Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Just move on

See what happens when you try to stir some old pot sitting and rotting here for months and years. We are going to move a single inch nowhere, unless everyone forgets, deletes what happened, takes a deep breath, and realizes that world is a good place to live in. So now, since we forgot everything what happened before, we can start being productive again. A RM from here to ... ? (fill in the blank) Renata 15:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I archived the page to facilitate this "clean start" proposal and to bury all the bad feelings. Renata 18:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest Wladyslaw II Jagiello.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest leaving it at Jogaila. Dr. Dan 04:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Dan originally made his appearance upon Wikipedia's Polish scene, insisting that Władysław "translates" into English as "Lancelot." So perhaps... "Lancelot II Jogaila"? logologist|Talk 06:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Stop right there! Any digging in the past who's guilty and who's not is strictly prohibited! Concentrate on here and now. Renata 06:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Renata you are right, let's stop the potshots. And BTW, it's very interesting that logologist would consider editing the Jogaila entry on English Wikipedia as entering the "Polish" scene. Dr. Dan 12:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

here:  ::Both versions with and without diacritics gained similar support, so I'd go with either one. I'd also support a clean start, but I'd mention the fact that the page was moved against the consensus and in violation of wiki laws in the WP:RM description. It is an important factor, especially that I have an impression that many of those who try to legitimize the current name of this article hope that the usual group of nay-sayers at WP:RM will join them (and there's really a large group who vote against any moves for no reason at all). But perhaps it's just me. //Halibutt 10:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, world is round, but I don't know a country with a round map. Jogaila of Lithuania agreed to be King of Poland, but Lithuania at his lifetime was not part of Poland. If you do not understand this, it is just you. And you break the laws of Wikipedia by using Wilno/Vilna against Wikipedia rules, it is also just you. Please do not teach administrator Jadger rules and laws of Wikipedia. Juraune 13:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What about both names in the title? Jogaila of Lithuania, Wladyslaw II Jagiello of Poland or Jogaila (Lithuania), Wladyslaw II Jagiello (Poland) or Jogaila - Wladyslaw II Jagiello. Other proposals are also welcome. Orionus 12:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, Jogaila seems like the perfect name to me; unambiguous, short, etc. I suppose Jogaila (Wladyslaw II) could also be barely acceptable. I don't think "of country" is necessary, as in both cases the names make the country clear. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 12:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

How about Wladyslaw II Jagiello - Jogaila?--SylwiaS | talk 13:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What was the first - chicken or egg? Orionus 13:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought you said: Other proposals are also welcome.--SylwiaS | talk 14:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

And all are open for discussions, I suppose.:) Orionus 14:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes.--SylwiaS | talk 15:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, brother I think I need an airsickness bag. Dr. Dan 02:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

As much as I think exceptions are annoying, perhaps this conflict can only be solved by something like Władysław II Jagiello (Jogaila). Would this be an acceptable compromise for all involved?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me.--SylwiaS | talk 15:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely fine--Milicz 21:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, better this than "Jogaila" Radomil talk 21:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

...And your arguments are? Why not Jogaila (Władysław II Jagiello) in chronological order?--Lokyz 22:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Per Milicz arguments below.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

...leave as it is just Jogaila M.K. 22:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I am for chronological order. For example, it seems suitable for me Jogaila / Władysław II Jagiełło, which you can find in Casimir III of Poland. Orionus 12:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've read all the talk pages, took me about an hour. This discussion has been going on for close to a year now, and it's ridiculius. Jogaila is the name Władysław was known as while he was Grand Duke of Lithuania. He was thereafter known as the King of Poland, Lithuania etc., but the name Jogaila was now gone, he took the name Władysław, or Ladislau for those that want to quibble. He was thereafter know more generally and famously as Władysław the King of Poland. I kept reading in order to find some "scholarly arguments" made by Calgacus according to Dr. Dan, in support of using Jogaila, unfortunately I found none. The article is completely misleading at this moment, is uses a less popular localized name instead of the historically used name. I would compare it to renaming the Joseph Stalin page to Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili.--Milicz 23:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)--

Can we be more specific? 1) The article is completely misleading at this moment - why? 2) it uses a less popular localized name instead of the historically used name - Is it possible to express it in a digital form to proove this affirmation? Orionus 12:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Both points are the same, the article is completely misleading because the title of the article uses a less popular localized name of Jogaila, which in the literature I have read is the name used for Wladyslaw Jagiello when he was the Grand Duke of Lithuania, while the name used historically throughout literature for him when he became King is Wladyslaw Jagiello. On Google Books a perfect example of this can be seen in the The New Cambridge Medieval History on pg 732, where Jogaila is the name used until Wladyslaw is crowned King. The oldest English Language book to use term Jogaila on Google Books is 1946, with the next year being 1971. The name Jogaila is then popularized by Norman Davies as the proper name to use before he became King. Wladyslaw Jagiello is the name that has been historically used, see Jogaila before 1940 [1]and compare Wladyslaw Jagiello before 1940 [2] Cheers. --Milicz 15:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

So it took you an hour to read it all? And you couldn't find any scholarly arguments presented by Calgacus. Yes, how unfortunate. Using Ladislaus on the English Wikipedia instead of Wladyslaw (whenever appropriate, and in this case it's not), would be quibbling. Right? Sort of like Barbara Rakuszanka. Let's not quibble and use Rzym instead of Rome while were at it too. Great analogy regarding Stalin also, Milcz. Dr. Dan 02:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't stand it when blatantly partisan users pretend to be objective. Piotrus and some of the others were on a good course ... by at least attempting discussion and negotiations. Renata, thanks for trying to steer this on a good path. Piotrus, wouldn't Wladyslaw II (Jogaila) be better than Wladyslaw II Jagiello (Jogaila) (I ain't endorsing either btw)? Why is there a need for Jagiello? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Jagiello is popular enough to be included in the title, especially as Wladyslaw II Jagiello is much more popular then just Wladyslaw II. Although, since we are going with Lithuanian Jogaila, I'd like to note we should use Polish diactrics in Władysław (but not Jagiello, which should remain in it's English non-diactrical form). Last but not least, becase the W2J variants are more popular then Jogaila, I believe W2J should be given precendence. Thus Władysław II Jagiello (Jogaila) seems to me like the best compromise.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Calgacus, better yet, why is their a need for Jogaila? Also, which blatantly partisan users are you reffering to, hopefully not myself?

Dr. Dan, Ladislaus or Wladyslaw is quibbling because it's the same name, either one works for me. Who is saying to use Rzym instead of Rome, or Lwów instead of L'viv? I noticed you use the same tack in all of your responses Dr. Dan, sarcasm with thinly veiled allusions as to the motives of those that question the logic of using Jogaila as the name of the article, but no factual arguments. So please enlighten me, go and copy and paste the scholarly arguments you base your belief upon, I was unable to find them in the archives. I guarantee you won't do it, you'll just write another witty comment degrading the motives of thos ethat question you. But why won't you? Have they been erased? If you don't like the Stalin analogy, how about Pope John Paul II, should the article about him keep his Polish name Karol Wojtyla or the name that was popularly known throughout the world? I think that example is perfectly on point.--Milicz 03:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Milcz, Ladislaus and Wladyslaw are not quibbling because they are the same name, they are quibbling because one is the common English version and the other is the Polish version. Jasne?Your "guarantee" that I won't do it (paste and copy for you, is on the money), you spent a "whole" hour looking, and you could't find Calgacus' scholarly arguments. Too bad! Re-read the arguments more slowly next time. Dr. Dan 03:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Nie jasne. A coursory search is enough to prove you wrong: Ladislaus is less popular then Wladyslaw in English... Dr. Dan, your refusal to link to your arguments in the archives is quite telling - but not suprise, as I don't recall them, neither...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

There was typo in the second search which I have changed. I'll assume that fundamental methodological error was just one of those things. If you were to narrow the search, say comparing king-ladislaus versus king-wladyslaw, you'd get quite different results. Lies, damn lies, statistics. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

... and Polish Wikipedians backfiring attempts to use Google for their purposes. In this case, "king Ladislaus" beats "king Wladyslaw" 4010:1280.-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       18:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Many Kings named Ladislaus existed, such as King Ladislaus of Naples [3]. One of the questions we have here is whether the term Ladislaus is the more popular name for this King, or Kings from Poland. This raises a second question of what we should stick with (Ladislaus or Wladyslaw) for Polish Kings. I think Wladyslaw is more accurate and the name used in modern historical works, as the google searches you referred to above indicate. Also to be fair, try searching Ladislaus Jagiello [4] (115) or Wladyslaw Jagiello [5] (1520) (so we know who we're reffering to, and not some King fron Naples), then look at the type of books and hits. --Milicz 18:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus loosen up a little. Be glad that I don't know how to "link up" like you young people. Can you imagine how dangerous I'd be, if I bothered to learn how? Right now I'm about as interested in learning how to do so, as Ghirlandajo is, to becoming an administrator. And I think his contributions to WK are wonderful. Dr. Dan 02:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to you as partisan. And Milicz, the whole thing about crap Pope John Paul II and Stalin-like analogies has been dealt with. Being head of the largest state in Europe west of the Mongols hardly equates to being a private citizen, the very idea could be interpreted as mildly insulting or even a downright ethnic slur. Milicz, if you are going to repeat these same trashy arguments, please understand how tedious and repetitive it becomes for other users. I'll tell you now that I have better things to do that waste time going over the same ground. It's blatantly obvious that a large bulk of users disagree in principle. If we all realize this now, we can all save ourselves heated bs-ridden argument, and instead try to find a consensus more acceptable to each side than either extreme is going to be. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 04:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I am at a loss with you two, you get valid arguments and you answer with random thoughts by Jack Handy. You tell me to "re-read the arguments more slowly" instead of acknowledging the arguments don't exist (they don't, I've looked through all the archives) and you claim I'm some sort of partisan, equating a valid Karol Wojtyla analogy with an ethnic slur, which is absurd. Karol Wojtyla was a Cardinal, not a nameless private citizen, but even if he was a "private citizen" I still don't understand your logic or why you would find anything insulting in what I wrote. All I would ask from you two is for a succinct argument for your position, is that to much to ask?--Milicz 04:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to our world of headache, Milicz :( -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing there to understand. Dr. Dan-Calgacus's productions are all bombast, arrogance, profanities, and loose associations (the latter, a cousin to word salad). logologist|Talk 06:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Pan logologist for your kind words. And to show you that I have no hard feelings, let me say that I disagree with those that think you are a shameless joke. 12:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Everybody lets show some worm “welcome” to sock puppeteer User:Logologist!! How is your old “friends” user:Anatopism, user:KonradWallenrod, user:Mattergy? They there not in very good shape, last time I checked them. Maybe you found new "friends"? Could you please introduce them to as too? M.K. 09:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we should stop it. It's going nowhere. What was to be a "new start" goes back to old attitudes. How about starting the voting?--SylwiaS | talk 09:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed M.K. 09:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC) p.s. if only others agrees too

Hi all, I'm a Polish-American, but I've spent a lot of time in Lithuania, so any loyalties I'd have one way are cancelled out by the other. It's really interesting to see how controversial these names get--though I must say the Polish-Lithuanian wikipedia battles are tame compared to the Lithuanian-Belarusian ones I've seen.

Anyways, the way I see it, the son of Algirdas here is one of the key historical figures in both the Polish and Lithuanian nations, so calling him Jogaila or Jagiello is going to be a problem. My solution that would infuriate everyone and please no one, yet might be more neutral would be to call the article Ladislaus II (Jogaila). Ladislaus since this is the English wikipedia and the Latin term is neutral and was once widely used in English. Ladislaus II since King of Poland was his final title, and Jogaila to recognize his Lithuanianess. In truth Ladislaus II Jogalia is the same name as Wladyslaw II Jagiello only more neutral. It's interesting that I see his kid Wlad of Varna is locked in a similar battle with the Hungarians. Oh well...

(Leo1410 01:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC))

Leo, your thoughts are well reasoned and worth considering. Dr. Dan 02:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a few problems with this idea. 1) "Ladislaus" when referring to Polish Kings is an anachronism. Sure we can use it, but no modern historian who studies Poland or Lithuania (that I know of) does. You might as well use Wladyslaw. 2) Ladislaus II is confusing, you need "of Poland" or "Jagiello" to follow. Laudislaus II Jagiello, while anachronistic, is better then Jogaila, which is unrecognizable to all but the most read students of 15th century Polish/Lithuanian history. I would vote for Władysław II Jagiello or Wladyslaw II Jagiello.--Milicz 03:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Per Milicz, consider that Ladislaus II is a disambig (thus we need Jagiello to follow), and Wladyslaw is actually more used in English then Ladislaus (see my links above). Also, note that Ladislaus II Jagiello is virtually not used.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments Dr. Dan and Milicz. As I said, I'm more interested in this argument itself that what its outcome might be. It seems to be part of a larger issue on the English wikipedia of how to view and name people and events in Eastern European history. I think students of Polish history, who for centuries saw much of the English-speaking world's view of their county being filtered through a biased Russian or German view should be able to sympathize with a Lithuanian's desire not to see their history presented from a Polish view. And don't get the Belarusians started on any use of the Lithuanian language for GDL-related titles on Wikipedia.

To me, there is a need for neutral English terminology that acknowledges that no one nation can claim many of these people. I know the name Ladislaus is no longer widely used when examining him as a figure in Polish history, but I suggested it because it's already out there. Perhaps Wladyslaw II Jagiello (Jogaila) is better, but then it's getting pretty long, and there are some that will strongly oppose Wladyslaw without the ł.

So, this turns into a battle of what is used most common in English at a given time. The problem is this is highly variable with the relative power, population, state of nation-building, or number of emigrants to English-speaking countries a nation has at a given time. In 1600, Vytautas in English would have been Vitoldus, in 1800 it would be Witowt, in 1950 it would've been Witold. Some wikipedians are holding out hope that by 2050 he'll be Vitovt. The same goes for Jag/Jog. That's why it'd be nice to have a consistent name that won't necessarily please nationalists, but will stand the test of time. (Leo1410 04:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC))

The funny thing about this is that no one in the article, or throughout history, has ever tried to mask Wladyslaw as being anything other then Lithuanian, which makes this 10 month old argument as to what to name the article all the more absurd. When I saw "Jogaila" as the name of this article it just shocked me because I expected many a variation, but not that one. All I hope for is whatever this article gets named in the end other Wikipedia articles stay consistent with it. Wladyslaw II Jagiello (Jogaila) isn't all that bad, but it just sets a bad precedent for calling other things like cities L'viv (Lwów), or people Pope John Paul II (Karol Wojtyla), with alernate versions in the article name. I'll also add that I know of no Pole who takes offense to Stanisław Leszczyński being referred to as the Duke of Lorraine;)--Milicz 04:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Policies ?

Rather than dubious efforts to find answers on Google books when none exist, let's consider policies and guidelines.

• WP:NAME is a vague overview with nothing much to say.
• WP:UE would discourage Władysław in favour of the anglicisation Wladyslaw, but does not insist upon it.
• WP:NC(CN) says to use the shortest and simplest unambiguous name. This argues against byzantine parenthesised confections such as Ladislaus II (Jogaila) which are not simple.
• WP:PRECISION says to be precise and that the title should reflect the content (the principle of least astonishment).
• WP:NCP says <first nam--24.148.66.84 17:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)e> <last name> is preferred. Not much to say here, unless it is that the subject did indeed have a first name and that "[s]ometimes, mostly for names of antiquity, a single word is traditional and sufficient to indicate a person unambiguously."
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) is an old favourite. But is C15th Poland or Lithuania a "modern country" ? I say not: modern Poland and Lithuania have nothing to do with the medieval and early modern entities of the same name. (If that doesn't upset lots of people I'll be very disappointed). If they are, is Poland or Lithuania the more important ? I'd go with Lithuania myself, but legitimate disagreements are possible. Oh, what fun !
• Is Wikipedia:Naming conflict relevant ? Hard to see how it wouldn't be, given the alleged existence of a Polish cabal. If it is on point, how should it be applied ?

Any more ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC) --24.148.66.84 17:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)**Interestingly I note that not a single one of your arguments supports Jogaila. PS. Care to elaborate more on the existence of the Polish cabal? I always find it very amusing how this argument is used to debunk any arguments made by the Polish editors (they have a cabal, we should ignore them...).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"If they are, is Poland or Lithuania the more important?" The question is subjective and doesn't (in my view) help on what the name of the article should be, and will only lead to wild tangents. Although I do believe Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) is clearly what we should be following here, so taking that into account: Wladyslaw wasn't a King, at least in the Western Christian world, until he was placed upon the throne of Poland, whatever importance you deem either Poland or Lithuania, he became Wladyslaw II when he became King of Poland. If we want to stay away from "of Poland" because some people would view it as an afront to Lithuania then we should stick with Władysław II Jagiello or Wladyslaw II Jagiello. --Milicz 14:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The proper naming according Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) would be Jogaila of Lithuania and Wladyslaw II of Poland - because at the SAME TIME he was monarch of Lithuania and Poland (two separate states). All the speculations, that he was not accepted as Lithuania monarch, well, are speculations (somehow this does not impact Gediminas of Lithuania naming). The same goes for "importance" of Poland and Lithuania. Prove this original research by any modern scientific publication that support this speculation, the i will be acceptable - until then this is only speculation ...--Lokyz 14:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles): Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, use the most commonly associated ones. It has been shown that various variants of Wladyslaw/Ladislaus (II) Jagiello are much more popular then Jogaila, and that they have more support total, however Jogaila being the sole veriation of the Lithuanian name has the advantage of being pretty popular, for example, winning 6:5 as Jogaila of Lithunia over Wladyslaw II of Poland (but of course not if we add Wladyslaw II Jagiello (20), Wladyslaw Jagiello (193), Ladislaus Jagiello (47), Ladislaus II Jagiello (2). Summed up they give more then 250, compared to Jogaila 103 (and note that Wladyslaw Jagiello with 193 books beats down Jogaila with his 103 references single-handly). Therefore it is undisputable that Jogaila is not the most popular variant, and thus it should not be used in name; so I am suprised at some users opposing the proposed compromise of having both names in title (although I agree with Angus that it is suboptimal, but as a gesture of good will I believe we can have this exception). On a sidenote, I find it amusing how it all started with my proposal for removing 'of Poland' as it diminished the Lithuanian part... and how in thanks for this gesture some Lithuanian editors discovered a 'Polish/anti-Lithuanian cabal' assaulting this article :/ -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the dreaded cabal, let's not pretend that there aren't suspicions in some quarters. That aside, several guidelines support the current name. WP:NC(CN)'s shortest, simplest unambiguous is demonstrably met by the current name as any other name is longer and/or more complex. WP:NCP's suggestion that real names be used is met, although it can be argued that it isn't on point due to the existence of the badly-written and worse-thought-out Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). Wikipedia:Naming conflict is the policy which gives us Gdansk rather than Danzig, L'viv rather than Lemberg, Toruń rather than Thorn, and so on, so it seems especially relevant. My personal view corresponds very closely with the Polish monarchs naming proposal in most cases, but this is one of the exceptions. This case can not set a precedent (anyway, there are no binding decisions) so what we determine here does not impact any other naming dispute, except in the broad sense of pointing up how silly Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) is. I'm all for that, and anyone else who wants accuracy should be too. The alternative is a rush to the bottom as we seek the lowest common denominator, or pandering to current US political disputes. (My suspicion is that WP:UE has the prominence which it does for good US-centric reasons, as shown by these cartoons on Slate: [6], [7], [8], [9].) Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Angus for the great cartoons! Somehow I missed them the first time around. See, re-reading all of the crap in the archives has proven invaluable. Btw, you can't "really" believe in the "Cabal Theory". I mean nothing in this latest attempt to create a "scholarly" adjustment to the article's name would lead you back to that erroneous conclusion. Would it? Dr. Dan 22:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Does WP naming rules say something about a case when 1) a monarch ruled a monarchy 2) got second crown 3) ruled two lands for same time?

