The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 22:53, 10 February 2007.

Jogaila[edit]

As I have been working on the article myself, this is technically a self-nomination; but really it is User:Halibutt's work, and all it needed from me was a copy-edit, though I couldn't resist meddling with it on my own account. Since Halibutt is largely on a wiki-break, I decided to focus the references to give the English-language sources more prominence, in case I have to answer FAC questions and requests myself. I am confident that the article covers all major aspects of the reign and is thoroughly referenced. qp10qp 08:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forget about it then. I thought maybe it was a simple thing to do, but it's not worth your time to fiddle with. It's good enough that those urls are there at all.-BiancaOfHell 10:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was exactly my reasoning: I would use the books anyway, but since some people might be able to use the links - fine. If not - the reference is still valid, then why not have the link. //Halibutt 15:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for reading the article and responding: genuinely appreciated. The Google Books thing worries me, because my hope was that even people who don't know much about the subject would be able to check a reasonable proportion of the facts quite easily. I've just gone through all the links again and I must say they are all as they were when I last checked them—but that's just for me. Of the links in the notes, only one (Delbrǔck) brought up the gmail box, but with one more click the required page came up. In the references section there are two books (Rowell and the New Cambridge VI) that come up with gmail boxes (as I knew), but a click gives you the cover (I can't link to specific pages in those books—used to be able to: they've gone play-hard-to-get on me—but for the references section (as opposed to the notes section) I don't think that matters, since the list is only a general reference. Oddly, the Delbrǔck came up in the references link without a gmail box.

One way of verifying quoted notes (this is why I've put quite a few quotes in there) would be to type the quotes, or part of them, into Google Books, or even Amazon Search Inside, and then read them in context. Even if you can't get the page up, you might still see enough of the context in the search results to know the quote's not spurious. (The above comments are addressed not to Bianca, who's tried enough, but to anyone else wanting to check refs).qp10qp 12:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the occasional GMail pop-up on Google Books is a built-in annoyance, one more click gets you to the right place. Yomanganitalk 16:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because of real life copyright paranoia the extremly useful Google Books links are not stable. I have many times found that weeks or months after I added a GB link, it is obsolete :( Nonetheless as long as they work, they are a very useful tool allowing quick verification and 'further reading'; my suggestion is to leave them until they are confirmed expired (pages are no longer available for browsing). PS. Getting a Google account is free and very easy.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism :

General opinion: After rereading article I made an impression that all battles, border changes were solved because of Jogaila; Pro-Polish interpretation of events also too strong; etc. I did not have time to go step by step through all references and dates, probably there are more inaccuracies. But thank you Qp10qp for impressive input, especially for deleting those silly headlines like – cold war turns hot etc. :) M.K. 11:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't address these points for the moment (have to go out), but when I do, be patient, it will take me several days, and I'll go through one by one. I think all the objections can be addressed by either adjusting the text or quoting sources. Thanks for your thorough reading of the article. qp10qp 18:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need to rush! When all issues will be solved, I will gladly change my initial position. Take care, M.K. 18:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will address these points further down the page. qp10qp 17:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added The "Biography" heading and extra headings just recently in response to User:Explorer's suggestions above. I'll ask him what he thinks now. My own preference is for no "Biography" heading or sub-headings, as it was before. A thing like that can be changed in an instant because the article, in my opinion, has a logical structure that does not necessarily need sub-headings.
As for the request for mediation, no one has yet taken it up: there seems no urgency. And in fact, this is more or less the same mediation requested by a very few people at the beginning of November, which was not taken up then either. Since this FAC is in progress and the mediation is not, should not this process take precedence? After all, it's actually about the article? qp10qp 12:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, these are interesting objections, and I'm sure they can all be addressed. Before I trot off to the books, let me just say that it was an innocent decision to use the name Nowogródek in the map (though perhaps it was instinctively named that way in the article by a Polish editor): the more people who can contribute to things like that the better. The choice given in the Wikipedia article for that town is: "Navahrudak (Belarusian: Навагру́дак; Russian: Novogrudok; Polish: Nowogródek; Lithuanian: Naugardukas". (You say Novgorodok: is that a variant spelling of Novogrudok?)
On whether Jogaila was already Orthodox, this is the first source I've heard of on the matter. Clearly his mother was, and I always get the impression he retained paganism as a bargaining point. As you have given a reference, the point can easily be added, though I need to go and look at some books to remind myself where that and the other points you mention were sourced from. qp10qp 16:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've started by adding your Meyendorff quote to the notes; as you request the reflection of a discussion on the point (I'm not aware [yet] of any historians discussing Meyendorff's assertion), I've combined it with a quote to the contrary by a primary source; this way:

