# Talk:House of Mindaugas

I'm placing the article on hold because there are a few sentences that are not completely clear in meaning.  Here's a list of the places where some clarification is needed.  I've done a copyedit, since I suspect a major editor of this article is not an English-speaker, and would be happy to do so again, but I can't do it until I know for sure what the intended meaning is.

"Mindaugas and his brother Dausprungas are first mentioned in a 1219 treaty with Halych-Volhynia among 5 elder dukes. Since at that time both brothers had to be in their youth, it implies that they have inherited their high status. However, no written sources talk about their father. Just Livonian Rhymed Chronicle mentions in the passing that he was a powerful duke. The much later chronicles gave him the name of Ryngold (Lithuanian: Rimgaudas) and connected him with the Palemonids."  Several things here:
Why do both brothers have to be in their youth?  I don't see how to deduce this from the information presented.  Please clarify or make it a reference to a source asserting this.
Hm. Really good question. I just took the sentence from the source and put it in without much thought. But the idea is that Mindaugas was active in the politics much later (in 1236 he is mentioned as Grand Duke, crowned in 1253, and killed in 1263) which means he had to be young and could not have waged wars to win the title of elder duke. I changed it to "relatively young". Renata 02:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The next two sentences are a bit clumsy, and I think are intended to mean "However, no other written sources of the period talk about their father, except the Livonian Rhymed Chronicle, which just mentions in passing that he was a powerful duke."  I would have changed this but wasn't sure I had the intended meaning right; if I got it right, please feel free to use this version or edit it as you see fit.
Sorry for my English. But that's exactly what I was trying to say. Renata 02:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The last sentence isn't very natural; again here's my understanding of it: "In chronicles written much later, he was given the name of . . ."; if that's correct, again, please use it or edit to suit.
Yup again. Renata 02:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
In the table it says Edyvidas died "after 1253" but in the text it says "ca. 1253"; they should match (either way).
Very good catch :) Basically two sources disagreed. But I left one that had most info on him. Renata 02:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
"Because there is no data on any rivals to the crown after the assassination except for Vaišvilkas and Tautvilas, it would indicate that, whatever the case with Morta's sons, they had perished."  Does this mean that "whether there were two sons or four sons, they were probably dead"?  If so, I think it needs rewording; I did edit this a bit but it could be improved a little more.
Yup, you are reading my mind :) Renata 02:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Finally, unless I am missing something, there's no discussion of the Duke of Nalšia and the evidence for his relationship to Lengvenis and Mindaugas.
No you are not missing anything. Just because he is not an important character in the history (participating in a couple fights and being kidnapped by the enemy) I have only one source on him and that source does not discuss his parentage in detail. So I don't know... Renata 02:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
If those points are fixed this is GA-worthy.  Mike Christie (talk) 01:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
P.S. you are one of the most prolific diggers and nitpicks I have met on WP (and there is no shortage of such in this place) :) Renata 02:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Passed GA.  Thanks for the compliment (I think)! Mike Christie (talk) 02:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! (and yes, that was a compliment) Renata 11:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. This article is quite short as GAs go, and I initially had some concerns about comprehensiveness. On closer examiniation however I am satisified that this article covers the topic adequately given the short exisitence of the dynasty. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Re this addition. I cannot verify that the book even exists. I can't find ISBN, etc. I would seem that it would not be a reliable or verifiable source. Even if the book turned out to be legit, I am extremely skeptical about the claim. Medieval noble families tried to improve their ancestry by creating imaginative genealogical links between them and some famous ruler. I would be very careful, without support in other sources. Thus I removed the claim. Renata (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, and the info is listed as a claim, not The Truth (I'll reword it).  It doesn't seem too controversial, as it is corroborated by another (some 17th century Polish chronicler) source describing Huyd's wife as a "close relative" of Shvarn.Faustian (talk) 02:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a photo of the book here (scroll down). More is here. If the claim was particularly contentious I would agree, but there is that other referenced bit of info...Faustian (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Any genealogical claim that goes back to 13th century and is based only on a 17th century chronicle is garbage. I spent a lot of time and energy weeding out such mythological claims for this and other articles. There are entire dynasties in Lithuanian genealogy (see Palemonids) that never existed and were simply dreamed up to improve somebody's pedigree. Such myths persisted in history books for centuries and only serious scholarly effort weeded them out. Thus I am strongly against including any claim not backed up by contemporary sources. The red flag here should be that none of contemporary (i.e. 13-14th century sources about Mindaugas, Shvarn, etc) talk about any such marriage.
My other big concern is the book itself. It does not seem to be scholarly, to have ISBN, or to be in any libraries. Its author also does not appear in search results. It seems neither reliable (amateurish attempt at genealogy?) and verifiable (impossible to find). So unless you can find some other, scholarly and verifiable, source I am going to remove it.
Also, please be careful with reverts. You reverted a ton of good changes while trying to re-introduce the material. Renata (talk) 04:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The author has other books about that family that do have ISBN numbers, see here.  This book is in the catalogue of the library of the Center of City History of Eastern and Central Europe.  Here is the publisher's website.  It would be inappropriate to weed out legendary claims, even if by 17th century chroniclers, as they are also notable in and of themselves although they should be labeled as such and it would, of course, be inappropriate to include them as if they are indisputable facts. Perhaps others can comment. Faustian (talk) 13:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)