poles, ending the effort of King Sigismund III to subjugate Russia."

Note not only the Rus-word but also an inv-word there. So, based on this, should we go back to the Polish invasion title proposal? Now, just say plainly what is your problem with using the Rus-word in the title?

So, are you still claiming that there is no enough scholarly use to justify Russia in the title? Please try to answer a question and stay on topic. Unwarranted civility and gratuity talk is unhelpful. TIA, --Irpen 09:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, please stop turning your incivility and condescension around on me and "chastising" me, it's becoming tiresome.
This article made it to FA with its current title. The onus is on you to prove that "Polish invasion of Russia (date)" is a better and more commonly used name for this event. That does not mean extracting various permutations of the words in your proposed title ("Russians", "invader", "invaded Russia") from your sources and declaring that they support your proposal. Allow me to demonstrate how this should be done. Here is one source that supports your title. If you wish to change the article name, please find more sources like that. Appleseed (Talk) 20:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring OT stuff as promised, the current proposal is not Polish invasion of Russia. For now, I suggest merely Russo-Polish (1605–1618). This title first both as a descriptive name and is used in literature to refer to the conflict. Please state the objections if there are. (Oh, and please no tricks of turning this red link into a redirect with a history). --Irpen 04:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already provided you with an explanation for that page move, which I made in good faith to correct a small error. If you continue to accuse me of "tricks", I shall consider it an act of bad faith on your part. Appleseed (Talk) 15:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Irpen, this page has 100kb of objections or more for your proposals. And yet after a year-long discussion where dozens of editors tell you 'no, we object' you still ask if there are any objections? No, honestly you think there may be none? For the future record, unless I say 'support' please treat the absence of my comment on this page during move discussions as 'objects to the move without RM'. EOT for me.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, please as a personal favor to me explain why you object to Russo-Polish war even if you have done that and I did not see. TIA, --Irpen 05:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right. 1) I believe Muscovy is more appopriate for that era and 2) have not seen any reference to back up the point that it is offensive 3) although I will grant sources are split on Tsardom of Russia/Grand Duchy of Muscovy for that period they are not favoring Russia (the split was 50/50 IIRC) and thus Muscovy is a better term for this period for disambig purposes. Sure, years serve the same purpose but why not make sure the name is as unconfusing as possible? Lasty, I don't understand why won't you simply call an RM - we are repeating the same arguments for years(!) now...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I showed above that both Britannica and Columbia say that Muscovy is applicable up to mid-16th century. So, Muscovy is actually more rather than less confusing. I view your demanding WP:RM as mere filibustering. But you win, I will make a formal motion 'cause you and Appleseed deliberately obstruct this and leave me with no choice. --Irpen 05:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more source for this discussion - Dictionary of Wars by George C. Kohn (Revised edition, July 1999) names this war "Russo-Polish War of 1609-1618" - this book is the best one-volume encyclopedia of military conflict. Really it's very strange to see old and never commonly used (in history science) term Muscovy in Wikipedia. This term is often used in political discussions whem smb would like to offence Russia but WIKI should be an encyclopedia, not newspaper --Ioakinf 16:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The title of this article is offensive. The only reason why some Polemical Polish editors use the term "Muscovy" is to try and delegitimize the rulers of Russia at the time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 02:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Is anyone objecting to moving this to Russo-Polish War (1605–1618)? Just checking. --Irpen 02:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[13].-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 02:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was months ago. My question is whether anyone still objects. Please answer for yourself. Do you object to such name? --Irpen 02:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to move this. Robert I. Frost, who is one of the major contemporary historians of this subject area, uses the term "Muscovy" and "Muscovite" when discussing this conflict in his The Northern Wars: 1558-1721 (Longman, 2000). In his preface, he notes "I have used the term 'Muscovy' to refer to the Russian state until 1667, when the acquisition of the right-bank Ukraine and Kiev marked the start of the transition to the modern Russian empire". --Folantin 10:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


What about GDL? Xx236 (talk) 09:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Polish-Russian war, not Muscovite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B-class review[edit]

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)[reply]

Unhelpful picture[edit]

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)[reply]

The colors are also misleading, if the legend is any indication. Most of the pink areas immediately to the east of Kiev were part of the Polish Kingdom (and of the Grand-Duchy of Lithuania before 1569) and were not part of the territories gained by the Commonwealth as part of the wars in the title of the article. On this map, the boundary between white and pink areas from approximately Kiev to the south are the boundaries set at the Treaty of Andrusovo in 1667 and which remained the eastern boundary of the Commonwealth in Ukraine until the Partition of 1772 (Zigoto). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prior rivalry between Poland and Russia[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 07:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Borovsk[edit]

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)[reply]

Suggestion to change the article title[edit]

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/.

