Wikipedia

Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło/Archive 2

< Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło
Latest comment: 18 years ago by Chris 73 in topic Sockpuppetry
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

There has been an attempt to create a naming system specifically for Polish monarchs (but it is just a proposal and never received consensus), against the system used for other European monarchs. There is also the fact that most Polish monarchs now are located in places which contravene to general naming convention. There is no consensus for permission to use an exception for Polish monarchs, and such permission should be sought from consensus atWikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) where there is the thread Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Need of particular exception/ convention for Polish monarchs. At that spot there are editors who are more or less experienced in overall picture of monarch naming and not only one country. It is deception to advertise any system for naming before a consensus there is convinced of the need for such exception. I hope all of you continue the naming scheme discussion for Polish monarchs there, before continuing or creating policy forks. Shilkanni 13:09, 6 June 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 don't move. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 17:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Latest comment: 18 years ago24 comments15 people in discussion
Copied from the entry on the WP:RM page:

Władysław II Jagiełło → Wladyslaw II/V of Poland, Jogaila of Lithuania … Rationale: proposed as a compromise, since Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) has no special provisions when a ruler changes name when acquiring a second realm (this ruler was in office in Lithuania since 1377, he didn't receive his Christian name Wladyslaw until conversion to catholicism when acquiring the Polish throne);
Double numbering ("II" and "V") while both are used when referring to this Polish ruler: "II" is more common (but overlaps with another Polish ruler, see Wladislaw II of Poland dab page); "V" is less ambiguous, and is also often used.
"Jagiello" (the Polish version of Jogaila) is not used in the wikipedia page name while overlapping with another Wladyslaw II Jagiello, see Ladislaus Jagiello dab page.
Further: see also:
* Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Polish rulers)#Władysław II, IV, V, and kings' nicknames
* Talk:Jagiełło-Jogaila/Archive 1
* Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Władysław II Jagiełło (temporary, just mentioning for completeness)
* Wikipedia talk:Polish Wikipedians' notice board/Archive5#Jogaila vs. Jagiełło vs Jagiellon (exemplifying that wikipedians active on the Polish Wikipedians' noticeboard try to exert some sort of ownership of the article's name (quote: "[...] our proposal [...]", not my bolding)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Footnotes to votes

  1. ^ 55 edits prior to this vote; first edit less than a month and a half ago, nothing personal, but I suggest not to count this vote in.

Discussion

Add any additional comments

I would strongly suggest using Jogaila in the context refering to him as the Grand Duke of Lithuania, and Władysław II Jagiełło in the contexts of King of Poland. In the end we have four choices: use either English, Polish, Lithuanian or combination of those names. English is obviously preferable but as was shown before there is no single variant. Combination is not used on wikipedia ('monstrosity'). We went with Polish name for two reasons, one good and one worse: good being that his role and rank as the King of Poland was somewhat more important than that of the Grand Duke of Lithuania, and bad being that there was little comment on that matter from Lithuanian editors themselves, so Polish editors (like me...) got what we wanted. While I am open to hearing more from Lithuanian POV, I do think that the current name is the best choice for scholarly reasons (no single English name, Polish variant is the most popular worldwide).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, since I see that on a number of occassions, you have used Norman Davies' work Europe as a source of authority on English names for "Polish" rulers, maybe the title should be however he lists him in the index. We can't go much wrong there. Would you have objections to this. I'm travelling today, so I'll have to check the form when I return. You have it, don't you? BTW, the assertion that the Kingdom of Poland was more important than the Grand Duchy of Lithuania has been shown on a number of occassions to be both subjective and unsustainable. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't have the books myself (I have Polish edition on the other continent), but in Europe Davies uses both Jogaila [1] and Władysław Jagiełło [2]. He also uses Wladyslaw for some other kings [3]. Unfortunately the first part of God's Playground is not yet in Google Books, but I think Europe is his newer book anyway.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Prokonsul, shame on you, It's not the first time that Calgacus has caught you with "your hand in the cookie jar," so to speak, regarding the importance of Poland vs. Lithuania at the time in question. Any comment? Dr. Dan 15:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
On what? I don't understand your accusation.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
It's not about the importance of Poland vs. Lithuania, but of the titles King and Grand Duke. It's my understanding that it is WP policy to use the title and name of the person's highest office--in this case, King of Poland. Appleseed (Talk) 21:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

My point, and Calgagus' too, is not an accusation, but bringing to your attention that statements like ...rank as the King of Poland was somewhat more important than that of the Grand Duke of Lithuania,... is subjective POV, and a little chauvinistic to boot. A littler clearer, now? Dr. Dan 18:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's my POV, but it apprears to be shared by majority of academic sources, too - just do a google search for King of Poland vs Grand Duke of Lithuania, or Jagiello vs Jogaila.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Prokonsul, we know it's your POV; what I'm trying to tell you, is at least in 1385, the rank of "King of Poland", held by an approximately 13 year old girl, was not more importantant than the Grand Duke of Lithuania, at that time. This is the minor issue. This is true, inspite of all the "google hits" you can garner. And for the record, the King of Naples, was never more important than the Kniaz or Prince of Novgorod. Make any sense? Dr. Dan 00:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, in the eyes of contemporaries (even grand dukes themselves) title of king was more important than duke, even grand duke. Otherwise, why would grand dukes try to receive the title of king? Szopen 14:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

@Calcagus, re. your suggestion Jogaila (Władysław II):

  1. Per wikipedia:naming conventions (names and titles) the association with the realm he is most easily associated with (by English speakers of any nationality; or otherwise: "worldwide") would always be mentioned first, there's no time order in page names, so Jogaila would never be before Wladyslaw - see also john k's comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Władysław II Jagiełło:john puts this even a lot more sharply;
  2. Wikipedia:naming conventions (people) would further make a "name" (starting with an upper case!) + an ordinal number quite impossible as something to be added between brackets, see Wikipedia:naming conventions (people)#Qualifier between brackets or parentheses: "Try to avoid abbreviations or anything capitalised or containing numbers [...] and also try to limit to a single [...] word regarding the person at hand"

Sorry, but I don't think there's a solution in that direction; so I'd encourage you to vote on this one - if you think it an improvement: "support"; if you don't think it an improvement: "oppose"; if you have a better suggestion: mention it in a way that others can express their opinion, like I did regarding Jogaila (Władysław II), but don't forget to mention which of the two other choices you like best (Władysław II Jagiełło or Wladyslaw II/V of Poland, Jogaila of Lithuania); also I'm not afraid to lauch a new vote next week if there was a "likely" candidate we overlooked in this vote. --Francis Schonken 17:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Unless this proposal garners a remarkable degree of support, it will fail. How about a discussion of each issue separately; hopefully with the understanding that whoever gets "their" way on one issue will yield on another. I see four elements here:
  • Christian name
  • Numeral
  • Dynastic/pagan name
  • country
Does this approach seem reasonable? Septentrionalis 20:03, 13 April 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.

Sockpuppetry

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please note, that in the poll above,

are confirmed sockpuppets [4]. The outcome of the vote may change based on this information -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Individual items

Latest comment: 18 years ago49 comments13 people in discussion
I've moved the "pollbottom" of the poll that ended 17:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC) up above this section – I hope that is no problem, since people added votes below after the end of the WP:RM poll, and this new poll initiated by Pmanderson/Septentrionalis was started some time after the WP:RM poll above started. --Francis Schonken 21:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Please indicate support of those you prefer, or can stand. Please feel free to add other choices. For my own part, I can stand almost all of these, to varying degrees; this is an effort to ensure consensus; I have only bothered to vote when I had something to say.

Forename

Numeral

Surname/Name as Grand Duke

Country

Wikipedia will require some form of dash instead of a / because the / is impractical in titles, as the subpage separator.

There are other cases where a bigger territory with a lower formal title is surpassed by a smaller territory with higher title (these are from early modern age, it means about the same era as PLC):

Lower Navarre: Perhaps the most telling example is the naming of Henry II of Navarre and Joan III of Navarre. They are named, as you see, being kings of the country called kingdom of Navarre. However, at their time, their thatvcountry, kingdom, had shrinked to so little that it comprised of a territory corresponding a today French departement (if even smaller). Their bigger holdings were all around Gascony and Bearn, Foix etc. However, we do not see them as X, Count(ess) of Foix or X, Duke(ss) of Gascony. They are kings of Navarre in the naming here, simply because that was the highest title.

