Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło/Archive 1

message: The king name was Władysław in Polish and was also spelled: Wladislaus (early Latinized version) or Vladislaus (late Latin and English version), never Ladislaus. This shoud be corrected. Below is a sample of original documents sign by the Vladislaus kings. Althout the form Wladislaus was used more often, in my opinion Vladislaus is much better here, beacuse it is more modern version and more English. Vladislaus Rex 00:33, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  King Vladislaus or Wladislaus (never Ladislaus) 

message: * 20.02.1633: Vladislaus Quartus Dei gratia rex Poloniae, magnus dux Lithuaniae, Russiae, Prussiae, Masoviae, Samogitiae, Livoniaeque, necnon Suecorum, Gothorum Vandalorumque haereditarius rex, electus magnus dux Moschoviae
* 12.03.1633: Wladislaus Quartus ...
* 14.08.1634: Vladislaus Quartus ...
* 17.03.1637: Vladislaus Quartus ...
* 24.03.1637: Vladislaus Quartus ...
* 7.05.1638: Vladislaus IV ...
* 30.09.1641: Vladislaus Quartus ...
* 24.03.1646: Vladislaus Quartus ...
* 16.05.1646: Vladislaus Quartus ...
* 16.05.1646: Vladislaus Quartus ...
* 1.09.1647: Vladislaus Quartus ...
----
It doesn't matter how they were signing themselves. In those times the spelling rules were not codified yet and one could have a different signature on every document. In the case of Polish (and other) rulers with Christian names we should use those variations of these names which are most commonly used in English. Since a Christian name is a name of a particular saint, the best way to check it should be by looking at how the name of the saint is spelled. 
So let's see what Googles says about that (search restricted to English language pages):
 "Saint Ladislaus": 1220
 "Saint Ladislas":   343
 "Saint Vladislav":    6
 "Saint Vladislaus":   2
  "Saint Wladislaus":   2
– Kpalion (talk) 15:57, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: King Vladislaus IV Vasa (W&#322;adys&#322;aw IV Waza)

message: I am intrigued by the statement that "Lancelot" is the "English version" of "Władysław."
"Władysław" is a Slavic name.  I'd assumed that "Lancelot" was of English or French origin.  How did "Władysław" become involved with the Knights of the Round Table?  logologist|Talk 05:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, St. Vojtěch (in Polish, św. Wojciech) is known in English as "St. Adalbert."  How does that clarify the relation between "Władysław" and "Lancelot"?  logologist|Talk 00:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: If someone besides Dr. Dan understands this, perhaps he can explain it.  logologist|Talk 20:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks!  So done.  logologist|Talk 21:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Mike B., since you say that "Vladislaus" occasionally corresponds to Lancelot, please go to the entry Wladislaus II (Encyclopedia Britannica 1911). Does Wladislaus also correspond to Lancelot? Just like, as you say, Vladislaus and Laszlo do. Hmm? If that is the case, then what? Maybe Logologist has the answer. Dr. Dan 17:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: What's my point? Am I dreaming or am I dead? You said the name "Vladislaus", occasionally corresponds to Lancelot. That's my entire point, as Wladislaus and Vladislaus, and Lancelot are the same name. For the record, my "trivial" addition that Lancelot is an English version of Władysław, was just that, simple TRIVIA. It was never my intention to change the article heading to, Lancelot II of Poland. This bit of trivia about the name is true nonetheless, and that's that. While the Polish version, Władysław is common, and often encountered, Lancelot is virtually never seen any longer amongst English speaking people. The closest one gets to it is, Lance, nowadays. Dr. Dan 02:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lancelot

