Talk:Gediminas/Archive 1




 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . 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. 

don't move, because there's a well-written policy which goes against this move, sorry. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 07:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: due to various page moves, a portion of this page's history is here. Renata 05:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Pukuveras Liutauras and number of sons of Gediminas
Although the latest edit made Pukuveras Liutauras a Grand Duke, he is not on the List of Lithuanian rulers. The Grand Duke (Didysis Kunigaikštis) of Lithuania was practically speaking the king of Lithuania, i. e. there was only one Grand Duke at a time and he was the leader of all the other Dukes (Duke = Kunigaikštis) in Lithuania. Pukuveras Liutauras does not appear on the list of Lithuanian rulers in this web page either - Lietuvos didieji kunigaikšciai. Also, a couple of references, including these - Viduramžiu Lietuva,  Maximilian Genealogy Master Database 2000 - pafg1585 - Generated by Personal Ancestral File, have stated that Gediminas have seven sons, not five as is stated in Wikipedia. H Padleckas 07:51, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The Pukuveras Liutauras link in this article leads to an article on Butvydas, who in parentheses is called Pukuveras, Pukuwer, and which says he was a Grand Prince of Lithuania and the father of (among others) Vytenis and Gediminas, both of which became Lithuanian Grand Dukes after him (Vytenis first, then Gediminas). The List of Lithuanian rulers gives his name as Butvydas instead of Pukuwer, Pukuveras, or Pukuveras Liutauras.  However, the List of Lithuanian rulers says in the Remarks for Gediminas that he was the son of Skalmantas, which is a red link.  H Padleckas 07:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Title
This page must be moved. "Duke" is not a correct term; in English it would be Grand Duke or Grand Prince (or even King); but a common way to classify rulers on wiki is simply X of Y; so this page, and that of other Lithuanian rulers, ought to be moved to X of Lithuania - in this case, Gediminas of Lithuania. - Calgacus 22:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * According to wikipedia naming policy:

"European monarchs whose rank was below that of King (e.g. Grand Dukes, Electors, Dukes, Princes), should be at the location "{Monarch's first name and ordinal}, {Title} of {Country}". Examples: Maximilian I, Elector of Bavaria, Jean, Grand Duke of Luxembourg" Naming conventions (names and titles) Calgacus, read the f* policies before you will start to change them. Szopen 15:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If "Grand Duke" were really lower than king, which it ain't, it would be Gediminas, Grand Duke/Prince of Lithuania ... not Duke ... which is simply incorrect. Moving it to Duke is against good practice, esp. as a cut and paste move (which gives the impression the entire article is your own work). - Calgacus 15:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Apart from the wiki policies, you might also want to read an article on Grand Duke, which clearly states that The title Grand Duke (...) is of a protocolary rank below King but higher than a sovereign Duke (Herzog) or Prince (Fürst). Halibutt 16:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Why? Do you think I don't know what it means? I (unlike you aparently) am aware that this tradition is rooted in artitifical self-interested Latin language/Roman catholic hierarchization of the high and later middle ages, not in the self-preception of the rulers or their ethnic subjects. If you were to take this seriously, the King of Navarre is more highly ranked than the later "Grand Princes" (etymologically more cognate with "Great King") than the later medieval soon-to-be emperors of Vladimir/Rus(sia). - Calgacus 16:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, please do not assume my ignorance, it's impolite, to say the least. Secondly, the self-perception of various rulers has little to do here. I might style myself the Emperor of the World, which would not change much, would it. Halibutt 16:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do not write as a hypocrite, it is impolite and also slightly ridiculous (see your own comment "you might also want to read an article on Grand Duke"). You may very well perceive yourself as Emperor of the World, but this would make you a madman, and, moreover, you do not have millions of subjects who style you likewise. - Calgacus 17:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * All right then, what is the reason for reversion of my move of this article? Was Gediminas not a Grand Duke but merely a Duke? Halibutt 20:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * For about the last 25 years of his life, Gediminas was Didysis Kunigaikštis of Lithuania, his final and most important title, personally and historically. The Didysis Kunigaikštis of Lithuania was the monarch of Lithuania, the head Kunigaikštis in charge of all the other Kunigaikštis's.  If you translate Kunigaikštis into English as Duke, then Didysis Kunigaikštis would be the Grand Duke, a rank above a regular duke, especially since this position is equivalent to king during Lithuania's history.  Gediminas was obviously the ruler of Lithuania at that time.  This fact is well established.  H Padleckas 21:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That's what I thought - and that's what the article says... So, Calgacus, could you move the article back? Halibutt 21:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Back? Where? Someone moved it to Gediminas, Grand Duke of Lithuania. But I'm not sure what's going on, this talk page doesn't seem to have moved. - Calgacus 21:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, sorted it. I've no idea what was going on there. - Calgacus 21:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's vote
Let me add my 2 cents here, as most of the current article is due to my adaptation of the EB1911 text. Halibutt's whim cannot dictate the title of a key article for five nations. Let's decide the issue in a more civilised manner. I propose the article to be moved to Gediminas ot Lithuania, or (better still) simply Gediminas. I believe the argument results from a misunderstanding. In early Eastern Europe the term "veliky knyaz" was construed as superior to "king". The princes/dukes of Eastern Europe, let alone the grand dukes, were referred to in contemporary Latin sources as reges (in Norse contexts, konungs), until the 14th century at least. Gediminas, active in the predominantly Eastern Orthodox milieu, just aspired to emulate the title of ancient rulers of Kievan Rus. Mediaeval Orthodox countries had inhibitions to assume the title of king, which had to be sanctioned by the Pope, was derived from the name of the first Catholic emperor of the West and was associated with the Western Christian usage. They were kings in all but the later western rendering of their title. In the western tradition, Gediminas' title may be translated as "grand duke", "grand prince", and "grand king", depending on the perspective. Hence, let's move the article from the current, rather controversial title to Gediminas. --Ghirla | talk 19:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Never move on your own whim, even if claim "Policy"!
That was quite an educated summary above and educative for me too. I would like to see the discussion and would participate if the scope of my knowledge permits. In the meanwhile, the users who were moving the articles around, please do not ever do that single-handily. We had enough bad blood by the article's moves in WP and the moves are, actually, one of the most provocative ways to draw some bad blood. Before moving any articles, except for the obvious cases (like correcting typos, newbie articles or ArbCom orders) all moves should be proposed first and the time for responses should be given. I don't mean that WP:RM listing is mandatory since it may bring a lot of clueless voters. Just proposing at talk would suffice to get the attention of all the interested parts.

