Talk:Russo-Swedish War (1741–1743)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Russia Portal Russo-Swedish War (1741–1743) is part of the WikiProject Russian history, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian history. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

An entry from Russo-Swedish War (1741–1743) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 8th May, 2006.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

[edit] Finnish place names in a contemporary English text

Please read these United Nations toponymic guidelines for Finland: [1]. In essence: "In foreign languages, names of monolingual areas should appear in the form they have in the official language of those areas (for instance fi Iisalmi, sv Mariehamn), unless there are no other established names in the languages in question. In bilingual areas, the names in the majority language should be preferred (for instance fi Helsinki, Turku, Vaasa; sv Jakobstad, Nykarleby, Pargas, Ekenäs.)" This recommendation is not changed by the fact that in Finland Finnish only gained an equal status with Swedish in 1892. The article is CONTEMPORARY and so the UN guidelines are recommendable even when dealing with matters of the past. NOTE: the name Vyborg has been used correctly here (Russian ortography, not the Swedish one, Viborg, or the Finnish one, Viipuri, although at the time in question the city's "official" name was Viborg). Clarifer 14:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Let the UN use its own recommendations. Wikipedia has its own naming conventions. As the most general rule, we use historic names: for instance Kaliningrad is always called Konigsberg in pre-1945 contexts and Gdansk is always Danzig. I don't see why we should make an exception in this particular case. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

In historic articles the same names should be used that are used in the literature devoted to history of these events. As pointed out above, no one uses "Kaliningrad" in historic books about pre-1945, even the modern books. As per the same rule, the historic names should be used in Wikipedia for an articles that write about the past events, rather than the modern town's history. See for instance Treaty of Åbo article in Britannica. --Irpen 17:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not logical usage and results in historical multiplicity (I.e. many stories for one thing). There is no sense in writing e.g. about Irish history and use Irish toponyms for pre-English time periods, then suddenly - in the same article - switch to English names and then again use Irish names for later toponyms. What is usually done is a) use the contemporary name and b) state how and why the toponym has changed throughout history. Let's take the city of Vyborg. There's absolutely NO SENSE whatsoever to first start to talk about Viborg, then suddenly switch to using the name Viipuri and lastly suddenly start talking about Vyborg. See any history book for this. What is usually done in such a case is a) constantly talk about Vyborg (the current name) and b) state that the city was founded as Viborg and was also once known as Viipuri. In this particular article, the toponyms should be determined by the current usage and this is NOT against the usual way to write a history article (quite the contrary). As to Kaliningrad (history again and UNDERSTANDING it). The toponym is new compared to Königsberg and the two have never existed side by side. This is totally different with Irish/English or Finnish/Swedish toponyms. All of the toponyms used in this article have Swedish and Finnish names which are about equally old. The only difference is that Finnish language didn't have a similar degree of officiality as Swedish did during the time in question. And no, I do not agree with writing two histories for Istanbul and Constantinople either as they are the same thing. They should be merged into ONE history for ONE ENTITY. And here Wikipedia is tested. Clarifer 15:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahem, now that I've read both the Istanbul and the Constantinople article through I see that indeed, in the article on Istanbul the Greek history has indeed been included as is proper so neither article is completely hopeless... Clarifer 15:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly so. The Istanbul article says "See Constantinople for a more detailed history before the Ottoman Turkish conquest of 1453. ". It is customary in wikipedia to split long articles into shorter ones. For example, we have Imperial Russia, RSFSR, Russia, although it is the same territory (under different politics). `'mikka (t) 15:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions. I think you will have questions about naming other things as well. Our case is in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). Your concern is understandable, but in wikipedia the problem of different names is alleviated by the fact that wikilinks are cheap, and any "historical multiplicity", if detected, is easy to correct. Personally, I think usage of different names in different contexts increases the historical awareness of readers, which is a good thing for modern readers. For example, having several names in the eyes in many places actually helps to detect and correct the abovementioned "historical multiplicity". This was not so for printed books. Please think how many changes in habits have been introduced by internet, hypertext, and other modern wonders. `'mikka (t) 15:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I read the naming conventions articles and couldn't find anything that would settle the disagreement here. I still disagree in a multiple of ways. Using anacronistic (not modern) toponyms tends to make things more complicated in certain cases and does NOT help the reader to see the historical perspective (e.g. using Vyborg in 'the Castle of Vyborg' in an English article makes the article more objective, serious and trustworthy than using Viipuri or Viborg) no matter of the time period. I can see how Constantinople is used in historic contexts as the name Istanbul is a recent one and there was a period in time where the place was not at all known by that name. The same logic holds true for Gdansk-Danzig and Kaliningrad-Königsberg (this is a question of historical events and understanding them). Using the Swedish place name in a contemporary English text of Finland's geography is not a similar case. I repeat: In the context of Irish and Finnish place names BOTH (when talking about municipalities) are equally old and have been used side-by-side for centuries. The only difference between these municipal names is that one language enjoyed more officiality than the other. Indeed, in the case of Finnish place names the naming convention should be based on the municipal majority language (as recommended by the UN) and NOT the fact that Finnish wasn't an official language of Finland until 1892. What is your argument for using the Swedish place names in Finnish (and Swedish) history in a non-Swedish non-Finnish language environment? Clarifer 11:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Using a toponym of the linguistic minority language is (at least close to) POV and in any case unnecessery

