Jump to content

Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

New poll

Okay, the previous poll resulted in No consensus, so let's try again, starting from scratch. I recommend that we just ask everyone what their first choice is, and if no consensus appears from that, then we take the top few choices and move on to an "oppose/reject" poll. Does that sound reasonable? --Elonka 14:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Vladislaus II of Poland is what the naming convention directs. I think the naming of this article has suffered too much from all sorts of shuffles. People does not seem to be able to build a compromise for this one, and the outcome is that the article more or less stays at an unacceptable place, opposed by a clear but fragmented majority, the place decided by a Polish-nationalistic minority, whose representative moved this to that place without any legitimate permission in the past (was it december?). This seems more and more a case where a rude minority forces the English language to what is not english and not easily written nor remembered. I say, someone with admin buttons simply moves this now to the name mandated by the naming conventions, and this never-ending battle has at least a proper starting-point, instead of a really improper Polish name. Marrtel 19:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Władysław II of Poland seems to best fit the naming convention. If the listing of references above can be believed, "Władysław II" is the name in most common use in general reference works, and dropping the nicknames and adding "of Poland" gets this. I can see an argument for Jagiello, as a Charlemagne-like exception, but it seems like when he was baptised he chose the new Polish name. Dpv 21:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    Really? This appears to me BS. How do you know what name he preferred? You'll probably start citing documents from the Polish chancellary, but of course no historian would take this as any reflection on what Jogaila actually used. Jogaila in fact was already (Orthodox) Christian before he became ruler of Lithuania, his "Christian" name is actually only his Polish regnal name, and he retained his Lithuanian name all his life, as did contemporary Poles such as Jan Dlugosz, who wrote:
    "Jagiello loved his country Lithuania, and his family and brothers so much, that without hesitation he brought to the Polish kingdom all kinds of wars and troubles. The crown's riches and all it carried he donated towards the enrichment and protection of Lithuania."
    Jagiello in fact is only a Polonization (perhaps a more accurate reflection of the name's contemporary pronunciation) of Jogaila. Jogaila was also, btw, known as Jacob. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
IMHO quantative methods here won't help. This political (sic!) debate has agelong history, and I do sincerely doubt that it might be solved by such poll:)--Lokyz 10:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Jogaila is my first choice. Wladyslaw II Jagiello, without country is also a good choice, since calling all of this [4] Poland is oversimplification. Juraune 20:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Jagello. As Charlemagne exception - the shorter we keep it, presumably the less POV pushing may take place: just because there is not much to twist to nationalistic or whatever jealousies and passions. Not a country name, so we will not be in middle of fight whether to include several, or if one, is it Poland. Not an ordinal, since some refute its accuracy. And not that "Wladyslaw", whose correct spelling would cause here uprisings graver than a century of warfaring in Balkans. And why Jagello, without -i-: Because it is actually the Latin and English formulation used long before modern Lithuanian and Polish spellings came established. Check how French, Italian, Latin etc write it, you will find it is without -i-; and it has been without -i- in english well-established before (Polish-leaning) cultural sensitivities made some publishers change it to Jagiello in their English writings. I think all these demands to have Jogaila (current Lithuanian) and Jagiello (current Polish) should be balanced away, and use the older English spelling, which coincides with Latin's. Shilkanni 12:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Jogaila per the NCMH, Davies et al, plus it's short. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Władysław II of Poland - or Ladislaus/Ladislas/Vladislaus/Vladislav/whatever latinisation you chose. On the other hand Jogaila would be a fair choice if we decided to have two articles on that guy: one on his pagan period and one on his later career when he dropped his pagan name and adopted Christianity. //Halibutt 08:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Jogaila Iulius 07:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Jogaila. heqs 04:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

(copied from above)

