Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło

Just move on

See what happens when you try to stir some old pot sitting and rotting here for months and years. We are going to move a single inch nowhere, unless everyone forgets, deletes what happened, takes a deep breath, and realizes that world is a good place to live in. So now, since we forgot everything what happened before, we can start being productive again. A RM from here to ... ? (fill in the blank) Renata 15:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I archived the page to facilitate this "clean start" proposal and to bury all the bad feelings. Renata 18:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest Wladyslaw II Jagiello.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest leaving it at Jogaila. Dr. Dan 04:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Dan originally made his appearance upon Wikipedia's Polish scene, insisting that Władysław "translates" into English as "Lancelot." So perhaps... "Lancelot II Jogaila"? logologist|Talk 06:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Stop right there! Any digging in the past who's guilty and who's not is strictly prohibited! Concentrate on here and now. Renata 06:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Renata you are right, let's stop the potshots. And BTW, it's very interesting that logologist would consider editing the Jogaila entry on English Wikipedia as entering the "Polish" scene. Dr. Dan 12:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

here:  ::Both versions with and without diacritics gained similar support, so I'd go with either one. I'd also support a clean start, but I'd mention the fact that the page was moved against the consensus and in violation of wiki laws in the WP:RM description. It is an important factor, especially that I have an impression that many of those who try to legitimize the current name of this article hope that the usual group of nay-sayers at WP:RM will join them (and there's really a large group who vote against any moves for no reason at all). But perhaps it's just me. //Halibutt 10:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, world is round, but I don't know a country with a round map. Jogaila of Lithuania agreed to be King of Poland, but Lithuania at his lifetime was not part of Poland. If you do not understand this, it is just you. And you break the laws of Wikipedia by using Wilno/Vilna against Wikipedia rules, it is also just you. Please do not teach administrator Jadger rules and laws of Wikipedia. Juraune 13:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What about both names in the title? Jogaila of Lithuania, Wladyslaw II Jagiello of Poland or Jogaila (Lithuania), Wladyslaw II Jagiello (Poland) or Jogaila - Wladyslaw II Jagiello. Other proposals are also welcome. Orionus 12:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, Jogaila seems like the perfect name to me; unambiguous, short, etc. I suppose Jogaila (Wladyslaw II) could also be barely acceptable. I don't think "of country" is necessary, as in both cases the names make the country clear. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 12:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

How about Wladyslaw II Jagiello - Jogaila?--SylwiaS | talk 13:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What was the first - chicken or egg? Orionus 13:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought you said: Other proposals are also welcome.--SylwiaS | talk 14:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

And all are open for discussions, I suppose.:) Orionus 14:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes.--SylwiaS | talk 15:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, brother I think I need an airsickness bag. Dr. Dan 02:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

As much as I think exceptions are annoying, perhaps this conflict can only be solved by something like Władysław II Jagiello (Jogaila). Would this be an acceptable compromise for all involved?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me.--SylwiaS | talk 15:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely fine--Milicz 21:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, better this than "Jogaila" Radomil talk 21:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

...And your arguments are? Why not Jogaila (Władysław II Jagiello) in chronological order?--Lokyz 22:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Per Milicz arguments below.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

...leave as it is just Jogaila M.K. 22:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I am for chronological order. For example, it seems suitable for me Jogaila / Władysław II Jagiełło, which you can find in Casimir III of Poland. Orionus 12:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've read all the talk pages, took me about an hour. This discussion has been going on for close to a year now, and it's ridiculius. Jogaila is the name Władysław was known as while he was Grand Duke of Lithuania. He was thereafter known as the King of Poland, Lithuania etc., but the name Jogaila was now gone, he took the name Władysław, or Ladislau for those that want to quibble. He was thereafter know more generally and famously as Władysław the King of Poland. I kept reading in order to find some "scholarly arguments" made by Calgacus according to Dr. Dan, in support of using Jogaila, unfortunately I found none. The article is completely misleading at this moment, is uses a less popular localized name instead of the historically used name. I would compare it to renaming the Joseph Stalin page to Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili.--Milicz 23:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)--

Can we be more specific? 1) The article is completely misleading at this moment - why? 2) it uses a less popular localized name instead of the historically used name - Is it possible to express it in a digital form to proove this affirmation? Orionus 12:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Both points are the same, the article is completely misleading because the title of the article uses a less popular localized name of Jogaila, which in the literature I have read is the name used for Wladyslaw Jagiello when he was the Grand Duke of Lithuania, while the name used historically throughout literature for him when he became King is Wladyslaw Jagiello. On Google Books a perfect example of this can be seen in the The New Cambridge Medieval History on pg 732, where Jogaila is the name used until Wladyslaw is crowned King. The oldest English Language book to use term Jogaila on Google Books is 1946, with the next year being 1971. The name Jogaila is then popularized by Norman Davies as the proper name to use before he became King. Wladyslaw Jagiello is the name that has been historically used, see Jogaila before 1940 [1]and compare Wladyslaw Jagiello before 1940 [2] Cheers. --Milicz 15:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

So it took you an hour to read it all? And you couldn't find any scholarly arguments presented by Calgacus. Yes, how unfortunate. Using Ladislaus on the English Wikipedia instead of Wladyslaw (whenever appropriate, and in this case it's not), would be quibbling. Right? Sort of like Barbara Rakuszanka. Let's not quibble and use Rzym instead of Rome while were at it too. Great analogy regarding Stalin also, Milcz. Dr. Dan 02:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't stand it when blatantly partisan users pretend to be objective. Piotrus and some of the others were on a good course ... by at least attempting discussion and negotiations. Renata, thanks for trying to steer this on a good path. Piotrus, wouldn't Wladyslaw II (Jogaila) be better than Wladyslaw II Jagiello (Jogaila) (I ain't endorsing either btw)? Why is there a need for Jagiello? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Jagiello is popular enough to be included in the title, especially as Wladyslaw II Jagiello is much more popular then just Wladyslaw II. Although, since we are going with Lithuanian Jogaila, I'd like to note we should use Polish diactrics in Władysław (but not Jagiello, which should remain in it's English non-diactrical form). Last but not least, becase the W2J variants are more popular then Jogaila, I believe W2J should be given precendence. Thus Władysław II Jagiello (Jogaila) seems to me like the best compromise.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Calgacus, better yet, why is their a need for Jogaila? Also, which blatantly partisan users are you reffering to, hopefully not myself?

