Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło/Archive 8

So, what do we do?

Since this article's been moved to a new name in violation of proper procedures, I believe we should settle the matter this way or another. Constant bragging on the talk page apparently leads us nowhere, so perhaps it's high time we made some move. Ideally this article should be moved back to its original name, as there was no consensus to move it here in the first place, and then a proper WP:RM procedure could be held. However, we could let it stay here for a while and still hold the vote to confirm (or not) the move from its original title to the current name. The latter option might be misleading to those taking part in the voting, but would have a merit of not stirring too much emotions on all sides involved. I added a proper RM tag yesterday, but it was removed by Calgacus without explanation, so perhaps it would be easier if I asked the rest of us to state their views here. Alternatively, we could report the move to RfC or Arbcom or some other wiki authority, and only then hold a WP:RM voting, but that would be just a longer way to do the same.

Whatever the choice is, I'm currently working on expanding and sourcing this article. Let me know if you want to know where is my temporary page located. //Halibutt 18:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Halibutt, there was a vote. You didn't like the result, but the result was a move to this page. There is another vote going on just now, it hasn't been closed, and may never be, but the vote is to leave it at Jogaila. Moreover, the vast majority have voted either to leave it here permanently, or wait a few months. So there is your answer. I suppose, though, if you wanted to make an RM request to move Jogaila to Wladyslaw II Jagiello, then no one can stop you, even if it would be in violation of the spirit of the ongoing vote. BTW, thanks for working on User:Halibutt/Jagiello; 'tis looking good, I just hope you'll keep it NPOV. ;) Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I did like the result of the voting as it proved that both names should be used. I did not like what people made out of it, as there is clearly no consensus to move this article anywhere. 16 for Jogaila vs 16 for Władysław? Or perhaps 16 for Jogaila vs 32 for other options is a consensus to move the article? How is that a Wikipedia:Consensus? But perhaps I could paraphrase your words: There was a vote. People did not like its result so they forged it, but the result was not to move the page.

Anyway, the problem was not solved. In fact it was made even more complicated by an apparent forgery, names-calling all around and all the emotions. Since the page should not be here, I wanted to do it the legal way, that is to hold a formal WP:RM procedure to decide whether this article should be moved to Jogaila or not. If you're so confident that without such forgery the consensus would be to move it anyway, then why not check it?

Oh, and I did not post a link to my temporary page for a reason. Thanks for posting it here anyway. //Halibutt 19:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, everyone knows that you want this page moved back, and will do or say anything to achieve it. Using words like "forgery" and "legal" just highlights this even more. So please, stop wasting your own time with all this nonsense. You'd better spend your time improving the article, rather than trying to waste everyone else's with your obsession about a name. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear from the Elonka's mate poll that people want a break from this nonsense. 8 people voted on moving back to Wladyslaw, 15 saying don't move anything and have a break. I think that's what we should really do. P.S. someone, archive this page, please. Renata 20:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Renata, that it's pretty clear that the consensus about "what to do" at this point, is to leave the page where it is and take a break, for at least a month. In the meantime, I think our time is probably best spent discussing what name we should next propose as a move, which will have the highest likelihood of succeeding against "Jogaila." I think it's been made extremely clear that there is no way in hell that a consensus can be obtained for the diacritic version of "Wladyslaw II Jagiello". It might, however, be possible, to garner enough support for the non-diacritic version, or "Jagiello", or "Ladislaus II Jagiello", or maybe some other compromise version such as "Jogaila (Wladyslaw II Jagiello)" or "Wladyslaw II Jagiello (Jogaila)". It's my hope that instead of people staking a position in the ground and saying, "My name or no name," that we can discuss things in good faith, listen really hard to the people that have different opinions (even if there's a perception that they're "wrong," it's still worth listening to try and make a good faith attempt at understanding where they're coming from), and make our best effort at coming up with a solution that is acceptable to as many people as possible. For example, perhaps we could get people to bring up the one name that they most don't want to see this article under, and see if that helps us find some points of agreement somewhere? --Elonka 22:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that poll could be close now – count the votes and end. It is clear that majority of editors want break from these votes and new names thinking. Lets have a break for moth or few from these polls and new name suggestions, because the story is repeating again - country X better when country XXX, we will start counting castles again and so on. Break! And lets make our effort on producing better article of this ruler. M.K. 08:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The "Jogaila (Wladyslaw II Jagiello)" version looks very politically correct to me. `'mikka (t) 23:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you find any other examples on Wikipedia where such an awkward form is used in the title of an article about a monarch or even a person? To me it sounds ridiculous. And if the original name trumps everything, why don't we use also Karol Wojtyla (John Paul II), or Anakin Skywalker (Darth Vader)? The title of any article about a person should surely be a viable name in itself, unless we have ambiguity. Jogaila (Wladyslaw II Jagiello) would of course suggest that there is another Jogaila somewhere in Wikipedia, and this would be obviously false. Balcer 00:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