"The historian John Meyendorff suggests that Jogaila may already have been an Orthodox Christian: "In 1377, Olgerd of Lithuania died, leaving the Grand Principality to his son Jagiello, an Orthodox Christian...". Byzantium and the Rise of Russia, 205; Dmitri, however, made it a condition of the marriage that Jogaila "should be baptized in the Orthodox faith and that he should proclaim his Christianity to all men". Document quoted by Dvornik, 221."

One technicality: I've added the book to the references, but it may be a different edition to the one you quote, and so I'd be grateful for the full details.

I've also changed some of the phrasing that you disliked: "overlordship was tolerated" is now "overlordship was accepted"; "began adopting western legal traditions" is now "began adopting Polish legal traditions"; and so that less impression of "primarily" is given, I've changed the phrasing in question to "Jogaila decided that a way to end conflict with the Teutonic Order would be to convert..." What do you think of these modifications?

I'll respond more bit by bit, but I'm going slowly at the moment because I'm listening to football. qp10qp 19:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Meyendorff is a great historian and I doubt it would be a good idea to assume he doesn't no what he's talking about. I think the implication is that Jogaila was Orthodox before he became ruler of Lithuania, nominally reconverted to paganaism, then rereconverted the Catholic church. These responses are good btw. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Let me address the following section of Calgacus's objection:

The article makes out that Jogaila took the decision to convert to "Christianity" primarily to combat the Teutonic Order. In fact, besides ignoring all other plausible reasons, that is just speculation and assumes a threat level of the Order that many historians would doubt it posed.

The new wording should remove any impression of "primarily", though that word wasn't used. However, I've not yet read a historian who downplays either that motivation or the threat posed by the Order. The following are extracts from some of the sources used (see the article for book details):

I have, and I'm just gonna take my memory for it. Getting an extra kingdom by itself is any motivation to marry and convert, rather than fearing some fantastical destruction by the Teutonic Knights. Portraying all Jogaila's career as a run-up to the Battle of Tannenburg is completely distoring history. 15:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I would argue, and I'm sure so would others, that that statement is complete nonsense. Jogaila needed the superior Poles to save him from conquest from the Order? Polish nationalist myth. Funny how Lithuania had done alright before and had grown to five times larger than Poland. I dunno, maybe Jogaila didn't mind getting another kingdom to crush the Order and expand his own power, but to imply Lithuania faced desperation ... would like to see how these historians sustain that argument. If anything, fear of continued isolation, being surrounded by christian states, may have played some role in his decision, but most of Jogaila's lands lay out of reach of TO campaigns. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, it's fascinating. Must be another conspiracy between the ghosts of Stalin and Hitler to destroy the Polish nation. Congrats for discovering it! Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this is your reply when asked for sources, I guess there is no point in continuing this discussion.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You asked me about sources? In what parallel universe? If this is your reply when asked if you support human rights, then I guess there's no point going on. You must just be evil. :p Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these quotes show that the information objected to is backed by the sources and isn't speculation. qp10qp 02:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuania had faced almost annual TO raids since the TO was created, but during that time the kingdom was formed and grew to the largest European state west of the Horde. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like now to respond to this part of Calgacus's objection:

Moreover, statements such as Lithuania "began adopting western legal traditions" after Jogaila's takeover of Poland is just is misleading; Lithuania already had a long history of borrowing "western legal tradition", Gediminas for instance had western friars settled in his capital drawing up western style legal documents earlier in the century.

