Talk:Jogaila

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Jogaila is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 30, 2007.
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Time for the F(A)inal?

This article is a very good GA. There is not much standing between it and the FA status. What do you think we need to improve before it is FAced? From old discussions we all know that name was the stumbling point here, but I think we were making progress in agreeing that a variant combining both names (something like Jogaila (Władysław II Jagiello), while not perfect, would satisfy all concerned. Am I right on that? If so, and we can all agree on a final stable name, I believe a FA is within our reach without much work.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  12:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that the naming issue would prevent a successful FA review. No move is going to take place without a debate, so it does not impact the stability of the article. I think the main focus needs to be on copyediting the article. There's no question that it is comprehensive, more or less balanced, and well-referenced, but I don't think it is quite there yet in terms of the prose style. As for the settling the name, Shilkanni suggested the Latin Jagello. It's short, simple, and not an anachronism. When it comes to my own stuff, I'm not keen on Latinate names, but here it's not so unreasonable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
WP:FA? critera 1e (stability) and 1d (neutral). Article which is subject to moving back and forth is not stable, and it shows a neutrality issue as well - I think we must have a consensus on a name to move forward toward FA. Not being a native English speaker, I cannot help with copyedit (perhaps Dr. Dan, who has shown interest here, and proficiency in English language, could help with that?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  12:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The factual content of this article is solid (though there's a little too much of it, in my opinion). What I think would fail this as an FA is the prose, which is a long way short of excellent, I would suggest. The basic accuracy of the English is very good, but the article is slightly tough going. About half the sentences start off with a preliminary clause, and many get snowed under with subsidiary clauses, muffling the main subject and verb and often restricting the directness of the information.
I am willing to help with a copy-edit. Can anyone point me to the discussion that took place during the good-article assessment? I can't find it. Cheers. qp10qp 23:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Such as it is, it is in Talk:Jogaila/Archive_9. Ling.Nut, who reviewed this, did a fair bit of the copyediting himself. The changes during the review are about covered by this diff. Quite a bit, but still more to do. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I see congratulations are finally in order on FA status!! —PētersV (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
This is very Rip Van Winkle of you, Pēters, but cheers! qp10qp (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regent

I'd like to ask about this sentence at the beginning: He was regent of Lithuania from 1377. Is that the right term? Lower down, it says that Algirdas was the Grand Duke of Lithuania...Jogaila's father was a de facto co-regent of Lithuania and ruled the country together with his brother, Kęstutis. The terms seem a little over-nuanced and contradictory: it looks to me rather as if Algirdas and Kęstutis were co-rulers, and that on Algirdas's death, Jogaila became co-ruler with Kęstutis in his father's place. Is that an oversimplification? Whatever the case, I doubt "regent" is the mot juste. qp10qp 04:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First sign of madness: answering your own questions

I have looked into it a bit further, including at the page Coregency. On that basis, it would pass to call him a co-regent, I suppose, but the word regent on its own doesn't indicate the true position, in my opinion. In the absence of a reply to my query, I've changed the text to: "He ruled in Lithuania from 1377, at first with his uncle, Kęstutis". (He inherited Algirdas's title of grand duke, while Kęstutis remained the duke of Trakai till he pinched Jogaila's title.) qp10qp 15:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
You're right and that's precisely what the original version of the header stated: he was a co-regent. However, it seems that someone couldn't stand that word and changed it to something definitely less accurate. //Halibutt 22:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hospodar

I'm not sure I grasp this term in the following, or its implication:

Since for most of his subjects Jogaila was a hospodar rather than "didysis kunigaikštis",[1] the adoption of Orthodox Christianity seemed more natural.

The Wikipedia entry on hospodar wasn't too helpful to me on this. Is the point that his people in the Ruthenian lands regarded him as an overlord rather than a prince? If so, how does that affect the religious conversion point? (Was this something to do with the Patriarch of the Orthodox church being based in Moscow?) As far as I can gather from the footnote on didysis kunigaikštis, the term means a high ruler with lordship over lower rulers, so the distinction from hospodar isn't entirely clear to me. I need to find some plain English here, to offset the difficult non-English terms which might count as specialist jargon. For the moment, I have left this point out and concentrated on the point that Jogaila's mother would have been Orthodox. qp10qp 22:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The line seems unencylopedic and irrelevant. I assume it's implying that because he had more Orthodox subjects, he would be more inclined to accept Orthodoxy. It would make more sense as something like: "Jogaila, having far more Orthodox subjects than Catholic would seemingly have been more likely to accept Orthodox Christianity." However, it's still not a good line because it's speculative and doesn't make sense because those who called him didysis kunigaikštis weren't Christian, they were pagan.
Leo1410 22:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes; I have retained the point that Orthodoxy might have been the likelier choice but omitted the term hospodar in this context. Cheers. qp10qp 15:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
This is almost an exact quotation from the original source (cited) and I believe it should have stayed the way it was. However, you're right that the style might've implied too much in this context, and especially so for uninformed readers. //Halibutt 22:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Höm, isn't "hospodar" the Romanian rendition of slavic "overlord"? and the Russian, presumably also Ruthenian, rendition would be "gospodar"? Anyway, as Leo above opined, that word is not useful to give lucid explanation about the point that is intended here. The point is familiar from several books (of which I do not now remember to name any:) - his conversion was a thing rivalled between eastern and western christianity, ties to eastern were stronger (as was its "expectancy value"), but he chose western (which was regarded moe surprising than had been the choice of eastern). Shilkanni 15:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copy-edit

