Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Livonian War/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Nikkimaria 14:35, 11 April 2011 [1].

Livonian War

edit

Livonian War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it represents a vital article in terms of Estonian history, and an important one within the context of Eastern European history. I believe the content to be of a high enough standard for nomination in terms of historical coverage and accuracy (references are mostly to authors with articles here on WP), and think the prose is perhaps short of "brilliant" but does not represent a problem of great magnitude - and copy-edit problems are hard to find without the well-practised fine-tooth comb of FA. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • Earwig's tool found no copyvio, will hopefully do spotchecks later
  • Is Oakley 1992 or 1993?
  • Make sure to include the accent on Dybaś
  • Page ranges should use endashes and use a consistent notation
  • Publisher for Russian Annals?
  • Page numbers and publisher for Karamzin?
  • Madaringa or De Madariaga? Check for other inconsistencies and errors
  • Lots of little formatting niggles - doubled periods, inconsistent spacing and punctuation, etc. Check for consistency
  • No citations to Dybaś 2009 or Brockhaus and Efron
  • Publisher for Solovyov?
  • Location for Stevens? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've believed I've covered the "Oakley" "Dybaś" "page notation" "Madariaga" "Stevens" and some niggles I found. I do have a couple of questions: is having sources that aren't used a problem? Dybaś appears to be a general work covering the topic; the Brockhaus and Efron is a public-domain-inclusion-plagurism notice (although not much of the original text is left). Solovyov and Karamzin are old publications, should I include a particular recent publisher for verifyability purposes? Thanks Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that are complete sentences should end with periods
  • File:Livonia_in_1534_(Engilsh).PNG - was a base map used to create this, or is it completely original? What PD source or data was used to create it?
  • Same questions for File:Campaigns_of_Stefan_Batory_(1578-82).png
  • File:Polacak,_1579.jpg - what does "NN" signify? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments on comprehensiveness and neutrality

The article does not discuss the Dano-Swedish conflict until the 18th century: the aftermath section mentions Bromsebrö (1645) as the last event, because then Denmark finally lost her last foothold in Estonia. With respect to Swedish and Polish-Lithuanian interests in Livonia, Oliva (1660) did nothing but confirm the situation before the 1655/60 war, which had not changed since the establishment of Swedish Livonia and the treaty of Altmark (which is mentioned in the article) some decades before - the only argument for inclusion would be that in Oliva, the great powers explicitely reckognized the power relations in Livonia. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough reason to link the treaty there.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I find the following fragment potentially not-neutral/biased: "North of the Düna, Stefan Batory denied the inhabitants of the Duchy of Livonia many privileges granted by Sigismund II Augustus in 1561, since he regarded the territories re-gained at Jam Zapolski as his war booty. The traditional Baltic German administration and jurisdiction was gradually impaired by the establishment of voivodeships, the appointment of Royal officials, and the replacement of German with Polish as administrative language". Sources used are in German, and German historiography has a history of bias against Poland (and vice versa). In particular the assertion that transition from German to Polish administrative system was "impairing" sounds dubious (I'd suggest changing "impaired by" to "transformed"). I'd like to see quotation and translations of those sources, and preferably, addition of English sources to verify them. Finally, while the above fragment gives some insight on the treatment of those territories by the PLC, the article does not discuss the corresponding treatment by the Swedish Empire. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sentences quoted by you are based on Dybaś, Bogusław (2006) and Tuchtenhagen, Ralph (2005). Since your ethnicity-based argument probably does not refer to Dybaś - do you really accuse Tuchtenhagen (2005) of bias against Poland because of his alleged German nationality?!
  • Tuchtenhagen (vita, google translate) is one of the best experts you can get for Livonia during the Early Modern Era, which is his main field of study. He has worked as a professor in this field at several universities, is a member of several respective scientific circles (e.g. Baltic History Commission) and publisher / co-publisher of several scientific journals, etc; cf de:Ralph Tuchtenhagen (google translate).
  • The cited book, "History of the Baltic States", is a compendium, i.e. factual and reflecting scholary consensus.
  • The cited book is part of the series "Becksche Reihe" published by C. H. Beck - i.e. it is part of a series of standard reference works published by a renowned publishing house.