(1) There are interesting notions called "to set a precedent", "exceptions to rules", "to look outside the frame" (or how it is said in English?). (2) Try "Jogaila / Wladyslaw II Jagiello". (3) To me the whole fuss around article names "sounds ridiculous" (e.g, I long time ago abandoned all discussions about transliterations of Belarusian names), but since there quite a few passionate afficionados and no cast in stone 100% fit policy, we might as well be creative. (4) We have no problemo with Karol Wojtyla. `'mikka (t) 00:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe you meant "thinking outside the box" ;) SWojczyszyn 09:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can only say that it would be a bad precedent to set. There are plenty of rulers in history who ruled over more than one realm. Should all those realms/names be reflected in article titles? I don't think so. Balcer 00:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I always admired WP as a place where such compromises (which might look strange at first sight) are worked out in democratic fashion (whatever that means). I think that Airplane / Aeroplane solution is a good indication of what should happen in the end with the title of this article. Perhaps the key is to make everyone equally unhappy. SWojczyszyn 09:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because, just because: John Paul II was not Pope and Archimndrit of orthodox, and Jogaila was a Grand prince of Lithuania and on the same time (just later) King of Poland. It has happened. Now the solution for naming of this first time this happened, and sadly WP:NAMING cannot ofer an easy solution. You see, Jogaila is first one of Grand Princes of Lithuania and (sometimes few years) later Kings of Poland:)--Lokyz 00:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

James I of England (ruled England 1603-1625) was also James IV king of Scotland for more than twice as long (1567-1625), yet Wikipedia has his article under James I. So, it is not the length of rule that is the deciding factor.

As for Jogaila, was not Vytautas the Great the real ruler of Lithuania in 1401-1430? At least that is what the Wikipedia article about him says. Could someone explain this? Balcer 00:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

He was. Who did rule Grand Duchy of Lithuania from 1386 untill 1401?--Lokyz 00:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

So, for how many years exactly did Jogaila rule Lithuania? Can you do the math? We know he ruled Poland for 49 years. Balcer 00:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Math isn't the decisive factor: or we shold begin count how many years Gucevičius lived in Lithunaia or Pilsudsky in Samogitia? The main argument is - Jogaila got second crown, and he didn't succed in keeping his first. Altough it were two cousins who won in Grunwald: so everyone should be happy -Jogaila died as a King, Vtautas as an uncrowned King (he got all the papers, just some szlachta...). Very impressive achievement of Polish Royal Family, ascending FULLY from Gediminids:) --Lokyz 01:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Just answer the question: for how many years did Jogaila rule Lithuania? Please. Pretty please. I honestly do not know the answer. Balcer 01:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

All the Wikipedia with all or references is at our hand, I'm not "call me for an answer" serwice.--Lokyz 01:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I simply asked because you probably know much more about Lithuanian history than I, so you might better qualifed to provide an answer to this question. As this whole discussion shows, Wikipedia is not always a reliable source, and it should not be used as a reference for itself. The fact that you find answering this question embarassing is also thought provoking.

So, let me do this, and you can correct me if I am wrong. According to my calculations and Wikipedia info, Jogaila ruled Lithuania (or held real power there at any rate) from 1377 to 1401, which makes 24 years. He was a king of Poland for 49 years, exactly twice as long. Poland was clearly a more powerful and important kingdom (see discussion in section devoted to this), and Wladyslaw ruled there for twice as long as in Lithuania. Hence, we should use his name as the King of Poland. To me this settles the issue.Balcer 01:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

At one point you might be right. But as I've told you before - simple math does not count. There is a fact that, Jogaila simply let Vytautas (who didn' have no son) to rule Lithuania. As one of my friends from studies says(he has a scientific degree), they both played unbelievable interesting check-mat party. And Jogaila and Vytautas have lost (almost) of all theyr brothers by exchanging them for power. You might look to what's left of Algirdas and Kestusi sons. It's reaaly amazing, that Vytautas went to Grunwald, after what they have done to each other. And no - at the time there were no Poles or Lithunians, who did mater - there were two Great Lithuanian born man who did play teyr game. not necessary check. And they both have won. They're cosidered as a two different nations heros. Altough I'm beggining to belive that whithout one there would not be another. So my a bit OR suggestion - if you wold accept Vytautas as a King, you'd have Wladyslaw II Jagiello. Just kidding of course, with a tongue in the cheek:) --Lokyz 01:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Poland was clearly a more powerful and important kingdom, Balcer, please stop. Where does crap like that statement even come from. 1385 was not 1939. Usually you are less foolish. Dr. Dan 02:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Dan, Poland WAS more powerful kingdom in 1380s. Before Vytautas Lithuania was huge in the terms of terrain, but decentralised, sparsely populated state. Clearly contemporary Poles did not seen Lithuania as more powerful - In few days I will bring you some quotations from Dlugosz, in which he shows his Polish chauvinism. Szopen 07:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

