Talk:Boleslav I of Poland/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This polish king is commonly named in english historical literature as Boleslas the Valiant (it is the better transaltion of polish "Chrobry" than the Brave).

Récupérée de « http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discuter:Boleslas_Ier_de_Pologne »

Contents

Older talk moved from Talk:Boleslaw I Chrobry

Should we remove the wives of Mieszko from this article to his article? I don't think they make much sense here, since we aren't naming any one of them as Boleslaw's mother. They do belong on Mieszko entry, though. I removed the 'true brotherly' whatever from the frater et cooperator title. Otto didn't live long enough for us to be sure WHAT he meant by it, but he certainly meant it to his advantage, not as a sign of how fond he was of Boleslaw.

Since this entry contains facts which are in contradiction in everything that i rad so far about Boleslav I Chrobry, i will change it in few next week. Just a warning for everybody interested in discussions. I am going to: elaborate more on relationships with Empire. Delete "he try to conquere Danzig, Cracow" and "Conquered Silesia" since all this places where conquered earlier, most of them by Mieszko I. I will add info about his daughter, Swiatosl/awa/sygryda (mother of Knaut the Great), and sons. szopen

HJ, you may not know Latin, but you do know genealogy and German. Please spell out your 'von' or change it to English 'of'.

MT whenever I write von , which is a part of the name, someone goes and changes it to of. This is incoorect,but some people insist on translating it to of. The Boleslav entry had von an v . I made it uniform v., because I noticed, that whereever it sais v. people don't know and leave it alone. With von Braun it remained as von, because someone had input him under Wernher Von Braun. So it is very confusing. HJ

I'm surprised you find this aspect of nomenclature confusing at all. Modern people use 'von' as though it doesn't mean anything. v. Polen means 'of Poland', because it's a noble title connected to a place. --MichaelTinkler

Which of the four wives was the mother of Mieszko II?

Is Wendland an actual name for a country or state? or was she a Wendish princess -- I've never heard of the former. Perhaps this should be changed to say X, a Wendish noblewoman, or X of the Wends. JHK

Wendland is in Northern Germany. I have seen entrances as ..of the Wends, but Mieszko I and Boleslaw I were margraves (pledge allegiance to emperors) and some genealogy references call Misezko I , aka Burislaf of Wendland .

I keep telling you about these genealogical references! They aren't generally done by decent historians -- usually people with no command of the original languages who think they know what they're reading. Could you maybe show us an example and the kind of source? If it is a source from the period in question and says Wendland in the original language, I'd love to see it. I've only seen references to "where the Wends live", etc. You may be entirely right, but to my ear it "klingt falsch"! Thanks in advance -- JHK

Old talk

How nice it would be if we only wikified important terms and actually checked to see what the names of existing articles were before wikifying anything. JHK

I disagree. The articles can be created later. Let's not get into a wikify/de-wikify fight. Why not leave them alone? If the articles are created later, we'll have to go back and re-update this article, but if they're already wikified, then when the articles ARE created, they will default be available already. -- Zoe
Sorry, Zoe, but you aren't up to speed on this particular problem. HJ creates lots of articles that are little more than genealogies. A HUGE number of the people who appear are people for whom there is little (often just the name) historical information. There is no reason to wikify names of, for example, third daughters of minor dukes whose sole reason for a mention is that they represented a tangible way of creating a political alliance and served as breeders.
Moreover, HJ tends to create new and interesting names (often based on those she finds in genealogical websites) for people who have more conventional names in English, and often for people who already have wiki articles under those appropriate names. What then happens is that HJ or some well-meaning person decides to write an article by clicking on the link -- thus creating an article that is badly named (so that someone like me has to move it) or is a duplicate (so that someone like me has to create a coherent article under one name and redirect the other).
In general, your idea is correct, but is totally impracticable when dealing with articles which are incorrectly wikified from the get-go. Also, you'll note that, in the suggested guidelines, there has been valid discussion about over-wikifying. JHK
Okay. So how do I know what over-wikificiation is? -- Zoe
With names, my way is to look at them and see if they are 1)correct nomenclature (single first names just are silly, except for people like Mohammed and Charlemagne), and; 2)if they look familiar and might already exist under a more appropriate title (Otto III, for example, has an article under Otto III, Holy Roman Emperor -- or something like that). I do the ones I'm sure of first, pipelining the links to the correct article, and then go through and do geographical and year links. Since I tend to work on things I know (except that I'll copyedit anything), I feel pretty comfortable, although I may underwikify. The cool thing about the new software, though, is that you can find links, and also just search for subjects and go through that way. I hope this helps -- I certainly didn't mean to criticize, but also have been around long enough to know who some of the truly trollike are ;-)JHK