  • Władysław II Jagiełło - keep it where it is now. It is consistent with a good percentage of English sources and all of Polish sources. It is distinctive and not confusing. And honestly it is amusing that something good can be said about almost every variant. PS. Again I would not be opposed to changing Jagiełło to Jagiello(n). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
It is confusing for someone who doesn't know Polish. Jogaila is also consistent with a good percentage of English sources and all of Lithuanian sources. Why should Polish spelling have a preference in English Wikipedia? Juraune 08:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
It's a Polish nationalist masturbation, that's why. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Where can I report this incivility ? I don't think we should allow us to be insulted.
--Molobo 16:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Try Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts and WP:CCD.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Calcagus, How dare you? Fortunately with the help a cold compress and some smelling salts, I was able to resume watching the World Cup games. Shame, shame, and reprimanded by one of the more civil editors in Wiki, of "incivility" to boot. Poor choice of words. period. Dr. Dan 03:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I know. Molobo wants some clueless busy-bodies to spam my talk page with WP short-links informing me to be civil and assume good faith. Maybe he just wants someone to share the laughter!? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
That's unnecessarily harsh. The reason one might give preference to "Jagiello" is that, at least until recently, this was much more commonly used in English than "Jogaila." Just as German names were, until recently, used considerably more frequently than Polish names, so Polish names have tended to be more common in English than Lithuanian names. At least until recently, the Polish "Jagiello" was also the commonly accepted form in English, at least (and perhaps in other western countries, I'm not sure). This may be changing (You've provided some evidence of this). But that doesn't mean it's Polish nationalist masturbation, and comments like that are inflammatory for no good reason. I think that Piotrus is acting in good faith here. I don't agree with his preferences, but that doesn't mean he's trying to insert nationalist POV. john k 14:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
My comments were directed at the term Władysław II Jagiełło, and I don't think my comments in this respect were overly harsh. You have to understand that for eastern Europeans the English language is like a international ethnic property court, putting the name in one language claims ownership for that ethnic group, and gets one over their rivals. That's why all those Ukrainian nationalists want to rename the Russophone city of Kiev Kyiv on English wiki, but don't give two craps what its name is in other languages; and why the same people who were propping up the Polish name Władysław II Jagiełło were going around calling Vilnius Wilno. Native English usage itself is an inconvenient annoyance. Lo also the maps that Polish users create for eastern European articles relating to the era, you'd get the impression all of Europe between the Elbe, the Urals and the Danube was Polonophone. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Calgacus, I agree with you on a lot of things, but when you resort to that kind of language, it makes me very unhappy.  :/ We've got a really tough situation here with a lot of conflicting viewpoints, and in order to be able to forge a consensus, it is essential that we find a way to communicate in good faith and with civility. For myself, when it comes to a borderline decision where I'm equally balanced between two different camps, I will usually end up voting with whichever side was able to maintain a better standard of professionalism and civility. Would you please reconsider your comment, and either delete it, refactor it, or apologize? --Elonka 17:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Elonka, I'm afraid professionalism has nothing to do with wikipedia, esp. here; mass voting and cabals rule here. You're also over-reacting, and fuelling guys like Molobo. The reality is that there is not going to be a consensus, we're gonna be stuck with Władysław II Jagiełło, so I'm not particularly fussed about which way you vote. Please, btw, do not take this as a lack of respect towards yourself. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Calgacus, perhaps you would like to step back a little, take a deep breath, check WP:TEA and consider that sometimes there is no cabal, but instead a given subject attracts users who are interested in it and some people will find themselves in minority for no sinister reason other then their arguments being generaly unpopular?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Perfecly relaxed Piotrus. Having tea already. Watching the soccer, and refreshing my watchlist every 5 or so minutes. This however has no bearing on the cabal, which does or does not exist independently of my state of mind. - 19:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Beacuse its consistent with some English sources like Davies book and with all Polish sources. If we cannot decide on one English variant, let's stick with the Polish one.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Funny that, I have the first paperback edition of God's Playground right here, and starting after the heading of Chapter 5, Jogaila, Davies used Jogaila about eight times in the first dozen pages, Władysław-Jagiełło twice, but one is an explanatory aside, and Władysław II Jagiełło never. Now the index, which Norman Davies wasn't responsible for, that does use Władysław II Jagiełło. Angus McLellan (Talk) 03:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, and in Europe: A History, he uses only Jogaila. BTW, when he uses "Władysław-Jagiełło", what is the context? Is it, "and he became known as ..." or something? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Calgacus (talk • contribs) .
On p. 118: "... Jogaila was transformed into a Christian prince, christened Władysław (Ladislaus), and formally known henceworth as Władysław-Jagiełło." When next mentioned by name, twice on p. 119, he is Jogaila. The second (and third, I missed one) occasions are in relation to the battle of (name disputed) in 1410. Angus McLellan (Talk) 04:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
And what's wrong with these books [5] that use Jogaila in English? Why it is necessary to stick with Polish variant? Juraune 19:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