As Halibutt said, it was Calgacus that started this line of argument, and somehow you did not protest then. Anyway, questions about the relative power of two states are entirely legitimate ones for historical inquiry. I don't understand where your outrage over this comes from. Balcer 11:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Calgacus: If so, then please be so kind as to tell me how should I call it? If forgery or rigging are wrong, then what words would not hurt those who want this page to stay here, even with violation of all possible rules.

Balcer: You forgot that for some 2 years our dear Jagiello's been in his uncle's captivity. Not to mention that since 1385 he spent his time in Kraków (for which he was criticised), and it was Skirgaila to rule Lithuania. First (until 1392) as a Grand Duke, and then as a regent, followed by Vytautas' come-back. So, in other words, it was rather 1377 to 1385 (8 years), minus one or two years in captivity. Compare that to 49 years in - unquestioned - power in Poland.

Lokyz: Sure, both were great men, but that's not what we're discussing here

Dan: It was not Balcer to bring that argument and it was just fine when it was used to proove some rations of the other side, right? //Halibutt 07:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional info, Halibutt. As I said, I am not an expert on the history of the period. Still, I can do math. Let's me go over the argument again then, using Halibutt's numbers, which so far no one disputes. Jogaila ruled in Lithuania for 8 years. Wladyslaw ruled Poland for 49 years. It should be noted here that Wladyslaw thus became the longest reigning Polish king, ever. So, again, how could a rule of 8 years in one realm be more important in determining the ruler's name than his rule in another realm for 49? That could only happen if one realm (Lithuania in this case) was vastly more powerful and significant than the other, or if the title in on was higher than in the other. Neither applies in this case (since we have the mathematical relation: King > Grand Duke). Let me state is again, in one clear sentence.

Given that Jogaila ruled Lithuania for only 8 years as Grand Duke and he ruled Poland under the name Wladyslaw II for 49 years as King (thus making him the longest reigning ruler of Poland in history) we must include the name Wladyslaw II (or some variation of it) in the article title.

I used the box since this discussion is becoming cluttered and hard to follow. Please do not remove it, and feel free to add your own. Balcer 11:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

What We Can Do

First we can stop putting inflammatory, unnecessary, "opinions" that cannot be verified and make no difference to the specific argument. Balcer, I did not protest the original insertion of the above remark of yours, because it was sufficiently negated by others (specifically Piotrus), and I do not feel that everyone has to comment on everybody else's comments, over and over. You know like the the brilliant comment, "ditto" that's quite popular. Please be assured that I was by know means outraged by your statement, Surprised, amused, and now bored maybe. Surprised because you typically are not known for such "gems". My problem with the remark is one can not judge the importance or power of these states by 21st century standards, and serves no purpose other than being inflammatory. It's like if I said Jogaila, the Polish ruler of Lithuanian ancestry, who formed the greatest dynasty in Poland's medieval and pre-Renaissance history, put their house in order. And when this Lithuanian established order ended, typical chaos returned. Or better still, Pilsudki, the Polish leader of Lithuanian ancestry, created modern Poland, and when he died the usually bałagan returned. Even if absurd remarks like those were completely true (because some parts are), I would oppose them as infammatory. Oh, and regarding Halibutt's remark that he ruled Poland unopposed, the article ambiguouly states that he ruled by default. That hardly seems true, and creates the perception that his rule was tolerated, but grudgingly so. Dr. Dan 13:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

