Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

Moved per consensus. There is a clear consensus in favor of the proposed move, and proponents of the move have provided substantial evidence that this is the common name of the subject. bd2412 T 18:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Jogaila → Władysław II Jagiełło – Per: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). Jogaila was his pagan name before he became a King of Poland.--Sobiepan (talk) 11:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment can you please explain the relevant section of WP:NCR, thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • 1. It is generally advisable to use the most common form of the name used in reliable sources in English ("common name" in the case of royalty and nobility may also include a person's title), - see: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/646348/Wladyslaw-II-Jagiello or in the "1911 Encyclopedia Britannica". --Sobiepan (talk) 13:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • BTW: the common English version of his pagan name is Jagiello or sometimes Jagello and not Jogaila.--Sobiepan (talk) 13:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Also an important point is that royal names are more important than birth names. For an example: the article about Mathilde Marie Christiane Ghislaine d'Udekem d'Acoz was created as Princess Mathilde, Duchess of Brabant and later moved to Queen Mathilde of Belgium. More examples: King John III Sobieski born as Jan Sobieski, King Stanisław August Poniatowski born as Stanisław Antoni Poniatowski, King Michał Korybut Wiśniowiecki born as Michał Wiśniowiecki, King Augustus II the Strong born as Frederick Augustus I, etc.--Sobiepan (talk) 13:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support. About time to revisit this again. Not a dead horse, through it was discussed a number of times in the past; here's hoping that certain nationalist editors (see archives, particularly c. 2006) have matured and are willing to consider the rules and statistics. The simple rule to follow is "use the most common English name", and the simple statistic to check common usage is Google Books. Relevant Google Books searches are pretty clear that the Władysław II Jagiełło is preferred here: 1) "king Jogaila": 261 vs "king Wladyslaw Jagiello" at 860, "king Władysław Jagiełło" at 4340, "king Wladyslaw II Jagiello" at 263, and "king Władysław II Jagiełło" at 49 2) "Jogaila king ": 117 vs "Wladyslaw Jagiello king " at 150, "Władysław II Jagiełło king" at 60, "Wladyslaw II Jagiello king" at 131, and "Władysław II Jagiełło king" at 30 3) "Jogaila" at 16000 vs "Wladyslaw Jagiello" at 38800, "Władysław Jagiełło" at 31700, "Wladyslaw II Jagiello" at 24600 and "Władysław II Jagiełło" at 2700. While the search may be a bit compromised due to Google's still poor understanding of diacritics, and some non-English results might have crept into the search 3), I think the pattern is pretty clear: English language sources predominately use the Polish, post-baptism name, rather then the Lithuanian pagan one. That said, on the final note I support the old compromise of in-text using Jogaila for pre-baptism times, and WJ for post-baptism. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support the renaming per nominator's rationale. Also support the proposal to use both name versions in the article according to the text emphasis on the pre/post baptism times. - Darwinek (talk) 15:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Keep this can of worms closed, and don't try to dance on the graves of editors that have been bullied away by "certain nationalist editors" that are still, or again, pushing Polish POV. -- Matthead  Discuß   12:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Isn't that editor still topic banned under WP:DIGWUREN from all Poland-related topics? An uninvolved admin may want to consider whether this vote is valid or not. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Opinion struck as violating an arbitration enforcement topic ban applying to this user, who I have blocked in enforcement of the ban.  Sandstein  16:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support. The article should be renamed from Jogaila to Władysław II Jagiełło not because of his nationality or background, but only because of the name that he is known best for. - Oliszydlowski (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Why do you think one name is more widely used than another. There are living ~40 millions Poles in Poland and ~3 million Lithuanians in Lithuania. Thus we can expect about 10 times more Polish historians than Lithuanian. Nevertheless it is not the excuse to use Polish name ignoring his Lithuanian origin.Orionus (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment: This users only contribution on wikipedia is removing Polish names of cities and villages in Lithuania... Special:Contributions/Orionus --Sobiepan (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I think all users will find this your argument very constructive and convincing in order to achieve final consensus. Orionus (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure about the vote above. With 966 edits since 2006 I urge User:Orionus to please reveal your primary Wikipedia account's name. We need to determine that account's DIGWUREN status if you have one. Poeticbent talk 18:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nominator's rationale and comments above, as well as per frequency of name variants used in English reliable sources. Volunteer Marek  19:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support per nom and Piotrus. I also support the use of "Jogaila" in the text for those parts of the article dealing with his life before the unification and his conversion. Neljack (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
• Strongest OPPOSE despite claims no evidence were presented that modern Polish invention "Władysław II Jagiełło" is prevailing English name. As Lithuanian, Jogaila was known as by this name from the beginning of his life till the end. Current various name variations are present in the text, so IMO it is more than enough. M.K. (talk) 12:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Please. [1], [2] [3] [4] [5]. Also writing 'strongest' in front of your !vote and slapping on the caps lock for the 'oppose' does not actually make your view more significant than that of others. Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Only more desperate... That was uncalled for, my apologies. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I hope that uninvolved closing administrator would ACTUALLY look into those links above which, according to Polish activists, supposed to prove that invented name “Władysław II Jagiełło” is more popular than proper name Jogaila. This, term “Władysław II Jagiełło” , even not used in several provided links at all, despite a claims. Guys, are so desperate that by providing misleading links you think you can win a move? So, let’s see in major English and actual sources:

