Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło/Archive 5

Archives

• Talk:Wladyslaw Jagiello of Poland/Archive A
• Talk:Wladyslaw Jagiello of Poland/Archive B
• Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło/Archive 1
• Talk:Wladyslaw Jagiello of Poland/Archive 2
• Talk:Wladyslaw Jagiello of Poland/Archive 3

Page moved during WP:RM vote - this breaks off voting

See Archive 3 for broken off voting --Francis Schonken 06:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Need to change the naming conventions themselves

(transfered from User talk:Švitrigaila)

Would you care to visit at Talk:Wladyslaw_II_Jagiellon_of_Poland#Survey. The simple "Jagiello" - for that there is now a formal listing going on to sign support or opposition. ObRoy 21:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, those disussion is to long. I can't read it at all. My opinion about the subject is that every "title" should be excluded from the articles's name. For exemple, Pope John Paul II should be renamed into John Paul II. In Jagiello's case, I'm in favor of a simple title. Either Ladislaus II, or Jagiello, or Jogaila... (I don't know what is the most commonly used name in English). I strongly oppose:

• Any variants in the article's title itself (for example Ladislaus V/II...) As a rule an article's name must chose only one variant, or else, you can rename Tighina into Tighina/Bender/bendery or 2003 invasion of Iraq into 2003 invasion/liberation of Iraq...
• Any title that is not part of the name itself (for example Ladislaus II of Poland or King Ladislaus II) Or else, why not writing President George W. Bush or Benedict XVI of Vatican ?
• Any foreign forms for kings' names or historical figures only, when an English form exists (for example Władysław II) Or else, we can rename Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor into Carlos V.

If this system produces serveral articles with the same name, and only in this case, let's use disambiguation in parenthesis as for any other such articles. Let's write Alexander I (pope), instead of Pope Alexander I, as there are Chicago (band) and Chicago (poker game).

The naming conventions as they exist now are a mess. You find articles' names like Švitrigaila (no title), Pope Alexander I (with a title) , Antipope Gregory VIII (as if antipope were an official title!), Avignon Pope Benedict XIII (why not Avignon Antipope?),Emperor Meiji (official posthumous name, with the title before the name), Hirohito (familiar first name never used in Japan), Charlemagne (without a title or a country name), Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor (with the title after the name), Charles X Gustav of Sweden (English name), Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden (Swedish name)... I think we really need a coherent system.

Švitrigaila 08:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Status quo

Now then the conditions are normalized and article has the original name we can try to reach good consensus. But before any I stress any (!) possible move in a future please state about the move in a appropriate manner. M.K. 09:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

request for move

Władysław II Jagiełło → Jagiello. Proposed by Shilkanni 10:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

On basis of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), the rule stating the Charlemagne treatment to Monarchical titles, exc 4.

Opinion

Write Support or Oppose with an optional max one-line reason. Longer otexts of opinions to discussion below.