As for your lack of protest, I was referring to the original point made by Calgacus, in whose opinion Lithuania was twice as powerful as Poland, which elicited no reaction from you (I guess such comparisons are OK if they favor one's "own" side and anathema otherwise). No one proposed to judge anything by 21st century standards. The discussion above actually attempted to judge the relative strength of Poland and Lithuania by the standards of the time. Anyway, just like you I don't like to get into discussions about the relative power of states, as this leads to all sorts of acrimony, except in this particular case it is unavoidable. If we have a ruler who rules in two realms under two different names or titles, which one should take precedence? In this one case the relative power of the two realms becomes a valid part of the determination which title is more important (see the case of James I of England and England vs. Scotland). Furthermore, believe me, I feel no insecurity or a sense of inferiority over the fact that Jagiello, one of the greatest monarchs of Medieval Europe and the longest reigning king of Poland, was a Lithuanian, or that Pilsudski called himself a Lithuanian. So your attempts to inflame this discussion (I don't buy your disclaimers "it's like if I said...") completely miss their mark. Balcer 14:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I know quite well which point you were referring too, and I said it was addressed by Piotrus sufficiently to my satifaction. Obviously the fact that I did not "protest" as well, or chime in, at that time, did not satisfy you. In spite of it ending as it should have, since IMO it's irrelevant, you chose to bring it up again. No favoritism for ones "own" side, no "anathemas", "otherwise", from me. Regarding the Polish leaders of Lithuanian heritage, too bad you think my disclaimer is not sincere from attempting to inflame this discussion, instead of it being a ridiculous example, on the level of your own interjection of a moot point, that I consider inflammatory. BTW, I'm truly glad on the international level, that relations between the two former partners of the PLC are good, and their leaders probably don't read these talk pages. Dr. Dan 01:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I take back my accusation that you attempted to inflame the discussion and offer you my apology. Now that I am reading what I wrote, it comes across as much harsher than what I intended to say. Sorry, I got carried away. May I only suggest that in the future we all avoid statements of the type: "it's like if I said <enter inflammatory statement here>." Just a suggestion. Balcer 01:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem, Balcer. I respect you as an intelligent, and fair contributor to the Wikipedia project. We all have our bad moments, I am as guilty as anyone else. Cheers. Dr. Dan 02:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for clarification by comparison with BM

By no means am I an expert in the field (which btw makes me probably more statistical readed of this article than most of people taking part in this discussion), but I thought it could be useful to consider some analogies. Could someone who has adequate knowledge draw a comparison between Jagiello (however you wish to spell and/or pronounce his name), Poland, Lithuania and the Union on one hand and say Elizabeth II, England, Scotland, UK, Canada and Commonwealt on Nations on the other hand? Perhaps such comparison could lead to some more reasonable discussion, or at least let silly little people like myself understand the subject better. SWojczyszyn 14:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, to me at least it is obvious that it should not be the job of Wikipedians to determine what the correct names of medieval rulers should be, and which of multiple names should take precedence. That would amount to original research, which Wikipedia forbids. Instead, one should consult the major references and select the name that they use, end of story. And in this case major encyclopedic references do not use Jogaila (see above). However, it appears that a significant number of the people involved in this discussion and supporting the name Jogaila are not willing to accept what Encyclopedia Britannica and other major references has to say on the subject. To convince these people, a rather general discussion of what should be the proper name has been going on here for a while. In my opinion that discussion is inappropriate, but it is also appears to be unavoidable.

Anyway, since you ask for analogies, the perfect one for me is the case of James I of England, whose article is not under James VI of Scotland, even though he came from Scotland to England and ruled Scotland twice as long as England. In that case, the fact that England was a larger and more significant kingdom takes precedence. Balcer 14:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Second analogy: William III of England, king of England 1689-1702, de facto ruler (as Stadtholder) of the Netherlands in 1672-1702 under the name William III of Orange. The Wikipedia article is under William III of England (again England as the more significant of the realms he ruled takes precendence in setting his name). Balcer 14:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, can I please ask you to tone down your rhetoric a bit? We're trying to find a good compromise, which means that all editors' opinions should be regarded with good faith. For you to use language such as, "It's settled," "end of story," "they're not willing to accept", etc., is not helping, because it implies an attitude of "I'm right, and they're wrong." I would prefer if we could all try to listen to each other with a sense of, "Everyone is right."

My own understanding is this: Yes, Wladyslaw II Jagiello was one of the most important rulers in Polish history, ever. And yes, as Jogaila, he was a hugely important ruler in Lithuanian history, too. His first name was indeed Jogaila, and he started off as a powerful Lithuanian ruler. Then he married a Polish princess-queen (11-year-old Jadwiga), took a Christian name of Wladyslaw II Jagiello, merged the two countries, and founded a "Jagiellon Dynasty" which lasted for centuries, as he and his descendants ruled over a Polish-Lithuanian territory that is routinely referred to as "Polish" in many books. It's a confusing situation, and even outside of Wikipedia, there are legitimate verifiable reference works that show differences of opinion as to how this monarch should be named, so that makes it difficult for us to determine, here inside Wikipedia, which name to call him. As such, it is essential that we engage in a good faith discussion, where we try to assume good intentions on the part of other editors. No one's trying to "ruin" this article -- I firmly believe that everyone has the best intentions, and has a sincere desire to make Wikipedia a high-quality reference resource for the world. We're just disagreeing at the moment about the best way to provide the best quality title for this particular article.  :) --Elonka 16:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

a minor factual correction, he did not merge two countries, thats why Wladyslaw II Jagiello isn't suitable name --Lokyz 17:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

James I of England is not a good example, since the name James is used both in England and Scottland and it is already English. If we take a polonised name Jagiełło, such a name is not used in Lithuania, nor in Belarus, Ukraine, Russia, Latvia, Estonia, AFAIK. If used without Polish diacritics, Polish speaking editors and readers will be unhappy with a bad spelling of the name. If we want the article about him to be interesting, it should not reflect importance of his deeds to one country Poland only. Juraune 07:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, it's not used that way by Belarusians, Lithuanians or Ukrainians. However, apparently English authors do not have a problem with that and most of them use this or that version of his Polish rather than Lithuanian name. Full stop.