Dr. Dan, Ladislaus or Wladyslaw is quibbling because it's the same name, either one works for me. Who is saying to use Rzym instead of Rome, or Lwów instead of L'viv? I noticed you use the same tack in all of your responses Dr. Dan, sarcasm with thinly veiled allusions as to the motives of those that question the logic of using Jogaila as the name of the article, but no factual arguments. So please enlighten me, go and copy and paste the scholarly arguments you base your belief upon, I was unable to find them in the archives. I guarantee you won't do it, you'll just write another witty comment degrading the motives of thos ethat question you. But why won't you? Have they been erased? If you don't like the Stalin analogy, how about Pope John Paul II, should the article about him keep his Polish name Karol Wojtyla or the name that was popularly known throughout the world? I think that example is perfectly on point.--Milicz 03:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Milcz, Ladislaus and Wladyslaw are not quibbling because they are the same name, they are quibbling because one is the common English version and the other is the Polish version. Jasne?Your "guarantee" that I won't do it (paste and copy for you, is on the money), you spent a "whole" hour looking, and you could't find Calgacus' scholarly arguments. Too bad! Re-read the arguments more slowly next time. Dr. Dan 03:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Nie jasne. A coursory search is enough to prove you wrong: Ladislaus is less popular then Wladyslaw in English... Dr. Dan, your refusal to link to your arguments in the archives is quite telling - but not suprise, as I don't recall them, neither...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

There was typo in the second search which I have changed. I'll assume that fundamental methodological error was just one of those things. If you were to narrow the search, say comparing king-ladislaus versus king-wladyslaw, you'd get quite different results. Lies, damn lies, statistics. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

... and Polish Wikipedians backfiring attempts to use Google for their purposes. In this case, "king Ladislaus" beats "king Wladyslaw" 4010:1280.-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       18:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Many Kings named Ladislaus existed, such as King Ladislaus of Naples [3]. One of the questions we have here is whether the term Ladislaus is the more popular name for this King, or Kings from Poland. This raises a second question of what we should stick with (Ladislaus or Wladyslaw) for Polish Kings. I think Wladyslaw is more accurate and the name used in modern historical works, as the google searches you referred to above indicate. Also to be fair, try searching Ladislaus Jagiello [4] (115) or Wladyslaw Jagiello [5] (1520) (so we know who we're reffering to, and not some King fron Naples), then look at the type of books and hits. --Milicz 18:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus loosen up a little. Be glad that I don't know how to "link up" like you young people. Can you imagine how dangerous I'd be, if I bothered to learn how? Right now I'm about as interested in learning how to do so, as Ghirlandajo is, to becoming an administrator. And I think his contributions to WK are wonderful. Dr. Dan 02:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to you as partisan. And Milicz, the whole thing about crap Pope John Paul II and Stalin-like analogies has been dealt with. Being head of the largest state in Europe west of the Mongols hardly equates to being a private citizen, the very idea could be interpreted as mildly insulting or even a downright ethnic slur. Milicz, if you are going to repeat these same trashy arguments, please understand how tedious and repetitive it becomes for other users. I'll tell you now that I have better things to do that waste time going over the same ground. It's blatantly obvious that a large bulk of users disagree in principle. If we all realize this now, we can all save ourselves heated bs-ridden argument, and instead try to find a consensus more acceptable to each side than either extreme is going to be. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 04:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I am at a loss with you two, you get valid arguments and you answer with random thoughts by Jack Handy. You tell me to "re-read the arguments more slowly" instead of acknowledging the arguments don't exist (they don't, I've looked through all the archives) and you claim I'm some sort of partisan, equating a valid Karol Wojtyla analogy with an ethnic slur, which is absurd. Karol Wojtyla was a Cardinal, not a nameless private citizen, but even if he was a "private citizen" I still don't understand your logic or why you would find anything insulting in what I wrote. All I would ask from you two is for a succinct argument for your position, is that to much to ask?--Milicz 04:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to our world of headache, Milicz :( -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing there to understand. Dr. Dan-Calgacus's productions are all bombast, arrogance, profanities, and loose associations (the latter, a cousin to word salad). logologist|Talk 06:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Pan logologist for your kind words. And to show you that I have no hard feelings, let me say that I disagree with those that think you are a shameless joke. 12:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Everybody lets show some worm “welcome” to sock puppeteer User:Logologist!! How is your old “friends” user:Anatopism, user:KonradWallenrod, user:Mattergy? They there not in very good shape, last time I checked them. Maybe you found new "friends"? Could you please introduce them to as too? M.K. 09:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we should stop it. It's going nowhere. What was to be a "new start" goes back to old attitudes. How about starting the voting?--SylwiaS | talk 09:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed M.K. 09:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC) p.s. if only others agrees too

Hi all, I'm a Polish-American, but I've spent a lot of time in Lithuania, so any loyalties I'd have one way are cancelled out by the other. It's really interesting to see how controversial these names get--though I must say the Polish-Lithuanian wikipedia battles are tame compared to the Lithuanian-Belarusian ones I've seen.

Anyways, the way I see it, the son of Algirdas here is one of the key historical figures in both the Polish and Lithuanian nations, so calling him Jogaila or Jagiello is going to be a problem. My solution that would infuriate everyone and please no one, yet might be more neutral would be to call the article Ladislaus II (Jogaila). Ladislaus since this is the English wikipedia and the Latin term is neutral and was once widely used in English. Ladislaus II since King of Poland was his final title, and Jogaila to recognize his Lithuanianess. In truth Ladislaus II Jogalia is the same name as Wladyslaw II Jagiello only more neutral. It's interesting that I see his kid Wlad of Varna is locked in a similar battle with the Hungarians. Oh well...

(Leo1410 01:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC))

Leo, your thoughts are well reasoned and worth considering. Dr. Dan 02:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a few problems with this idea. 1) "Ladislaus" when referring to Polish Kings is an anachronism. Sure we can use it, but no modern historian who studies Poland or Lithuania (that I know of) does. You might as well use Wladyslaw. 2) Ladislaus II is confusing, you need "of Poland" or "Jagiello" to follow. Laudislaus II Jagiello, while anachronistic, is better then Jogaila, which is unrecognizable to all but the most read students of 15th century Polish/Lithuanian history. I would vote for Władysław II Jagiello or Wladyslaw II Jagiello.--Milicz 03:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Per Milicz, consider that Ladislaus II is a disambig (thus we need Jagiello to follow), and Wladyslaw is actually more used in English then Ladislaus (see my links above). Also, note that Ladislaus II Jagiello is virtually not used.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments Dr. Dan and Milicz. As I said, I'm more interested in this argument itself that what its outcome might be. It seems to be part of a larger issue on the English wikipedia of how to view and name people and events in Eastern European history. I think students of Polish history, who for centuries saw much of the English-speaking world's view of their county being filtered through a biased Russian or German view should be able to sympathize with a Lithuanian's desire not to see their history presented from a Polish view. And don't get the Belarusians started on any use of the Lithuanian language for GDL-related titles on Wikipedia.

To me, there is a need for neutral English terminology that acknowledges that no one nation can claim many of these people. I know the name Ladislaus is no longer widely used when examining him as a figure in Polish history, but I suggested it because it's already out there. Perhaps Wladyslaw II Jagiello (Jogaila) is better, but then it's getting pretty long, and there are some that will strongly oppose Wladyslaw without the ł.