And please, tell me how to name Lithuanian monarch before he go second crown? Also Wladyslaw II Jagello? I've already seen where this leads - because for example in History of Belarusian language is an statement, that "Old belorusian" language was used in GDL in the times of King Casimir. Does it sound logical?--Lokyz 15:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

In several places I have stated, and I am happy to repeat, that naming an article 'xxx' does not mean we have to use that name everywhere - this is what redirects and pipes are for. Certainly for any period before he was crowned King of Poland he should be reffered to as Jogaila in text, however as article's names go, he should be under W2J as this is the more popular name of the two.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

About the popularity. Present day (September, 12) english google counts for search with exact phrase: Jogaila - 19100 [10], Wladyslaw II Jagiello - 12900 [11]. It seems, that google pays no attention to diacritics. Orionus 07:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not compare Jogaila to Jagiello[12] 147,000 Google hits?--SylwiaS | talk 07:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

But the title is proposed to be W2J, not Jagiello! On the other hand, I have found only 116000 for Jagiello [13]. And we need to eliminate pages, that have no connection with Wladislaw II Jagiello (www.jagiello.net, Walter Jagiello and so on) Orionus 08:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the title is proposed to be W2J because it's closer to Wiki policies. Neither Jogaila nor Jagiello agree with them. But it doesn't mean that we should compare apples to oranges. I don't think we have to bother estimating sites like Walter E. Jagiello (Jagiello is not popular Polish name. Certainly not as popular as Jogaila is in Lithuania.) unless we're going to count out every Jogaila X or X Jogaila in internet such as in the following examples: [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21], all the books issued by Jogaila Publications, every mention of Jogaila ship, Jogaila street and so on.--SylwiaS | talk 09:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Jagiello is not popular Polish name. Certainly not as popular as Jogaila is in Lithuania - are you certainly sure? I am not. I don't think we have to bother estimating sites like Walter Jagiello but we, of course must eliminate Jogaila Publications and similar apples:) Orionus 10:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Jagiełło in Poland is a surname, which means one must be born with it to have it. Only about 0,02% of Poles have the pleasure. In Lithuania Jogaila is a first name - anyone can have it. So yes, I think it's much more popular in Lithuania than in Poland, but of course I'd be interested in seeing some stats about how many people in Lithuania are named Jogaila.--SylwiaS | talk 11:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure Sylwia, Jogaila a first name in Lithuania? Expertise on your part? Anyone can have it, but nobody does. Did "our" Jogaila in question have a last name? Dr. Dan 15:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't find any statistics, but personally I don't now any Jogaila. Kestutis, Vytautas, Mindaugas - these names are much more popular than Jogaila. Orionus 12:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Even not taking into account SylwiaS point that many Jogaila's are false hits, please note that if we add 13,700 of Wladyslaw Jagiello to your 12,900 of Wladyslaw II Jagiello, we get 26,600, thus showing that those variants are more popular then the 19k of Jogaila.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Google books is rather more useful than raw Google; the interweb is full of crap, and that isn't even a search in English. If you relied on Google books beauty contests, the article would be called either Wladyslaw, Jagiello or Jogaila, but not Wladyslaw II Jagiello or Wladyslaw Jogaila or Wladyslaw Jagiello. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"If they are, is Poland or Lithuania the more important?"

When I saw "Jogaila" as the name of this article it just shocked me because I expected many a variation, but not that one.

The way I see it, this is the heart of the matter rather than any anti-Polish or anti-Lithuanian crusade. I think Milicz's statement is revealing. It shows how in the 20th century Polish-oriented scholarship has really come to dominate to the extent that many cannot recognize this Polish hegemony over the history of this part of the world. Ladislaus or Wladislaus can easily be updated to Wladyslaw, but Jogaila? Not Vladislovas Algirdaitas, but Jogaila, a name used in English scholarship to describe his role in the history of Lithuania. So, the question isn't what was his name because they both were. The question is do we recognize him for being the monarch of Lithuania or the monarch of Poland.

I would personally lean toward the latter for two reasons. 1) When he took the crown, moved to Krakow, and later ceded power to Vytautas, he pretty much made this decision for us. 2) Jagiello is up there with Kazimierz and Mieszko as the top imporatant figure in medieval Polish history, while in Lithuania he takes a back seat to Vytautas, Gediminas, Mindaugas, and probably Kestutis as well. Still, I would prefer Ladislaus II Jagiello or even Vladislav II Jagiello. I just don't see Wladyslaw as any more Anglicized than Władysław or for that matter Vladislovas. Having an English version for Wladyslaw solves all that, and the way I see it, there already is one: Ladislaus. (Leo1410 16:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC))

If you look at literature specifically dedicated to this time in Lithuanian and Polish history, you'll never see Ladislaus (I'm sure someone will find a rare exception), it's a form of the name used from a bygone era. Otherwise I agree with you. --Milicz 16:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It should be Wladyslaw as the form most often used in English. We could use Wladislaus as the official Latin form, but it's rather not popular.--SylwiaS | talk 17:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you make the case for the Solomonic solution that is Jogaila rather well. Poles would expect to see him as Władysław and Lithuanians banish him to foreign, Polish history. As for almost everyone else, they've never heard of him anyway, so they won't be surprised or confused. We aren't indulging anyone's comfortable national myths by calling him Jogaila: Poles can't ignore that he was a foreign king, Lithuanians can't ignore his existence by seeing him as a foreigner. Thus, nobody is happy. That's the normal result of compromise. Short of actually cutting the baby in half I don't see how we can do any better.

As Milicz says, Ladislaus is not something you would expect to see in the sort of book that constitutes a reliable source. Elonka can probably find it in one of her ancient pop reference books that she consults at every occasion, but none of those are exactly reliable. Indeed, as with many disputed names, finding the outdated anglicised version is usually a sign that the material you are about to read is outdated and very often wrong. SylwiaS's view that Wladyslaw is the form most often used in English is true in the sense she probably meant it, although it's not true as written. There is a more common anglicisation (in the broad sense of being used in English contexts) of the name in question which is neither Wladyslaw nor Ladislaus. Believe me, nobody would like using that version here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Angus, I don't know what your name is, but if we all agree that Ladislaus is archaic and unscholarly and everything else, at least understand why it is convenient. Wladyslaw, Vladyslav, Vladislovas, Ulaszlo... are all peculiar to a given non-English language. Using a Latin or English version of the name in the English wikipedia solves this problem. Simply trying to count if there are more Polish books and websites mentioning him as Wladyslaw than there are Lithuanian books and websites using Jogaila seems arbitrary. Truthfully, this is much more of an issue for kings such as Louis Angevin and Wladyslaw of Varna though this article seems to have become the lightning rod for the larger argument. (Leo1410 17:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC))

I meant the name as used in reference to this king of course. (We don't make Bill Clinton - William - only because William might be a more often used form of the name.) There is also a far more popular form of Jogaila in English which is Jagiello. I'd like to notice as well, that there were many "foreign" kings of countries all over the world. Should we rename the article George III of the United Kingdom to Georg of Hanover, or better yet George I of Great Britain to Georg, Prince Elector of the Holy Roman Empire? The latter couldn't even speak English. Why I don't see a heated dispute there? As much as Wiki policies go he should be simply called Wladyslaw II of Poland. We can of course look for a compromise, but Jogaila isn't a compromise in any way. BTW It seems that Ladislaus is a Latin version of the Hungarian name, while Wladyslaw was latinized as Wladislaus.--SylwiaS | talk 18:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It's worth remembering that there were two Polish monarchs whose name was Władysław II. Appleseed (Talk) 19:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I still do not see propositions, how would yo call Jogaila of Lithuania in his Lithuanianian period. He's not only foreign King, he's also monarch of Grand Duchy from 1377. (like stated in document: Nos Jagalo divina deliberacione magnus Rex vel dux litwanorum, Russieque dominus et here) Without that, he would not become a king of Poland. Or does this not count, as he LATER chose to be king? So please, tell me, how, according to teh WP:Naming rules shoulhe be called at that period?--Lokyz 19:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Wladislaus II Jagiellon? And then make it clear in the article that that was a name he adopted later in life? (Leo1410 19:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC))

Don't you think that implementing this name to his past is rather absurd? It's like calling early race Alfa-Romeo Ferrari's, or stating, that Karol Wojtyla was John Paul 2nd in 1947 year, or even assuming Jogaila was christian before ha was baptised. --Lokyz 19:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Jogaila in his Lithuanian period is called Jogaila, and no one suggests changing that. I understand that Leo1410's proposition referred to the article's title.--SylwiaS | talk 19:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If he didn't become the king of Poland the article should be titled Jogaila, Grand Duke of Lithuania (according to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles)#Monarchical_titles see pt. 5), just as the article of the other Wladyslaw II - Wladyslaw the Exile would be titled Wladyslaw II, High Duke of Poland if he wasn't exiled.--SylwiaS | talk 19:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC) BTW I'm fine with Wladislaus II Jagiellon--SylwiaS | talk 19:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I've explained above why I think in this case the King of Poland title is more appropriate than the Grand Duke of Lithuania title--though the spelling becomes the issue for me. The thing is, I wouldn't want to see a trend evolve of assuming King of Poland as the higher title. Since Sylwia entered the forbidden territory of what-ifs, I will ask what we would call the Vytautas the Great article had he outlived Jag/Jog and assumed the Polish crown for a year or two before dying. Certainly we wouldn't call Lithuania's national hero Witold I of Poland. Again, what-ifs are dangerous, but I think I made my point. (Leo1410 19:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC))

I cannot agree with SylwiaS or Milicz, that Jogaila is not popular in Lithuania, so it is not important or less relevant. Jogaila chose to accept Roman Catholicism and as the Ruler of Lithuania, call it Grand Duke (this is the historiographic tradition), ordered or forced his subjects to accept his choice. His choice eliminated the justification grounds for the Teutonic Order before Roman Emperors to continue its occupation of Lithuania's territory. How can be the person, who turned Lithuania to the path of Western civilisation and Roman Catholic Christianity be not important to Lithuania? As to his name, it would phonetically be better off written as Yogaila in English, but nobody writes Yagewo either :) And I agree with Calgacus, that the country in this case is better to be ommitted and that the names Jogaila (Wladyslaw II) or Wladyslaw II (Jogaila) are short and clear. Wladyslaw itself reminds about the King being Polish King (but not Polish). Jagiellon is not the surname of this person, it is rather the name of the dynasty, and the starter of the dynasty cannot be father of himself. Juraune 15:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"I cannot agree with SylwiaS or Milicz, that Jogaila is not popular in Lithuania." I don't believe I ever made such a statement, nor did Sylwia. He was important to Poland and Lithuania, but he took on the name of Wladyslaw and title of King of Poland, and that is what he was known as henceforth.--Milicz 17:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Please quote the full sentence, not just the first part of it. Popularity ratings and google counts of name popularity are not the indicators of importance in history. Juraune 19:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here is the full sentence: "I cannot agree with SylwiaS or Milicz, that Jogaila is not popular in Lithuania, so it is not important or less relevant." My statement remains the same, you seem to be misunderstanding what I have written. Although popularity ratings and google counts of name popularity can be indicators of importance in history, I don't think anyone is arguing importance with regards to the name of this article.--Milicz 20:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Jogaila in Lithuanian bibliography

I believe that changing opinions about Jogaila should be described, here or in a separate article. Xx236 07:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Family relations of Władysław II of Poland

Could anybody elucidate the status of this page? It is full of mistakes and strange spellings. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It is simply the part copied directly from this very article. I thought that the list looked ugly and migrated it to a separate article, leaving only a brief tree in place. //Halibutt 09:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

WP articles are not genealogical entries or trees, says WP:NOT. Furthermore, this article is about Jogaila, and that one is about Władysław II of Poland. Our readers may find this lack of conformity disturbing. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

About the content of that article, ask the person to add those lists to this one, I merely migrated it and put it in an easier to use version. As to the name of that article, this article should be under that name as well. And I'm sure it will be returned to the old name as soon as it's ready. //Halibutt 13:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is certainly not a free-for-all genealogical database, but in case of notable families (royalty, nobility, etc.) I am pretty sure such genealogical articles feet the notability critieria. Feel free to list it at AfD and see what the experts say, although considering the existence of Category:Family trees I think if this indeed is a problem, we have dozens of article to consider for deletion. As for the name, I am would indeed prefer Władysław II Jagiello instead of Wladyslaw II of Poland, although it is certainly better the the current version.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia, Wikipdia publishes such genealogy information that is useful to know to understand some notable phenomenon. For example, no one would delete a genealogy that displays how the rival claims of War of Roses were based on their rights of succession. For example, when presenting how a particular throne was inherited (or claimed), or would be inherited, a genealogy has its place here. Same with notable political or business relations: probably an outline of Rothschild genealogy has its place here. It is important whether the genealogical relations had impact on the encyclopedic issue at hand, or not. Shilkanni 02:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

avoidable but persistent and time-comsuming deliberate terminology confusion

I used to find it alarming, but now that I am used to it, I still find it annoying that my respected colleague and prolific editor Halibutt continues to persist with certain small and large things defying any past discussions.

The Genealogical article was created under the title that only adds to confusion and it was obviously done on purpose. Kievan Rus for years continues for someone to be Kiev Ruthenia, etc. This is not only within this article. My recent encounters are now famous Wilno are persistent refusal to call PSW as such (PBW for some reason) as well as its inclusions such as Wołodarka, Nowochwastów, Mironówka and even, until recently, Monachium (!).

Can my colleague start using normal terminology and not waste the time of us all on the need to correct such usages? --Irpen 08:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Could my honourable colleague Irpen please stay on topic? The name of that article was chosen out of simplicity. If you feel it should be moved to some other name then please be so kind as to propose a WP:RM and then move it anywhere you like. As to Kievan Ruthenia, it's just another name of what you call Kiev Rus' or Kiev Russia. Some prefer one name, some prefer the other, there's nothing wrong with that. Besides, contrary to what our respected friend Ghirlandajo said once, the name of Ruthenia was not coined by Poles and is just a Latin name, pretty popular among scholars. But still, there was one instance of the usage of the name in the article, Ghirlandajo took the liberty to change it to his liking and nobody opposed that. Same with Wołodarka, nobody has ever opposed your changes of the name. What I did oppose was your unsourced and unsupported demand that the Polish victory be called a Polish defeat. Yet, I can't see how is that issue related to this one. Besides, it was not me to add the name of Monachium to Template:Infobox Kiev, as I never edited that template myself. //Halibutt 08:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"The name of that article was chosen out of simplicity."

Simplicity, my friend, is when the name used in the title of another article matches the name of this article. What you've done is added complexity, perhaps, due to the dissatisfaction of WP:RM outcome

In no article I call the Kievan state as Kievan Russia even thoush some scholars do so.

I appologize for Monachium, it was introduced in your friend's rather than yours' edit. I thought I knew better.

I am glad you sometimes don't oppose the name changes. It would save time if you use consistent names youself. I can see why you insist with Wilno (whether I agree or not) but PBW and Kievan Ruthenia can certainly be avoided.

And I did not know about Template:Infobox Kiev but thanks for alerting me about that anon's edit. --Irpen 08:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Simplicity is when I use the name of this article and not the one to which it was changed in violation of wiki rules, WP:RM and consensus.

I don't call it Kievan Russia nor do I call it Kiev Rus', Kievan Rus, or Kievan Ruś, although all of these are used by scholars. I prefer the long-established name of Kiev Ruthenia, but - unlike many others - I don't care much for the name as there is more than one in common use.

Apologies accepted.

I agreed not to use the name of Wilno some year ago or so, in all of my recent articles I use Vilna or Vilnius, depending on whether the context is modern or historical. Why do you bring it here? PBW and Kievan Ruthenia could certainly be avoided, just like PSW and Kiev Rus could be avoided as well. That's how synonyms work. As I said in multiple places, in such cases I believe it should be left up to the author, but I don't oppose nit-pickers to change a single word either. //Halibutt 19:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me ask you 2 simple questions then

1. In the year 2006 Vilnians or Vilniusites live in Vilnius, Halibutt?
2. Was Jogaila in his early years a Ruler of Lithuania, according to your 'Early years' subtitle?

Juraune 07:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

1. I guess Vilnians, just as Varsovians live in Warsaw. It seems the term is quite widespread in English, contrary to the bizarre Vilniusites.
2. At times he was the ruler, at times he was a co-regent, and at times he was in prison and not a ruler of anything (rather a claimant). //Halibutt 10:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Jogaila in Lithuanian bibliography

I believe that changing opinions about Jogaila should be described, here or in a separate article. From hatred to love. Xx236 12:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Gdańsk Pomerania or Pomerelia

The article should link to Pomerelia instead of Gdańsk Pomerania. The latter is a phrase for a larger modern-day geographic region, while the former is the specific territory meant in the article. Not only is Pomerelia used considerably more often in English historiography([22],[23],[24], [25]), but a link to Gdańsk Pomerania implies that Poland controlled Chełmno Land and Pomesania at the time, which was not the case. Olessi 14:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem of neutrality is best explained in Pomerania#Subdivisions_of_Pomerania. Traditionally Poles divided it into two lands: Pomorze Wschodnie (Eastern Pomerania) and Pomorze Zachodnie (Western Pomerania), while Germans used to divide it into tree regions instead: Vorpommern (Hither Pomerania), Hinterpommern (Further Pomerania), and Pommerellen (Pomerania). Obviously what used to be "farther" for the Germans, was nearer for the Poles. Using the German division instead of Polish may be a bit problematic to oversensitive Poles and vice-versa. Since the article is about the king of Poland (and Duke of Lithuania) but not a German person, I'd suggest to use the Polish division into two lands throughout it. --Lysy^talk 15:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Some questions regarding the current version follow:

• "The document, known as the Union of Krewo, undertook to return the lands taken from Poland by its neighbours (notably Gdańsk and Eastern Pommerania taken by the Teutonic Order)." As I mentioned above, the territory described in Gdańsk Pomerania is larger than the territory described in Pomerelia. Linking to Gdańsk Pomerania falsely implies that Pomesania was a Polish territory at that time. An alternative could be "(notably [[Gdańsk]] and [[Pomerelia|parts of Eastern Pomerania]] taken by the Teutonic Order)".
• "In addition, the recent Teutonic acquisitions of Neumark, Santok and Drezdenko separated Poland from Western Pomerania and flanked Polish lands in Eastern Pommerania." I am not sure of the meaning of this sentence, as Pomerelia was taken by the Order in 1308/1309, so the specific parts of Eastern Pomerania then remaining under Polish control should be listed instead. In addition, a link to Gdańsk Pomerania again falsely implies that Pomerelia and Pomesania were under Polish control ca. 1400.
• "On August 14 Jagiełło received the declaration of war in Nowy Korczyn and already two days afterwards the Teutons invaded Pomerania and northern Poland." Which parts of the rather large territory of Pomerania were invaded? It is my understanding that Poland had been deprived of access to the Baltic by this time (see Space Cadet's map), and as such the Order would have been invading its own territory or that of the HRE. Olessi 05:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus to move —Mets501 (talk) 01:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

• Jogaila → Wladyslaw II Jagiello —(Discuss)—

1. It was moved from Władysław II Jagiełło in violation of wiki rules (WP:CONSENSUS and WP:RM in particular; the fact that the result was 16:16 is telling as well) , so it shouldn't be where it is in the first place
2. The person in question was born as Jogaila, but changed the name to Wladyslaw out of his own free will¹.
3. It has been expanded significantly (by yours' truly ²) and it is now painfully clear that the person in question was a duke of Lithuania for 7 years and King of Poland for 49 years
4. Per WP:UE we should use the most prominent name as used by scholarly works. "Wladyslaw Jagiello" beats "Jogaila" in English scientific literature at least 3:1³, in encyclopaedias at least 10 to 1⁴ (not to mention more common tests⁵)

— //Halibutt 20:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Entirely accidental I'm sure, but this RM was listed under uncontroversial moves at WP:RM; now changed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, must've been blind. //Halibutt 23:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Support

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

1. Support per above //Halibutt 20:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

   BTW, do you counted both Władysław II Jagiełło and Wladyslaw II Jagiello as one, when pointed links to scientific literature? M.K. 23:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

