Content deleted Content added
m moved Talk:Wladyslaw Jagello of Poland to Talk:Wladyslaw II Jagiellon of Poland: Per John k's suggestion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Władysław II Jagiełło (sorry for the -n, that is Maed's doing) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (11 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{talkarchive}}
There has been an attempt to create a naming system specifically for Polish monarchs (but it is just a proposal and never received consensus), against the system used for other European monarchs. There is also the fact that most Polish monarchs now are located in places which contravene to general naming convention. There is no consensus for permission to use an exception for Polish monarchs, and such permission should be sought from consensus at[[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)]] where there is the thread [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Need of particular exception/ convention for Polish monarchs]]. At that spot there are editors who are more or less experienced in overall picture of monarch naming and not only one country. It is deception to advertise any system for naming before a consensus there is convinced of the need for such exception. I hope all of you continue the naming scheme discussion for Polish monarchs there, before continuing or creating policy forks. [[User:Shilkanni|Shilkanni]] 13:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Line 8 ⟶ 5:
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #eeffee; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #AAAAAA;"><!-- Template:polltop -->
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the {{{type|proposal}}}. <
{{{result|The result of the debate was}}} '''don't move'''. —[[User:Nightstallion|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Nightst</span>]]
==Requested move==
:''Copied from the entry on the [[WP:RM]] page:''
Line 17 ⟶ 14:
:''Add *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''' followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ''<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>
*'''Support''' (nominator) --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] 10:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. As I stated before, the [[Wladyslaw II/V of Poland, Jogaila of Lithuania]] is a monstrosity, not a proper name for Wikipedia article.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] [[User_talk:Piotrus|<sup
*'''Comment''' This vote ain't gonna work. I have to agree with Piotrus that it is a monstrosity. But so too is Władysław II Jagiełło. This best name I can come up with is [[Jogaila (Władysław II)]], but I doubt the editors here would go for that. In short, now that they've made the name Władysław II Jagiełło, every suggested name change can be opposed, and the effect will be that this name will remain. - '''[[User:Calgacus|Calgacus]] (''[[User talk:Calgacus|ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ]]'')''' 14:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. I support Calgacus on this issue. --[[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirla]] <sup>[[User_talk:Ghirlandajo|-трёп-]]</sup> 14:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Line 24 ⟶ 21:
*'''Oppose''' - perhaps [[Jogaila/Władysław/Ягайла 2-5 of Poland/Lithuania/Ruthenia]] ;) [[User:Radomil|Radomil]] <small>[[User talk:Radomil|talk]]</small> 15:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - nobody could claim that (surely?) that this is the most commonly used form of his name in English-language works. [[User:Mcferran|Noel S McFerran]] 17:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Bizarre, unused and reminds me of politically-correct terms used in an encyclopaedia. ''<
*'''Oppose.''' [[User:logologist|logologist]]|[[User_talk:logologist|Talk]] 06:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' this name is really too awkard for a title--[[User:Aldux|Aldux]] 18:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Line 35 ⟶ 32:
===Discussion===
:''Add any additional comments''
I would strongly suggest using Jogaila in the context refering to him as the Grand Duke of Lithuania, and Władysław II Jagiełło in the contexts of King of Poland. In the end we have four choices: use either English, Polish, Lithuanian or combination of those names. English is obviously preferable but as was shown before there is no single variant. Combination is not used on wikipedia ('monstrosity'). We went with Polish name for two reasons, one good and one worse: good being that his role and rank as the King of Poland was somewhat more important than that of the Grand Duke of Lithuania, and bad being that there was little comment on that matter from Lithuanian editors themselves, so Polish editors (like me...) got what we wanted. While I am open to hearing more from Lithuanian POV, I do think that the current name is the best choice for scholarly reasons (no single English name, Polish variant is the most popular worldwide).--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] [[User_talk:Piotrus|<sup
: Well, since I see that on a number of occassions, you have used [[Norman Davies|Norman Davies']] work ''Europe'' as a source of authority on English names for "Polish" rulers, maybe the title should be however he lists him in the index. We can't go much wrong there. Would you have objections to this. I'm travelling today, so I'll have to check the form when I return. You have it, don't you? BTW, the assertion that the Kingdom of Poland was more important than the Grand Duchy of Lithuania has been shown on a number of occassions to be both subjective and unsustainable. - '''[[User:Calgacus|Calgacus]] (''[[User talk:Calgacus|ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ]]'')''' 16:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