Just as it would be strange e.g. to use the name Freiburg (German) for Fribourg (French) in an English article or to use Dutch place names in Wallonian contexts, it is also strange to use Swedish place naming with regard to Finland for municipalities that have Finnish as the majority language. May I point out that it would also be POV to use the name Pietarsaari for Jakobstad where Swedish is a majority language. Also, Korppoo would be false as Korpo is the Swedish name for it. Again, if we follow the logic of the writers of this article, why is the city of Vyborg named Vyborg and not Viborg then? I don't seem to understand the logic in the toponymic usage in these articles and I find the current usage highly questionnable and selective. Moreover, so far nothing in Wikipedia's conventions support the usage of Swedish place names for Finland's municipalities that have Finnish as the majority language. Even in historical contexts. Clarifer 15:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The article as of now is a mess with all the parenthesized place names, e.g, Turku (Åbo). I am no expert on Finland but as far as I know a lot of the place names in question were founded by Swedes, and since Finland didn't exist as a country back then it would be more proper to use the Swedish name. Then again, that could confuse modern readers who aren't aware of the historical background. As I understand it, it's a pretty sensitive issue where Swedish speaking people would be offended if Finnish place names are used - and vice versa. I can't agree with the usage of parentheses though as it doesn't look very encyklopedic so something has to be done. Redeem

I agree. This guy Clarifier, who introduced the same mess into Finnish War, instead of clarifying the article, uglified it. He should recollect that Wikipedia uses redirects, therefore there is no need to abuse brackets at all. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

A country does not need to be independent to be a country, nor does it matter did the Swedes find cities or not. --88.114.254.169 00:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where this is leading to but I've thought about this and still think that the best approach when writing about history is primarily making use of the contemporary toponymy if the place name is equally old in the candidate versions (if a person reflects upon the usage he can just as easily be directed to the relevant article explaining it or the history behind it). For people not used to a multilingual country the issue seems difficult. A multilingual country uses it's own principles when dealing with these issues (e.g. majority language street name above, minority language street name below in signs). I cannot understand why Wikipedia couldn't reflect this usage. 1. It is true that most municipalities in Finland were organized and cities founded and therefore officially named during the period in time when the current area we now call Finland was ruled from Stockholm. 2. It is also true that every new Swedish municipal name had a Finnish version from the first founding moment onwards at the latest as in most of Finland the majority (the common people) was Finnish speaking. E.g. the city of Villmanstrand was founded in the 17th century on a market place in Lapvesi (parish founded in the 15th century) -> Lapvedenranta -> Lappeenranta. 3. This makes BOTH names about equally old even though Villmanstrand, of course, was the name used in "official" (=Swedish speaking) communication. 4. Therefore, the question emerges: Why should a text written NOW in a language OTHER than Finnish or Swedish use explicitly the Swedish version of a place name in Finland? 5. Taking this into a larger context: who knows what the (actual) founders or rulers of controversial places like Jericho, Jerusalem etc. called them? The principle of changing place names according to their official character during different era is therefore NOT a very good basis and makes history clustered especially in cases where the candidate names are about equally old or their history unknown/controversial. Wouldn't the easiest and the most objective approach here be to make use of the CONTEMPORARY usage? Clarifer 11:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hamina and Lappeenranta as names were used already back then. Today, they are the known names in English. We are not writing a Swedish encyclopedia here, but an English one. Finlandais 15:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Very few toponyms in Finland do not have a Finnish language equivalent that is not equally old to a Swedish language toponym. Writing about history will become impossible if one first needs to check the official toponym for each time period first. With regard to writing about Finland's history, using the majority language toponym (be it Swedish or Finnish) is a far more justifiable principle than using toponymy according to its official character over different time periods. Can I ask Ghirlandajo: on what grounds do you use VYborg instead of VIborg here? An example: I just watched a BBC documentary about a Celtic rebellion against the Romans in England. Londinium, the Roman official toponym of the time, was used ONCE (in the beginning like: "London, known as Londinium at the time,....") and 99% of the time they spoke about London which is the name given to the city by the natives and which is how the city is known today. I think such usage is more typical for history discussion if both toponyms are about equally old or the history if the toponym is unknown. Clarifer 14:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally I'd use the historical name (of the major language at the time) and wikilink to the municipalities of today via pipered links, though the matter is fairly complicated. Back in 1997 the "Research Institute for the Languages of Finland" wrote an article (English) and recommendation (only in Swedish) on how to refer to places in Finland in other languages than Finnish & Swedish. In a nutshell, their recommendation is like the UN one. Still, as far as recommendations goes, they apply nicely to articles on municipalities etc. (á la Turku, Swedish: Åbo) but leave the issue of names in a historical context unresolved.

