Jump to content

Talk:Bolesław I the Brave/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

This polish king is commonly named in english historical literature as Boleslas the Valiant (it is the better transaltion of polish "Chrobry" than the Brave).

Récupérée de « http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discuter:Boleslas_Ier_de_Pologne »

Older talk moved from Talk:Boleslaw I Chrobry

Should we remove the wives of Mieszko from this article to his article? I don't think they make much sense here, since we aren't naming any one of them as Boleslaw's mother. They do belong on Mieszko entry, though. I removed the 'true brotherly' whatever from the frater et cooperator title. Otto didn't live long enough for us to be sure WHAT he meant by it, but he certainly meant it to his advantage, not as a sign of how fond he was of Boleslaw.

Since this entry contains facts which are in contradiction in everything that i rad so far about Boleslav I Chrobry, i will change it in few next week. Just a warning for everybody interested in discussions. I am going to: elaborate more on relationships with Empire. Delete "he try to conquere Danzig, Cracow" and "Conquered Silesia" since all this places where conquered earlier, most of them by Mieszko I. I will add info about his daughter, Swiatosl/awa/sygryda (mother of Knaut the Great), and sons. szopen

HJ, you may not know Latin, but you do know genealogy and German. Please spell out your 'von' or change it to English 'of'.

MT whenever I write von , which is a part of the name, someone goes and changes it to of. This is incoorect,but some people insist on translating it to of. The Boleslav entry had von an v . I made it uniform v., because I noticed, that whereever it sais v. people don't know and leave it alone. With von Braun it remained as von, because someone had input him under Wernher Von Braun. So it is very confusing. HJ

I'm surprised you find this aspect of nomenclature confusing at all. Modern people use 'von' as though it doesn't mean anything. v. Polen means 'of Poland', because it's a noble title connected to a place. --MichaelTinkler

Which of the four wives was the mother of Mieszko II?

Is Wendland an actual name for a country or state? or was she a Wendish princess -- I've never heard of the former. Perhaps this should be changed to say X, a Wendish noblewoman, or X of the Wends. JHK

Wendland is in Northern Germany. I have seen entrances as ..of the Wends, but Mieszko I and Boleslaw I were margraves (pledge allegiance to emperors) and some genealogy references call Misezko I , aka Burislaf of Wendland .

I keep telling you about these genealogical references! They aren't generally done by decent historians -- usually people with no command of the original languages who think they know what they're reading. Could you maybe show us an example and the kind of source? If it is a source from the period in question and says Wendland in the original language, I'd love to see it. I've only seen references to "where the Wends live", etc. You may be entirely right, but to my ear it "klingt falsch"! Thanks in advance -- JHK

Old talk

How nice it would be if we only wikified important terms and actually checked to see what the names of existing articles were before wikifying anything. JHK

I disagree. The articles can be created later. Let's not get into a wikify/de-wikify fight. Why not leave them alone? If the articles are created later, we'll have to go back and re-update this article, but if they're already wikified, then when the articles ARE created, they will default be available already. -- Zoe
Sorry, Zoe, but you aren't up to speed on this particular problem. HJ creates lots of articles that are little more than genealogies. A HUGE number of the people who appear are people for whom there is little (often just the name) historical information. There is no reason to wikify names of, for example, third daughters of minor dukes whose sole reason for a mention is that they represented a tangible way of creating a political alliance and served as breeders.
Moreover, HJ tends to create new and interesting names (often based on those she finds in genealogical websites) for people who have more conventional names in English, and often for people who already have wiki articles under those appropriate names. What then happens is that HJ or some well-meaning person decides to write an article by clicking on the link -- thus creating an article that is badly named (so that someone like me has to move it) or is a duplicate (so that someone like me has to create a coherent article under one name and redirect the other).
In general, your idea is correct, but is totally impracticable when dealing with articles which are incorrectly wikified from the get-go. Also, you'll note that, in the suggested guidelines, there has been valid discussion about over-wikifying. JHK
Okay. So how do I know what over-wikificiation is? -- Zoe
With names, my way is to look at them and see if they are 1)correct nomenclature (single first names just are silly, except for people like Mohammed and Charlemagne), and; 2)if they look familiar and might already exist under a more appropriate title (Otto III, for example, has an article under Otto III, Holy Roman Emperor -- or something like that). I do the ones I'm sure of first, pipelining the links to the correct article, and then go through and do geographical and year links. Since I tend to work on things I know (except that I'll copyedit anything), I feel pretty comfortable, although I may underwikify. The cool thing about the new software, though, is that you can find links, and also just search for subjects and go through that way. I hope this helps -- I certainly didn't mean to criticize, but also have been around long enough to know who some of the truly trollike are ;-)JHK

In 984 Boleslaus married Rikdaga

He married a daughter of Rikdag (Ricdag, Riddag), the margrave of Meissen. Is the name Rikdaga known? I suspect this is a misreading. Andres

In medeival world, state once raised to the rank of kingdom continue to be kingdom. Boleslaw's son was immedietely crowned king, and neighbours recognised it.