2. Support per one or more years of discussion; summary of arguments above is rather convincing.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Support per Halibutt's argumentation Radomil talk 20:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
4. Support, to move it to a name which seems to be preferred in external English-language sources (multiple encyclopedias). --Elonka 21:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. Don't agree with all four of Halibutt's points, but that's of no importance. I agree with the proposed namechange. --Francis Schonken 21:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
6. Support agree with all Halibutt's points. Space Cadet 21:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
7. Support per Halibutt and numerous discussions. And yes, he changed his name willingly because he wanted to be a king of Poland, just as Marilyn Monroe changed hers from Norma Jeane Baker, because she wanted to be an actress, or Karol Wojtyła changed his to John Paul II, because he wanted to be a pope. Or should we move those articles too?--SylwiaS | talk 23:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

   A very valid point, although I disagree as it only partly applies here. One reason is that Marilyn Monroe is a stage-name/pseudonym (although legal) and any one selected as Pope doesn't really have a choice of keeping their name (as I understand it). I could also give examples of peoples names legally being other to what they are best known as i.e. Triple H for Paul Michael Levesque and Cat Stevens for Yusuf Islam. Andrius 00:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

   Since the change they were officially referred to by their new names, what cannot be said about Cat Stevens. Then I think my examples are very rellevant, since Wladylaw Jagiello was referred to by his new name.--SylwiaS | talk 02:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

   "was referred" is a passive voice. Referred to by whom? "Ay, there's the rub." The problem with Marilyn Monroe was that she had three names before changing to MM, her official name was not her baptismal name, and she did not change from NJ Baker but from NJ Dougherty. I mean, if neither your official name at birth nor your baptismal name refer to your real father, you may be tempted to do a Kasparov and change over to your mother's name. Rant over. --Pan Gerwazy 14:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

8. Support. Muhammad Ali, not Cassius Clay. logologist|Talk 02:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
9. Support, proper monarch title, name at death (Trotsky, Stalin?), tough luck Jogaila changed his name to Wladyslaw, unless you can prove he was drugged and unaware of what he was doing. Truthseeker 85.5 11:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

   Please note, this particular user was blocked for a month due to disruptive actions in regards of this ongoing vote.M.K. 19:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

10. Support - this is the name which predominates in historical literature. Balcer 14:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
11. Support per Balcer. - Darwinek 14:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
12. Support per above and my opposition to acts by propagandists on Portal Russia.Constanz - Talk 14:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

    Are you voting only due to personal hatred? M.K. 15:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

    I wouldn't say hatred. I dislike childish name-calling, the way they gather voters and blacklist others. I know how things are done by those pals.--Constanz - Talk 06:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

    It looks like that you voted on hatred not knowing the main problem here. The present title of article bears Lithuanian name of the monarch, the original one which he personally used till death. By taking baptism Jogaila received and new name; now Poles trying to rename this article by presenting new one Wladyslaw II Jagiello, which is not his baptism name at all. And I do not see here any “childish name-calling” and even do not see “they gather voters and blacklist others”. For Jogaila to stay, voting many different people – from Lithuania, Belgium, Russia, Scotland etc. M.K. 07:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

    Are you talking about this or this? The Russian board only mirrors the content of the Polish one. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

13. Support: Second choice to none. Reichenbach 15:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
14. Support: I was analysing discussions for a while. Generally, Halibutt together with Britanica do convince me.--Beaumont (@) 16:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

    It's Britannica Beaumont. Did you analyze for a long time? Glad that Halibutt is on the same par as Britannica in your mind. How about specifically, rather than generally? Best. 75.2.88.126 18:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

    Oh, I thought it was Wikipedia 75.2.88.126 ;) Do we meet again? doesn't matter. Glad to learn that Halibutt contradicts Britannica's position on that. --Beaumont (@) 20:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

15. Support Yes, when in doubt there are a plethora of encyclopedias and references which use his primary royal title. Pawel z Niepolomic 22:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
16. Support Not my first choice but a step in the right direction. Appleseed (Talk) 00:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
17. Support. "Wladyslaw" ought to be in the title. john k 01:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

    This attitude is insulting not only for Lithuania, but for the people of Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia (Smolensk, Bryansk), of which Jogaila was the ruler. Mainstream historians in either of these four countries never refer to him as Wladyslaw. I don't see why the opinion of four nations is dismissed so carelessly, in order to please the Poles. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

    I'm glad to hear it. Before I'm done with wikipedia I'd like to insult every eastern European ethnic group, so I'm glad I'm getting so many with just this one comment. Beyond that, who the [expletive deleted] cares what historians in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Lithuania call him? What is important for the English wikipedia is what he is called by historians in the UK, the United States, Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, and so forth. As far as I can tell, this is usually (although not always) some variation of "Wladyslaw Jagiello". john k 13:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

    Ghirla, please do not present it as if it was a national conflict, some sort of "us vs. them". It is not. //Halibutt 08:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

18. Support. Szopen 08:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
19. Support. I hope people will come to their senses and pick this widely accepted name for the article.--Milicz 20:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
20. Support, clearly the more widely known and used name in English. Which is the only criterion that should count here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
21. Support Not the greatest expert on this, however I have heard of the proposed form more, Jogaila I have only read once, and that was in explanation of his Lithuanian name. Gryffindor 09:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
22. Support per nom's 4th point, WP:UE. — One more example: The Times Atlas of World History, Fourth Edition, London, 1994, ISBN 0-7230-0534-6, pages 139 & 333: Władysław II Jagiełło. - Evv 19:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose; given my reasons many times. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose Google play: Jogaila 380 Wladyslaw II Jagiello 59; Jogaila 16600 Wladyslaw II Jagiello 12100. "Argument" "changed the name to Wladyslaw" – unfounded. “duke of Lithuania for 7 years” need comments? M.K. 22:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose no good reasons given by proposer; how anyone can support this move and cite guidelines at the same time is utterly baffling (WP:UE is not relevant, WP:NAME and subpages are, but they don't favour the proposed location). Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Only preferential voting can help decide on this particular move. A very similar situation took place at Talk:Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse. All votes based on yes/no option for the names as difficult as this one will fail to produce concensus. --Irpen 22:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Have stated my case previously, more than once. Dr. Dan 23:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose. Some of the points made by Halibutt are, well, wrong. Point 1 I partly agree with - apart from the last bit. Point 2, I dispute. He changed his name of his own free will? Did he not change it to allow hime to rule Poland? Point 3 - was he not ruler of Poland and Lithuanian at the same time, so TECHNICALLY was he not ruler of Poland for 49 and of Lithuania for (49 + 7) 56 years? Moving on to point 4, nothing seems correct about that, as M.K. has pointed out with several book searches (the most important point being - searching for only English results in Google and putting the Polish name in speech marks). So using conventional tests more extensively (these are in no way perfect, either) would give better results. E.g. heres a Google search for English pages (-wikipedia.org), Jogaila returns 15,600 results and a search for English pages containing the term "Wladyslaw II Jagiello" (-wikipedia.org) gives 10,600 results. I am in no way an expert and those were "my two pence" - correct me if I'm wrong in any of what I have said (it's 00:30 here and I'm quite tired). Anyways, overall, I disagree with most of Halibutt's reasons and therefore I oppose. Andrius 23:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

   Read the article and you'll see. He was not a ruler of both Lithuania and Poland, technically he was king of Poland with dukes of Lithuania as his vassals. Practically he had little sovereignity over Lithuania under Vytautas. And he did not hold the title of Grand Duke of Lithuania for Grand Duke for 56 years, just read the article and you'll see. As to academic works - sure, let's include Lithuanian language publications as well... but then shouldn't we include Polish ones as well? //Halibutt

   The fact of the matter is that, Jogaila/Wladyslaw II Jagiello had influence over Lithuania, howewever small that influence was. As to your point on academic works, I was speaking abut the google book search and the google search - although they are only minor indicators. As someone has already stated, this will only be solved by preferrential votinig and in my opinion neither Jogaila nor Wladyslaw II Jagiello is the correct title. Last point - why am I sensing all this hostility? I'm feeling some snide remarks from various people. Andrius 21:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

   article full of mistakes... M.K. 09:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

7. Oppose. Regrettably, there are no efforts to find compromise and more neutral title... Orionus 06:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

   This is a more neutral title. Note that according to guidelines the article would have to be at Wladyslaw II of Poland. //Halibutt 08:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

   Example from physics: What is a photon - a wave or a particle? The same is true in the case of Jogaila. He is equally important both for Lithuania and Poland history. Open your eyes, Halibutt. Today is year 2006. Orionus 09:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

   Yes, but he was a king of Poland, not a king of Lithuania. Get the idea? //Halibutt

   and one more gap... M.K. 14:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

8. Oppose. Yawn... I am amazed at the tireless activities of some Polish guys, who manage simultaneously to promote their agenda on Russian Enlightenment, Marie Curie, Adam Ozharovsky, Lodz, and half a dozen other entries. Molobo is sure proud. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose. Disagree completely with Halibutt's 1. I doubt that Marileen Monroe, or Pope John Paul the II would wanted to be known as a persons without roots and without names given at birth. I stated historical reasons for Jogaila before, and have no time at all to repeat them. Jogaila is simply shorter and more elegant. Poland is not the rest of the world, no matter how big or significant it is. Polish language is not an equivalent of Latin or English, not yet, dear Piotrus and Halibutt :D No compromise, no deal. Juraune 14:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose. I must oppose the proposed merger not because I think Jogaila the best name (though it's a good one), but because the proposed location is bad. Wladyslaw is not good English, even if it is used. Nobody knows how to pronounce it and it is just the Polish sans diacritics. If we're going to go with that, I say let's give the Poles what they want and add the stupid diacritics. (NB Ladislaus, a Latinisation, avoids all nationalistic arguments and it is common enough in English.) Worse than that though is the fact that "II" does not seem to be an undisputed ordinal. If this guy's Wladyslaw II, then who's Władysław II the Exile? Worst, though, is that Jagiello here appears as a surname or epithet. It is, of course, neither. It is his birth name. I proposed on several prior occasions to move the page to Jagiello, which is, I think, the most recognisable English usage for those not familiar with Polish history. It is the Polonisation of a Lithuanian name with a great history as a dynastic name and in the English literature. I do not see why it is even controversial. Apply the Charlemagne exception (as currently is being done here) and move him to Jagiello. Other than that, I like it where it is better than where it is proposed to put it. Srnec 16:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

    The diacritics are neither wise nor stupid. People can be but not diacritics. --Lysy^talk 21:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

    let's give the Poles what they want and add the stupid diacritics - the rethoric of your argument is stunning, especially as we are not talking about diactrics. Who are to say what names are good English? I know plenty of people whose names are not easy to pronouce; should they change? And I sincerly doubt Jogaila is easy to pronouce. 'II' is not that confusing, 90% sources use 'Władysław II' for him. Finally, Jagiello is both a polonized version of his name and a surname (think for a moment where do surnames come from). I think the proposed name, which includes 'Wladyslaw' used by almost all sources and 'Jagiello' which you yourself note should be used is a better alternative then Jogaila used by a few scholars in English language.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

    I mentioned diacritics so that my arguments would cover all options and not just the proposed one, this way you can know what I will and will not support in the future should you choose to propose another name. When I called them "stupid" and said "give the Poles what they want", it should only have been understood as an expression of my exasperation.

    Who am I to say what names are good English? An anglophone, maybe? I called Wladyslaw bad English, because it is not English and is not an attempt to be. This is fine in many contexts. I don't expect to see Jorge Arbusto instead of George Bush. But in some contexts it is not. I do expect to see Henry I, not Henri, not Heinrich, not Enrique, not Enrico, etc. If I were writing in Spanish about the current American president, I would use George Bush (not Jorge), but that doesn't make "George" Spanish. In historical (ie medieval) contexts, it is typical to translate those names which can be into English. Why should Jagiello be an exception? From one whose first language is English and who can pronounce even unfamiliar words with a good deal of proficiency: Jogaila is easier to pronounce than Wladyslaw.

    Jagiello was not a surname for the person under discussion. Maybe later, not for him. It should not be confused. There were no surnames in the modern sense in medieval Europe. Jagiello is better than Jogaila, but Wladyslaw should be avoided as it is not as well known as Jagiello among those not familiar with Polish history (but aware of bits and pieces) and Wladyslaw is a poor de-diacriticisation of the modern Polish version and not the proper (contemporary) Latinisation or Anglicisation. Srnec 02:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

    You wrote In historical (ie medieval) contexts, it is typical to translate those names which can be into English. And W2J seems to be the English translation chosen by some authors of the Cambridge University Press. See a book cited by Halibutt and, above all, "The New Cambridge Medieval History" described below in details (short: Jogaila as a redirect to W2C in the index and only few instances in the main text when it is related to his Lithuania period; we use it more frequently and I would support it in the relevant text). Apart of this, think about Britannica, which also preferes the "bad English" version. I do agree, W2J is not too easy to pronounce, but appearently there are more substantial reasons to choose this name for the article (and to use it sometimes in the text too). --Beaumont (@) 15:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

    While others authors of the same Cambridge University use Jogaila... M.K. 15:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

11. Oppose. I was not going to vote on this one, until I saw the preceding vote and comment. I agree with it 100%. --Pan Gerwazy 16:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose. ­­­Doc15071969 20:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

    Why, if I may ask?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

    See long essay in the discussion secton. Renata 01:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

13. Oppose artificial concoction of the name. Also false statement: He formally changed his name to Ladislaus, not Wladyslaw. `'mikkanarxi 21:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

    Why Ladislaus?--SylwiaS | talk 00:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

14. Oppose per Srnec. In addition, of Halibutt's reasons: 2 is irrelevant; 3 is very dubious; 4 is exaggerated. That leaves 1, which has nothing to do with the merits of the names: Renata is right to prohibit "digging in the past". Jogaila is better than Wladislaw II Jagiello; although Jagiello would be better still. Septentrionalis 21:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

    The new title would at least contain Jagiello... and be in line with every other encyclopedia out there. PS. How is 4 'exaggerated'?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

    Probably, exaggerated because contributor counted Władysław II Jagiełło and Wladyslaw II Jagiello as one. I asked him about this issue, no answer till now. M.K. 07:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

    And, even not allowing for that, he cites a ratio which is less than 2:1 as 3:1 and 10:1. Halibutt's googlefight lumps all forms of Jagiello together. This is not serious use of statistics. Septentrionalis 18:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

15. Oppose per Srnec and per comment of ConstanZ Alex Bakharev 07:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose per Srnec Staberinde 14:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

    Also noticed that proposed version is Wladyslaw without diacritics, probably to make it more acceptable for general public. But all articles about other Polish Władysław's are with diacritics: Władysław I Herman, Władysław I the Elbow-high, Władysław II the Exile, Władysław III of Poland, Władysław III Spindleshanks, Władysław IV Vasa. That way proposed version is in contradiction with other Polish Wladyslaw's.--Staberinde 11:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

17. Oppose Wladyslaw is no more an English name than Vladislovas Jogaila Algirdaitis is. Google hits are a poor measure of English usage since he is referred to as different names depending on the context. An article in English that focuses on Poland will call him Wladyslaw, and one that focuses on Lithuania will call him Jogaila that still doesn't make it an English name. The article should be under Ladislaus Jagiello of Poland and Lithuania or Jogaila of Lithuania, Wladyslaw II of Poland. If brevity is a concern, Jogaila and Jagiello are equally okay. Leo1410 23:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

    Per WP:NAMEPEOPLE we should adopt the name that is most generally recognisable, which in this case is not Jogaila, at least it is not the most recognizable for people who base their knowledge on something else than wikipedia. And this works not only for google tests (where Jagiello beats Jogaila 16:1), but also for scholarly works (at least 3:1) and encyclopedias (10:1). Not to mention that in mere google test "Władysław Jagiełło"(with diacritics, English sites only!) beats "Vladislovas Jogaila" 668:1. Sure, none of the names is "English" as such, but one of them is popular in English, the other one is not. //Halibutt 06:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

    A couple of are things wrong with that - "Google test where Jagiello beats Jogaila". Fair point Jagiello does beat Joigaila in a simple google test. But it's not simply Jagiello that you want this article moved to, it's "Wldayslaw II Jagiello". And a lot of the Jagiello search results return Ladislaus Jagiello and simply Jagiello. When you search English pages for the full term of "Wladyslaw II Jagiello" and English pages for "Jogaila", Jogaila does does indeed pass that test "Jogaila" 19,100, "Wladyslaw II Jagiello" 14,500, also please note that Google does not take note of diacritics, it sees ł as l and will return a search for Władysław II Jagiełło with Wladyslaw II Jagiello. Andrius 10:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

    As per the very same Wikiguideline you quoted (WP:NAMEPEOPLE), using "the name that is unambiguous with the name of other articles" is one of the two central principles in article naming, along with using "the name that is most generally recognisable". See aslo response to Piotr below. Doc15071969 11:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

18. OPPOSE please Hali, point 3 makes no sense is you spin-doctoring the issue yet again, he was a duke of Lithuania for 7 years, then king of poland AND Duke/ruler of Lithuania for a further 49 years, that means he was ruler of Lithuania longer than he was Poland. Despite your nationalist thinking, Lithuania did not cease to exist at his gaining the Polish throne. your point 1 also is not relevant, keep crying foul all you want Hali, it happened and you can pretend it was a tie all you want. I regard your point 4 as dubious also, as I know your history of providing links pretending they are credible searches when they are purposefully hidden to look normal but really support whatever version you propose. the only point I think you are right on is point 2, because of the usage of Josef Stalin's name. BUT then again, we are relying on one of your links, and that is a concise history of Poland, and only one sentence mentions anything about it. and it says baptismal name, many people do not go by there baptismal name, do you have any evidence that says he went by this baptismal name? not to mention on that same page you cite, it keeps calling him Jogaila even after it mentions his baptism. --Jadger 10:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

    Despite your accusations above, from the article and all available sources it is pretty evident that Lithuania did not cease to exist and did have its rulers. And none of them was Jagiello, though the guy was an overlord of the dukes/ grand dukes/ governors. Initially he was a co-regent with Kęstutis. After his death Jagiello was one of two competitors (with Vytautas), yet not the Grand Duke. After his coronation he formally remained a co-regent of Lithuania (with Vytautas), but the actual ruler was his governor, Skirgaila. After Jagiello finally gave up his claims to the title of the grand duke and became the king of Poland exclusively (1390), his successor was Vytautas, who became the grand duke. So, in short, he was a ruler of Lithuania for 7 years altogether (and disputably so as Vytautas and Kęstutis also had legitimate claims to the very same post), while he was undisputably the king of Poland for 49 years. No claimants, no civil wars, no struggles for power. Apart from that, a king is (and was) a higher post than that of a prince, a duke or even a grand duke. //Halibutt 12:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

    Apparently someone thought Jogaila was a king of more than Poland: magnus Rex vel dux Lithuanorum, Russieque dominus et heres. Not the first example of this style either since Gediminas claimed to be "Letwinorum et Ruthenorum rex". Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

    I only wonder whether he was styled magnus dux vel rex before, during or after his imprisonment by his uncle. //Halibutt 13:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

    Keep wondering. And is it necessary for you and a few others to continually "kibbitz" and comment on every other oppose vote (even when your name is not involved)? Are you trying to "change" votes, or entertain us? Dr. Dan 13:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

    Of course I do. What's so strange about that? When someone opposes solely basing on his or hers misunderstanding, what's wrong with trying to correct that? //Halibutt 16:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

    I am not misunderstanding anything, he was ruler of Lithuania at the same time as ruler of Poland, as Frederick the Great said "a king's crown is just a hat that lets water in", he may have been king of Poland, but the name kingdom can hardly claim to make a place better than its neighbour. in no way does king of Poland corellate to Western Kings who were actually powerful and had a certain amount of international say, whereas Poland is and was backwater. simply because he was king of Poland and grand duke of Lithuania does not mean his rule of Lithuania is somehow inferior because of the title. as the article says, he started the dynasty that united the two and created the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, it was not a Polish-Polish Commonwealth hali, you are simply trying to pretend Lithuania didn't exist at the same level as Poland. --Jadger 04:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

19. Oppose this move, as other relentless attempts to change English Wikipedia to the likes of a few Polish editors, which BTW in the cases of User:Space Cadet and User:Logologist are confirmed experts in the use of several names by a single person a.k.a. sockpuppetry ...-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       21:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

    So, you're basing your opposition not on the presented facts and arguments, but rather on the nationality of the person to propose the move? Does it qualify as a valid point? //Halibutt 22:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

    Matthead, are you sure that user:Space Cadet (just love his little spaceship), is a confirmed sockpuppeteer? If so, I didn't know that. I mean I know logologist is a definitely a confirmed, cheap, disgraced, editor who pulled this crap, but not spacecadet too. Spacecadet say it isn't so! Dr. Dan 04:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

20. OPPOSE Why difficult if there is an easy way? Per WP:NAME the google test "Wladyslaw II Jagiello" vs "Jogaila" for English language pages is a good indication for keeping the article title. --Splette :) ^Talk 02:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Re:M.K's 'statistics': it has been explained many times that 'Jogaila' refers to many people and things, thus comparing it with 'Wladyslaw Jagiello' will always prove 'Jogaila' is more popular - just as comapring 'George' with 'George Bush' will leave 'George' victorious. Also, if compared not only with one selected variant but with all (i.e. not only 'Wladyslaw II Jagiello' but 'Wladyslaw Jagiello' and 'Wladyslaw II of Poland' and such, 'Jogaila' will be in a small minority).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

In the first place, Jogaila does not "refers to many people and things" M.K. 22:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Two months ago Sylwia proved you wrong.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Look at links provided at google play, how "many people and things" refers there? M.K. 22:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd only like to point out that currently Wikipedia is the only English-language encyclopedia to have the article on the guy in question under the Lithuanian title. All of the others, including Encarta, Brittanica, and a plethora of others, use the name commonly used by scholars. We don't - for some obscure reason. //Halibutt 23:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

That is plainly false - the "just because I haven't seen it" argument: Jogaila (Jagiello) - (The Encyclopedia of World History, Sixth Edition, 2001) http://www.bartleby.com/67/557.html http://www.bartleby.com/67/555.html. Several names are in use; they each have arguments in favor and against.