As noted above, I've changed the word "western" to "Polish" here, in case there is a misunderstanding. But the succeeding sentence, in referring to the Magdeburg Laws, indicated what was meant. "Western" in that context was intended the way Dvornik intends it in the following:

I disagree that this had already begun with Gediminas. I have read Lithuania Ascending: A Pagan Empire Within East-central Europe, 1295-1345 by S.C.Rowell, which goes into great detail about the reigns of Gediminas and Algirdas in particular, and so I am familiar with the sophistication of Gediminas, his close contact with the Catholic world, and his use of Catholic documentation styles and Catholic scribes; but I have seen no evidence that this amounted to a state legal system of the type which began establishing itself in Lithuania after the unions. qp10qp 03:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but since you already acknowledge that western legal tradtions had played a role in Lithuania before Jogaila, how can you defend "began adopting western legal traditions" rather than "began adopting more western legal traditions"?. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this objection:

Other judgmental assertions like "where Lithuanian overlordship was tolerated in return for protection against the Golden Horde" have no place here.

I was not sure what was objected to, the word "tolerated" or the reference to the "Golden Horde". So I've now altered this further to: "Jogaila at first governed only south and eastern Lithuania, including territories of former Kievan Rus', where Lithuanian overlordship prevailed." I hope that will fully meet the objection.

Bojtár, a fairly innocuous historian, says: "Under Gediminas the city states of Novgorod, Tver, Pskov, and some others sought Lithuania’s protection against Moscow, and the Tartars in particular". (Bojtár, 180)

Rowell says: "In return the Slavs enjoyed the pax lithuanica which protected their trade routes to the Hansa and defended them from the depredations of the grand dukes of Moscow. They were not freed from Tatar tribute"… And of the grand dukes' guarantee of the status quo in the Rus' polities, he says, "This is not the mark of a primitive regime but a sophisticated recognition of how best to exploit alien subjects." (Rowell, 116)

Hopefully, by watering down the sentence objected to, I have made it inoffensive. The truth is that the relations between the Lithuanians and the Rus' principalities under their overlordship were not only complex and diverse but are shrouded in mystery due to the lack of sources (both Rowell and Plokhy, who do their best to investigate that area, admit as much). qp10qp 03:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rowell is explaining a role the Lithuanians had earlier in the century. In the cases of Novgorod, Tver, and Pskov, the Lithuanians served as mercenaries. In Lithuanian Rus'ia, Lithuanians were their rulers, who spoke the same language and worshipped the same religion. "Tolerated" implies Lithuanian Rus'ia was engulfed by a underlying hotbed of seething discontent and resentment against Lithuanian rule put up with for fear of the Horde. MK has some more points, and the Meyendorff thing needs to be dealt with (although, I too have not found out more about this argument), but as far as everything else, I've removed by oppose vote in light of your efforts and commitment to raising the quality of the article. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MK's notes[edit]

Making a start with addressing MK's objections, from further up the page:

MK:"For the sake of simplicity this article uses" this is not very encyclopedic formulation

OK, I cut the following from the notes: "For the sake of simplicity this article uses the Lithuanian form Jogaila for the early period of his life and the Polish form Władysław for the period following his accession to the Polish throne."

I expect that was added to the notes because the name can be quite an issue. It's not encyclopedic, but nor are footnotes, on the whole, and it's OK for a footnote, in my opinion. But we can just as well do without it, I'm sure. qp10qp 18:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

very good, M.K. 18:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MK: "the second to adopt Christianity (after King Of Lithuania Mindaugas), and the first to establish it on a lasting basis", Adopt should be changed to converted. And the formulation is still would be not correct, there was and Vaišvilkas.

Some of that was added by an editor since the FAC began, and I've always wanted to cut this attempt to say whether he was the first, second, or umpteenth Christian ruler anyway. So I've cut it to: "Jogaila was the last pagan ruler of medieval Lithuania, and a holder of the title Didysis Kunigaikštis." qp10qp 18:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, good desision M.K. 18:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MK:Elaborate Foot note - "Translated as high king (perceived as king over lesser rulers) in modern Lithuanian studies, and in other works either as" What is this modern Lithuanian studies, is other works is modern too? Title it self translated not only in modern studies…

I've cut "in modern Lithuanian studies, and in other works", which was never referenced, though the definition seems accurate. I spent a long time chasing Didysis Kunigaikštis around and ended up making a whole extra article on the subject of titles and names: Jogaila (Władysław II Jagiello): names and titles. (Some of that material might come into play when I address MK's points on supreme ducality, heirs etc.)