I've finished a thorough copy-edit and made my best efforts towards the "compelling prose" required for FA. I've cut about 1500 words from the article to make it more sprightly (in fact, more than that from the narrative text, since I've added an alphabetical references section), but there remain a similar number of notes and references, so the sum of information is much the same. I have a long list of details to research now in order to check and sharpen the article further: so I'll be posting some questions here as I go along, if anyone can help.

I find Halibutt's referencing excellent; I've checked most of his references to English books and they pan out exquisitely, and so I'm sure his Polish and Lithuanian ones are just as reliable. In my opinion, this is a watertight FA candidate, except for (sighs)....the wretched title business. For me, "Jogaila (Wladyslaw II Jagiello)" would be perfect; but obviously the FA scrutineers will want to roast that old chestnut all over again. Questions here soon. (If no one answers, I'll come knocking on your doors!) qp10qp 01:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your excellent copyedit. I am sure other editors will be happy to helfpul, alas, User:Halibutt, who would likely be the best person to answer your questions, is now on extended wikibreak :( -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Angevin sickness?

I haven't had any luck sourcing the following, and so—with reluctance because it is melodramatic—I've removed it till some evidence surfaces:

The deaths are often attributed to the so-called "Angevin sickness", a supposed genetic defect that raised the mortality rate among children of Angevin blood very high. During the 19th-century exhumation of Jadwiga's remains, her pelvis was found to be unusually narrow, another factor which might have contributed to her death.

At first I just wanted a source for the notion that Jadwiga and her daughter might have died for this reason, but I couldn't even find a source for the 'Angevin sickness' itself. Nor could I find a source for the exhumations (which are mentioned in Jadwiga's article), the commentary on which might shed light on these speculations (though I would think it unlikely a narrow pelvis caused the deaths; infections etc. being only too common). If someone can find anything in the Polish sources or through superior research skills to mine, please do, and perhaps we can restore this intriguing note. qp10qp 00:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The Angevin disease was briefly mentioned in Jasienica (op.cit., the English note was pretty much a translation of the mention in the Polish book), who however was by no means a doctor and only briefly mentioned the sickness, without going into too much details. Does anyone have a decent monograph on Angevins to confirm the theory is cited anywhere else? As to the pelvis, this seems rather obvious: the narrower the pelvis, the higher risk for birth complications. This is true even in modern times, not mention Middle Ages. //Halibutt 22:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I cannot find evidence of this anywhere else. I've asked around among some medievalists and they haven't heard of it. But if Jasienica said it, I can put it back in under his general cite. I've introduced words like "supposed" so that it would then count as Jasienica's speculation—a valid enough cite. qp10qp 22:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
The day before I asked a noted historian Jerzy Besala about the Angevin problem. The guy is quite a specialist as he recently published a 3-volume monograph on the private life of Polish monarchs. He confirmed that he had read about the problems Angevin women had, but he could not point me to any particular source. Which doesn't mean I'm not searching :) . //Halibutt 03:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
The Angevin also in other countries had unusually high rate of infant mortality. This led in quite a many genealogical branches to a situation of total extinction. Of king Charles II of Naples' numerous children's lineages, all those descending from his five or more sons died totally out. Only a couple of branches, descending from his daughters, survive. That's really unusual, and indicates there must be some systematical reason for it. Shilkanni 16:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Władysław of Opole

I removed the following note because I couldn't source it:

Eventually Prince Władysław of Opole became Jogaila's godfather.