Boleslaw couldn't conquer Silesia in 990, sicne he became ruler of Poland in 992. Earlier he probably was inwested (but only probably) with Cracow province.

Silesia was probably gained by Mieszko; why probably? Because the chronicles are only talking that Mieszko "gained kingdom lost by Bohemia" and this "kingdom" may be either Silesia or Cracow. Both of those provicnes appear already in Boleslaw hands in 1000 (why we know? Because we know what bishopries were created... he couldn't have bishops in wroclaw and Krakow if he didn't posses them, right?).

The date "999" came from Czech Kosmas chronicle, written decades later. Hence the confusion. Information about "lost kingdom" came from Thietmar, which lived in Boleslaw times. Szopen

I changed Henry the Quarrelsome to Henry the Wrangler - both Henry I and Henry II of Bavaria seem to be called The Quarrelsome, depending on where you look, whereas 'Wrangler' is unique to Henry II.


"Made Sviatopolk his vassal"

For almost a year, I've been looking for someone who would tone down the following slur: "he used the internal war of Vladimir the Great sons for throne and the weakness of Kyivan Rus to launch a plundering attack on Kyiv in 1018, annexing the Red Strongholds (Grody Czerwienskie) later called Red Ruthenia and making prince Sviatopolk his vassal there for short time." As there is noone concerned, I'll have to fix it myself. --Ghirlandajo 17:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Be bold. I know that the differences between view on Swietopelk-Boleslaw relations in Polish and Ukrainian historiography are staggering. Szopen 12:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Move

I'd like to move this page to Bolesław I the Brave. See my proposal at Talk:List_of_Polish_monarchs#Naming. Google test results of English language pages, including Wikipedia:


Note that the above results are not totaly exclusive (larger names contain some of the shorter) and that Boleslaw I/Boleslaus I may also refer to Boleslaus I of Bohemia (which is actualy at 'Boleslav', also known as Boleslav I of Bohemia, Boleslaus I the Cruel, Boleslav I. Ukrutný), and Boleslaw of Poland may refer to several Polish kings.

There are 2 possible choices for first name (I will skip the disambigs in the count):

  • Bolesław (combined with Boleslaw and Boleslav, as we already have a custom of using local name if very similar). This seems to be used around 3200 times
  • Boleslaus (latinized) - 5000 if counting Wiki and its mirrors, 2800 otherwise (although I admit I didn't discount Wiki in other searches, I am assuming that the wiki-bias is for current name Boleslaus).

Even in English usage, Boleslaw seems much more common then latinized Boleslaus. In our context there seem to be a parity with roughly 3000 hits for each variant. Even counting current Wiki-name bias, we get about 62,5% for Boleslaus - meaning that there is no single, clear, well-estabilished English usage, therefore I think that we should use Bolesław, which, being the Polish name, has the advantage of being consistent with all Polish sources.

There and 3 choices for the second name:

  • I vs. not using numeral - 4k for not using it, 2,5k using it without Wiki-bias, 5k using it with Wiki bias. Again, a rough parity.
  • Chrobry vs. the Brave - approx 1750 for Chrobry, 3500 for Brave - seems like the English translation of his nickname wins, which is actually a good idea (at least it means something for the overage user, other then Slavic blah blah)
  • Chrobry/the Brave vs. of Poland - close to 5k vs 1k not counting Wiki, 2,5k counting Wiki. Seems like 'of Poland' is rather unecessary.

All things considered, I think that Bolesław I the Brave is the best name, and everything else should be made into a redirect (or disambig in the few cases I listed above). What do you think?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Support! I think the only conceivable question is whether to keep the Roman numeral. I think we should, because at least it puts the various Bolesławs in order — a boon to the Polish-history-handicapped. logologist 07:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Support this and all other instances of Bolesław and most other Polish names. I have reservations only about about the given names Ladislaus (Władysław) and Stanislaus (Stanisław); the Latinizations seem more common in English, possibly because they were borne by saints whose cult is popular even outside Poland; I have no statistics to back this up, it's just an impression. The biggest issue for me is when the editors of an English-language text try to be "authentic" and use the native Polish orthography without diacrtics. If you don't have an "ł" available, Boleslaus is much better than Boleslaw which reads like "coleslaw" in English! Anyway, if we can support Polish orthography now, we should use it, except the cases mentioned above. --Jpbrenna 19:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Rikdaga&the number of daughters

Andres already remarked that the name Rikdaga could be wrong. I confirm this, the Polish Wiki "calls her: "córka Rygdaga", which means "the daughter of Rygdag".