Good decision, yes definition is good, kunigas appears in Lithuania around 13c., kunigaikštis preservers it parts – kunigaikštis. In short very good cut :) M.K. 18:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MK: "His overwhelming victory in the battle of Grunwald in 1410, followed by the First Peace of Toruń," Impossible, victory was not his alone at all.

MK: "Władysław won a victory so overwhelming that the Teutonic Order’s army was virtually annihilated." Nope, all glory to one person can not be placed.

I've changed these to "allied" victories, though Władysław was the overall commander. qp10qp 18:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overall commander standing on the hiltop :) M.K. 18:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MK: "There followed Poland's first war for 77 years." – prove needed.

Will never be agreed, as definitions of war vary. I don't like this sort of thing anyway, which is slightly so-whattish, in my opinion. So, deleted. qp10qp 18:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok M.K. 18:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Names and baptism:

MK: Just comment - taking the Christian name Władysław. There are some elements who trying to push that they call "authentic names" or names that the "guy refer himself" (with original research of course), wondering how these elements did not spot this "little" inaccuracy.

MK: "The reign of Władysław II Jagiełło, as he was called after ascending the Polish throne." Does Britannica referring part - Władysław II Jagiełło, as he was called after ascending the Polish throne? Because now formulation implementing that contemporary name was after baptism was Władysław II Jagiełło.

MK: "Starnge family try – there was no Władysław II Jagiełło then he was born…

MK: "as well as mass baptisms in Lithuanian and Polish rivers" – needs checking because I did not find in provided ref, any hint on Polish rivers

By "little inaccuracy", I presume you mean that he would have actually been given a Latin name at the baptism ceremony rather than the Slavic one. To take that into account, I've removed the word "Christian" and the inference (unintended) that he was given the Slavic name at the actual ceremony, leaving "Jogaila was duly baptised at the Wawel Cathedral in Kraków on 15 February 1386 and from then on formally used the name Władysław or Latin versions of it": this wording leaves room for a number of possibilities as to what he called himself or was called in private and does not presume the actual name used at the baptism ceremony. The note provides readers with Lithuanian and Latin versions of the name.

References that 'Władysław' is a Slavic name are plenty: here (follow the link) or here. It may be useful to note the (now mostly forgotten) origin of the name (more or less 'glorious ruler').-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Now I can change the rather clumsy wording in the footnote which says the name meant "the one who rules the fame" or "the one who praises power". "Glorious ruler"? Why did your mum not call you that, Piotrus? qp10qp 17:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No Władysław's in my family, I guess - although it is a not unpopular name in modern Poland (although don't expect many Mieszko's or Bolesławes, for some reason)...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same in Britain—not many Æthelwolds or Egberts about. qp10qp 18:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why the Encyclopedia Britannica was used to reference his Polish name in the lead; I don't like Encyclopedia Britannica references anyway, so I've removed that and also the inelegant subordinate clause, now leaving "The reign of Władysław II Jagiełło extended..." To make sure readers quickly find out about the name change, I have added the following higher up:

"and was crowned Polish king as Władysław Jagiełło."

I've referenced that to Bojtár (p.182), as those are the words he uses.

I've changed the family tree to show that its subject had the name Jogaila as well as Władysław II Jagiełło.

I don't know if the editor who wrote about the baptisms had a reason for mentioning Polish rivers (certainly Jogaila's retinue were in Poland when he was baptised); but I only know of the mass baptisms in Vilnius, and so I have cut the mention of Polish rivers. qp10qp 10:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answering to the Bojtár (p.182) remark was crowned Polish king as Władysław Jagiełło , it is debatable among Historians is it possible by crowning use Baptizm name and his Polinized pagan name, but I would not press this further. M.K. 19:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For handiness, you can insert answers in my previuos points. I will review changes ASAP. M.K. 11:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. I just think it can start to look a little muddled who's saying what. If I misquote your queries here, please say so; it's not intentional. :)


Death of Kęstutis/Delay after Grunwald:[edit]

MK: "but for some reason Władysław hesitated to pursue his advantage." Present, at least in notes section, more interpretation why it was delayed.