(copied from above)

  • Jagiello. Most familiar name associated with this person by most people who have ever heard of him.
Now, I doubt the effectiveness of all this polling on specific names: there are just too many possible permutations for this poor fellow. It may be best to work by deciding whether or not the page should have diacritics in the title. I think there will be a supermajority saying "no" and the page could be moved preliminarily to "Wladyslaw II Jagiello." Then further voting could determine whether or not both the Polish and Lithuanian names are needed in some form or other. Then it could be determined what forms of the names are wanted: Jagiello or Jogaila, Wladyslaw or Ladislaus, etc. Next, it could be determined whether or not an ordinal number is necessary and whether or not a qualifier such as "of Poland" or "Grand Duke of Lithuania and King of Poland" is necessary. The end result would be a name that satisifes majority opinion on all aspects of this complicated name. I, personally, could live with that.
Finally, a greater problem is the settling of related matters for all Polish rulers so as not to become inconsistent and confusing to newcomers to the subject. Srnec 18:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

(copied from above)

  • Jagello. As Charlemagne exception - the shorter we keep it, presumably the less POV pushing may take place: just because there is not much to twist to nationalistic or whatever jealousies and passions. Not a country name, so we will not be in middle of fight whether to include several, or if one, is it Poland. Not an ordinal, since some refute its accuracy. And not that "Wladyslaw", whose correct spelling would cause here uprisings graver than a century of warfaring in Balkans. And why Jagello, without -i-: Because it is actually the Latin and English formulation used long before modern Lithuanian and Polish spellings came established. Check how French, Italian, Latin etc write it, you will find it is without -i-; and it has been without -i- in english well-established before (Polish-leaning) cultural sensitivities made some publishers change it to Jagiello in their English writings. I think all these demands to have Jogaila (current Lithuanian) and Jagiello (current Polish) should be balanced away, and use the older English spelling, which coincides with Latin's. Shilkanni 12:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    Sounds acceptable to me, but Jagello will be more unfamiliar to most people than either Jagiello or Jogaila. Srnec 16:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

(copied from above)

  • Jogaila. Simple, obvious, uncontroversial, and the most common name amongst historians in the area (according to my reading, 5 books out of 5). Second choice would be Jogaila (Wladyslaw II). - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    I've rarely seen it spelled "Jogaila" - I've much more frequently seen the Polonized spelling "Jagiello". Also, could you cite the book involved? john k 14:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    Well, I can't speak for your readings. You know that if I cite those books, it'll be like the third time on this page. Check the archives. If you can't find them, I'll repost. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    I have seen, before these learned discussions here, "Jogaila" only in so-called parenthetical places: I mean in English text where it is explained that Jogaila is the name's Lithuanian spelling. That means I have not seen any proper English text call this king as Jogaila, I have seen those texts say that (whatever is the version there) has also this name, written Jogaila in Lithuanian. Or, "Vladislaus (in Polish: Wladyslaw, in Lithuanian: Jogaila, in Belarusian: Jahajla etc)" Marrtel 19:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    I'll post the texts later; right now I'm watching Italy and Ghana, so it'll have to wait. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    I'm fairly certain that nobody was demanding it right now. john k 21:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    Here's a paste (actually, a paste of a paste), Rowell's Lithuania Ascending gives him his name as Jogaila. Christiansen's The Northern Crusades refers to him as always as Jogaila (with Wladyslaw IV, k. of Poland, in brackets in the index ... next to Jogaila!) ... Norman Davies' Europe: A History lists our ruler in the index as Jogaila ... he uses only Jogaila in Europe: A History END PASTE John France's The Crusades And The Expansion Of Catholic Christendom, 1000-1714 (2004). The New Cambridge Medieval History also uses Jogaila, but we might note that the older version of the latter, The Cambridge Medieval History (1911), uses Jagiello. So, Marrtel, if you "have not seen any proper English text call this king as Jogaila", I suggest you buy some proper scholarly books written recently, rather than relying on crap sources. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    Hey Calgacus, thanks for the notes. That seems fairly plausible to me. It seems plausible to suggest that usage of "Jogaila" is increasing as opposed to "Jagiello". That said, Norman Davies is a very bad example for name usage. I think he pretty much always calls people by the form they are known as in their native language. This leads to the absurdity of Edward I of England being referred to as "Édouard I" in his The Isles. Not a very good model for usage. john k 14:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    And how about the absurdity of Jogaila being called "Władysław II Jagiełło" on the pages of Lithuanian history in English Wikipedia? How about the absurdity of your proposed name ""Wladyslaw II Jagiello" of Poland" in 14 century, when PLC, that some English historians write as a shorthand "Poland" was finally created only in 16 century? Juraune 09:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