In the Polish Wiki(at the bottom) is to be read that he had FOUR daughters, not one as in the English version. Of only 2 of them, the name is known: Matylda and Regelinda. Here you can also read out of which marriage comes each child.

Annaxation of Slovakia?

"In 999 Bolesław annexed present-day Moravia, and in 1000 or 1001, Slovakia."

This is a huge mistake. Bolesław annexed only a small part of today Northern Slovakia. see: http://www.mek.iif.hu/porta/szint/egyeb/terkep/magyar11/magyar11.jpg

Bye, Laszlo

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. Haukur 16:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Move request

Bolesław I the Brave to Boleslaus I of Poland. We do not use nicknames without extraordinary reasons. I propose the systematic name for this king. (He was one of the rarer monarchs of early period who was a recognized King). First name should be written in English, not in Polish. This was a medieval monarch, no one cannot claim that Boleslaw is precisely his original name spelling, spelling was not so established at that time. Marrtel 18:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Poll

Write Support or Oppose and an optional one-sentence reason. Longer parts of opinions then below at discussion.
Robert, opposing diacritics on WP as a whole for technical reasons is a whole different can of worms. I believe there was voting a while back about this issue. If I remember correctly, it resulted in no concensus, which is why they are still used. If you intend to "vote away" diacritics on an article-by-article basis, then you've got a lot of work ahead of you. Appleseed (Talk) 03:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

According to my knowledge, the above statement "There was only one Bolesław I, but several Boleslaus I." is false and moreover shows clearly how its writer lumps all the other languages together but wants only one, Poolish, kept separate. I call that intellectual dishonesty, were it not simple ignorance. There are several Slavic languages, each of them having their own renderiong of this basically same name. None of those other Slavic languages uses "Boleslaus" any more than Polish. In Czech, it is "Boleslav" (or like, check the precise spelling rom czech sources). Some Vendic versions have Bogislav, Burislev, etc (whatever their spelling precisely is, many of those languages have vanished, so we do not necessarily know what pronunciations those varied spellings represent). I am sure that Slovakian has its own version, and various sourthern slavics too. Marrtel 11:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) (PS. A famous case of ignoramus was a German duke who visited the pope in Rome sometime in 18th century, and declined to make the customary act of hailing, by statement "There are great many pontiffs, but only one Duke of Wurttemberg" - a statement obvíously false, as at that time there lived several kinsmen of W, all using that title, but only one pontiff was alive as usual. What does this reming me about?)

An afterthought: Boleslas I is presumably the established name of at least one Silesian duke too (and of Silesian dukes, also polish renditions are used, mostly because Silesia then was and now is Polish-kindred territory), in addition to Boleslaus I of Bohemia and Boleslaus I of Poland. Also this shows that Boleslaw I cannot be didsambiguate. Marrtel 11:55, 13 June 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.

Renamed

This has been too long in a location which clearly contravenes the naming convention. So, this needed a more NPOV place. In recent other polls, the general editorship has shown a clear support for "non-Polish" name versions. For starters, the recent name was not arrived by any consensus, but by a unilateral move, so its proponents are not entitled to claim their version the original or "lawful" one. The original was "Boleslaus I of Poland". I am not entirely happy with the location here, because I personally think the English form could be "Boleslaus". Because so many (Polish?) editirs have expressed they are most unhappy with -laus endings, I swallowed my own preferences and chose a more Slavic-looking -lav here. Hope it satisfies at least some. If this is not a satisfactory place, be welcome to open a poll where this should be moved to. Then, I will vote for Boleslaus. Shilkanni 23:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The voting was 16:12 (no consensus?), and the proposal to move wasn't even to "Boleslav". Appleseed (Talk) 12:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it was 16:9 in favor of the move, because of course Polish-camp's sockpuppets do not count. Shilkanni 18:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I am very suprised about the move. Move of an article in the face of a clear lack of consensus in WP:RM by an editor who is well aware that there is no consensus and has been asked not to do so before is IMHO shows a considerable lack of judgement and that some stronger warnings may be needed. PS. As usual with Shilkanni moves, we have a series of unfixed double redirects (just see what links to this page). Deja vu, again.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Piotrus, you seem so surprised. And, when you speak of consensus, do you feel that 9 editors for keeping that Polish name, against 16, is a reason enough to keep it in the Polish name. There is certain surprising element in such reasoning. Shilkanni 18:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

editirs have expressed they are most unhappy with -laus endings, I swallowed my own preferences and chose a more Slavic-looking -lav here. What ? I don't understand, he was Polish, and isn't connected to history of Slavic tribes, that ended with formation of Christian Poland. It is more proper for Latin name then some imaginary "Slavic" version. --Molobo 16:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