MK: Death of Grand Duke Kęstutis should be explained in main text not in notes, no need to expand here only key moments.

In both these cases, where the information is scant, I felt it was best if the article kept things cautious and simple.

The expression "for some reason" was used for the delay because that's pretty much how several historians talk about the Polish-Lithuanian hesitation in following up after Grunwald. In case that made it seem as if the article, rather than the sources, was weak on the point, I've now changed the wording to "for reasons the sources do not explain". In response to your request for more information in the notes, I've added the following there, based on Turnbull (but even he, who has written a whole book on the battle, can shed relatively little light on the matter):

"What we know about this delay, as Stephen Turnbull describes, is that with Marienburg less than sixty miles away, the Polish-Lithuanian army, perhaps due to casualties, waited for two days before marching on, and then only at a rate of nine miles a day. The delay, which Turnbull calls "perhaps understandable but fatal", allowed Heinrich von Plauen to reach Marienburg with around 2000 (some sources say 3000 men), evacuate the town, and dig in for a long siege. Turnbull, Tannenberg 1410: Disaster for the Teutonic Knights, 73."

For what it's worth, my instinct is that "perhaps due to casualties" is indeed the most likely explanation. And I would guess that the slow march might be explained by caution, given that the Polish-Lithuanian army were now deep in the Order's territory. Their tactics leading up to the battle had been to divide the Order's forces with decoy attacks along the border, so they would have known that the Order had other troops at large than those defeated in the battle. The article sticks to what historians say, though, rather than my guesses.

With Kęstutis, I have changed "found dead" to "found dead, probably murdered", in case the wording appeared to suggest a weakness of the article rather than of the sources. The word "probably" might provide a nudge to the reader to look at the notes. And I believe the best place for a discussion of this matter is the notes, to save the readers from a diversion which could not provide them with any extra facts. However, I have expanded the notes to include the theory that the Germans had Kęstutis murdered. Most historians, however, seem to pass over this death with a hedging noise, which I suspect is the best approach.

The note now stands like this, in adequate relation, I believe, to the article text:

"Jogaila murdered the stubborn uncle in a quarrel at the end of 1382." Bojtár, 181. "Jogaila himself had come to power in 1382 with the murder of his uncle Kęstutis." Lukowski and Zawadzki, p 34. Vytautas, during his second Prussian refuge of 1390, was recorded as saying: "Jogaila captured our father and killed him; he also killed our mother and imprisoned me". Mickunaite, 157, from a Teutonic chancellery document titled dis ist witoldes sache wedir jagaln und skirgaln. Some historians dispute that Kęstutis was murdered by Jogaila. According to Sruogiene-Sruoga in Jogaila, the Lithuanian writer Maironis, in Kestuçio mirtis (The Death of Kestutis), suggests Kęstutis was murdered by servants commissioned by the Germans.

For full references see the article.

May I just say that in my opinion one of the trickiest challenges in writing an encyclopedia article is to despatch disputed and poorly sourced facts such as these—the delay after Grunwald and the death of Kęstutis—with the requisite brevity. The footnote facility at least means we can wave main-text readers through at such informationally barren moments.

qp10qp 12:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding murder of Kęstutis, Maironis probably should not be placed here :) Yes I believe such approach with death using nudge is possible solution. Regarding battle for Marienburg my aim was to draw attention on different approach towards why was delay, casualties is likely solution. If I not mistaken Jasienica wrote that commanders of allied armies did not want to finish TO finally due to several reasons. Nevertheless if you think that sufficient info amount is provided, I would not press further with this one. M.K. 19:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
applicare[edit]

MK: "and to incorporate Lithuania into Poland." – simple absurd. Applicare is not the same as incorporare, presented interpretation in article is one sided!

The point is covered by the following in the footnote:

"The term used for 'incorporate' in 1385—applicare—has given rise to much acrimonious discussion between Polish and Lithuanian historians, but the Poles had no doubt of what it meant at the time." Lukowski and Zawadzki, 34."