:: I don't have the books myself (I have Polish edition on the other continent), but in Europe Davies uses both Jogaila [http://books.google.com/books?as_q=Jogaila&num=10&ie=UTF-8&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_brr=0&as_vt=&as_auth=Davies&as_pub=&as_drrb=c&as_miny=&as_maxy=&as_isbn=] and Władysław Jagiełło [http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&num=10&q=Jagiello+inauthor%3ADavies&btnG=Search&as_brr=0]. He also uses Wladyslaw for some other kings [http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&num=10&q=Wladyslaw+inauthor%3ADavies+inauthor%3ANorman&btnG=Search&as_brr=0]. Unfortunately the first part of God's Playground is not yet in Google Books, but I think Europe is his newer book anyway.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] [[User_talk:Piotrus|<sup
:Prokonsul, shame on you, It's not the first time that Calgacus has caught you with "your hand in the cookie jar," so to speak, regarding the importance of Poland vs. Lithuania at the time in question. Any comment? [[User:Dr. Dan|Dr. Dan]] 15:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
::On what? I don't understand your accusation.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] [[User_talk:Piotrus|<sup
::It's not about the importance of Poland vs. Lithuania, but of the titles King and Grand Duke. It's my understanding that it is WP policy to use the title and name of the person's highest office--in this case, King of Poland. [[User:Appleseed|Appleseed]] ([[User talk:Appleseed|Talk]]) 21:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
My point, and Calgagus' too, is not an accusation, but bringing to your attention that statements like ...rank as the King of Poland was somewhat more important than that of the Grand Duke of Lithuania,... is subjective POV, and a little chauvinistic to boot. A littler clearer, now? [[User:Dr. Dan|Dr. Dan]] 18:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
:Yes, it's my POV, but it apprears to be shared by majority of academic sources, too - just do a google search for King of Poland vs Grand Duke of Lithuania, or Jagiello vs Jogaila.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] [[User_talk:Piotrus|<sup
Prokonsul, we know it's your POV; what I'm trying to tell you, is at least in 1385, the rank of "King of Poland", held by an approximately 13 year old girl, was not more importantant than the Grand Duke of Lithuania, at that time. This is the minor issue. This is true, inspite of all the "google hits" you can garner. And for the record, the King of Naples, was never more important than the [[Kniaz]] or Prince of [[Novgorod]]. Make any sense? [[User:Dr. Dan|Dr. Dan]] 00:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
::Well, in the eyes of contemporaries (even grand dukes themselves) title of king was more important than duke, even grand duke. Otherwise, why would grand dukes try to receive the title of king? [[User:Szopen|Szopen]] 14:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Line 58 ⟶ 55:
:Does this approach seem reasonable? [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 20:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <
== Sockpuppetry ==
Please note, that in the poll above,
*{{user|Logologist}}
*{{user|KonradWallenrod}}
*{{user|Mattergy}}
*{{user|Anatopism}}
are confirmed sockpuppets [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=60172140&oldid=60171126]. The outcome of the vote may change based on this information -- [[User:Chris 73|Chris 73]] | [[User talk:Chris 73|Talk]] 22:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
==Individual items==
Line 67 ⟶ 72:
*'''Jogaila'''
**[[User:Juraune|Juraune]] 09:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC) that's how he is called in English language history books.
***Really? [[Cite your sources]] for such a claim, please.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] [[User_talk:Piotrus|<sup
****Just look the chapter 'Thanks to User:Francis Schonken and User:Pmanderson' "Norman Davies' Europe: A History lists our ruler in the index as Jogaila (not Władysław); Eric Christiansen's The Northern Crusades has him in the index as Jogaila also, and when ones looks him up as Władysław, the closest one gets is "Wladyslaw IV, see Jogaila" --[[User:Juraune|Juraune]];
*'''Władysław'''
**[[User:logologist|logologist]]|[[User_talk:logologist|Talk]] 05:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
**[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] [[User_talk:Piotrus|<sup
**– [[User:Tutmosis|<
**[[User:Anatopism|Anatopism]] 01:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
**[[User:Balcer|Balcer]] 20:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Line 80 ⟶ 85:
** Not everybody knows what these 'ł' are and how to pronounce them. This is an English language page. --[[User:Juraune|Juraune]]
*'''Ladislaus'''
** ''<
** [[User:Szopen|Szopen]] 14:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
**[[User:Dr. Dan|Dr. Dan]] 21:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Line 93 ⟶ 98:
*'''II'''