In case you are unhappy with such smaller details, feel free to open a move request. Then you have an ongoing discussion open, not now. I predict that you, Molobo, are going to get expelled from English Wikipedia if you continue trying to keep the article in a location where only a minority of 9 against 16 has accepted it to be kept. I believe you cannot afford to fight against both the majority and the naming convention that is in effect. Shilkanni 18:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I restored the previous version-here is the reasoning

The previous move was done disregardign the ongoing discussion regarding the proper naming. We all should wait till the discussion is over before making drastic, unsupported moves, especially using weak and ahistoric argumentation like "it sounds slavic". --Molobo 16:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no ongoing discussion regarding this naming. You are sadly mistaken. The last discussion ended, in reality, 16:9 in favor of move. Shilkanni 18:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

1.Which means no concensus 2.The voting was for Boleslaus I of Poland not the horrible Boleslav I of Poland which you invented and try to push through.

I have said that I do not particularly like -lav. -laus would be better. Feel free to open a move request. However, regarding the so-called rough consensus, you should be aware that 16:9 is a sufficient consensus. If English is used in en-wiki, the page is not going to go to the Polish name - you have your warning. Shilkanni 18:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It is you that has to open a move request for Boleslav because there was no debate on that particular change of name, which you are trying to push through. --Molobo 18:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC) you should be aware that 16:9 is a sufficient consensus According to the vote debate there is no concensus. Until sockpupptes are determined the vote stays. --Molobo 18:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Evidently, Shorter Cambridge Medieval History uses Boleslav I. That's a sufficient ground to accept it, even if not liking it. I have repeatedly said that I do not particularly like that -lav ending, preferring -laus. We can move this to Boleslaus I of Poland if you also prefer -laus over -lav. What is certain, against the shown community majority this is not going to be kept in the Polish spelling. Shilkanni 11:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets used by Logologist

It has now been shown that using checkuser that Logologist (talk · contribs) has been running three sockpuppets who "voted" here, namely

If we leave one vote for the real user, and take away the three phonies, that means that oppose was 6, not 9, showing that the page had a consensus behind it for the move. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

First, please note that the RM was to Boleslaus I of Poland and not to Boleslav I of Poland. Second, please get your math staight: discounting sockpuppets I have 9, not 6 oppose votes. Third, it is good rule of thumb to ask the RM-specialist admin to recount the votes instead of moving it yourself to a name that you think is best.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Recount

Note: This section of discussion refers to a previous poll. To see the original votes, please review the archive page. --Elonka 00:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, several people want to recount the votes where sockpuppets may have influenced the outcome. I'll try to oblige - I hadn't noticed the puppets when closing this poll. Tallying experienced non-puppet contributors I get this:

Support

  • Cfvh
  • AjaxSmack
  • Ghirlandajo
  • Gryffindor
  • Robert A. West
  • Jay3218
  • Marrtel
  • Pmanderson, solicited
  • Juraune, solicited
  • Srnec, solicited
  • Jtdirl, solicited
  • Calcagus, solicited
  • Matthead, solicited
  • Aldux, solicited
  • Jonathunder, solicited

Oppose

  • Dpv
  • Jpbrenna
  • Piotrus
  • Appleseed
  • Logologist
  • Radomil
  • Elonka
  • Angusmclellan, solicited

(Please correct any mistakes.) Among all participants the vote is 15 to 8 in favor of moving but among users not selectively solicited to come to this poll the vote was 7 to 7. This indicates that the poll is tainted and I don't feel confident moving the article to Boleslaus I of Poland based on it. Haukur 11:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

So their votes do not count? Nice. Charles 15:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Haukur is writing absolute rubbish, again. It might help if someone who knows about polling and the work on naming conventions, as opposed to someone who clearly doesn't, did the calculations.