It is disturbing that you argue that this excellent modern expert source should be treated as biased based on nothing but the alleged ethnicity of its author. That should not be an issue even if the author did not have that many credentials in international colloaboration as Tuchtenhagen. Scholary sources need to be evalued by the education and reputation of their authors, the only legitimate nationality-related evaluation is to check whether the author is bound to/works under some kind of authoritarian regime and is thus influenced by state ideology/propaganda/censorship - but again that has nothing to do with natinality/ethnicity per se. The book was first published in 2005 Germany, not in 1941. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the accusations are likely either, but I think you're coming over a bit strong here Skäpperöd; any source's validity and truthfullness is open to legimate question, but not necessarily guilty of a particular deed. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Polacy na Łotwie by Edward Walewander 1993 describes the situation in more detail. Tuchtenhagen is available online on google books and initial glance at the book suggests to me that some portions of information were omitted while others cherry picked. It does however seem that Tuchtenhagen a somewhat critical view of Poles, somewhat resembling the pro-Protestantism bias encountered sometimes in German historiography when describing the religious conflicts in that area of Europe. This is perfectly valid viewpoint, but needs to be marked as such and counterbalanced by other viewpoints that hold opposite view. Walewander for example notes that some churches taken by Catholics were actually restored to them, after being taken by Protestants. Of course probably all writers on this subject are somewhat biased, so we can't determine truth here, but have to present opinions regarding this.In any case more can be copied from Tuchtangen and others to ensure that the description isn't one sided as it is now(fr instance Tuchtangen also notes overall atmosphere of religious conflict, and attacks by Protestants as well).--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think Molobo above addresses the problems quite clearly. I don't think Tuchtenhagen is particularly biased, it is more of a "how certain arguments from his book were stressed and others, ignored." In particular, the critique of Batory does not seem that relevant to the article. I see no such critique of others (=UNDUE), and as I mentioned before - and I am still waiting for a reply to that - the article does not discuss the treatment of people and territories by other powers (more UNDUE). The critique of Batory seems to be relatively unfair, too. The article does not mention that Batory introduced Countereformation to the entire Commonwealth - he did not single out Prussia, as it is implied. The article does not mention that the Countereformation in Poland was relatively mild, that Batory supported the existence of multiple churches (instead it creates the impression that Batory brought religious intolerance and decline), that change of administration, post-war, was a common practice (it is almost as one would write: "Batory, in his war efforts, was responsible for death of many." - doh!). Leafing through this book, quickly, with a German-speaking colleague, and through another one online, I can point out such phrases as "But generally speaking, the Polish monarchs, especially Stefan Batory were primarily concerned with the economic development of the conquered territories". Yet this is not present in the article, and he agreed with me that the book almost seems to have been used to cherry-pick criticism of Batory (and the Commonwealth), and left all other views out. The Polish nobility remained there "...strong for the next three hundred years", but the article does not mention this, and seems to suggest that those territories were primarily Swedish or German. "Southern Livonia remained with Poland until the partitions" - yet the article implies that Sweden gained the entire territory. I could go on, but overall I am not impressed with the way Commonwealth is marginalized in the article, Batory is being singled out as some villain or an incompetent leader, and so on. Overall, I have growing and serious doubts about this article being neutral. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Originally a compact, self-sufficiant, unconquerable military colony in the midst of savage and jarring barbarians" do we need to propagate outdated stereotypes with obviously POV quotes from early XX century ? The quote in question comes from 1905, and I believe represents a stereotype image of victims of Teutonic Order's aggression that is no longer represented in modern history. I suggest removing or trimming this quote so we can avoid such portrayal of these people.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The source isn't 19th century, but 20th century; it was reprinted by the Cambridge University press in 1971. It remains a standard work in this field, as clear by the occurence of the book. Whilst he may well be wrong, he cannot be dismissed with the distain you embody.I will, of course, look to change the quotation as I do think it needs a more modern approach. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are other points made in the pl wiki article that seem relevant, yet are not included in our article:
    • that the Livonian nobility wanted to join the Commonwealth to obtain the extensive rights and privileges of the Polish nobility (the word szlachta is not mentioned in our article at al). The article does mention that "When the Livonian Confederation turned to the Polish-Lithuanian union for protection in the Treaty of Pozvol..." but it fails to elaborate on why (in particular, why did the LC turned to P-L instead of Sweden or Russia?). Oh, and the term Livonian Confederation should be ilinked and explained on its first appearance in the article, neither of which happens.
    • pl wiki implies that before the Treaty of Pozvol, there was a treaty/alliance between the Order and the Muscovite Tsar, intended by the Order's Master as a way to waeken the political opposition in Livonia, that backfired, galvanized support for the Polish faction, and resulted in widespread unrest. Our article makes no mention of that.
    • The discussion of the Treaty of Vilnius (1561) should mention rights and privileges the Livionian territories gained (such as guarantee of religious tolerance), not just what territories were given to whom.
    • When discussing election of Polish kings, the article on free election should be linked
    • "Much of Lithuania, still annoyed at the permanent union with Poland, wished to elect Ivan IV..." - cite
    • According to pl wiki, in 1568 Poland allied itself with Sweden, and Moscow, with Denmark. This article is unclear about the first, and seems not to mention the second event. This important alliance change needs to be clarified.
