Talk:Treaty of Nöteborg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] The names

Why do we give Finnish a priority here just because these cities are part of Finland today? This was a treaty between Swedan and the Novgorod Republic. Khoikhoi 00:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Because these are the official names.

"Official names" today do not matter in historical contexts. We don't call Siege of Leningrad the Siege of Saint Petersburg, do we? Should we replace Konigsberg with Kaliningrad in the articles about the Teutonic Order? Please consult WP:NC for naming conventions used in Wikipedia. Those who disrupt the guideline will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That page seems so long. I don't see anything there saying official names cannot be used. Could you be more specific? --Atabata

Naming conventions apply to the names of pages, not the descriptions of things on the page. There aren't any guidelines I can think of on the latter, but presumably the most commonly used names for the places/events described make sense. That is, we would not title a page Siege of Saint Petersburg because that isn't the name the event was known by... but we would, and do, refer to current events on that page by the modern 'Saint Petersburg' and historical events by the 'Leningrad' name of that time. In any case, both modern and past names ought to be noted. --CBD 12:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Your understanding of policy is deficient. Saying that Kant was born in Kaliningrad is nonsense. Saying that Kant was born in Konigsberg (Kaliningrad) is not wikipedian, because the link to Konigsberg will anyway lead our readers to Kaliningrad. Please check Talk:Gdansk/Vote for a wider context. I would appreciate more thoughtfulness in comments on issues of such importance. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You apparently didn't understand what I was saying. For your Immanuel Kant example... my comments above would lead to sentences like, 'Kant was born in Konigsberg (now Kaliningrad)' but 'Kant's tomb can be found in Kaliningrad'. The historical name for the historical event (his birth) and the modern name for current issues (location of his tomb). Which... is consistent with what that article actually does, the Gdansk discussion you link above, and usual practice. --CBD 13:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

As one of the most experienced editors of Wikipedia, I may tell you that "now Kaliningrad" part would be removed by anon editors who think that such disclaimers are redundant with our system of redirects. And they would be correct. This is not a paper encyclopaedia. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

As someone who knows how to use an edit history I can tell you that it has been there since the start of this year. :] --CBD 14:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyways, just because the city is called Turku today, does not mean that we should write history backwards. Ironically, in this edit, Atabata changed the name to "Turku", but also linked to the redirect Viipuri, rather than where the page actually lies (and the official name for the city), Vyborg. If we're going to apply standards somewhere, we should do it for all the names, not to have it in a way where the the world revolves around Finland. As I said before, why give the Finnish names priority? The Swedish names are no less important. Khoikhoi 04:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so the city was "100%" Finnish at the time, so what? Does that stop the fact that it was part of Sweden? Khoikhoi 02:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It's population was Finnish, it was in Finland and the population spoke Finnish -> Finnish name. --Jaakko Sivonen 02:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions don't work that way, see WP:NC. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 02:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

That is how they work in a neutral Encyclopedia, I guess this isn't one. Using Swedish and Russian names = supporting imperialism. --Jaakko Sivonen 02:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to fight with the injustice of the past. Your definition of "neutral" doesn't fit here. Pavel Vozenilek 05:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Jaakko would care to tell us which enclyclopedia in English that refers to Vyborg as Viipuri. As has been explained many times, applying the same principles to all placenames is neutral and encyclopedic. Inserting Finnish names and changin the motives according to one's own agenda is neither neutral nor encyclopedia. Unfortunately Jaakko and Atabata have practiced the latter. JdeJ 11:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vyborg / Viborg / Viipuri

I modified the strange-looking naming conventions in the article before noticing related discussion here. I think it is proper to use the names currently approved as the official ones in Wikipedia, unless really required otherwise. I do not see that exceptions should be made here. Wikipedia uses the name "Vyborg" for the city. If there is a conflict over the name of the city, that discussion should be held at Talk:Vyborg. --Drieakko 18:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Very good reason to use the same naming convention everywhere is already the fact that if someone is searching for information in Wikipedia on a certain subject, he can be confident on getting it all using the name officially declared by Wikipedia. Complicating Wikipedia's role as an effective encyclopedia is just not welcome. --Drieakko 18:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KhoiKhoi has lost his mind

He is on a rampage reverting every edit he sees.[1] How is this non-neutral? It mentions both Finnish and Swedish names as a compromise (although only Finnish names should be used). I really think you should get a life and seek professional help. --Jaakko Sivonen 07:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop personal comments. User:Khoikhoi is completely right. --Drieakko 07:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrong --Jaakko Sivonen 07:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Please say how is this not neutral?[2] --Jaakko Sivonen 07:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You have that issue commented right above this thread. Also since you claim in your edit comments that your motivating factor behind your actions is that you "will not accept Russian occupation and pro-Russky vandalism nor Svecomania in Wikipedia." your edits can not be considered neutral. --Drieakko 07:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)