So, this turns into a battle of what is used most common in English at a given time. The problem is this is highly variable with the relative power, population, state of nation-building, or number of emigrants to English-speaking countries a nation has at a given time. In 1600, Vytautas in English would have been Vitoldus, in 1800 it would be Witowt, in 1950 it would've been Witold. Some wikipedians are holding out hope that by 2050 he'll be Vitovt. The same goes for Jag/Jog. That's why it'd be nice to have a consistent name that won't necessarily please nationalists, but will stand the test of time. (Leo1410 04:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC))

The funny thing about this is that no one in the article, or throughout history, has ever tried to mask Wladyslaw as being anything other then Lithuanian, which makes this 10 month old argument as to what to name the article all the more absurd. When I saw "Jogaila" as the name of this article it just shocked me because I expected many a variation, but not that one. All I hope for is whatever this article gets named in the end other Wikipedia articles stay consistent with it. Wladyslaw II Jagiello (Jogaila) isn't all that bad, but it just sets a bad precedent for calling other things like cities L'viv (Lwów), or people Pope John Paul II (Karol Wojtyla), with alernate versions in the article name. I'll also add that I know of no Pole who takes offense to Stanisław Leszczyński being referred to as the Duke of Lorraine;)--Milicz 04:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Policies ?

Rather than dubious efforts to find answers on Google books when none exist, let's consider policies and guidelines.

• WP:NAME is a vague overview with nothing much to say.
• WP:UE would discourage Władysław in favour of the anglicisation Wladyslaw, but does not insist upon it.
• WP:NC(CN) says to use the shortest and simplest unambiguous name. This argues against byzantine parenthesised confections such as Ladislaus II (Jogaila) which are not simple.
• WP:NC(P) says to be precise and that the title should reflect the content (the principle of least astonishment).
• WP:NCP says <first nam--24.148.66.84 17:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)e> <last name> is preferred. Not much to say here, unless it is that the subject did indeed have a first name and that "[s]ometimes, mostly for names of antiquity, a single word is traditional and sufficient to indicate a person unambiguously."
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) is an old favourite. But is C15th Poland or Lithuania a "modern country" ? I say not: modern Poland and Lithuania have nothing to do with the medieval and early modern entities of the same name. (If that doesn't upset lots of people I'll be very disappointed). If they are, is Poland or Lithuania the more important ? I'd go with Lithuania myself, but legitimate disagreements are possible. Oh, what fun !
• Is Wikipedia:Naming conflict relevant ? Hard to see how it wouldn't be, given the alleged existence of a Polish cabal. If it is on point, how should it be applied ?

Any more ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC) --24.148.66.84 17:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)**Interestingly I note that not a single one of your arguments supports Jogaila. PS. Care to elaborate more on the existence of the Polish cabal? I always find it very amusing how this argument is used to debunk any arguments made by the Polish editors (they have a cabal, we should ignore them...).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"If they are, is Poland or Lithuania the more important?" The question is subjective and doesn't (in my view) help on what the name of the article should be, and will only lead to wild tangents. Although I do believe Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) is clearly what we should be following here, so taking that into account: Wladyslaw wasn't a King, at least in the Western Christian world, until he was placed upon the throne of Poland, whatever importance you deem either Poland or Lithuania, he became Wladyslaw II when he became King of Poland. If we want to stay away from "of Poland" because some people would view it as an afront to Lithuania then we should stick with Władysław II Jagiello or Wladyslaw II Jagiello. --Milicz 14:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The proper naming according Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) would be Jogaila of Lithuania and Wladyslaw II of Poland - because at the SAME TIME he was monarch of Lithuania and Poland (two separate states). All the speculations, that he was not accepted as Lithuania monarch, well, are speculations (somehow this does not impact Gediminas of Lithuania naming). The same goes for "importance" of Poland and Lithuania. Prove this original research by any modern scientific publication that support this speculation, the i will be acceptable - until then this is only speculation ...--Lokyz 14:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles): Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, use the most commonly associated ones. It has been shown that various variants of Wladyslaw/Ladislaus (II) Jagiello are much more popular then Jogaila, and that they have more support total, however Jogaila being the sole veriation of the Lithuanian name has the advantage of being pretty popular, for example, winning 6:5 as Jogaila of Lithunia over Wladyslaw II of Poland (but of course not if we add Wladyslaw II Jagiello (20), Wladyslaw Jagiello (193), Ladislaus Jagiello (47), Ladislaus II Jagiello (2). Summed up they give more then 250, compared to Jogaila 103 (and note that Wladyslaw Jagiello with 193 books beats down Jogaila with his 103 references single-handly). Therefore it is undisputable that Jogaila is not the most popular variant, and thus it should not be used in name; so I am suprised at some users opposing the proposed compromise of having both names in title (although I agree with Angus that it is suboptimal, but as a gesture of good will I believe we can have this exception). On a sidenote, I find it amusing how it all started with my proposal for removing 'of Poland' as it diminished the Lithuanian part... and how in thanks for this gesture some Lithuanian editors discovered a 'Polish/anti-Lithuanian cabal' assaulting this article :/ -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the dreaded cabal, let's not pretend that there aren't suspicions in some quarters. That aside, several guidelines support the current name. WP:NC(CN)'s shortest, simplest unambiguous is demonstrably met by the current name as any other name is longer and/or more complex. WP:NCP's suggestion that real names be used is met, although it can be argued that it isn't on point due to the existence of the badly-written and worse-thought-out Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). Wikipedia:Naming conflict is the policy which gives us Gdansk rather than Danzig, L'viv rather than Lemberg, Toruń rather than Thorn, and so on, so it seems especially relevant. My personal view corresponds very closely with the Polish monarchs naming proposal in most cases, but this is one of the exceptions. This case can not set a precedent (anyway, there are no binding decisions) so what we determine here does not impact any other naming dispute, except in the broad sense of pointing up how silly Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) is. I'm all for that, and anyone else who wants accuracy should be too. The alternative is a rush to the bottom as we seek the lowest common denominator, or pandering to current US political disputes. (My suspicion is that WP:UE has the prominence which it does for good US-centric reasons, as shown by these cartoons on Slate: [6], [7], [8], [9].) Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Does WP naming rules say something about a case when 1) a monarch ruled a monarchy 2) got second crown 3) ruled two lands for same time?