    • Description of the Treaty of Stettin should be expanded, with regards to what it meant for Denmark, Russia and the Commonwealth (even if some countries like the Commonwealth were not parties of the treaty, it nonetheless stabilized the situation and implicitly recognized parts of the disputed territories as theirs)
    • War of the Polish Succession (1587–1588) should be linked as it is discussed in text
    • The article confusingly first mentions the Treaty of Jam Zapolski and then the Truce of Jam Zapolski. This should be standardized and reorganized to avoid the confusion.
All to "truce". [Grandiose]
    • "It was a humiliation for the Tsar, in part because he was the one requesting it" - cite
    • As I mentioned earlier, the Treaty of Oliva should be mentioned.
    • I'd like to see foreign language sources clearly marked as such in the bibliography with {{de icon}} and others, if appropriate
Question: German language sources are marked by the |language=German field and thus in display as (in German) which the {{de icon}} would almost duplicate. Is this really preferable? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think both should be used. The |language is better for machine searching, but de icon is more visible to the human reader. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Throughout my reading, I also noticed numerous sentences without inline refs, only with refs at the end of the para. I think this is not acceptable to FAs, but if it is, please let me know and I'll tag all sentences I'd like to see cited with citation needed template.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose. Have to say it a difficult article to write -- it is a tangled mess of four foreign armies fighting for the same piece of land. I think it is a good start and has the components needed to became a FA. However, I have to oppose. First, it needs a very thorough copy-edit. There are a number of run-on sentences to the point I cannot figure the intended meaning. Would suggest asking Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests for help. At the same it has numerous stylistic issues (inconsistent dashes, italics, capitalization, etc.) Second, inconsistent referencing. Some sections (like "Livonia before the war") are very well sourced, while others (like "Russian war with Sweden") are sourced very poorly. Third, important factual errors: Kingdom of Poland got involved later; it initially was an affair of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Sigismund II acted in his capacity as Grand Duke of Lithuania, not as King of Poland. The article fails to mention completely that this war was one of the major reasons for the Union of Lublin. Fourth, a map of new division of Livonia would be really helpful.
  • A couple of points about the issues here. The referencing is just a slight inconsistency in style. Referencing (ultimately in the bits I was responsible for creating) has fewer references because they are not repeated sentence-by-sentence. However, they are just as suitably referenced in terms of whether the end reference covers them, which it does. (True, but apparently FAs require sentence-by-sentence: will do so when I get the book in hand). The Poland/Lithuania relationship is a complicated one; the sejm (as I think is noted somewhere) was requested to provide Polish assistance but refused; however, it is not always clear to what extent it was involved. If there are specific things that were "isolated" from Poland, and you think they have been misrepresented, I suggest you mention them, because I thought the text reflected the sources in this regard. The Union of Lublin] page makes mention of the Livonian matters; I think it needs a mention, but I'm not sure to what extent. The nature of Sigismund's inheritance is listed there as the primary reason, and I'm not certain but I don't recall the books I have access to portraying it in a big light. I'll check, but as you can see I've got quite a lot to work on. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Specific items:
    • the former establishing the Duchy of Estonia under constant invasion from Russia, and the latter control of the old Bishopric of Ösel-Wiek placed under the control of Magnus of Holstein -- the latter did what? Unclear, needs rewording.
clarified, though I think the lead as a whole is not a good summary atm. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The year after Sweden and Russia signed the Truce of Plussa, Sweden gaining most of Ingria, and northern Livonia, keeping the Duchy of Estonia -- huh?
rewritten Skäpperöd (talk) 05:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is absolutely no need for the two quotes in the "Prelude" section. Re-write.
Moved one, deleted the other anitquated one. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • In June 1556, Wilhelm appealed to Polish king Sigismund II for help against landmeister Wilhelm von Fürstenburg. Whilst there, however, von Fürstenburg successfully besieged the archbishop, and the landmeister's son killed Lancki, a Polish envoy. -- Who is William? What was Fürstenburg doing to him? Why? Where is "there"?
clarified Skäpperöd (talk) 07:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sigismund to invade the southern portion of Livonia with an excessive army of around 80,000 -- needs ref.
    • created a mutual defensive and offensive alliance, in the Treaty of Pozvol, primarily aimed at Russia -- needs more emphasis that this put Livonia under "protection" of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (and not Kingdom of Poland) and started the war
    • Tsar Ivan IV demanded that the Livonian Confederation pay about 6,000 marks to keep the Bishopric of Dorpat, based on the claim that every adult male had paid Pskov one mark whilst Pskov had been an independent state. -- needs ref
    • Ivan continued to point out that the existence of the order required his goodwill -- what does this mean?