Furthermore, in stating the reasons for requesting the move, you are again trying to misrepresent the outcome of previous poll (conflating all the votes for alternatives other than Jogaila) and how it was arrived to. Unlike in this case, the way the poll was structured was agreed upon in another discussion before the poll took place - with express intent to try to find a consensus that way after previous attempts had failed. That makes appealing to policies as well as trying to identify the "proper" procedure moot because overriding objective of all of them is... to try to find a consensus. Admin made the decision as to what can be identified as consensus - to move to Jogaila. I don't believe a good case for move has been made therefore I oppose.

Perhaps we could move away from "this is the proper name" arguments and try to approach this from the point of view of usability - for example, in terms of getting to the information and trying to minimise possible confusion. There is an ambiguity issue with Wladislaw II Jagiello - search lands on disambiguation page, same with Wladyslaw II (which from my POV is good for similar names - one gets alerted and is presented with a choice). Wladislaw II and Wladyslaw II Jagiello, however, bypasses disambiguation. Then there is the numerical II/V issue. Just my opinion, but it would be preferrable if search for Wladyslaw/Wladislav variations would function likewise, and, where possible, individual articles would have unambiguous names. Doc15071969 20:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that as we are building an Encyclopedia here, we are forging something other than Encarta, Britannica, and a plethora of other sources. Otherwise, it would be pointless to bother. Dr. Dan 01:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

'The Encyclopedia of World History' has no article on Jagiello/Jogaila, the fact that it uses several different names to refer to him simply means it extremly poorly edited for a print encyclopedia; that hardly invalidates the argument that 'no encyclopedis have an entry about this person under 'Jogaila'). Majority of English sources use Wladyslaw variants, and so should we; the question is which variant - but Jogaila is not one of those. As for redirects, I don't see a problem. Wladyslaw II may be confusing, Wladyslaw II Jagiello is not.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Why all these false, misleading or unverifyable claims presented as fact, and why the word games, Piotr? EWH does not use several different names for Jogaila, unless you consider Jagiello, which is Polonized version of his name, to be a different name (would Latvian "Jogailis" be another "different name", then); it has entries on him in both the chronology of Lithuanian and the Polish history. Even if the statement is read so as to mean - no English encyclopaedia has a separate article under the name of Jogaila, it is, to the very least, highly misleading, because the name is in use at least in the encyclopaedia I quoted.

On what is the claim that most "English sources" use a variation of Wladyslaw (rather than, for example, Ladislaus) based on - what quantitative and qualitative analysis, of what, by whom? :) And even if so, that - the variations - is precisely part of the problem. For example, Columbia Encyclopedia treats the variations of Wladyslaw, Wladislas and Ladislaus thusly: http://www.bartleby.com/65/ix/IX-Wladisla.html (and then there is Vladislav, Wladislaw, Ladislas), not even talking about the Roman numericals (II and V) issue.

As per the very same Wikiguideline you quoted (WP:NAMEPEOPLE), using "the name that is unambiguous with the name of other articles" is one of the two central principles in article naming, along with using "the name that is most generally recognisable". Referring to what you (correction: sorry, Halibutt wrote, not you:) ) wrote above, in response to Leo1410, I can't believe you'd push one principle and not even mention--much less give a consideration--to the second. The principle is there for a reason - to minimise possible confusions. Most users of reference material are not experts (in this case - expert historians or well versed in the peculiarities of Polish/Lithuanian rulers' names). I still think the Wladyslaw variations should lead the user into disambiguation page--so as to alert regarding the naming issues,--and Jogaila (Jagiello) should be the name of article for this guy. Doc15071969 10:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't take kindly to people accusing me of lying, but I'd expect as much from somebody who fails to read their own sources: this one you cite calls him also 'Vladislav V'; it also uses Jagiello more often then Jogaila, and my argument that encyclopedias have articles under some variants of Wladyslaw Jagiello, not Jogaila, cannot be countered with saying that some of them also mention Jogaila as an alternative name - you need to work on your logic. The claim to popularity of Wladyslaw and Jagiello is given in many places, not the least in Halibutt's stated reasons for the RM; I feel no need to repeat them. Wladyslaw II Jagiello is as unambigous as Jogaila, and more popular, that's all there is to it.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have nothing to go by in order to determine intent, so "lying" is the term you used - not I. I have, unfortunately, hard time presuming good will on your part because of the reasons outlined below.

I have, of course, read the source, as have you. You choose the descriptions like "uses several" "calls him 'Vladislav V'" which need further qualification to them in order not to be misleading: in what context "uses" or "calls". He is "called" 'Vladislav V' by the authors of EWH when they inform the readers about what they deem to be his (royal) title - given in brackets, right after they give a name: "JAGIELLO (title Vladislav V)", preceded by an entry about "Marriage of Jadwiga to Jogaila (Jagiello), grand duke of Lithuania". See, this is what I mean: one has to keep clicking sources or keep looking for them in order to verify your claims, and keep finding out that they are misleading.

Next one: "my argument that encyclopedias have articles under some variants of Wladyslaw Jagiello, not Jogaila, cannot be countered with saying that some of them also mention Jogaila as an alternative name - you need to work on your logic" -- no, YOU need to do that, soonest possible :). That claim needs not to be countered because it is inconsequential (not under dispute) and differs from what you wrote - "Majority of English sources use Wladyslaw variants," - which is a claim that did not need to be countered because it had not been established... How many and what proportion of English language encyclopedias or sources out there have the two of you (or those that keep repeating similar claims) analyzed - all, one third, one tenth, most? The most one can claim based on your discussion of that analysis, while remaining in friends with logic, is - "out of the sources/encyclopedias I have analyzed, <insert claim>". What I did is pose a relevant rhetorical question: why characterise those as variations of Wladyslaw rather than, say, Ladislaus? Or Wladislaus, which is what the Latin name was. From where did the variations start - from modern Polish transcription less the diacritics? :) Doc15071969 21:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - We appear to still be deadlocked. Since all attempts at negotiation appear to have failed, I recommend that we proceed to the next step of WP:DR, which is formal mediation. If we go this route, we need to assemble a list of editors who are interested in negotiation, in good faith and in a civil manner. If we go this route, who is interested in participating? Please see WP:RFM for more information. --Elonka 23:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Result of this poll nonewithstanding, I agree that mediation seems like the right path.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Why not.--Beaumont (@) 12:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment- Shouldnt verifiability and Wikipedia:RS and Wiki policy take precedence over the votes of a few disgruntled editors who dont like the fact that practically all encyclopedias have him as Wladyslaw II, including the man himself? We should stick to English usage, as J.Kenney above mentioned, instead of catering to particular nationalisms. Truthseeker 85.5 13:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Encyclopedias are not reliable sources in the WP:RS sense of reliability, although they are useful for determining usage. "In general, Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable secondary sources." "Jogaila" is both verifiably (and attributably) a commonly used name for the subject of this article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Even though encyclopedias are tertiary sources, some of them, according to WP:RS are reliable: Publications such as the Encyclopædia Britannica, World Book, and Encarta are regarded as reliable sources. Moreover, WP:RS is meant to describe good sources for the content (ant this is where secondary sources should be used). For naming conventions, however, the tertiary sources, summarizing and relying on many reliable secondary works, seem to be the best. --Beaumont (@) 12:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, of course Jogaila is verifiably and attributably a commonly used name. However, it is evident that versions other than Jogaila are at least 10 times as common, whichever method you choose. //Halibutt 14:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
      • ... and statistics: "Wladyslaw II" [not all this Wladyslaw II]; "Wladyslaw II Jagiello"; "Wladyslaw Jagiello"; Jogaila. That doesn't seem like ten times more common. I appear to own four books that mention him. In those he appears in four different ways: once as Jogaila only; once as Jogaila, Jagiello and Wladyslaw Jagiello; once as Jogaila and Władysław Jagiełło; and once as Jagailo Olgerdovich. The only names which might be recognisable across borders, while still being short and simple, are Jogaila, Jagiello and Jagailo. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Although Jogaila appears to generate pretty many hits (251), only 22 are real; just go to the third page of the results. This is less than the others. Google Book still beta.
2. There is still a more general problem with this type of search. Let's look at a selected reputable example "Cambridge Medieval History" (a hit for Jogaila). The author uses "Jogaila" when describing his Lithuania period of career (we do the same, don't we?). And this is relatively short. Otherwise (for almost all of the story) the person is referenced as to W2J or Jagiello or even just Wladyslaw (yes, there many ways to skin the cat). In fact, in the index (where the reader is supposed to search for him!) Jogaila is a redirect to W2J, where you have pretty many references to entire passages in the main text (well, this is how to verify: put Jogaila into "search in this book" query, go to the page 1021, then "next page"++ to find W2J entry (unavailable by a direct search)). Some other book (from Jogaila hits) references him only in parentheses as the Lithuanian translation for the basic W2J. And, yes, maybe some examples going in the other direction exist. And how do you want to deal with all this stuff? See below for the conclusion.

• Comment (Conclusion). The method proposed by Angus - dig through and analyse the secondary (English) sources - seems to be well suited for our problem. Unfortunately, I do not think we have enough tools and experience to do so. And even if we do dig, it would be OR, no offence (well, some reputable examples and google searches give some indication as for the usage). Actually, by definition the authors of the tertiary sources do the job we need. So, we'd better rely on some respectable tertiary sources. Encyclopedia Britannica is really good one with respect to this issue. I mean pure English and free of the national bias. --Beaumont (@) 14:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - take note that after I expanded the article both names are used. The guy is called Jogaila in parts devoted to his Lithuanian career and W. in parts describing his role as the king of Poland. Thus this is not a conflict over what name should we use in the article, but rather what is the most logical title for the article. //Halibutt 14:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Question - A little OT, but does anyone know if the late "polka king", Walter Jagiello's original name was Wladyslaw? Does a surname like his count in google hits? Lot's of Jagiellos in the Chicago phone book, no Jogailas though. Dr. Dan 13:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment on use of sources for Wikipedia nomenclature. This is a touchy topic at times. The problems are these: encylcopaedias and dictionaries are tertiary resources and therefore less desirable than primary or secondary ones, primary resources are often in foreign languages, secondary resources often use names to suit their nonencyclopaedic (often even narrative) context while Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, encyclopaedias are often out of step with mainstream contemporary scholarship, mainstream contemporary scholarship may be given to passing fads with no lasting significance, etc. Just because Wladyslaw is used in English sources means nothing. I have read books that use Jean for John II of France, that use Pedro for Peter of Castile, and that use Albrecht for Albert the Bear. Books are written by individuals who can use whatever nomenclature they like, maybe even keeping the foreign language names in their languages and not translating them. If I were writing in Spanish, I may comfortably leave names in their Spanish forms, but this does not mean I think that's good reference work policy. Wladyslaw II Jagiello is used and I recognise that, but that doesn't make it a good encyclopaedia title. We do not have to go with what other encyclopaedias use. They have their own editorial boards, we have ours. Srnec 15:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

  Ok, we do make our decisions. But if we neglect the external references, the repsectable examples and the reliable sources we are left with what? Personal preferences, I'd say. And, eventually, we would never reach a consensus. In my opinion our principal policies WP:VER and WP:OR were designed precisely to avoid such a situation which, fundamentally, prevents WK from the development. Back to sources, yes, in general we prefer the secondary and not the tertiary ones. Especially when the content is discussed. However, taking into account that A tertiary source usually summarizes secondary sources (WP:RS, tertiary source), it seems to be not a bad idea to use them for our problem. Let me also remark that most external references (in many ways; likely of any kind) seem to give the priority to W2J or Jagiello and not to Jogaila. --Beaumont (@) 16:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, Beaumont we do make our decisions. And many of your above stated remarks make sense. In fact, before a unique kind of agenda became apparent to me, I would have backed up this logic. Yet we have Kraków instead of Cracow, and Łòdz instead of Lodz. I didn't see Moscow become Maskva or Munich become München. What's up? Personal preferences? They certainly are not English toponyms for these Polish cities or based on former English geographical descriptions of these cities. I think Halibutt once said something to the effect that things change and evolve, and that (regarding the Polish versions of the toponyms), I would just have to live with it. Dr. Dan 02:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

  And we have Warsaw not Warszawa. Your point being?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

  just a few thoughts

  1. As for precedences, more relevant would be examples of naming people and not towns. These would include Duke George Augustus von Brunswick-Lüneburg aka George II of Great Britain, Sophie Augusta Fredericka von Anhalt-Zerbst aka Catherine II of Russia and, eventually, Eduard von Saxe-Coburg-Gotha aka Edward VII of the United Kingdom.
  2. With Krakow/Lodz a little OT, I'll try to be short. Actually, Kraków was kept more or less on the present rationale of modern use and not-a-big-difference-by-adding-diacritics; Moreover, Britannica has Kraków and Lódz (and, yes, Warsaw). I'd prefer Muenchen, Moskwa is not too bad (just a bit more difficult to change). Anyway, I can imagine a rationale I could apply to the towns and not to historic people (towns still exist and we can easily determine the proper name; we could respect it in the title). I'll stop here (at least with towns); it would be too difficult to handle all the problems at one and the same time.
  3. Personally, I strongly oppose to discuss arguments bringing up a unique kind of agenda. I'll refrain from elaborating it further as it's very unlikely that it would lead to any kind of consensus. I'd be grateful if everybody could do the same. Let us solve the problem on grounds of an explicit rationale. --Beaumont (@) 09:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

  The point is, P.P., that in spite of articles like Rynek Główny and Wit Stwosz in the Englsh version of WP (and a "plethora of other examples"), there is an immediate outcry and resistance in some quarters when this is challenged and suggestions are made to Anglicize them. Please understand that Jagiełło is not the man's name and never was. It is a Polonized epithet of his name Jogaila. It was used by Polish historians and others to distinguish him from similarly named monarchs which were not named Wladyslaw in any sources that used to call Cracow , Cracow. It is not what he changed his name to at his baptism. Dr. Dan 13:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

  And while I'm at it let's not forget Elżbieta Rakuszanka. I believe that version was described as distinct and notable. Dr. Dan 13:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

  Indeed, there is an outcry, usually heard from you. It was I who recently suggested renaming Rynek Głowny to something more English, Wit Stwosz is a simple redirect, and Elżbieta Rakuszanka was distinct and notable, and I abstained in the RM. Your examples, as always, are interesting, if not that relevant to any case you are trying to make, Dr. Dan.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Voltaire was not the guys' name either, yet that's how people refer to him in English works. Live with it. //Halibutt 16:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

  Yes Hali, but I don't have a problem with Voltaire. I like Voltaire. Have read Voltaire. You however, are not Voltaire. It's the Elżbieta Rakuszankas and the Władysław Jagiełłos, that I have a problem with in English Wikipedia. And do try to be more consistent in your support of "historical" geographical toponyms. I expect you to weigh in in the Rahmel debate and Grand Duchy of Poznan debates in a consistent manner and go with the German (English) version. You will, won't you? Would be much easier to live with you then. Dr. Dan 00:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

  That Elżbieta Rakuszanka where Halibutt supported the move to Elisabeth of Austria (d. 1505)? And that Rahmel whose renaming never was nor is discussed? Go on, Dan, this is amusing :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

  Thank you Hali, I mean P.P., aka Prokonsul Piotrus, for your answer or explanation to my remarks to Halibutt. I'm glad that I amuse you. You know one good turn deserves another. You've been making me laugh for quite a while now. Happy to return the favor. BTW, your constant need to "chime in" whenever Halibutt is queried, allowed me to refresh my memory with Mickiewicz's Niepewność. I...sobie zadaje pytanie: czy to jest pryjazń, czy to jest kochanie? More later. Dr. Dan 02:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

  Well, if we are into poetry about one's behaviour now, let me reply with the one below:

Pan Starosta ich wczoraj tak do późna znudził.

Jak zaczął to o sejmie, to o wojnach bajać ,

Ze wszystkimi się sprzeczać, wszystkich kłócić, łajać,

Gęba się nie zamknęła przez całą wieczerzę,

Powywracał butelki, szklanki i talerze,

Na ostatek, chociaż mu nikt nie odpowiadał,

On jednak, zaperzony, jak gadał, tak gadał;

I dopiero, jak postrzegł, że już wszyscy spali,

Ze świece gasły, przecież mrucząc, wyszedł z sali

I na schodach dokończył ostatka swej mowy.

I am sure Starosta would stand no chance against you...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• And English speakers call him Voltaire,' not François-Marie Arouet,' which I had to look up. (I presume WP is correct on the middle name.)It has not been demonstrated, nor is it likely, English speakers call the subject of this atticle Władysław Jagiełło. Septentrionalis 02:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

  You are of course entitled to your personal opionion; but it has been demonstrated that majority of English academics (or majority of English speakers) don't call him Jogaila, but instead use a Władysaw Jagiełło variant.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

  Check the list of books, or google books, or any other database of scholarly works. Just go and check for yourself. As to what Dan wrote above - I'm sorry, but there's little to add to what Piotrus already pointed out. //Halibutt 03:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

  Yeah, but when P.P. answered my query to you regarding your spin on the Grand Duchy of Posen, he failed to give your position. Maybe you can. And although I not familiar with the Pan Starosta poem, I loved it. A great laugh! I was wondering if the original title might have been A Proconsul Looked in the Mirror? Dr. Dan 14:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

  Sorry Dan, I neither edited the article on Grand Duchy of Poznań, nor took part in the discussion. So it's entirely OT here. Not that the rest of your questions were any more On-Topic... //Halibutt 14:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

  C'mon Hali quit the "spin"! It seems that the Grand Duchy of Posen (see discussion of GDof Posen), has finally got your "weak" support. And the rest of the gang seems to give it "lukewarm" and weak support too. Missing logologist and a few others (Molobo) to give Posen their support. Can you put it on the Polish Portal and get a couple more votes. I'm actually surprised you didn't start the move yourself, like you did here. I say that knowing how you back historical and scholarly precendents concerning matters such as these. It's really not all that OT. Dr. Dan 03:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

  Perhaps the fact that I wrote most of this article myself while I never even made a single edit to that article might give you a clue. Also, how is that related to this discussion? //Halibutt 08:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  Could you be so kind as to clarify what you mean by this article vs that article? Dr. Dan 14:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Spamming

Nice. Congrats on nice poll campaign [26] [27] [28].Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 10:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Those are valid questions, if this article was to be called Jogaila, as it has been. Truthseeker 85.5 12:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, very interesting development and another sign how desperate some contributor is. This development should be examined closely. I also have some felling that these cases will be "self-moderated" or "did not know" or "it was a joke" M.K. 11:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)P.s. and notes delivered in these “request” are quite misleading – "recently" somehow the move was conducted some months ago and only now contributor realized that maybe another moves should go, with new poll background on Jogaila itself. It is clear sign that by this “action” contributor trying to gather support for this (Jogaila) particular case. Is it only me or other contributors think that these “contributions” was not made in “good faith” too? Wondering, where is P.P. (aka Prokonsul Piotrus)...