Endre Bojtár says: "In this matter the document applied the unfortunate term applicare, which carries the meaning of joining, unification, and merging." Bojtár, 182.

I don't think we should use our own knowledge of Latin here (personally, I would say applicare means "to attach"), because diplomats were just as capable of weasely formulations then as now, and there was probably some spin on the word which is lost to us. But the Polish historians aren't alone in their interpretation: Sruogiene-Sruoga says that the phrase Coronae Regni Polaniae applicare means "annexation of Lithuania to the Polish Kingdom" (Jogaila article in Lituanus).

Jogaila appears never to have believed a word of it, of course, and made no effort to put it into practice. So I suspect it was legal blarney.

qp10qp 14:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me start answering to your point from this part :) In 2002 was prepared publication regarding Act of Kreva, which uses this specific term > 1385 m. rugpjūčio 14 d. Krėvos aktas; 2002; ISBN 9986-34-080-2. Few names of authors: Edmundas Rimša, S. C. Rowell (yes the same who is quoted in this article already); Jūratė Kiaupienė etc. Lets look that they say about this word: <<The infamous word „applicare“ is a neutral term which has no limited meaning of „incorporation“ and it reflects the broad promises „neс eos [the king and queen] aut coronam regni Polonie deserere“ made by Lithuanian princes in the wake of Jogaila's coronation or „adhaerere“ used in acts of fealty sworn by Jogaila and Jadwiga's Lithuanian vassals in chief. This vague but clear word, deliberately chosen for its broad sense, has given historians the opportunity to create a profession non-problem for themselves to argue over without real fruit. Incorporare appears for the first time in documents associated with Polish-Lithuanian relations in 1413 where its specificity (Lithuania is part of Poland and Poland is Catholic [in the face of arguments from the Teutonic Order that Lithuania really was still pagan and not just in Žemaitija], Lithuania like Poland belongs to Jogaila [in the face of pretensions from Grand Duke Vytautas]) suited internal and external political developments. In the mid-fifteenth century the now politically-literate and self-defending Lithuanian nobility objected not to applicare, but to incorporare. When he described the 1385 negotiations Długosz deliberately placed 1413 terminology in accounts of what happened [in Krėva] and deliberately removed reference to Jogaila's requiring that his future mother-in-law adopt him as her son [for purposes of inheritance, a common Lithuanian practice in cases of marriage to a female heir]. Długosz was the first, but not the last historian to „age“ the Horodło terms.>> This part I took from Lithuanian Historic Institute web site - abstract from presented book; if you need specific pages of the book let me know. You see, qp10qp, now that is provided in article speaks only for one part of scholars who choose to use “incorporation” concept but ignores others, this why I wrote that presented interpretation is on sided (including and with stronger remark :) ) . Plus I also addressed issue using formulation of "Union". M.K. 18:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen that page (book preview) before but dismissed it as inadmissable as a Wikipedia source, since it is not a book or scholarly article but a garbled summary of a book on a webpage which advertises the book. However, see my replies lower down under "Krėva", where I hope I have found a way of meeting your objections on this point. qp10qp 17:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First summary of book is on Lithuanian Institute of History prepared by its scholars, second the summary do not advertises the book at all (all prominent books are listed in this web page, which are published by this Institute with summaries, content etc.), third I also noted that if you want direct pages from book, please say so, and I will provide, because these same formulation presented in web is in the book. In short I do not see any reason why presented research work of scholars is inadmissible. But I happy with your edits regarding sausage of applicare in main text, also you can add and English historian Rowell views of word interpretation. M.K. 18:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for Union of Krewo, please see relavant article, footnotes, refs and discussion on the talk page. I strongly suggest that we use the mainstream most-popular version (i.e. Union of Krewo).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Law/discrimination[edit]

MK: About law and legal tradition – already Gediminas referred the rights of civil law of the city of Riga. There is suggestion that even in Mindaugas times German law was applied etc. and the most important is missed - one of the Jogailas’ edicts started discrimination among Orthodox and Catholics.

I responded to the legal question in answer to Calgacus, and I hope that the article no longer gives the impression of downplaying any previous legal developments in Lithuania. In response to your point about the discrimination, I have now added the following paragraph, which I hope addresses it. (I might add something more lower down when I address your point about Podolia.)