And please, tell me how to name Lithuanian monarch before he go second crown? Also Wladyslaw II Jagello? I've already seen where this leads - because for example in History of Belarusian language is an statement, that "Old belorusian" language was used in GDL in the times of King Casimir. Does it sound logical?--Lokyz 15:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

In several places I have stated, and I am happy to repeat, that naming an article 'xxx' does not mean we have to use that name everywhere - this is what redirects and pipes are for. Certainly for any period before he was crowned King of Poland he should be reffered to as Jogaila in text, however as article's names go, he should be under W2J as this is the more popular name of the two.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

About the popularity. Present day (September, 12) english google counts for search with exact phrase: Jogaila - 19100 [10], Wladyslaw II Jagiello - 12900 [11]. It seems, that google pays no attention to diacritics. Orionus 07:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not compare Jogaila to Jagiello[12] 147,000 Google hits?--SylwiaS | talk 07:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

But the title is proposed to be W2J, not Jagiello! On the other hand, I have found only 116000 for Jagiello [13]. And we need to eliminate pages, that have no connection with Wladislaw II Jagiello (www.jagiello.net, Walter E. Jagiello and so on) Orionus 08:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the title is proposed to be W2J because it's closer to Wiki policies. Neither Jogaila nor Jagiello agree with them. But it doesn't mean that we should compare apples to oranges. I don't think we have to bother estimating sites like Walter E. Jagiello (Jagiello is not popular Polish name. Certainly not as popular as Jogaila is in Lithuania.) unless we're going to count out every Jogaila X or X Jogaila in internet such as in the following examples: [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21], all the books issued by Jogaila Publications, every mention of Jogaila ship, Jogaila street and so on.--SylwiaS | talk 09:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Jagiello is not popular Polish name. Certainly not as popular as Jogaila is in Lithuania - are you certainly sure? I am not. I don't think we have to bother estimating sites like Walter E. Jagiello but we, of course must eliminate Jogaila Publications and similar apples:) Orionus 10:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Jagiełło in Poland is a surname, which means one must be born with it to have it. Only about 0,02% of Poles have the pleasure. In Lithuania Jogaila is a first name - anyone can have it. So yes, I think it's much more popular in Lithuania than in Poland, but of course I'd be interested in seeing some stats about how many people in Lithuania are named Jogaila.--SylwiaS | talk 11:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't find any statistics, but personally I don't now any Jogaila. Kestutis, Vytautas, Mindaugas - these names are much more popular than Jogaila. Orionus 12:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Even not taking into account SylwiaS point that many Jogaila's are false hits, please note that if we add 13,700 of Wladyslaw Jagiello to your 12,900 of Wladyslaw II Jagiello, we get 26,600, thus showing that those variants are more popular then the 19k of Jogaila.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Google books is rather more useful than raw Google; the interweb is full of crap, and that isn't even a search in English. If you relied on Google books beauty contests, the article would be called either Wladyslaw, Jagiello or Jogaila, but not Wladyslaw II Jagiello or Wladyslaw Jogaila or Wladyslaw Jagiello. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"If they are, is Poland or Lithuania the more important?"

When I saw "Jogaila" as the name of this article it just shocked me because I expected many a variation, but not that one.

The way I see it, this is the heart of the matter rather than any anti-Polish or anti-Lithuanian crusade. I think Milicz's statement is revealing. It shows how in the 20th century Polish-oriented scholarship has really come to dominate to the extent that many cannot recognize this Polish hegemony over the history of this part of the world. Ladislaus or Wladislaus can easily be updated to Wladyslaw, but Jogaila? Not Vladislovas Algirdaitas, but Jogaila, a name used in English scholarship to describe his role in the history of Lithuania. So, the question isn't what was his name because they both were. The question is do we recognize him for being the monarch of Lithuania or the monarch of Poland.

I would personally lean toward the latter for two reasons. 1) When he took the crown, moved to Krakow, and later ceded power to Vytautas, he pretty much made this decision for us. 2) Jagiello is up there with Kazimierz and Mieszko as the top imporatant figure in medieval Polish history, while in Lithuania he takes a back seat to Vytautas, Gediminas, Mindaugas, and probably Kestutis as well. Still, I would prefer Ladislaus II Jagiello or even Vladislav II Jagiello. I just don't see Wladyslaw as any more Anglicized than Władysław or for that matter Vladislovas. Having an English version for Wladyslaw solves all that, and the way I see it, there already is one: Ladislaus. (Leo1410 16:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC))

If you look at literature specifically dedicated to this time in Lithuanian and Polish history, you'll never see Ladislaus (I'm sure someone will find a rare exception), it's a form of the name used from a bygone era. Otherwise I agree with you. --Milicz 16:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It should be Wladyslaw as the form most often used in English. We could use Wladislaus as the official Latin form, but it's rather not popular.--SylwiaS | talk 17:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you make the case for the Solomonic solution that is Jogaila rather well. Poles would expect to see him as Władysław and Lithuanians banish him to foreign, Polish history. As for almost everyone else, they've never heard of him anyway, so they won't be surprised or confused. We aren't indulging anyone's comfortable national myths by calling him Jogaila: Poles can't ignore that he was a foreign king, Lithuanians can't ignore his existence by seeing him as a foreigner. Thus, nobody is happy. That's the normal result of compromise. Short of actually cutting the baby in half I don't see how we can do any better.

As Milicz says, Ladislaus is not something you would expect to see in the sort of book that constitutes a reliable source. Elonka can probably find it in one of her ancient pop reference books that she consults at every occasion, but none of those are exactly reliable. Indeed, as with many disputed names, finding the outdated anglicised version is usually a sign that the material you are about to read is outdated and very often wrong. SylwiaS's view that Wladyslaw is the form most often used in English is true in the sense she probably meant it, although it's not true as written. There is a more common anglicisation (in the broad sense of being used in English contexts) of the name in question which is neither Wladyslaw nor Ladislaus. Believe me, nobody would like using that version here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Angus, I don't know what your name is, but if we all agree that Ladislaus is archaic and unscholarly and everything else, at least understand why it is convenient. Wladyslaw, Vladyslav, Vladislovas, Ulaszlo... are all peculiar to a given non-English language. Using a Latin or English version of the name in the English wikipedia solves this problem. Simply trying to count if there are more Polish books and websites mentioning him as Wladyslaw than there are Lithuanian books and websites using Jogaila seems arbitrary. Truthfully, this is much more of an issue for kings such as Louis Angevin and Wladyslaw of Varna though this article seems to have become the lightning rod for the larger argument. (Leo1410 17:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC))

I meant the name as used in reference to this king of course. (We don't make Bill Clinton - William - only because William might be a more often used form of the name.) There is also a far more popular form of Jogaila in English which is Jagiello. I'd like to notice as well, that there were many "foreign" kings of countries all over the world. Should we rename the article George III of the United Kingdom to Georg of Hanover, or better yet George I of Great Britain to Georg, Prince Elector of the Holy Roman Empire? The latter couldn't even speak English. Why I don't see a heated dispute there? As much as Wiki policies go he should be simply called Wladyslaw II of Poland. We can of course look for a compromise, but Jogaila isn't a compromise in any way. BTW It seems that Ladislaus is a Latin version of the Hungarian name, while Wladyslaw was latinized as Wladislaus.--SylwiaS | talk 18:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It's worth remembering that there were two Polish monarchs whose name was Władysław II. Appleseed (Talk) 19:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I still do not see propositions, how would yo call Jogaila of Lithuania in his Lithuanianian period. He's not only foreign King, he's also monarch of Grand Duchy from 1377. (like stated in document: Nos Jagalo divina deliberacione magnus Rex vel dux litwanorum, Russieque dominus et here) Without that, he would not become a king of Poland. Or does this not count, as he LATER chose to be king? So please, tell me, how, according to teh WP:Naming rules shoulhe be called at that period?--Lokyz 19:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Wladislaus II Jagiellon? And then make it clear in the article that that was a name he adopted later in life? (Leo1410 19:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC))