• Support. Elegant solution, and the name (spelling variants aside) the one the subject is overwhelmingly best known as. Shilkanni 10:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support only if not the modern Polish spelling 'Jagiełło' is used, otherwise support 'Jogaila'. Juraune 10:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The proposal is Jagiello, without dicritical marks, the proposition is not 'Jagiełło'. Shilkanni 10:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support Every proper historical book I've read has called him Jogaila, sometimes with "Wladyslaw numeral" in brackets; but here the vote is a choice between Władysław II Jagiełło and Jagiello; the current name is ridiculous, so I'll gladly support it. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 12:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support per Calgacus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. There may be a better name than the current one, but this is not it. Appleseed (Talk) 14:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sorry Shilkanni, I have respect for your opinion, but I think that you jumped the gun on this one, and made a too quick declaration of failure on the earlier poll. I do agree that a fresh start is a good idea though. So, what I recommend is that we all pile on and vote "Oppose" on this poll to put it to rest, and then start another clean poll, with the method of listing a half-dozen variant names, and letting everyone support or oppose each. Variants should include the most common versions of the name as it appears in English-language encyclopedias and dictionaries (see below), plus we can include "Jogaila", and a couple versions from the Polish community if they're not happy with the other nominations. Then, very important, We should let the poll run long enough to ensure that everyone has a chance to weigh in (meaning weeks, perhaps even a month), and only then if we are still deadlocked, should further "Solomon" attempts be required. How's that sound? --Elonka 15:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • No, I for one won't be changing my vote. The current name is bad, the new one is an improvement. One can always try out your idea after the vote has finished - which likely will be the same time whether or nor it is successful. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. "Jagiello" is his most recognisable name to people unfamiliar with the history of Poland. Srnec 17:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Weak, becaue I do think this is a pretty good solution, and is much better then most other discussed, nonetheless as I wrote earlier I am not fully convinved this move is necessary and I consider the current name slightly superior. Note that I would not oppose a move that would exchange Jagiełło with Jagiellon or possibly Jagiello, and I will also support moves from names without Władysław (for example, Ladislaus) to just 'Jagiello'. Note also that according to the research Elonka has done on Encyclopedias (tnx - it's nice to see somebody else doing some research for a change...) the current name (W II J) is rather popular in encyclopedias.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support It is a better name then present article name M.K. 22:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. KonradWallenrod 06:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Do not add any alternatives to the poll. In the case of this subject, alternatives will disrupt the poll. This poll is strictly between "Jagiello" and the current article name. Add your comments and reasonings for and about opinions below.

Jagiello is a compromise to give the place for this article, victim of recurring move wars. Hope no one, including sysops, disrupts the poll this time. The solution, to be tenable, should leave out all elements of name that are explicitly tied to these various nations involved. This proposed article name is following the rule that led Charlemagne to be at such location, and therefore conforms the current NC. Shilkanni 10:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Some citations and googlehit accounts from earlier discussions (compiled by Shilkanni 10:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)):

"I browsed through the talk archives of this article. No move has ever been accepted in a RM survey. Therefore all moves this has underwent, are equally suspect." Originally this was at Wladislaus II of Poland.

Smec: "The monarch best known to English people as "Jagiello" be moved to that simple title. It ignores giving preference to either Poland or Lithuania. It ignores any ordinal. It ignores the Polish name he adopted. It is, I believe, a Polonisation of his Lithuanian name Jogaila and it is the name by which I believe most English people recognise the person. Therefore, why not use that simple one-word page title. I believe most links to it, however, refer to the person, not the dynasty. I think that in this instance.... Manual of Style recommendations... as in the case of Charlemagne."

"...his Christian name is not useful, it's probably not recognisable to most who are just barely familiar with this man's existence as unifier of Poland and Lithuanian and one of Poland's greatest monarchs. Lithuania is too important to be ignored and therefore I eschew the use of "Ladislaus II of Poland," an otherwise good title. Because all other forms are complex and largely artificial (they'll rarely appear in other works and they are not contemporaneous or English), I support the simple, recognisable, descriptive, nonpartisan "Jagiello." It is a Polonisation of his Lithuanian name and it is common in English: it should please those parties with no vested interests in the matter; as someone put it, a Solomon solution."

"The problem with this Solomonic Solution, is that neither ther Poles, nor the Lithuanians, want to divide Leah's baby, and every once in a while, the Belarusians "veto", the whole proceedure (kind of like they did in the U.N.), and say they are the true Litvins, and the object of our affection, Jahaila (sic), is a Belarusian, anyway."

"I disagree on use of 'ł' in this case (not in general), pronounced as 'w' in Polish. Jagiello or Jogaila, not Jagiewo."

"I would very happily see this under the simple "Jagiello". I believe the man is best known by it, I would say that overwhelmingly best known. Jagiello as itself is based on the Polish variant of the name (not Latin, which is Jagello), but the name itself is the Lithuanian name. Both of those nations should feel sufficiently appeased by it. Of course not the diacritics, as this should be the English word and not the Polish. No country names to compete, or one of them to be excluded. Both excluded - none of these two countries preferred. And, for Wikipedia, the elegance of briefness. I am fed up with yet increasingly complex monsters..."