I am sure it's true (because Władysław of Opole had been close to Jadwiga's father), but perhaps the source of the information lies in a Polish book. If any Polish editors can help, by all means do; but I have to say that I don't think this fact will be much of a loss to the article. The other thing bothering me was that in places this chap was described as a duke, not a prince. qp10qp 02:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

AAMoF the person of Jagiello's godfather is a tad problematic as at least two people are mentioned as such. Jasienica suggests it was Władysław, but there was some other candidate as well (bishop of Cracow, if memory serves me). As to the titles - the problem is easier to solve than you think. Polish (and hence Lithuanian) system of honorary titles is fairly simple, mostly because of the post-Jagiello times. In short, the division into dux and princeps never fully developed in Poland as the earlier was more akin to Voivode and became a function rather than a title (do I make myself clear enough?). Hence in Poland there were common nobles (predecessors of the szlachta) and there were some people to hold the rank of książę, which is translated to English as either Duke or Prince, depending mostly on translator's choice. We might go either way here, as long as we're consistent. In the case of Władysław, he was a Duke of Opole (English meaning), but also a Prince of Opole (of princely family - the Piasts), a palatine of Hungary (hence also a Duke since palatine and dux were used interchangeably), and so on. And, last but not least, in his youth he was also a prince since his father was Bolko II, also a ruler. //Halibutt 22:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pontoon bridge claim

Angus further up this page quizzed the claim about the pontoon bridge. I have been able to find confirmation that the pontoon bridge was big, but I can't source the following note:

It was one of the first uses of pontoon bridges in European warfare since the Battle of Garigliano, and the first by a European power since antiquity.

I can't find where this comes from. Once again, it may be in a Polish book; if someone can reference it from one, all the better. In any case, even if a historian said it, the note verges on peacockery, in my opinion, and isn't strictly necessary to the article—though it would be nice to reinsert it if someone finds a source. For the moment, I've removed it. qp10qp 03:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Good spotting! Indeed, the remark was unsourced primarily because... I couldn't remember what the source was. Some time ago I was writing a paper on military engineering in late Middle Ages and dug up several works in the Central Military Library in Warsaw. However, both the paper and my notes are lost now - and the source is lost now. //Halibutt 22:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Languages

I wonder what is the source for Władysław never learning Polish. As far as I remember Długosz (who was far from being sympathetic to Jagiello, to put it mildly), he mocked his fancy accent and errors, but that would mean that Jagiello did learn Polish... //Halibutt 00:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I think I misremembered what I read in the Lituanus article. I was going to double check that, because even as I wrote it, it didn't seem likely. (It actually says "He never became fluent in Polish".) Good call; I'll change it. qp10qp 01:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Audio samples

I think the article would benefit from audio samples of "Jogaila" and "Władysław II Jagiełło", which would especially be good for a FAC. Olessi 20:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move - hopefuly the last and best compromise

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 to move page, per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Jogaila → Jogaila (Władysław II Jagiełło) – The editors are divided around Jogaila and Władysław II Jagiełło. In the past, some controversial moves have led to heated debates (see archives if you dare). Using both names seems like the reasonable compromise that should satisfy both parties.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" or other opinion in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