In 984 Boleslaus married Rikdaga

He married a daughter of Rikdag (Ricdag, Riddag), the margrave of Meissen. Is the name Rikdaga known? I suspect this is a misreading. Andres

In medeival world, state once raised to the rank of kingdom continue to be kingdom. Boleslaw's son was immedietely crowned king, and neighbours recognised it.

Boleslaw couldn't conquer Silesia in 990, sicne he became ruler of Poland in 992. Earlier he probably was inwested (but only probably) with Cracow province.

Silesia was probably gained by Mieszko; why probably? Because the chronicles are only talking that Mieszko "gained kingdom lost by Bohemia" and this "kingdom" may be either Silesia or Cracow. Both of those provicnes appear already in Boleslaw hands in 1000 (why we know? Because we know what bishopries were created... he couldn't have bishops in wroclaw and Krakow if he didn't posses them, right?).

The date "999" came from Czech Kosmas chronicle, written decades later. Hence the confusion. Information about "lost kingdom" came from Thietmar, which lived in Boleslaw times. Szopen

I changed Henry the Quarrelsome to Henry the Wrangler - both Henry I and Henry II of Bavaria seem to be called The Quarrelsome, depending on where you look, whereas 'Wrangler' is unique to Henry II.


"Made Sviatopolk his vassal"

For almost a year, I've been looking for someone who would tone down the following slur: "he used the internal war of Vladimir the Great sons for throne and the weakness of Kyivan Rus to launch a plundering attack on Kyiv in 1018, annexing the Red Strongholds (Grody Czerwienskie) later called Red Ruthenia and making prince Sviatopolk his vassal there for short time." As there is noone concerned, I'll have to fix it myself. --Ghirlandajo 17:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Be bold. I know that the differences between view on Swietopelk-Boleslaw relations in Polish and Ukrainian historiography are staggering. Szopen 12:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Move

I'd like to move this page to Bolesław I the Brave. See my proposal at Talk:List_of_Polish_monarchs#Naming. Google test results of English language pages, including Wikipedia:


Note that the above results are not totaly exclusive (larger names contain some of the shorter) and that Boleslaw I/Boleslaus I may also refer to Boleslaus I of Bohemia (which is actualy at 'Boleslav', also known as Boleslav I of Bohemia, Boleslaus I the Cruel, Boleslav I. Ukrutný), and Boleslaw of Poland may refer to several Polish kings.

There are 2 possible choices for first name (I will skip the disambigs in the count):

  • Bolesław (combined with Boleslaw and Boleslav, as we already have a custom of using local name if very similar). This seems to be used around 3200 times
  • Boleslaus (latinized) - 5000 if counting Wiki and its mirrors, 2800 otherwise (although I admit I didn't discount Wiki in other searches, I am assuming that the wiki-bias is for current name Boleslaus).

Even in English usage, Boleslaw seems much more common then latinized Boleslaus. In our context there seem to be a parity with roughly 3000 hits for each variant. Even counting current Wiki-name bias, we get about 62,5% for Boleslaus - meaning that there is no single, clear, well-estabilished English usage, therefore I think that we should use Bolesław, which, being the Polish name, has the advantage of being consistent with all Polish sources.

There and 3 choices for the second name:

  • I vs. not using numeral - 4k for not using it, 2,5k using it without Wiki-bias, 5k using it with Wiki bias. Again, a rough parity.
  • Chrobry vs. the Brave - approx 1750 for Chrobry, 3500 for Brave - seems like the English translation of his nickname wins, which is actually a good idea (at least it means something for the overage user, other then Slavic blah blah)
  • Chrobry/the Brave vs. of Poland - close to 5k vs 1k not counting Wiki, 2,5k counting Wiki. Seems like 'of Poland' is rather unecessary.