  1. this "selectively solicited" stuff is garbage. The people "solicited" are the people who have been working on the issue of the naming conventions and manual of style for royalty for years. They are always informed when votes on the area are taking place, because as they wrote the friggin' Naming Conventions, after a long debate and based on a consensus, they tend to know what the naming conventions means and be able to give an insight into the issue of naming on WP. It seems as though Haukur has a problem with people who contribute to an area being informed that an area is being discussed. So obviously, following Haukur's logic (or lack of), Irish people cannot be informed about discussions on naming Irish articles, contributors on US politics cannot be informed that a US political topic is being debated for renaming. It follows then that Polish contributors should also not be informed when a Polish topic is the subject of a vote. What an absurd and ridiculous idea.
  2. Of the same minority opposed to renaming, which Haukur bizarrely contents amounts to 50% of the vote (lol), one created a set of supposed conventions on Polish royalty without a consensus, causing chaos all over the place, and another used multiple sockpuppets to try to rig the vote. It is in the circumstances particularly ridiculous in the extreme for Haukur to appear on the page and then blame those trying to clean up the mess as though they tainted a vote, and imply that their votes don't count, while suggesting that the small minority who are opposed amount to 50% of the mytical untainted poll. Plase, Haukur, withdraw from intervening in these debates and allow an admin who knows what they are doing to count the votes. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 16:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The point is that we don't know what an untainted poll would like because this one sure wasn't. Thus you have not demonstrated consensus for a move to Boleslaus I of Poland and as a WP:RM maintainer I don't feel confident making that move. If you want to call attention to a vote then do so through a relevant noticeboard which anyone can watch (in this case that could be a noticeboard on e.g. medieval Europe, Poland, or European royalty). I still can see no system in Marrtel's soliciting except contacting people he (correctly) thought would agree with him. That's not kosher and since there seems to have been no equivalent effort on the "other side" to rally the troops I think it probably badly skewed the poll. Haukur 17:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I contacted people on two bases: those I knew having done work in royalty, and those Middle Ages. Both groups have no noticeboard I was aware of. I predicted that the Polish network will inform their people without me wasting time to that. Sorry if someone thinks that taints something. I specifically approached also persons with whom I had earlier disagreed upon something, as not to stack any purely support groups. I think that nothing is gained for analyzing the same reslts more and more. Everyone understands that if this matter is put to a new poll, there will be those 15 editors, now interested in the matter, taking care that the page will not go/remain in the Polish spelling. Why battle against that majority/ consensus? There will never be enough supporters for the Polish spelling, as their sockpuppets have now been decimated. Marrtel 17:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I contacted people on two bases: those I knew having done work in royalty, and those Middle Ages. This is transparently not true. You contacted User:Orionus who had done no work in either area because he had commented at Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło/Archive 5 with a position you approved of. You did not contact people you thought would disagree with you. Even in that apologia above you say you figured that there was no need for you to "waste time" by contacting Polish editors. You made a nice exception for User:Halibutt, though, because you thought (correctly) that he would support your position. Haukur 18:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Orionus had in Wladyslaw II participated in royalty naming. Is Halibutt Polish? Marrtel 18:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "when in a hole, stop digging" comes to mind with Haukur's behaviour here. First he takes offence that people who have participated in discussions on royalty naming for months and in some cases years (in my case four years) were informed that a discussion on the same issue was going on and we might like to contribute. (He conveniently neglects to mention that those contacted did not all vote the same way on every page, because that ruins the myth of people being corralled into block voting.) Then when Marrtel points out that the people he contracted where people who had done work on royalty and/or the Middle Ages, Haukur scoffs at that and calls it "transparently not true", which is itself transparently not true when his "evidence", that Orionus had contributed at Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło/Archive 5, given that that page is about a monarch, proves Haukur wrong and Marrtel right. Haukur's attacks on the motivation of people who participated in votes is frankly disgraceful. The fact that he focuses those attacks on Marrtel, who simply alerted users who work in a specific area, that something in their area of work and expertise is being discussed (something which happens all the time and has for years) and not on the users who used sockpuppets to try rig a vote, at the very least raises questions as to his objectivity and judgment on this matter. The debate is divisive enough without hamfisted interventions from an admin. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Commenting in a naming dispute is not "doing work" - but even if it were then why didn't Marrtel contact everyone who had commented in that naming dispute? Ask anyone not previously involved and not your personal friend whether Marrtel's selective soliciting of votes was an acceptable way to call attention to a poll. Your constant attacks on me are growing tiresome. Your latest line is that I am not attacking the "users who used sockpuppets" enough. That's completely absurd - it was I who called attention to those sockpuppets to begin with. And there weren't "users" with sockpuppets - there was "a user". No-one is defending the sockpuppet abuse so there is no need to "attack" it at this point. You, however, are still defending transparent attempts to rig polls. Haukur 03:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