Sorry, M.K., either we apply the same rules everywhere or we don't apply them at all. We want to have this article under a name no British or American scholar uses and which the person himself did not use for most of his life - fine. But that should also work for other monarchs. Next step is to move John Paul II to Karol Wojtyła, Catherine the Great to her original German name and so on. //Halibutt 13:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This reasoning is exactly why WP:POINT says "Wikipedia is inconsistent". Septentrionalis 21:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

How come my valid question disrupts wikipedia? Does it disrupt wiki more than moving this article against wiki rules and traditions? Or perhaps less? //Halibutt 06:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

As a sidenote, User:Piotrus also recruited several votes by spamming. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Ghirla, the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) readers are not obliged to agree with Piotrus. They are not necessarily Polish neither. Do you consider some potential votes of possibly experienced wikipedians a bad idea? --Beaumont (@) 11:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Beaumont, what is your position on provided links 26,27,28 above; and a content of them? M.K. 11:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Those are valid questions, if this article was to be called Jogaila, as it has been. Yes, that's how absurd it is- even you noticed it. comment added by user:Truthseeker 85.5 (noted by --Beaumont (@))

So how this "absurd" "contribution" by user will help? M.K. 12:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)P.S. btw, "interesting" developments [29].

I think this is OT question, so in two words: I'd rather stated these meaningful naming precedents here than there (they are interesting). BTW, it was discussed elsewhere by Piotrus, so EOT on this subject. --Beaumont (@) 12:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

PS. meanwhile, we got a whole section which looks somehow OT to me...Couldn't we instead summarize pros et contras named so far in the mainstream topic? --Beaumont (@) 13:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

As for Piotrus... as opposed to Ghirla's "vote no campaign" at national noticeboards, Piotrus is trying to expand this little nationalist bickering ground and garner opinions from a) a relevant to the problem place, and b) a supranational community free of such collusion, so you should be the last one complain, given your energetic negative campaigning. Truthseeker 85.5 12:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Piotr's activities are explained by the fact that all the active Polish wikipedians already voted (some of them from two or three accounts), so he has to garner votes elsewhere. And of course you know that, since you do your best to involve Russophobic editors into this disgraceful affair. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Certainly not "all the active Polish wikipedians already voted". You are twisting the facts. --Lysy^talk 12:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Ho ho ho.[30][31][32]Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 12:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

One more. These are not editors in good standing. I request the closing admin to ignore their votes. Furthermore, I believe the example set by Piotrus and Halibutt is so disruptive as to warrant an arbitration case over the issue. I've had to deal with editors who disrupted votes by spamming: ArbCom had them banned from editing Wikipedia. There is nothing new in this pattern of behaviour. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

In the meantime, the behaviour of this former anon IP is disruptive enough, so I reported it on WP:ANI. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 12:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

During the last vote (the one that resulted in the move to Jogaila), there was spamming going on among editors likely to support the move. I don't recall you or anyone else complaining back then. Appleseed (Talk) 12:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Does previous campaigns also had something similar like: “certain lingering post-Soviet phobias”; “Polonophobic alliance”; “hold an in Poland-Ruthenia-Litvania”, “how certain uchastniki have devoted themselses”; “Shouldn't we move this article to Georg August von Brunswick-Lüneburg”; “There is a new precedent being set: the article on Wladyslaw II of Poland got moved to Jogaila, which means that this article would have to be moved to Eduard von Saxe-Coburg-Gotha soon...” and similar, a?? M.K. 12:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're going with this. I was addressing the issue of spamming, not the tone of the spam. Are you saying you don't have a problem with spam as long as it's polite? Appleseed (Talk) 14:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I couldnt sit back and watch as a new negative spamming campaign unfolds- I felt these votes, which tilt the balance in favour of a Russian/Lithuanian cabal instead of reason and references, should be opined by somebody from beyond the immediate borders of Poland, or less polonophobic at that, to conform to Ghirla's epithets. Ive set no precedent at this vote, in part thanks to the user who currently rants the loudest. Nor do I tolerate double standards and hypocrisy. And pardon my bluntness, MK, if all you can do is dish it out without taking it. Truthseeker 85.5 12:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

we will see. we will see... M.K. 13:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC) and this is not the first time when contributors related to Poland are trying to spoil voting; I remember the Sockpuppetry case involving Logologist (talk · contribs) (btw he is voting again) and his friends KonradWallenrod (talk · contribs) Mattergy (talk · contribs) Anatopism (talk · contribs) when spoiled the vote

Truthseeker? Dr. Dan 13:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

My edit is perfectly in line with WP:SPAM, adding a notice to related noticeboard/policy pages/etc. about a vote that many of users in the given groups may be interested in is a normal policy. I find it amusing how Ghirla accuses me of spamming while doing the very same thing. On the other hand, recent comments by Truthseeker were over the top, both in their uncivility and that they targeted specific group of editors in violation of WP:SPAM; for that he has been warned and blocked for several days. I hope we don't see such behaviour repeated by anybody else.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sadly xenophobic remarks [33] (Ruski - pejorative for Russian in Polish), name calling [34] as for example Zyrandol (chandelier) directed towards user Ghirlandajo, and spamming regarding FA nominations [35] ("Take a look at history of Solidarity few votes in favour might shift the ballance") became sad practice in recent polls. If admins behave in such way, what could we expect from ordinary users. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 10:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe this is getting too disruptive to be discussed here. Further discussion should be moved to WP:ANI for better exposure. It was Halibutt who started to refer to Russians as Ruskies in this project (see the List of ethnic slurs for explanation) and to me as Zyrandol. Although I requested him to stop it, the name-calling and spamming continue unabated. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Following this advice I have placed a notice on WP:ANI notice board, all involved parties should feel free to leave their comments here [36]. -- Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 22:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

EED, I appreciate your frustration, but I think you have a misconception of what the ANI board is for. It sounds like you're wanting an administrator to take a careful look at a complicated situation, and yell at somebody. However, I assure you that most of the admins who monitor that board are not interested in complicated situations -- that board is for clearcut, "Block/unblock this user," "Protect/unprotect this page" kind of reports. If you believe that a user's conduct has been inappropriate, then try a User Conduct RfC (Request for Comment). If you think that someone's been using sockpuppets, then go to WP:RFCU. The best way to get action is to concentrate on specific clearcut issues, rather than lumping things together and posting a complaint in the wrong place. Admins aren't judges, they're just people with mops and keys. You may also want to look at Arbitration, which seems to have the kind of power and judgmental authority of what you're looking for. Definitely read WP:DR. --Elonka 19:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The presence of vote-spamming makes this vote a true disgrace. In particular I have noted the behaviour of User:Truthseeker 85.5, that has been recruiting supporters with a very far from neutral language [37]. For the list of those he selected, see his contributions. I highly doubt votes expressed by the editors contacted by Truthseeker may be considered legitimate. Anyways, I'll call another admin to deal with the question.--Aldux 22:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Truthseeker was given a month-long ban for that practice, FYI. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. It's nice to know that at times one gets exactly what he deserves.--Aldux 22:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

All other efforts have failed. We need to proceed to the next step of dispute resolution, mediation. What we now need, is a list of people who are willing to discuss this naming issue, in good faith and in the spirit of compromise, with a neutral mediator. This is not a venue for those who wish to enter with a "winning" or "losing" mentality -- we need good faith editors who are as willing to listen as they are to talk. Be warned that this is likely going to be a time-consuming process that could drag on for weeks or months. Anyone is welcome to watch the discussion, but if you are interested in being one of the active participants, please list your name below. --Elonka 19:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Missed the deadline :(. Would've been 23, if it matters... Ulritz 22:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't change a thing. We have 16:16 votes interpreted as if it was a victory, we have victories interpreted as if they were a draw, we have empty accusations, voters arguing that the reason why they support or oppose is that the other people to vote are Polish or German or whatever nationality... Initially I was going to apply the very same rule that was once applied to this article, that is to move it against wiki consensus and then insist on keeping it. However, it would not change much, nor would mediation help. Wiki will remain the only encyclopedia to call the guy by the name he dropped not because this is the logical choice, but because that name is not Polish. No mediation could fix that I'm afraid. //Halibutt 22:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

So you suggesting that contributors did not assumed good faith during the vote? M.K. 23:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, the world isn't out to get you. It's not the end of all that is fair! To quote The Crucible you seem to think "God is dead!" If this article should rightly be somewhere else, that's where it will eventually end up in. Personally, I think that every view should be considered and discussed, and the majority of people should be left satisfied. That evidently isn't the case with either Jogaila or Wladyslaw II Jagiello. A compromise needs to be found. Also, I did not vote because of nationalistc views, I voted on my personal opinion, backed up with (albeit disputed in some cases) points. Me for example - I am not a rabid Lithuanian POV-pusher nor do I hold any anti-Polish views. I haven't been "brainwashed by Lithuanian teachings" - what I voted for is what I believe in from my personal knowledge. Full stop. Andrius 23:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well said. If only we had more editors willing to discuss things in a civil manner like you, and fewer with such 'arguments' like Ghirla or Matthead (see their 'oppose' arguments above)... Still, I fully believe that in the coming future, when increasing number of academics will join Wiki, we will see less 'POV pushing' and more serious debate.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, what steps lies ahead during this mediation, some brief moments could you draw? M.K.

I'm not Elonka, but the next step is to go to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation and create a request there explaining what needs mediated. Once that's done and the request is accepted, the mediation folks will create a subpage (like Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Shining Path, which is currently open, or Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Opus Dei, completed). Mediation only proceeds if all the editors named in the request agree, which is why Elonka needs to know who wants to be named on the request. There is no guarantee that a mediation request will be accepted. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification M.K. 23:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Btw, what is the purpose of this mediation? I can understand if the purpose was to 'civilise' the few editors who don't respect WP:CIV, but so far none of those have signed below as participants. Of those who signed so far, I am sure we can have a pleasant and civilised discussion - but leading nowhere, as kilobytes of archives show. The only way to break that deadlock (i.e. rename this article to something we will all respect) is to get opinions of several academics, who (hopefully) would agree on a single variant. Because I don't see how efforts of a mediator, who will likely have even less knowledge than us about the content dispute (and none of us IIRC is a professional historian) will help contribute to the resolution of this problem.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, such editors with contributions during the various vote like these [38][39] [40][41] should be not only "civilise" but also and learn some new policies. M.K. 09:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I was rather thinking that the mediation could civilize users who display signs of paranoia (per WP:CABAL) or accusse others of trolling instead of addressing the concerns raised.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Next time try to pick up all evidence "revert troll Halibutt 2006-10-21T22:24:32 compare dates and try to guess that "per example" means in mine. M.K. 18:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

One wrong doesn't make another one better, you are both behaving terrible.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Redirect this remark to yourself. M.K. 08:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, this discussion is going nowhere. Appleseed (Talk) 15:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of the mediation will be to agree on a title for this page. It is my hope that in a structured environment, with a civil discussion, good faith participants, and a neutral mediator, we'll finally be able to resolve this long-running dispute. --Elonka 03:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Prokonsul Piotrus, I do not think you are the creep that others have continually tried to apply a negative broadbrush to. When you are neutral, your imput is outstanding. Why do you constantly attempt to whitewash this completely discredited editor who has caused continual and inexplicable damage to the perception of what the Polish contributions to English Wikipedia are? Dr. Dan 18:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Dan, I'd kindly suggest you take your personal remarks to appropriate userspace. I don't think this article is the right place for this. Especially after all it's seen so far. --Lysy^talk 20:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, I had looked at the article earlier (I made a correction regarding Uliana being Algirdas' second wife) but didn't realize there was some sort of dispute over the name of the article. It's a fine balance between original language name syntax and what's commonly used in English. I can only say that I just last week received my copy of Daniel Stone's "The Polish-Lithuanian State, 1386-1795," part of the History of East Central Europe series from the University of Washington Press. Checking his index at the back... "Jogaila. See Jagiello", with index entries actually appearing under Jagiello. (No diacritical/etc. markings.) As this is as per what can be considered a definitive and absolutely current reference on Poland/Lithuania, it's an option worth considering. I have enough dragons to slay elsewhere, so I'd rather stay out of this one otherwise. BTW, I can't recommend the book highly enough for anyone interested in Poland-Lithuania. Hope this helps! —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I should mention it's way too much energy to go through the history of the discussion, which does seem to have boiled down to whether sperm are Lithuanian or Polish. (Is this a mischaracterization?) This is as definitive an academic reference as you'll find—I didn't post this to agree or disagree with anyone. As I said, I hope it helps. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S., For what it's worth I would take that to mean rename from single word "Jogaila" to single word "Jagiello". —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I stand to correct myself (not the first time...). Index aside, Stone refers to Jogaila as Jogaila throughout, stating that "he reigned with the Polish name Władysław II Jagiełło" (written properly), and also (in the Lithuanian sense) refers to him as Grand Duke Jogaila. The text reverses the sense of the index so that Stone uses "Jogaila" alone prior to his Polish reign, then "Jogaila (Jagiełło)"—written properly—subsequently. Stone does not use Władysław, as he notes that was his "baptismal name" (so, not given name). Thus, my revised recommendation (!) would be "Jogaila (Jagiełło)" with redirects from Jogaila and Jagiello. My sincere apologies for having muddied the waters! But after finally ploughing through the rather lengthy discourse above I thought it would be a disservice not to read through all of Stone's Jogaila/Jagiełło references and provide as thorough and objective a suggestion as possible. Best regards, Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Stone adopts the convention of using "Jogaila" when writing about him until the Polish throne, "Grand Duke..." when writing about him acting in official capacity as Lithuanian monarch. He then uses "Jogaila (Jagiełło)" subsequently ("Polish era"); where Stone strictly means "Jogaila (Jagiełło)" acting specifically in his role as Polish monarch, then (and only then) does he use the full "Władysław II Jagiełło" (and no "Jogaila"). So part of the solution would be to use the correct name within the article based on context: (1) "Jogaila" later transitioning to "Jogaila (Jagiełło)" writing about him in general, and (2) using the proper titular names "Grand Duke Jogaila" or "Władysław II Jagiełło" when writing about him specifically acting in the role of monarch. Being Latvian, my predisposition is to "side" with the Lithuanians. But arguing about who Jogaila (Jagiełło) ultimately "belongs" to doesn't seem to be yielding any progress. And "Grand Duke Jogaila (Władysław II Jagiełło)" is really a mouthful, not to mention the argument which would ensue about which name/title "belongs in parentheses"--although Stone observes "original name (later name)." Really, wouldn't you rather be writing about Poland/Lithuania as the global power of its day? (And except for ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ below, it's been awfully quiet after the initial rush to sign up to dispute...) —Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe what you describe above is the convention we are using (Jogaila for L. related contexts, W2J for P. related ones). The question is which of those two should be the title of the article - we seem to be using both in articles without much problems. And yes, good call on reminding us on why we are here. Some of us (myself, Halibutt) are constantly writing about this era, trying not to get bogged down by talk arguments - and I pity those whose majority edits are limited to such discussions :> -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I pity those whose majority edits are limited to such discussions hmm somewhere I already heard this "argument". M.K. 00:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Another P.S. Link to Stone's book @ U of W Press is here, published in 2001 and extremely well reviewed, so as current and quality a reference as you'll find for appropriate English language terminology and usage. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Jogaila also bore the Orthodox name Jacob before he became High King of the Lithuanians, although I'm not sure if there is any evidence he was baptised as Jacob with Orthodox rite. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Vecrumba, why not use Jogaila (Jagiełło) for article's title (with redirect from Jogaila, Jagiełło etc.) ? --Lysy^talk 00:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Jogaila (Jagiełło) is my final suggestion for the title, then update the article for appropriate consistency and put in all the possible redirects. I was only commenting that Grand Duke Jogaila (Władysław II Jagiełło) would be just a bit too much for readers to deal with as an article title. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Participants

• Elonka 19:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
•  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC) providing that WP:CIV will be respected.
• Septentrionalis 19:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• --Beaumont (@) 07:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Evv 13:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC) - Restricting myself to policy adherence, for lack of familiarity with the long story of this dispute.

Draft RfM

I have created a draft for the mediation request at User:Angusmclellan/Jogaila mediation. Please add to it. In particular, I imagine that there are other dispute resolution attempts which might be connected to this request. Article content RfCs are not easy to find. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, there's no open relevant article content rfc, only a user conduct rfc. --Lysy^talk 19:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid all the parties of the negotiation so far would support "Jagiello" vs "Jogaila". What's there to negotiate, then ? --Lysy^talk 19:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If Jagiello was acceptable to editors who don't like Jogaila, I wonder why they didn't propose a move there. Anyone who believes that the have a view which would be unrepresented can sign up. (Everyone needs to sign up after it's opened anyway). Piotrus opened a content RfC on 25 October. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Two points. The dispute it about title, not content. The user conduct RfM, while useful, is currently pointless as none of the users who were engaged in incivility (from my perspective - M.K, EED, Dr. Dan, Ghirla) signed for the mediation (which is telling in itself). As for the Jagiello vs Jogaila, while 4 people out of 5 indicated their perference for it I am not sure about Angus stance on that issue - but as I wrote above I don't see how any side can present any other arguments. If people were not convinved before, why should they change their minds now? Last but not least: indeed, a RM to Jagiello wouldn't be that bad of an idea.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

incivility? Try to apply some of your words to yourself.