All things considered, I think that Bolesław I the Brave is the best name, and everything else should be made into a redirect (or disambig in the few cases I listed above). What do you think?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Support! I think the only conceivable question is whether to keep the Roman numeral. I think we should, because at least it puts the various Bolesławs in order — a boon to the Polish-history-handicapped. logologist 07:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Support this and all other instances of Bolesław and most other Polish names. I have reservations only about about the given names Ladislaus (Władysław) and Stanislaus (Stanisław); the Latinizations seem more common in English, possibly because they were borne by saints whose cult is popular even outside Poland; I have no statistics to back this up, it's just an impression. The biggest issue for me is when the editors of an English-language text try to be "authentic" and use the native Polish orthography without diacrtics. If you don't have an "ł" available, Boleslaus is much better than Boleslaw which reads like "coleslaw" in English! Anyway, if we can support Polish orthography now, we should use it, except the cases mentioned above. --Jpbrenna 19:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Rikdaga&the number of daughters

Andres already remarked that the name Rikdaga could be wrong. I confirm this, the Polish Wiki "calls her: "córka Rygdaga", which means "the daughter of Rygdag".

In the Polish Wiki(at the bottom) is to be read that he had FOUR daughters, not one as in the English version. Of only 2 of them, the name is known: Matylda and Regelinda. Here you can also read out of which marriage comes each child.

Annaxation of Slovakia?

"In 999 Bolesław annexed present-day Moravia, and in 1000 or 1001, Slovakia."

This is a huge mistake. Bolesław annexed only a small part of today Northern Slovakia. see: http://www.mek.iif.hu/porta/szint/egyeb/terkep/magyar11/magyar11.jpg

Bye, Laszlo

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 16:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Move request

Bolesław I the Brave to Boleslaus I 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). First name should be written in English, not in Polish. This was a medieval monarch, no one cannot claim that Boleslaw is precisely his original name spelling, spelling was not so established at that time. Marrtel 18:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Poll