(copied from above)

  • Władysław II of Poland - or Ladislaus/Ladislas/Vladislaus/Vladislav/whatever latinisation you chose. On the other hand Jogaila would be a fair choice if we decided to have two articles on that guy: one on his pagan period and one on his later career when he dropped his pagan name and adopted Christianity. //Halibutt 08:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
LOL, thanks to you Halibutt, we have 2 Sigismund Korybuts riding in the battlefield of Grunwald(Zygmunt Korybutowicz and Zygmunt Korybut, don't they look different persons?), and next we will have two Jogaila's, whatever the name, what a great suggestion! :D (No offense, Halibutt, every human makes mistakes, myself included) Juraune 13:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Find me any document where the king would sign with his pagan name rather than the name he was crowned with. Besides, you apparently invented the "Orthodox" story, didn't you. The whole point of his union with Poland was that he was a pagan and the Teutons had a carte blanche in attacking him any time they liked. Organization of a crusade against an Orthodox state would not be that easy, you know? //Halibutt 15:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
As kings from this period weren't likely to sign anything, the request is rather silly. I repeat, do you have any evidence that he stopped using his name? But I have bad news for you Halibutt. Firstly, I'm afraid I didn't make it up. He was an Orthodox christian before becoming Grand Prince; you really didn't know that? Secondly, history is not as simple as you would like it to be; the union had lots of points, the two most important of which were 1) Poland gets a powerful king, 2) Jogaila gets a second kingdom. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Orthodox case of Jogaila is only low presumption, nothing more. But I believe we should stick to name case, not to who he was. M.K. 16:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think Calgacus should cite some chronicle or any other reference, to support orthodox version. I only want to remind, that in Russian historiography Algirdas, father of Jogaila, is also referred as orthodox - just no proof of that is given. Anyway, Calgacus has a good point: in these circumstances not Poland got GDL, Jogaila got second kingdom. Most of polish POV comes from XIX-th century romantics like Sienkiewicz, and based on XIX-th century facts. In XIV-th century situation was not somewhat, it was really different. Another story was in XVI-th century. But it does not influence Jogaila case. As for "nowadays" lithuanian spelling and pronauncation - let me remind you, that by the time lithuanians hadn't written language, and this name is linguistical reconstruction,as accurate as Vytautas. Somehow noone disputes Vytautas or even Algirdas validity. So i'll repeat - it's political discussion - who were greatest nation - poles or lithuanians (nowadays belorussians also want a piece of this, let's call it legacy ). To rethink XIX-th century formed image, formed under threat that nation (or even both) could be extinct, it needs time.--Lokyz 20:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, according to wording of the union. Jagiello was to _JOIN_ (applicare) Lithuania to Poland, not the other way around. Szopen 10:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
It was personal union (one ruler two states), not state union. I didn't say, anything about joining states - they remained quite separate. They were really connected in XVI-th century, when GDL was badly affected and weakened by wars. What I did say - that for Jogaila "personally" Poland was second monarchy, not the first or only one. Vytautas aim to get crown is a good proof, that states weren't so well joined.--Lokyz 11:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Lokyz, It was personal union, but it does not change the fact that in Krewo document it was not Jagiello getting new kingdom, but Poland getting new king, for which Jagiello promised to "applicare" Lithuania into Poland (promittit terras suas Litvaniae et Russiae corone regni Poloniae perpetuo applicare (corone or corona?)). Well, it is argued that Jagiello may understand the term differently than Poles, but it doesn't change the fact how it was seen by contemporary Poles. Dlugosz was quoted here already: could someone find the fragments when he is saying how much Jagiello's should be grateful to Poland (yes, for Lithuanians it have to be quite amusing reading ;), after reading I had no problems understanding why Kazimierz jagiellonczyk refused to return to Poland for quite a few years ;) ) Szopen 16:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
About "applicare" - that statement did not came true for almost two centuries. So in case of Jogaila this promise was not fullfilled, or am I wrong? So at that time it's only formal anouncement. (I do understand, that now i'm stepping on a thin ice, and of course this statatement was used later).
"Jagiello getting new kingdom, but Poland getting new king" - how does it really differ? By becoming King, as much I do understand, he got a new kingdom and still (at least formal) was Grand Duke of Lithuania - so, double monarch, not only king of Poland.
Also let me cite further: "His next marriages were with ladies from Polish and Lithuanian dominions, apparently having nothing to do with ancestors among Polish monarchs." As much i read further in other article: "Jogaila's sons and heirs were born of Sophia." That Sofia was of GDL origin.
So who get whom? Poland a new King, or Grand Duke a new kindonm with a dynasty of GDL orgin? Without that "applicare" case? I think about it as a fact, not as an agrement, that was not fullfilled.--Lokyz 02:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Sir, your points are very well taken. Dr. Dan 23:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