**[[User:logologist|logologist]]|[[User_talk:logologist|Talk]] 05:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
** ''<
**[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] [[User_talk:Piotrus|<sup
**[[User:Dr. Dan|Dr. Dan]] 21:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
**[[User:Anatopism|Anatopism]] 01:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Line 113 ⟶ 118:
**Polish. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 17:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
**[[User:logologist|logologist]]|[[User_talk:logologist|Talk]] 05:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
**[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] [[User_talk:Piotrus|<sup
**– [[User:Tutmosis|<
**[[User:Anatopism|Anatopism]] 01:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
**[[User:Balcer|Balcer]] 20:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Jagiello'''
**English and Latin. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 17:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
** ''<
**--[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] 14:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
** As a compromise between Jogaila and Jagiełło. --[[User:Juraune|Juraune]]
Line 136 ⟶ 141:
*'''Lithuania'''
*'''Poland'''
** King of Poland, definitely. No need to mention all the titles he held in the article's title. ''<
** per wikipedia policy [[User:Szopen|Szopen]] 14:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''All of the Countries Relevantly Involved'''
Line 143 ⟶ 148:
*'''None'''
**[[User:logologist|logologist]]|[[User_talk:logologist|Talk]] 05:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
**[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] [[User_talk:Piotrus|<sup
**--''keep name simple'' – [[User:Tutmosis|<
**[[User:Anatopism|Anatopism]] 01:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
**--[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] 14:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Line 162 ⟶ 167:
Norman Davies' ''Europe: A History'' lists our ruler in the index as Jogaila (not Władysław); Eric Christiansen's ''The Northern Crusades'' has him in the index as Jogaila also, and when ones looks him up as Władysław, the closest one gets is "Wladyslaw IV, see Jogaila"; likewise, he is called Jogaila in ''Lithuania Ascending. A Pagan Empire within East-Central Europe, 1295–1345''. Evidently, when it comes to impartial authorities not taken over by Polonocentrism, Jogaila is the preferred name. Thanks to Francis Schonken and Pmanderson for trying. I suggest giving up. This page is the subject of a Polish cabal; there is no hope of it being moved. - '''[[User:Calgacus|Calgacus]] (''[[User talk:Calgacus|ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ]]'')''' 21:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
:And why not change your statement to ''Evidently, when it comes to biased authorities taken over by Polonophobia...''? Come on, you have your POV, just like anyone else. You've failed to convince other people around here, but why the slander? Why use so strong arguments? ''<
Because if no one objects, [[Edith Stein]], becomes a ''Polish Saint''. [[User:Dr. Dan|Dr. Dan]] 23:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Line 176 ⟶ 181:
:But Jogaila was his nickname, wihle his official name after accepting Christianity was Władysław (Ladislaus) [[User:Szopen|Szopen]] 12:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
:::The name „Jogaila“ was not a nickname. This name he used while he was a Grand Duke of Lithuania; and the name “Jogaila” has the meaning and this name construction is common to pagan Dukes of Lithuania. After Christianity is a diffrent story ;)[[User:M.K|M.K]] 13:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
:Dear anon. As has been shown in the debate above, his Lithuanian name (Jogaila) is actually less common then his Christian name Władysław, thus it should be more recongizable to English audience then the alternative.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] [[User_talk:Piotrus|<sup
::Dear Piotrus, but I just checked Google and there are the hits for the English language pages: 15.600 for Jogaila and 11.400 for Władysław II Jagiełło.
It looks like Polish editors are trying to teach the rest of the world Polish language. The article should be named in English and the Polish name should be given in parenthesis together whith Lithuanian and Belarusian name. If you love those Polish characters so much, you have Polish language wiki for that. --[[User:Juraune|Juraune]]
:Could you provide direct links to your search results? The last time we did such a check ([[Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło/Archive_1#Case_against_Jogaila|see here for links]], the results were quite different.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] [[User_talk:Piotrus|<sup
::Your searches on Wladyslaw Jagiello or just Jagiello are not valid since they have different spelling. Also, there is about 10 times more Polish than Lithuanians in the world, so this gives a clear andvantage to Polish version for google searches on the subject. As a compromise I would agree on Wladyslaw II Jagiello, known also as Jogaila, Wladyslaw II Jagiello (Jogaila). For Polish he is just one of the kings of Poland, for Lithuanians Jogaila is a key figure in history, he turned Lithuania to the way of union with Poland which resulted into the Polish dominance in this double state. He is to 'blame' in a way for this tendency to forget Lithuanian side of many historical figures of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
Line 189 ⟶ 194:
::::At that time ruthenised process was a quite limited I believe. All grand Dukes were pagan once and that you see the noblemen mixture with ruthen. were mostly of political mater (making diplomacy or trying to find the shelter); especially with shelter quite a bunch of noblemen ran to the TO too, but somehow we do not call them Germans….regarding Jasienika notes we should also remember that Poland before Jogaila (Jagiello) was in problems with HRE and border skirmishes with Lithuanians and also TO relationships disintegrated, so Polish noblemen had to seek an solution and the solution was found quite good I should add. But I trying to think why in Lithuania Jogaila is not regarded well I notice only one major problem – because he tried to merged Lithuania into Poland. But many aspects of this deeds are not known in LT like that he did not spoke good in polish, as many of Lithuanians liked to take bath :) often (especially this irritated Dlugosz), avoided transfer of Palanga to TO and similar…..Dlugosz liked Vytautas more then Jagiello….[[User:M.K|M.K]] 11:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Juraune: please [[cite your sources]].--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] [[User_talk:Piotrus|<sup
::Here they are: Jogaila http://www.google.lt/search?as_q=Jogaila&num=10&hl=lt&btnG=Google+Paie%C5%A1ka&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch= 16:500
Line 195 ⟶ 200:
::--[[User:Juraune|Juraune]] 20:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
:Please read about the [[Google test]] and how to do it properly (use English Google for starters - what is the 'Savitas pasirinkimas' option that you have checked in the lt Google?). My search on the English Google, with the same strings but only English language pages checked shows the same results for Jogaila ([http://www.google.com/search?as_q=Jogaila&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=off]), but 31,400 hits for the Władysław II Jagiełło string you used ([http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&safe=off&as_qdr=all&q=W%C5%82adys%C5%82aw+II+Jagie%C5%82%C5%82o&btnG=Search&lr=lang_en]). Second, as the previous discussion shows, there are quite a few variants of the name, and various Władysław/Vladisavs/Ladislauses and such are much more common then Jogaila. Out of those Władysław is the most correct one.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] [[User_talk:Piotrus|<sup
:: Then what does it mean 'szukanie' in the search pages you indicated earlear? Also, there are numerous Wladyslaws in the history whatever the form, and they are different people, and Jogaila is the only one. --[[User:Juraune|Juraune]] 21:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
:: Piotr, the title 'Władysław II Jagiełło' is as 'correct' for the Eglish language page as 'most correct' name '後醍醐天皇' for [[Emperor Go-Daigo]].
::: This is not true, as W2J is still [[Latin alphabet]], while 後醍醐天皇 is obviously not, and en Wikipedia has a policy to use only Latin alphabet in names.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] [[User_talk:Piotrus|<sup
::::I think the point was not the alphabet used, but:
English name vs Local name<br>
Line 205 ⟶ 210:
? vs Władysław II Jagiełło
::::--[[User:Juraune|Juraune]] 20:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::You are mistaken. Please familiarize yourself with [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)]].--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] [[User_talk:Piotrus|<sup
::::::"You are mistaken" Can you be more specific? --[[User:Juraune|Juraune]] 06:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Line 219 ⟶ 224:
::Ok, then rename the title to "Jagiello". :)))
:::As you might have noticed if you'd review our past discussions, I don't have a preference in terms of Jagiełło/Jagiello/Jagiellon (and I actually prefer Vasa over Waza), but we should be consistent. If we rename this one to Jagiello, then all the others Jagiełłos/Jagiellons should have the same change. As Jagiello seems to be simply englicized version of more correct (if less used for obvious reasons) Jagiełło, I tend to favour Jagiellon vs Jagiello. But let's hear other users comments on that.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] [[User_talk:Piotrus|<sup
::::Englicized version "Jagiello" for English Wikipedia is appropiate. "More correct" is very subjective argument, more correct historically, more correct for Polish readers eyes? (What is this 'Jagiellon vs Jagiello', mistype? :) ) [[User:Juraune|Juraune]] 18:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
:::: As I've said before, Jogaila is the best name. It is the name used by all the historians, but they don't have their naming policy determined by a Polonizing cabal. Jogaila, with no titles in title, would settle it all. Who are we, after all, to argue with [[Norman Davies]]? - '''[[User:Calgacus|Calgacus]] (''[[User talk:Calgacus|ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ]]'')''' 21:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
::::: [[WP:CABAL|Paranoia is treatable]], Calg. And I see no reason to argue with Davies, as he uses both forms, depending on the context (see [http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0231128177&id=07vm4vmWPqsC&pg=PR28&lpg=PR28&dq=Wladyslaw+Jagiello+inauthor:Norman+inauthor:Davies&sig=mbNvq2C81gmWbI1zEmkaR-_KPE0 this] for example of his usage of Władysław Jagiełło.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] [[User_talk:Piotrus|<sup
::::::: "[[WP:CABAL|Words of Wisdom: Paranoia is treatable]]" ''':(''' . The universe does not revolve around <