I propose renaming the article to Polish–Russian War (1605–1618). Please note that such a title exists in almost all translations of this article; it is named as such in Russian, and in Polish as well. To summarize, the title may be politicized and clearly does not reflect either the tone of the article or the realities of that time. PawelSULKUL (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:RM to initiate this. I would suggest to also look at WP:CRITERIA and then to make an argument based on this. Mellk (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking again to remember that the "Polish-Russian War" is how this event is known in Russian, Polish, and other languages on wiki, which I believe captures what we're talking about accurately. The alternatives I've seen, like "Polish intervention in Russia" or during Russia's Time of Troubles, don't seem right. They're not neutral and don't fit the article's tone. I hope we can all see the importance of keeping the title consistent across languages, without leaning towards titles that could mislead or politicize the historical facts.
I'd like to change the title of the article, I'm not sure how I could do that, apparently I should create a new article with the correct title, move it completely there, and propose this one for deletion? I'm afraid that it might affect other languages, I've never done it before and I'm a little afraid of messing it up)). I understand that the article will not be deleted without a vote, but still I do not understand the process well PawelSULKUL (talk) 10:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PCM. Also please self-revert, this change should not be made until after a successful requested move. Mellk (talk) 10:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 April 2024[edit]

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)[reply]

Polish–Muscovite Wars (1605–1618)Polish–Russian War (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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please provide evidence that these conflict are primarily referred to by the proposed name, the sources in the article tend to use 'Moscovy' slightly more that 'russia'—blindlynx 00:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also i'm not clear on why the articles you linked are relevant, could you please clarify?—blindlynx 00:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 12 June 2024[edit]

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 to Polish-Russian War (1609–1618). (closed by non-admin page mover) PadFoot (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polish–Russian War (1605–1618)Russo-Polish War (1609–1618) – Sources tend to put the start date of the war to 1609 [16][17], when there was a declaration of war, excluding invasions in the preceding years. This is also consistent with ru:Русско-польская война (1609—1618) and pl:Wojna polsko-rosyjska (1609–1618), as well as consistent with Russo-Polish War (1654–1667). Mellk (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom
Gvssy (talk) 10:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: Clear consensus to change the data; relist to allow additional discussion on "Russo-Polish war" BilledMammal (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that this article combines two concepts that overlap. The series of two Polish military interventions conducted for control over Russia in the years around 1604-1609 is called "Dymitriads". It is difficult to indicate the unambiguous end of the second Dimitriad, but it certainly did not last longer than 1610. The Polish-Russian war of 1609-1618 is a direct consequence and extension of the Dimitriads and this article covers both of these periods, which means that after changing the date in the title to 1609-1618 half of the issue will be artificially orphaned. These concepts have their own articles on the Polish and Russian Wikipedias. As for the order, I believe that regardless of whether we use alphabetical order, cultural/geographical proximity, or simply put the side that made the first move first, the name remains "Polish-Russian war" in any case. Utryss (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can move pre-1609 to a background section. Mellk (talk) 07:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Earlier there was a Polish-Cossack-Lithuanian victory and now it has been seen after the match, for what reason it was changed? Poland and Lithuania literally won this war and weakened Russia. AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 07:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your action here, or ask the administration to intervene @Mellk. You change the result without stating why, despite it being a Polish-Lithuanian victory AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 09:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The aftermath does not say it was a Polish victory, it simply says: In the end, Sigismund did not succeed in becoming tsar or in securing the throne for Władysław, but he was able to expand the Commonwealth's territory. The infobox is supposed to the summarize the article, which is why I linked WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, so you can simply say you do not understand the policy without mentioning that you will be "forced to ask the adminsitration". Mellk (talk) 22:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This source mentions that the Poles invaded to secure the claim the throne for themselves, but they had to abandon this, while achieving only some territorial gains. I do not see much evidence that the common viewpoint is that this war was ultimately a Polish success, rather a mixed result. Mellk (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But this was not the purpose of the war fought with Russia, the real purpose was to exploit Russia's weaknesses during the Dmitry, it was the private affairs of the ruler, it is worth noting that the author he mentions and even in the article it is said "Poland exploited Russia's civil wars when powerful members of the Polish szlachta began influencing Russian boyars and supporting imposters to the throne for the title of tsar of Russia against the crowned Boris Godunov and Vasili IV Shuysky. In 1605, Polish nobles conducted a series of skirmishes until the death of False Dmitry I in 1606, and invaded again in 1607 until Russia formed a military alliance with Sweden two years later. The king of Poland, Sigismund, declared war on Russia in response in 1609, aiming to gain territorial concessions and weaken Sweden's ally, winning many early victories such as the Battle of Klushino. In 1610, Polish forces entered Moscow and Sweden withdrew from the military alliance with Russia, instead triggering the Ingrian War" AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]