(copied from above)

Welcome to Wikipedia Mattergy, Thank you for voting. Perhaps you can find a friend or two to vote also. You know, "the more the merrier!" Dr. Dan 13:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Sock, you think? It is quite possible. Compare this and this, while compare Anatopism's contributions with Mattergy's contributions. These accounts are largely dominated by Poland-related voting. But if they are socks, whose are they? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't wish to be accusatory, so I won't be. But it seems odd that Piotrus invites Mattergy to vote in this poll, a day after his Welcome to Wikipedia greeting to him. More puzzling is this "greeting" two months after Mattergy's original contributions in April. Dr. Dan 16:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Then answer the question, who where his subjects? Juraune 08:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Better question: did any of Jagiello's subjects call him "Władysław II Jagiełło"? Ever, even just once? Srnec 23:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I severely doubt it. The numeral "II" isn't actually accurate, and they certainly didn't spell the name with any ł, which wasn't invented for another 2 centuries. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
It was a rhetorical question, but you make my point quite clearly. Mattergy, sock puppet or not, is merely arguing against his own choice. Srnec 23:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop making mess, please

Someone is making mess of this disscusion by dividing freely it to not logical parts and editing others posts - like removing signatures and priotity. Please, stop that. --Lokyz 02:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe, Elonka without any bad intentions, moved the previous poll to an archive 4, and rearanged current page to poll and discussion sections, according to what she said in "Next Step". On the other hand, I also don't understand, why some of the discussions was left on the poll section, and why not all of the proposed names are listed in discussion section, with one name repeated twice. As an editor with ~1.5 month experience I don't understand one more thing, why the previous poll of renaming "Władysław II Jagiełło" to "Jagiello" was over in 4 days, while other polls on renaming drag for more than a week. It is frustrating to see, that the discussions, ideas, proves, google counts have been moved to archives in an arbitrary point of time, and I have to vote and provide my arguments over and over again. I suppose, other editors felt similar way too. On an optimistic note, I should say, that at least I learn a lot of new interesting facts in history from all of this. Juraune 11:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I was trying to make the page more readable, not less. I'll freely admit that it was a complex process, but I made my best good faith effort to do it in an even-handed way. I do sincerely apologize if I accidentally lost anything important. If you see a comment that was moved improperly, or a signature that got lost, please feel free to edit it to fix the comment or re-add the signature. As for the reasoning of what I moved, I tried to move all the lengthy conversations out of the poll and into their own sections, but I left comments that were just "singleton" comments. As for which names are listed at the top of each discussion section, I moved the original vote that seemed to spark that particular discussion, and italicized it to show that it wasn't a "vote", but just a copy of one so as to give context to the later discussion. If anyone knows of a way to present this information so it's easier to understand, or sees anything else that needs to be moved, then by all means feel free to proceed. --Elonka 17:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
It is ok with me, Elonka. I will add suggested name Jagiello to discussion too a little bit later and maybe Jagello, since the reasoning for them looks very sound to me, if you don't mind. Juraune 19:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you mean, about how the discussion looks. Yes, that sounds like a good idea! --Elonka 19:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, it seems that was false alarm. After this explanation i think it's ok with me.--Lokyz 12:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