Mediation can proceed, why not? M.K. 20:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Care to join it?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Care to withdraw? M.K. 16:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Taking Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid as a guide, it appears that article name disputes may be subjects for dispute resolution, including arbitration. Since the objections to many proposed names turn on perceived non-neutrality, there's nothing to separate this from any other NPOV dispute. We've had talk, we've had disengage, we've had surveys, more talk, more surveys, more disengagement, and even more surveys, so next on the list at dispute resolution is mediation. Perhaps a third opinion would have been easier, but that only applies to a dispute between two editors. As to what the mediation people will make of this, I'll finish the draft and ask Essjay for an opinion. On the absence of supposedly contentious editors from mediation, Matthew 7:3 seems quite appropriate: Balcer, logologist ... Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I can understand why you mentioned logologist, although his sockpuppet excesses where more of an item for RfC/RfA than mediation - there is simply no denying they were wrong and had to be stopped. But he has not engaged much in discussions one way or another. And why Balcer?? Where has he been incivil?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

There's more that one kind of unacceptable behaviour: things like this episode for example. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I am indeed in favor of moving this to Jagello or Jagiello. If it is really possible to keep that RM limited to that, and not again go to Polish-language versions as other proposals (and consequently opening again that opinionated writing of some hundred kilobytes here about all sorts of diacritical marks), I would even make such a RM proposal. Shilkanni 23:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Why not, we can try Jagiello w/out diactrics, numerals or first names. It still beats Jogaila in my book.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I would opt for "Jogaila (Jagiełło)" or "Jogaila (Jagiello)" as titles (then use diacriticals in the text). It would seem to me that renaming to simply "Jagiello" is stating some kind of claim of Polish exclusivity which is not appropriate and which is not in keeping with the very latest scholarly syntax in English. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

While this does not seem to fit our usual naming convention, perhaps since they are both short this would be a feasible solution. But in that case why not Jogaila (Władysław II Jagiełło)?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

"Jogaila (Władysław II Jagiełło)" looks fair enough indeed. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I foresee objections from people who think there should be no exceptions to WP:NC, but indeed, such a dual solution may be perhaps the only way both parties are satisfied.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

If we prefer diacriticals (which is fine, I've been using for Latvian articles) then I would say "Jogaila (Jagiełło)" for simplicity--the "fully titled" alternative would be "Grand Duke Jogaila (Władysław II Jagiełło)".—Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Why? If we want to include the titles (and I can't see why we would want that) it would be 'Grand Duke Jogaila (king Władysław II Jagiełło)'.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Presumably King is implied by the Roman numeral, but I agree that titles are pointless here. Septentrionalis 16:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I would support simple Jagiello. It is recognizable to English-speakers, and it seems neutral; which nation does it favor? Septentrionalis 16:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Poles. --Lysy^talk 18:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

What a surprise - is there any name that does not, in someone's POV, favor some nation? How about Jagello - which nation does it favor? Shilkanni 18:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I was about to ask the same: whether there exist any "neutral" name. Most likely not. With the content dispute we can balance the POVs, we can refine some statements, write separate paras etc. For naming, however, there is a decision to make and this why the issue is more difficult. We can, however, try to determine what is the less controversial. And I think that Jogaila is too far from a hypothetic optimal choice (I prefer W2J). Yes, that's my POV, but I'm ready to provide some more elaborated rationale that do rely on the English literature, especially the tertiary sources which by WP:NC are preferable in this case. I guess, this is not the moment. Instead, I observe that, possibly, Jagiello would generate a consensus, as probably more English natives would subscribe to this. If in this way we could terminate this counter-productive dispute, I'd not object. --Beaumont (@) 20:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see what was wrong with following Stone's syntax, I really don't think you can just get rid off the Jogaila. While I think "Jogaila (Jagiełło)" is the simplest, I've reflected on the above and would also support "Jogaila (Władysław II Jagiełło)". Hmm... I might not be an observer anymore... :-) —Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

First, I would like to thank Vecrumba for his valuable contributions :-)
As Beaumont mentions above, every name will be "unfair" for some people, but only to some Eastern Europeans, and not to over a billion English speakers from around the world. Furthermore, WP:NPOV doesn't apply to this dispute.
For naming the article we just have to follow the naming conventions policy: Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize.
For the case of rulers, the guideline on names and titles applies: Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem. One of those "rules below" does apply also: Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, use the most commonly associated ones.
And WP:UE: If you are talking about a person, [...] use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works.
So, all we have to do is determine common English usage (through WP:V) and reflect it. If common English usage happens to be "unfair", well... so be it: it's not Wikipedia's job to actively correct "unfair" English usage, but to passively reflect it.

(It only has to be a source that's IN English to be verifiable, e.g., the Stone book which is all in English and does not transliterate. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC))

It is my personal perception that this most unfair of common English usages is Wladislaw II Jagiello or Władysław II Jagiełło (I'm heavely pro-diacritics, but that's a secondary issue). Of course, such usages do change in the course of time, and Jogaila could eventually become the norm; but Wikipedia should merely reflect those changes, and not spearhead them.
If mediation doesn't work, an arbitration on conduct and willingness to follow Wikipedia policies & guidelines could resolve this.
Best regards, Evv 02:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Evv, may I ask your opinion regarding the billion English speaking people (some believe it or not, being of Eastern European ancestry), who have been "corrected" to call Cracow, Kraków in English Wikipedia? Would you be in favor of changing this back to Cracow? Does this seem logical to you, or would it be better to learn to live with it? Dr. Dan 14:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

lol I'm rather conservative in these things :-) I use and prefer Cracow, so I would favour it in principle; but there's a strong case for Kraków (Britannica, books & travel-guides written after 1990 -the date I use to determine current usage-, NGS). I will give you a proper response in Talk:Kraków at a later moment. - Regards, Evv 15:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I do agree - you stolen my rationale ;). And I think the work has been already done. For the sake of reader's convenience I copy the essential part of it. Full details can be found here.

Encyclopedias

1. Grand Duke Jagiello (New American Desk Encyclopedia, under "Lithuania" )
2. Jogaila (Jagiello) and Jagiello (title Vladislav V) (The Encyclopedia of World History, Sixth Edition, 2001)[42][43] [44]
3. Jagielło (Władysław II) (New Catholic Encyclopedia)
4. Ladislaus II, king of Poland (Online Columbia) [45]
5. Ladislas Jagiello (Oxford's Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages )
6. Wladyslaw II Jagiello (Online Britannica)[46]
7. Wladyslaw II Jagiello (Webster's Desk Encyclopedia)
8. Władysław II (Encarta) [47]
9. Władysław II Jagiełło of Poland (1979 Brittanica, under "Jagiellon dynasty")
10. Władysław II Jagiełło and Jadwiga (1979 Brittanica, combined article title)
11. Władysław II Jagielło (Poland) (Lithuanian: Jogaila; c. 1351–1434) (Europe, 1450 to 1789: Encyclopedia of the Early Modern World)[48]
12. Władysław II Jagiełło, King of Poland (1975 Funk & Wagnall's Encyclopedia under "Lithuania")
13. Władysław Jagiełło (2003 Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science)[49]

Dictionaries

1. Vladislav II (The Oxford Dictionary of the Renaissance)
2. Ladislaus II (The Oxford Dictionary of English (2nd edition revised))
3. Ladislaus II (Oxford Dictionary of World History)
4. Jagiello (Wladyslaw II) (Sokol's Polish Biographical Dictionary)

History Atlas

1. Władysław II Jagiełło (The Times Atlas of World History, Fourth Edition, London, 1994, ISBN 0-7230-0534-6, page 333).

There is also a secondary sources review with 16:6 in favor of some form of "Polish" name, but this is more difficult to analyse, as in the secondary sources he appears under two names (we do the same!); in some indexes he appears as W2J with some redirects from other names. Anyway, I think I would support any form that is common in the tertiary sources (latinized or not, with or without diacritics). I have nothing against adding Jogaila in the title neither. What else can be called a reasonable consensus basis? And in view of the above survey, Jogaila in the first place is simply incorrect. --Beaumont (@) 09:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I will try and rememeber to check Stone tonight for the title of his Jogaila section. Be that as it may, I've also gone through Wiki naming conventions for monarchs/etc., where most prominent (perception) counts more than given/original (reality). Reversing the order would keep with Stone's index syntax order (how people are likely to look for him) versus his text syntax (how he should be referred to according to period/role). By that criteria, "Władysław II Jagiełło (Jogaila)" would be a more appropriate order which I could (were I involved) equally support. :-) The article would then use the appropriate name for the appropriate period/function ala Stone.

In terms of diacriticals, I would be in favor. Quite frankly, the historical lack of proper diacriticals outside of Spanish, French, German, etc. is more a function of the restrictions of hot-type (poured lead) typesetting technology than of some kind of "Eastern European references must be un-diacriticalized for the English (speaking) masses" movement. You don't have shift/ALT keys or control/ALT change language keystrokes at your whim when you're typing with your fist on a typewriter the size of an office desk and each key is the size of a coffee cup lid! (And watch the little molds slide down the chute and get assembled next to each other--positively Rube-Goldbergian!) A linotype machine with all the special characters at the bottom of the edit window we all use would need to be the size of a small house (OK, maybe I exagerate, a house trailer, then). Given today's technology, I don't see any good reason not to use the diacriticals in the title, it's just living in the past. It's not a POV kind of issue. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. In terms of spellings, I would tend to discount the others, to me at least it's a bit like using "Peking" when the world has moved on to "Beijing"... now it's just "Peking duck." —Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

lol Believe it or not, as Piotrus mentioned above this whole dispute is just over the article's name, not about content :-) Apparently there's no disagreement in using the appropriate name for the appropriate period/function. - Best regards, Evv 14:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Are we getting close?

So, are we saying that "Władysław II Jagiełło (Jogaila)" as the article title will satisfy all (albeit perhaps some not rapturously, my uninvolved self included) parties? —Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It would me.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Me too. - Evv 15:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

this is ok. --Beaumont (@) 15:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This is acceptable Szopen 07:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. logologist|Talk 09:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This would be acceptable to me. --Elonka 10:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Not OK

Not OK: if that is your best proposal, I'd prefer to keep the page name as it is now. --Francis Schonken 12:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur; Jogaila, with its flaws, is better than Władysław II Jagiełło (Jogaila), which nobody uses and is not English. Septentrionalis 19:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

which nobody uses and is not English - care to look above? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I have; I didn't say that nobody uses Władysław II Jagiełło - although it is not English and is minority usage; nobody uses the compound form suggested. For anglophones, Ladislaus is better than Wladyslaw, which is better than the unpronounceable Władysław. Piotrus has also neglected to mention that apparently the numeral is debateable. Septentrionalis 21:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you define 'minority usage'? Out of 13 encyclopedias above, not a single one uses just 'Jogaila' and only one mentions it in name as 'Jogaila (Jagiello)'. Only DOES NOT use a 'Wladyslaw' variant; only one DOES not use a 'Jagiello' variant. 3 don't use numeral, 1 uses 'V', 9 use 'II'. 1 uses 'Vladislav', 1 'Ladislaus', 1 'Ladislas', 2 use 'Wladyslaw' without diactrics while 7 use 'Władysław'. 2 mention 'Jagiello' without Wladyslaw/Władysław; 8 use 'Jagiello/Jagiełło' with a variant of 'Władysław'. 1 use 'Władysław II', 1 use 'Władysław Jagiełło', 1 use 'Ladislas Jagiello' and 1 use 'Jagielło (Władysław II)'. 2 use exactly 'Wladyslaw II Jagiello', 4 use 'Władysław II Jagiełło'. I fail to see how you can argue that Jogaila is better than any other variant; and it is obvious that 'Władysław II Jagiełło' is the most popular variant AND a combination of most popular first name/numeral/surname/nickname/etc.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

To be precise, 17 reference works are cited; the 15th Britannica, as of 1979, is cited twice. Of those, four, including the 15th EB, use Władysław II Jagiełło; all of them use variants on one name, the other, or both. The online Britannica, which does not pretend to be bound by Use English has nonetheless dropped the diacritics; its statement on usage is: Lithuanian Jogaila, or Iogaila, English Jagiello, or Jagello. 4 out of 17 is a minority. Septentrionalis 23:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

None of the above variants is in majority. 'Władysław II Jagiełło' is in the largest minority of them all. Jogaila is in one of the smallest. It's as simple as that.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

A title with Władysław in it is the equivalent of saying that Clovis should be called Louis, or Ludwig, because those are the modern versions of his name. The relevance of modern Polish orthography to C14th Poland, Lithuania, &c, is not self-evident. Put simply, Jogaila is the least misleading of the various article titles on offer. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunatly for you, most of the academic writers seem to disagree, and for various reasons prefer to Władysław. Wikipedia's job is not to correct their (possible) mistakes, but to report verifiable facts - and it is evident that 'Władysław II Jagiełło' is the most commonly used variant.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with Piotrus. In any case, "Jogaila" is the wrong title: let's move it to "Władysław II Jagiełło" and then discuss the posibility of latinizing ALL medieval Władysławs. - Evv 04:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortuntly, that didn't work last time, thus we are searching for a compromise (i.e. a solution that makes everyone equally unhappy :>). Jagiello of W2J(J) seem like the two best next solutions...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

And if not

I did go back and check the Stone text, unfortunately, nothing new regarding the actual chapter (yes, a whole chapter!) on Jogaila, the chapter is simply titled "Jogaila (Jagiełło)", same name syntax as already mentioned. Is there a specific reason, Francis Schonken, for your preference? As much as my personal preference is for the just-mentioned syntax, WP:NM is clear about monarchal titles being the dominant name. Leaving the title as is does not appear to be viable. It's very odd (to say the least) to be speaking of the Jagiełłonian dynasty's place in history and somehow not have the article title identify him as the first. "Jogaila (Władysław II Jagiełło)" is the only other viable alternative, but then it quite clearly does not follow naming convention, which is why I didn't make that my suggestion. (To quote Wiki conventions on someone--including myself--pains me more than you can possibly imagine....) I was really hoping that having Stone's new/definitive reference on Poland-Lithuania would help solve the impass. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "WP:NM"? --Francis Schonken 14:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Ooops, sorry meant to say WP:NC - Widkipedia naming conventions, "NC" not "NM". There's a section on monarchs and titles in Wiki titles. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, WP:NC is not clear about monarchal titles being the dominant name. It only has:

For most Western royalty and nobility, see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)

And "monarchal titles being the dominant name" is a fairly inadequate rephrasing of the "names and titles" NC. In any case inadequate to solve the article name for this monarch of Poland *and* Lithuania. In other words, all attempts to solve the article name for this monarch based on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), have failed. Proposals to format the article name as prescribed by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) have ceased several months ago now. I don't think we should go back to these times, that brought no solution.

But that doesn't mean I think we should let go of the principles of the more general guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people).

• I object to a parenthical addition "(Jogaila)" because of:
  1. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Qualifier between brackets or parentheses (bracketed disambiguators for people should not contain capitals, which excludes, for instance, proper names like "Jogaila").
  2. The bracketed addition isn't even a disambiguator:
     1. It confuses while something at the end of a page name between brackets should by Wikipedia convention only be a disambiguator;
     2. Unneeded disambiguators in this fashion are usually rejected, as was reconfirmed, for instance, recently at wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television). The addition "(Jogaila)" is completely redundant in this sense, there is no ambiguity to "resolve" by the addition "(Jogaila)".
• I object to the use of "ł" instead of "l" because I think "ł" the less appropriate choice in this case. I won't refer to existing guidance or proposals in this matter, they're inconclusive. But I still think the same about this as I did before. --Francis Schonken 20:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, for the purposes of WP:NC Polish and Lithuanian royalty and nobility is as Western as Spanish, French, English, Italian, German, Russian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Greek, Moroccan, Algerian, Tunisian, Egyptian, Jordanian and Iraqi ones: Most of the [naming] conventions [on names and titles] are intended for medieval and modern European and Muslim rulers and nobility. WP:NC (names and titles) does apply to this case as much or more than WP:NC (people), which only gives the general principles, making clear that in some cases more specific guidelines also apply, for example: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) (for monarchs and nobles in a Western tradition after antiquity).

Shunning WP:NC (names and titles) and relying solely on WP:NC (people) was/would be inappropriate.

I share Francis Schonken's objection to a parenthical addition "(Jogaila)" for the very same reasons he gives, which I consider a proper reading of Wikipedia policies and guidelines on the issue. The name should be "Władysław II Jagiełło" alone. But, for the sake of compromise, I'm very reluctantly forcing myself to accept the "(Jogaila)" addition.

I perfectly understand Francis Schonken's objection on the "ł vs. l" issue. Personally, I like diacritics :-), which I found a more perfectionist and educative way to display a name/word. However, I consider it a sepparate issue, which should be discussed in another place taking into account all similar instances and not this single case in particular.

Best regards, Evv 04:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I share the views expressed by Evv. More precisely, I hope "(Jogaila)" would help to build a consensus. I like the diacritics, like in Óengus I of the Picts, but this is not important to me at all. I'd prefer that it would not predominate the present debate. --Beaumont (@) 07:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Evv, I suppose you misread my comments:

1. "Władysław II Jagiełło (Jogaila)" is not OK w.r.t. WP:NC (names and titles). Pretending otherwise would be an error.
2. I think I was one of the last ones defending that the page name should conform to WP:NC (names and titles), at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). I remember getting some support from John k at the time, the overwhelming majority of other editors forcefully rejecting the idea. That was several months ago.
3. Before and after that I've proposed several "mixed" solutions (that is page names that took some characterisitics from WP:NC (names and titles) mixed with other general naming conventions principles). None of these survived discussion nor eventual WP:RM. I think "Władysław II Jagiełło (Jogaila)" considerably worse than some of the "mixed solutions" I proposed. In that case I prefer "Jogaila" (the current page name).

In sum, if we can't get this page moved from "Jogaila" to "Wladyslaw II Jagiello" (which was the last WP:RM vote, which I supported), I don't think proposing "Władysław II Jagiełło (Jogaila)" via WP:RM is even worth the trouble (some of those supporting the move to "Wladyslaw II Jagiello", including but probably not limited to myself, won't support this time). But you're free: if you think enough time has elapsed since the previous WP:RM, go ahead, and propose it. --Francis Schonken 10:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

lol I did misread your comments, Francis Schonken, more than I thought I was capable of misreading anything. I'm bettering myself :-)

After the failure of W2J, I don't see any possible solution via WP:RM (other than holding a new vote restricted to persons already involved in naming conventions only, thus banning ourselves).

The "Władysław II Jagiełło (Jogaila)" aberration has my very reluctant support as some kind of common ground to start a mediation with, or some other avenue to resolve this. To be honest, I find "Jogaila" alone just as deviant from WP:NC... - Best regards, Evv 12:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think I can consider myself fully sucked into the vortex by now... Somehow, given Jogaila's pivotal role in uniting Lithuania and Poland (at that time, Poland was the far smaller of the two--I only mention it, it's not a mine is bigger than yours thing!), anything that's chosen is going to be an abberation. Like pretty much everyone, I do intensely dislike the parentheses; I also find myself agreeing that Jogaila alone is not appropriate. If we agree to be deviants (we probably qualify based on Wiki-time alone...), perhaps something more novel, such as...

Jogaila, Władysław II Jagiełło

I can rationalize this as loosely following "name, title" as the whole metamorphosis from Jogaila the Lithuanian to Jagiełło the Polish monarch was him taking on the whole "package" at once. One day he was Jogaila, the next, still Jogaila, but "Władysław II Jagiełło" joined in marriage with the Polish monarchy, converted to Christianity, given a baptismal name, given a Polish version of his name, and given his royal monarchal "ordinal." Perhaps I've just been staring at it too long with insufficient morning coffee, but it does seem to look a whole lot better without parentheses. Just a thought...
   Given his pivotal and unique role and the significance of the Lithuanian-Polish union (unlike other monarchies which simply expanded territorially over time without substantial changes to the monarchy itself), I find it far more palatable to support any variation that shows both than any variation showing only one. The history of article renamings already proves that an article title which is "the choice of one" is doomed to failure.

• So far in November, the article itself has seen only SIX edits to improve it, plus one bot edit, and one revert to make a correction. I would respectfully suggest we grit our collective teeth and pick something that shows both names and move on to improving the article. Personally, I've gathered some wonderful references (bibliomania), but lately they've all been going to talk page controversies and not at all to improving anything that someone actually reads when they access Wikipedia. It's a sad state of affairs.
  

   And just a P.S. on Władysław II Jagiełło not being English, my POV (!) is that for Latin script languages, it's time for Eastern Europe to stand up for itself and stop being rewritten (primarily based on prior typesetting technology limits). None of the Western European Latin script languages get "anglicized" and there's no need to do it anymore for Eastern Europe either. (And I'm aghast at the energy that's been expended over which anglicized transliteration is the more appropriate!) —Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, all Western languages, other than English, have anglicized titles. Henry IV of France is an anglicization; it's also English usage. Septentrionalis 20:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

In terms of spellings and dicriticals, I was thinking more basic, you don't take a Spanish name, for example, and transliterate the "ñ" character to "ny" as if it were the "њ" ("n" plus palatization symbol) from Russian. Stone's text is (POV) a beacon demonstrating English sources can write about Eastern Europe and not be compelled to anglicize beyond recognition. Where anglicized forms are common and have been in use for perhaps hundreds of years and are agreed upon, that makes sense. But where they're not (i.e., including pretty much all of Eastern Europe), it doesn't make sense. If there's no consensus on Ladislau versus Ladislav versus Vladislav etc. etc. etc., then the only predictable variant is to use the correct and original one, Władysław. Time to take on Wikipedia naming conventions. (I should mention anglicization is also the opposite of what people have been doing to Latvian proper names, including in titles, citing Wiki conventions as the reason.) —Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

   And a P.P.S. On showing both names, at this point, wouldn't it be better if everyone's cup were at least half full instead of one set of cups being full and the other set empty? I'm not one known for compromise, but when the article is rated "B-Class", our priorities need attention. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This is part of the reason why Jagiello is popular in English: it's a Polonization of a Lithuanian name. Septentrionalis 20:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a peer review open, btw.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as these contraventions of WP:NC go, I keep supporting Vecrumba's original "Władysław II Jagiełło (Jogaila)", which I found much better than "Jogaila, Władysław II Jagiełło". - Best regards, Evv 13:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

A modest proposal

How about we just compartmentalize the problem?