Sardinia: From 1720 onwards, the (relatively poor) island of Sardinia, with a traditional kingly title, belonged to rulers more prominently rukling a continental area known as Duchy of Savoy - it contained Piedmont and other Northwestern Italian provinces, as well as some slices of today France. Until 1713, those rulers were invariably known as Dukes of Savoy, which was a smaller European country in that era's perception. However, when the kingly title was bestowed, they started to be known as King of Sardinia, Duke of Savoy etc, and here they are Victor Amadeus II of Sardinia etc. Some could claimthat these two territories, savoyard in continent and sardinia the island, were of approximate same size - but the kings resided in continent, in Turin, and Sardinia was treated as a backwater and it really was less important in terms of resources and population.

Prussia was erected to a kingdom in 1701 for the Elector of Brandenburg. Formally, Prussia the kingdom (at that stage, just East Prussia) was a province in northern outskirts of Poland, whereas the elector owned much larger territories inside the HRE borders, i.e Germany. guess how we name them? Yep, as kings of Prussia, starting from Frederick I of Prussia... Within at most a century, the name Prussia actually extebded to mean in colloquial sense all the trritories of the king. But it was a small province and its chief advantage was that it was not subject to HRE, a thing the new king wanted not to be perceived as a subject of.

These examples should be sufficient to show that there is no POV when naming this guy according to what he was as king of Poland, although admittedly Poland was a bit smaller (and what else was then worse?) than the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Marrtel 12:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Francis Schonken and User:Pmanderson

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Norman Davies' Europe: A History lists our ruler in the index as Jogaila (not Władysław); Eric Christiansen's The Northern Crusades has him in the index as Jogaila also, and when ones looks him up as Władysław, the closest one gets is "Wladyslaw IV, see Jogaila"; likewise, he is called Jogaila in Lithuania Ascending. A Pagan Empire within East-Central Europe, 1295–1345. Evidently, when it comes to impartial authorities not taken over by Polonocentrism, Jogaila is the preferred name. Thanks to Francis Schonken and Pmanderson for trying. I suggest giving up. This page is the subject of a Polish cabal; there is no hope of it being moved. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

And why not change your statement to Evidently, when it comes to biased authorities taken over by Polonophobia...? Come on, you have your POV, just like anyone else. You've failed to convince other people around here, but why the slander? Why use so strong arguments? //Halibutt 23:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Because if no one objects, Edith Stein, becomes a Polish Saint. Dr. Dan 23:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You know, Halibutt, many Polish Wiki users seem to think I am anti-Polish, yet I'm not in the slightest anti anything eastern Europe. I do have my own POV, he should be called Jogaila or something else where Jogaila is the first name, which you might think is POV, fair enough. But Władysław II Jagiełło is not an appropriate name on English wiki, that has already been shown. This is a cabal. Argumentation is actually irrelevant. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

On top of that truth, is the absurd attempt to add diacritics into English Wikipedia to boot. There is no Ł in English. When I was a boy, Cracow, was not Kraków, and all of this crap about Google hits would have been laughed at, as well. BTW, have you ever checked out Google hits for Vilnius vs.Wilno? Dr. Dan 23:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistencies with the name use of the article title and contents

Latest comment: 18 years ago92 comments8 people in discussion

While article title is written in Polish as Władysław II Jagiełło, the name Jogaila is used throughout the text of the article. I object to the use of 'ł' in the English language article title. Jogaila was an important historical figure not only for the Poland, but for the Lithuania too. Polonized name version makes it unrecognizable to the Lithuanian and English audience."

But Jogaila was his nickname, wihle his official name after accepting Christianity was Władysław (Ladislaus) Szopen 12:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
The name „Jogaila“ was not a nickname. This name he used while he was a Grand Duke of Lithuania; and the name “Jogaila” has the meaning and this name construction is common to pagan Dukes of Lithuania. After Christianity is a diffrent story ;)M.K 13:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Dear anon. As has been shown in the debate above, his Lithuanian name (Jogaila) is actually less common then his Christian name Władysław, thus it should be more recongizable to English audience then the alternative.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Dear Piotrus, but I just checked Google and there are the hits for the English language pages: 15.600 for Jogaila and 11.400 for Władysław II Jagiełło.

It looks like Polish editors are trying to teach the rest of the world Polish language. The article should be named in English and the Polish name should be given in parenthesis together whith Lithuanian and Belarusian name. If you love those Polish characters so much, you have Polish language wiki for that. --Juraune

Could you provide direct links to your search results? The last time we did such a check (see here for links, the results were quite different.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Your searches on Wladyslaw Jagiello or just Jagiello are not valid since they have different spelling. Also, there is about 10 times more Polish than Lithuanians in the world, so this gives a clear andvantage to Polish version for google searches on the subject. As a compromise I would agree on Wladyslaw II Jagiello, known also as Jogaila, Wladyslaw II Jagiello (Jogaila). For Polish he is just one of the kings of Poland, for Lithuanians Jogaila is a key figure in history, he turned Lithuania to the way of union with Poland which resulted into the Polish dominance in this double state. He is to 'blame' in a way for this tendency to forget Lithuanian side of many historical figures of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
Well, for example Jasienica argued that Jagiello saved Lithuanians from being ruthenised. He said basically that Lithuanian are not polonising, they ruthenising, and only then they polonising. And Jagiello had 3 choices: 1) stay pagan and probably face internal difficulties, attacks from Poland and TO 2) accept catholicism 3) accept orthodox. Catholicism has advantage of having latin instead of old Ruthenian, which helped to prevent ruthenisation of not only elites, but also lower classes.
Do you think being Polonised is somehow better than Ruthenised? I think, either is equally 'good' and there is the third way, stay Lithuanian. Lithuanian nobility was Polonised as a result and Lithuania 'lost' its highest class. Also, to your information, Lithuania's biggest threat was not attacts from Poland, but from crussaders at that time of history.
Also, he could not foresee that in future Poland will dominate the commonwealth. For one, he was Lithuanian patriot - just read his description by Dlugosz, who said that he loved Lithuania and was taking the castles and lands from Poland and transferring them to his home country.. Szopen 10:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
;) Yes, a good excuse for someone who seeks power at any price (he killed his uncle Kestutis and wanted to kill Vytautas). Lithuanians don't love him and his name associates with a traitor somewhat. You won't find many children named Jogaila in Lithuania or monuments to him. It is not that he is not important though.
At that time ruthenised process was a quite limited I believe. All grand Dukes were pagan once and that you see the noblemen mixture with ruthen. were mostly of political mater (making diplomacy or trying to find the shelter); especially with shelter quite a bunch of noblemen ran to the TO too, but somehow we do not call them Germans….regarding Jasienika notes we should also remember that Poland before Jogaila (Jagiello) was in problems with HRE and border skirmishes with Lithuanians and also TO relationships disintegrated, so Polish noblemen had to seek an solution and the solution was found quite good I should add. But I trying to think why in Lithuania Jogaila is not regarded well I notice only one major problem – because he tried to merged Lithuania into Poland. But many aspects of this deeds are not known in LT like that he did not spoke good in polish, as many of Lithuanians liked to take bath :) often (especially this irritated Dlugosz), avoided transfer of Palanga to TO and similar…..Dlugosz liked Vytautas more then Jagiello….M.K 11:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Juraune: please cite your sources.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Here they are: Jogaila http://www.google.lt/search?as_q=Jogaila&num=10&hl=lt&btnG=Google+Paie%C5%A1ka&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch= 16:500
Władysław II Jagiełło http://www.google.lt/search?as_q=W%C5%82adys%C5%82aw+II+Jagie%C5%82%C5%82o&num=10&hl=lt&btnG=Google+Paie%C5%A1ka&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch= 11.300
--Juraune 20:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Please read about the Google test and how to do it properly (use English Google for starters - what is the 'Savitas pasirinkimas' option that you have checked in the lt Google?). My search on the English Google, with the same strings but only English language pages checked shows the same results for Jogaila ([5]), but 31,400 hits for the Władysław II Jagiełło string you used ([6]). Second, as the previous discussion shows, there are quite a few variants of the name, and various Władysław/Vladisavs/Ladislauses and such are much more common then Jogaila. Out of those Władysław is the most correct one.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Then what does it mean 'szukanie' in the search pages you indicated earlear? Also, there are numerous Wladyslaws in the history whatever the form, and they are different people, and Jogaila is the only one. --Juraune 21:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Piotr, the title 'Władysław II Jagiełło' is as 'correct' for the Eglish language page as 'most correct' name '後醍醐天皇' for Emperor Go-Daigo.
This is not true, as W2J is still Latin alphabet, while 後醍醐天皇 is obviously not, and en Wikipedia has a policy to use only Latin alphabet in names.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the point was not the alphabet used, but:
     English name        vs    Local name