Elonka, a minor point to add: when urging Balcer in your comment above, shouldn't you assume his good faith as well? //Halibutt 09:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well Halibutt, you informed me recently that languages evolve, live with it or some such expression. This was when I told you, that most English authors use Cracow instead of Krakow.Obviously the Lithuanian authors couldn't add their two cents into the fray, while they were evolving from folklore, into a nation, and learning to read and write. So just like EA are being taught new names for Cracow, they are learning new names for Jagiello (or where the name Jagiello actually came from).

And a minor point regarding Elonka (one could only hope to be as truly objective as she is, in these matters). She made her comment (reading above, it seemed Balcer was in agreement with her remarks). Nice of you to involve yourself, to help. Dr. Dan 17:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right that English authors learn more on Jagiello and his biography. Yet most of them call him either by both names, using the Lithuanian for the brief period he was one of Lithuanian rulers and the Polish name he was in power in Poland, or simply use his Polish name for his entire life. Whether it's a result of someone informing them, their own studies or just ignorance on the matter is really irrelevant here, don't you think? //Halibutt 17:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, most serious contemporary English historians use and prefer the name Jogaila for either his Lithuanian period or his whole life; sometimes he is referred by his Polish regnal name later, but no serious English historian would call him by his Polish regnal name afterwards. BTW, Jogaila remained overlord of Lithuania after his acquisition of the Polish kingdom. I'm afraid you shouldn't rely on encyclopedias and pop websites to generalize about modern Anglophone historiography. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think information is very relevant (or informing people is), and when and if the Wikipedia Project is ever finished (quite doubtful IMO), it's ultimate purpose will be to inform more than anything else. So, informing people along the way is not a bad idea. Dr. Dan 18:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

)

Calgacus, perhaps you might want to take a look at the list above before you write such nonsense again. Or perhaps there is something I'm missing? Perhaps it's the criteria for being a serious historian you adopt... Besides, Jogaila remained and overlord of Lithuania, as well as Siewierz, Chernigov, Czerwień, and many more places. Yet, he was a king of only one state. Poland. //Halibutt 08:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I looked at the list you mostly compiled (what, you want me to match your obsession and waste my hours compiling a list>), and the only ones using the Polish forms are histories of Poland, trashy pophists and or other histories written by Poles. So, forgive me if I'm not very convinced. I'm glad you admit he was overlord of Lithuania too (including as it did much of wester Rus'ia), so perhaps you can stop prattling about one particular land, eh? Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 10:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Calgalucus, how old are you? "I am right, but i won't care about preparing any arguments" "you prepared arguments because you are obsessed" attitude is the behaviour I would expect from 16 y/0 teenager or some kind of spoiled brat. Not to mention the list was IIRC prepared by Elonka (I will check the history, but I am pretty sure I am right). Why you are so obsessed with trying to prove that we are some kind of freaks? Szopen 14:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Halibutt and Szopen, stop this number game with somebody, who talks sense about history. Number of list items on your list and the age info of an editor with a different point of view is irrelevant when discussing biographical article. Changing your weapons in every step of your virtual games here in Wikipedia is not what is considered a normal discussion in a civilised world. Halibutt, there is not only East direction on my map of Poland-Lithuania, there is South, North and West. There are German TO sources and Roman Emperor letters and correspondence, and much more. Wish there was a prize in Wikipedia for a greatest and most prolific champion of nonsense edits, maybe then we could compile a list of the most promissing candidates and then compare our places in it. ;) Juraune 15:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, but there is! A list at least. A lot of stuff is here and if you're really putting all your heart and soul into it, you might get here. On a more serious note: I think some people around here are treating their hobby (because one can hadly call WP a job, can one?) waaay to seriously. I kind of regret even trying to ask a question. SWojczyszyn 22:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Then should I put the name of the article Ethnic composition of Central Lithuania to that funny place? Central Lithuania is around Kaunas, or has it shifted to the eastern border with Belarus on a whim by Halibutt? And seriously, I think Wikipedia editors are people who donate their free time to edit and fill in correct information, so that other people could use it for free. Juraune 06:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Juraune, I think that the mentioned article has its name because the short-lived temporary republic was called "Litwa środkowa". That's all Szopen 10:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Juraune, just a friendly advice: if you have a problem with the name of the article on Ethnic composition of Central Lithuania, then the good places to go are WP:RM and Talk:Ethnic composition of Central Lithuania. Talk:Władysław II of Poland is a wrong place.