Write Support or Oppose and an optional one-sentence reason. Longer parts of opinions then below at discussion.
  • Support. As nominator. Marrtel 18:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, unfortunately. I want the page moved, but it should be to Boleslaw I of Poland, I think. I can't recall ever seeing the anglicization "Boleslaus". john k 20:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support move to the form <name><ordinal> of Poland. I don't know enough to know whether it should be Boleslaw or Boleslaus. I respect John's contributions so if he thinks it should be Boleslaw then that is worth listening to. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I would favour changing Bolesław to Boleslaw, but epithets are not "nicknames" and are used in many serious works in preference to ambiguous and uncertain regnal numbers; Boleslaw Chrobry for me. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There's no need to change, but the proposed destination is the least good of those mentioned here. Dpv 20:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I do support removal of the epithet for consistency's sake -- Frederick "The Great" is at Frederick II of Prussia; however, I'm not sure that the Latinate form is the commonest in English, and as I mentioned above, "Boleslaw" is worse because it makes one think coleslaw. I propose moving it to Bolesław I of Poland with notes on the orthography and the epithet in the introduction. --Jpbrenna 20:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. A tough one indeed. There is more than one "Boleslaus I" in history and there's no reason the Polish one reigns supreme. Therefore, a qualifier is needed on his name and ordinal. If a nickname, why not move Boleslaus I of Bohemia to Bolselaus I the Cruel? Or any other king to his nickname instead of "of Kingdom"? For consistency across Wikipedia, Boleslaus I of Poland is better than the current title and while there may be a better title than that, it has not really been propsed. Just because ordinals can be confusing does not mean we can always avoid them: see Guaimar III of Salerno and Guaimar IV of Salerno. Srnec 20:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support/Comment I haven't been heavily involved on the use of cognomens in Wikipedia, especially with Polish monarchs, but I've seem very few instances of early monarchs with first names in one language and cognomens in the other. I support a move to the appropriate anglicization of the first name, seemingly Boselaw I of Poland. Charles 21:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There was only one Bolesław I, but several Boleslaus I. As the name Bolesław IS used in English books I see no reason to go with more confusing latinization. Nickname is much more popular then 'of country' and helps people remember the king with something else then just a numeral. See also analysis above for some statistics.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Piotrus, I think your statement that there was only one "Bolesław I" is false. Firstly, was the name Bolesław actually written that way in his time? Secondly, was it not more commonly encountered in Latin as Boleslaus? Which is the same as his Bohemian neighbour's. Would our friend Bolesław recognise his name more in its Latin written form or its Polish? Finally, what is the difference between two names which are the same in Latin? Do John of England, John I of France, John III Sobieski, and John II of Aragon all have different names? Or do they have the same name rendered differently in different languages, but the same within a given language, ie the international language of their age: Latin? Srnec 01:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:Use English. AjaxSmack 03:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Polonising names in English Wikipedia without regard to the age is getting unhealthy. Then Lithuanian Jogaila gets the "most correct name" according to the Piotrus, Władysław II Jagiełło. Juraune 06:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. KonradWallenrod 07:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm afraid that Piotrus and Co will never understand that this is no Polish wiki. --Ghirla -трёп- 12:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Orionus 12:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support It does say "use English" in the guidelines after all... Gryffindor 15:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Appleseed (Talk) 15:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support; but Boleslav (which CMedH uses) would be better. Septentrionalis 16:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support WP:UE is especially important because some diacritics do not display properly on some browsers. This title is an example. Robert A.West (Talk) 19:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Robert, opposing diacritics on WP as a whole for technical reasons is a whole different can of worms. I believe there was voting a while back about this issue. If I remember correctly, it resulted in no concensus, which is why they are still used. If you intend to "vote away" diacritics on an article-by-article basis, then you've got a lot of work ahead of you. Appleseed (Talk) 03:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support As per nom and Robert A.West. --Matthead 22:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support; would rather wait to see what name the other Wladyslaws turn out as would myself prefer Wladyslaw or Ladislaus, but will support this in the mean time. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. logologist|Talk 01:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. -- Anatopism 06:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We don't need more "-lauses" on the Wikipedia. - Mattergy 07:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Radomil talk 10:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. His name is spelled this way in respectable English-language sources, sorry. 1979 Britannica has him as Bolesław I the Brave, and he is Boleslaw I at the online Britannica too [1]. Sokol's Polish Biographical Dictionary also lists him as Boleslaw I (The Brave). I'm still not thrilled about the diacritic "ł", but that's enough sources for me to support keeping Bolesław I the Brave as an appropriate current title. --Elonka 18:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
    • But should every individual article be titled based on the most popular phrase in sources? Won't that mean inconsistency, which is the predecessor of confusion and messiness? Srnec 19:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support--Aldux 20:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: use English. Jonathunder 07:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Jay32183 18:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

According to my knowledge, the above statement "There was only one Bolesław I, but several Boleslaus I." is false and moreover shows clearly how its writer lumps all the other languages together but wants only one, Poolish, kept separate. I call that intellectual dishonesty, were it not simple ignorance. There are several Slavic languages, each of them having their own renderiong of this basically same name. None of those other Slavic languages uses "Boleslaus" any more than Polish. In Czech, it is "Boleslav" (or like, check the precise spelling rom czech sources). Some Vendic versions have Bogislav, Burislev, etc (whatever their spelling precisely is, many of those languages have vanished, so we do not necessarily know what pronunciations those varied spellings represent). I am sure that Slovakian has its own version, and various sourthern slavics too. Marrtel 11:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) (PS. A famous case of ignoramus was a German duke who visited the pope in Rome sometime in 18th century, and declined to make the customary act of hailing, by statement "There are great many pontiffs, but only one Duke of Wurttemberg" - a statement obvíously false, as at that time there lived several kinsmen of W, all using that title, but only one pontiff was alive as usual. What does this reming me about?)

An afterthought: Boleslas I is presumably the established name of at least one Silesian duke too (and of Silesian dukes, also polish renditions are used, mostly because Silesia then was and now is Polish-kindred territory), in addition to Boleslaus I of Bohemia and Boleslaus I of Poland. Also this shows that Boleslaw I cannot be didsambiguate. Marrtel 11:55, 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.

