Talk:Mieszko II Lambert

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

What does this mean: 'the uprising was caused by the aristocracy because of the expulsion' or 'the uprising was caused because of the explusion by the aristocracy'?

The last paragraph would be better off in Casimir I of Poland

1 Why has Vazul been redirected to Mieszko of Hungary?
2 Move request
- 2.1 Poll
- 2.2 Discussion
3 Sockpuppetry

[edit] Why has Vazul been redirected to Mieszko of Hungary?

Michael/Mieszko of Hungary and his brother, Geza, were sons of Taksony of Hungary. Michael of Hungary was sometime Regent of Poland by way of his wife, Adelaide "the White" of Poland, who was the sister of Michael/Mieszko I of Poland.

Their son was Vazul, Prince of Hungary.

Michael II of Poland was son of Bolezlav I "The Brave", who was the son of Michael/Mieszko I.

The redirection seems improper. The origin of Vasul is in doubt, but his Hungarian name Vászoly seems derived from the Byzantine Greek Βαςιληος (King/Emperor), then pronounced something like "Vasilius" as represented in Russian Vasily. The only other possible derivation that I can imagine is some cognate of the Czech Václav (Wenceslas), which is even more of a stretch. It is also possible that the king attempted to adopt the Greek-like Vászoly as a title as a distinction from a mere 'king' (Hungarian király).

Most peerage sites suggest, of course, that Vászoly is the son of a Taksony, who is definitely not Polish. He is definitely part of the Árpád dynasty -- not the Polish Piast dynasty. The name Mieszko is easily rendered in Hungarian as Miesko (Hungarian s and sz are equivalents of Polish sz and s, respectively), and even if Mieszko is in fact a diminuitive of "Michael", it would more easily be treated as the Hungarian Mihály.

Any attempt to state that a historical figure had two different identities requires strong and positive evidence (as in public records), and not so flimsy connection as the appearance of someone at roughly the same age in a second place after another has disappeared from another. One would have to establish, at the least, that a Polish prince who became King of Hungary would speak funny or bring foreign ways. It is safe to assume that Poland and Hungary were at least as culturally and linguistically different then as they are now. The absence of contradictory evidence is not proof even in the scarcity of confirming evidence of a more reasonable position: that Vászoly/Vasul and Mieszko are two different persons. --66.231.41.57 21:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Haukur 21:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move request

Mieszko II Lambert to Mieszko II of Poland. We do not use nicknames without extraordinary reasons. I propose the systematic name for this king. (He was one of the rarer monarchs of early period who was a recognized King). Marrtel 18:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poll

Write Support or Oppose and an optional one-sentence reason. Longer parts of opinions then below at discussion.

Support. As nominator. Marrtel 18:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose so far I have seen the user opposes names based on opinion that they were made by "Polish nationalist minority"[1]. Such rude comments should be outside of wiki and certainly not a basis for changes.--Molobo 19:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Support. john k 20:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Mieszko II would be more than adequately disambiguating, and shorter. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Suppose. Logical and accurate. Explains who and where, the two key questions. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Erm, was that "support" or "oppose"? :) --Elonka 18:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Mieszko II to parallel Mieszko I would be better. Dpv 20:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. First of all the name would be dead wrong as the nominator apparently forgot about the real Mieszko I. Second, the current name is more informative and inline with all of the other Polish monarchs which don't use the 'of Poland' part but use nicknames/surnames instead, which is more popular in English literature then the 'of country' adopted on Wiki only for cases where disambigs where needed As there are no other Mieszko's to confuse people we don't need the 'of country' here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Support Charles 21:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Support, though I'd prefer to fix the matter totally, and not by such case by case polls. //Halibu tt 22:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. KonradWallenrod 07:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Agree with Piotrus here. Orionus 13:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Support Use English, and state where he ruled. --Matthead 21:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Support, per other comments. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Anatopism 02:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. — logologist|Talk 03:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. What's so hard about "Lambert"? - Mattergy 07:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Radomil talk 15:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. The current name is acceptable to me because it is reflective of usage in major English-language reference works. 1979 Encyclopedia Britannica, in the "Mieszko" article, refers to him as Mieszko II Lambert, and he is also Mieszko II Lambert in the online version [2] (which is notable because the two versions don't always agree). Most other places I checked either didn't mention him at all or had him simply as Mieszko or Mieszko II, but I don't see that as sufficient reason to change the current name. --Elonka 18:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Support--Aldux 20:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

The format "Name Ordinal of Country" is not only for cases where there is ambiguity. It is applied to others as well for consistency. There is no other Sancho VII than Sancho VII of Navarre, so why the "of Navarre"? Because then all the Navarrese monarchs would be titled inconsistencly with Sancho IV of Navarre distinguished from Sancho IV of Castile, but Sancho VII with no apparent connection to his predecessor Sancho IV. To newcomers to the topic, it could be very confusing. The "of Country" part is informative. Srnec 01:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.