  • Nominator support, obviously.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per Piotruś. Last debate was really very heated, too much heated. Both sides were right in some points and it really seems to me some hard-line ideas would never gain consensus here. Current proposal is good I think, kind of compromise which should satisfy both parties. Regards. - Darwinek 21:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose We should use a single name; compromise would be to make that name Jagiello. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. The "Wladyslaw II Jagiello" version would still be my first choice, since that is the spelling (with or without diacritics) that is used most often in English-language encyclopedias. However, I would be willing to accept a combinatorial name as a compromise position. I would also prefer it without diacritics, since that makes it easier to link to, but again, I'll accept it with diacritics, in the interest of compromise. Either way is fine with me, as long as a version of "Wladyslaw II Jagiello" is included somewhere in the title. --Elonka 23:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, of course. Why waste our time? Wikipedia is not a democracy and requested moves are not a vote. Nothing that is decided here by a small number of editors can justify a title like Jogaila (Władysław II Jagiełło), a million miles from anything contained in WP:NAME. Elonka, at least, should know this. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Why waste our time? - because given the choice of Jogaila (not used by majority of sources) and Jogaila (Władysław II Jagiełło - the most popular variant of the most popular 'W/L II J' name), it's better to chose one which will be recognized by most scholars and people familiar with that person. And as a gesture of good will I have no problem seeing Jogaila in the title, even if it breaks Wiki conventions and is not very popular but dear to our Lithuanian collegues.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I appreciate Piotrus' will to compromise, but it's not the way to go IMO. First of all it would create a bad precedent violating the current rules of naming and secondly would allow anyone to move the rest of articles on Polish monarchs to equally bizarre titles, despite all the previous compromises (like, say, Stanisław August Poniatowski moved to Stanislovas Augustas Poniatovskis (Stanisław August Poniatowski)). //Halibutt 09:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article currently reflects the essense of the new proposition. In short, both names are represented equally and in chronological order. It's just fine and should satisfy everyone. As to equating Jogaila to the absurd analogy regarding "Lithuanianizing" Stanislovas Augustas Poniatovskis, the fact is that Jagiełło is a "Polonization" of Jogaila. By now this should be the easiest issue to not have to deal with. Dr. Dan 15:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Septentrionalis, sort of. Neither of these are the names by which he is best known in English, and combining them isn't really an improvement. Go with Jagiello. Gene Nygaard 03:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Support having both names is the only way to present this article with a NPOV. He was the sovereign monarch of two distinct medieval states, and to present one over the other is inherently POV. Parentheses are confusing, though, because on wiki they imply ambiguity. Leo1410 03:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Would those who support this double name also support History of Danzig (Gdańsk)? -  Matthead discuß!     O       23:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. The best that can be hoped for under the circumstances. Appleseed (Talk) 23:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I still would support the simple "Jagello". The proposal above is cluttered and besides contravenes naming convention. Shilkanni 15:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. It could be good step to the compromise and to the more stable article name. Orionus 16:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. M.K. 11:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Szopen 14:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. logologist|Talk 15:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. For the reasons stated by users Dr. Dan and Halibu as well as conflicting with wikipedia naming conventions. Tautvydas 22:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per Elonka and Orionus Space Cadet 13:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Just as a reminder to everyone, this is not a vote. You need to explain your actual thoughts on the matter, and simply posting your name with "support" or "oppose" has practically no weight with a closing admin. See WP:DDV#Deletion and featuring --Elonka 01:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Can you point me to relevant part of the WP:RM that states that? Not that I disagree with you.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I DO disagree on the other hand. It is on the actual vote where you have to state your reasons. Survey is just a survey. Space Cadet 02:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
        • This is the actual !vote. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Speaking as someone who closes a lot of move requests, it's true that bare "support"s and "oppose"s have almost (but not quite) zero weight in my decision. In this case, there's no clear consensus for any particular title, and numbers of "votes" or "!votes" can't really disguise that fact. I think a survey listing several name choices and allowing participants to comment on any or all of them might be more effective in this situation, or maybe the Mediation Cabal will help out.

            I'm going to bump this request to the top of WP:RM again and check back in five days. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

            • GTBacchus, is this a new policy, or does every "closer" interpret the votes as they see fit? I hope the short explanation won't lower the weight of my vote; I previously wrote pages upon pages explaining my position on this article's title, and I'm not inclined to rewrite my explanation every time it's under debate. Of course, since I don't believe you've taken part in the older discussions (which are now archived, out of sight and out of mind), you probably wouldn't know this. Appleseed (Talk) 21:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
              • Well, WP:NOT a democracy (policy) and WP:PNSD (guideline) aren't new, and administrators have always been allowed discretion in reading consensus out of discussions such as WP:RM and WP:AfD. In cases where you've commented previously, a link to a relevant section of archive discussion can save you lots of repetition, and have the benefit of directing the closing admin (or whoever) to previous relevant discussion. Decisions here are based on arguments, not numbers, or else we've given up on our mission to aim for neutrality, because we allow history to be written by the majority.

                In this case, it's clear to any "closer" that we're dealing with complex arguments, and that's why the request is still hanging out at WP:RM. It's difficult to read this talk page and see any kind of consensus in it. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Support, in spite of some drawbacks (to be worked on), I appreciate the idea of a compromise. By the way, I would support other more popular or more encyclopedic names as well (Jagiello, Jagello, WIIJ...) Beaumont forgot to sign thanks, now signed! --Beaumont (@) 13:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support LUCPOL 21:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, seems to be a fair compromise... Jacek Kendysz 00:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments For those opposed to diactrics, please wait until this dispute resolve and then suggest a move to undiactriciazed version; otherwise we will never settle this discussion.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe Wladyslaw is English usage; I'm sure Władysław isn't. We can discuss Ladislaus. Nevertheless, if the diacritics are to be postponed, the way to do that is to propose the diacriticless version, and then propose a change. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of the actual data on this are to be found at Talk:Jogaila/Archive_7#Name_as_it_appears_in_encyclopedias_and_dictionaries

I am skeptical about this vote; we already tried various combinations of names, but they were resisted. Mediation probably would not solve the issue too, besides starting naming problems then article is in FAC is bad idea. M.K. 16:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