"Here are some Google Books results:

• "Jogaila Jadwiga" - 77 hits
• "Jagiello Jadwiga " - 248 hits
• "II-Jagiello Jadwiga" - 15 hits
• "Wladyslaw-Jagiello Jadwiga" - 15 hits
  

I'm sure we all know how many hits "Władysław II Jagiełło" got.
I conclude that Jagiello, however "weird" it looks, wins the Google Books hitcounting beauty contest."

Jagiello Hedwig: 74 hits Jogail Hedwig: 17 hits Wladyslaw Hedwig: 28 hits

) Any German editors here? I think I remember wild discussion once whether Jagiello's wife was Jadwiga or Hedwig :)

Szopen 11:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have seen some votes, and this case is such that opinions of even those who strenuously oppose the current name, regarding it as the worst possible or near, will diverge along different lines of thought, if several alternatives are given. This is now intended to the opportunity to show how much opposition is found against the current name, by proposing one better option, but only one, for the poll. This is because the presumed supporters of the current, non-english name, "divide et impera" in this and possibly in a couple of other very problematic cases. This person is not at all so straightforward a case as for example one of the Sigismunds. In my opinion, we cannot allow a non-english version remain just because it has a numerous camp (some have referred it as cabal) behind its scheme and most of the others diverge in details. Besides, Charlemagne example works for this - what is the one word with which this guy is best known??. Shilkanni 18:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Name as it appears in encyclopedias and dictionaries

(summarized from earlier discussions)

The Wikipedia policy on naming says that articles should receive "the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works." Granted, there is no one standard, but here is a list of how this individual's name is listed in major English-language works. Feel free to add other listings if you have them, though to keep the list manageable, please let us stick with just encyclopedias and dictionaries for now. --Elonka 15:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopediae

• Jagielło (Władysław II) (New Catholic Encyclopedia)
• Ladislaus II, king of Poland (Online Columbia) [1]
• Ladislas Jagiello (Oxford's Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages )
• Wladyslaw II Jagiello (Online Britannica)[2]
• Wladyslaw II Jagiello (Webster's Desk Encyclopedia)
• Władysław II (Encarta) [3]
• Władysław II Jagiełło of Poland (1979 Brittanica, under "Jagiellon dynasty")
• Władysław II Jagiełło and Jadwiga (1979 Brittanica, combined article title)
• Władysław II Jagielło (Poland) (Lithuanian: Jogaila; c. 1351–1434) (Europe, 1450 to 1789: Encyclopedia of the Early Modern World)[4]
• Władysław II Jagiełło, King of Poland (1975 Funk & Wagnall's Encyclopedia under "Lithuania")
• Grand Duke Jagiello (New American Desk Encyclopedia, under "Lithuania")

Dictionaries

• Vladislav II (The Oxford Dictionary of the Renaissance)
• Ladislaus II (The Oxford Dictionary of English (2nd edition revised))
• Ladislaus II (Oxford Dictionary of World History)
• Jagiello (Wladyslaw II) (Sokol's Polish Biographical Dictionary)

Date of birth

The Polish WP cites new scholarship that puts Jagiełło's date of birth around 1362. Perhaps someone would like to look into this. Appleseed (Talk) 22:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

He ascended Lithuanian throne in 1377. In which case he would have been 15 years old then. Not probable: Lithuanian ruling family was highly competitive, an underage would not have lasted more than a week. As it was, he faced later deposements, rebellions etc and barely survived such. Would like to know precise text of the new knowledge, and how realible research group, and what are the reasons to that conclusion. Anyway, of it is published, it could be mentioned, but some additional info about credibility of source would be needed in order to balance the two conflicting views. Shilkanni 22:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)