• Encyclopedia britannica, ISBN 0852297874 , 2002, p.704, of course uses Jogaila
• The New Cambridge Medieval History: Vo. 6, C.1300-c.1415 p. 744 Here too is used Jogaila
• Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. By Encyclopaedia Britannica p. 974 uses Jogaila, aslo mentions and Polish modern name.
• Encyclopedia of World Geography, Volume 1. P. 546 Uses Jogaila.
• Encyclopedia of Warrior Peoples and Fighting Groups. P. 328 uses Jogaila
• The Grove Encyclopedia of Northern Renaissance Art, Vol. 2. p. 330 uses Jogaila.
• Worldmark Encyclopedia of Cultures and Daily Life: Europe p. 280 uses Jogaila.
• Encyclopedia of Contemporary Russian Culture. 2013 p. 362 uses as primary name Jogaila but mentions and Polish one.
• Europe 1450 to 1789: encyclopedia of the early modern world, Volume 3 p. 330 primary name Jogaila
• Martial Arts of the World: En Encyclopedia, p.375 uses Jogaila.
• Lithuania Ascending: A Pagan Empire Within East-Central Europe, 1295-1345 p. 68 uses Jogaila
• Worldmark Encyclopedia of the Nations. P.365 uses Jogaila.
• Europe: A History, By Norman Davies p.430 Jogaila as well
• Historical Dictionary of Lithuania p. 143 primary name Jogaila
• A History of the Baltic States, Palgrave Macmillan, 2010, p.24 primary name Jogaila
• Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, Britannica Educational Publishing p.77 Jogaila,
• A History of Eastern Europe: Crisis and Change, By Robert Bideleux. Uses Jogaila
• The Teutonic Knights: a military history, p. 178 uses Jogaila
• Making a Great Ruler: Grand Duke Vytautas of Lithuania p. 22 Jogaila
• History of Ukraine, 2010 p. 138 Uses Jogaila
• Hundreds and hundreds other English sources M.K. (talk) 11:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Nice, but irrelevant. Nobody is denying some sources use this term - but they are in minority, as was shown above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

M.K., Your comment above borders on willful lying. Of course the sources I provided use the name. It is not a "invented name" - you just plain made that up. For example here is Encyclopedia Britannica article: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/646348/Wladyslaw-II-Jagiello. What's the title? Oh. That's right. It's "Władysław II Jagiełło".

Or take your example of History of Ukraine by Magosci which you list above. Does it use "Jogaila" on p. 138. Sure, it uses Jogaila in some instances. But look in the index under "Jogaila". What does it say. Oh. it says: "Jogaila. See Władysław II Jagiełło". In other words the author just notes that "Jogaila" is sometimes used but gives the ruler's name as is proposed above (and let's be clear, nobody is saying that the name "Jogaila" should be removed from the article). Urban also seems to primarily use "Wladyslaw Jagiello" [6], while probably noting the usage of "Jogaila".