Renamed

This has been too long in a location which clearly contravenes the naming convention. So, this needed a more NPOV place. In recent other polls, the general editorship has shown a clear support for "non-Polish" name versions. For starters, the recent name was not arrived by any consensus, but by a unilateral move, so its proponents are not entitled to claim their version the original or "lawful" one. The original was "Boleslaus I of Poland". I am not entirely happy with the location here, because I personally think the English form could be "Boleslaus". Because so many (Polish?) editirs have expressed they are most unhappy with -laus endings, I swallowed my own preferences and chose a more Slavic-looking -lav here. Hope it satisfies at least some. If this is not a satisfactory place, be welcome to open a poll where this should be moved to. Then, I will vote for Boleslaus. Shilkanni 23:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The voting was 16:12 (no consensus?), and the proposal to move wasn't even to "Boleslav". Appleseed (Talk) 12:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it was 16:9 in favor of the move, because of course Polish-camp's sockpuppets do not count. Shilkanni 18:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I am very suprised about the move. Move of an article in the face of a clear lack of consensus in WP:RM by an editor who is well aware that there is no consensus and has been asked not to do so before is IMHO shows a considerable lack of judgement and that some stronger warnings may be needed. PS. As usual with Shilkanni moves, we have a series of unfixed double redirects (just see what links to this page). Deja vu, again.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Piotrus, you seem so surprised. And, when you speak of consensus, do you feel that 9 editors for keeping that Polish name, against 16, is a reason enough to keep it in the Polish name. There is certain surprising element in such reasoning. Shilkanni 18:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

editirs have expressed they are most unhappy with -laus endings, I swallowed my own preferences and chose a more Slavic-looking -lav here. What ? I don't understand, he was Polish, and isn't connected to history of Slavic tribes, that ended with formation of Christian Poland. It is more proper for Latin name then some imaginary "Slavic" version. --Molobo 16:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

In case you are unhappy with such smaller details, feel free to open a move request. Then you have an ongoing discussion open, not now. I predict that you, Molobo, are going to get expelled from English Wikipedia if you continue trying to keep the article in a location where only a minority of 9 against 16 has accepted it to be kept. I believe you cannot afford to fight against both the majority and the naming convention that is in effect. Shilkanni 18:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I restored the previous version-here is the reasoning

The previous move was done disregardign the ongoing discussion regarding the proper naming. We all should wait till the discussion is over before making drastic, unsupported moves, especially using weak and ahistoric argumentation like "it sounds slavic". --Molobo 16:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no ongoing discussion regarding this naming. You are sadly mistaken. The last discussion ended, in reality, 16:9 in favor of move. Shilkanni 18:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

1.Which means no concensus 2.The voting was for Boleslaus I of Poland not the horrible Boleslav I of Poland which you invented and try to push through.

I have said that I do not particularly like -lav. -laus would be better. Feel free to open a move request. However, regarding the so-called rough consensus, you should be aware that 16:9 is a sufficient consensus. If English is used in en-wiki, the page is not going to go to the Polish name - you have your warning. Shilkanni 18:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It is you that has to open a move request for Boleslav because there was no debate on that particular change of name, which you are trying to push through. --Molobo 18:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC) you should be aware that 16:9 is a sufficient consensus According to the vote debate there is no concensus. Until sockpupptes are determined the vote stays. --Molobo 18:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Evidently, Shorter Cambridge Medieval History uses Boleslav I. That's a sufficient ground to accept it, even if not liking it. I have repeatedly said that I do not particularly like that -lav ending, preferring -laus. We can move this to Boleslaus I of Poland if you also prefer -laus over -lav. What is certain, against the shown community majority this is not going to be kept in the Polish spelling. Shilkanni 11:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets used by Logologist

It has now been shown that using checkuser that Logologist (talk · contribs) has been running three sockpuppets who "voted" here, namely

If we leave one vote for the real user, and take away the three phonies, that means that oppose was 6, not 9, showing that the page had a consensus behind it for the move. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

First, please note that the RM was to Boleslaus I of Poland and not to Boleslav I of Poland. Second, please get your math staight: discounting sockpuppets I have 9, not 6 oppose votes. Third, it is good rule of thumb to ask the RM-specialist admin to recount the votes instead of moving it yourself to a name that you think is best.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)