message: I have read the above discussion and Logologist is correct in that Lancelot is not an English version of Władysław. The names Laszlo and Ulaszlo are the correct corresponding name to Lancelot in Hungarian. Occaisionally you can find Ladislaus or Vladislaus corresponding to Lancelot, never Władysław. Dr. Dan is correect in his or her assertion that Lancelot does not necessarily have to refer to Lancelot in Arthurian legend. Glad to help you both. Mike B.
:Mike B., since you say that "Vladislaus" occasionally corresponds to Lancelot, please go to the entry Wladislaus II (Encyclopedia Britannica 1911). Does Wladislaus also correspond to Lancelot? Just like, as you say, Vladislaus and Laszlo do. Hmm? If that is the case, then what? Maybe Logologist has the answer. Dr. Dan 17:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's my point? Am I dreaming or am I dead? You said the name "Vladislaus", occasionally corresponds to Lancelot. That's my entire point, as Wladislaus and Vladislaus, and Lancelot are the same name. For the record, my "trivial" addition that Lancelot is an English version of Władysław, was just that, simple TRIVIA. It was never my intention to change the article heading to, Lancelot II of Poland. This bit of trivia about the name is true nonetheless, and that's that. While the Polish version, Władysław is common, and often encountered, Lancelot is virtually never seen any longer amongst English speaking people. The closest one gets to it is, Lance, nowadays. Dr. Dan 02:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Lancelot

message: BEcause calgalucus instead of answering the arguments posted by people, who previously contributed the most to the article, let's summarise them here. No calling names, please.
Remember: Wikipedia does record human knowledge, not the "truths". No original research. English most popular names first, with google being most clear indicator of this (and English literature the second). Consistency is important. 
Remember, we were working on the article for a long time. We were trying to have it consistent with wikipedia rules. Now, someone came and wants to break all wikipedia rules and our customs. He had to have really good arguemnts.
Before you even start, READ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28names_and_titles%29
especially the section about Monarchical titles
E.g."
* 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
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, as you see, the article name should be Wladyslaw II of Poland (or Vladislaus... this was also discussed before). Wladyslaw Jagiello form is used only because he was so commonly known as Jagiello and because we wanted to respect his Lithuanian roots.
Why the article should be called Jogaila (Wladyslaw)
# He was grand duke of Lithuania before he became king of Poland
: To keep the consistency consistent, all the rulers throughout wikipedia should be called by the names they were using before they acquired some throne. E.g. Guillaume de Normandie (first ruler of Normandia) not William I of England
# His native language was Lithuanian, he was Lithuanian, therefore Lithuanian name should be used
:Therefore, to have it consistent, also other kings should use their native names. E.g. Guillaume de Normandie instead of William
Why the article should be called Wladyslaw II Jagiello 
#His official titles (as quoted above) were e.g. 3.05.1386: Wladislaus Dei gracia rex Polonie Litwanieque princeps supremus et heres Russie etc.
# The article name is kept consistent with the list of other Polish monarchs and list of other monarchs (e.g. William I of England). The rules for that were created long ago, and not by Polish contributors. See just the list of English monarchs and the names of the articles: Henry VII of England, Richard I of England (though he is called Lionheart) etc. Breaking that rules and accusing US of nationalism is almost ridiculous.
# The using of the name Jagiello is consistent with overhelming number of google hits - mostly in English he is called Jagiello, not Jogaila 34 books with Jogaila, 84 books with Jagiello.
Now, explain us again, why we should break wikipedia rules just because.. what? Someone feels so? And because we are opposing to breaking wikipedia rules we are nationalistic?
Szopen 09:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you would be Pole, you would be probably immedietely reported, as - if I am not mistaken - Halibutt once was. Sigh. Where did I lied? Did I say there are not 267 books about Jogaila? But in the same time there are 1467 books about JAGIELLO, which means it is most common English name (which is polonised or ruthenised version of his LITHUANIAN NAME, not POLISH NAME). Szopen 17:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sigh. It is the Polish version of the name. - Calgacus 19:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The fact that you accuse others of lying and then quote a number (267) without any proff (unlike me and Szopen, who linked back to our search) convinces me more and more then you are a POV-pusher on some personal crusade. Unless you cite your sources and behave in a civil way, I don't think there is much point in continuing this discussion.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The proof is there for anyone to check it SEE!. All references I saw were to out ruler. - Calgacus 19:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: IIRC you are arguing for Jogaila, not Jagiello. I have seen for the first time that you are agreeing for more common name of Jagiello. Nevertheless, you have still not read Wikipedia naming conventions. It seems you have read only general directions as for people, and still not read the rules about names and titles.  And those are very clear: according to them, the articles should be called <first name> <cardinal> of <most important country>. Since he was catholic, and since in catholic world (and customary in western christendom) king is more important than grand duke, most important title is king. So the article should be named "Wladyslaw II of Poland" or "Ladislaus II of Poland" or "Wladislaw II of Poland". It's not us who invented those rules. Go to Philip Beard and accuse his for Polonocentrism. Or others who created the conventions. 
Szopen 17:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You can see yourself that the Jogaila/Jagiello naming is more popular. You may want to add some numbers: Wladyslaw variants win by 3000 to 1600 when compared to Jogaila variants.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you not count. There were 73,800 hits for Jagiello. You can't just discount the Jagiello variant of Jogaila and count all the Wladislaw variants, now can you? - Calgacus 17:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Case against Jogaila 