To preserve the edit histories and the original how and where people wrote opinions, the whole old talkpage should be moved to an archive name. I did it just. Then, I have nothing serious against good-faith effort to copy relevant portions of earlier discussions to the new, empty talkpage, even as an edited version, as long as opinions are not misattributed etc. Therefore I took the edited version Elonka made and brought that to this new page. Perhaps some irrelevancies (that already are in archive) could be further edited away from this copy, but I tend to leave that, in this stage, to those who wrote them. Shilkanni 00:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This has been utterly pointless

And on that note... I'd like to appeal to Wikipedia's Manual of Style and other guidelines. Because the format for monarchs is generally "Name Ordinal of Country" and their is strong statement on the use of English: why is this article here? Let me ask a few questions and make a few statements:

  • He was a monarch: no exception there
  • Is Władysław his English name? I don't think anybody believes this: English variants include Wladislaus, Ladislas, and several more. Why, then, is there an exception here? What merits it?
  • Why no "of Poland"? He was indisputably the monarch of Poland. He was also the monarch of Lithuania, so this could easily be an exception.
  • Is Jagiełło English spelling? No, that would be Jagiello. Is it part of the standard MoS form? No, so why is it there?
  • There is an exception because he has two names and two kingdoms. I don't see how to prefer one name or one kingdom over the other and the two names put together seem artificial to me. Why prefer his Polish name? Why put Jagiello after the ordinal like that (as if its a surname)?
  • Therefore, it is best to ignore the ordinal and find the one name (and nickname) by which he is best known. Precendent for this includes Charlemagne, Alfonso the Battler, Alexander the Great, and many others. Since he has no popular nickname, he should be called by his only well-known name: Jagiello (or, more commonly these days, Jogaila).

Please tell me where the logic above goes wrong. Srnec 21:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well first, I never see a consensus-building exercise as pointless, because I value everyone's opinion, as long as they present it in a civil manner, and show respect for the opinions of other editors even when they disagree. To address your question though: For me, the issue with the most weight, is what the article titles for this individual are, in major English-language encyclopedias. In the majority of those works, they seem to have chosen to entitle his article as some variation of "Wladyslaw II Jagiello". Now as for whether or not we add "of Poland" or "of Poland & Lithuania" to the mix, I have no strong preference. I'm also personally against diacritics, but that's a separate issue. Where I personally have trouble with the Wikipedia "name/ordinal/country" guidelines, is if, by strict following of those rules, we end up with an article title for this monarch that matches no Encyclopedia, anywhere. When that kind of situation occurs, it goes against what I believe is the Wikipedia philosophy, which is that articles here should reflect outside sources, and I'm going to cry foul, say that there's a problem with the guidelines, and insist that we stick with the original, pre-guideline rule, of following the lead of outside sources. --Elonka 23:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
If this were a debate on facts to include in the article, the secondary sources which have been cited as using Jogaila would be considered reliable, and the tertiary sources - encyclopedias and dictionaries - would likely be dismissed if they happened to disagree with them. Why shouldn't the same methodology apply to the article name ? WP:NAME says: "Naming conventions is a list of guidelines on how to appropriately create and name pages. It is important to note that these are conventions, not rules written in stone." There's no such disclaimer in WP:V and WP:RS. Angus McLellan (Talk) 03:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that this is not a "consensus-building exercise" but an "exercise in futility." Srnec 05:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Next step