  1. Moving the article against the consensus and against the rules was a bad idea
  2. Defending the illegal move at all cost, further breaching a lot of policies (like NPA and CIV) was a bad idea
  3. Expanding the article was a good idea
  4. Nominating the article to FAC was a good idea
In which points of this story have you taken part? //Halibutt 00:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Consult WP:Dick. M.K. 11:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
User:Matthead just brought up a very relevant point (a point to keep in mind in the ensuing debate), i.e., the name of Danzig must certainly be the more prevalently used toponym in the English language, and in all historical and "scholarly" sources concerning it. Dr. Dan 03:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
And this is relevant to our discussion how...? Please keep on topic.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on %

The last, controversial RM resulted in a move to the version supported by only 33% of voters (16 out of 48). The current RM seems to have attracted fewer respondents so far (I count about 20) but the votes seem to be spread 50/50. While not perfect, it certainly appears that the name supported by half of discutants is a better choice then the one supported by one third... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus for any particular title for this article. Moving articles from one controversial title to another is discouraged (50% versus 30% isn't really compelling), so I'm delisting the request from WP:RM until such time as people come to an agreement over what to call this page. Redirects are in place, so readers can find the content, anyway. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:41, 10 February 2007 (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.

[edit] Request for mediation

A mediation request concerning the naming of this article has been opened at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jogaila. All interested editors should add themselves to the request, and sign acceptance. (You could add yourself and sign to reject, but that seems rather pointless). Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If this happens, the Mediation will be summarily rejected. Unless there is clear evidence that the refusals make mediation impossible, I will file with the Mediation Cabal, which is less particular about what it accepts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The Mediation request was rejected. It was accepted by a large number of editors, and ignored to death by one. There are multiple sides here, besides the Polish-Lithuanian issue. We could go back to the Mediation Committee with the eight of us who are interested, leaving Dr Dan to join us later if he likes; or we could invoke the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. Which? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Coming back seem to be a good idea. Initially, we wanted to do that and at the moment I see no reason to change our minds (just don't want to formulate it more explicitly) --Beaumont (@) 16:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Those who want to discuss the matter should do so, those who prefer to snip with sarcasm during RM would not have helped much anyway and if the find themselves alone when it comes to the next RM... their loss.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This case appeas to have been rejected. Good. Gene Nygaard 23:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Good how? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Presumably because nothing good would have come of it. There's a perfectly reasonable compromise suggested by Shilkanni - use the Latin name Jagello because it represents what people at the time thought his name was. What could mediation somewhere else achieve that compromise here couldn't? A compromise on the "a camel is a horse designed by committee" principle, as proposed by Piotrus, is no compromise at all. There are at least five short, simple names that we could use: Jogaila, Jagailo, Jagello, Jahailo, and Jagiello (there being no reason to limit this to Polish, Lithuanian, and Latin). If someone can find a sixth name, we can roll a die and see what fate ordains for us. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Leaving the page where it sits is better than moving from one controversial title to another. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, well I don't think that there's a much more controversial name than Jogaila (Władysław II Jagiełło), unless it's my (ha, ha, only serious) suggestion Jogaila (Władysław II Jagiełło) (Jagailo Olgerdovich). Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Due to an error on my part, I must apologize to all concerned for creating this new conundrum on this never ending debate. Before a new circus is started, I wish to remind all people of good will, that the current article and its title, cover the man and his original name, and his later name, chronologically and alphabetically, and historically. All of the possible links and redirects bring all those interested and looking for information about the man, to the article. The educational aspects of the the current title (Jogaila or Władysław II Jagiełło) should easily assuage even the most rabid nationalists of any stripe, as all bases are covered. Chronologically and Alphabetically! Let those most concerned with the issue, not masquerade or pretend that it is a scholarly or academic motive that makes them furious with the current title. Or makes them want to change the current title to something else. There is too much evidence that demonstrates the lack of consistency by those wanting a change for anything but for very personal reasons. Think about it. It's fine the way it is. Dr. Dan 00:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Good because Wikipedia:Requested moves is (or at least should be) the primary dispute resolution process for following naming conventions. Good because "dispute resolution" shouldn't come into it unless it involves some sort of abuse of process; inability to reach consensus isn't necessarily an abuse of process. Good because mediation in particular is terribily unweildy and unlikely to achieve much with so many participants.
What we really need is better spelled out provisions within the requested moves area for the default to go back to in case a dispute arises. What we also need is a more rigorous notion that once it has come up for discussion on requested moves, future changes not going through requested moves should be reverted on sight.
Furthermore, if there is going to be any sort of "appeals" process or whatever dealing with requested moves, there should be some provision for that being noted and linked to on the WP:RM page. Gene Nygaard 14:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ArticleHistory