While I'd prefer to use historical names for locations, nations and whatnot, one must understand that the Finnish situation is very complex and both language groups feature "passionate" people who are easily provoked. At any rate, a possible sound approach would be to include both Finnish and Swedish names in the article in order to educate readers, despite the cluttering. Or make an article on historical placenames in Finland and include a link in a note to the page in all articles related to historical Finland (like some articles point out that the German Graf in a person's name means count, example). Scoo 11:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

A historical name is not the same as "an official name". Please consider the concequences of applying past usages contemporarily in an attempt of over-correctness. What would that mean e.g. in the case of South-Africa (sorry for the exaggerated example but I want to make a point here)? Swedish was never a majority language in Finland and it was rarely a municipal majority language even though a language shift has occured. What is more significant: no exact data remains of the past linguistic distribution, we only know the contemporary percentages for sure. However, the municipal linguistic distribution seems to have remained fairly stabile. Most people in Finland have always spoken and still speak Finnish though the officiality of languages has changed through history (Swedish, Russian, Finnish). Please take a while and look into Finland's history before making such proposals. The recommendations by BOTH the UN and the Kotus (the Research Institute for the Languages of Finland[2]) are not changed by the fact that Finnish wasn't an official language (though the MAJORITY language) in Finland before the year 1892. It would be absolutely ridiculous to speak of Abo before 1892 and suddenly of Turku after that only because of the officiality. (What is known is that in Koroinen, the original trading post, and in Turku, the later city, the oldest stratum of toponyms is Finnish whatever the trading post's "official" name originally was). Please inform yourself on this, ok? You can compare the situation with that in Ireland if it helps at all. This has little to do with passions, it's just boring realism. What applies to multilingual countries such as Belgium, Switzerland, Canada, Ireland etc. etc. should also apply in the case of Finland. Nothing more, nothing less. Clarifer 12:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you read a bit too much between the lines.. ;) (I'm quite aware of the history of Finland and the Finnish language, thank you). I'd still suggest implementation of some kind of notice template directing readers to an article that would inform readers on naming conventions and different geographical names in say Finnish and Swedish, all in the intent of informing say a reader from New Zealand who might stumble upon articles such as this one. Going off topic, you're quite right regarding the scarceness (or less than reliable) linguistic sources (if memory serves, parish priests were to report on the linguistic outlook of their parish in some of the parishes surrounding Turku in the 18th century. Still their instructions were quite vague {i.e. how to measure how good a person know either language} and they pretty much made up their own minds of when someone could be described as a fluent speaker etc.) Scoo 19:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by reading between the lines. I do think that it is time to try and start a dialogue on a) all this "historical multiplicity" in wrong places that Wikipedia seems confronted with, b) how a multilingual country works and c) the case of Finland in particular. I agree that an informative article would be in order if not even trying to settle on an entry here Wikipedia:Naming conventions or here Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) regarding Finland's toponymy. (while for some reason it seems clear that in an English text, even on history, one speaks of Fribourg and not of Freiburg - the Swiss city being bilingual - it seem less clear that one also should speak of Turku and not of Abo or Jakobstad and not Pietarsaari in a non-Swedish non-Finnish language context.) Clarifer 06:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Finnish name

of the war itself is hattujen sota (War of the Hats), Lesser Wrath, in Finnish pikkuviha was the Russian occupation period during the war. --Jaakko Sivonen 17:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)