Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło

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)

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)

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)

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", 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Requested move - hopefuly the last and best compromise

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)

Survey

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

• 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)

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

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)

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)