Talk:Pereiaslav Agreement

I think this should become a disambig for Treaty of Pereyaslav (1654) and Treaty of Pereyaslav (1659). Any comments?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I object. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

And why?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

There was also the Treaty of Pereyaslav (1630) (see Taras Fedorowicz). We most certainly do need a disambig.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Of course if there were other treaties the DAB is useful but there is certainly one treaty (this one) that ring most bells. So, if there is a dab, it shoud be under the Treaty of Pereyaslav (disambiguation) and this article should stay where it is with "otheruses" at the top. --Irpen 05:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

This is so evident that hardly needs discussing. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

This sounds like a good idea.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  07:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I copied the paragraph "Second Treaty of Pereyslav" and created a new article Treaty of Pereyaslav (1659). If there are three, namely

• Treaty of Pereyaslav (1630)
• Treaty of Pereyaslav (1654)
• Treaty of Pereyaslav (1659)

why is the 1659 treaty called "Second"? Also, there are a lot of links coming in to Treaty of Pereyaslav. How do we know they really mean to link to the 1654 treaty? TrueColour (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Depends on the context of those articles. We should read them and when needed, pipe those inks to appropriate disambiguated articles. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Britannica is only one tertiary source amidst a plethora of WP:RS. Before making WP:BOLD moves such as changing the article name to "Pereyaslav Agreement", discuss them. Google Scholar returns this for "Treaty of Pereyaslav", this for "Pereyaslav Treaty", and this for "Pereyaslav Agreement". I'd say that it's a hands down win for "Treaty of Pereyaslav", or at least some convolution with the use of "Treaty" as opposed to "Agreement". For the sake of consistency with the 'other' Treaty of Pereyaslav, a discussion needs to take place. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

After a few days′ of attempts to instil the modicum of common sense in this article as well as some related ones, it is now obvious that this and the related ones on history of the territory now under Ukraine, are owned by a group of editors who obviously pursue their ideological agenda; the edits blatantly ignore sources and introduce utterly unsupported and nonsensical statements. The cited source (Britannica) says "Pereyaslav agreement", the edit ([1]) has it "treaty" despite the fact that a few lines below it goes to say that "no treaty" was signed. Is this activity in line with the Resource′ policies and aims?Axxxion (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Common sense? We are talking about renaming the article without discussion based on your own WP:OR. As for casting WP:ASPERSIONS and accusing editors of being involved in a cabal and WP:OWN: take it to the ANI and make your case there. Given your editing history, it will most definitely make for interesting reading and a lively debate... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

From my perspective your history is way more funny. But this is irrelevant. What is the basis to call this event (SIC!) a "treaty"?Axxxion (talk) 14:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

How about a case of COMMON ENGLISH USAGE? also see Magocsi and Subtelny.--Lute88 (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Do not get what you mean, but I would suggest "Council of P." as this is what it was. There was not treaty, moreover there couldn′t possibly be a treaty as a treaty presupposes two sovereign sides.Axxxion (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I already addressed your 'concerns' about the title in the section above. Rather than continuing the discussion under that section, you chose to start a new section invoking WP:OWN. Judging by your editing behaviour on this (and various other articles surrounding the subject of Ukraine and Ukrainian history), the issue is not that of other editors OWNing articles, but that of your WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude and attempts to turn articles into WP:COATRACKS.

WP:COMMONNAME in English sources has nothing to do with your own WP:PPOV. It's not down to you to make decisions as to appropriate titles based on a conflation of contemporary understandings of what constitutes a treaty under international law: wrong era by over 350 years. I've already demonstrated that 'treaty' is in common usage in multiple English language academic sources... so what are you actually railing against? That it doesn't fit your concept of 'treaty'? That's a non-argument for content. Also, it would be appreciated if you were to stop the "Do not get what you mean" arguments as WP:NOTGETTINGIT is a reflection on your competence, not other editors' competence. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Behind the smokescreen of the emotional tirades against me and legalistic claptrap, lies a simple and undeniable fact: This article is not about any treaty, as no treaty was signed, or even discussed. Common English Usage does not wash here, as the subject is perfectly unknown in the English-speaking world to anybody outside the relevant ethnic communities and a handful of relevant-area academics. Moreover, if this "common term" exists indeed, perhaps about time this be rectified because it is misleading and outright wrong. The USSR throughout its history (except arguably a few last years) was commonly known in the West as "Russia" - Is this a valid reason for moving the USSR accordingly?Axxxion (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

This article has been given the WP:POINTy treatment by one particular editor. Please note: WP:OR, pointy edit summaries like this to justify WP:POV changes to content are not appreciated... as are the edit summaries for trashy tags like this, this, and this added with no edit summary. Personally, I don't care if the editor doesn't understand the etymology of the word "Ruski" when ethnic groups who emerged from the old Rus' state continued to identify as the Rus' (not "Russians"), but his/her own ignorance of the history of these regions is not an excuse for WP:BATTLEGROUND trashing of article content. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

THe real point is that both you and User:Lute88 have been destroying the encyclopedic character of this article, as is obvious from your multiple reverts here. Just stop making statements that are not supported by RS, i.e. start complying with WP:V, to start off. Then read WP:NPOV, and start complying with it.Axxxion (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I respectfully disagree. POV, and especially pointy ruPOV are a lot more harmful to wiki.--Lute88 (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)Reply