Calgacus, so the books you added to the list are ok, while the books added by yours truly are not? And what about books added by Elonka, 'cause what I get from your comment is that it's more important who added this or that source to the list than what it actually contains? Childish, if you asked me, but fortunately the list is there for all to see. //Halibutt 07:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Jogaila? What the heck?

I do not want to hurt anyone's feeling but the new name is rediculous. To the world this fellow is best known as Wladislaw or Ladislaus Jagiello not Jogaila. Ok, I know that his birthname was Jogaila but that's not the case. Wikipedia articles should be named the same way as the specific person is best known or the world. And any nationalist mumbo-jumbo can not change that.

For example. The article about Marie Curie is entitled Marie Curie, not Maria Sklodowska. Maria Sklodowska was that lady's birthname but to the world she is best known as Marie Curie.

Also article about boxer Muhammad Ali is entitled Muhammad Ali though that guy's borthname was Cassius Clay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.40.169.244 (talk • contribs)

Yeah, What the Heck?

Don't want to hurt your feelings anonymous editor, but rediculous is ridiculous in English. Furthermore, down the block from me here in Chicago, is a great High School, and it's name is Marie Sklodowska Curie, in Big Letters. Why don't you spend a little time at the Ołtarz Wita Stwosza, and change it to the Altar of Veit Stoss? Or might it hurt somebody's feelings? I'm sure you wouldn't want to do that, right? Dr. Dan 03:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that Google resolves such discussions. Try Jogaila - how many English language entries (outside .lt) will you get? Altar of Veit Stoss exists. Xx236 08:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Read discussion above and you'll be surprised how much English academical research uses Jogaila.--Lokyz 12:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. A small minority...your point being?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

My point is - it is becoming majority in modern research, when Polish POV ceased to dominate in historiography.--Lokyz 17:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Polish POV domination in <Anglophonic> historiography... interesting theory... but isn't it OR? Radomil talk 19:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Lokyz, please cite a reference for de-polonization of anglophonic historiography, it's a fascinating subject I would like to read more about, and that perhaps even should be mentioned in the polonization article (I never thought this phenomena reached so far...).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not have an intention to play according your rules. Let's play the game backwards - if you're so good in historiografy please provide at least 5 anglophonic researchears, that do not cite at least 5 Polish researchears and do cite at least any five of Lithuanian, Ukrain, and Belarus researchers AT LEAST in pre-Commonwealth matters:)--Lokyz 23:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a fact not theory - I sincerely doubt, that many of English researchers have been working with original documents on GDl, Crown or Commonwealth history, rather than reciting Polish works. Now, as Iron Curtain does not exist any more, they do have a broader access to Lithuanian, Belarusian and Ukrainian research, and have possibility evaluate different POV's based on research and evaluate theyr arguments. It seems that this argumentation is reasonable, as modern English historians seem to accept it.--Lokyz 20:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There's logical mistake in this thinking... You forgot that Poland and Soviet Union (with all of those modern states) was on this same side of Iron Curtain... You didn't cite any sources... so my question is still actual. Radomil talk 20:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "modern states"?

You'd have to have been living in USSR to understand the difference between semi independent state and KGB and Communist party fully controlled imperial province.

What was your question again? If it was question, not some insinuation? Let me remind you, i do not do any research here or building conspiracy theory, just stating my opinion, based on my studies.--Lokyz 20:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

to make this arising time waste discusion shorter - if you're lazy to reread archives -let me cite already few times cited statement. Here you go: "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)" recited by--Lokyz 20:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

"modern states" -> Republic of Lithuania, Rep. of Belarus and Ukraine. As for represivity of CCCR and satelite states - I'm not talking about whole system but barriers in communication between historians of all "peace loving states" and rest of Western World.

:) I'd add modern Republic of Poland, or you'd argue that "third republic" has much in common with lets say second republic? Yeah, yeah I know Poland is always the same even with Danzig and without Lviv.--Lokyz 21:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You gave soucers that use "Jogaila" (soucers with "Jogaila", "Jagiełło" and other versions, as You said, were above), but I wasn't questioning about that. I'm asking on whose works You are claiming that rest of authors were under influence of "Polish POV domination in <Anglophonic> historiography". Radomil talk 21:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah this was your question - read please reference list carefully in any book regarding Polish history, and you'll understand what I'm saying. Yup, most of them are from late 19th-early 20th century (iron curtain anyone?). Ah another one thing - Polsh influence on research of GDL is quite small - only University o Stefan Batory established school had made some impact. But we both know, thet they were calling themselves Litwins rather than Poles.--Lokyz 21:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you please name the historians or their works? 'much English' isn't precise. Is there any example that Wikipedia prefers academical rather than common opinion? I don't know - I'm asking.