Anybody fills like implementing Template:ArticleHistory here? It is very much needed.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I gave it a try at User:Halibutt/test3, but it seems it would replace only two tags at the top, so perhaps we should wait until the guys managing that template let us include all the other processes (mediation, moves and so on). //Halibutt 09:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The dates were wrong - I corrected them - if you need help in understanding how to find dates in article history let me know. It may only eliminate two boxes now, but there will be another line when the FAC is promoted or failed, and with subsequent action. The template covers FAC/FAR history - it doesn't address the proliferation of WikiProject templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Another nice tool is the '|small=yes' command - see Talk:New York City where it is used with great effect.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DOB

Before this article goes to FA, I would like to see the issue of W2J's date of birth addressed. See here for the discussion of new scholarship that places his DOB around 1362. Supposedly the earlier dates are based on bad research that was never corrected. Appleseed (Talk) 16:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Could you possibly give a translation and the source? At the moment, the article, like its sources, doesn't commit itself on the date of birth, so I don't think this question affects the FA candidacy, which is already in progress. But it would be nice to add a note of any new scholarship on the matter. --qp10qp 16:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
How about a paraphrase?
In 1991, Tadeusz Wasilewski published an article in the "Eastern Review" in which he places W2J's DOB around 62 or 63. In the article he puts forth that the commonly quoted dates of 43, 50, and 51 are from 19th-century scholarship by T. Narbutt, who was known for his forgeries. Other researchers based their scholarship on his, and the dates stuck. The 62 or 63 dates pass the "smell test", because that means W2J would have been 23 and not 35 when he married the 11-year-old Jadwiga, and 48 and not 60 at the Battle of Grunwald. Wasilewski's conclusions are supported by Jan Tęgowski and others.
It's not clear from the comment whether Narbutt created the forgeries or simply relied on them. Appleseed (Talk) 19:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
It's intriguing and would make an interesting addition to the article, if a full reference can be provided, and preferably a translation of some of Wasilewski's or Tęgowski's remarks (an extract could go in the notes). It passes a "smell test" in certain regards, but for me it fails that test in others. For example, Algirdas married Uliana in 1350 and Jogaila was her eldest son (Bojtár, 181); but apparently she had thirteen children, all between 1350 and Algirdas's death in 1377. The ca. 1351 date is given in Britannica, Wandycyz, Stone, and various others; Kucyzyński gives ca. 1350 and Rowell ca. 1356. It could be that the ball-park is indeed off the mark, but the most we should do, in my opinion, even with a full cite for the new research, is to add it as an alternative possibility, since we have so many cites to the present dates and "verifiability, not truth" is Wikipedia policy. qp10qp 20:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
That seems reasonable. "More recent research argues that...<citation>..." and so forth, unless this has become consensus since 1991. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. However, I don't have access to the source they cite. Perhaps another editor can help with that. Appleseed (Talk) 02:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can only search in English-language sources, but I have found something interesting. What do you think of this? As mentioned in the article, when Vytautas fled to Prussia for the second time in 1390, he gave an account of earlier events which was taken down in a document titled dis ist witoldes sache wedir jagaln und skirgaln. In it, he makes the following statement:

After Algirdas's death, Kęstutis, instead of taking the grand ducal throne for himself, recognised Jogaila, still a minor, as grand duke and took care of him until Jogaila grew up and started fully exercising the office. (sache)

I had read that several times before, without noticing what was under my nose: Vytautas is saying that Jogaila was still a minor when he came to the throne on Algirdas's death in 1377!

Of course both Vytautas and the German scribe are extremely unreliable in this document, because they were both enemies of Jogaila; but I don't see why Vytautas should make up this particular detail, since Jogaila's approximate age would have been too well known at the time to risk a gross lie about it. If Vytautas is telling the truth, it might explain why Kęstutis and Jogaila fell out. Perhaps at the beginning of Jogaila's reign, when he was marginalised in eastern and southern territories, Kęstutis more or less took control of everything, meaning Jogaila had to find a way of ousting him using external help. qp10qp 18:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] State?