As for this article, it should first of all be moved to its original name to undo single-handed moves by the two movers. Then the discussion should ensue and if consensus of the move is not reached, the article should stay at its original name, rather than the name at which it randomly ended after multiple moves when someone actually cared to announce the voting. Pretty please with sugar on top! I hope others would agree. --Irpen 19:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~ 


 * I support the move to Gediminas as nominator. --Ghirla | talk 19:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't care. Better write articles than argue here. Renata 19:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Simplicity is best. Kazak 22:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. At least it ain't, thanks to me, Gediminas, Duke of Lithuania. Best to avoid the problem of status, probably too much for many of the people here to understand, and keep it neutral. - Calgacus 23:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Gediminas is just a common first name. We're not planning to turn this page into a disambig, are we. Let's just discuss the thing here and go on to some other issues. Why should we have 2 more moves if we could have one (or no move at all..). Halibutt 00:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * EB's article is called simply "Gediminas". Yes, EB has different naming convention but they were not afraid of any confusion here. To avoid DAB problems put "otheruses" that would link to DAB between this one and Gediminas (name) etymology article (if one is ever written). There is no other ambiguity with anything else but the name article since no one else is known as simply "Gediminas". Those who share this first name, are known under their last names. And please Halibutt, don't move articles without proposing the moves at talks as per I wrote above. Obvious reasons. --Irpen 00:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * support move to Gediminas as per above. --Irpen 00:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * support move to Gediminas as per Irpen abakharev 00:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per Halibutt.--Molobo 14:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support move to Gediminas. Although Gediminas is a somewhat common male first name among Lithuanians, the name Gediminas is only used by Lithuanians.  Any present or future Gediminas would have a surname which would be included in an article title.  The subject of this article, Didysis Kunigaikštis Gediminas, is the most important and probably only Gediminas without a surname likely to have his own first name only encyclopedia article.  Therefore, I conclude an article title "Gediminas" would have no ambiguity.  More common internationally used king's names such as Henry were used in a number of different countries such as England, Germany, and Sweden.  Therefore, for many of these other monarch's names, it is necessary to specify what country they are from; hence an article would be titled Henry I of England to specify which Henry the article is about, especially since surnames were usually not used for monarchs until later in history.  This is not necessary for Gediminas.  H Padleckas 07:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Especially as we have Algirdas and Vitautas already. --Ghirla | talk 07:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Also a note to everyone: every other Lithuanian ruler is named just by his first name. So if you leave Gediminas, Grand Duke... then you need to rename all the other articles for consistency. Renata 09:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * So, can we move it now? 6-2 seems pretty good. - Calgacus 16:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No, we can't. Change the policy on nobility first. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 07:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