Britannica

If the agenda is to be politically correct - Jogaila ruled mostly Ruthenians, so rather Ruthenian than his court's opinion is valid. Xx236 13:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

See archives for more info, cuz you starting everything from the beginning again. M.K. 14:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I do look and I find a survey against Jogaila. So you can do everything, because you want to. Xx236 14:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

? M.K. 15:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Guys, you're not going to convince each other this way. We need either more third party opinions or a properly organised survey/voting. --Lysy^talk 21:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

And now for something totally different

Something which is not directly related to Jogaila... but which is related to our discussion with other wikipedians, including the almost nuclear war above. Hm.. Halibutt, Piotrus, Molobo etc.. look at this:

"The teaching of functions in English also presents the teacher of Polish or Japanese students with certain problems. Polish people tend to be quite blunt and like to get straight to the point. Opinions are stated more forcibly than in English and the Poles do not make as much use of expressions such as 'I feel' or 'I think' as we do. Whereas English favours the use of understatement e.g. 'It wasn't your best exam this year' a Pole would probably say 'You've failed'. This directness often leaves a native speaker of English feeling offended although this clearly has not been the intention of the Polish person."

"When requesting, Polish people generally use imperatives rather than indirect questions and therefore come across as sounding rather aggressive. Students here find our varying degrees of politeness when apologising, complaining etc. rather amusing as they do not see the need for so much padding. This is not to say that Polish has no polite forms because it does but not quite the range that English has. The Japanese, on the other hand, are the opposite feeling the need to apologise over and over again or to precede requests with expressions such as 'I'm really sorry to have to ask you this but...'. It is vital for us as teachers to be aware of these social norms and to decide how much attention we should give to ' the English way of doing things'."

Are we really sound impolite and offending to our ENglish friends?! Szopen 15:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No need such spam! M.K. 15:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

MK, Ok, maybe I hsould move it somewhere else - bt the fact remains that I was frequently labelled as "arrogant" by different English speakers, in situations when I tried to be polite - So now I wonder maybe it's just fault of culture differences? And I insert it here because of our freinds, like Calgalucus and Dr.Dan, maybe are considering us as arrogant, when in reality this maybe be only due to cultural differences?

AAww anyway, tonight is the first time i will get some serious sleep during last few weeks, so it's possible that I act and speak.. weird and incoherent. Szopen 15:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

so in this case, have a good upcoming sleep! Tomorrow will be new day :) M.K. 16:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Szopen, please don't drag me into every confrontational discussion you have with others, because I don't want you or I to be threatened, by certain editors or administrators, with a proceeding when they get their butts kicked in debate. I don't consider you arrogant, but a good contributor to the project. Hey, I like Chopin (and I play his F# Polonaise perfectly), rather than Szopen. I like Jogaila rather than Jagiello. And eventually we will come to some respectful agreement that will let the stupid and negative past, be just that. Let's face it, there are certain individuals that divulge their agenda to stir up and divide people of good will at every twist and turn that they can. And no matter how many nice pictures and other diversions they can post at their talk pages, they will not succeed in doing so. I hope you can look deeeper into the matter and find some common ground to work with in my appeal to you. Dr. Dan 03:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I did not post any nice pictures in my talk. --Lysy^talk 05:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't thinking of you Lysy, and you are always welcome to stick your nose into my discussion with others. And I'm being irreverant, but respectfully serious using the blunt language. As P.P. has often said its just my style. Dr. Dan 03:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

A month has passed

All right ladies and gentlemen, a month has passed since someone moved this article against consensus to the place it is now. I see two options now:

1. Move the article back and start a proper WP:RM vote on the move to Jogaila
2. Leave the article where it is and start a proper WP:RM vote on move from the proper title to Jogaila.

I would strongly encourage everyone to support the first option, as it seems the most sensible, at least to me. Also, some of the supporters of the current name claim that it reflects consensus, despite the fact that they form but a minority of those who voted. But what the heck, if they claim that the current name is ok, then why not put it up for voting to check whether it indeed was ok to forge a voting and move the article from its original title? //Halibutt 08:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Just read what you wrote above in the 2nd option: the proper title is Władysław II Jagiełło. Renata 11:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice try, Halibutt. The article can't go "to Jogaila" because it is already at Jogaila. The article stays where it is unless it is moved by WP:RM, per the result of the last vote. If you wish it to have a new name, put up a WP:RM for that new name. But maybe before raising this all up again, you might like to think about coming up with a name which will bring more consensus. This if I remember correctly was what Elonka suggested a while ago, and I agree that it should certainly be tried first. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 09:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice try, Calgacus, but there was no last vote. It was but a poll, not a WP:RM. From the comments of a large number of people above and in the archives, it seems that it was obvious to most of the people to take part in the poll, including those who supported the move. The article was moved in violation of the rules of Wikipedia in the first place, so the first logical step would be to undo that. Then we could start a vote on the controversial name the article was moved to. Of course, we could set a dangerous precedent which would allow anyone to move any article anywhere, and then require those who oppose the unilateral move to start proper WP:RM, but that's not what WP:CONSENSUS is about. //Halibutt 09:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