AFAIK, Polish-Lithuanian state emerged after Union of Lublin, not after Jogaila ascended to Polish throne. Until that time the states remained completely separate, except the common ruler, so formulation "His overwhelming victory in the battle of Grunwald in 1410, followed by the First Peace of Toruń, secured the Polish and Lithuanian borders and marked the emergence of the Polish-Lithuanian state as a major European power" is rather dubious.--Lokyz 19:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Polish-Lithuanian union should be linked instead.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
LOL! That one crept under the radar; it's been there all along. Good spot, Lokyz. qp10qp 04:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Language

Just wondering if anyone knows, does any of the evidence comment on Jogaila's language skill. He must known both Lithuanian and Rus'ian because of his background; but when he became King of Poland, did he already know German or Polish, did he have to learn one of them, and to what extent did he master one or both of these languages? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

According to Długosz he spoke both Lithuanian and Polish. Probably he also spoke Ruthenian, since it was pretty much a lingua franca back then. German on the other hand is a tad problematic. It seems Vytautas might have spoken German given the years he spent in Marienburg, but I never read anything about Władysław speaking German as well. Same goes for Latin: Władysław probably was taught Latin as its knowledge was a must back then, but whether his Latin letters were written with his own hand or did his chancellery write them is a mystery. //Halibutt 10:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Dud he speak Latin with foreign ambassadors, like Queen Elizabeth? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we can really know; but Latin was the official language of communication in the Catholic countries, at least on paper. My guess is that there were plenty of job opportunities for translators at his court.
The emperor-elect Sigismund is supposed to have had fun poked at his Latin—so that's one monarch who did (try to) speak it. qp10qp 18:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Points left over from FAC

The FAC was closed before I could respond to all the requests and queries, and so I'll address them here.

First, a few bits and pieces. I have added the grand-duke info to the infernal infobox. I hate the things, and the template has prevented me making the information look as clean as I would like (the "to 1434" business is a pain). I haven't mentioned the gap when he was deposed: it's impossible to indicate the complexities of his reign in such a box. If someone else wants to have a go, please do.

The succession boxes are also horrid, in my opinion. I have changed "Supreme Prince" to "Supreme Duke" because, though he was called both, the ducal terminology has been used in the other boxes. It was suggested that since Algirdas also called himself "supremus princeps" on occasion, that he go before Jogaila in that succession sequence, but I feel that Jogaila adopted the title as a way of distinguishing himself above Grand Duke Vytautas, and so it was a quasi-constitutional title. It's impossible to satisfactorily fit the round pegs of these overlapping Lithuanian royal titles into the square pegs of succession boxes, in my opinion.

Cquotes were mentioned as a possibility. I prefer the plain blockquote format because it makes the quotes look as they do in books. The big blue quote marks look to me like something from the glossy history magazines I used to read as a boy. I'm not going to fight if someone wants to do it that way, though.

qp10qp 18:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

The images, maps etc. were reduced to standard thumbs after a request at FAC, though someone has changed some of them again since. It's a shame: the maps were intended to be read at about 350px, because most readers would then be able to glance at them handily; very few will bother to click, I suspect, or adapt their preferences. I fear to mess with the image sizes, since apparently that might create havoc on some screens; I hope someone who understands such things will cleverly sort the matter out before long.

I will make some changes to the lower map, per various suggestions at FAC (Navahrudak, etc.). "Conflict with Prussia" may indeed not be a traditional form; I confess the longer-winded alternatives all took up too much elbow-room in the Baltic. But I will try to think of something better. The article caption has already been changed.

Map has now been changed, using new title, Navahrudak, Dobrzyń, including Kaunas etc. per various suggestions. qp10qp 23:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Now it looks better, M.K. 11:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

As for better images overall, I agree that there are some better images out there. It's the copyright business that inhibits me from nabbing them. In my opinion, it would be nice to have a full-length tomb-effigy photo at the top instead of the nineteenth-century picture. qp10qp 22:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Succession:

"and Lithuania to his younger, Casimir, both still minors at the time." Not exactly correct Lithuania was ruled by Žygimatas at the moment, and Casimir would show in Lithuania`s throne a bit later, breaking personal union.

I assumed that Władysław was enacting the provisions of Ostrów, by which his heirs, not Vytautas's, would inherit the Grand Duchy. However, I take your point, and I have added a note to that effect, referenced to Stone. I've accompanied it with references to Sedlar and Rowell (Cambridge Med), however, to back up the statement made in the article. I've not quoted them, but the references are to:

"By Jogaila’s death in 1434 the two realms were securely in the hands of Jogaila’s own wife and sons, despite the death-throes of armed dynastic competition in the territories." (New Cambridge Medieval History, 711.)

"When Jagiiello died in 1434, his younger son Casimir became grand duke of Lithuania, while Vladislav, the elder, was elected king of Poland." (Sedlar, 282.)