1. As a latecomer and not a party to prior mediations, etc., I boldly/recklessly rename the article to "Jogaila, Władysław II Jagiełło", put in all the redirects and required disambiguation updates and fix all the double redirects.
2. Those offended by the new title, instead of simply reverting and thus leading to a revert war, banning both themsleves and myself from future contributions here, agree to submit to mediation. (And I do promise to revert, I don't see any point to contributing to the article when all that gets done is to vetch about the title--no matter how good a reference I have sitting on my nightstand for bed-time reading.)
3. Mediation is over "No! Pick just mine! (only "Jogaila") versus "No! Pick just mine! (only "Władysław II Jagiełło").
4. That mediation will drag on forever because:
   1. no one will ever agree to their glass being "empty"
   2. no one will ever agree to showing both names, as that was the whole reason for the mediation in the first place
5. The resulting stalemate can then be argued on its (now) own dedicated mediation page which can simply be kept open as long as needed (the historical trend being an infinite amount of time—I can predict with full confidence that at some point in the future, the mediation page will be argued globally in real time via thought encoding/decoding wireless brain implants).
6. In the meantime, this Talk can be archived and put to bed.
7. A new Talk can be created and everyone else can return to improving the article.

I have a bunch of stuff to attend to and have a concert to perform in this coming weekend for Latvian independence day, so I'll check back in a few. I don't think there's anything more I could possibly contribute at this point in an attempt to arrive at a workable solution. :-) —Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The spirit behind this modest proposal is laudable :-) but let's follow the proper channels, waiting for what may come from eventual mediations or arbitrations. - Best regards, Evv 13:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought we were just continuing to discuss. If we manage to achieve an acceptable level of disgruntlement on the part of all, that would be better than winding up in arbitration which will surely leave a large number unacceptably disgruntled. Do, please, record your latest "vote". :-) —Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I think the problem is compartmentalized; it's confined to this talk page ;->. As for editing the article, I encourage anybody to do so; any of these titles will work with the text, as long as we leave the first sentence alone to introduce both local names. Septentrionalis 18:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Still lurking, break while working late... One thing to consider is that when using a single name subsequent to "Polonization" that the article should be using Jagiełło and not Władysław. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually the proper name of the article (according to Wiki rules) should be Władysław II of Poland. We insited on Władysław II Jagiełło just because we wanted to offer a version that would be a compromise. Jagiełło is a polonized version, Jagiello a latinized one, Jogaila a lithuanized one (it's not that we know what he was called back then in Lithuanian) and Jogaila was never used in reference to the king. However Jagiello was used both in reference to him as the king of Poland and as the overlord of Lithuania. So I think that Władysław II Jagiello (with the latinized form of Jagiello) should be a compromise. Otherwise it's like writing "Henry, Henri" in a title.--SylwiaS | talk 21:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring all the untruths there ... if this is a common idea here of a compromise, then it's hardly surprising this talk has been so long and so bitter. How about Jogaila Algirdaitis? Does that seem like a fair compromise? Exactly! There's a line in Curb Your Enthusiasm, "the best compromises are those in which both parties feel dissatisfied" or something'ong these lines. Maybe both sides should be looking for something like that. Jogaila (Władysław II) seems fair to me, or even Władysław II (Jogaila). Ignoring that, Jogaila is pretty much the simplest and least controversial of names ... but apparently not. There have been a number of names suggested which I think could be fair, but every time someone finds some reason to reject it. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not managed to follow discusion properly, but Władysław II (Jogaila) is unacceptable. M.K. 16:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

What about Jogaila (Władysław II) or Jogaila (Władysław II Jagiełło)?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Would leaving it just as it is now, be the end of the world? It pretty much covers all the bases and with the proper redirects allows anyone to find any necessary information about him. Dr. Dan 14:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I repeat my question: Which nation does the name variant Jagello favor ? Hope to see responses within a couple of days, be they saying "none" or saying name of a nation or several. Shilkanni 21:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I would guess British/American since it's the most popular version of the name in English. Far more popular than any other. Poles would favour Jagiełło and Lithuanians Jogaila.--SylwiaS | talk 21:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"Jagello" (no "i") is Polonesque, but given latest scholarship, a misspelling at best. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Improper question. Assuming away a question known to be dispute is impolite; an acceptable format is below. Septentrionalis 22:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Revote (moved, expanded)

Well the problem with Wiki naming conventions is that they talk about the most popular or the most common (English) usage. When it comes to Eastern Europe, most "popular" or "familiar" or "common" are all attributes that lead to a hopeless morass. To me, the least incorrect choice would (still) be a combination of "Jogaila" and "Władysław II Jagiełło"--and if we add the country for full Wiki syntax, Stone offers a solution there as well, "of Poland-Lithuania," the title of the book being "The Polish-Lithuanian State" (picking only Poland or Lithuania here is equally inappropriate, and it's Stone's academic order).
Keeping both names:

• includes everyone's favorite choice
• includes everyone's least favorite choice (acknowledge the esteemed opposition)
• offers the option of "of Poland-Lithuania" as the country (no favoritism, just using Stone's order in syntax)

and thus..

• gives everyone something to grouse, perhaps fulminate, about; but more importantly
• gives everyone something to be happy about; and
• grants an unfair monopoly of unbridled joy to no one (to Calgacus' point above, everyone can feel justifiably dissatisfied).

So, which would we rather choose if these are the only four options (BTW, just Władysław II doesn't appear to work, to one of the points above, it's not the "Wladyslawian" dynasty, as opposed to, say, the "Elizabethan era" for Elizabeth I) [and in deference to Evv and parens perhaps making more sense despite their generally being abhored]:

• [ A ] Jogaila, Władysław II Jagiełło
• [ B ] Jogaila, Władysław II Jagiełło of Poland-Lithuania
• [ C ] Władysław II Jagiełło (Jogaila)
• [ D ] Władysław II Jagiełło (Jogaila) of Poland-Lithuania

The good news is that given the latest scholarship in English, we don't need to feel obligated to argue over the most appropriate decriticalization/transliteration of Władysław (as has also been done over the last year). The bad news is that this is as good as the choices will ever get. A year from now, ten years from now, the choices will still be the same.
It's too long a story for here, but it was only a bit later in life that I learned that when you say "yes," things progress and blossom. When you say "no," everything just stops--nor do you ever find out what might have been. So, I would suggest that we not consider "NO" an option so this can close and we can see what develops. Majority vote on [ A ], [ B ], [ C ], [ D ] wins. Write-in candidates not permitted because any deviation is surely intended to increase that voter's personal joy. If you do feel compelled to express your utter disdain and dissatisfaction as a matter of personal moral principle and intellectual integrity or simply visceral outrage, you can abstain and we will have an appropriate record of non-approval. But "abstain" can't "win." After some (more) reflection, I've decided I'm bound and determined to untie this Gordian knot--and unfortunately we all know how that one was solved! :-) —Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

So, this time, let's try: vote [ A comma ] [ B comma (include country) ] or [ C paren ] [ D paren (include country) ] [ abstain ] — and it's OK to come back and change your vote. I figure we should give this a week or so. (C and D options added subsequent to initial edit.)
**NEW** Multiple votes and preferences OK, I've been doing scoring algorithms/spreadsheets for the past three months so I'll be glad to do a real spreadsheet and figure out the most preferred. :-) [/PJV]

• D over B, C over A Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC) - prefer country over non-, and paren over non-
• A Leo1410 15:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC) Poland-Lithuania was not a state until 1569. Jog/Jag ruled over two independent entities, which is the reason the naming is so controversial. I think solution A is a very good compromise. [current vote is before adding parenthesized option—PJV]
• C or D --Milicz 17:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC) Both C or D are fine with me, so I'll erase the choice that is getting the least amount of support later.
• None of these; ł is not English usage. I therefore also oppose this vote; nothing that comes from it can be considered consensus. Septentrionalis 21:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Noted. In that case, please indicate which format you would prefer in what you would consider its Anglicized equivalent or if you would abstain because you would prefer only one name or the other. Personally, I believe your insistence on Anglicizing is misplaced. There is no consensus on old spellings, and current English usage uses the Polish form without modification. And, for example, Francois Mitterrand ("English") redirects to François Mitterrand ("French") as the main title, no rule is hard and fast. I'll be happy to take the result of this "vote" into mediation/arbitration with you for a final resolution, but I am certain I can demonstrate I have "current proper English usage" on my side. Proper English usage does not require diacritical nakedness. For the rest, please continue to vote (or join the "none of these are in English" "NO" vote) so we can determine exactly where we stand. Thanks! —Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC) [I think I counted up 17 folks participating in this incarnation of Talk, I would like to see everyone vote.]

Demonstrate it, and you will convince me; it is not difficult to demonstrate that François Mitterand is English usage. Half a dozen methods are available at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names); in general, they also apply here. Assuming away a disagreement is unacceptable. If you want a poll on the question of formatting the elements

• PN (or Polish Name)
• LN (or Lithuanian Name)
• C (or Country)

do by all means set one up, using those variables. (I will remind you that there is dispute over the numeral as well.) Septentrionalis 22:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Excuse me

Excuse me, but what in the world are you talking about in reference to "assuming a question away"? Did I offend you? You also obviously thought I was conducting a mere numerical poll (by your reincarnation below, which is of no help at all since we've got no idea what the choices look like anymore). I was attempting to go through a process to gather people's preferences--which you've frozen, replaced with your own, and made unrecognizable. I was hoping that:

1. if the diacriticalized "crowd" could come to a consensus (for the lack of a better catagorization, "Poles and Lithuanians"), then
2. we could deal with the un-diacriticalized crowd ("diacriticals are not English and do not belong in an English Wikipedia", i.e., everyone who doesn't use Right-ALT GRE shift on their--in this example, Windows XP--keyboard to shift to diacriticalized character sets on a regular basis) and then, finally
3. people who abstained to say only one name ("two names violate Wiki standards, read article XYZ standard XYZ talk XYZ..."), et al.

in a more structured fashion. (Here, or mediation, or arbitration should it come to that.) Before I decide whether or not there's just a basic misunderstanding here or you're simply unbelievably rude (and in any event I will need to reword your poll into something understandable and my position into something that doesn't sound like I'm laying down a gauntlet) I'd appreciate something a bit more constructive and far less cryptic that "assuming away" and a "replacement poll" which has no examples of anything which is supposedly (?) a Wikified improvement (?) which has had all the process and structure sucked out of it, and which also incorrectly states (your inference) my assertions are not negotiable and I'm (really) excluding all other possibilities. Addressing one thing at a time has a chance. You've reincarnated as let's address everything all at once, which will lead to the same schmutz that's been here for the last year and just be yet another dead-end rehash. Since we know that doesn't work, you might have let me continue to try it my way and see what happens before you preemptively freeze it out of existence on a basis that is described by a phrase which I don't even recognize the meaning of. There's always Talk:Vecrumba and Email requests are set to go to my primary personal Email (the only one I check every day). —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

If "The good news is that given the latest scholarship in English, we don't need to feel obligated to argue over the most appropriate decriticalization/transliteration of Władysław (as has also been done over the last year)." is not a declaration of non-negiotiability, it is very poorly phrased indeed. Septentrionalis 04:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

My agenda is to push for a solution which we can all agree to, albeit reluctantly, and to start by chopping away the ones that we already know from a year of haggling won't be acceptable to one half of the Polish-Lithuanian contingent (i.e., only one or only the other incarnation). Then at least everyone is happy with part of the solution. From there, we can deal with the rest of the issues (diacritics or not in title, etc.). My favorite choice isn't among the choices I've presented, but I'm not here to lobby for my personal preference. "Negotiating" a solution won't come from starting with a slate of infinitely possible titles--which has been one of the main stumbling blocks to this point. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Revised straw poll

Pēters J. Vecrumba asserts that

• the only fair names for this article contain both a Polish name (PN) and a Lithuanian name (LN) and possibly country (C)
• That C must be, if present "Poland-Lithuania".

(Pēters also asserts that PN must be Władysław II Jagiełło but there is evident disagreement on that, both above and here) It is possible that we can agree on these premises.

Should we use both names (and, if necessary, "Poland-Lithuania"?

Yes

No

Double names are undesirable; see the history of Bozen-Bolzano at WP:LAME. Septentrionalis 00:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, FYI another discussion on this took place at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#One_major_shortcoming_with_place_names_and_disputed_territories_.5BProposal.5D

Some other examples that show that double page names (that is an article name containing twice the same word in a different spelling) are generally not successful:

• Airplane-aeroplane → Fixed-wing aircraft (see Talk:Fixed-wing aircraft#Requested move for a WP:RM vote reconfirming this solution a few months ago)
• Aluminum-aluminium → Aluminium (after endless discussions, see Talk:Aluminium/Spelling)
• There were some attempts to make some names originating in the currently bilingual part of Belgium (the region around Brussels) double page names in a "<name in French> <name in Dutch>" format, which failed. Neither do we have Geel-Gheel (both spellings are used in English).

In fact the only *still existing* example of a page name containing the same name in two different languages I know of is Vitoria-Gasteiz. But note that this double name *exists* outside Wikipedia: it is currently used (on road signs etc...) in both the Basque and Castilian parts of the country called Spain.

I don't want to say it is completely unthinkable that we end up with a "double page name" for Jagiełło-Jogaila, but I oppose to presenting this as the only possible solution at a moment that in general Wikipedians tend to reject such solutions.

I'd be tempted to make our next WP:RM on this page "Jogaila → Jagiello" (see also Pmanderson-Septentrionalis' suggestion below). This would make more sense to me, as Jagiello is a quite common anglicization of the name that in modern Polish is "Jagiełło" and in modern Lithuanian is "Jogaila". --Francis Schonken 09:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Which of the following formats do you find acceptable? Add more if helpful.

LN, PN

LN, PN of C

PN (LN)

PN (LN) of C

Other

I am certain I find some varieties of this acceptable, like Jagiello as a way of evading the question. Some of Francis's doubts whether any double name is reasonable also appeal; but I may vote for the others later. Septentrionalis 22:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand, is this yet another official moving poll; but i do not see any template above? Can anybody clarify that is going on, please very please?

No, this cannot be a move request; it appears to be an effort to produce consensus on the single question: if we use both names, how do we put them together? If you don't approve of this, please say so; I did. Septentrionalis 00:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

One reason I object above so strongly, I think, is that all of Pēters' variants include only my least favored choices. For the record, I have no problem with Poland-Lithuania; we'll see if anybody does. Septentrionalis 22:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

How is the straw poll above different from this contraption?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Chiefly because it doesn't include about half the options; but if Pēters wants to unify the people who want both names, this is the way to do it. If you want to ignore it or kill it, fine by me; I am myself the precedent. Septentrionalis 00:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Building a name piece by piece

I think I speak for many when I say that a move from Jogaila will not be approved until it's to a name that accurately reflects his importance to both Poland and Lithuania. I think Pēters has offered a lot of constructive input, but finding the right name won't be as easy as one vote. I propose that the only way is to take a series of votes. If agreement breaks down at any one point, we'll have to go back to the beginning. I see the process unfolding something like this.

1. Should the title have both names in it?

2. If so, should it be a dash, comma, or parentheses

3. Who goes first (this will be a tough one)

4. Which variant of Wladyslaw

5. titles? countries? numbers?

Otherwise, I don't see this article leaving Jogaila anytime soon--not that Jogaila is wrong, just incomplete. Leo1410 16:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC) PS. Wikipedia is not the place for new exciting breakthroughs in scholarship, and I realize this could result in a name that doesn't fit WP:NC or WP:UE perfectly, but for Jag/Jog, I don't think there is such a perfect name that would do so. In addition, such a process of give and take would provide ample opportunity for Polish and Lithuanian editors to demonstrate good will to one another.

Pēters Vecrumba contributions have been welcomed indeed, as is your current attempt :-) However, I would add three points for the beggining of that list:

0 a. Should the title follow WP:NC & WP:UE ?

0 b. If not, why ?

0 c. If not, how would this precedent affect all other articles ?

Best regards, Evv 20:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I can take 0 c.: Hardly at all; Wikipedia is inconsistent, and this case is extraordinary. Septentrionalis 02:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

In all honesty, I don't understand how is this case extraordinary. - Evv 03:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

What other ruler not only ruled two realms, but changed his name (as opposed to, say, translating it) when he gained the second one? Septentrionalis 04:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

But... in which way does that hinder adherance to the current naming conventions ? - Evv 18:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

There may be a need to revise naming conventions for cases like this, or for Eastern Europe in general. While in Western Europe if Carlos, Grand Duke of Castalonencia is crowned Karl III of Freidlenbergen but is called Charles the Third in English it's an easy case. But in this case, Grand Duke of Lithuania is not necessarily an inferior or subordinate title to King of Poland. The medieval Grand Dukes were powerful sovereign monarchs and weren't kings only because they weren't Catholic. There is no proof that he ceased to be Jogaila of Lithuania after he became Wladyslaw of Poland. With struggle, he ceded de facto power to Vytautas but kept the supreme title and tried to secure Lithuania after Vytautas' death. The man's English name Ladislaus has passed out of the common usage and is unacceptable to most editors here. He is called both Jogaila and Wladyslaw in current English scholarship depending which country the English text is focused on. Precedent is a concern, but if Jogaila moves to Wladyslaw II Jagiello then shouldn't Wladyslaw III of Poland move to Ulaszlo of Hungary, and similar moves for monarchs who acquired more titles later in life? As for 0a, 0b, and 0c, I'm sure the issues would come up, and have come up, in any discussion on moving to a two-name system. It can't hurt to try though. Leo1410 04:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Informal Straw Poll #793

Leaving aside, for now, considerations of who goes first, titles, spellings, etc. are there any circumstances where you would favor a move to a name that includes both Jogaila (as Jogaila not as Jahello, Jagiello, etc.) and a variant of Wladyslaw?

Yes

1. Leo1410 04:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Very reluctantly, I would support "W2J (Jogaila)" - Evv 18:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC) since we'll never get agreement to ignore one in the title in preference to the other
4. Not my top choice, but progress compared to current 'just Jogaila'.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
5. I hope this could solve the problem. --Beaumont (@) 22:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

No

1. Doc15071969 21:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC) No, but I'd support "Jogaila (Jagiello)" (or the diacritic version) as the versions that include W and numeral should, IMO, lead into disambig. page for the reasons stated earlier

Oops. This vote is yes for two names I didn't mean for Jogaila(Jagiello) to be excluded. I just wanted to avoid claims that Jagiello is a variant of Jogaila an that W2J includes both by itself Leo1410 22:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

1. To the question as posed, absolutely not. To the broader question of two names, possibly, but not those two in combination. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I can see that the way I wrote the question has not had the effect I was hoping for. I should have just asked if people were willing to accept a "Lithuanian" name (Jogaila) and a "Polish" name (any of the ones that have been discussed). My intent was to see if a two-name solution was feasible, which I think it is to both you and Doc. Once we establish willingness for two names, then we can begin the process of establishing what those names should be. Leo1410 19:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Stone, also English usage

It appears that Stone's "Jogaila (Jagiełło)" chapter in question (and I have not proofed against the original) is available here». I'm up to my eyeballs and then on the road, I'll be checking back in later in the week. Also, regarding the debate on diactiricals, I went to that talk page in Wiki conventions to argue the "diacritics can/should be considered current English usage." We'll see what develops there. I argued (we'll see how persuasively) that it makes more sense, and it is in keeping with current references, to use the native Polish usage (for Władysław and Jagiełło) and then have all the redirects for all the infinite semi-transliterated "English" versions. It's not whether the name is "English", it's whether it's appropriate "English usage." I thought at least that debate should be done elsewhere in a more appropriate venue here», then look for Technology, not "it's not English," is why diacritics were historically stripped in English. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

How can we be sure that Stone is not a Lithuanian nationalist, and that his real name isn't Stonas? Dr. Dan 23:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

lol Evv 17:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

lol here too... and a good question nevertheless. Stone is a Polish historian (as in an academic specializing in the history of Poland), so there would be no "pro-Lith" bias to his naming syntax--but then he would have a tendency, perhaps, to use Polish diacritics properly. I'll be checking the diactritics discussion next. :-) —Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Jogaila vs Vytautas

Tokul 20:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"He was the last pagan ruler of mediaeval Lithuania, the last to hold the title of Didysis Kunigaikštis, and the first to adopt Christianity. With the support of the Teutonic Order he managed to win the struggle for power against his cousin, Vytautas."