Pretty much is true of all the other sources you list. Which you are probably well aware of.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Likewise The New Cambridge Medieval History does more or less the same thing as Magosci. It uses both "Jogaila" and "Wladyslaw Jagiello" at some points in the text (depending on the time period) but in the index the primary name is "Władysław II Jagiełło". Please stop misrepresenting sources. Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Another falsehood: "Europe 1450 to 1789: encyclopedia of the early modern world, Volume 3 p. 330 primary name Jogaila". Nope. Not at all. What it actually says is "Władysław II Jagiełło (Poland) (Lithuanian: Jogaila)" [7]. That's suppose to be "primary name Jogaila"? How about you strike your claim since anyone who cares to double check it can easily verify that you're ... not telling the whole truth.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Is everyone of the above claims an easily debunked piece of bunk? Here is Encyclopedia of Contemporary Russian Culture. 2013 p. 362 uses as primary name Jogaila but mentions and Polish one.. Nope, pg. 362 says: "Lithuanian Prince Jogaila married a Polish princes and became Polish King Władysław II Jagiełło". How is that "primary name Jogaila"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Certain Polish activist have no skills with actual books. My questions do those activists know at least the difference between books volumes? Well reading amusing comments above it obviously that they don't, yet. Yet offending others by insisting of falsification is not only breach of good faith and constructive discussions but a typical tactics of Polish activists to win their case. And I repeat myself a) "Władysław II Jagiełło" is invented name. b) *Europe 1450 to 1789: encyclopedia of the early modern world, Volume 3 p. 330 uses primary name Jogaila (that guy above even failed to notice a difference between my volume and his, which wad 6, not 3; typical). So my listed books a perfectly fine.M.K. (talk) 08:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

By referring to and judging other editors based solely on their ethnicity, you are not only being uncivil, but also expressing a pretty ugly form of prejudice. By claiming that '"Władysław II Jagiełło' is invented name" (sic) you are stating your own, completely baseless and frankly absurd opinion. By playing games with volume numbers you are engaging in simple obfuscation - the fact is that Europe 1450 to 1789: encyclopedia of the early modern world uses "Władysław II Jagiełło" as the TITLE of its section on this person, although sure, it uses "Jogaila" somewhere else (nota bene, NOT as a primary name, even there it states - "Lithuanian Duke Jogaila who after his baptism became Władysław Jagiełło"). In other words you just keep on willfully making false statements. You're really not helping yourself, just proving that your !vote should be heavily discounted, if considered at all.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, so you know arguing for the "Władysław Jagiełło" as primary name. What happened with "Władysław II Jagiełło"? It so easy to twist these names by adding or drooping "II" leaving or excluding "Jagiello", of course if it servers certain Point of View. Really, its is embarrassing to read and "arguments" complaining that "Władysław II Jagiełło" is not an invented name. I can only suggest to read more books about Polish monarchs' naming nomenclature and how such the naming was made up by historians and why. And of course Jogaila and his contemporary never knew such thing as "Władysław II Jagiełło" and nobody did many centuries later after his death. M.K. (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding what it is you're going on about. I'm sorry but your statement just doesn't make sense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

And please, at least bother reading WP:NCROY.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support "Władysław II Jagiełło", consistent with normal naming of monarchs of foreign origin. Nihil novi (talk) 03:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME - google books search (in English language) returned 3.210 books for 'Jogaila grand duke' and 754 books for 'Władysław II Jagiełło'. GiW (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I cannot replicate your search result, but in any case, if you search for "grand duke", it's clear you'll get biased results. Even we have agreed to use Jogaila for his time as a Grand Duke. On a sidenote, it's somewhat intriguing that all current three oppose votes come from Lithuanians. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

Recommendation — @Piotrus, David Stone's history of Poland-Lithuania uses Jogaila until the unification and his conversion to Catholicism, subsequently Jagiełło, so we agree there. @All, if we're going to open this can of worms, then we must acknowledge that this represents a pivotal and unique individual in the history of Poland-Lithuania. Stone, in indexing his seminal work, does not use Jogaila's/Jagiełło's royal title as he uses directly or parenthetically "(notes)" for everyone else. Conforming to Stone's indexing syntax, I propose #1, below, and #2 and #3 associated:

1. "Jagiełło (Jogaila)" as article title
2. redirect "Jogaila" to the above
3. redirect "Władysław II Jagiełło" to the above

Frankly, I don't see any other viable option which doesn't start the grinding wheels spinning sharpening axes—which usually commences with dueling Google searches, regarding which the glove has already been thrown (in good faith, I should note). I suggest picking the glove back up before someone accepts the challenge. My solution follows the best scholarship and pleases no one identifiably Lithuanian or Polish--nor myself, personally, I would keep Jogaila, but this isn't about my preference. I would urge that quick agreement will prevent the piling on of "outsiders" unfamiliar with history and who inevitably throw gasoline on the embers to start the flames going in earnest. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 22:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Obviously we'd redirect the non-diacritics versions of same as well. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 22:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I am afraid that Jagiełło (Jogaila) is going to get shot down due to problems with Manual of Style. It's a bit like the definition of compromise: it makes no-one happy. I know, I proposed Władysław II Jagiełło (Jogaila) as a compromise years back (search through archives...) and it didn't get anywhere. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

MOS cannot trump scholarship. If you're open to try for "keeps no one happy" but this time the title follows the convention used by a seminal work of scholarship dedicated to Poland-Lithuania and hailed in academia, then I am happy to fight the MOS is a convention, not a dictate, battle. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I would even doubt that the Lithuanian version of his name "Jogaila" was ever used in the times he lived - since the 13th/14th century old Ruthenian was spoken in the Grand Duchy by the upper class.