     Emperor Go-Daigo    vs    後醍醐天皇
      ?                   vs    Władysław II Jagiełło
--Juraune 20:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
You are mistaken. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
"You are mistaken" Can you be more specific? --Juraune 06:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


Piotr, here are the proper English language page search. That summes up your claim of popularity of the current title:

  • Jogaila: [7] 16,400
  • "Władysław II Jagiełło": [8] 14,000
  • "Jagiello"
[9] 145,000
Ok, then rename the title to "Jagiello". :)))
As you might have noticed if you'd review our past discussions, I don't have a preference in terms of Jagiełło/Jagiello/Jagiellon (and I actually prefer Vasa over Waza), but we should be consistent. If we rename this one to Jagiello, then all the others Jagiełłos/Jagiellons should have the same change. As Jagiello seems to be simply englicized version of more correct (if less used for obvious reasons) Jagiełło, I tend to favour Jagiellon vs Jagiello. But let's hear other users comments on that.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Englicized version "Jagiello" for English Wikipedia is appropiate. "More correct" is very subjective argument, more correct historically, more correct for Polish readers eyes? (What is this 'Jagiellon vs Jagiello', mistype? :) ) Juraune 18:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
As I've said before, Jogaila is the best name. It is the name used by all the historians, but they don't have their naming policy determined by a Polonizing cabal. Jogaila, with no titles in title, would settle it all. Who are we, after all, to argue with Norman Davies? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Paranoia is treatable, Calg. And I see no reason to argue with Davies, as he uses both forms, depending on the context (see this for example of his usage of Władysław Jagiełło.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
"Words of Wisdom: Paranoia is treatable" :( . The universe does not revolve around Poland either, Piotrus. Look at the map [10](link to this map I added later, couldn't find ont at the time of discussion Juraune 13:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)) of lands this King was ruler of. It would be nice to add one to this article. -- Juraune 07:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Good, you see no reason to argue with Davies. He uses only Jogaila in Europe: A History, and he does so 'cause the guy is Lithuanian and Davies is one of those historians who likes to use native names (although he doesn't do this for Scotland, I may complain!). Although I've made an issue of it, I'm perfectly happy to have Polish monarchs with Polonized names. But in this case it just gets everyone's backs' up because it's such an aggressive name: giving a completely Polonized name to a Lithuanian ruler who most historians refer to by his Lithuanian name. In reality Piotrus, although, armed as you are with your noticeboard and followers, you'll successfully thwart any attempt to rename him in the shortterm; in the longer-term this hugely controversial name is going to have you coming back here again and again trying to defend the indefensible, is going to draw attention to yourself and your tactics (for what are mostly causes I sympathize with), and may cause you more problems than you think it'd be worth ... as it prolly already has done. It has already, after all, drawn me into a big bunch of articles and arguments outside my normal editing interests; you'll discover soon enough that I'm not going to be unique. BTW, although the Polish WNB is a cabal, it is a great instrument of wikipedia production and article balancing which I highly support; there are loads of cabals on wiki, and many of them are good, but they are still cabals. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Calgacus. *sigh* Cite your sources, please. You write: "[Władysław Jagiełło is] a completely Polonized name to a Lithuanian ruler who most historians refer to by his Lithuanian name". Please, enlighten us in what academic work have you found that statement? Or perhaps you have done a verifiable comparison of the books or articles on the subject (using G.Print or Scholar, I presume) and you can cite the links to back up your statement? I'll let go of the cabal discussion, because it is partially OT, and I think at some level everything in Wikipedia is cabal-run - but please, believe me, I am not aware of any organized and secret movement of Polish Wikipedians with the stated goal of polonizing English Wiki.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I've already "cited my sources" for you Piotrus, want me to repaste them for you? You know it makes no difference in any case, cause you want this guy to have this title, and that's frankly all that matters for the now. But I warn you, this ridiculous situation ain't going anywhere, you'll get dragged here again and again; you better hope the man himself doesn't come across this page. Regards, - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, please, repeat them.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
PASTE: "Three books in English I have in front of me support me (I have no agenda, and so wasn't inventing anything). Byzantium and the Rise of Russia by John Meyendorff, and Rowell's Lithuania Ascending both give him his name as Jogaila. Christiansen's The Northern Crusades refers to him as always as Jogaila (with Wladyslaw IV, k. of Poland, in brackets in the index ... next to Jogaila!) ... Norman Davies' Europe: A History lists our ruler in the index as Jogaila ... he uses only Jogaila in Europe: A History END PASTE ; now, I have no books in English listing him as "Władysław II Jagiełło"; those 4 works are a good cross-section of historiography; a scholar of Russian and Byzantine studies, a scholar of Lithuanian studies, a scholar of Polish studies, and a scholar of the northern crusades; none of them are Lithuanian or Polish; I'm afraid you have no case; and if I were to venture to the library, and find more books on the man, Jogaila would continue to predominate. The only place Władysław II Jagiełło ever dominates are in Polish works, which owing to the cabal here, includes wikipedia articles relating to Poland. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Your argument has already been debunked in the archive, but let me give you a different reply: taking few books out of one's bookshelf and claiming they represent 'majority of respectable schoolars' is not a valid sample (it is neither random nor complete). As I have told you before, you fail to provide any valid facts to back up your theories: the few books from your bookshelf do not represent the 'majority of respectable scholars'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
You're not talking sense now; they are a random sample, and I'd like you please to give some English language books that use Władysław II Jagiełło as the name for this guy in their text or, esp., their index. You won't come up with any coz you know Jogaila is the most common name. So please stop pretending you "debunked" anything, and stop pretending the title of this guy is anything but Polish nationalism fostered by yourself and your followers. Every sensible person here knows this article name has been victim to an agenda, so don't waste your time trying to convince people that you have any objectivity. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
[11]. Note that there are much more results without the numeral: [12], [13]. In any case, this is a much more reliable (and larger) sample then your bookshelf, which is most certainly NOT a random sample, but at best a subjective sample of your interests.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, according to your own citations of the search results, the name should be at least without ł, Piotr. Juraune 13:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Google Print seems to be unable to preform searchers with non-traditional letters, so unfortunately it does not help us with diactrics. As a rule of thumb, authors who cannot speak a given language don't use them. But this is somewhat besides the point, as we seem to be using them all over Wikipedia, so unless we take a completly Englicized/Latinized version of the name, we should use diactrics. On that issue, please not that I have no objection to using Jagiellon instead of Jagiełło, if it can be shown that it is a correct translation and used by other sources.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Google is able :))) Juraune 07:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey Piotrus, I'm still waiting for you to cite some works. The works are a sample of my interest, but there's no way of establishing the relationship between my interest and that spelling. Could you please cite at least one or two examples that use Władysław II Jagiełło. If you don't, it'll look very peculiar indeed. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
To me it looks very peculiar that apparently you don't read what I write: see my post above with external links for the list of citations.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
No, I saw those; but since Jogaila gets 301 hits on that, "Wladyslaw II Jagiello" (21), Wladyslaw Jagiello (25) and Władysław II Jagiełło (4), I figured you wouldn't want to use that source, since it destroys all your arguments. The closest is "Wladyslaw Jagiello" (103), so still a third of Jogaila. Is google books now your authority, or does it cease to be an authority, like Norman Davies, 'coz it doesn't suit your agendum? - 14:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
And Jagiello has 2500 hits.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Indeed! Though only a percentage of those are actually about our ruler, still more than the Polish names. Does this mean you're for a move to Jagiello? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The spelling Jogaila actually is quite recent lithuanization (as are the spellings of names of all medieval historical Lithuanian figures): at the time of his life and several centuries after, Lithuanian wasn't used in writing. In Lithuania, the predominant language of writing was Ruthenian, and Jahajła (I use the Belarusian form just to avoid choosing between Polish and Lithuanian variants) was written in this language as Ягаило (actually spelled with A iotified, as Я is a later invention). On the other hand, Polish name is also of later origin. At the time of Jahajła Latin was used in writing in Poland, and Latin sources usually refer to him by his Christian name Wladislaus, and only in pre-1386 contexts use his original name, spelled Iagello/Jagello/Iagiello/Jagiello (at least it is what I found by searching in Google). One could even argue that at the time of his reign Polish people usually must have called him "król Władysław", not "król Jagiełło", and that "Jagiełło" was later borrowed from Latin. I know this may be a bit confusing, but the point I want to make is quite simple: if you want to stick to "original" or "native" names, it's just impossible in this case. As to the choosing between modern variants: in my opinion, Google-fight won't settle this question, simply because there is no really established usage. Traditional form (=derived from Latin) definitely is Wladislaus Jagiello, but obviously we don't have to stick to the tradition. IMO, as he acted for the most part of his life mainly as a King of Poland, and not a Grand Duke of Lithuania, it would be natural to list him as a Polish ruler at the first place, and to follow the naming conventions for other Polish kings. Cyon 10:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