Don't you think that implementing this name to his past is rather absurd? It's like calling early race Alfa-Romeo Ferrari's, or stating, that Karol Wojtyla was John Paul 2nd in 1947 year, or even assuming Jogaila was christian before ha was baptised. --Lokyz 19:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Jogaila in his Lithuanian period is called Jogaila, and no one suggests changing that. I understand that Leo1410's proposition referred to the article's title.--SylwiaS | talk 19:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If he didn't become the king of Poland the article should be titled Jogaila, Grand Duke of Lithuania (according to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles)#Monarchical_titles see pt. 5), just as the article of the other Wladyslaw II - Wladyslaw the Exile would be titled Wladyslaw II, High Duke of Poland if he wasn't exiled.--SylwiaS | talk 19:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC) BTW I'm fine with Wladislaus II Jagiellon--SylwiaS | talk 19:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I've explained above why I think in this case the King of Poland title is more appropriate than the Grand Duke of Lithuania title--though the spelling becomes the issue for me. The thing is, I wouldn't want to see a trend evolve of assuming King of Poland as the higher title. Since Sylwia entered the forbidden territory of what-ifs, I will ask what we would call the Vytautas the Great article had he outlived Jag/Jog and assumed the Polish crown for a year or two before dying. Certainly we wouldn't call Lithuania's national hero Witold I of Poland. Again, what-ifs are dangerous, but I think I made my point. (Leo1410 19:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC))

I cannot agree with SylwiaS or Milicz, that Jogaila is not popular in Lithuania, so it is not important or less relevant. Jogaila chose to accept Roman Catholicism and as the Ruler of Lithuania, call it Grand Duke (this is the historiographic tradition), ordered or forced his subjects to accept his choice. His choice eliminated the justification grounds for the Teutonic Order before Roman Emperors to continue its occupation of Lithuania's territory. How can be the person, who turned Lithuania to the path of Western civilisation and Roman Catholic Christianity be not important to Lithuania? As to his name, it would phonetically be better off written as Yogaila in English, but nobody writes Yagewo either :) And I agree with Calgacus, that the country in this case is better to be ommitted and that the names Jogaila (Wladyslaw II) or Wladyslaw II (Jogaila) are short and clear. Wladyslaw itself reminds about the King being Polish King (but not Polish). Jagiellon is not the surname of this person, it is rather the name of the dynasty, and the starter of the dynasty cannot be father of himself. Juraune 15:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"I cannot agree with SylwiaS or Milicz, that Jogaila is not popular in Lithuania." I don't believe I ever made such a statement, nor did Sylwia. He was important to Poland and Lithuania, but he took on the name of Wladyslaw and title of King of Poland, and that is what he was known as henceforth.--Milicz 17:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Please quote the full sentence, not just the first part of it. Popularity ratings and google counts of name popularity are not the indicators of importance in history. Juraune 19:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here is the full sentence: "I cannot agree with SylwiaS or Milicz, that Jogaila is not popular in Lithuania, so it is not important or less relevant." My statement remains the same, you seem to be misunderstanding what I have written. Although popularity ratings and google counts of name popularity can be indicators of importance in history, I don't think anyone is arguing importance with regards to the name of this article.--Milicz 20:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Jogaila in Lithuanian bibliography

I believe that changing opinions about Jogaila should be described, here or in a separate article. Xx236 07:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Family relations of Władysław II of Poland

Could anybody elucidate the status of this page? It is full of mistakes and strange spellings. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It is simply the part copied directly from this very article. I thought that the list looked ugly and migrated it to a separate article, leaving only a brief tree in place. //Halibutt 09:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

WP articles are not genealogical entries or trees, says WP:NOT. Furthermore, this article is about Jogaila, and that one is about Władysław II of Poland. Our readers may find this lack of conformity disturbing. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

About the content of that article, ask the person to add those lists to this one, I merely migrated it and put it in an easier to use version. As to the name of that article, this article should be under that name as well. And I'm sure it will be returned to the old name as soon as it's ready. //Halibutt 13:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is certainly not a free-for-all genealogical database, but in case of notable families (royalty, nobility, etc.) I am pretty sure such genealogical articles feet the notability critieria. Feel free to list it at AfD and see what the experts say, although considering the existence of Category:Family trees I think if this indeed is a problem, we have dozens of article to consider for deletion. As for the name, I am would indeed prefer Władysław II Jagiello instead of Wladyslaw II of Poland, although it is certainly better the the current version.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

avoidable but persistent and time-comsuming deliberate terminology confusion

I used to find it alarming, but now that I am used to it, I still find it annoying that my respected colleague and prolific editor Halibutt continues to persist with certain small and large things defying any past discussions.

The Genealogical article was created under the title that only adds to confusion and it was obviously done on purpose. Kievan Rus for years continues for someone to be Kiev Ruthenia, etc. This is not only within this article. My recent encounters are now famous Wilno are persistent refusal to call PSW as such (PBW for some reason) as well as its inclusions such as Wołodarka, Nowochwastów, Mironówka and even, until recently, Monachium (!).

Can my colleague start using normal terminology and not waste the time of us all on the need to correct such usages? --Irpen 08:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Could my honourable colleague Irpen please stay on topic? The name of that article was chosen out of simplicity. If you feel it should be moved to some other name then please be so kind as to propose a WP:RM and then move it anywhere you like. As to Kievan Ruthenia, it's just another name of what you call Kiev Rus' or Kiev Russia. Some prefer one name, some prefer the other, there's nothing wrong with that. Besides, contrary to what our respected friend Ghirlandajo said once, the name of Ruthenia was not coined by Poles and is just a Latin name, pretty popular among scholars. But still, there was one instance of the usage of the name in the article, Ghirlandajo took the liberty to change it to his liking and nobody opposed that. Same with Wołodarka, nobody has ever opposed your changes of the name. What I did oppose was your unsourced and unsupported demand that the Polish victory be called a Polish defeat. Yet, I can't see how is that issue related to this one. Besides, it was not me to add the name of Monachium to Template:Infobox Kiev, as I never edited that template myself. //Halibutt 08:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"The name of that article was chosen out of simplicity."

Simplicity, my friend, is when the name used in the title of another article matches the name of this article. What you've done is added complexity, perhaps, due to the dissatisfaction of WP:RM outcome

In no article I call the Kievan state as Kievan Russia even thoush some scholars do so.

I appologize for Monachium, it was introduced in your friend's rather than yours' edit. I thought I knew better.

I am glad you sometimes don't oppose the name changes. It would save time if you use consistent names youself. I can see why you insist with Wilno (whether I agree or not) but PBW and Kievan Ruthenia can certainly be avoided.