No. You are the one who is consistently misrepresenting what happened. I am not a friend of Marrtel. I can't remember having had any contact with him prior to being informed of the votes on Polish monarchs. I was asked to contribute because I have been an editor dealing with royalty naming for FOUR years. I was asked because I was one of the contributors who wrote the original naming conventions to clear up the infamous mess that previously was the royalty pages on WP. Anyone who knows my editing record knows that I cannot be taken for granted. I judge each issue as it comes, which is why I have only recently been on the opposite side of an argument to another longtime contributor, Deb. Charles can confirm that I have not always agreed with him, yet even after disagreeing with him he still regularly alerts me to debates on royalty naming issues. I have agreed with, and disagreed with, Adam Carr on royalty issues on various pages, and have agreed with, and disagreed with, John Kenny. Indeed we have disagreed on Polish royalty names on some pages. So the idea that Marrtel tried to assemble a block vote to influence a decision is proposterous and ignorant and if you knew anything about the edit histories of the people he approached you would know that. He asked people who contribute on the issue of royalty naming to contribute. With so many pages we cannot possibly know of discussions and votes taking place otherwise. (I have 1000 articles on my watchlist and cannot be aware of every discussion taking place in my area of expertise otherise.) I have asked John Kenney to contribute in the full knowledge that he disagrees with me on occasions. (We have disagreed on the name to be used for the Ivory Coast, and on various Polish monarchs. That does not in the slightest impact on whether I tell him that a debate is taking place on something.) Deb and I disagree. (We have only a week ago). So does Charles, against whom I have voted on one page, and agreed with on another. So do many others.

You clearly know as little about the general topic as you know about the people Marrtel contacted. They all have a history of people totally independent thinkers who regularly disagree. In no way whatsoever could Marrtel or anyone else presume to know the way they would cast their vote. They were only asked to participate because many of us, certainly John, Deb and others, are longterm contributors to the topic with years of editing history on the topic behind them. (I have 2000+ edits on the topic. John Kenney the same.) Charles is a relative newcomer who since joining has done tremendous work. Only recently he strongly disagreed with Deb on an issue. That would not stop Marrtel, or I, informing both of them of an issue which, given their edit history, they might want to contribute. To besmirch the reputations of longterm contributors on the issue, people with longterm edit histories that show complete independence of thought, is outrageous. You owe every one of us a public apology and you owe a public apology to Marrtel for accusing him of trying to rig a vote when all he did was alert longterm contributors that a vote was taken place on an issue that they have years of history contributing to. He clearly got the names from past debates on royalty naming (John Kenney had already been participating on one of the Polish monarchs pages). Marrtel knew very well that our edit histories show that none of us could be taken for granted. He and John disagreed on this page about the name to apply to Władysław II Jagiełło. Maartel contacted John 4 hours after he registered a vote that Marrtel disagreed with on that page. John wanted Wladyslaw II Jagiello of Poland whereas Marrtel wanted Vladislaus II of Poland. Why would a user trying to rig a poll contact someone he had disagreed hours earlier on another page and ask him to contribute? The answer is patently obvious. He knew John to be a longtime contributor on the issue of royalty naming and wanted to give him a chance to contribute. He also knew John to be independent-minded and quite possibly likely to take a different stance to his one. So much for trying to rig polls.