→ "naming conventions for other Polish kings" is a mythical concept. --Francis Schonken 08:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Concur. KonradWallenrod 17:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Strongly disagree. I don't see any obvious reasons to stray away from traditional English naming. Except from Polish, the rest of the world will look bewildered at these 'ł' without an idea how to pronounce them. Secondly, the original name can be restored with the help of professional linguists and historians, not by a bunch of amateurs with the nationalistic agenda on their mind. Third, this king has ruled a much bigger territory, the Poland being a smaller part of it. Seeing him just as a Polish king is a clear case of Polish POV. There were two states at that time, it doesnt matter, that Lithuania was called a Great Dutchy, it was a State. Just to understand non-Polish, just think for a moment, how would a Polish look at the name written with Lithuanian characters, for example "Vlądįsloū II Jogaėla". Juraune 17:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Juraune, keep in mind that during times of Jagiello: a) Despite being larger, GDL was highly decentralised in comparison to Poland b) in whole GDL there were some two or three castles from stone, while in Poland literally dozens of them c) Lithuania had not heavy cavalry comparable in quality to Polish one d) Lithuania was deeply in civil war e) I am not sure whether Lithuania had more population than Poland; f) Lithuania has surely lower GNP :) g) status of "king" in medieval Europe was way higher than status of pagan "grand duke" Szopen 06:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Now we live not in medieval times and don't have to treat pagan kings as lower class or lower culture. Wooden culture has it's own attractions. Lithuania was rich of wood, but the stones were scarce. Lithuania was further away from Christian culture centers, that is why it came later to Lithuania. All what you listed here are just details. Get a bigger picture. Poland and Lithuania were different, but they both were States. BTW: your f) is completely not on topic. Juraune 08:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Jaraune, before answering me, keep in mind that I do not want to insult your national feelings. I understand the reasons of the facts as they were. I simply responded to "Third, this king has ruled a much bigger territory, the Poland being a smaller part of it. Seeing him just as a Polish king is a clear case of Polish POV." - simply the territory didn't matter. Poland in that period was (arguably) more powerful state than Lithuania - both because Lithuania was plagued by internal struggles, decentralisation, it had lower density of population, worse agriculture etc. Stating this is IMO simply a fact, just as stating that Poland was also less developed and less powerful than France, or in XVIII century it was less powerfull and arguably less developed than say Prussia, despite being larger state.
And wikipedia convention states that one should use convention "X of Y", and if X held several titles, the one most often associated with should be choosen, while "X of Y and Z" should be avoided. Therefore, all "Jagiello", "Jogaila" and "Jagiełło" are in fact incorrect. The title should be in fact "Wladyslaw n-th of Poland" with redirects from "Jogaila of Lithuania" etc. (Maybe with "Vladislaus or some other anglicised version of name). IMO Władysław II Jagiełło should also be redirect to "Vladislaus nth of Poland", if we want to have article with name according to wikipedia naming cnoventions. However, I think also his nickname "Jagiello/Jogaila" is so important, and the numbering so tricky, that Wladislaw II Jagiello is good compromise: does not offend Lithuanians by avoiding "of Poland" part, does not violate wikipedia standards by some strange "of Poland and Lithuania", does avoid any misdirections, includes his Lithuanian name etc.
BTW, the f) had a smile. And remember that I was answering to you.
And again, labelling Jagiello a traitor is a big misunderstanding. I think this is result of young and agressive nationalism which developed in XIX century Lithuania (maybe partially as result of confrontation with Polish, German and Russian agressive nationalisms). Even hundred years after Jagiello's death, even later, no Lithuanian would probably describe him as that (especially since some XVII Lithuanian elites started to have dual identity which i saw described by historians as "nostra polonia" identity) Szopen 08:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Aaah I noticed that "seeing him only as king of Poland". We do not see him only as king of Poland. Simply the wikipedia rules state that "Wladyslaw II Jagiello Jogaila king of Poland, grand duke of Lithuania, later supreme duke of Lithuania" is _bad_ thing. The article itself correctly provides correct info about the states he ruled and titles he held. Szopen 08:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Just FYI:

Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, use the most commonly associated ones. For example, Charles II of England, not Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland; Wilhelm II of Germany, not Wilhelm II of Prussia, although there should be redirects from these locations

Therefore, Wladyslaw II of Poland, (Ladislaus, Vladislav)

European monarchs whose rank was below that of King (e.g. Grand Dukes, Electors, Dukes, Princes), should be at the location "{Monarch's first name and ordinal}, {Title} of {Country}". Examples: Maximilian I, Elector of Bavaria, Jean, Grand Duke of Luxembourg

Not really applying here, but it seems that grand duke in the eyes of people who created standard were of lower rank than kings.

No family or middle names, except where English speakers normally use them. No cognomens (nicknames) in article titles – they go in the first line of the article.

So, in fact no Jagiełło or Jogaila. Buuut:

If a person is overwhelmingly best known by a cognomen, or by a name that doesn't fit the guidelines above, revert to the base rule: use the most common English name. Examples: Alfred the Great, Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, Henry the Lion, etc...".

Jagiello is commonly known as Wladislaw Jagiello. This won't offend anyone and won't start the nonsensical discussion whether Poland or Lithuania were more important or more associated with him.

Use the most senior title received by a royal personage. For example, George V of the United Kingdom is referred to as such, not George, Duke of York or George, Prince of Wales, his earlier titles.

Again, title of king is senior title, not grand duke. Lithuanians also seemed to think that, since some grand dukes were actively searching for crown (Mindog, Witold IIRC).

The standard has nothing to say about _what if ruler changed his name_. Szopen 09:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