And I did not know about Template:Infobox Kiev but thanks for alerting me about that anon's edit. --Irpen 08:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Simplicity is when I use the name of this article and not the one to which it was changed in violation of wiki rules, WP:RM and consensus.

I don't call it Kievan Russia nor do I call it Kiev Rus', Kievan Rus, or Kievan Ruś, although all of these are used by scholars. I prefer the long-established name of Kiev Ruthenia, but - unlike many others - I don't care much for the name as there is more than one in common use.

Apologies accepted.

I agreed not to use the name of Wilno some year ago or so, in all of my recent articles I use Vilna or Vilnius, depending on whether the context is modern or historical. Why do you bring it here? PBW and Kievan Ruthenia could certainly be avoided, just like PSW and Kiev Rus could be avoided as well. That's how synonyms work. As I said in multiple places, in such cases I believe it should be left up to the author, but I don't oppose nit-pickers to change a single word either. //Halibutt 19:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me ask you 2 simple questions then

1. In the year 2006 Vilnians or Vilniusites live in Vilnius, Halibutt?
2. Was Jogaila in his early years a Ruler of Lithuania, according to your 'Early years' subtitle?

Juraune 07:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

1. I guess Vilnians, just as Varsovians live in Warsaw. It seems the term is quite widespread in English, contrary to the bizarre Vilniusites.
2. At times he was the ruler, at times he was a co-regent, and at times he was in prison and not a ruler of anything (rather a claimant). //Halibutt 10:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Jogaila in Lithuanian bibliography

I believe that changing opinions about Jogaila should be described, here or in a separate article. From hatred to love. Xx236 12:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Gdańsk Pomerania or Pomerelia

The article should link to Pomerelia instead of Gdańsk Pomerania. The latter is a phrase for a larger modern-day geographic region, while the former is the specific territory meant in the article. Not only is Pomerelia used considerably more often in English historiography([22],[23],[24], [25]), but a link to Gdańsk Pomerania implies that Poland controlled Chełmno Land and Pomesania at the time, which was not the case. Olessi 14:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem of neutrality is best explained in Pomerania#Subdivisions_of_Pomerania. Traditionally Poles divided it into two lands: Pomorze Wschodnie (Eastern Pomerania) and Pomorze Zachodnie (Western Pomerania), while Germans used to divide it into tree regions instead: Vorpommern (Hither Pomerania), Hinterpommern (Further Pomerania), and Pommerellen (Pomerania). Obviously what used to be "farther" for the Germans, was nearer for the Poles. Using the German division instead of Polish may be a bit problematic to oversensitive Poles and vice-versa. Since the article is about the king of Poland (and Duke of Lithuania) but not a German person, I'd suggest to use the Polish division into two lands throughout it. --Lysy^talk 15:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Some questions regarding the current version follow:

• "The document, known as the Union of Krewo, undertook to return the lands taken from Poland by its neighbours (notably Gdańsk and Eastern Pommerania taken by the Teutonic Order)." As I mentioned above, the territory described in Gdańsk Pomerania is larger than the territory described in Pomerelia. Linking to Gdańsk Pomerania falsely implies that Pomesania was a Polish territory at that time. An alternative could be "(notably [[Gdańsk]] and [[Pomerelia|parts of Eastern Pomerania]] taken by the Teutonic Order)".
• "In addition, the recent Teutonic acquisitions of Neumark, Santok and Drezdenko separated Poland from Western Pomerania and flanked Polish lands in Eastern Pommerania." I am not sure of the meaning of this sentence, as Pomerelia was taken by the Order in 1308/1309, so the specific parts of Eastern Pomerania then remaining under Polish control should be listed instead. In addition, a link to Gdańsk Pomerania again falsely implies that Pomerelia and Pomesania were under Polish control ca. 1400.
• "On August 14 Jagiełło received the declaration of war in Nowy Korczyn and already two days afterwards the Teutons invaded Pomerania and northern Poland." Which parts of the rather large territory of Pomerania were invaded? It is my understanding that Poland had been deprived of access to the Baltic by this time (see Space Cadet's map), and as such the Order would have been invading its own territory or that of the HRE. Olessi 05:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

• Jogaila → Wladyslaw II Jagiello —(Discuss)—

1. It was moved from Władysław II Jagiełło in violation of wiki rules (WP:CONSENSUS and WP:RM in particular; the fact that the result was 16:16 is telling as well) , so it shouldn't be where it is in the first place
2. The person in question was born as Jogaila, but changed the name to Wladyslaw out of his own free will¹.
3. It has been expanded significantly (by yours' truly ²) and it is now painfully clear that the person in question was a duke of Lithuania for 7 years and King of Poland for 49 years
4. Per WP:UE we should use the most prominent name as used by scholarly works. "Wladyslaw Jagiello" beats "Jogaila" in English scientific literature at least 3:1³, in encyclopaedias at least 10 to 1⁴ (not to mention more common tests⁵)

— //Halibutt 20:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Entirely accidental I'm sure, but this RM was listed under uncontroversial moves at WP:RM; now changed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, must've been blind. //Halibutt 23:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Support

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

1. Support per above //Halibutt 20:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

   BTW, do you counted both Władysław II Jagiełło and Wladyslaw II Jagiello as one, when pointed links to scientific literature? M.K. 23:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

2. Support per one or more years of discussion; summary of arguments above is rather convincing.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Support per Halibutt's argumentation Radomil talk 20:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
4. Support, to move it to a name which seems to be preferred in external English-language sources (multiple encyclopedias). --Elonka 21:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. Don't agree with all four of Halibutt's points, but that's of no importance. I agree with the proposed namechange. --Francis Schonken 21:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
6. Support agree with all Halibutt's points. Space Cadet 21:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
7. Support per Halibutt and numerous discussions. And yes, he changed his name willingly because he wanted to be a king of Poland, just as Marilyn Monroe changed hers from Norma Jeane Baker, because she wanted to be an actress, or Karol Wojtyła changed his to John Paul II, because he wanted to be a pope. Or should we move those articles too?--SylwiaS | talk 23:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

   A very valid point, although I disagree as it only partly applies here. One reason is that Marilyn Monroe is a stage-name/pseudonym (although legal) and any one selected as Pope doesn't really have a choice of keeping their name (as I understand it). I could also give examples of peoples names legally being other to what they are best known as i.e. Triple H for Paul Michael Levesque and Cat Stevens for Yusuf Islam. Andrius 00:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

   Since the change they were officially referred to by their new names, what cannot be said about Cat Stevens. Then I think my examples are very rellevant, since Wladylaw Jagiello was referred to by his new name.--SylwiaS | talk 02:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

8. Support. Muhammad Ali, not Cassius Clay. logologist|Talk 02:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
9. Support, proper monarch title, name at death (Trotsky, Stalin?), tough luck Jogaila changed his name to Wladyslaw, unless you can prove he was drugged and unaware of what he was doing. Truthseeker 85.5 11:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
10. Support - this is the name which predominates in historical literature. Balcer 14:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
11. Support per Balcer. - Darwinek 14:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
12. Support per above and my opposition to acts by propagandists on Portal Russia.Constanz - Talk 14:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