The only proper name for the article is his royal name, like for every other Polish or European King..., I see no reason to make here an exception--Sobiepan (talk) 10:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget, he was not only Polish king, but Grand Duke of Lithuania (1377–1434) also. I always was for the reasonable compromise between Lithuanian and Polish name, even if it will slightly break naming convention of the Wikipedia. Orionus (talk) 10:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Unfortunate (IMO) choice

I see we've gone from one not the best choice title to another. MOS is not a dictate to trump nomenclature as used in seminal works of scholarship on Poland-Lithuania. Registering my disappointment that at the face of it it looks like another Lithuanian "he's ours" versus Polish "no, he's ours". VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

As I said before, I'd support Władysław II Jagiełło (Jogaila). Nobody else ever was on board with that, however. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I would be fine with that too. This is a special case and strict application of MOS is completely inappropriate based on the best scholarship on the subject, including how his information is indexed. We probably know this topic better than most editors and arguably represent both sides "claiming ownership," Polish versus Lithuanian kin to Latvian. I'm willing to open the can of worms one more time. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. Jogaila is a special case and Piotr's suggestion for the title seems like a good compromise. Either that or Jogaila (Wladyslaw II Jagiello). Having read lengthy discussions about the title change in the current and archived Talk sections, it seems many contributors are missing the point that English being an international language, people from numerous countries prefer history in English as it often provides more information and/or tends to be more objective/reliable. Native Lithuanians, Latvians, Belarussians, Ukrainians and Russians know Jogaila by his birth name alone, and are oblivious of baptismal name. This is probably true for many other nations that utilise English as number one foreign language. Hence current title causes confusion for a big chunk of readers. Danieliuslt (talk) 12:16, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Old portrait versus 18th century portrait painting

While the 19th-century painting of Władysław II Jagiełło no doubt looks pretty nice, how nice a picture looks should always be secondary to the authenticity and accuracy of a picture. As such, when choosing what picture to use as a portrait in a biographical article on Wikipedia, it is generally best to choose a picture that is dated as close as possible to the time the person lived. The 19th-century painting cannot be accurate because it was painted over 400 years after the person in question died. If the painter used a good source for his portrait, then simply use that source as picture for this article. If the painter did not use a source, then the portrait is pure fiction. I have replaced the picture with what I thought was the best example in the commons directory. If there are better pictures, then please put them on top, as long as they are accurate depictions of the person in question. Omegastar (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree completely. (That is why I've sometimes even used tomb effigies from the period.) Nihil novi (talk) 03:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Dubious map with millions of grammatical mistakes

About your revert, my sources aren't more dubious than the Ilustrowany atlas historii Polski, wyd. Demart, Warszawa 2006 who confuses "wassal state" with "fief" and anticipes "hospodar" for a century. About your "millions of grammatical mistakes", into the "Two nations", the names are in their POLISH form (used in this times, verify). Into Hungary, in their magyar form. Into Transylvania (under the Magyar names), Moldavia & Wallachia (upper the polish names), in their romanian form (transcripted from the romanian medieval specific cyrillic script). Into the Crimean khanate, into their turkic form, transcritped from the arab script. All this are known by the historians of this area. But you prefer, for Wikipedia, a map who represents Bialgorod & Akkerman as two different cities, and anticipes Akkerman (appeared after 1484 - ottoman conquest). Congratulations ! --Spiridon Ion Cepleanu (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Year of birth

His year of birth has been depicted as 1352/1362.... His exact year of birth seems to be unknown. However several users have changed it recently in 1352, also changing other text in related articles without any explanation or source. I will revert again. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020

According to Commons, for File:Polska 1386 - 1434.png: "The factual accuracy of this map or the file name is disputed." It is sourced with "Ilustrowany atlas historii Polski, wyd. Demart, Warszawa 2006" though. A455bcd9 (talk) 07:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)