How do you understand this term "changed name"? It sounds weird to me. This is not a programming where you write a function ChangeName("Jogaila", "Władysław II Jagiełło") :))) Juraune 10:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Szopen, I would agree on "Jogaila of Lithuania" or "Wladyslaw II of Poland" and also about the need to seek a compromise. "Władysław II Jagiełło" is not a compromise, it is a literal name in Polish language, not English. BTW, I mentioned Jogaila being a traitor as a popural say, not as my oppinion. There is nothing aggressive about it. And I do understand humor in a proper place, f) was a wrong letter for your humor, no offense. Do you really think that Jogaila's GNP was bigger than Vytautas's :))) Juraune 12:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Wladyslaw II of Poland has my support, but I would prefer version Wladislaw II Jagiello or similar to avoid reference to Poland, which is, as it seems, causing controversies. The humour was denoted by :), not by f), btw. Szopen 07:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Gross National Product, (GNP) no? M.K. 13:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Szopen ! I see you like humor :) it is good cuz not much here you can encounter people with not academic approach wholly. But let go step by step.
I firstly want to answer to Cyon, I see you already spotted your mistakes, it is good. But still is more interesting and complex then you wrote. Firstly ruthenian language at that time was one of several languages( for writing). Latin, German and ruth were used all together. Latin was used very widely and not only for correspondences with western Europe, the edicts were issued by this language (Vytuatas edicts used this language too, to closest family members his edict were in latin …) Of course nobody is denying ruthenian role…our statues were written in this language and so son.
When you talked about lithuanization of the name I believe you forgot the one side of Lithuanian language – the fact that the linguists calls - the most archaic and the most conservative a live language of Indo-Eur. (I believe nobody will try to argue this :) ). Secondly you should note one more thing – that drift of Lithuanian spoken and written language are minimal. That is this means? This means that almost in all cases Lithuanian words written as they are heard. For example English language has quite a big drift from spoken and written…..
Now keeping this in our mind lets go a bit closer to the name “Jogaila” . Despite how you write it - Jahajła, Ягаило , Jagello it shows very interesting thing - the origin of this name is not the ruth., latin, or polish. Structure of word “Jogaila” (or in other typing, not mater in this case) is usual to pagan Lithuanian names - the big groups of names goes with –gaila- other group –vyt-. Secondly linguists proven that a name “Jogaila” (or in other typing, not mater in this case) is combination of two words (or part of them), and these words are not ruthen or polish they Lithuanian. structure : -Jo-gaila- or ~ –Ja-hajła-…
Even more interesting things you can find in statutes or metrika, yup they are written in ruthe. These monumental historical documents shows very interesting thing – the lag of ruthenian language which was filled with…..Lithuanian words (of course writen in appropriate style). And this phenomenon was encounter no in one case but with hundred cases .
Ашмяны – heard something about it ? (sorry if made a writing mistake I am not good in Beal.)
Now about recent lithuanization - this recent lithuanization is used for reconstruction of proto-european not only one word. So how it can be that language (written!!!!!) is use with parallel with old Greek or Latin ? And this trick doing linguists from USA to Germany….and I think, that French linguist Antoine Meillet, when he spoke his famous fraise was not drunk :P
Now about writhing text of Lithuanian, survived Lithuanian texts are from 16c. (earliest from 1503-1525). But scholars (and I should add not dumb ones) say first Lithuanian writings should bee at least from the official Christianization. Why? Because polish and other foreigners had a problems with explaining the principles of religion to Lithuanians plus tradition and plus the fact that survived text of 1503-1525 is only transcription of even older version…
So you see that Lithuanian language use is not so inconsiderate….
as he acted for the most part of his life mainly as a King of Poland, and not a Grand Duke of Lithuania, it would be natural to list him as a Polish ruler at the first place,
If you only could say to Dlugosz this :DD
Now Szopen, to your case :) your one post is a bit heresy :D lets begin:
Heresy NO1 :
b) In whole GDL there were some two or three castles from stone, while in Poland literally dozens of them
Count only survived:
Kaunas
Recaptured in 1404, so in time Jogaila was choosen a king of Poland, not in Lithuania
Thanks Szopen for answers. Now I am a bit more clearly understanding that do you wanted to say with this - Juraune, keep in mind that during times of Jagiello. You wanted to say about situation before Jogaila`s crowning? Am I right? If so a bit of corrections should be added…
Recaptured in 1404, so in time Jogaila was choosen a king of Poland, not in Lithuania
I do not understand what do you want to say with this :(….please explain that do you want to say. M.K. 12:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Trakai (3 castles – island, peninsula ( if I am not mistaken with 11 towers…) and old Trakai)
If I am not mistaken, wooden castle at time of choosing Jogaila; built from stone by Vitovt.
If am correct about jogaila before king timing, yup some corrections from mine side should be added. Please note that in Trakai were 3 different castles, if you here talking about island castle its construction was begun not by Vytautas , but Vytautas finished it and expanded.
Peninsula castle was already built, but damaged by siege and Vytautas rebuilt it.
about Old Trakai is word old says something :) M.K. 12:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Vilnius (~3 castles)
IIRC it was Vitovt who fully rebuilt it into stone castles, before that it were partially with brick walls?
Before vytautas here was stone, upper part wooden keep Vytautas replaced with stone. Archeogical evidence suggest that Vilnius stone castle parts were XIII-XIV beg. M.K. 12:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Medininkai
Lyda
Indeed - i didn't know about that one.
Smolensk
Lutsk
Yes, it was, i think
Hrodno
Wooden castle until 1398, when Vitovt rebuilt it was stone castle.
Are you sure cuz stone were was around XIIIc. But as you said Vytautas rebuilt it, after the major damage.M.K. 12:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Kreva
Naugardukas (expanded during Lithuanian dukes rule..)
I do not want to go to Ukraine too deep, do I really need?
Those are four or five stoned castles in time Jogaila was choosen a king. Still more than three I thought, but still a lot less than in Poland at that time. Szopen 07:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Come one.
As you see you making the progress :) please remember that we discuss only “survived” castles there is a totally destroyed ones plus we did not gone to deep to counties territory, yes? M.K. 12:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
There is a quite spread opinion that TO during its conquest really on stone castles, usually it was a wooden and only later a stone.
c) Lithuania had not heavy cavalry comparable in quality to Polish one d
possible heresy. Please explain which period specifically you have in head. During 1399 crusade Lithuanian elite bought newest western armour…. Even there is an so joke – Ah, how not patriotically Vytautas looked with “dog-face”:)
So, they were transferred in time to 1382? I keep my premise: at time Jogaila was choosen a king Lithuania had no heavy cavalry comparable to Polish one. Besides, if Lithuanian heavy cavalry was so good, why Vitovt keep on using Polish knights? Worskla is most spectacular example, but he also employed Polish knights elsewhere, isn't it. Szopen 07:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
No, the particular armour that I talked were not transferred in 1382. but keep in mind that trade was establish, TO (!) supplied amours and weapons and so on. But I want to identify what do you call heavy cavalry of XIVc. ?
About 1399 battle I am afraid that TO knights were a bit more then polish. Now answering to you question - why he is employed Polish knights, I could ask why during sieges Polish asked Lithuanian for help, does Polish did not have siege equipment ? Why in Tannenberg were quite many mercenaries in allied side? M.K. 12:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


d) Lithuania was deeply in civil war
yup it was a nice fight :) but lets look at our neighbour Poland! Teutonic Order (TO) already showing the swords, yes; HRE near the neck, Lithuanian border skirmishes not helpful at all; noblemen quite lost because there is a queen and Hapsburgs… So the fact that polish noblemen invited (pagan) duke to throne shows something…please do not say that they wanted to go to history with Christianization of pagans :) I believe to countries had their problems…. And to my view at that time (before jogaila) Poland was not very powerfully (this is my “nationalistic” view :D)
So, Polish problems (TO is dangerous as always, though busy elsewhere; south border and western border secure; skirmishes with Lithuania; some nobles bitching about who should marry Jadwiga, Habsburgs, Ziemowit or Jagiello is comparable to TO organising raids each year and full-blown civil war? Szopen 07:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
It could be a bit harder if you add HRE or at least it parts ;) M.K. 12:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
e) I am not sure whether Lithuania had more population than Poland
nobody is sure….
Yes, I saw estimation both stating that it had more and that it had less population. Szopen 07:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Estimates vary so greatly, because usually to identified results is used qualitative data altogether….M.K. 12:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
f) Lithuania has surely lower GNP
:D no comments
g) status of "king" in medieval Europe was way higher than status of pagan "grand duke"
Yupii, first Grand Duke in western Europe is not the same as Grand Duke in Lithuanian and contrary. Usually with western countries Lithuanian Grand Dukes used word – Rex. :
And that's why Vitovt and others wanted to have official crown? Szopen 07:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Because it is official ;) If I not mistaken Vytautas was already proclaimed as Rex before ~1429. BTW did Poland still has his stolen crown? M.K. 12:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Divina providencia Letphanorum Ruthenorumque rex
Dei gratia Letphanorum Ruthenorumque rex, princeps et dux Semigallie
Summus rex Letwinorum
Dei gratia rex Lettowiae (title of “True” Lithuanian king)


These are some examples which I have near my hand, usually only word “Lithuania” was used and to show other lands “alie et cetera” were added.


