Jump to content

Talk:Gallus Anonymus

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

Untitled

[edit]

I removed speculated link with Hungarian chronicler Anonymus as the two persons definitely did not live in the same time--Korovioff 18:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Mazon

[edit]

"Anonymus might be of Mazon origin". What does Mazon mean in this context ?? --Jotel 09:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably it means Masovian lechitic tribe: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masovians). Which later becomes Masurian (NE Poland. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masuria) or Masovian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masovian_Voivodeship) --Skywalker8 09:05, 16 July 2021 (EST)

Notes

[edit]

TX Bibliography reviled by p. sava.com. What is 'TX'? ; 'Reviled'?? ; 'p.';?? ; 'sawa.com'?? That's Screen Advertising World Association's website... --Jotel 09:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jargon

[edit]

As clericus de penna vivens ; cursus velox is also in accord with... ; if one finds an author using cursus spondiacus and simultaneously cursus velox ... ; Gallus Anonymous was Monachus Littorensis
Too many unexplained specialist terms (shown in italics here) --Jotel 13:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I modified the lead

[edit]

Wikipedia isn't for pushing non-mainstream theories as dominant ones. Additionally please use accepted language rather then Germanised versions.--Molobo (talk) 13:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the Polish name "Gall Anonim" seems relevant. He was a chronicler of Poland, and is primarily known in Poland, after all.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The editors of the most recent edition of this text, Paul Knoll and Frank Schaer, summarize mainstream discussion on this in their introduction. The Venice material is not mainstream, as proved by a quote I inserted, and give WP:UNDUE weight to such a theory. The Polish name ... why is it important? He is never called that in English, and those teaching themselves Polish can check the interwiki. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your most recent edition is from 2003; there are others - which you for some reason remove from the article - from 2005, which say something else. And please stop your habit of wholesale reverts (removing interlinks and other corrections the editors do in the meantime). PS. Please quote or link the "mainstream discussion summary" you refer to.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's 3 reverts in much less than a day. What was it you said about that regarding another user? Yes ... while not a 3RR violation, skirting of 3RR by that user may deserve at least a stern warning. Please also see the contents of note ten (now: # ^ Paul W. Knoll & Frank Schaer (eds.), Gesta Principum Polonorum: The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles, (Budapest, 2003), p. xxix.), which answers your question. The Danuta Borawska argument about Venice was made in 1965 (not 2005!), and has since been numerously rejected by other scholars. It is entitled to a say, I give you, but not to the amount of space it had. I actually found a link to the page you want; see Elonka's talk page. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is your note online? I don't have that book. Borawska argument was made in 1965 and since then has gained increasing acceptance (at least in Poland), as recent Jasiński works explain (here's a 2006 interview). Presumably your source is a few decades behind on the Polish scholarship (not that I can blame them, considering how difficult it is to access it online); but the few modern Polish sources I've found so far indicate that Borkowska's argument, which indeed has been mostly ignored for about two decades in Poland, has been revisited and has now gained much more acceptance. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will need time to comment on that link to comments by Roman Sidorski. Scholarly editorial discussions by the authors of the most recent edition of the text is a more reliable source for a survey of scholarly opinion than an interview in a Polish history magazine. I can tell myself that these Venetian arguments have a little more validity that the contempt given to them by these two, but as it is not the mainstream theory in international scholarship (which is France/Flanders), it shouldn't be presented as if it is. And I think you will agree that the wikipedia text as written now is a little incoherent. It needs to be made more precise and coherent, perhaps using the Sidorski source, and then properly balanced (perhaps using the Knoll & Schaer source; one of these writers knows Polish btw, and judging from the refs English, German, French and Russian are also known to them). EDIT Yes, I have discovered it is online too (was using a library copy myself), see Elonka's talk page. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problems with presenting due weight: indeed, French ancestry is the most popular, but as I've indicated, the Italian version is gaining popularity in Poland. And I certainly agree this article is in need of expansion and clarification. But please, let's avoid wholesale reverts of one another's work. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is best to mark the editorial concern until the problem is actually resolved. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Piotrus, when did this get resolved? You went and removed the tag. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And what's the relation? The above discussion doesn't mention the words "neutrality" or "tag".--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 13:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go:
Well, it is best to mark the editorial concern until the problem is actually resolved.
Here "mark" means "mark with a tag". Please now can you restore this as a sign of good faith. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that tag is appropriate. I am not sure I even understand exactly what is it that you find concerning here. I could agree to a general {{copyedit}} template, but I see nothing related to WP:NPOV as being an issue.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said clearly above the article at moment gives WP:Undue weight to a Venetian hypothesis, so much so that it has to be marked as an object of editorial concern until it is fixed (I will fix it if no-one else does next week when I have access to materials again). You are right though that it also needs copy-editing. Some of the editing to the article has been truly careless and it really is hard to make out what is being said. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not confuse unproportionate lenght in a stubby article with undue weight. The article clearly states that French is the dominant hypothesis and then goes on to discuss the Italian one. Is French one too short? Surely. But this not undue weight issue. Undue weight would be to discuss it if it was irrelevant, or to unduly present it as a main one. Neither of which is the case, now, is it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that stubby. The article as it was actually read like it is advocating a Venetian origin and looked like the author didn't understand the arguments, as it was so badly written. It is better now, though the penultimate paragraph in the origin section is still pretty bad and out of place. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to rewrite/expand the article. Please try to avoid removing information and references added by others, and I am sure that if this doesn't happen, we will have no revert-related problems.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 14:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As always, for both me and you, it would depend on the references and information. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polish name