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

"One effect of Władysław’s measures was to be the advancement of Catholics in Lithuania at the expense of Orthodox elements; in 1387 and 1413, for example, Lithuanian Catholic boyars were granted special judicial and political privileges denied the Orthodox boyars. (Magocsi, 134) As this process gained momentum, it was accompanied by the rise of both Rus' and Lithuanian identity in the fifteenth century. (Plokhy, 98)"

I am quite happy with improvement, some remarks, could you please explain here what you mean with 1413 event - Samogitia baptism? M.K. 18:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Krėva:[edit]

MK: "Jogaila signed a formal act of union with Poland" - Jogaila did not sign act with "Poland". Second to call document as Union represents only one part of scholarly opinion

He put his seal on it, which amounted to a formal signature. Some historians do use the word "signed", but I have removed it from the article to no ill effect. The word "Poland" was used because historians often use it in this context; for example:

Oh, no you a bit misinterpreted my words - my aim was to make difference between act which is sign with State as such and with scribes concurring your marriage agreement.M.K. 18:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"...the joining of Poland and Lithuania under a single ruler by the Union of Krewo." (Sedlar, 282)

and

"The act of union between the two polities concluded in 1385 at Kreva…listed only two parties to the agreement, the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy." (Plokhy, 96)

As far as the name for it goes, the majority of books I have seen call it a "union", a fair number call it an "act", a few call it an "agreement" or a "treaty", and one calls it an "alliance". It seems to me that the most neutral of those terms is "agreement", and so I have adjusted the text to that effect, which I hope will meet your objection. I have made sure that the notes now cover the view that what happened at Krėva was not a union, as well as the view that it was. I have added the clause which includes "applicare" to the main text but removed any discussion of the word itself from the notes, making the points there more general. (If even historians can't agree on its translation, maybe it's best to avoid troubling the readers with that linguistic issue.)

Ok M.K.

MK: "Jogaila decided the only way to end conflict with the Teutonic Order was to convert to Christianity", - so he wake up in the morning and thought - Oh, good day for baptism?

I have rewritten the paragraph to avoid giving any impression of that nature.

Good. M.K.

"Jogaila chose therefore to accept a remarkable Polish proposal that he become a Catholic and marry the eleven-year-old Queen Jadwiga of Poland." First remarkable is common only to the author disclaimer needed - X thinks, but such style will spoil whole article style. "Remarkable" - not encyclopedic approach.

I used the word "remarkable" because two books used it, one of which I quoted using it in the notes, while others used similar expressions. Also because I felt, having studied medieval history at university, that the remarkability of a Catholic queen marrying a pagan king at that time was a fact and not an opinion—certainly, much of Europe was scandalised by it. However, "remarkable" is not an essential word, and so I have cut it, along with its reference.

Very good. M.K. 18:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MK: There are no words why some Polish noblemen decided to invite a pagan ruler. why?? And there were several whys– Germanisation, Habsburgs, territorial claims etc. There is no hint that not all Polish noblemen agreed on this affair.

I have now added the following note, which covers the points you wish to be included:

"The nobles of Malopolska, not without suspicion from the nobles of Wielkopolska, made this offer to Jogaila for many reasons. For example, they were "concerned to neutralize the dangers from Lithuania itself and to secure the fertile territories of Halych-Rus’". Lukowski and Zawadzki, 42. Dvornik suggests that the Polish nobles saw the offer as an ”opportunity for increasing their privileges”. Dvornik, 129. They also wished to avoid Austrian influence, Jogaila agreeing to "pay off" Jadwiga's previous fiancé Wilhelm von Habsburg. Lukowski and Zawadzki, 37." qp10qp 17:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think, maybe this info should go directly to the article? M.K. 18:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[qp10qp: I've decided to plough on with addressing the original objections and then go round again addressing the replies to the replies, in ever decreasing circles.]

MK: "In 1415, they produced Samogitian witnesses." Strange interpretation, was produced ? Second Samogitians arrived into Constance by the order of Vytautas, who approx one year before Samogitian arrival started propaganda war there. So that Poles produced Samogitian witnesses not balanced interpretation.