Of course, like everything else in this reign, the situation was not straightforward. The fact that Casimir was still a minor meant that Žygimantas was de facto grand duke. But it seems to me that the Poles helped Žygimantas against Švitrigaila, and so perhaps his position was technically grand duke to Casimir's nominal supreme duke. On the other hand, I have read suggestions that Žygimantas, like Švitrigaila, was not so much chosen as grand duke by Władysław as ratified; perhaps Žygimantas succeeded Vytautas in north-west Lithuania because it was seen as his right. Another oddity for me is that since the king of Poland was supposed on the basis of Ostrów to be the overlord of the grand duke of Lithuania, then should not Władysław III have succeeded Władysław II as both king of Poland and supreme duke of Lithuania? In that case, yes, Žygimantas, not Casimir, was the legitimate grand duke, standing to Władysław III in the same relation as Vytautas had stood to Władysław III. qp10qp 00:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Žygimantas was Grand Duke after Švitrigaila was defeated, Casimir became Grand Duke after assassination of Žygimantas, only then he was invited by Lithuanian nobles and proclaimed as Grand Duke, canceling personal union with Kingdom of Poland. M.K. 11:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Background

At the beginning need background about state policy, what situation was then we access to the throne etc.

Early life - Kulikovo events, which provided the key character of young ruler is not discus at all! Probably solving this issue google books would not fit here.

I've now added a general introduction to the Lithuanian state at the time of Jogaila's accession and mentioned his alliance with Mamai at Kulikovo. qp10qp 07:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If you have time, you may include in notes different analysis why he failed to arrive in time and did he after battle beat lagging part of Moscow army after the battle. But I happy with your improvement. M.K. 11:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replies to the replies

[edit] Legal traditions

One or two replies to replies at FAC to catch up with:

Could you please elaborate remark about Lithuania began adopting Polish legal traditions here? Magdeburg Law is Polish law?

It was not intended to read as if Magdeburg law is Polish; "Polish legal traditions" here means legal arrangements along the lines of those used in Poland, whether they originated outside Poland or not. "Western" traditions" was objected to by Calgacus, which was why I changed it to "Polish traditions". I've now removed the phrase altogether, since the paragraph makes the point well enough without it. qp10qp 14:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1413

could you please explain here what you mean with 1413 event - Samogitia baptism?

The 1413 event was that which happened at Horodło, when Lithuanian Catholic boyar families were granted the same privileges as their Polish counterparts.

"[The Union of Horodło in 1413] enabled Polish social institutions to take firm root in Lithuania proper. Forty-seven Polish noble families adopted an equal number of Lithuanian boyars and granted them the use of their own coats of arms. This privilege was granted only to Catholic boyars…" (Dvornik, 343)

"By the terms of the Union of Horodło in 1413, only Catholic nobles received full political rights." (Sedlar, 171)

"The new union gave the Lithuanian nobles a broad range of privileges on condition that they become Catholics. These privileges did not extend to the Orthodox princely and nobiliary class. A legal barrier had been erected between the Poles and Lithuanians on the one hand and the Rus’ nobility on the other…the religious discrimination introduced by the Union of Horodło helped distinguish the Rus’ nobility in the grand Duchy from the Rurikid princes and their boyars outside it…" (Plokhy, 97)

qp10qp 15:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Polish-Teutonic War (1431-1435)

I just created a stub about this war and it should not only be linked here (since Władysław died in 1334 we can assume he was involved in it) but also we need to correct the statement that "Władysław fought one last war, known as the Gollub War, against the Teutonic Order". -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I've made some minor adjustments to the article to take this into account. Add some more, if you need to; I find the last three or four years of his reign difficult to make sense of.qp10qp 01:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] European force?

Do no exagarate, I don't see any evidence of any major influence in Western Europe, so let us be more precise: Central and Eastern European force. - 80.126.207.225 20:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the Polish-Lithuanian bloc certainly became a European force. Wladyslaw was offered the crown of Bohemia, which was part of the Holy Roman Empire. He sponsored a regent there, from his own family. Vytautas was also offered the crown and took part in diplomacy there. Wladyslaw was writing to the crowned heads of Europe, and they sent him troops (no longer were his Lithuanian territories regarded as unassailably heathen or schismatic, but a part of the Catholic world). The envoys and scholars sent by Vytautas and Wladyslaw to the Council of Constance were influential; they were tasked with conversions on behalf of the official church and more bishoprics were developed. Polish-Lithuanian issues were a high-priority consideration for the council. Wladyslaw was a significant diplomatic factor in the quarrels within the Holy Roman Empire between Wenceslas IV of Bohemia and Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor. Despite the papal schism, Catholic Christendom was very much a single entity, and one only has to look at a map to see that Poland-Lithuania was an enormous power bloc on the eastern rim of the Holy Roman Empire, and very much a part of an expanding Catholic Christendom.qp10qp 14:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)