There's been a vote and the article has been moved, and it is at a more popular name. Live with it. All you're after is a supermajority, as you hope that will be enough to keep it away from Jogaila. This is bad faith, and not a good way to re-open this discussion. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 10:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid we will have to vote on those two propositions first. Yes, the vote was not a proper RM, but I am afraid proposition 1 will not receive consensus - as those few who supported Jogaila and managed to pull of the minority move will now continie to do everything possible to avoid a clear RM which would easily prove Jogaila has no majority support. On the other hand, perhaps a simple RM to Władysław II Jagiello (which I think is the best name) would solve the problem?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Surely it would be either Wladyslaw II Jagiello or Władysław II Jagiełło, but not Władysław II Jagiello, no? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, Jagiello is more popular in English then Jagiełło, so I'd suggest not using diacrics (just as we talk about Vasa, not Waza), but Władysław is his proper name. Although I could go with Wladyslaw if somebody thinks it's a crucial difference, I am inceeasingly beyond caring - as long as it actually resembles something used by majority of academic sources (which criteria Jogaila fails).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Pool on what kind of pool to have, again?! Renata 11:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently :( -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

What I suggest is stop waisting time and energy on un-doing and then re-doing and then lawering around and writing 300kb talk pages in the process. Take a clean start, wipe off whatever happened. If Jogaila is really controversial, not popular, not proper, supported only by a small minority (who miracously pulled of the move) name, then I don't see why you labor that much and don't simply held a proper RM from right where it is right now. Renata 11:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Setting besides how last vote was abused, I do agree that we should try a RM for Wladyslaw II Jagiello (unless sb has a better idea?).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

There are a couple of better ideas in archives of discussions. Polish King Name II Polonised Name is not a balanced name for Jogaila of Lithuania originally. And talking about how last vote was abused, dear Piotrus, there are archives with sockpuppet Appleseed votes and Molobo is a major figure in those votes too. Talk about abuse... Juraune 09:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If you have a problem with me, then talk to me instead of recycling those same old infantile accusations against Piotrus. Appleseed (Talk) 19:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't have problems with you now, unless you multiply into many appletrees and each apple tree will vote :), I do not accuse Piotrus, why do you think, I accuse him? And I had enough of compliments from Polish editors of being childish or infantile, thank you very much :D Juraune 20:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Then don't accuse me of being a sockpuppet (of Piotrus, I assume?). It's probably too much to ask for an apology. Appleseed (Talk) 21:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I appologise. Juraune 07:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

She's probably confusing you with some other Polish sockpuppet that voted several times in these polls. It's probably a mistake on her part. Maybe she meant user: KonradWallenrod (what an extra disgusting user name for a sock puppet, in that it demeans Polish-Lithuanian relations, and Mickiewicz, to boot). Dr. Dan 01:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

She also forgot to mention that neither Anatopism nor any other of Logologist's sock-puppets took part in the voting at all. //Halibutt 07:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

They took parts in previous votings that I remember very clearly, and sockpuppet votes brougth majority for Piotrus wish to have fully polonised name for Jogaila. When so many Polish sockpupets are voting, it is easy to confuse who is who. And you forget to mention, that there was a majority vote to keep this article named Jogaila for 6 months, also there was a majority for keeping this article at Jogaila name for ever. These votes are in most resent archives. Please do not stage theather perfomances with each new fresh talk page. Juraune 07:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's always good to accuse your opponent of sockpuppetry, no matter whether the accusation is right or wrong, some of that filth will stick... As to other issues, 18 for moving back or waiting a month (not six) hardly beats 16 for legalizing the forgery.. Please do not stage theatre performance with each new fresh talk page. //Halibutt 08:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, for example, I have voted for waiting a month, not for moving back! My intentions were to find a compromise for a stable article name, acceptable for both sides. Orionus 12:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's always good to accuse your opponent of sockpuppetry...ha, as if that remark negates the filth that happened and did stick. Nor has there been an apology from your hero. In fact there was an accusation of sockpuppetry against Calgacus and myself from him recently. So maybe you're right afterall, but I don't remember you trying to make any witty or pithy remarks then. You must have missed them. Dr. Dan 12:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)