a strong objection to a series of unilateral decisions (both to move and to reject the vote)
I object to the way the vote was closed. No one can claim policy single handily whether moving or closing the vote. The editors voted, how they voted is clear. The admin has to enforce the voting results rather than come here and, effectively decide that the voting was moot to begin with. Please also note that the vote was prompted by single-handed moves by editors who for the lack of patience or any other reason went ahead with moving istead of proposing the new names at talk. As a result the article name is where it randomly ended after some moves before someone cared to propse the move and a the vote. Once the vote is concluded, the article should be moved. --Irpen 18:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Totally object. Nighstallion has haughtily and unilaterally made himself interpreter and enforcer of rules which are otherwise not applied to Lithuanian rulers. Are we replacing Wiki consensus policy with a dictatorship by Nightstallion now? If we are, thank you for the precedent NS, I will use it elsewhere. - Calgacus 19:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I contacted an admin closing the vote within minutes after his frustrating interference and here copy my message on his talk: "I'm disappointed with your decision not to move the page as it shows contempt for both community opinion, historical truth, and the common sense. It seems like you didn't read the page carefully, as it was pointed out there that Gediminas' title changed over the years and its translations still vary as well. In the opinion of 14th Lithuanians, his title was above the king not below it. The policy, which you didn't bother to formulate succinctly anyway, is not applicable to non-Catholic rulers, as the title of king was bestowed by the Pope only and the Pope had no authority over non-Catholic rulers in general and Gediminas in particular. In the context of Eastern European history, "the policy" as interpreted by yourself discriminates against Orthodox and pagan rulers and even emperors, as Gediminas was actually an emperor in a sense. Also, your decision not to move turns the whole nomenclature for Lithuanian rulers into a mess, as we have Algirdas, Vitautas, etc but Gediminas, Grand Duke of Lithuania stands out of line with an incorrect and controversial title frivolously sticked to the article. Honestly, you need to improve the standard of your work." --Ghirla | talk 22:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I was answered that: a) I am welcome to get the opinion of more experienced admins on the issue (Nightstallion was promoted only recently, and I was one of those who supported him); b) I should seek to revise the nobility naming conventions, which imho reek of racism as to their treatment of non-Catholic royalty. I will try to summarize my objections within several days and to put them forth on the NC talk page.--Ghirla | talk 22:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Something definitely has to be done about degrading the status of Orthodox/pagan rulers. WP is currently swallowing hook, line and sinker the propaganda of High and Late Medieval Latin christendom. According to this, the kings of Navarre and Croatia are more highly ranked than the soon-to-be Emperors of the Moscow/Russia, which is obviously patent nonsense. The Royal_and_noble_ranks page is one of the main culprits. I'm surprised we don't create the category "Infidels" for all Muslims, and "schismatics" for all Orthodox people. Maybe we should do that to make wiki consistent. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) [[Image:UW_Logo-secondary.gif|15px]] 22:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * To input my opinion here directly: I'm not opposed to the move at all (I've got no special opinion on it), it's just that there's a naming convention which is contrary to the proposed move, so I simply can't do the move. I would be in favour of reworking the NC on nobility, though; it's horridly complicated, and is rather biased (though I don't think that this was done on purpose, but rather due to the lack of knowledge of the editors involved on Eastern European nobility). &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 12:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It appears like the Polish editors already set to work on their own set of rules. --Ghirla | talk 12:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I would vote for Gediminas and then describing his position as pertains to Lithuania as opposed to incompletely translating to nobility title equivalents which are more appropriate to western Europe. Peters 04:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC) That said, some additional prospecting does confirm that if the vote is to keep the title, then "Grand Duke" appears the likeliest candidate. Pēters 20:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

As well I would like to note that e.g. Kings of Thailand or Kings of the Zulu and other such nations are listed as kings rather than some dukes or chiefs. Therefore, this raises an inequality between the non-Catholic civilizations far from Europe, that started to have more relations with the Europeans only after the rennaisance and such, and the non-Catholic states and nations in Europe. Burann 14:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Witold
Witold (Vytautas) was a son of Kiejstut, not Giedymin (Gediminas). Giedymin was Witold's grandfather not father. Is it clear?--Mister X 15:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Text
The problem is that in text name vary greatly from original article name - in one article part duke called in one matter in another part in another. Besides name “Gedymin” even is not in original name lineup. So to reader is could be a quite challenge to understand… If we have article main name, write in text the same…if he had other name like xxx IV it be a different matter. M.K
 * OK, although I believe that Gedymin is a more suitable name, considering confessional and linguistic affiliation of his subjects, I will not interfere with you changes now that you explained them. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * so green light to revert back verson? M.K

Why you, lithuanians always write: "Gediminas", or "Algirdas". Olgierd didn,t know his name is "Algirdas". He wasn't never heard a name like that. He thought his name was Olgierd. Giedymin and Olgierd didn't spoke Lithuanian language like you do. They weren't Lithuanians, they were Litvins or Ruthenians or Old Belarusians if you like. They spoke Ruthenian language. So why all these Lithuanian names??? This lithuanization is not nice. "Gediminas of Lithuania"!!! Just "Gediminas" wasn't Lithuanian enough?--Bloomfield 17:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)