Frankly, if you don't see the ludicrousness of your situation, then you should withdraw from this page. You have contributed nothing but smears, accusations and confusion and clearly know nothing about the topic. Your attacks on longterm contributors on this issue are ignorant and illinformed, and suggest you don't know what you are talking about. It is a disgrace to suggest or imply that longterm contributors to a topic, with a long history of independence behind them, are somehow party to rigging a vote. You owe everyone an apology for your wrongheaded, illinformed and ignorant presumptions and accusations. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 04:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you're all fine upstanding people but the fact remains that Marrtel selectively contacted people and admits as much, saying that it would be a "waste of time" for him to contact Poles. The people he contacted broke in favor of his side in the vote 12-1. Other people not contacted were about evenly split. He tried to rig the poll and he was successful. I don't think you and I are going to get anywhere with this but I'd be fine with submitting to a review by my peers. I suggest we ask a few people who are not previously involved to analyse this. Maybe Aaron Brenneman, Tony Sidaway, Sjakkalle and Xoloz? If, for example, two of the above were to tell me that I owe someone an apology then I would issue one. Haukur 10:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
The reason why they voted predominantly that way is quite simple. That is where Wikipedia's rules imply the page should be. Your lack of concern for the fact that a small number of Polish contributors rode roughshod through the Manual of Style and Naming Conventions to create names that are not used and not recognisable widely outside Poland, is striking. It was the equivalent of Irish users putting Dublin at Baile Atha Cliath or President Sean T. O'Kelly at Seán Tomas Ó Ceallaigh, even though it is the English versions, not the Irish versions, which are used and recognised internationally. You are silent at the highjacking of pages by one group, something achieved through a noticeboard, but go ballistic about a free vote involving non-Poles, on the basis that they were contacted, as they had to be as there is not a noticeboard to inform them of votes on royalty topics. Your lack of consistency is stark, as is your desire to misrepresent the motivations of a user who openly contracted people, including someone who had taken a different stance to him on another Polish page. If he was trying to rig a vote then he wouldn't have contacted users who had taken different stances to his own on issues, and he wouldn't have contacted users who are notoriously independent-minded. His behaviour was a lot more open, and fair, and followed more Wikipedia rules, than yours has been. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 14:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I disagree but don't have much to add. If the noticeboard you want doesn't exist then I suggest you just go ahead and set it up. I don't see how Boleslaus I of Poland is "where Wikipedia's rules imply the page should be", considering that no evidence has been presented to show that Boleslaus is the most common form of the name and I see a lot of evidence against it. But, really, it doesn't look to me like the two of us are getting anywhere here so I'll go ahead and ask some previously uninvolved people to comment on Marrtel's actions. Haukur 15:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually it would probably be best if we agreed beforehand on some people to arbitrate the issue. Alternatively we could post at WP:ANI again but if a long thread develops there again between us I fear no-one will comment. Have you got any ideas or neutral people you'd like to propose to arbitrate the issue? I suppose we could ask the Arbitration Committee but maybe that's overkill at this stage. Haukur 16:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I have hitherto refrained from commenting on the material aspects of the issue since it is one I was not familiar with. I'm a rank amateur on the matter and I'd much prefer to defer to those who are knowledgeable about Polish history and naming conventions, especially with English works on the subject. But having participated in the procedural issues I can't resist trying to form an opinion on what the most suitable name might be.

Starting with the Use English naming convention I come upon this phrase: "If you are talking about a person, country, town, movie or book, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works." This is a somewhat controversial guideline but let's try to apply it in this case and see where it leads. Every Google search and Google books search I do comes out with Boleslaw/Bolesław on top (those tools are not good for working out diacritics use, to get some of the Bolesławs on Google Books you have to search for mis-OCR-ed forms like "Bolestaw"). When I check Encarta and Britannica I also get Bolesław/Boleslaw. Reading the above discussion I can see no argument presented as to why Boleslaus or Boleslav would be preferable - except the apparent feeling among some editors that Boleslaw/Bolesław is somehow too Polish.

As for the debate on whether it's better to disambiguate by nicknames, when they are widely used, or by "of country" it feels to me like it has been going on since the dawn of time on Wikipedia. So we have Ethelred the Unready at that location but his son is at Edmund II of England rather than at Edmund Ironside. I can see decent arguments for both options and I don't really care much which triumphs for a particular name. In this case the nickname is prominently featured both on Encarta and Britannica so I'd think it was a viable option but "of country" is always a popular choice too and some people insist on it.

Taking the above together the names I would think would be most in accordance with our naming conventions would be (in no particular order) Bolesław I the Brave, Bolesław I of Poland, Boleslaw I the Brave or Boleslaw I of Poland. Until a few days ago the article was at one of these locations and I don't understand why one editor is fighting tooth and nail to bring it to a Boleslav or Boleslaus version. So there, now I have an opinion :) Haukur 04:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Approval vote for article renaming

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 rename to Boleslaw I of Poland. This title got twice as many votes as any of the others and a couple of people who voted for the next most popular titles indicated that they were willing to accept it as a second choice. -- Kjkolb 23:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Please indicate your preference for how this article should be titled. You may vote for as many different options as you like, but please only vote for those names that you support. By not voting for a particular name, it will be assumed that you are opposing that particular option. 08:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


Boleslas I of Poland

  1. Support. Shilkanni 11:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support (tied for first choice of mine, whichever is more common) Charles 18:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Boleslaus I of Poland

  1. Support. Shilkanni 09:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support (tied for first choice of mine, whichever is more common) Charles 18:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support (first choice) Aldux 00:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Boleslav I of Poland

  1. I can accept this alternative too, but it is not my first choice. Shilkanni 09:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support (second choice of mine) Charles 18:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support Septentrionalis 16:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Boleslaw I