Simply the territory didn't matter
Are you sure ? Motto – “All Rus belongs to Lithuania!” For your consideration only.
Poland in that period was (arguably) more powerful state than Lithuania - both because Lithuania was plagued by internal struggles
Pure hearsay IMO. I showed a bit of the polands position at the time, it was not good at all; jup during Jogaila rule it became strong.
It was strong also before. It had two uneasy borders, while Lithuania has practically NO safe border. Szopen 07:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The difference with Poland and Lithuanian no safe boarders was in that Lithuania was keep expanding and expanding and…..oooops balck sea:) while Poli was a bit stagnant in this case ;) No safe borders+expansion=more power? no? M.K. 12:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
his nickname "Jagiello/Jogaila" is so important
Why you call "Jagiello/Jogaila" a nickname all the time ?
Isn't it literally meaning "Rider" in Lithuanian? Seems more like a nickname than name.Szopen 07:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh no!!!!!!! his name not means “rider”. Meaning of his name is more intersting when you think. M.K. 12:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Do you think previous German Chancellor Kohl is a nickname also? Translation is "Cabage"! Juraune 07:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
labelling Jagiello a traitor is a big misunderstanding
Under his reign the Grand Duke was murdered, little tricks with TO, imprisonment then you gave a word that no one will….of course his good deeds in Lithuania is not known widely because he is overshadowed by Vytautas.
Vitovt is also not great. Conspiracy with TO against his own country....Szopen 07:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
He was not prefect man, and as Dlugosz said he had one arm bigger :D But his “trips” were quite different from Jogaila`s. despite this vytautas has - the Great status. M.K. 12:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I think this is result of young and agressive nationalism
You think wrong :) it is not a nationalism.
Szopen, I should agree with you in some cases very strongly.
Sorry for my mistakes cuz I write having lack of time, I hope you all will understand! Or maybe not…if not we will think something oky?
Big Thanks goes to Poland for points to WE ARE THE WINNERS! :d (for the first time I saw EV fully, cuz I hate this contest, but this time it was different :P) VOTE! M.K. 16:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
No problem.
I still think that at time Jogaila was choosen king of Poland, his situation as king in Poland was better than his situation as grand duke of Lithuania, and that Poland at this time was more powerful than Lithuania. If not, then why he agreed to such conditions as "joining
Lithuania to Poland? Because he and Vitovt were both skilled rulers, they were later able to turn the tables around. Szopen 07:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Aaah BTW getting back to Jasienica argument: he said that Jagiello saved Lithuanian from Ruthenising, because a) in catholic faith, they were using Latin, resembling Lithuanian somehow b) they maintained their separate status from Ruthenians. That way, Lithuanians could preserve their identity, instead of being Ruthenised. Jasienica argued, that only those Lithuanians, who already where Ruthenised earlier, were polonised, while bulk of Lithuanians thanks to Jogaila kept their national identity. Jasienica, nor I, did _not_ imply that "he saved Lithuanians from ruthenisation because he polonised them". I do not think polonisation is a good thing for Lithuanians, and certainly not better than ruthenisation, and if anyone had this impression, then it is only because of my clumsy english. Szopen 07:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
About joining conditions – maybe young queen mix his mind. Mostly I believe it was for his personal reasons.
About Jasienica, he also “forgot” to add that Jogaila saved Poland from germanization too. Latin Lnaguage was used long time before Jogaila and his famous “savior case”. And in Poland and ruthen. langauge was used too.M.K. 12:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Jasienica has not forgot that. Jasienica is popular history writer. This was his opinion when discussing what options Jogaila had and whether it is right to considr him "traitor" from Lithuanian point of view. Szopen 09:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I encounter only some of Jasienica ideas, indeed his popular in Poland, but some poles say he is a bit one sided. Nevertheless, if I not mistaken, he express idea that Jogaila was using Poland against its interest and he was like usurper nad not much good for Poland ... M.K. 22:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


Jogaila did not agree to join Lithuania to Poland. It was a 

 Union of two States

Saying "more powerful" is very subjective, not an argument. There was a long process of Poland becomming dominant, not at the time we are discussing now. Even if you disagree with it, you keep spreading this nonsense about the "Honors" of polonisation by some amateur historian, who lived long ago. If you want serious discussion, read what current professional historians have to say. Juraune 08:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he agreed to join "applicare" Lithuania to Poland in original form. This was how Poles understood it for almost a long time until fierce Lithuanian opposition convinced them that it is not such as bright idea as they thought and they finally gave up sticking to original "applicare" and settled for union (which was soemtimes just a loose alliance) Szopen 09:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Juraune, M.K., thank you for your replies. I think Wikipedia is a great place, because discussions here are about something substantial (ie. the articles), and everybody has to learn to seek compromise. Here is my answer:

1. To Juraune: I see that you oppose using diacritics in English WP, but for me this is unreasonable. Every non-Polish speaking person, who sees name "Wladyslaw" would think twice before trying to pronounce it, no matter if there are any "ł's" or not. IMO, use of diacritics in any word that comes from a language that natively uses Latin alphabet (even Vietnamese!) is justified. Technically it is not a problem anymore. But of course, Wikipedia has some rules concerning this question Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(standard_letters_with_diacritics) that are much stricter than I would desire.
What I said above, was said in general. In our case, there are other reasons why Polish version of the name shouldn't be used, and here I oppose only the one you presented. There are no "good" and "bad" letters.
No, I do not oppose using expanded Latin alphabet in English WP, but put them where it is appropriate. Even signs or letters of non Latin origin are equally as "good" as Latin letters. The encyclopedia article is written for a reader. Polish wiki for Polish reader, Lithuanian viki for Lithuanian reader, English wiki for English reader. There are certain traditions of writing royal names in English history books, so please do not try to invent new Poglish (the term I came across somewhere) history writting style. Juraune 13:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
2. To M.K.: I agree that usage of different languages in GDL is a complex issue, and that's why I find it fascinating. Of course, I know, that the name of Jahajła is of Lithuanian origin - it is obvious to any Slavic language speaker that this is not a Slavic name (although there are some Belarusian "historical extremists" who would deny it :) ) And of course I know that Lithuanian language has preserved many archaic Indo-European features. But it doesn't mean it didn't change in time like all languages do, or that it hasn't changed at all in recent 600 years. Moreover, as far as I know at least some of the names of historical figures were "reinvented" during the standardization of Lithuanian (but maybe I am wrong). You said about the drift of spoken and written language - I guess this is to some degree a case of applying orthographical rules relatively late. So the Lithuanian spelling couldn't be regarded "original".
As to the use of contemporary Lithuanian together with Greek, Latin and Sanscrit to decipher old Indo-European roots and constructions - this is normal in diachronic linguistics to use languages that were in use in different times, because it is believed that different languages tend to preserve some unique features of the proto-language regardless the flow of time, while others may be lost very early. I have seen usage of some Serbian words together with the above mentioned languages, because the Serbian language preserves the old accent distinctions.
I don't understand your remark about Lithuanian words in Ruthenian sources, especially when you take as an example Ašmiany. Do you mean that it is a word of Lithuanian origin? No doubt about it. Or do you mean something entirely different?
Cyon, thanks for your reapply. Good point about “historical extremists" ;)
About language, I did not recall that I say that Lith. language did not changed; it changed of course, but with quite minimal degree compared with other languages.
And you are right that minimal drift of spoken and written language was for lack of applied rules too. But I believe that if Lith. written language could not represent archaisms it would not bee used as example at all with other writings. Second important thing this – this is a live language.
And yes it is sure (no doubt at all!) during reconstructions different languages are used, but the bases are these languages which we talked, of course and others is added. But when I talked about these reconstructions I wanted to stress – if writing language cant represent archaisms and old structure no body will take it ( maybe only to show how far it drifted. Usually French language is taken to show how true descendant of Latin ran too far ;) ). Because sometimes you can hear that some Lith. linguist came and said :
- ok we should invent a new word! Yesterday we invented Kęstutis, Today we will take words “jo” and “gaila” and invent once more!.
- so that do we have?
– “Gailajo”?
- not good, sounds stupid :)
- eeee maybe “Gaijola”
- NO! so what is left?
- Maybe “Jogaila”
- NO!!! nobody will understand it
- so maybe Gediminas
- YES !!!! (sorry for mine dumb humor :D)
Sorry that I made myself not clear about Ruthenian sources. Mine idea was to say that Lith. words were incorporated into Ruth. sources very nicely.
Ашмяны I used as first example which came to mine head, which represents origin of Lith. words which still is used. And as a place-name it holds a secret of language spread. M.K. 22:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to emphasize that the fact that a language has retained many archaic features doesn't necessary mean it is the best vehicle to write names of some historical figures. Of course, in this case, there are also many other aspects of the problem.
Concerning Ашмяны: you are right. In addition to the "historical extremists" I mentioned before, there are also people in Belarus who call Belarusians "slavicized Balts" (which is of course a kind of simplification). I think the interactions between Baltic and Slavic people on one hand and paganism and orthodox Christianity on the other during the origins of GDL must have been very interesting and it's a pity that we know so little about it. Cyon 21:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
The name "Jogaila", recorded in historic documents of his time. Similar names "Songaila", "Vilgaila" are last names of some Lithuanian families passed from generation to generation. Are there more questions about modern Lithuanians inventing "Jogaila"? Juraune 07:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Could you please cite those sources? By saying that Jogaila is a recent lithuanization, I meant chiefly the spelling. And I didn't want to imply that Lithuanians "invented" Jogaila, but rather that it is a reconstruction of the originally Lithuanian name, adjusted to the pronunciation and spelling of modern Lithuanian. Cyon 21:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
3. Dlugosz had very strong Polish POV, didn't he? :) But what we see without examining any special sources: First, Jahajła had to rely on Skirgaila in governing of GDL. Then, he had to accept Vytautas, Švitrigaila and Žygimantas Kęstutaitis. Vytautas was able to act on its own, while noone in Poland had similar position. Of course it was probably partly due to organizational differences in the governing system in both countries, so this argument is rather weak. Nevertheless, it is obvious that Jahajła had more direct control on Poland and wasn't able to administer the GDL's affairs as much as he wanted to. Somehow the conditions must have often limited him to act mainly as a king of Poland.
As I said, it is a rather weak claim, because he didn't stop acting as a ruler of GDL. But let's take a look on conditions of Union of Krewo. The original idea was that Lithuania should be incorporated into Poland, ie. the one common state should be created, and the GDL should be subordinated to the king of Poland. It seems that Jahajła's plan was to rule over Lithuania and Rus as a king of Poland - a good plan, if you consider that governing one state is easier than two. The incorporation proved to be impossible due to the differences between the two countries and the Lithuanian opposition, but some kind of subordination was retained, as it was confirmed by Union of Vilnius and Radom.
yes you right about overlord - Wladislaus, dei gracia rex Polonie, Lithuanie princeps supremu, heres Russie; et nos magnus dux Vytolth Lithuanie et.
but 1413 did change a bit situation. M.K. 22:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you are right. But it was Vytautas who was the Grand Duke of Lithuania, so after Union of Horodło Jahajła was even more limited to act only as a Polish king! Cyon 21:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
4. One can argue which country was stronger, Poland or GDL, but IMO one thing is doubtless: Poland's organizational superiority at that time. Poland, regardless of its supposed weaknesses, was simply a state with all institutions much more mature than GDL. Later, Polish instutions and structures were borrowed by Lithuania, not the other way round.
There is a theory that Grand Duchy were influenced mainly by Teutonic Order during the state building time. Some polish historians concur it. But I personally think it is a bit to easy approach M.K. 22:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
5. And the last thing: the naming conventions for Polish kings may be "a mythical concept" as Francis Schonken puts it, but it certainly doesn't mean that they cannot be worked out in the future. What I wanted to say is that Poles have many good reasons to oppose the break of continuity in naming of Polish rulers here. But on the other hand, almost every King of Poland after Jahajła was also a Grand Duke of Lithuania, so the Lithuanians (and Belarusians) should be also welcome to participate in creating such conventions. IMO, the best choice would be using neutral (English) names, as it is in the case of rulers of other European countries. Take a look at Wenceslaus I, King of Bohemia or Matthias Corvinus of Hungary and other Czech and Hungarian rulers' names. I don't see any reason not to apply the same to Polish rulers. Cyon 11:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Completely agree with your conclusions. If Polish will use literal Polish names in writting their history in English, nobody else will understand their history. The dynasty and other names will look like Polish first or last names and the information will be lost. Juraune 13:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Cyon, consider that there is no single, most popular and recognized English name for the king. There are several, some being based on latinizations, other on Polish version of his name. None of them has clear majority - I believe they are listed above or in the archive with their google hits. Therefore my main argument for using Polish version here is that there is only one Polish version, and by using it we are at least consistent with an important set of primary sources. You could make the same argument for using Jogaila, sure, but here I argue that there are more Polish then Lithuanian sources, so we should chose the larger usage. All things considered, I'd like to see which English name would you propose. We have discussed this ad nauseam and without any conclusion for month, and the vote (above, again) shows that no English name has clear majority...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I know Google is against me, but here is my suggestion: "Vladislaus II Jagiello" or "Wladislaus II Jagiello" (yes, I know, not one but two names, and not the ones listed in the poll above, sorry for that). From the two I would prefer Vladislaus. Why this one? Polish Władysław as a name of a ruler has three English equivalents: Wladislaus, Vladislaus and Ladislaus (IMO Wladyslaw cannot count as an English equivalent, it's just a corrupted version of Polish name). Wladislaus seems to be a little bit obsolete and goes against normal pronunciation habits of English speakers. Look at the article itself: the name in the royal title is translated into English as "Vladislaus", although in Latin it is "Wladislaus"! :)) As to Ladislaus, there is a slight difference between this variant and the other two, seen in names of Czech and Hungarian kings. While Jagiellonian kings were called Vladislav in Czech and Ulászló in Hungarian, there were also non-Jagiellonian kings called Ladislav and László accordingly. English Wiki uses forms Vladislaus and Ladislaus to differentiate them. That's why Polish rulers should be called "Vladislaus" and not "Ladislaus" - and yes, I would advocate changing "Władysław I the Elbow-high" to "Vladislaus I the Elbow-high", and all "Bolesławs", "Kazimierzs", "Zygmunts", "Jans", etc. to their English counterparts. I think the tradition of translating monarchs' names is a good tradition and shouldn't be neglected. I can understand some people's dissatisfaction with Polish forms in an English encyclopedia - just imagine how you would feel if you saw in Polish Wiki an article named "John bez Ziemi", "Richard Lwie Serce", "Philippe Piękny" or "Friedrich Wielki" :) Cyon 18:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
You raise some good points, let me address two of them for now: in Polish language there is only one version of 'Jan bez Ziemi' (and others), we don't have to chose between 'Jan, Jann, Jhan, Johannus, whatever'; in English as we all see there are several, and while you make an argument to chose Vladislaus, as good as it is, this borders on WP:NOR. As I said, if there is would be a single widely accepted version, or at least a trend in academia, to adopt one of these variants, I'd do so. However it appears to be one of the cases where there are several choices, none of them with significant support (I talked to a historian about similar problem (variants on a German name), and he said something along these lines 'I don't have a good answer for you, all of these are good'). Therefore I have decided to use as my academic guide words of historian Jerzy Tadeusz Lukowski, which I quoted here. They seem wise to me, and Lukowski is a professional historian writing in English language.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The words of a historian is probably your motto for action, but one minor notice: Lukowski talkes about 18 century Poland or PLC, and you are applying his wisdom to naming a man, who lived in 14-15 century. Juraune 13:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, if this was original research, it was based only on Wiki. Does it still count as such? And another (somewhat paradoxical) question: does Wiki consider itself as a reliable source of information? ;) And about Lukowski's quote: I have also thought about "Stanisław" for a while. But I think it is possible to find a good English equivalent also in this case. Actually, in my opinion, "Władysław" seems to be the most troublesome, mainly because of the three concurrent spellings in Latin. Another thing: Lukowski may allow himself to use Polish names in their original forms, just because he is a Polish historian. Nobody would oppose if a Lithuanian historian writing in English used only "Jogaila". But here, I think, we should be a little bit more "English-language centered", especially in cases like this one, when the Kings were also Grand Dukes, etc. Cyon 21:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Possible confusion between Wladyslaw II Jagiello and Wladyslaw II Jagiellon

Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Wladyslaw II Jagiello and Wladyslaw II Jagiellon, so confusing. This is one more reason to name the article by the name Jogaila, shorter, clearer, not mistakable. Juraune 14:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Wladyslaw II Jagiellon is a red link, and your link points to Vladislaus II of Bohemia and Hungary. It is remotely possible people would get confused, so it may be wortwile to emply {{about}} in both articles.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

But this name Władysław II Jagiellon is used in other articles. The one I came across is [14], look in the list of children. I think there is a great confusion in the naming of Polish royals in English language. For example, there are Jagiellon, Jagellon, Jagellion, Jagiellończyk in different articles. Shouldn't we try to be consistent? --Juraune 20:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