    Are you voting only due to personal hatred? M.K. 15:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

    I wouldn't say hatred. I dislike childish name-calling, the way they gather voters and blacklist others. I know how things are done by those pals.--Constanz - Talk 06:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

    It looks like that you voted on hatred not knowing the main problem here. The present title of article bears Lithuanian name of the monarch, the original one which he personally used till death. By taking baptism Jogaila received and new name; now Poles trying to rename this article by presenting new one Wladyslaw II Jagiello, which is not his baptism name at all. And I do not see here any “childish name-calling” and even do not see “they gather voters and blacklist others”. For Jogaila to stay, voting many different people – from Lithuania, Belgium, Russia, Scotland etc. M.K. 07:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

    Are you talking about this or this? The Russian board only mirrors the content of the Polish one. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

13. Support: Second choice to none. Reichenbach 15:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
14. Support: I was analysing discussions for a while. Generally, Halibutt together with Britanica do convince me.--Beaumont (@) 16:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

    It's Britannica Beaumont. Did you analyze for a long time? Glad that Halibutt is on the same par as Britannica in your mind. How about specifically, rather than generally? Best. 75.2.88.126 18:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

    Oh, I thought it was Wikipedia 75.2.88.126 ;) Do we meet again? doesn't matter. Glad to learn that Halibutt contradicts Britannica's position on that. --Beaumont (@) 20:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

15. Support Yes, when in doubt there are a plethora of encyclopedias and references which use his primary royal title. Pawel z Niepolomic 22:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
16. Support Not my first choice but a step in the right direction. Appleseed (Talk) 00:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
17. Support. "Wladyslaw" ought to be in the title. john k 01:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

    This attitude is insulting not only for Lithuania, but for the people of Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia (Smolensk, Bryansk), of which Jogaila was the ruler. Mainstream historians in either of these four countries never refer to him as Wladyslaw. I don't see why the opinion of four nations is dismissed so carelessly, in order to please the Poles. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

    Ghirla, please do not present it as if it was a national conflict, some sort of "us vs. them". It is not. //Halibutt 08:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

18. Support. Szopen 08:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose; given my reasons many times. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose Google play: Jogaila 380 Wladyslaw II Jagiello 59; Jogaila 16600 Wladyslaw II Jagiello 12100. "Argument" "changed the name to Wladyslaw" – unfounded. “duke of Lithuania for 7 years” need comments? M.K. 22:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose no good reasons given by proposer; how anyone can support this move and cite guidelines at the same time is utterly baffling (WP:UE is not relevant, WP:NAME and subpages are, but they don't favour the proposed location). Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Only preferential voting can help decide on this particular move. A very similar situation took place at Talk:Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse. All votes based on yes/no option for the names as difficult as this one will fail to produce concensus. --Irpen 22:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Have stated my case previously, more than once. Dr. Dan 23:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose. Some of the points made by Halibutt are, well, wrong. Point 1 I partly agree with - apart from the last bit. Point 2, I dispute. He changed his name of his own free will? Did he not change it to allow hime to rule Poland? Point 3 - was he not ruler of Poland and Lithuanian at the same time, so TECHNICALLY was he not ruler of Poland for 49 and of Lithuania for (49 + 7) 56 years? Moving on to point 4, nothing seems correct about that, as M.K. has pointed out with several book searches (the most important point being - searching for only English results in Google and putting the Polish name in speech marks). So using conventional tests more extensively (these are in no way perfect, either) would give better results. E.g. heres a Google search for English pages (-wikipedia.org), Jogaila returns 15,600 results and a search for English pages containing the term "Wladyslaw II Jagiello" (-wikipedia.org) gives 10,600 results. I am in no way an expert and those were "my two pence" - correct me if I'm wrong in any of what I have said (it's 00:30 here and I'm quite tired). Anyways, overall, I disagree with most of Halibutt's reasons and therefore I oppose. Andrius 23:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

   Read the article and you'll see. He was not a ruler of both Lithuania and Poland, technically he was king of Poland with dukes of Lithuania as his vassals. Practically he had little sovereignity over Lithuania under Vytautas. And he did not hold the title of Grand Duke of Lithuania for Grand Duke for 56 years, just read the article and you'll see. As to academic works - sure, let's include Lithuanian language publications as well... but then shouldn't we include Polish ones as well? //Halibutt

   The fact of the matter is that, Jogaila/Wladyslaw II Jagiello had influence over Lithuania, howewever small that influence was. As to your point on academic works, I was speaking abut the google book search and the google search - although they are only minor indicators. As someone has already stated, this will only be solved by preferrential votinig and in my opinion neither Jogaila nor Wladyslaw II Jagiello is the correct title. Last point - why am I sensing all this hostility? I'm feeling some snide remarks from various people. Andrius 21:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

   article full of mistakes... M.K. 09:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

7. Oppose. Regrettably, there are no efforts to find compromise and more neutral title... Orionus 06:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

   This is a more neutral title. Note that according to guidelines the article would have to be at Wladyslaw II of Poland. //Halibutt 08:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

   Example from physics: What is a photon - a wave or a particle? The same is true in the case of Jogaila. He is equally important both for Lithuania and Poland history. Open your eyes, Halibutt. Today is year 2006. Orionus 09:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

   Yes, but he was a king of Poland, not a king of Lithuania. Get the idea? //Halibutt

   and one more gap... M.K. 14:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

8. Oppose. Yawn... I am amazed at the tireless activities of some Polish guys, who manage simultaneously to promote their agenda on Russian Enlightenment, Marie Curie, Adam Ozharovsky, Lodz, and half a dozen other entries. Molobo is sure proud. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose. Disagree completely with Halibutt's 1. I doubt that Marileen Monroe, or Pope John Paul the II would wanted to be known as a persons without roots and without names given at birth. I stated historical reasons for Jogaila before, and have no time at all to repeat them. Jogaila is simply shorter and more elegant. Poland is not the rest of the world, no matter how big or significant it is. Polish language is not an equivalent of Latin or English, not yet, dear Piotrus and Halibutt :D No compromise, no deal. Juraune 14:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose. I must oppose the proposed merger not because I think Jogaila the best name (though it's a good one), but because the proposed location is bad. Wladyslaw is not good English, even if it is used. Nobody knows how to pronounce it and it is just the Polish sans diacritics. If we're going to go with that, I say let's give the Poles what they want and add the stupid diacritics. (NB Ladislaus, a Latinisation, avoids all nationalistic arguments and it is common enough in English.) Worse than that though is the fact that "II" does not seem to be an undisputed ordinal. If this guy's Wladyslaw II, then who's Władysław II the Exile? Worst, though, is that Jagiello here appears as a surname or epithet. It is, of course, neither. It is his birth name. I proposed on several prior occasions to move the page to Jagiello, which is, I think, the most recognisable English usage for those not familiar with Polish history. It is the Polonisation of a Lithuanian name with a great history as a dynastic name and in the English literature. I do not see why it is even controversial. Apply the Charlemagne exception (as currently is being done here) and move him to Jagiello. Other than that, I like it where it is better than where it is proposed to put it. Srnec 16:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