Bolesław I (diacritic)

  1. Support. --Lysytalk 18:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Boleslaw I the Brave

  1. Support. Elonka 08:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. Septentrionalis 16:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Bolesław I the Brave (diacritic)

  1. Support.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support--SylwiaS | talk 15:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC) Changed to Bolesław I of Poland --SylwiaS | talk 18:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Boleslaw I of Poland

  1. Support. Elonka 08:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. Shilkanni 09:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    Support.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC) I voted for this? A mistake. Sorry.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support (second choice)--Aldux 00:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support as possible consensus. Septentrionalis 18:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support per WP:NAME. --Dhartung | Talk 03:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Weak support as acceptable but undesirable. Ardric47 05:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Bolesław I of Poland (diacritic)

  1. Support.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support --SylwiaS | talk 18:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC) This version seems to be most common, most resonable, and in accordance to the wiki naming convention. --SylwiaS | talk 18:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support (first choice) as "most accurate." Ardric47 05:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Boleslaw I the Brave of Poland

  1. Support.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Bolesław I the Brave of Poland (diactric)

  1. Support.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

copy from above:

I have hitherto refrained from commenting on the material aspects of the issue since it is one I was not familiar with. I'm a rank amateur on the matter and I'd much prefer to defer to those who are knowledgeable about Polish history and naming conventions, especially with English works on the subject. But having participated in the procedural issues I can't resist trying to form an opinion on what the most suitable name might be.

Starting with the Use English naming convention I come upon this phrase: "If you are talking about a person, country, town, movie or book, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works." This is a somewhat controversial guideline but let's try to apply it in this case and see where it leads. Every Google search and Google books search I do comes out with Boleslaw/Bolesław on top (those tools are not good for working out diacritics use, to get some of the Bolesławs on Google Books you have to search for mis-OCR-ed forms like "Bolestaw"). When I check Encarta and Britannica I also get Bolesław/Boleslaw. Reading the above discussion I can see no argument presented as to why Boleslaus or Boleslav would be preferable - except the apparent feeling among some editors that Boleslaw/Bolesław is somehow too Polish.

As for the debate on whether it's better to disambiguate by nicknames, when they are widely used, or by "of country" it feels to me like it has been going on since the dawn of time on Wikipedia. So we have Ethelred the Unready at that location but his son is at Edmund II of England rather than at Edmund Ironside. I can see decent arguments for both options and I don't really care much which triumphs for a particular name. In this case the nickname is prominently featured both on Encarta and Britannica so I'd think it was a viable option but "of country" is always a popular choice too and some people insist on it.

Taking the above together the names I would think would be most in accordance with our naming conventions would be (in no particular order) Bolesław I the Brave, Bolesław I of Poland, Boleslaw I the Brave or Boleslaw I of Poland. Until a few days ago the article was at one of these locations and I don't understand why one editor is fighting tooth and nail to bring it to a Boleslav or Boleslaus version. So there, now I have an opinion :) Haukur 04:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, from the naming conventions: "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. - Exceptions: If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, it may be used, and there is then no need to disambiguate by adding Country. Examples: Alfred the Great, Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, Henry the Lion, Skanderbeg, etc...". But there must be consensus so strong that it would be surprising to omit the epithet; and the name must actually be unambiguous. For example, although Richard the Lionhearted is often used, Richard I is not unusual, so he is at Richard I of England; again, if two kings of different countries are both known in English as Name the Great (for example Louis the Greats of Hungary and France), do not use the epithet but disambiguate them by country (those two are at Louis I of Hungary and Louis XIV of France)." These MOS guidelines are easily available at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). Shilkanni 09:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we sometimes a nickname in article titles when it is well known. To your examples might be added Canute the Great, Edward the Martyr, Edward the Confessor, Harold Harefoot, Gorm the Old, Haakon the Red and Blot-Sweyn, just from a cursory look at a few king lists. Polish kings are by no means the only ones to have nicknames in their article titles. I'll grant that the "of country" seems to win out much more often, though. Personally I think we could do with some more nickname use but I really don't care much one way or the other, I think the choice will make very little difference to our readers and disambiguation pages ensure that everyone can link to their preferred form. Haukur 19:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Boleslaw I (and other variants with only name+ordinal) are ambiguate, because there were Boleslaw I in Silesia too, and Boleslav I in Bohemia. Shilkanni 11:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The diacrtitic here is barely visible to me, so I am marking it. I will vote after research. Septentrionalis 23:44, 27 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bolesław_I_the_Brave/Archive_1&oldid=1160574038"