[edit]

Why is this name being restored and the tag removed without getting explained? "Gallus Anonymus" means "the Frenchman who lacks a name". The Polonization of this, Gall Anonim, isn't of any prima facie relevance to the article. Please explain the relevance before removing the tag. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polonization of this name is very popular and thus a reason to be mentioned in the article. Or would you suggest in Warsaw we should remove Warszawa? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 13:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, because Warsaw is a city where Polish is spoken and Warszawa is what the city is called in Polish. Gallus Anonymus is not even a real name of a theoretical non-Polish person who lived before the Polish language and who is never called by this name in English, the language of the encyclopedia. Unless someone explains the relevance of it, I'll have to reinsert it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Polish version is used in hundreds of English works ([1]). I am afraid that no matter how much it offends you, it is relevant enough to stay.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 13:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is used only by Polish authors writing in English or by English authors exhibiting the same misunderstanding its inclusion in the lead in that manner is likely to perpetuate. If it is in the article because it is used in English, it should be written and bolded as an alternative. And why exactly would it offend me? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you agree that the variant is common enough to be included, I'd appreciate your thoughts on how to convey to the readers that it is a Polish spelling variant.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is why further down I inserted a sentence explaining that the name was transformed into Gall Anonim in modern Polish. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not use the common Template:Lang-pl? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because that template implies that the name is relevant because it is Polish (such as the Polish name from Warsaw or for Sigismund the Old), rather than because this Poloninization of a Latin term is widespread in English. I think this is what it would imply to most users.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

born in Italian

[edit]

Is it correct English?Xx236 (talk) 14:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct English would be "born in Italy", "born in Italian" looks like some weird Anglo-German pigeon and doesn't make sense. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monument

[edit]

It's not obvious, that it was the same person. Xx236 (talk) 14:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The statue is titled "Gallus Anonymus." Nihil novi (talk) 04:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what? The article doesn't prove it's the same person. Any nation can have its own "Gallus Anonymus". Or is this article a disambiguation?Xx236 (talk) 07:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your meaning. Nihil novi (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody explain in more details - what monument, what nation? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 12:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The statue of the author of Gesta Hungarorum. He can be Gallus Anonymus, he can be someone other.Xx236 (talk) 13:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since some scholars think we was the same person as the Polish Gall Anonim, it is relevant, but it should be made clear in the caption who he is.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 13:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the caption more explicit.
I'm pretty certain that years ago, when I saw the statue in Budapest, it bore the inscription, "Gallus Anonymus." I was intrigued to see in Hungary a statue to a chronicler of Polish history. The inscription may have been modified, since.
Too bad there isn't a copy of the statue in Poland. Maybe Poland has something that the Hungarians would like, and they could exchange copies? A Matejko of Stefan Batory, for example? Nihil novi (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First

[edit]

"Gallus is generally regarded as the first historian to have described Poland"

Wasn't Ibrahim ibn Jakub describing Poland earlier? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.184.206.121 (talk) 07:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, Ibrahim Ibn Jacub did not describe Poland, because there was no Poland then, it only came into existence later. (71.137.206.26 (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gallus Anonymus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gallus_Anonymus&oldid=1207351027"