:::::: Good, you see no reason to argue with Davies. He uses only Jogaila in ''Europe: A History'', and he does so 'cause the guy is Lithuanian and Davies is one of those historians who likes to use native names (although he doesn't do this for Scotland, I may complain!). Although I've made an issue of it, I'm perfectly happy to have Polish monarchs with Polonized names. But in this case it just gets everyone's backs' up because it's such an aggressive name: giving a completely Polonized name to a Lithuanian ruler who most historians refer to by his Lithuanian name. In reality Piotrus, although, armed as you are with your noticeboard and followers, you'll successfully thwart any attempt to rename him in the shortterm; in the longer-term this hugely controversial name is going to have you coming back here again and again trying to defend the indefensible, is going to draw attention to yourself and your tactics (for what are mostly causes I sympathize with), and may cause you more problems than you think it'd be worth ... as it prolly already has done. It has already, after all, drawn me into a big bunch of articles and arguments outside my normal editing interests; you'll discover soon enough that I'm not going to be unique. BTW, although the Polish WNB is a cabal, it is a great instrument of wikipedia production and article balancing which I highly support; there are loads of cabals on wiki, and many of them are good, but they are still cabals. - '''[[User:Calgacus|Calgacus]] (''[[User talk:Calgacus|ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ]]'')''' 22:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Calgacus. *sigh* [[Cite your sources]], please. You write: "[Władysław Jagiełło is] a completely Polonized name to a Lithuanian ruler who most historians refer to by his Lithuanian name". Please, enlighten us in what academic work have you found that statement? Or perhaps you have done a verifiable comparison of the books or articles on the subject (using G.Print or Scholar, I presume) and you can cite the links to back up your statement? I'll let go of the cabal discussion, because it is partially OT, and I think at [[Iron Law of Oligarchy|some level everything in Wikipedia is cabal-run]] - but please, believe me, I am not aware of any organized and secret movement of Polish Wikipedians with the stated goal of polonizing English Wiki.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] [[User_talk:Piotrus|<sup
::::::::: I've already "cited my sources" for you Piotrus, want me to repaste them for you? You know it makes no difference in any case, cause you want this guy to have this title, and that's frankly all that matters for the now. But I warn you, this ridiculous situation ain't going anywhere, you'll get dragged here again and again; you better hope the man himself doesn't come across this page. Regards, - '''[[User:Calgacus|Calgacus]] (''[[User talk:Calgacus|ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ]]'')''' 00:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::Yes, please, repeat them.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] [[User_talk:Piotrus|<sup
:::::::::: PASTE: "Three books in English I have in front of me support me (I have no agenda, and so wasn't inventing anything). ''Byzantium and the Rise of Russia'' by John Meyendorff, and Rowell's ''Lithuania Ascending'' both give him his name as Jogaila. Christiansen's The Northern Crusades refers to him as always as Jogaila (with Wladyslaw IV, k. of Poland, in brackets in the index ... next to Jogaila!) ... Norman Davies' ''Europe: A History'' lists our ruler in the index as Jogaila ... he uses only Jogaila in ''Europe: A History'' END PASTE ; now, I have no books in English listing him as "Władysław II Jagiełło"; those 4 works are a good cross-section of historiography; a scholar of Russian and Byzantine studies, a scholar of Lithuanian studies, a scholar of Polish studies, and a scholar of the northern crusades; none of them are Lithuanian or Polish; I'm afraid you have no case; and if I were to venture to the library, and find more books on the man, Jogaila would continue to predominate. The only place Władysław II Jagiełło ever dominates are in Polish works, which owing to the cabal here, includes wikipedia articles relating to Poland. - '''[[User:Calgacus|Calgacus]] (''[[User talk:Calgacus|ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ]]'')''' 16:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::Your argument has already been debunked in the archive, but let me give you a different reply: taking few books out of one's bookshelf and claiming they represent 'majority of respectable schoolars' is not a valid [[sample]] (it is neither random nor complete). As I have told you before, you fail to provide any valid facts to back up your theories: the few books from your bookshelf do not represent the 'majority of respectable scholars'.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] [[User_talk:Piotrus|<sup