message: Calgalucus, you are perfect example of how to deal with Poles. Just perfect, shiny example. Do not listen opposite side arguments, call them silly, call them nationalist and withdraw from the discussion. Szopen 17:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. And I thought that page was just a joke... :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great, a wikipedia admin commenting on wiki users during a discussion. That just sums up this whole discussion. - Calgacus 17:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It never was. Piotrus, haven't you followed the discussions over the partisan, where all the sources we gave were immedietely dismissed as unreliable because.. written by Polish? Or with that Australian, Adam C? Szopen 17:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had, but truth be told, I don't think Calgacus is guilty of that particular fallacy (dismissing our arguments because of particular nationality).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on user Calgacus

message: Calgacus asked me if fairness is possible in these debates and discussions, on my talk page. If he should in fact, continue or give up any scholarly argument to support his claims. Let me answer by discussing the comments and contributions from SylwiaS, Appleseed, and "prokonsul" Piotrus(love the name prokonsul, reminds me of Meyerbeer's Opera The Prophet, prophet to whom and to what?). Piotrus stated in one of his earlier edit summaries (see history of the article, not the discussion page), that JOGAILA is an invented name. So much for his knowledge of the man, as he sweepingly reverts what he doesn't like. Along comes SylwiaS, who either doesn't read the entire argument from the beginning or is too busy composing her "objective" arguments to the melee. She adds "no one said Jogaila is an invented name". Right, ahem!  The "objective" contributor Appleseed, who I think put together the Wikipedia article, Polish Saints, puts the grandson of Jogaila, the Patron Saint of Lithuania, Kazimieras (St. Casimir), into the category. I understand the stretch, but I'm not so sure the Vatican likes categorizing saints into national groups. How, dear Appleseed, did you come up with Edith Stein getting into your category. But I'm digressing. When Polish contributions concerning Rome in the English version are involved, they use Rome not Rzym. When they concern Vilnius, they always use Wilno (which by the way is fine and understandable in the Polish Wikipedia version, not the English version). As I said before you can't have it both ways. I used the example of  wanting Wroclaw on the one hand and Wilno on the other. As for google hits being any kind of basis for comming to a consensus on historical matters, pleeeeze. It reminds me of trying to use the vote tally of the nazi plebicite on the Anschluss, as the basis for Austria's current political situation. I could come up with many, I say many, more examples of nationalist bias concerning the general topics we are touching upon in this discussion. Finally, as I mentioned before, his polonized name Jagiello is derived from Jogaila, his name. Do you really think he called himself, Ya Giewo? Do you think his family and friends in Lithuania, took a crash course from Elmer Fudd, on how to pronounce his name? I'm trying to lighten up this way too heavy argument with some humor. Earlier on I called this discussion "much ado about nothing". Calgacus won the debate on the evidence and fact. But he lost the debate because the rest of you can conjure up more "google hits".Dr. Dan 15:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I did not call 'Jogaila' invented. I called things like 'Jogaila (Władysław) an invented montrosity. See the difference? Second, I find it puzzling how you and Calgacius insist that you 'won' the scholarly debate - could you please do us a favour and perhaps summarize your scholary arguments and sources, so we can reply to them?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Dear Doctor, you seem to be citing facts from a different version of Wikipedia then the one I see. The edit in which I called Calcagues "clueless editor" using "invented name" is this one. As you can clearly see, it is not about "Jogaila of Lithuania" (which is correct in some context) but Jogaila (Władysław II) (which is a form that should never be used in the name, i.e. name1 (alternative name2)). As for my ad hominem, I don't consider warning users that their arbitrary moves are not considered polite a personal attack, although I guess the introduction of some of "Calgacus' very erudite and scholary viewpoints and presentations of facts"  like "I consider your post most rude" and "your idea of "consensus" is shambolic, the rule of the rambling mob" might have contributed to the level of my arguments slipping as well. I see no point in dragging this out, especially as we seem to be making some constructive progress at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Polish rulers), and I have no time to waste on flame wars, name calling and finger pointing. EOT.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't use that as an excuse. You're supposed to be an admin. And your post on my talk page was much more rude than it had to be. Did you seriously consider it a realistic possibility that I would comply with such a rudely phrased request? You could have said "moves of this kind are generally disapproved of, please use the talk page before moving in future; I have moved it back in lieu of discussion; it would be appreciated if you could fix the double redirects which now exist". After all, as I said, I (naively) regarded the move as uncontroversial. Obnoxiousness in general is counter-productive, there's absolutely no point in behaving like that; and, moreover, resorting to name-calling on various wiki pages and user talk pages in not very honorable. Anyways, I hope the future will be marked by better relations. - Calgacus 21:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fairness?