    • Russia fought in a a war in the Crimea. -- less WP:EGGy, please
changed text to match link. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • John lent Sigismund 120,000 riksdalers and received seven Livonian castles as security -- ref needed
ref'ed Skäpperöd (talk) 05:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "yet Livonia remained an important theatre of conflict" (Frost). -- why such weird wording/sourcing?
    • at Czasniki (Chashniki) in 1564 and 1567, a period of intermittent conflict between the two sides -- huh? fragment?
    • was held at the coast by the other powers -- what other powers?
    • A "grand" party... -- entire paragraph needs refs
    • Section "Russian war with Poland–Lithuania" makes it seem that Lithuania was in a good shape. It really wasn't: it had lost two major cities, its nobles did not want to pay taxes, and the talks for the Union of Lublin started just around that time because, among other things, Lithuania wanted stronger Polish support in the war.
    • So what happened after the Polish-Lithuanian-Russian negotiations failed in 1566? There are 4 years missing (1566-1570).
    • Ivan IV had requested the return of John's wife, Catherine Jagellonica to Russia -- why? what claim did Ivan had on Catherine?
    • The section "Russian war with Sweden" -- needs more refs and trimming as it is too detailed (in comparison with the rest of the article). Also it has nothing on "Russian-Swedish war", just on negotiations gone bad.
    • in Russia, at Morum, continued -- what's Morum?
Morum is a (more rare mis?-)spelling of Murom, I linked the resp. article and added the widely used spelling. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Magnus had fallen into disgrace when he defected from Ivan IV -- need to explain why would he do that
    • following the double election of Batory's fiancèe Anna Jagiellon and Maximillian II in 1575 -- what does that mean?
    • Batory gathered 56,000 troops, 30,000 from Lithuania -- ref please
    • a humiliation for the Tsar, in part because he was the one requesting it -- ref please
    • Russia would surrender to the Polish-Lithuanian Confederation all areas in Livonia it still held and the city of Dorpat; Polotsk would be kept under the confederation's control. In return, Velike Luki would be returned from Batory's control to Russia. -- ref please
    • Need full citations for: "The Full Collection of Russian Annals", vol. 13, SPb, 1904 and Journal of central European affairs. 5. 1945. p. 135.
  • Renata (talk) 03:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise, I'm afraid due to real life I'll have to stay away from Wikipedia for a few days. I reckon this'll still be here when I get back. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did some reading this weekend. I am even more strongly opposed now -- the articles misses some very important points (like the fact that Sigismund Augustus not merely supported, but initiated the whole mess with Wilhelm von Brandenburg, the extremely complicated political dynamic between the four countries, etc. -- who supported who and why -- while zooming in on a couple negotiation attempts). If I have time, I will actually edit/rewrite the article. Also found a factual error: there no two battles of Ula and Czasniki in 1564. That's the same battle known under two names. Created article at Battle of Ula. Renata (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose on prose per standard disclaimer for the moment. - Dank (push to talk) 14:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not bad, it's just not up to FAC standards, and I don't want to spend a lot of time on it if the article is going to fail FAC because of other opposes above. If the problems above are resolved, please ping me and I'll try to get a better sense of how long it will take me to copyedit this. Just looking at the first few sentences of the first section:
  • I can't tell if it's British, American or some other flavor of English. "organised", "secularised" (further down), but "organized in a de-centralized" (which doesn't have a hyphen btw).
  • "It consisted of territories of the Livonian branch of the Teutonic Order, the prince-bishoprics of Dorpat, of Ösel-Wiek and of Courland, the Archbishopric of Riga and the city of Riga." See WP:Checklist#series. It's not written in stone, but I find that if I ask writers to move the complex part of the series to the end, the end result is usually more readable. So: "It consisted of territories of the Livonian branch of the Teutonic Order, the Archbishopric of Riga, the city of Riga, and the prince-bishoprics of Dorpat, Ösel-Wiek and Courland."
  • "The political division was not only in administration, there were also persistent rivalries ...": comma splice.
  • between the archbishop of Riga and the landmeister of the order for hegemony.": The Teutonic order? And this isn't the way "hegemony" is usually used; I'd probably go with "dominance".
  • "The order itself was divided since the Protestant Reformation had spread to Livonia in the 1520s": Per Chicago, "since" is the wrong word when it could mean either "because" or "after".
  • "a slow, gradual process": a gradual process.
  • "resisted by part of the order who": resisted by the part of the order who.
  • - Dank (push to talk) 14:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator. There's a fair bit to work on here, most will still get done. Ultimately I need to get some of my books back, this could take some time. As I say, thanks for your input - I'm not withdrawing because I can't take the criticism, it's just going to take a while to adapt for all of it, and I think it would be better to start over with the FAC when we're done. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Livonian_War/archive1&oldid=1089913908"