:::::::::::: You're not talking sense now; they are a random sample, and I'd like you please to give some English language books that use Władysław II Jagiełło as the name for this guy in their text or, esp., their index. You won't come up with any coz you know Jogaila is the most common name. So please stop pretending you "debunked" anything, and stop pretending the title of this guy is anything but Polish nationalism fostered by yourself and your followers. Every sensible person here knows this article name has been victim to an agenda, so don't waste your time trying to convince people that you have any objectivity. - '''[[User:Calgacus|Calgacus]] (''[[User talk:Calgacus|ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ]]'')''' 18:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::::[http://books.google.com/books?q=%22Wladyslaw+II+Jagiello%22&btnG=Search+Books&as_brr=0]. Note that there are much more results without the numeral: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%22Wladyslaw+Jagiello%22&btnG=Search+Books&as_brr=0], [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22Wladyslaw+Jagiello%22&btnG=Search]. In any case, this is a much more reliable (and larger) sample then your bookshelf, which is most certainly NOT a [[random sample]], but at best a [[subjective]] sample of your interests.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] [[User_talk:Piotrus|<sup
::::::::::::::Well, according to your own citations of the search results, the name should be at least without ł, Piotr. [[User:Juraune|Juraune]] 13:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Google Print seems to be unable to preform searchers with non-traditional letters, so unfortunately it does not help us with diactrics. As a rule of thumb, authors who cannot speak a given language don't use them. But this is somewhat besides the point, as we seem to be using them all over Wikipedia, so unless we take a completly Englicized/Latinized version of the name, we should use diactrics. On that issue, please not that I have no objection to using Jagiellon instead of Jagiełło, if it can be shown that it is a correct translation and used by other sources.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] [[User_talk:Piotrus|<sup
:::::::::::::::::Google is able :))) [[User:Juraune|Juraune]] 07:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::: Hey Piotrus, I'm still waiting for you to cite some works. The works are a sample of my interest, but there's no way of establishing the relationship between my interest and that spelling. Could you please cite at least one or two examples that use Władysław II Jagiełło. If you don't, it'll look very peculiar indeed. - '''[[User:Calgacus|Calgacus]] (''[[User talk:Calgacus|ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ]]'')''' 23:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::: To me it looks very peculiar that apparently you don't read what I write: see my post above with external links for the list of citations.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] [[User_talk:Piotrus|<sup
:::::::::::::::::: No, I saw those; but since Jogaila gets 301 hits on that, "Wladyslaw II Jagiello" (21), Wladyslaw Jagiello (25) and Władysław II Jagiełło (4), I figured you wouldn't want to use that source, since it destroys all your arguments. The closest is "Wladyslaw Jagiello" (103), so still a third of Jogaila. Is google books now your authority, or does it cease to be an authority, like Norman Davies, 'coz it doesn't suit your agendum? - 14:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::: And [http://books.google.com/books?q=Jagiello&btnG=Search+Books&as_brr=0 Jagiello has 2500 hits].--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] [[User_talk:Piotrus|<sup
::::::::::::::::::: Indeed! Though only a percentage of those are actually about our ruler, still more than the Polish names. Does this mean you're for a move to [[Jagiello]]? - '''[[User:Calgacus|Calgacus]] (''[[User talk:Calgacus|ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ]]'')''' 16:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
The spelling Jogaila actually '''is''' quite recent lithuanization (as are the spellings of names of all medieval historical Lithuanian figures): at the time of his life <s> and several centuries after, </s> Lithuanian wasn't used in writing. In Lithuania, the predominant language of writing was Ruthenian, and Jahajła (I use the Belarusian form just to avoid choosing between Polish and Lithuanian variants) was written in this language as Ягаило (actually spelled with [[A iotified]], as Я is a later invention). On the other hand, Polish name is also of later origin. At the time of Jahajła Latin was used in writing in Poland, and Latin sources usually refer to him by his Christian name Wladislaus, and only in pre-1386 contexts use his original name, spelled Iagello/Jagello/Iagiello/Jagiello (at least it is what I found by searching in Google). One could even argue that at the time of his reign Polish people usually must have called him "król Władysław", not "król Jagiełło", and that "Jagiełło" was later borrowed from Latin. I know this may be a bit confusing, but the point I want to make is quite simple: if you want to stick to "original" or "native" names, it's just impossible in this case. As to the choosing between modern variants: in my opinion, Google-fight won't settle this question, simply because there is no really established usage. Traditional form (=derived from Latin) definitely is Wladislaus Jagiello, but obviously we don't have to stick to the tradition. IMO, as he acted for the most part of his life mainly as a King of Poland, and not a Grand Duke of Lithuania, it would be natural to list him as a Polish ruler at the first place, and to follow the naming conventions for other Polish kings. [[User:Cyon|Cyon]] 10:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
:::→ "[[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Polish rulers)|naming conventions for other Polish kings]]" is a mythical concept. --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] 08:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