No confusion. "Jagiełło" is one specific person, Władysław II Jagiełło. "Jagiellon" in English, "Jagiellończyk" in Polish, refer to the House of Jagiełło. It's like the relation between John F. Kennedy and the Kennedy clan. The other cited English spellings are incorrect. KonradWallenrod 14:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The list of children of Kazimierz (how to pronounce?) Jagiellon as it is now, LOL:

  • Władysław II Jagiellończyk,
  • Jadwiga Jagiellon,
  • Kazimierz Święty, -- 'was ist das' in English?
  • Jan I Olbracht,
  • Alexander Jagiellon,

... In the same family of the same parents some are Jagiellon, some Jagiellonńczyk. I think this is crazy. Polonization of the world is going on in wiki! What about PLC, union, commonwealth of two nations? User:unnamed, 16:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

These inconsistencies in "Kazimierz IV Jagiellon" are now cleared up. Thanks for bringing attention to them. It's hard to perfect the entire Wikipedia all at once. An approximate pronunciation of Kazimierz's name is also given. KonradWallenrod 06:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The Article

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

While all of this sound and fury goes on about his name, the article itself is paltry, without much substance, and without much information about his life and accomplishments. And there is a lot that can be wriiten. Why don't we back off for a moment and work on the article itself for a while. We can always come back to this question later (I'm sure many will), but the article is weak and needs attention. God only knows how much better it would be, if half of the energy and effort of the arguments sounding off were applied to the article. A little less Polemics, maybe? Dr. Dan 17:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC) P.S. Phew! And I did'nt use his name once in all of my remarks.

Totally agree.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
But how are you going to rewrite an article if even the name of a subject is under discussion? :) Juraune 06:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about rewriting the article. Nor am I saying the issue regarding his name should be dropped. What I'm saying is look at the talk pages (including the archives), then look at the article. Look at the effort put into one, and then look at the effort put into the other. It's kind of a shame that the article is so weak and short of information. For example, where is the delightful story (possibly apocryphical), of how the old King in his eighties, went into the unusually cold woods in the last Spring of his life, to hear nightingales singing, and this caused his untimely death. The information regarding his activities in the great battle of July 15, 1410, is much too paltry. And so on and so on. Personally, I enjoy articles that not only include scholarly information, but add some of it in beautiful prose bordering on poetry. Churchill was great at it, and won the Nobel Prize in literature because of it. And inspite of some disagreement that I have with Churchill on politics, I do love his historical writings done in that vein. But I digress. Too much energy and effort on the talk pages, not enough effort on the article. Period. Dr. Dan 03:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Compromise about name

Latest comment: 18 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

1) From above, I got information that Jogaila (Lith.) is usually Jagiello in English. Is this correct? (My own touch had been that it is without that -i- thus, Jagello or Jagellon but I may have thought wrong.)

2) There is the fact that this guy's regnal number is not an established fact. He is sometimes II and sometimes V.

From these assumptions, I propose he be named Vladislaus Jagiello of Lithuania, King of Poland. I know, somewhat exceptional naming. But the shortest I can arrive at with inclusion of elements under contention. At least, with this, English-speakers, Polish and Lithuanians should get nothing too repulsive. How about this - and please remember that probably all others will be yet more monstrous. ObRoy 19:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The wikipedia guides are quite straight that you should NOT use that kind of title. Szopen 07:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

(grounds for some choices: Because he was perhaps most known by name Jogaila, its representation should be present. Because his official king's name was Wladyslaw, its representation should be present. Because his regnal number has several variants, it is not included, as disambiguation is not a problem with this anyway. Because Lithuania was the biggest part of his realm, it is exceptionally mentioned - alternative is to drop it away. King of Poland is unusual formulation, but a precedent is Holy Roman Emperor where there is also title and realm as nothing less will work. Vladislaus Jagiello as first names in that precise order because if they are used together, they or their representations are always written in that order.) ObRoy 19:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Please kindly do not oppose this. ObRoy 19:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on how did you chosel Vladislaus over, let's say, Wladislaw (or current Władysław)? For the record I have never opposed the change of Jagiełło into Jagiello/Jagiellon, provided it is done to all relevant kings and queen (just as I supported the use of Vasa instead of Waza). The exceptionaly long 'of country' is somewhat strange, and I'd like to note this combination seems to be OR.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Vladislaus seems to be the usual medieval variant. He reigned 1377-1434. Personally, I like "Ladislas" more. One variant of that name must be chosen, or this will never get a name, and soon someone puts this to name where all Lithuania-related things are lacking and regnal number is questionable (I predict: Wladislaw II of Poland). I was not sure whether Polish people would accept Wladislaw, as it is not Polish (isn't it?) but frustratingly close. Lithuanians would presumably not accept Wladyslaw or the same with dcs. (The next is just curiosity: About Jagello, do you know whether Latin writes it Jagello or Jagiello?) The country designation is not intended to be genuine, it is a description. In naming conventions, the "of country" is too just a standard, not to be assumed to have been used precisely as such in that context.
The idea is that this is a unique naming, due to the fact that Lithuania is connected to him so very much. IMO, all the others may be directly just of Poland in that regard - presumably none of them were so much better known explicitly as Lithuania's rulers than Poland's rulers. ObRoy 01:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The various Englicizations of his first name were one of the first things discussed here, so if you have not looked at the archives it may be worth checking. The last time I tried to do some analysis I could not find a variant with significant majority, and decided to go with Polish one. As far as Wladyslaw vs. Władysław my stance is that if we go with Wladyslaw we may as well put the diactrics where they belong. I have never seen 'Jagello' used, the two variants from my experience seem to be 'Jagiello' and 'Jagiellon'. I would love to have more input from Lithuania related editors and I have requested the attention of interested editors from Wikipedia:Baltic States notice board. I am however afraid that Lithuanization of his Polish name is even less used in English then the Polish variant. Jogaila is certianly something different, but we have discussed the pros and cons of Jogaila above; it seems to be a good name for Jagiello up to the point he became the King of Poland, but not afterwards, and he is better known as king of Poland then as High Duke of Lithuania...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Has anyone compiled information, showing how the name is spelled in each of the major English-language encyclopedias? --Elonka 01:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Above, there are compilations how frequently a variant hits in the internet. But, I do not know has anyone collected those from other encyclopedias. I guess in those, all varies. Have you an encyclopedia at your disposal? ObRoy 01:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As a Lithuanian editor, I would like to remark on Wladyslaw vs. Władysław (Jagiello vs. Jagiełło). I do not agree that this is simple the case of using or not using diacritics in English and that both forms are equal. Diacritics used in other languages with Latin alphabet vary widely from language to language. For example, pronounciation of 'ą' in Polish is completely different from same character 'ą' in Lithuanian. From reading discussions earlier I learned that ł is pronounced like w in Polish, while Jogaila was definitely not Jogaiwa. Being Lithuanian speaker, my heart cries for Jogaila, anyway, I can accept Jagiello as the name used most commonly in English. But not Władysław Jagiełło! Why should English wikipedia favor Polish diacritics more than Lithuanian diacritics? Juraune 08:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Jaraune, got my support. No diacritics is good idea - but we should keep the redirects. Also, there should be redirects from Jogaila of Lithuania and other versions of the name, if there is no already one Szopen 09:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Wladyslaw Jagiello of Poland???

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Request of restoring previous name till consensus will be reached or at least not use of Poland!!!!! M.K. 12:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's just made Wladyslaw Jagiello, would that be Ok? Szopen 12:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not good. There were several persons named Wladyslaw Jagiello. Ambiguate names should be avoided. Maed 12:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

(The idea came from Francis Schonken and John Kenney. Of Poland seems to belong to the policy here. I would not fight against it. The regnal number has two alternatives, and therefore it is not good.)

Wladyslaw Jagiello is a disambiguation page (and all of the names there should be probably changed to be in accordance to wiki rules, too!). So, actually, Wladyslaw II Jagiello. Other versions should be redirects. We would then avoid to touch uneasy issue whether he should be of Poland or of Lithuania (even if against wiki rules). OR we could create Wladyslaw Jagiello (disambiguation), and Wladyslaw Jagiello as main article... Szopen 13:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC) +
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Władysław_II_Jagiełło/Archive_2&oldid=1142554532"