    The diacritics are neither wise nor stupid. People can be but not diacritics. --Lysy^talk 21:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

11. Oppose. I was not going to vote on this one, until I saw the preceding vote and comment. I agree with it 100%. --Pan Gerwazy 16:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose. ­­­Doc15071969 20:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

    Why, if I may ask?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

    See long essay in the discussion secton. Renata 01:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

13. Oppose artificial concoction of the name. Also false statement: He formally changed his name to Ladislaus, not Wladyslaw. `'mikkanarxi 21:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

    Why Ladislaus?--SylwiaS | talk 00:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

14. Oppose per Srnec. In addition, of Halibutt's reasons: 2 is irrelevant; 3 is very dubious; 4 is exaggerated. That leaves 1, which has nothing to do with the merits of the names: Renata is right to prohibit "digging in the past". Jogaila is better than Wladislaw II Jagiello; although Jagiello would be better still. Septentrionalis 21:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

    The new title would at least contain Jagiello... and be in line with every other encyclopedia out there. PS. How is 4 'exaggerated'?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

    Probably, exaggerated because contributor counted Władysław II Jagiełło and Wladyslaw II Jagiello as one. I asked him about this issue, no answer till now. M.K. 07:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

15. Oppose per Srnec and per comment of ConstanZ Alex Bakharev 07:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Re:M.K's 'statistics': it has been explained many times that 'Jogaila' refers to many people and things, thus comparing it with 'Wladyslaw Jagiello' will always prove 'Jogaila' is more popular - just as comapring 'George' with 'George Bush' will leave 'George' victorious. Also, if compared not only with one selected variant but with all (i.e. not only 'Wladyslaw II Jagiello' but 'Wladyslaw Jagiello' and 'Wladyslaw II of Poland' and such, 'Jogaila' will be in a small minority).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

First Jogaila do not "refers to many people and things" M.K. 22:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd only like to point out that currently Wikipedia is the only English-language encyclopedia to have the article on the guy in question under Lithuanian title. All the other, including Encarta, Brittanica, and a plethora of others use the name commonly used by scholars. We don't - for some obscure reason. //Halibutt 23:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

That is plainly false - the "just because I haven't seen it" argument: Jogaila (Jagiello) - (The Encyclopedia of World History, Sixth Edition, 2001) http://www.bartleby.com/67/557.html http://www.bartleby.com/67/555.html. Several names are in use; they each have arguments in favor and against.

Furthermore, in stating the reasons for requesting the move, you are again trying to misrepresent the outcome of previous poll (conflating all the votes for alternatives other than Jogaila) and how it was arrived to. Unlike in this case, the way the poll was structured was agreed upon in another discussion before the poll took place - with express intent to try to find a consensus that way after previous attempts had failed. That makes appealing to policies as well as trying to identify the "proper" procedure moot because overriding objective of all of them is... to try to find a consensus. Admin made the decision as to what can be identified as consensus - to move to Jogaila. I don't believe a good case for move has been made therefore I oppose.

Perhaps we could move away from "this is the proper name" arguments and try to approach this from the point of view of usability - for example, in terms of getting to the information and trying to minimise possible confusion. There is an ambiguity issue with Wladislaw II Jagiello - search lands on disambiguation page, same with Wladyslaw II (which from my POV is good for similar names - one gets alerted and is presented with a choice). Wladislaw II and Wladyslaw II Jagiello, however, bypasses disambiguation. Then there is the numerical II/V issue. Just my opinion, but it would be preferrable if search for Wladyslaw/Wladislav variations would function likewise, and, where possible, individual articles would have unambiguous names. Doc15071969 20:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that as we are building an Encyclopedia here, we are forging something other than Encarta, Britannica, and a plethora of other sources. Otherwise, it would be pointless to bother. Dr. Dan 01:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

'The Encyclopedia of World History' has no article on Jagiello/Jogaila, the fact that it uses several different names to refer to him simply means it extremly poorly edited for a print encyclopedia; that hardly invalidates the argument that 'no encyclopedis have an entry about this person under 'Jogaila'). Majority of English sources use Wladyslaw variants, and so should we; the question is which variant - but Jogaila is not one of those. As for redirects, I don't see a problem. Wladyslaw II may be confusing, Wladyslaw II Jagiello is not.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - We appear to still be deadlocked. Since all attempts at negotiation appear to have failed, I recommend that we proceed to the next step of WP:DR, which is formal mediation. If we go this route, we need to assemble a list of editors who are interested in negotiation, in good faith and in a civil manner. If we go this route, who is interested in participating? Please see WP:RFM for more information. --Elonka 23:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Nice. Congrats on nice poll campaign [26] [27] [28].Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 10:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, very interesting development and another sign how desperate some contributor is. This development should be examined closely. I also have some felling that these cases will be "self-moderated" or "did not know" or "it was a joke" M.K. 11:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)P.s. and notes delivered in these “request” are quite misleading – "recently" somehow the move was conducted some months ago and only now contributor realized that maybe another moves should go, with new poll background on Jogaila itself. It is clear sign that by this “action” contributor trying to gather support for this (Jogaila) particular case. Is it only me or other contributors think that these “contributions” was not made in “good faith” too? Wondering, where is P.P. (aka Prokonsul Piotrus)...

Sorry, M.K., either we apply the same rules everywhere or we don't apply them at all. We want to have this article under a name no British or American scholar uses and which the person himself did not use for most of his life - fine. But that should also work for other monarchs. Next step is to move John Paul II to Karol Wojtyła, Catherine the Great to her original German name and so on. //Halibutt 13:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This reasoning is exactly why WP:POINT says "Wikipedia is inconsistent". Septentrionalis 21:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

How come my valid question disrupts wikipedia? Does it disrupt wiki more than moving this article against wiki rules and traditions? Or perhaps less? //Halibutt 06:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

As a sidenote, User:Piotrus also recruited several votes by spamming. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Ghirla, the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) readers are not obliged to agree with Piotrus. They are not necessarily Polish neither. Do you consider some potential votes of possibly experienced wikipedians a bad idea? --Beaumont (@) 11:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Beaumont, what is your position on provided links 26,27,28 above; and a content of them? M.K. 11:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Those are valid questions, if this article was to be called Jogaila, as it has been. Yes, that's how absurd it is- even you noticed it.

• As for Piotrus... as opposed to Ghirla's "vote no campaign" at national noticeboards, Piotrus is trying to expand this little nationalist bickering ground and garner opinions from a) a relevant to the problem place, and b) a supranational community free of such collusion, so you should be the last one complain, given your energetic negative campaigning. Truthseeker 85.5 12:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)