Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło/Archive 9

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Jogaila in Lithuanian bibliography 

message: 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(,,, ), 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)
replies: text: 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. --Lysytalk 15:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Gdańsk Pomerania or Pomerelia 

message: ====Support====
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
# Support per above //Halibutt 20:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
# Support per above //Halibutt 20:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: # Oppose; given my reasons many times. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: 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)
replies: text: Missed the deadline :(. Would've been 23, if it matters... Ulritz 22:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  So you suggesting that contributors did not assumed good faith during the vote? M.K. 23:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: I agree, such editors with contributions during the various vote like these   should be not only  "civilise" but also and learn some new policies. M.K. 09:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Redirect this remark to yourself. M.K. 08:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly, this discussion is going nowhere. Appleseed (Talk) 15:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. --Lysytalk 20:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)

text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Mediation

message: * Elonka 19:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Participants 

message: 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:
# if the diacriticalized "crowd" could come to a consensus (for the lack of a better catagorization, "Poles and Lithuanians"), then
# 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
# 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Excuse me

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Discussion

message: 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 ===
# Leo1410 04:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Informal Straw Poll #793 

message: # Leo1410 04:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes 

message: # Doc15071969 21:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  No 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: lol Evv 17:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Stone, also English usage 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Thoughts on the article

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Yes indeed. M.K. 09:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thoughts on the Title

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: I did. Mostly because of people like you. //Halibutt 19:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that official? Dr. Dan 22:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It could be an another "joke" from him. M.K. 00:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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  is quite inappropriate, wondering that community thinks  M.K. 00:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Congratulations! [[Jogaila]] passed  as [[WP:GA|Good Article]]