I'd like to leave the above "first choice" name poll running for a few days more, but also wanted to start a discussion about the next step. My own feeling (as the person that started the poll), is that we take any name that got 2 or more people choosing it, and then proceed to a larger "approve/reject" poll, such as listing each of those names (Jogaila, Jagiello, Jagiełło, Wladyslaw II Jagiello, Władysław II Jagiełło, etc.), and then letting the community choose which are acceptable, with the assumption that any name that you're not voting for, is one that you're actively opposing. It's also my recommendation that we set aside the discussion about the "of Poland" suffix for now, and concentrate just on achieving consensus for an actual name. Then we can move the page to that name (or leave it here, if that's what the community consensus is), and then launch into a separate debate on whether or not "of Poland" needs to be added to the end of it. Would that work for everyone? Or is the country suffix really an integral part of which name you would choose to begin with? --Elonka 00:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Good Question. Dr. Dan 01:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean an approval vote ? Well, yes, sometimes it helps to built consensus artound some compromise, and sometimes it shows that almost even-numbered camps cannot agree on any compromise, and sometimes votes spread hopelessly. I do not want to present my pessimistic estimate what it would produce for this case. I would accept that the "of country" can be left totally out at this stage for polling purposes, because anyway "of country" is Wikipedia's own addition and should not be looked as a part of the "name as commonly known" criterion. But let's wait for a couple of days, to dust to settle. After all, reorganization of talks there above may bring dissatisfied people, hopefully not to riot but just to correct their own entries if they feel corrections needed after reorganization efforts. And then, should we start the new poll at a new talkpage? perhaps yes... Shilkanni 00:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Based on my read of the above poll, it looks like the approval vote should be between the following names:
  • Jagiello
  • Jagello
  • Jogaila
  • Władysław II
  • Vladislaus II
  • Wladyslaw II Jagiello
  • Władysław II Jagiełło
If other editors concur on the above list, we'll go ahead and start up the new vote this weekend, and allow people to vote for all of the names that they approve of, with the lack of a particular editor's vote to mean that they definitely oppose that particular name. Assuming we obtain a consensus (yes, I know I'm being optimistic <grin>), we can move the page to that name (or leave it here if that's what the consensus says), and then we can move on to the next step of debating whether or not to include the suffix "of Poland" to the article title. Does this system sound fair? --Elonka 17:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I would be for the poll where the part "of Poland" is already included, otherwise I cannot vote for one of the options without knowing how the final name will look like. In my oppinion, such names as "Wladyslaw II Jagiello of Poland" or "Władysław II Jagiełło of Poland" are too long and too inacurate, since Jagiello is not a nickname, and there are two countries with equal importance involved. Forms as Jagiello or Jogaila and other spellings of the same name should not include "of Poland", since "of Lithuania" is most logical choice with these forms. The forms of "Władysław II" and "Vladislaus II" without "of Poland" part are easily mistakable with other bearers of this name that have numeral II, so they cannot exist by itself and are too weak as identifiers. What I am talking here is not about the name use in the article text, but about the title of the article." Juraune 21:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
It would seem simplest to deal with this by a double list; I see nothing wrong with a very long approval list. Are there any other requested variants, like "of Lithuania"? Remember, one can add variants to approval polls. Septentrionalis 17:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
My own feeling is that there have been lengthy discussions on how to name this page for many months, with many failed polls, and many failed attempts to build consensus. So my effort here was to try a different system, by first asking the participants to list their first choice, and then taking any name which had two or more people list it as their first choice, and proceed from there to an approval poll. It is my hope that by trying this different system, starting with a limited number of names, that it might be easier to achieve consensus. If enough people disagree with my proposed method, I'll let it go, but for now, it looks like we have progress, and I am reluctant to let go of the vision and return to the fragmented discussions of the past. So I am asking everyone, can we at least try my method, to see if it does any good? --Elonka 17:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
IMHO, any method won't work untill there will be a place for an argumen like "modern" language - i mean jagiello ort jogaila, or the worst case - diacritics. So, IMHO lets stick to elder languages, the way it was written in latin or ruthenian. This would be at least stepping to some neutral ground.--Lokyz 19:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Władysław_II_Jagiełło/Archive_6&oldid=1137333463"