message: The following has been a subject of a slow but persistend revert war. Please provide citations to prove or disprove it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Verify

message: See table:
The table above has been up here for over a week, nobody objecting to the new proposed name for this page, Wladyslaw II/V of Poland, Jogaila of Lithuania, so I take it that "disputes have been resolved on the discussion page".
So, I'd like to ask that the  template be removed from the article, the article be unprotected for moves, and moved to Wladyslaw II/V of Poland, Jogaila of Lithuania - does anyone object?
PS, request also posted at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for unprotection --Francis Schonken 09:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Object strenuously.  logologist|Talk 10:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd Support some of the changes while Oppose to others. This should be done in the proper place, at WP:RM and/or Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Polish rulers), and not here. Halibutt 11:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose. Appleseed (Talk) 13:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Partial oppose like Halibutt. Specifically, I oppose: 1) Wladyslaw II/V of Poland, Jogaila of Lithuania - monster dual name, not a single link would non-redirect 2) Google Print - 22,000 for Zygmunt, 36,000 for Sigismund - it doesn't appear like 'Zygmunt' is underused in English. Would you suggest renaming Zygmunt Bauman to 'Sigismund Bauman'? And what about Sigmund - 150,000? Sigismund III of Poland - I actually supported Vasa, and I don't think there was anybody who wanted Waza? 3) Lech Kaczyński - I oppose not using diactrics where possible. It's Wałęsa, not Walesa.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The title is not supposed to be the article. Jogaila can and should be explained in the article, but to explain name changes in the title itself is - AFAIK - unheard on Wiki (and would look cumbersome to say the least).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Dr. Dan, the article clearly refers to Jagiełło as "Jogaila" prior to the Union of Krewo. Can you be more specific about this resistance you're seeing? Appleseed (Talk) 15:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Polish rulers)]]

message: Jogaila was Lithuanian.  Fact.  Jogaila is his real name, not a "Lithuanisation", because he was Lithuanian.  Again, fact.
Lithuania entered into a poorly considered union with Poland, and suffered badly as the weaker part of the union.  Polinisation of Lithunian names, suppression of the Lithuanian language and an attempt to downgrade the rank of Lithuanian royalty were the unfortunate results.  The latter produced the fiction of "Grand Dukes of Lithuania".  They were Kings, not "Grand Dukes".  They needed neither Polish or Papal recognition to be Kings.  They considered themselves to be Kings, and they were Kings.  I'd like to see the famous monarchs of Lithuania being called kings, as they were, and as they deserve to be called.
cheers
Codman 06:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jogaila was Lithuanian, and a King