I suspect that this represents Polish side of story. Vytautas had several aggrements with Teutonic Order. He "sold" Samogitia to crusaders several times, left his brothers (I think, Butautas and Tautvilas) as hostages, fought together with Poles, Russians and Karaims in the battle of Grunwald and ruled Lithuania as Grand Duke. After all turnmoil Samogitia remained part of Lithuania and was babtized by Vytautas. Sigismund II Augustus was crowned as Grand Duke in Lithuania and as King in Poland. Later rulers got both titles in one ceremony. Last Grand Duke of Lithuania was Stanislaus II of Poland. Mindaugas was babtized before Jogaila.

As a matter of fact this was added by one of Lithuanian nationalists and I decided to leave it in order not to enrage anyone. However, you're right that he was neither the last pagan nor the first Christian ruler in Lithuania. But if that's how Lithuanian historiography presents him - fine with me. //Halibutt 23:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Which Lithuanian nationalist did you mean, Hali, was it Calgacus or Angus McLellan? Dr. Dan 17:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I am Lithuanian. History is one of my favorite things. In Lithuanian history (A.Šapoka "Lietuvos istorija") Vytautas is more important than Jogaila. Jogaila killed his uncle, Vytautas's father and went to Poland for king's crown. Vytautas remained loyal to his country. If you want, I can find all the references and dates when Vytautas went to crusaders and offered them Samogitia for support and peace. I liked that part of history, because Vytautas played diplomatic games with crusaders and won.

I don't think that I am nationalist. Lithuanian nationalist would say that Vytautas commanded all troups in Grunwald. If article on Jogaila contains negative writeups about Vytautas, it represents Polish side of history. Vytautas the Great ruled Lithuania after Jogaila from 1392/1401 to 1430. After his death title went to Švitrigaila, Jogaila's brother. Švitrigaila is not part of Jogaila's dinasty. He is Algirdaitis, son of Algirdas. Jogailaičiai ruled Lithuania only since 1440, when Casimir IV of Poland got title of Grand Duke of Lithuania. Vytautas (Kęstutaičiai dinasty) and Jogaila (Algirdaičiai dinasty) fought for control of Grand Dutchy of Lithuania. Eventually title went to Jogailaičiai, but that was after Vytautas and Jogaila died.

Some parts of our history are contraversial. If you decide to put your Polish-Lithuanian history in wiki, you should understand that Lithuanians won't like some parts of it.(Tokul 18:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC))

GA nomination On Hold

This article was nominated for WP:GA, but no nomination template was placed on this talk page. I placed one for you, backdated.

I was ready to accept this article as GA. The sticking point causing me to place it On Hold is the debate regarding naming conventions that is apparently taking place. This is an issue of stability, covered in attribute (5) within WP:WIAGA.

The article could also use some copyediting for run-on sentences and incorrect article usage [i.e., "a" and "the"]. But considering the depth and breadth of coverage in this article, I would not consider that a barrier to GA status.

Thanks --Ling.Nut 03:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh PS punctuation should be placed before the <ref> tag, not after it.

--Ling.Nut 03:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The naming debate has been raging for over a year now. I wouldn't bet it will end before another one passes... :> -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. This is a very interesting article. Well, as a matter of form, I'll wait 7 days and cross my fingers for consensus on a solution. If none is reached, I'll mark it as a failed GA. You can always re-nominate it.

--Ling.Nut 03:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

At the very least, we can use the week for copy-editing. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 03:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Important PS: I just remembered... if we have to fail the GA you have a second option. You can immediately list it on Wikipedia:Good articles/Review. There's a chance that things might go in your favor there. It's worth a try, anyhow.--Ling.Nut 04:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the location is fairly stable: It will probably stay here until (somehow) consensus emerges; and then it will be moved once (or not at all, as the case may be). Since, as remarked above, the dispute doesn't involve the text, it should even escape edit wars. Septentrionalis 16:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on this article by Ling, so i'd like to start by asking, this naming dispute, is this over the name of the article or a name that changes some content? Because if its just a single name I don't think that's really a content dispute since there's not much content involved :/. Homestarmy 15:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The content seems to be fairly successfully using different names for different periods of the subject's life; one problem here is that he had one name when he was Grand Duke of Lithuania, and a different name (and religion) after he also became King of Poland. I don't think a change to any of the suggested names would require any change of the content; does anyone disagree? Septentrionalis 16:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the dispute is about the article title but any moves should not affect content (names as used within the article). And that's a bright side in this long play...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• (remove indents) I don't want to start an argument -- and don't want to become embroiled in the ongoing discussion, because I am not actually qualified to hold an opinion in any way on this issue -- please understand that I am asking innocently and naively -- but why don't you simply devote two or perhaps three very neutrally-worded sentences in the lead of the article to the issue of naming controversy? And as for the name itself -- is this historical figure listed in Encyclopedia Brittanica? If so, then why not follow that precedent, and state the reasons why many people feel the precedent may be inadequate?
• If my question is offensive then I apologize, and ask that you please extend to me the grace due to someone completely ignorant of the finer points of the discussion...--Ling.Nut 19:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

lol Following Britannica's article on Wladyslaw II Jagiello archieved no consensus in the last vote :-) I'm still not entirely sure of the reasons for rejecting this option, but I fear it may be just another attempt to "correct unfair English usage" *sigh*. - Best regards, Evv 20:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The last thorough discussion of the issues is here and may be useful; the problem is that this involves several issues, not just Poland/Lithuania. The poll Evv mentioned failed in part because it was a straight reversion of this !vote. Septentrionalis 02:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm torn because I think the article is fascinating, and I would really like to see it GA'd, while on the other hand...I just don't know how far we can stretch the definition of stability to include a debate over the name of the article itself (a debate that apparently has longer legs than Shaquille O'Neal).--Ling.Nut 02:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

As already mentioned above, the content is stable, and there's no "move war" either. Even a worst-case scenario (having the article very slowly but constantly moving between two or three names ad aeternum) wouldn't really impair readability at all: the body of the article uses all those possible names anyway, each one in the appropiate place. - Go ahead with the nomination :-) - Best regards, Evv 03:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to repeat my agreement, I just don't see how one can really bend stability of content to extend to the name of the article :/. (Of course, if there's some super horrible page move edit war, that might start to mess with Google rankings, so in a roundabout way that would affect content due to changes in visibility) Homestarmy 04:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

(remove indents). If someone has time, please do some top-to-bottom copyediting on this article. I've been thinking about this for a while and I agree that the article seems stable enough for GA. I'm gonna PASS it two days from now, and would sincerely appreciate some copyediting in the meantime. Thanks!--Ling.Nut 17:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This article needs not only top-to-bottom copyediting, but good check of factual accuracy, because “facts” in this article hurting eyes.M.K. 00:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts on the article

Was there something special about Jogaila's pontoon bridge ? If it was just a collection of boats, ropes and planks, then it wasn't anything unusual in medieval warfare. Saint Louis had a bridge of boats built across the Nile during the Seventh Crusade according to Jean de Joinville, and Edward I paid money to have one built over the Menai Strait. Referring to the Teutonic Order as "Teutons" seems strange, but perhaps that's just me. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Neither of those is in Europe, strictly speaking, but a source would be nice; The Menai Strait is as impressive as the Vistula. "Teutons" should be "Knights", I think. Septentrionalis 00:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts on the Title

This is to put this argument into another perspective, especially to the uninitiated to either this debate, or the history of the man. One of the great features of Wikipedia is to educate the public at large. You will also find a great deal of information not found in many main stream publications in WP. To my way of thinking, this is a very good thing. The chief argument of those opposed to the Jogaila variation is that "most" previous "English" renditions of the name are of the Jagiello spin. Jagiello is of course simply a Polonization of the original Lithuanian name, Jogaila. Why make a change from this perspective? Evolution of knowledge perhaps? So when one puts in Burma in WP's search engine, and they get Myanmar, or they put in Cracow and the get Kraków, and Peking gets you to Beijing, and now Wladyslaw Jagiello will get you to Jogaila. This is not the end of the world, and it is not only educational, but opens the door to greater understanding of history. And what of the argument of "most previous English renditions"? Surely Cracow, Burma, and Peking would beat out their modern (and perhaps more correct renditions). So as in those cases, the Jogaila variation reflects an evolution of sorts that should be completely understandable to those who prefer Kraków to Cracow. Dr. Dan 01:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

For that to be true one would need to show that modern research prefers Jogaila, no such proof has been shown to this date.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

For what to be true? That modern research prefers Kraków to Cracow, or that modern research prefers Myanmar to Burma? Or maybe "modern research" prefers Władysław to Ladislaus? Get serious, "modern research", my foot! Dr. Dan 01:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

For [having Jogaila as title to represent or reflect an] evolution of knowldge, [and be] not only educational, but [also to open] the door to [a] greater understanding of history to be true. - Best regards, Evv 01:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure Myanmar is a good example. I believe Aung San Suu Kyi still calls it Burma, quite understandably. That's political, as is Jogaila/Wladyslaw Jagiello. It's not just a case of a different transliteration, as with Peking/Bejing. I would like to see both names in the title; that might seem odd and ugly, but it's like putting up road signs in both Welsh and English, which we have got used to in my country. qp10qp 03:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Two thoughts, Qp10qp, first Jogaila vs. Jagiello is in fact a case of a different transliteration. Second as to whether or not Burma(Myanmar) is a good example or not. My point was simply if you put Burma in WP's search engine you get Myanmar. The politics are another issue. My actual change of POV, came as a result of Calgacus' scholarly and very erudite analysis of the entire debate (go to the archives). There was nothing political about it. Best. Dr. Dan 02:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

My point was that Peking and Bejing are both Chinese, so the case of Jogaila/Jagiello (not to mention Wladyslaw) is quite different, as I'm sure you know. And if there isn't a political element to the issue, then I'm an Englishman. (I've read all the discussions, and for some people it's clearly about which nationality gets to name this guy, scholarly and very erudite analysis notwithstanding.) qp10qp 03:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess you're not an Englishman then, because it's not which nationality gets to name this guy, nor are the French attempting to name him Henri. It's about what his name was. Witold is a Polonization of Vytautas, and Olgierd a Polonization of Algirdas. Although some would like to fantasize that it's the other way around, it's simply not the case. Dr. Dan 21:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not just ugly; experience on other articles suggests that the two sides will keep renegotiating the bargain, wanting "their" name to go first or quibbling over the punctuation. Septentrionalis 04:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, I won't mind Jogaila (Władysław II Jagiello), as I (and other Polish editors) are all for compromise. We would however dearly like to see the 'other' side support anything other than 'Jogaila, Jogaila and Jogaila forever'...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, are these Polish editors who are all for compromise, the same who keep adding the Polish toponyms for Lithuanian cities like Panevezys or Birzai? Dr. Dan 14:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Dr.Dan, the same editors who have no problem with Lithuanian names in articles of Polish cities (see Suwałki or Augustów), and who don't understand why Lithuanian cities are the only European cities without important names in other languages. Would you like to explain why Augustów can has 'Augustavas', but Trakai doesn't need 'Troki'?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Prokonsul, why so formal? I thought by now we're like Mishpocha. Fortunately I have a half a day off and can catch up on my necessary dose of WP. Unlike yourself who can spend endless hours on WP (almost if it was like your job), I can't. Nor can I possibly put everything on my watchpage and "police" the whole project. I have been to Sejny and Augustow (have you?), and spent time walking through their old cemeteries. Very educational. Please feel free to remove the non-Polish names, from non-Polish cities, wherever you see fit. If this is not your preference, may I suggest that you get together with Ghirlandajo and Irpen, and ask them which Russian and Ukrainian cities should have their Polish toponyms placed in the leads of their respective articles. Maybe Beaumont can help too. Dr. Dan 18:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Dan (if you prefer less formal :> ), I asked you why Lithuanian cities are an exception and I am still waiting for the reply, just as I received no reply for it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lithuania/Conflict resolution. Polish editors see no need to remove Lithuanian spellings from Suwałki, Sejny or Augustów; as those cities used to have significant Lithuanian population (either in them or in surrounding countryside) and it is a common practice on Wikipedia to note such names in the lead. Neither Russian, Ukrainian, German, French, Czech or editors from any country I know have problems with that solution, as Strasbourg, Cieszyn or Kamianets-Podilskyi to select just three random examples demonstrate. So, I ask you again, why, why, why, why...?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Since this is somewhat off-topic here, I have answered your query on my talk page (see: Why? Why? Why?). Dr. Dan 14:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed why?; oh why?; oh why again?? and 100..n x times why??. And why your ethnic slur is still in the air?? M.K. 00:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, M.K, for so nicely illustrating the difference between us. While I ask why you remove Polish names often used in English sources and having been once part of a country where Polish language was official and spoken by a significant portions of those cities inhabitants, your examples are: removal of a Lithuanian of a person who is much better known under his Polish name; addition of a geographical Polish name which the editor adding it explained is widely used in various sources, again, this time restoring Polish and German names and an unfounded accusation of an ethnic slur. Keep digging that hole, indeed.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed you perfectly and "nicely illustrating the difference between us". "geographical Polish name which the editor adding it explained is widely used in various sources" it is just another "pearl" as well as rest of your excuses. About "unfounded accusation of an ethnic slur" try to be more attentive next time when reading my statements. M.K. 09:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the same. More precisely, it was me. As for Panevėžys can you imagine that a historical name of the city is not offensive and should be mentioned in the article? If in doubt, then we can discuss it on the relevant talk page. Please stop adding sarcastic or provocating remarks, especially as they are not so important and are counterproductive here. --Beaumont (@) 17:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

That my friend, is only your opinion. Glad to hear it. And please feel free to "admonish" some of the Polish editors who are all for compromise (like you have demonstrated by your recent contribitions), just to show a little more neutrality. Dr. Dan 17:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's make it clear. Anybody who declares or even suggests that "this is a fight" would probably have to discuss it with me (whatever "this" is, I'm still to fresh to believe that we're fighting here). Consider, however, that IMVHO your remarks do have some flavour of attempts to group or divide editors by their nationality and this does not help. BTW, a few days ago, Lithuanian press published some public opinion polls on sympathy for other nations. And here you are - Latvia and Poland were the first. According to Atanas Valionis, for some commentators it was a surprise. Not that much for me. Since I'm getting OT, the last line is that I do believe that there will be some compromise.--Beaumont (@) 18:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

... although difficult to believe it, when confronted with Piotrus' examples above (sigh). This clearly indicates who could show just a little bit more neutrality... --Beaumont (@) 22:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

My dear Beaumont, since you are new here, I'm still to fresh (sic), you may have not noticed my lamenting the fact that relations between Lithuanians and Poles on WP are poor, and that fortunately "in the real world", this is not the case. This has been stated by me often enough. On the other hand since you are still too fresh, you do need to read the histories of the articles and talk pages that have led up to this state of affairs as they stand today. And I mean long before Dr. Dan added his contributions. I often asked myself if the ultra-nationalist chauvinism directed towards Lithuania and Lithuanians espoused in these arenas were the wellspring of the hopelessness of Miedzymorze and the cause of these stalemates so often encountered in WP? And Polish-German relations and Polish-Belarusian-Russian-Ukrainian relations are different, yet related, and I dare say thanks to some "editors", not good on WP either. Dr. Dan 23:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC) P.S. Valionis' first name is Antanas.

So do not give up, join my efforts and try to "admonish" nationalists on both sides; as far as I can see, not much symmetry can be observed, especially in the mainspace. And you seem to support this... As for the freshmen, you may have noticed that actually I used at least two quotations from some relevant talk pages, the assertion concerning you included; I still declare publicly that I'm too fresh to believe that we (all) are not able not collaborate. BTW, we (you and I) have already met elsewhere and you clearly tried to suggest the contrary. If you claim that all of this could be the result of some earlier development, then do not disrupt wikipedia to illustrate a point. This never helps. Anyway, our discussion becomes more and more personal and OT, so should not be continued here. If this is really necessary we should move to our talk pages. --Beaumont (@) 08:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC) PS. Thanks for indicating the typo!

Beaumont, are you continuing the path of established author of the name slurs by your Atanas Valionis? M.K. 00:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop flaming, M.K. If you continue to accuse others of ethnic slurs, you may found yourself on WP:PAIN.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not flaming, and stop misinterpreting my messages. M.K. 10:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

M.K., Beaumont made a typo and acknowledged it. He made a request to delete the whole article as it existed already. Chill out. Dr. Dan 02:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC) p.s. To Piotrus, on the dramatical question of why, why, why (and one more why) . I feel I have stated my reasons in various locations numerous times. As a courtesy to you I will recapitulate them on my talk page very soon, once more. Just need to get Thanksgiving out of the way. Chill out too, and peace. Dr. Dan 02:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

M.K, yes, I did make a typo, sorry. I thought the article was not there, so I stubbed it. BTW, my stub was not that much different from the present Antanas Valionis. Just try to think this way :-)--Beaumont (@) 07:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed. M.K. 09:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! Jogaila passed as Good Article

This article is truly fascinating and extremely well-referenced. I hope it will press on to become a Featured Article.

• Kudos to all editors involved!

--Ling.Nut 12:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, and great job guys! I want to particularly thank Halibutt, who has done most work expanding the article, adding inlien citations and even made the family tree. Keep up the good job - this can be a FA with a little effort (let's just reach some compromise on name first, shall we?).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Prokonsul Piotrus, since you're so pleased with Halibutt's virtual singlehanded expansion of this article (Halibutt, who has done most work expanding the article (sic)), may I suggest that you give him another medal for it. Dr. Dan 17:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, that sounds like a good idea - thank you, Dr. Dan, for that suggestion.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Glad you agree, and while you're at it, maybe you can give me a medal for making the suggestion too. Dr. Dan 03:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Done, and done, my Dear Dan!-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I love this sense of moral superiority stemming from the fact that I did the job while others were only bragging at the talk pages. :D //Halibutt 10:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

lol Congratulations everyone, especially Halibutt :-) - Evv 13:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

And to think there were actually fears that Halibutt had been so upset lately, that we might lose him because he might quit the project. Dr. Dan 14:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I did. Mostly because of people like you. //Halibutt 19:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Is that official? Dr. Dan 22:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It could be an another "joke" from him. M.K. 00:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I am sure if you keep this up a little more, Dr. Dan, it may be. And I don't think this is what you want, is it? So may I suggest you too try to stay away from commenting each other posts? Thank you.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, remembering your story Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Piotrus, you too was suggested to avoid "comments" to one contributor, but you failed to do so. Easier to teach others, yes? And left by him a note [50] is quite inappropriate, wondering that community thinks M.K. 00:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

P.P., you are really something else. You ask me, And I don't think this is what you want, is it? Then you suggest that I try to stay away from commenting (on) each other ('s) posts. And you thank me! What I really would like (and not for Christmas), is for you to become as neutral and unbiased as you possibly could be in the upcoming New Year. Quit being a phoney ,"all I'm doing is helping to build an English version of WP concerning Poland and Polish related topics". Why, oh why, most fair and neutral "Prokonsul", did you not question Halibutt's remark to my inquiry of a month ago, instead of my response to his direct comment to me? Hmm? Dr. Dan 00:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)