I've now placed the mention of the Samogitians ahead of the mention of Polish envoys. And I've added Vytautas's involvement. I've dropped the word "produced", an idiom sometimes used with "witnesses" in English. qp10qp 23:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good explanation. Thank you, M.K. 18:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sigismund:[edit]

MK: "offered the Bohemian crown after the death of King Wenceslas of Bohemia in 1419", "not to meddle in Bohemian affairs". Explain why Jogaila did not agreed on holding the new crown..

MK: "In 1420, Sigismund decreed that all lands in dispute between Poland and the Knights be granted in perpetuity to the Order, including Pomerelia, Dobrzyń Land, Pomerania, and Samogitia." Source needed to check formulation correctness.

MK: Explain Sigismund attempts to intervene in relations with Vytautas and Jogaila.

The middle one of these was only sourced to Polish historians, and as it doesn't seem to me very important (since it never came to pass) I've cut it. I've added the problem of the Bohemian Diet's stipulation that Władysław swear to the Four Articles of Prague; and in the notes I have now included information about Vytautas's election, Korybut's regency, and, on Sigismund's intervening, the offer of a crown to Vytautas in 1429. qp10qp 00:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am satisfied with explanations, M.K. 18:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Podolia/last few years:[edit]

MK: "whom he ordered to restore the union by force". Prove needed, also explain Jogaila’s role in land dispute on Podolia etc.

So difficult is it to pin this down neatly that I have now rewritten this paragraph to be very tightly linked to the references, making no undue assumptions about Władysław's role. There are extraordinarily contradictory versions of what went on during this time, but the article now keeps things simple and cautious, I hope.

Władysław seems to me a shadowy presence in these events. In response to your specific question about his role, I have added the following note:

"How much influence the aged Władysław had on these events is not clear. Sruogiene-Sruoga says that he wished to restore Lithuanian independence and at one point instructed the leader of the Lithuanian army not to listen to Polish orders. Plokhy, on the other hand, says that he sided with the Poles over Podolia. Plokhy, 98."

One could use the sources to tell several different stories about these last few years of Władysław, but my strong impression is that the matter hasn't been researched fully yet.

qp10qp 01:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very good decision to present different interpretations. Maybe just nudge needed, M.K. 18:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vytautas:[edit]

MK: "In 1384, Vytautas offered more concessions" – needs proving.

MK: "but then he switched sides and joined Jogaila in attacking and pillaging several Prussian towns" – explain why he switch sides and what role played Jogaila. BTW, did he pillaged towns or castles, a?

MK: "In 1390, Władysław's rule in Lithuania faced a revived challenge from Vytautas, who made another bid for power, provoking a civil war." Nothing is explained why the fight renewed, and this is key issue.

The word "more" referred to Vytautas's concession of part of Samogitia in return for the Order's support, as added to Jogaila's previously mentioned concessions (Lukowski and Zawadzki, 33). But you've put your finger on a piece of sloppy writing there (mea culpa) because I admit that the sentence on its own makes it look as if Vytautas made more concessions in 1384 on top of concessions already made by himself. As the reason for the switching of sides, I have added that he accepted assurances from Jogaila about his inheritance, referenced to Mickūnaitė.

Since the referenced source for pillaging mentions only castles and not towns, I have changed the text to castles. I expect the original editor here inferred that the settlements attached to the castles would also have been pillaged for booty, since other Lithuanian raids had "laid waste" to territories—in 1376, for example. (Lukowski and Zawadzki, 34) However, I have now made sure the text echoes the reference precisely.

In response to the third point above, I have added the reason why Vytautas rebelled again, supported by a reference to Mickūnaitė which includes Vytautas's own reasoning as recorded by a Teutonic scribe. As follows:

"In 1390, Władysław's rule in Lithuania faced a revived challenge from Vytautas, who resented the power given to Skirgaila in Lithuania at the expense of his own patrimony."

qp10qp 17:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review changes (if not missed something) main ideas are presented, just 10 and 32 notes a bit deteriorated M.K. 18:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note deterioration sorted. (This is what comes from trying to edit and listen to football at the same time.) qp10qp 19:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
More