:Agreed.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] [[User_talk:Piotrus|<sup
:Concur. [[User:KonradWallenrod|KonradWallenrod]] 17:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Line 472 ⟶ 477:
:5. And the last thing: the naming conventions for Polish kings may be "a mythical concept" as Francis Schonken puts it, but it certainly doesn't mean that they cannot be worked out in the future. What I wanted to say is that Poles have many good reasons to oppose the break of continuity in naming of Polish rulers here. But on the other hand, almost every King of Poland after Jahajła was also a Grand Duke of Lithuania, so the Lithuanians (and Belarusians) should be also welcome to participate in creating such conventions. IMO, the best choice would be using neutral (English) names, as it is in the case of rulers of other European countries. Take a look at [[Wenceslaus I, King of Bohemia]] or [[Matthias Corvinus of Hungary]] and other Czech and Hungarian rulers' names. I don't see any reason not to apply the same to Polish rulers. [[User:Cyon|Cyon]] 11:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
::Completely agree with your conclusions. If Polish will use literal Polish names in writting their history in English, nobody else will understand their history. The dynasty and other names will look like Polish first or last names and the information will be lost. [[User:Juraune|Juraune]] 13:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
::Cyon, consider that there is no single, most popular and recognized English name for the king. There are several, some being based on latinizations, other on Polish version of his name. None of them has clear majority - I believe they are listed above or in the archive with their google hits. Therefore my main argument for using Polish version here is that there is only one Polish version, and by using it we are at least consistent with an important set of primary sources. You could make the same argument for using Jogaila, sure, but here I argue that there are more Polish then Lithuanian sources, so we should chose the larger usage. All things considered, I'd like to see which English name would you propose. We have discussed this ''[[ad nauseam]]'' and without any conclusion for month, and the vote (above, again) shows that no English name has clear majority...--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] [[User_talk:Piotrus|<sup
:::I know Google is against me, but here is my suggestion: "Vladislaus II Jagiello" or "Wladislaus II Jagiello" (yes, I know, not one but two names, and not the ones listed in the poll above, sorry for that). From the two I would prefer Vladislaus. Why this one? Polish Władysław as a name of a ruler has three English equivalents: Wladislaus, Vladislaus and Ladislaus (IMO Wladyslaw cannot count as an English equivalent, it's just a corrupted version of Polish name). Wladislaus seems to be a little bit obsolete and goes against normal pronunciation habits of English speakers. Look at the article itself: the name in the royal title is translated into English as "Vladislaus", although in Latin it is "Wladislaus"! :)) As to Ladislaus, there is a slight difference between this variant and the other two, seen in names of Czech and Hungarian kings. While Jagiellonian kings were called Vladislav in Czech and Ulászló in Hungarian, there were also non-Jagiellonian kings called Ladislav and László accordingly. English Wiki uses forms Vladislaus and Ladislaus to differentiate them. That's why Polish rulers should be called "Vladislaus" and not "Ladislaus" - and yes, I would advocate changing "Władysław I the Elbow-high" to "Vladislaus I the Elbow-high", and all "Bolesławs", "Kazimierzs", "Zygmunts", "Jans", etc. to their English counterparts. I think the tradition of translating monarchs' names is a good tradition and shouldn't be neglected. I can understand some people's dissatisfaction with Polish forms in an English encyclopedia - just imagine how you would feel if you saw in Polish Wiki an article named "John bez Ziemi", "Richard Lwie Serce", "Philippe Piękny" or "Friedrich Wielki" :) [[User:Cyon|Cyon]] 18:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
::::You raise some good points, let me address two of them for now: in Polish language there is only one version of 'Jan bez Ziemi' (and others), we don't have to chose between 'Jan, Jann, Jhan, Johannus, whatever'; in English as we all see there are several, and while you make an argument to chose Vladislaus, as good as it is, this borders on [[WP:NOR]]. As I said, if there is would be a single widely accepted version, or at least a trend in academia, to adopt one of these variants, I'd do so. However it appears to be one of the cases where there are several choices, none of them with significant support (I talked to a historian about similar problem (variants on a German name), and he said something along these lines 'I don't have a good answer for you, all of these are good'). Therefore I have decided to use as my academic guide words of historian [[Jerzy Tadeusz Lukowski]], which I [[Talk:Polish-Lithuanian_Commonwealth#Words_of_wisdom|quoted here]]. They seem wise to me, and Lukowski is a professional historian writing in English language.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] [[User_talk:Piotrus|<sup
:::::The words of a historian is probably your motto for action, but one minor notice: Lukowski talkes about 18 century Poland or PLC, and you are applying his wisdom to naming a man, who lived in 14-15 century. [[User:Juraune|Juraune]] 13:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Line 481 ⟶ 486:
== Possible confusion between Wladyslaw II Jagiello and Wladyslaw II Jagiellon ==
Wladyslaw II Jagiello and [[Vladislaus II of Bohemia and Hungary|Wladyslaw II Jagiellon]], so confusing. This is one more reason to name the article by the name Jogaila, shorter, clearer, not mistakable. [[User:Juraune|Juraune]] 14:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
:[[Wladyslaw II Jagiellon]] is a red link, and your link points to [[Vladislaus II of Bohemia and Hungary]]. It is remotely possible people would get confused, so it may be wortwile to emply {{tl|about}} in both articles.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] [[User_talk:Piotrus|<sup
But this name [[Władysław II Jagiellon]] is used in other articles. The one I came across is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_Jagiellon], look in the list of children. I think there is a great confusion in the naming of Polish royals in English language. For example, there are Jagiellon, Jagellon, Jagellion, Jagiellończyk in different articles. Shouldn't we try to be consistent? --[[User:Juraune|Juraune]] 20:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Line 500 ⟶ 505:
While all of this sound and fury goes on about his name, the article itself is paltry, without much substance, and without much information about his life and accomplishments. And there is a lot that can be wriiten. Why don't we back off for a moment and work on the article itself for a while. We can always come back to this question later (I'm sure many will), but the article is weak and needs attention. God only knows how much better it would be, if half of the energy and effort of the arguments sounding off were applied to the article. A little less '''Polemics''', maybe? [[User:Dr. Dan|Dr. Dan]] 17:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC) P.S. Phew! And I did'nt use his name once in all of my remarks.
:Totally agree.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] [[User_talk:Piotrus|<sup
:But how are you going to rewrite an article if even the name of a subject is under discussion? :) [[User:Juraune|Juraune]] 06:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Line 520 ⟶ 525:
Please kindly do not oppose this. [[User:ObRoy|ObRoy]] 19:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
:Could you elaborate on how did you chosel Vladislaus over, let's say, Wladislaw (or current Władysław)? For the record I have never opposed the change of Jagiełło into Jagiello/Jagiellon, provided it is done to all relevant kings and queen (just as I supported the use of Vasa instead of Waza). The exceptionaly long 'of country' is somewhat strange, and I'd like to note this combination [http://books.google.com/books?q=%22Vladislaus+Jagiello+of+Lithuania%2C+King+of+Poland%22&btnG=Search+Books&as_brr=0 seems to be] OR.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] [[User_talk:Piotrus|<sup
Vladislaus seems to be the usual medieval variant. He reigned 1377-1434. Personally, I like "Ladislas" more. One variant of that name must be chosen, or this will never get a name, and soon someone puts this to name where all Lithuania-related things are lacking and regnal number is questionable (I predict: [[Wladislaw II of Poland]]). I was not sure whether Polish people would accept Wladislaw, as it is not Polish (isn't it?) but frustratingly close. Lithuanians would presumably not accept Wladyslaw or the same with dcs. (The next is just curiosity: About Jagello, do you know whether Latin writes it Jagello or Jagiello?) The country designation is not intended to be genuine, it is a description. In naming conventions, the "of country" is too just a standard, not to be assumed to have been used precisely as such in that context.<br>The idea is that this is a unique naming, due to the fact that Lithuania is connected to him so very much. IMO, all the others may be directly just of Poland in that regard - presumably none of them were so much better known explicitly as Lithuania's rulers than Poland's rulers. [[User:ObRoy|ObRoy]] 01:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
:The various Englicizations of his first name were one of the first things discussed here, so if you have not looked at the archives it may be worth checking. The last time I tried to do some analysis I could not find a variant with significant majority, and decided to go with Polish one. As far as Wladyslaw vs. Władysław my stance is that if we go with Wladyslaw we may as well put the diactrics where they belong. I have never seen 'Jagello' used, the two variants from my experience seem to be 'Jagiello' and 'Jagiellon'. I would love to have more input from Lithuania related editors and I have requested the attention of interested editors from [[Wikipedia:Baltic States notice board]]. I am however afraid that Lithuanization of his Polish name is even less used in English then the Polish variant. Jogaila is certianly something different, but we have discussed the pros and cons of Jogaila above; it seems to be a good name for Jagiello up to the point he became the King of Poland, but not afterwards, and he is better known as king of Poland then as High Duke of Lithuania...--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] [[User_talk:Piotrus|<sup
:: Has anyone compiled information, showing how the name is spelled in each of the major English-language encyclopedias? --[[User:Elonka|Elonka]] 01:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
| |||