Talk:Livonian Order

Requested move

Livonian Order → Teutonic Order in Livonia or Livonian branch of the Teutonic Order. — The current name of this article is not clear and definetly should be changed. This military organization was not a separate military order, as Teutonic Order or Order of Malta. It was just a part (although largely autonomous part) of Teutonic Order. Moreover, the term Livonian Order is often used for the Livonian Brothers of the Sword [1]. The so-called list of masters of the Livonian Order is actually the list of Teutonic masters of Livonia, see German article. — Albert Krantz (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC).

I'm more inclined toward Livonian branch of the Teutonic Knights, personally. Olessi (talk) 02:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Olessi. One real historian lectured me against using term "Livonian Order" and said it be "Livonian branch of the Teutonic Knights." Renata (talk) 05:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact, the correct full name for this stuf in German is Landmeisterschaft des Deutschen Ordens in Livland. My English is rather poor to translate. — Jón Þórunn (talk) 07:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC).

Support any move to reduce confusion with the Livonian Brothers of the Sword which has made the interwikis a mess (but now hopefully fixed). I would also go as far as to make Livonian Order a disambiguation page since some languages refer to the Livonian Brothers of the Sword as the Livonian Order (e.g., lv:Livonijas ordenis, lt:Livonijos ordinas) and there is the reasonable possibility of confusion in English. — AjaxSmack 01:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Those two article in lv and lt do not differentiate between the two. English used to also not differentiate until just few months ago. Renata (talk) 01:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Precisely why a disambiguation page is in order. — AjaxSmack 03:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I totally object making Livonian Order into dab page. It is a very popular link, which 90% of the time refers to "Livonian branch of the Teutonic Knights." Since there are only two pages to disambiguate a simple hatnote should do the trick. Renata (talk) 04:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Normally I would agree with the hatnote solution but where would "Livonian Order" redirect? The are a number examples of it being used as shorthand for Livonian Brothers of the Sword. In addition to the Encarta article noted in the nomination[2], a brief web search turns up "The knights in 1202 had founded the ORDER OF THE BRETHREN OF THE SWORD, commonly referred to as the Livonian Order."[3] and "the Order of the Brothers of the Sword (Schwertbrüderorden), also known as the Knights of the Sword, or the Livonian Order."[4] I'm not sure where the 90% figure comes from or what "it is a very popular link" means but isn't this sufficient evidence to question the redirect target? If not, I will defer to those more familiar with the topic but I hope a move from the current title can proceed regardless of this discussion. — AjaxSmack 15:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: Livonian Order has 648 refs @ google books and 268 @ google scholar Please provide evidence in the form of published sources that renaming the article is justified in any way. Also Livonian Order as an autonomous branch of Teutonic order was only called so after 1237, also they used different insignia than Livonian Brothers of the Sword, or another way to put it, Encarta should get their facts straight and not confuse the 2, even though one grew out of another--Termer (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment to put an end at least on WP to this confusion between Livonian Brothers of the Sword and Livonian Order , I came up with 2 published sources at this time. please let me know if more refs are needed.
    

-the Livonian Order (until 1237 the Order of the Knights of the Sword), @ Miniature empires By James Minahan ISBN:0313306109
-Swordbrothers were incorporated into the German Order in 1237, henceforth known as the Livonian Order @ The Latvians: A Short History By Andrejs Plakans
--Termer (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, is a sign for Teutonic Order. — Jón Þórunn (talk) 09:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC).

Yes Jón Þórunn, it is the sign of Teutonic Order as well as the sign of the Livonian order since it was a part of it even though autonomous. The sign that you gave to the Livonian Order here in the article belonged to the Swordbrothers and it wasn't used after 1237. In fact all remaining swordbrothers that joined the Teutonic order had to change their mantles with the red sword and cross to the black cross on the site.--Termer (talk) 05:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• I oppose the move because in Wikipedia we should prefer "what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity," and not what is academically correct. Neither "Teutonic Order in Livonia" nor "Livonian branch of the Teutonic Knights" are the most common names for the organization in question. A redirect from those titles to "Livonian Order" will suffice. --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • You say "reasonable minimum of ambiguity" but Encarta[5] ascribes "Livonian Order" to the Livonian Brothers of the Sword. Strictly correct or not, that's a bit more than a minimum of ambiguity. — AjaxSmack 05:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Please AjaxSmack would you mind reading some of the refs and books provided above instead of referring to Encarta that has not got it right this time. --Termer (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

My argument was not that Encarta or the other sources I cited above were "correct." But encyclopedias are descriptive, not prescriptive, i.e., they should reflect usage, not advocate.* That a number sources attribute "Livonian Order" to Livonian Brothers of the Sword is ex facie evidence of ambiguity. That some here have argued that the Livonian Order wasn't an order per se is another factor to consider. My support was for any move that would recognize the ambiguity of the term with the creation of a disambiguation page. — AjaxSmack 00:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

*For example, the Mixing Bowl "correctly" refers to an interchange in the Pentagon road network but is popularly applied to the Springfield Interchange. Therefore, Mixing Bowl is a disambiguation page linking to both.

Hi AjaxSmack it seems the 2 books I cited didn't do it? No problem, I looked up another ref for you: Eastern Europe: An Introduction to the People, Lands, and Culture By Richard C. Frucht ISBN:1576078000 -the 1236 Battle of Saule... dealt the Order of the Brethern of the Sword a mortal blow...becoming the Livonian branch of Teutonic Order (better known from this point onward as the Livonian Order) --Termer (talk) 05:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, and Encarta clearly states "The knights in 1202 had founded the Order of the Brethren of the Sword, commonly referred to as the Livonian Order". Martintg (talk) 12:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason to oppose a merger of the two articles on the Livonian "orders"? Are they not about two phases of the existence of a single, continuous entity? Srnec (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... This idea looks like a good one at first. In this book Mr. Saxton used the term "Livonian Order" for both the Livonian Brothers of the Sword and the Livonian branch of the Teutonic Order. But as we know the Livonian branch of the Teutonic Order was just a branch of an other military Order, but not a separate military order. I believe that the common name (Livonian Order) is misleading here. WP:COMMONNAME: In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading, then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative. This alternative could be the Livonian branch of the Teutonic Order. This variant is used in:

1. The crusades and the military orders expanding the frontiers of medieval Latin Christianity, ed. by Zsolt Hunyadi, József Laszlovszky
2. Estonia: Identity and Independence by A. Bertriko
3. The New Cambridge Medieval History (this book deserves great attention)
4. The Encyclopedia Of Christianity
5. The Crusades by Helen J. Nicholson
6. The Later Crusades, 1274-1580: From Lyons to Alcazar
7. Historical Dictionary of Poland, 966-1945
8. Chronological Tables: Comprehending the Chronology and History of the World
9. and many others — Albert Krantz ^¿? 19:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC).