text:
Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło/Archive 1

King Vladislaus or Wladislaus (never Ladislaus)
The king name was Władysław in Polish and was also spelled: Wladislaus (early Latinized version) or Vladislaus (late Latin and English version), never Ladislaus. This shoud be corrected. Below is a sample of original documents sign by the Vladislaus kings. Althout the form Wladislaus was used more often, in my opinion Vladislaus is much better here, beacuse it is more modern version and more English. Vladislaus Rex 00:33, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

King Vladislaus I the Short (Władysław I Łokietek)

 * 27.02.1298: Wladislaus Dei gracia, dux Regni Polonie et dominus Pomerania, Cuiavie, Lancicie as Siradie
 * 7.03.1298: Wladislaus ...
 * 1.09.1999: Wladislaus ...

King Vladislaus II Jagiello (Władysław II Jagiełło)

 * 3.05.1386: Wladislaus Dei gracia rex Polonie Litwanieque princeps supremus et heres Russie etc.
 * 30.09.1388: Wladislaus Dei gracia rex Polonie necnon terrarum Cracouie, Sandomirie, Syradia, Lancicie, Cuiauie, Lithuanie princeps supremus, Pomoranie Russieque dominus et heres etc.
 * 22.04.1389: Wladislaus ...
 * 28.01.1392: Wladislaus ...
 * 10.05.1394: Wladislaus ...
 * 11.04.1409: Wlodislaus (sic! with o) ...
 * 12.12.1410: Wladislaus ...
 * 17.07.1416: Wladislaus ...
 * 6.09.1422: Wladislavs (sic! with v)...
 * 24.06.1425: Wladislaus ...

King Vladislaus III of Varna (Władysław III Warneńczyk)

 * 21.12.1436: Wladislaus Dei gratia rex Polonie Lithwanieque princeps supremus et heres Russie
 * 16.12.1438: Wladislaus Tercius Dei gracia rex Polonie necnon terrarum Cracouie, Sandomirie, Syradie, Lancicie, Cuiauie, Lithwanieque princeps supremus, Pomeranie Russie dominus et heres et cetera
 * 5.03.1440: Wladislaus Tercius ...
 * 5.03.1440: Wladislaus Tercius ...
 * 11.06.1443: Wladislaus Dei gracia Hungarie, Polonie, Dalmacie, Croacie etc. rex Litwanieque princes supremus et heres Russie etc.
 * 11.06.1443: Wladislaus ...
 * 17.04.1444: Wladislaus ...
 * 19.04.1444: Wladislaus Dei gracia Polonie, Hungarie, Dalmacie, Croacie etc. rex Lithwaniaque princeps supremus et heres Russie etc.
 * 18.08.1444: Wladislaus Dei gracia Polonie, Hungarie, Dalmacie, Croacie etc. tex necnon terrarum Cracouie, Samdomirie, Syradie, Lancicie, Cuyauie, Lithwanie princeps supremus, Pomeranie, Russieque dominus et heres etc.
 * 18.08.1444: Wladislaus ...
 * 27.08.1444: Wladislaus

King Vladislaus IV Vasa (Władysław IV Waza)

 * 20.02.1633: Vladislaus Quartus Dei gratia rex Poloniae, magnus dux Lithuaniae, Russiae, Prussiae, Masoviae, Samogitiae, Livoniaeque, necnon Suecorum, Gothorum Vandalorumque haereditarius rex, electus magnus dux Moschoviae
 * 12.03.1633: Wladislaus Quartus ...
 * 14.08.1634: Vladislaus Quartus ...
 * 17.03.1637: Vladislaus Quartus ...
 * 24.03.1637: Vladislaus Quartus ...
 * 7.05.1638: Vladislaus IV ...
 * 30.09.1641: Vladislaus Quartus ...
 * 24.03.1646: Vladislaus Quartus ...
 * 16.05.1646: Vladislaus Quartus ...
 * 16.05.1646: Vladislaus Quartus ...
 * 1.09.1647: Vladislaus Quartus ...

It doesn't matter how they were signing themselves. In those times the spelling rules were not codified yet and one could have a different signature on every document. In the case of Polish (and other) rulers with Christian names we should use those variations of these names which are most commonly used in English. Since a Christian name is a name of a particular saint, the best way to check it should be by looking at how the name of the saint is spelled.

So let's see what Googles says about that (search restricted to English language pages):

"Saint Ladislaus": 1220 "Saint Ladislas":  343 "Saint Vladislav":   6 "Saint Vladislaus":  2 "Saint Wladislaus":  2

– Kpalion (talk) 15:57, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lancelot
I am intrigued by the statement that "Lancelot" is the "English version" of "Władysław."

"Władysław" is a Slavic name. I'd assumed that "Lancelot" was of English or French origin. How did "Władysław" become involved with the Knights of the Round Table? logologist|Talk 05:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I assume that your Username suggests that it is somewhat associated by or with "logic". Maybe I'm wrong. In any case, no one is disputing that Władysław is a Slavic name. Believe it or not, even Slavic names have counterparts in other languages. Let me give you another example, Wojciech is a Slavic name, and Albert and Adelbert, are not. Yet if I'm not mistaken, they are the counterparts to Wojciech in other languages. Perhaps this ends your being intrigued by the statement. Dr. Dan 15:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

 * True, St. Vojtěch (in Polish, św. Wojciech) is known in English as "St. Adalbert." How does that clarify the relation between "Władysław" and "Lancelot"?  logologist|Talk 00:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Jagiełło married Jadwiga. She has since become a Saint. In English, she is known as St. Hedwig, not St. Jadwiga. This is because her Slavic name has a counterpart in English, i.e., Hedwig. It is Hedwig in German too. Her Slavic name has a counterpart in Latin, also. It's Hedvigis. That's the point of the Wojciech and Albert analogy, and of Władysław and Lancelot. "Lance" is a shortened version of the English name. Lance Armstrong, has nothing to do with King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, any more than Królowa Jadwiga has to do with Hedy Lamarr or the owl "Hedwig" from Harry Potter. Dr. Dan 15:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

 * If someone besides Dr. Dan understands this, perhaps he can explain it. logologist|Talk 20:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the addition of "Lancelot" to Władysław III of Varna, it was anonymously added here. Naive cynic exclaims that only Władysław Biały is known by that name. Regarding this article, Lancelot was added here by the same anonymous editor, and that was reverted. It was then readded here. I have never heard of this individual being referred to as "Lancelot" in English, and thus support its removal. Olessi 19:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! So done.  logologist|Talk 21:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Neither I can understand how the fact that some names have different versions in differet languages is a sufficient reason for translating Władysław as Lancelot. Cite the relevant sources, please.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Lancelot
I have read the above discussion and Logologist is correct in that Lancelot is not an English version of Władysław. The names Laszlo and Ulaszlo are the correct corresponding name to Lancelot in Hungarian. Occaisionally you can find Ladislaus or Vladislaus corresponding to Lancelot, never Władysław. Dr. Dan is correect in his or her assertion that Lancelot does not necessarily have to refer to Lancelot in Arthurian legend. Glad to help you both. Mike B.
 * Mike B., since you say that "Vladislaus" occasionally corresponds to Lancelot, please go to the entry Wladislaus II (Encyclopedia Britannica 1911). Does Wladislaus also correspond to Lancelot? Just like, as you say, Vladislaus and Laszlo do. Hmm? If that is the case, then what? Maybe Logologist has the answer. Dr. Dan 17:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Went to Britannica 1911, read the article. Nothing about Lancelot. What's your point? Mike B 66.99.19.130 20:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

 * What's my point? Am I dreaming or am I dead? You said the name "Vladislaus", occasionally corresponds to Lancelot. That's my entire point, as Wladislaus and Vladislaus, and Lancelot are the same name. For the record, my "trivial" addition that Lancelot is an English version of Władysław, was just that, simple TRIVIA. It was never my intention to change the article heading to, Lancelot II of Poland. This bit of trivia about the name is true nonetheless, and that's that. While the Polish version, Władysław is common, and often encountered, Lancelot is virtually never seen any longer amongst English speaking people. The closest one gets to it is, Lance, nowadays. Dr. Dan 02:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Jogaila move
I moved the page in line with Naming conventions. Piotrus (talk) decided to call me "POV pusher" for making this move. Obviously, this isn't the case, and he had no reason to do this other than his own defensiveness, which suggests strongly that he is in fact a "POV pusher". I'm neither Polish nor Lithuanian, and have no nationalist (or related agenda-orientated) interest in moving the page. The previous title was simply bad. Władysław II Jagiełło maybe fine for the Polish wikipedia, but it is neither the most common version of his name used in English (a language which does not contain the letter ł in its alphabet, nor are variations of Władysław more common than English Jagiello or Jogaila) nor his native Lithuanian name. If certain users wish to Polonize his name, they should produced arguments in the talk page, as this ruler is not governed simply by the rules for naming Polish monarchs on English wiki. Władysław II Jagiełło is not acceptable. Thanks - Calgacus 17:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Which part of Naming conventions are you specifically refering to? A quick googling contradicts your claims about common English usage. 70 for "Jogaila of Lithuania" -.pl, ~18,000 for "Władysław II Jagiełło" -.pl and a further ~16,000 for "Władysław Jagiełło" -.pl .  (shows results both with and without diacritics, majority without). Google Books: 4 "Jogaila of Lithuania" , 6 for "Wladyslaw II Jagiello"  and 10 for Wladyslaw Jagiello . No results with diacritics. Looking through the Jogaila of Lithuania hits it seems most if not all refer to him before he became King of Poland. --BadSeed 18:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Specifically, Naming conventions (use English). This dispute concerns the English language only. English only results show:

 * Jogaila: 10,100 (almost every one pertains to our ruler)
 * Jagiello: 327,000
 * "Jogaila of Lithuania": 71
 * "Vladislav II of Poland": 64
 * "Wladislaw II of Poland": 84
 * "Wladyslaw II of Poland": 54

 * One can't simply search Wladyslaw because it is too common a name. It is true that "Władysław Jagiełło" has slightly more than 10,000 hits, but it is certainly still less popular (as a great number of these as things such as Wladislaw, Jagiello's son, Wladislaw, (Jagiello), etc), and moreover, the remainder that call him this are from sites which do not observe wiki rules. The claim that Jogaila not being important other than as a Polish king is, while also being nonsense, not important since he was the ruler of Lithuania. Three books in English I have in front of me support me (I have no agenda, and so wasn't inventing anything).  Byzantium and the Rise of Russia by John Meyendorff, and Rowell's Lithuania Ascending both give him his name as Jogaila. Christiansen's The Northern Crusades refers to him as always as Jogaila (with Wladyslaw IV, k. of Poland, in brackets in the index ... next to Jogaila!). I am correct, as you probably know, that my renaming is directly is line with wiki policy. But I do not want a fight for its own sake. How about a compromise, Jogaila (Wladyslaw II) or Jogaila (Władysław II)? - Calgacus 19:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I never claimed that he wasn't important other than as a Polish king, I claimed that "Jogaila of Lithuania" is used to refer to him mainly before 1377, he was important as Duke of Lithuania both before and after that date. Could you provide links to those hits, how do you search english only? I tried exlcuding Polish domains, but still came up with some Polish hits. The problem I have with those is that the disputed move is form "Wladyslaw II Jagiello" to "Jogaila of Lithuania", so by your own admission you want to go from +10,000 to 70. The other searches are a bit messy "Jagiello" gets all the hits of "Wladyslaw II Jagiello" and then some. "Jogaila" on it's own is more promising. I don't have any books on me, (I'm on the wrong side of the channel for that), but I'm pretty certain that Davies uses "Jogaila" upto 1377 and "Wladyslaw II Jagiello" after that, other reference books such as Britannica, Encarta and Worldbook give "Wladyslaw II Jagiello". I suspect that as with all Central European names, there is no single usage in English, with historians following their preferences (and prejudices). As to wiki policy, simply saying "use English" is fine, but as we've both shown there is no one established usage. I personally don't like the Jogaila (Wladyslaw II) suggestion as it's artificial and ahistorical. Perhaps we can follow the example of James I of England, Having the title at "Wladyslaw II Jagiello" followed by "Jogaila of Lithuania and Wladyslaw II Jagiello of Poland", given that Poland was (and certainly became) the senior party in the union. --BadSeed 20:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Do Google Advanced Search, and select "Return pages written in" English (box is across). When Lithuania was nearly 5 times bigger than than the K. of Poland, there is no way that Poland can be regarded as having higher status on any objective level, certainly not in Jogaila's lifetime (although Jogaila was personally senior to Vytautas). But this topic should not be brought into consideration for obvious reasons. We have to remember several issues are here; the most important one concerns this ruler himself, rather than the re-Polonization of Polish monarch names in general. Jogaila (Władysław II) is indeed artificial, as to an extent is the use of a modern Polish name for a medieval ethnic-Lithuanian ruler, but brackets are quite standard way of doing things (see Crane). The James I of England parallel is of some relevance, but even as a Scotsman myself, I'd never compare the early 16th century Kingdom of the "Scots" to either contemporary England, or a medieval European superpower like Lithuania. The other obvious difference is naming. Jogaila, whether as Grand Duke/Grand Prince/High King/etc of Lithuania or King of Poland, had by his death two names, the latter of which was a foreign name he adopted late in life. No-one would even think of calling him Władysław if he weren't such an important king of Poland; but you have to remember, he was one of the most significant rulers of Lithuania. - Calgacus 20:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your point about the modern Polish name, was he not know as Władysław II in 14th C. Poland? Firstly you argued that Jogaila is in line with WP:Use English, but from what I've seen usage is pretty evenly divided. I mentioned James VI/I simply because I like the way they've dealt with the naming issue (British naming disputes seem to get solved much better on wiki than Polish ones, compare Derry to Gdańsk). I understand your point about him being a significant Lithuanian prince. --BadSeed 20:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a major point, just a response to your concerns about artificiality. The letter Ł didn't appear in Polish until the 1500s. It's not a big point. It remains true that Jogaila-Jagiello remains the most commonly used name for the man in English writings. The google count seemed to confirm that, but it was scholarly writing and semi-scholarly writing I was (as you know) referring to. Jogaila (Władysław II) seems like a fair settlement for the moment, although I do not see what's wrong with simply Jogaila (dabbing as Jogaila of Lithuania), since his Polish name is mentioned in the text. - Calgacus 21:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Ok, I didn't know that. On second thoughts Jogaila (Władysław II) is not too bad. In any case its less likely to get reverted than Jogaila of Lithuania, which, despite your good faith, to most Poles looks like a provocation. --BadSeed 21:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I completed the move, and fixed the redirects (there were at least 6). I'm sorry that so many saw it as a provocation; maybe they ought to learn to give people the benefit of the doubt more. But anyways, was it the "of Lithuania" that was provocative? Well, I hope this move solves the dispute. I did not expect my move to end up being so time consuming, but hopefully the whole thing will prevent another dispute arising when a sensitive Lithuanian comes along in future. Of course, the general Polish naming thing is something else, but I will leave that to others, should they ever care to go through this process. - Calgacus 21:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't claim to speak for anyone. I mean that changing the title of the most famous Polish king to ...of Lithuania, whether historically accurate or not would raise a few eyebrows. --BadSeed 21:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well it's gone now. BTW, don't you think John Sobieski (aka Jan III Sobieski) and Casimir the Great (aka Kazimierz III the Great) are more famous kings?
 * Jogalia himself took the name Władysław II Jagiełło during his christening. Also, it was one of the conditions of Union of Krewo. Jogalia was never a king of Poland, Władysław II Jagiełło was. So if you want to have an article about Jogalia, you have to split this one. He also promised to incorporate Lithuania and Ruthenia into Poland, so the argument that Lithuania was bigger than Poland is irrelevant here. It was in his interest to do that, so please, don't change his decisions. BTW There are hundreds articles about people who changed their name on Wiki. Are you going to change the titles of all of them?--SylwiaS | talk 21:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * More hostility? There's nothing there I can engage with as an argument, or that relates to the discussion. But a fair compromise seems to have been reached, and I have no intention of moving it back to Jogaila of Lithuania, so you needn't worry. - Calgacus 22:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair compromise? No, I don’t think so. What would you say if I moved George I of Great Britain to Georg Ludwig (George I), or Anne of Great Britain to Stuart (Anne), or George V of the United Kingdom to Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (George V)? Kings officially change their names becoming kings and that's what the articles are titled like. Moreover, this one king change his name once for ever during his christening, what means that he would be called by his new name even if he didn’t become a king. So let's see, you moved the article without respect to Wiki procedures, your move isn't supported by number of google hits, main encyclopaedias or scholar books, and, moreover, makes no sense and serves only confusing readers. But your reply is only accusing me of hostility, because, after all, what other reason I might have to disapprove of your high-handed decision.--SylwiaS | talk 22:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, when you talk to me, you take up my time. Now if you say nothing useful, why should I waste my time responding? I wasn't accusing you of hostility, you were hostile and still are. Why should I have to put up with this for trying to improve wikipedia? I haven't tried to edit the Polish wikipedia, but as a historian fluent in English, I can recognize that Władysław II Jagiełło is a bad title, so moving it was uncontroversial. Little did I know some Polish sensitivies. But what about Lithuanian sensitivities too? Where do they fit in? Why not rename Frederick Barbarossa Frederico? He was, after all, king of Italy too, and Emperor of the Romans.  Pardon me then.
 * Stuart (Anne), Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (George V)? I think there is some kind of misunderstanding here. Jogailo was his given name at birth, and used throughout his life. It wasn't his family or dynasty name! Scholar books, google hits. Read this discussion, please. - Calgacus 23:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm full agree with Sylwia. With this "logic" Haakon VII of Norway should be moved to Christian Oldenburg or something like that Radomil talk 23:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You can also say, that Jagiełło was firdstly Grand Duke of Lithuania... so let's move Henry III of France to Henryk Walezy, he was King of Poland before he became King of France. Radomil talk 23:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Why do you think that is a good parallel? Henry, firstly, is his English name, not his French name (the French for some weird reason don't insist all their rulers be named in their language). Secondly, the new title has the Lithuanian and Polish names. WOuld it not suit the agendum to draw appropriate parallels, or doesn't it matter to you? - Calgacus 23:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

These are proper parallels. So as a compromise "Henry III Walezy of France"? And what about "Christian of Danmark/Haakon of Norway" ? Radomil talk 23:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you joking? Haakon was not King of Denmark. Do you see the important difference? Or do I have to repeat what I've already said? - Calgacus 23:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * And Władysław was not Grand Duke of Lithuania during Battle of Grunwald... and You renamed him to Jogaillo in this article... Radomil talk 23:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * So? - Calgacus 23:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

So far only one new point has emerged, User:SylwiaS's claim that he took the name Wladyslaw during his baptism. All this stuff about Henry III of France and any other King, is pretty much irrelavent. How about calming down a little and assuming good faith.--BadSeed 23:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC) - Didn't we already know that? The Lithuanian's still called him Jogaila, it's not like he abandoned his name or anything. - Calgacus 23:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I asume good faith..., thats why I'm talking... I only wanted to show that if You want to have "normal" name of monarch that ruled over more than one country You sholud decide for one of versions. "Henry III" of France or "Henry Walezy (or de Valois)" of Poland, "Jogailla" of Lithuania or "Władysław II Jagiełło" of Poland, "August II the Strong" of Poland or "Frederick Augustus I" of Saxony. Name of born is also not "proper" one like in Haakon's situation. Title "Jogaila (Władysław II)" is artificial... with small dose of scepticism You can ask... why not "Władysław II Jagiełło (Jogailla)"? Radomil talk 23:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It is artificial, but both the Lithuanian and Polish names are used in English, and it seems with more or less equal frequency, if you favour one over the other you aught to have a good reason. There's a good reason for using Henry III, instead of Henry Walezy, namely he was king of Poland for all of a year. What are the reasons for favouring the Polish, as opposed to the Lithuanian name in the title? Note that the current title is an attempt at compromise. --BadSeed 00:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe because he was never a king of Lithuania, or because he ceased being Great Duke of Lithuania 33 years before his death, or because he changed his name through christening. Or because Jagiello gives much more google hits than Jogaila. (I'm not sure if you understand it, but Władysław is not a counterpart of Jogaila, Jagiełło is) Or maybe because Lithuanians simply call all Jagiellonian dynasty (of which Władysław II was the first ruler) – Jogaila, so we would have to change names of all of them, no matter that they were never called like that in English. Also, yes, he pretty abandoned his old name since he became a king. Actually, how many kings use their old names while holding their office? Lithuanians might call him whatever they liked, but it doesn’t influence the fact that he had changed his name and ceased using the old one. In the Vilnius Cathedral’s inscriptions all Polish queens and kings are called by their Polish names in a Latin form. Still, Lithuanians call them differently in Lithuanian. So official names and names popular in a particular language are two different things. Well, we might have an article about Karol Wojtyła (John Paul II), since people in Poland still call him with his previous name. But no, there is an article about John Paul II, and he’s called there Karol Wojtyła only until his becoming a Pope. Poles didn’t steal Władysław II from Lithuanians, and Vatican didn’t steal John Paul II from Poles. They both were promoted and due to that changed their names. Those were their own decisions, they chose their new names by themselves, and I really don’t understand why this article was moved at all.--SylwiaS | talk 01:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Erm ... Jogaila is the Lithuanian name, Władysław the Polish name. Jagiello is a common English name for Jogaila, and this may or may not be derive from its Polish "corruption" now written as Jagiełło. The idea that a Grand Prince was of Lower rank than a King was a fiction of Latin catholic ideology; the embassy from the German emperor offering the status of king to Grand Prince Ivan III (I think it was him) of Vladimir/Moscow soon discovered this for themselves a century or so later when he sent them packing. This Karol Wojtyła parallel is another one from the depths; do you think Jogaila was a private citizen when he got baptized? No, he was head of the largest lordship west of the Mongol dominions; he lost control of Lithuania because his nephew revolted, and Jogaila agreed to let him rule (his Polish resources obviously weren't enough to subdue him); Jogaila was hence forced to be just king of Poland by circumstances, but there is no reason to think that Jogaila didn't regard Poland as just another (if major) Lithuanian acquisition when he assumed the Polish throne. This is supported by the Polish chornicler Dlugosz, who says that, and he uses the Lithuanian name:
 * "Jagiello loved his country Lithuania, and his family and brothers so much, that without hesitation he brought to the Polish kingdom all kinds of wars and troubles. The crown's riches and all it carried he donated towards the enrichment and protection of Lithuania."
 * Sure he let Polish scribes call him Wladislaus to give him an easier fit on the Polish throne, so what? Lithuanians used the Russian/Ruthenian language as the Poles used Latin, and didn't change the name. My whole simplified narrative is not particularly relevent though, because it remains the case that Władysław II Jagiełło is an unacceptable name, being both a Lithuanian ruler with one name, a Polish name with another name, and a historical figure known in English by many names, and in serious writing, by his native Lithuanian name. For the rest, see above. Thanks. - Calgacus 02:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Poles used Polish language, Lithuanians - Lithuanian, Ruthenians – Ruthenian, Latin language was used on official documents. And Russian language is what inhabitants of Muscovy used, quite a different country and a different language. Jagiełło agreed to incorporate Lithuania and Ruthenia into Poland, not the opposite, and with time they became a province of Poland ruled by kings of Poland, not Grand Dukes of Lithuania. Władysław is Jagiełło’s Christian name. The only one he ever had, since previously he was not a Christian. Is it really in accordance with Wiki policy to put Christian names in brackets after surnames? Jogaila was his surname, which was changed into Jagiełło (yes, it’s a Polish form that was accepted throughout Europe). According to yourself Jogaila gives 10,100 google hits as compared to 327,000 for Jagiello (almost 33 times more), so what’s the problem? And yes, Lithuania was a big country, but not a powerful one, that’s why they needed help. And that’s why Jagiełło had to accept the conditions of Poles, not Poles the conditions of Lithuania. Jagiełło needed Christianity. He could have been christened by Teutonic Order, but then his position would be much worse, that’s why he preferred to accept the conditions of Poles. "he lost control of Lithuania because his nephew revolted, and Jogaila agreed to let him rule (his Polish resources obviously weren't enough to subdue him);” No, he never lost control of Lithuania, Vytautas the Great got the title, and only for his life time, but Jagiełło retained the rights of overlord as a king of Poland, and the next Duke of Lithuania was Jagiełło’s son, not Vytautas’, Polish resources obviously were enough to subdue him. (BTW John Paul II wasn’t a private citizen before he became a Pope).--SylwiaS | talk 03:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * His cousin did revolt, sorry. And the title was not Duke, so stop saying it was, it indicates your psychological predisposition to distort the argument. The assertion that the largest state in the Europe of the period "was not a powerful one" is of course, like many of the statements made, pure nonsense. And also, I don't need a lecture on modern classifications of languages. I, as they did then and as many historians do now, use "Russian" in the context of the middle ages, to mean any eastern Slavic language. Like it or loath it mate, that's how I do it. - Calgacus 15:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * His cousin (not nephew) did revolt, but it's not the whole story, is it? The title is Duke in the lead of the article, and indicated ruler of Grand Duchy of Lithuania, so my using it indicates nothing but my reading the article. My assertion that the country was not powerful enough to defend itself against Teutonic Order without help is not "pure nonsense" but Jagiełło's motive to marrying Jadwiga. I hope you know that Lithuanian language doesn't belong to any Slavic group.--SylwiaS | talk 17:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That wasn't what I said was nonsense ... go read. Oh, and just as randomly, I hope you know that Portuguese doesn't belong to any Berber group. ;) - Calgacus 19:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

'Władysław II Jagiełło' should be used to refer to him as the King of Poland, Jogaila or whaterver Lithuanian editors want when refering to him in Grand Duke contexts. Since Jagiello is more common in English then Jogaila, Jagiello should be article's name, and it is cutomary to use Polish diactrics in titles (and throughout Wikipedia). This is also consisstent with naming convention for Polish rulers (discussed for months at Talk:List of Polish monarchs. We may consider using Jagiellon instead of Jagiełło, just as we use Vasa instead of Waza though. I won't object if a move decision will be reached here and the move carried out through with proper procedures, but if one user moves the page when there is clearly no consensus - or even majority - those moves will be reverted. Since Calgacus still is convinced of his righteousness and has moved the page yet again, I have protected it from moves until some form of community decision is reached here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As you know, and as I have stated previous, our Lithuanian ruler is not governed by the "rules" which Polish wikipedians agreed for Polish rulers, which violate the rules applied to most other European states.

This debate is unbelievably, unbelievable (sic). Calgacus was attacked again and again, and by a "luftwaffe" of flies. Anyone could see he kicked butt in a scholarly and quite objective manner, in "the debate of much ado about nothing". I saw naked nationalism swarming scholarly arguments over and over again. These attacks didn't diminish or relent, even after the objective winner of this debate, opted for a solution which should have satisfied them completely. Jogaila an invented name? Since when? The Długosz piece speaks of the historical reality of who this founder of the greatest dynasty that ruled the Rzeczpospolita, truly was, and where his heart lied. Dr. Dan 05:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. My case has been made. If consensus involves making these people agree, I might as well go to a communist rally and convince them capitalism isn't so bad. - Calgacus 15:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Did anyone say that Jogaila is an invented name, or that he wasn't Lithuanian? This discussion isn't about his heart or his personal preferences, only his official title that should be used as the title of the article. I have every right to disagree with Calgacus, and it was him who moved the article without any previous discussion and refused to move it back until a consensus would be reached. And I do think that reading three books about history of Lithuania is a bit too little to high-handedly decide on history of Poland. If you have any valid arguments on why an article about king of Poland officially named Władysław II Jagiełło should be titled Jogaila, please, add them here, but really, you don't have to call us nationalists to do that.--SylwiaS | talk 06:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you missed the part which points out he was also the ruler of Lithuania, before becoming ruler of Poland? Did you miss that? Are you ignoring it? Am I wasting my time repeating it? It's funny that you reject the atribution "nationalist", but maybe you could explain to non-Polish observers who may get that impression why a Lithunian ruler, who later became ruler of Poland, should have a totally Polonized on an English wikipedia? Just ignoring counter-arguments, while convenient if one has an agendum one is seeking to promote, is useless when trying advance the state of what ought to be a neutrally orientated debate. - Calgacus 16:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I haven't, but here's the title he officially used:
 * Royal title in Latin: Wladislaus Dei gracia rex Polonie necnon terrarum Cracovie, Sandomirie, Syradia, Lancicie, Cuiavie, Lithuanie princeps supremus, Pomoranie Russieque dominus et heres etc.
 * English translation: Vladislaus by God's grace king of Poland, and lands of Kraków, Sandomierz, Sieradz, Łęczyca, Kuyavia, supreme-prince of Lithuania, lord and heir of Pomerania and Ruthenia, etc.
 * It contains both his being king of Poland and prince of Lithuania, so what official title for the article you propose? And no, I wouldn't have a problem with calling him Władysław II Jogaila if not for the fact that he's far better known in English as Jagiełło.--SylwiaS | talk 17:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Jagiello (not Jagiełło). Otherwise, let me quote myself: "Have you missed the part which points out he was also the ruler of Lithuania, before becoming ruler of Poland? Did you miss that? Are you ignoring it?" etc, etc. This, anyways, is his Polish royal style as determined by the Polish chancellory, and in no way advances the argument for Polonizing his name. To quote myself again "Sure he let Polish scribes call him Wladislaus to give him an easier fit on the Polish throne, so what? Lithuanians used the Russian/Ruthenian language as the Poles used Latin." Let us again witness the words of your own Polish chronicler, :
 * "Jagiello loved his country Lithuania, and his family and brothers so much, that without hesitation he brought to the Polish kingdom all kinds of wars and troubles. The crown's riches and all it carried he donated towards the enrichment and protection of Lithuania."
 * I would have him simply as Jogaila. I thought we had the compromise, which at least three participants in this discussion thought was fair, i.e. Jogaila (Władysław II), but our friend Piotry (talk) with little explanation manipulated the admin powers he has acquired to override this. Sadly, this experience has makes me doubt that "compromise" by anyone except myself is actually possible. Moreover, the discussion is becoming tiresome because many of "participants" are simply not participating. Ignoring my arguments doesn't count as participation. They're there! This argument will go on and on unless people realise that the whole point is to find a solution, not to ignore my arguments in favor of a ridiculously inappropraite name, and talk garbage about Popes and Kings of France and Norway. - Calgacus 17:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Poor Władysław II Jagiełło
Why does Władysław II Jagiełło attract eccentrics? First User:Dr. Dan (see above) insisted, contrary to evidence, that the Polish given name "Władysław" translates into English as "Lancelot." Now User:Calgacus tells us that King Władysław II Jagiełło has no right to be called by the royal name that he himself chose. logologist|Talk 18:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Do such cheap tactics normally work in your experience? - Calgacus 18:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No more cheap than your above labeling of perfectly rational and well-informed arguments as "garbage." logologist|Talk 18:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL. You used cheap tactics, and you should apologize. But I know you aren't going to. We have a different view of "well-informed" seemingly. To me, it means informed with meaningful and truthful information and analysis, for you something else ... if you think that King Haakon VII of Norway was also King Christian of Denmark. You think this, correct?
 * You don't?
 * So, what's your problem with the designation "garbage" then? - Calgacus 18:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I didn't write that Haakon was Danish King. I only gave example that "nationality" (in medieval Europe rather "ethnicity") doesn't matter. Examples of Henry III and August II showed that argument of "he was firstly monarch of..." is also not so strong as You think. Radomil talk 19:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Then why did you write about him at all? Did you think that Jogaila was never ruler of Lithuania then? - Calgacus 19:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we should keep the current title, based on all the reasons given. Appleseed (Talk) 19:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What reasons? The only one I can see is "I'm Polish", "he was ruler of Poland (omitting/ignoring his rule of Lithuania)", therefore "we should Polonize his name". Maybe I'm mad, but that ain't very convincing. - Calgacus 19:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You're twisting the reasons into a straw man. I invite you to carefully reread what was written above. Appleseed (Talk) 19:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, because no-one else has done that, have they? How can you (please try to be objective for this moment) possibly think Władysław II Jagiełło is a fair name for a Lithuanian ruler named Jogaila, who was ruler of Lithuania first (!), in an English article? Of course it isn't, that's just common sense. I'd like to see you guys on the other foot.
 * Situation: Jagiello of Lithuania is the name of the article; it was created a while ago. A few months ago, a Lithuanian user on a crusade to Lithuanize the names of all Lithuanian rulers, renames him Jogaila of Lithuania. Now, you're a Pole (or someone else) who wants to see what you think is a better name. You rename it, and get mobbed by a bunch of irrate, sensitive nationalistic Lithuanians. They'd pull out all the same stuff you guys pull out, use all the same repetitive arguments. They'd have a better claim though. They could say he was Lithuanian king first; that Lithuania was bigger, more powerful; that he was indeed Lithuanian; they'd point to scholarly works in ENglish were this name is the preferred one; they also point out that even in modern Polish his Lithuanian name is retained Władysław II Jagiełło. You'd have little case.
 * Well, consider that situation. How many of the arguments you thought were important are important now? Thanks. - Calgacus 19:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That is why the Henryk Walezy analogy is appropriate. He was first King of Poland.  He abandoned the throne and became King of France.  He is now known as Henry III of France.  Also, it is customary to refer to a ruler by the name and title of his highest office. Appleseed (Talk) 19:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually this article was titled Jagiello in the beginning and it was merged with Wladyslaw Jogaila. I’m afraid that whatever arguments we would give you here, you will still dismiss them as Polonocentric. Why, in fact we are not the ones who insist on calling the article Władysław II of Poland, while you firstly moved it to Jogaila of Lithuania. It is customary in Wiki (or everywhere in western civilisation) to have kings called by their Christian names. Usually it goes like i.e. Robert of Country, his Christian name was Władysław, so he was called Władysław II of Poland. But since we think that his being a ruler of Lithuania is also important, we try to have more universal name to suit everyone. That’s why the article’s title uses also his surname Jagiełło instead of the country name. We might use the Lithuanian counterpart for Jagiełło which is Jogaila, but Jagiełło (or if you prefer Jagiello without diacritics) is far more popular name for the king. But what you propose instead is a form which looks like Smith (Robert) and you are surprised that we think it ridiculous and contradictory to Wiki rules applied to all the other articles about kings. So I’ll ask you once again, do you think that an article about English queen should be titled Stuart (Anne)? Because it’s exactly what you propose here.
 * I also would ask you once again to remember about No personal attacks. You insulted us enough, I assure you.--SylwiaS | talk 20:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well said, Sylwia. I wonder if Calgacus, who insist that we are not replying to his arguments (I wish he would create a list of them, cause I can't see any that were not replied to) will actually reply to you? In other news, I did a quick comparison of Jagiello (80k hits) to Jagiellon (20k hits) and Jogaila (10k hits). But as this is not precise enough, and not scholarly enough, here is a search for name + 1386 (date of his coronation in Poland) on Google Print: 34 books with Jogaila, 84 books with Jagiello.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Where do You see that I wrote that Jagiello was not Grad Price of Lithuania? I even wrote "he was firstly monarch of..." - I will explaiun it to You once more: Henry III was firstly King of Poland (as Henry Walezy), later, he bacame King of France (as Henry III). Jagiello was firstly Grand Prince of Lithuania, then King of Poland. August II was firstly Elector of Saxony, later he became also King of Poland. If Jagiello should be renamed on Jogaila why Henry III or August II shouldn't? Did You understood now why this argument is so weak? Radomil talk 19:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No, but I understand why you think it is. See above. - Calgacus 19:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

"Poor" Jogaila would be a better description of the problem. Jogaila can best be translated into Polish as "Jego Szkoda" (idiomatically as His pity, or What a pity). Many a rabid Lithuanian nationalist feels that his name best expresses their sentiments about the Polish Lithuanian Union and subsequent Commonwealth. Especially after reading the above nonsense. I am not a Pole nor a Lithuanian, but I am quite familiar with the history of these nations and am pretty fluent in both of their languages. I say to Calgacus, forget any "logical" argument with these people. You won the debate through scholarly, referenced arguments. For the best explanation of the problem, go to SylwiaS' user page and read How to deal with Poles. That's the crux of the matter.

 * Dr Dan, you've read the how to deal with Poles page, but you have not understand it. I wrote the page because I was utterly frustrated by the people, like you, who immedietely after starting disucssing with me accused me of nationalism, and instead of dealing with arguments, withdrew to personal attacks. Right now situation is as follows: for YEARS the community was working on consistent scheme of naming of Polish kings. When everyone agreed, suddenly someone comes and without any discussion reverts the work of whole community and then complains, when people are slightly upset. Szopen 08:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Where in the world do you all think the name Jagiello (pol. Ya giehwo), came from? The Pope? Or maybe Elmer Fudd being unable to pronounce Jogaila? Give us a break, please.

To logologist, I gave up on the the Lancelot debate (see Talk higher above), for the same reason I recommended that Calgacus forget about this one. An intelligent or logical argument with you or your friends (sockpuppet maybe?}, is not possible. You can remain wrong and contented in being so. If I stated that Ivan was John, in English, some rabid Zhirinovsky partisan would tell me that "Ivan" is a Slavic name, and that "Ivan the Terrible" has nothing to do with John the Baptist. That was the gist of your argument.

Let me say this: you can't have it both ways even though you would like to have it both ways. In other words you can't have it Wroclaw on the one hand and Wilno on the other. Dr. Dan 05:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)p.s. Yes it was stated that Jogaila was an invented name, read the comments in the "history" column.

Case against Jogaila
BEcause calgalucus instead of answering the arguments posted by people, who previously contributed the most to the article, let's summarise them here. No calling names, please.

Remember: Wikipedia does record human knowledge, not the "truths". No original research. English most popular names first, with google being most clear indicator of this (and English literature the second). Consistency is important.

Remember, we were working on the article for a long time. We were trying to have it consistent with wikipedia rules. Now, someone came and wants to break all wikipedia rules and our customs. He had to have really good arguemnts.

Before you even start, READ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28names_and_titles%29 especially the section about Monarchical titles

E.g."
 * Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, use the most commonly associated ones. For example, Charles II of England, not Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland; Wilhelm II of Germany, not Wilhelm II of Prussia, although there should be redirects from these locations

No family or middle names, except where English speakers normally use them. No cognomens (nicknames) in *article titles – they go in the first line of the article.

So, as you see, the article name should be Wladyslaw II of Poland (or Vladislaus... this was also discussed before). Wladyslaw Jagiello form is used only because he was so commonly known as Jagiello and because we wanted to respect his Lithuanian roots.

Why the article should be called Jogaila (Wladyslaw)
 * 1) He was grand duke of Lithuania before he became king of Poland
 * To keep the consistency consistent, all the rulers throughout wikipedia should be called by the names they were using before they acquired some throne. E.g. Guillaume de Normandie (first ruler of Normandia) not William I of England

 * 1) His native language was Lithuanian, he was Lithuanian, therefore Lithuanian name should be used
 * Therefore, to have it consistent, also other kings should use their native names. E.g. Guillaume de Normandie instead of William

Why the article should be called Wladyslaw II Jagiello
 * 1) His official titles (as quoted above) were e.g. 3.05.1386: Wladislaus Dei gracia rex Polonie Litwanieque princeps supremus et heres Russie etc.
 * 2) The article name is kept consistent with the list of other Polish monarchs and list of other monarchs (e.g. William I of England). The rules for that were created long ago, and not by Polish contributors. See just the list of English monarchs and the names of the articles: Henry VII of England, Richard I of England (though he is called Lionheart) etc. Breaking that rules and accusing US of nationalism is almost ridiculous.
 * 3) The using of the name Jagiello is consistent with overhelming number of google hits - mostly in English he is called Jagiello, not Jogaila 34 books with Jogaila, 84 books with Jagiello.

Now, explain us again, why we should break wikipedia rules just because.. what? Someone feels so? And because we are opposing to breaking wikipedia rules we are nationalistic?

Szopen 09:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC) Most popular english name: only english site, -site:pl, Jagiello: http://www.google.pl/search?as_q=Jagiello&num=10&hl=pl&btnG=Wyszukuj+w+Google&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=e&as_sitesearch=pl 74,100  Jogaila, no Lithuanian links: http://www.google.pl/search?as_q=Jogaila&num=10&hl=pl&btnG=Wyszukuj+w+Google&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=e&as_sitesearch=lt 979

"Wladyslaw Jagiello" http://www.google.pl/search?hl=pl&as_qdr=all&q=%22Wladyslaw+Jagiello%22+-site%3Apl&btnG=Szukaj&lr=lang_en 762 "Wladislaw Jagiello" http://www.google.pl/search?hl=pl&as_qdr=all&q=%22Wladislaw+Jagiello%22+-site%3Apl&btnG=Szukaj&lr=lang_en 432 "Wladislaw II Jagiello" http://www.google.pl/search?hl=pl&as_qdr=all&q=%22Wladislaw+II+Jagiello%22+-site%3Apl&btnG=Szukaj&lr=lang_en 487 "Wladyslaw II jagiello" http://www.google.pl/search?hl=pl&as_qdr=all&q=%22Wladyslaw+II+Jagiello%22+-site%3Apl&btnG=Szukaj&lr=lang_en 762 "Wladislaus Jagiello" http://www.google.pl/search?hl=pl&as_qdr=all&q=%22Wladislaus+Jagiello%22+-site%3Apl&btnG=Szukaj&lr=lang_en 432

Jogaila -Wladyslaw http://www.google.pl/search?hl=pl&as_qdr=all&q=Jogaila+-Wladyslaw&btnG=Szukaj&lr=lang_en 906

Jogail -Wladyslaw -Wladislaus -Ladislaus http://www.google.pl/search?hl=pl&as_qdr=all&q=Jogaila+-Wladyslaw+-Wladislaus+-Ladislaus&btnG=Szukaj&lr=lang_en 762

note that the discussion whether we should use Ladislaus, Wladislaus etc was long ago and the naming now is a result of compromise and discussion. Someone who will come and whose only distribution to the article is ignoring the rules and compromise and moving it to another name without any previous discussion is unlikely to be met with enthusiasmSzopen 12:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for another distorted contributions. More work for me, right?! 1. Selectively choosing titles from his time as ruler of Poland, from the Polish chancellory does not prove anything. 2. Polish articles violate general rules for naming monarchs, namely Naming conventions (use English). That Poles have gotten together and agreed among themselves not to apply this rule is not important, firstly because Jogaila is also a Lithuanian ruled and secondly, it'll probably be revoked once it catches the attention of someone involved. 3. Please do not lie There are actually 267 books using Jogaila.
 * If you would be Pole, you would be probably immedietely reported, as - if I am not mistaken - Halibutt once was. Sigh. Where did I lied? Did I say there are not 267 books about Jogaila? But in the same time there are 1467 books about JAGIELLO, which means it is most common English name (which is polonised or ruthenised version of his LITHUANIAN NAME, not POLISH NAME). Szopen 17:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sigh. It is the Polish version of the name. - Calgacus 19:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that you accuse others of lying and then quote a number (267) without any proff (unlike me and Szopen, who linked back to our search) convinces me more and more then you are a POV-pusher on some personal crusade. Unless you cite your sources and behave in a civil way, I don't think there is much point in continuing this discussion.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The proof is there for anyone to check it SEE!. All references I saw were to out ruler. - Calgacus 19:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course no violation of "wiki rules" is occurring. You can see yourself that the Jogaila/Jagiello naming is more popular. And please do not lie is pursuit of your agendum. I have contributed to this page, namely with a succession box and other things. ANd of course, have wasted lots of my time arguing with the Poles here.
 * IIRC you are arguing for Jogaila, not Jagiello. I have seen for the first time that you are agreeing for more common name of Jagiello. Nevertheless, you have still not read Wikipedia naming conventions. It seems you have read only general directions as for people, and still not read the rules about names and titles. And those are very clear: according to them, the articles should be called  of . Since he was catholic, and since in catholic world (and customary in western christendom) king is more important than grand duke, most important title is king. So the article should be named "Wladyslaw II of Poland" or "Ladislaus II of Poland" or "Wladislaw II of Poland". It's not us who invented those rules. Go to Philip Beard and accuse his for Polonocentrism. Or others who created the conventions.

Szopen 17:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You can see yourself that the Jogaila/Jagiello naming is more popular. You may want to add some numbers: Wladyslaw variants win by 3000 to 1600 when compared to Jogaila variants.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you not count. There were 73,800 hits for Jagiello. You can't just discount the Jagiello variant of Jogaila and count all the Wladislaw variants, now can you? - Calgacus 17:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Calgacus
BTW, I'm going to stop posting here unless something really significant is posted. I can't respond to every Pole who is invited to see this page, and I regard repeating myself as a waste of time. However, as my arguments are by far the stronger, I will leave it to others to compromise. I hope I am not forced to rally objective parties from around wikipedia to restore fairness to this process. - Calgacus 15:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Calgacus, your arguments are not the strongest, because you have no arguments at all. According to naming scheme, the article should be named Ladislaus II of Poland, Wladislaw II of Poland or similar. Or Jogaila, Grand Duke of Lithuania. The wikipedia naming conventions are really clear about it, and I have pasted it for you to read them.
 * Sorry, the current article is Władysław II Jagiełło, not Ladislaus II of Poland/Wladislaw II of Poland. Please do not try to hold me responsible for the violations of wiki naming guidelines that were the responsibility of others; stick to the argument. If no-one had changed it to Władysław II Jagiełło, I wouldn't have bothered. Although you may wish to portray me as biased, I of course have no reason to be, unlike yourself. "Grand Duke" (itself a Latinate term, not a Russian or Lithuanian one) being lower than a king is a legal fiction of the Latin west, as the term used is Великий князь (etymologically cognate with Great King). If you take this legal fiction seriously, then the King of Navarre takes precedence to the soon-to-be emperors of medieval Moscow/Russia. But at the present, I'm not going to put forward this argument more generally (even though it is a good one). If the page is renamed Ladislaus II of Poland/Wladislaw II of Poland (requiring a reanglicization of the other monarchs), then I will accept it. Of course, if this isn't done, the wikipedia guidelines are meaningless, and the debate will rage on. - Calgacus 17:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said, if you would argue for the renaming to Ladislaus II of Poland then I would nto oppose. I already wrote it above. The only reason of giving it Władysław II Jagiello is the wish to preserve his Lithuanian name and the consensus reached once amongst people interested in it. As for legal fiction, yes, but Jogaila was part of the world who took such fiction seriously. He was catholic. Second, Poland was senior part of the deal. The union of Krewo stated (though about unclearly, the famous applicare controversy) that Lithuania is to be joined to Poland as the condition, under which Jagiello was crowned Polish king. Also, Poland had 1.5 millions inhabitants in 100.000 sq km while Lithiania had 2 millions in territory much much larged, from which about 300.000 were in Lithuania proper. Lithuania however was before Vytautas, almost a loose confederation of different duchies compared to Poland. Lithuania was larger, but poorer and weaker part of the union in times of Jagiello (partly because civil wars and decentralisation).
 * to summarise: I do not oppose, as I wrote it before few times, the move to Ladislaus/Wladislaw II of Poland. I do not oppose moving it to Jogaila of Lithuania (though the page definetely should be made) or Jogaila (Wladyslaw).

Szopen 17:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Monarchical titles

 * 1) Pre-emptively disambiguate the names of monarchs, of modern countries in the format "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}". Examples: Edward I of England; Alfonso XII of Spain; Henry I of France; Cleopatra VII of Egypt.
 * 2) Where there has only been one holder of a specific monarchical name in a state, the ordinal is used only when the ordinal was in official use. For example, Victoria of the United Kingdom, not Victoria I of the United Kingdom; Juan Carlos I of Spain, not Juan Carlos of Spain. The usage of ordinals where there has been more than a single holder of a specific monarchical name is correct and appropriate. For example, William I of England, not William of England or William the Conqueror, as William II of England and William III of England hold the same monarchical name.
 * 3) Take care to use the correct name of the state at the time when a monarch reigned. So it is
 * 4) with the British: monarchs of England only up to 1707 (eg., Henry VIII of England), Great Britain from 1707-1800 (eg. Anne of Great Britain), the United Kingdom since 1801 (eg. Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom). England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom were all different states covering different geographic areas, and so they do need to be clarified.
 * 5) with German monarchs: Holy Roman Empire until 1806 (e.g. Henry V, Holy Roman Emperor), Germany from 1871 (e.g. Wilhelm II of Germany), Austria after then, etc. Germany is especially complex; when in doubt, refer to List of German Kings and Emperors.
 * 6) But if an obscure official name of a state exists alongside a clearly understood one, it is fine to use the more widely known version. For example, Kings of Greece rather than the technically correct Kings of the Hellenes.
 * 7) Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, use the most commonly associated ones. For example, Charles II of England, not Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland; Wilhelm II of Germany, not Wilhelm II of Prussia, although there should be redirects from these locations
 * 8) 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
 * 9) Do not apply an ordinal in an article title to a pretender, i.e., someone who has not reigned. For example, use Louis-Alphonse, Duc d'Anjou, not Louis XX when referring to the legitimist pretender to the French throne. A person may however be referred to if they have a title, for example, Victor Emmanuel, Prince of Naples for the last Italian Crown Prince. But he should not be referred to as Victor Emmanuel IV even though Italian royalists call him so. Where someone has a disputed title, for example, "Henry V" – whom French Legitimists believed became the real king of France in 1830 after Charles X's abdication – could be referred to as such in the article. Alternatively a disambulation page could be created, redirecting enquiries about "Henry V" to the page where his biography exists, that is, Henri, comte de Chambord.
 * 10) Former or deposed monarchs should be referred to by their previous monarchical title with the exception of those who are still alive and are most commonly referred to by a non-monarchial title; all former or deposed monarchs should revert to their previous monarchical title upon death; for example, Constantine II of Greece not ex-King Constantine II or Constantine Gluckberg, Edward VIII of the United Kingdom not the Prince Edward, Duke of Windsor, but Simeon Saxe-Coburg Gotha not Simeon II of Bulgaria.
 * 11) No family or middle names, except where English speakers normally use them. No cognomens (nicknames) in article titles – they go in the first line of the article.
 * 12) Make redirects from other plausible names that people might search for or link to, even if strictly incorrect. For example, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom should have redirects from Elizabeth II of England, Elizabeth II of Great Britain, Elizabeth Windsor, Queen Elizabeth II etc.

Exceptions:
 * 1) These conventions do not apply to Eastern and Polynesian civilizations. See also: Manual of Style (China-related articles), Manual of Style (Japan-related articles), Manual of Style (Thailand-related articles).
 * 2) Roman Emperors do not need the "of the Roman Empire", nor would Pericles be "of Athens" – their names already indicate where they were from. The first line of the article can say when (and which empire) they ruled.  Otherwise, we get stuck with Roman Emperor, Western R. E., Eastern R. E., Byzantine E., and (under the Carolingians) Roman Emperor (again). See also Naming conventions (ancient Romans)
 * 3) With Germanic peoples (and any other leaders of a people, rather than a country or nation), if any description at all is used (and this is something the early medievalists should work on), it should be "of the Goths", etc.  Again, this is something that has not been much discussed, so please contribute to a discussion of how to do it before randomly creating pages!
 * 4) If a person is overwhelmingly best known by a cognomen, or by a name that doesn't  fit the guidelines above, revert to the base rule: use the most common English name. Examples: Alfred the Great, Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, Henry the Lion, etc...".

This rules where effect of collaborative work of wikipedians, of which, as you can see in history of the page, NONE was Polish (except for Polish, who added 'guidelines' (you of course know the difference between guideline and policy). You came here, violated this rules without asking anyone, gave very weak arguments which were either discussed here before (as: what is most English name) or are simply wrong. You may argue for moving the article into Ladislaus II of Poland or Wladyslaw Jagiello (by most common English name), but not into Jogaila of Lithuania, which is violation of WIKIPEDIA RULES.

Comments on user Calgacus
Calgalucus, you are perfect example of how to deal with Poles. Just perfect, shiny example. Do not listen opposite side arguments, call them silly, call them nationalist and withdraw from the discussion'''. Szopen 17:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And I thought that page was just a joke... :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Great, a wikipedia admin commenting on wiki users during a discussion. That just sums up this whole discussion. - Calgacus 17:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It never was. Piotrus, haven't you followed the discussions over the partisan, where all the sources we gave were immedietely dismissed as unreliable because.. written by Polish? Or with that Australian, Adam C? Szopen 17:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I had, but truth be told, I don't think Calgacus is guilty of that particular fallacy (dismissing our arguments because of particular nationality).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

This has been done already by Dr.Dan-we are a "Gang" of communist propaganda believers:  ''Can you all even begin to understand the "real problem" that we are dealing with. I'll bet most of these contributors grew up under the communist government of Poland. Go re-read some of the "histories" out of the Soviet Union, about Poland and you will understand why I want to give objectivity it's fair shake, visa vis your neighbors.'' The usual stuff. --Molobo 01:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

What I am and am not arguing
Under wikipedia naming conventions Wladyslaw II of Poland or Ladislaus II of Poland would be correct. I would argue against this, but not any longer for the purposes of this discussion, as I made clear before (I may take it up at some later point though, but I am too busy atm). I have argued against Władysław II Jagiełło, which is a Polonization with no qualifications, and violates wiki naming conventions, both by not containing "of X" and by not being English. However, if it insisted that all Polish monarchs be named with Polish characters, without reference to title, Jogaila (Władysław II) (or at least Władysław II (Jogaila), is the only acceptable one. As a postscript, I would appreciate it if irrate users would refrain from vandalising my wall and, moreover, refrain from insulting me directly (rather than my arguments) or swearing at me. This is not a huge demand, but the lowest expectation of etiquette. Thanks - Calgacus 18:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The naming convention with regards to the Polish monarch was discussed at Naming_convention, as I have already stated above. Our naming conventions advise against adding alternative names in parenthesis, this is what redirects are for, and this is why we SHOULD use Jogaila when reffering to Władysław in Lithuanain (non-Polish) contexts of history. As you yourself should agree, x of Poland would not be correct in this article, and we should use x of Poland and Lithuania if we decided to stick to the basic convention. Although Władysław II Jagiełło is a polonization, Jogaila is a Lithuanization, and since as shown in the counts done above, polonized version is actually the one most commonly used in English publications, it should be retained (the same argument can be made for most of the other Polish kings names, hence our specific naming convention). Finally, with regards to etiquette, you are absolutely right - just remember to stick to it yourself. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk  20:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please point to an instance were I have sworn at or directly insulted another user. You're now
 * Accusing someone that he lies is in Poland taken as direct insult. You have insulted me that way few times. You have also said I have been spamming and that I had no clue about what I am talking about. Szopen 08:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

 * slandering me because you're accusing me of doing something I haven't done. You know, I actually ought to get my money's worth. I could easily throw insults if I wanted to, but there'd be no point. Jogaila isn't a Lithuanianization BTW because it is actually Lithuanian. Anyways, this argument has gone as far as it can under the circumstances. The Polish letter ł has no place in English wiki; you've gotten away with it because there were so many of you who want to use it, not for any consistent set of judgments; the "consensus" there was not very convincing. This is neither reasonable or justifiable in wiki convention, but that's life I suppose! I'd actually approve (although not in this particular instance) if they'd let me give medieval Scottish kings their Gaelic names. How's that for fairness? I've found the fanaticism on this topic displayed here quite  disburbing; it's not as if many were actually trying to be objective. After all, this is supposed to be an informational community! Not a war zone for eastern European naming. Not having a completely Polish name doesn't mean the connections to Poland are being weakened! Anyways, I have a huge research project I have to do, and that is more important than this. So I'm taking the advice of many other objective wikipedians and giving up' for now. Feel free to unlock it, because I'm not going to move it, even if I ever decide to make an issue of re-Polonized names. - Calgacus 20:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Piotrus, I do not believe that the discussion you cite was a valid consensus. It was something that was proposed in the middle of the holiday season, got agreement from a very few people, completely ignored valid objections, and then proceeded. I would want to see a valid public debate on this, from more than just the Polish wikipedian community, before labeling it a consensus.  Elonka 20:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That debate was - and still is - posted on every imaginable related talk or annoucement page (although I see it has 'aged off' RfC, feel free to repost it there again). I was also disappointed that few people commented, and you are right it was not a consensus - but the project was supported by a majority.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

 * BTW, Marking once edits as "minor" when they are not minor (e.g they are full talk edits) is a thing, which as I was told few years ago when I started being a wikipedian, a very BAD THING. Don't do it. Many people, including me, has not been watching minor edits, assuming they are typos and similar corrections. Szopen 08:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Fairness?
Calgacus asked me if fairness is possible in these debates and discussions, on my talk page. If he should in fact, continue or give up any scholarly argument to support his claims. Let me answer by discussing the comments and contributions from SylwiaS, Appleseed, and "prokonsul" Piotrus(love the name prokonsul, reminds me of Meyerbeer's Opera The Prophet, prophet to whom and to what?). Piotrus stated in one of his earlier edit summaries (see history of the article, not the discussion page), that JOGAILA is an invented name. So much for his knowledge of the man, as he sweepingly reverts what he doesn't like. Along comes SylwiaS, who either doesn't read the entire argument from the beginning or is too busy composing her "objective" arguments to the melee. She adds "no one said Jogaila is an invented name". Right, ahem! The "objective" contributor Appleseed, who I think put together the Wikipedia article, Polish Saints, puts the grandson of Jogaila, the Patron Saint of Lithuania, Kazimieras (St. Casimir), into the category. I understand the stretch, but I'm not so sure the Vatican likes categorizing saints into national groups. How, dear Appleseed, did you come up with Edith Stein getting into your category. But I'm digressing. When Polish contributions concerning Rome in the English version are involved, they use Rome not Rzym. When they concern Vilnius, they always use Wilno (which by the way is fine and understandable in the Polish Wikipedia version, not the English version). As I said before you can't have it both ways. I used the example of wanting Wroclaw on the one hand and Wilno on the other. As for google hits being any kind of basis for comming to a consensus on historical matters, pleeeeze. It reminds me of trying to use the vote tally of the nazi plebicite on the Anschluss, as the basis for Austria's current political situation. I could come up with many, I say many, more examples of nationalist bias concerning the general topics we are touching upon in this discussion. Finally, as I mentioned before, his polonized name Jagiello is derived from Jogaila, his name. Do you really think he called himself, Ya Giewo? Do you think his family and friends in Lithuania, took a crash course from Elmer Fudd, on how to pronounce his name? I'm trying to lighten up this way too heavy argument with some humor. Earlier on I called this discussion "much ado about nothing". Calgacus won the debate on the evidence and fact. But he lost the debate because the rest of you can conjure up more "google hits".Dr. Dan 15:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * First, I did not call 'Jogaila' invented. I called things like 'Jogaila (Władysław) an invented montrosity. See the difference? Second, I find it puzzling how you and Calgacius insist that you 'won' the scholarly debate - could you please do us a favour and perhaps summarize your scholary arguments and sources, so we can reply to them?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Drogi Prokonsul, the rv was from Jogaila of Lithuania, back to the original name. It was never a problem for me, nor did I say I won the debate. Calgagus did win it however, and resoundingly so. On January 27, YOU began the ad hominem attacks (that SylwiaS later decried as insults to her and others), by referring to Calcagus as "some clueless editor" who used an "invented name". Please double check your edit summary in the article history (not discussion history for 1/27/06). I'm sure you'll find a way to wiggle out of this one, no doubt. As this is becoming too long for a discussion page, I invite you all to the Raphael Kalinowski article discussion page to spread out whats really going on here and maybe get to the "gist" of this problem. See some of you there. Dr. Dan 20:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)! p.s. you never called it a montrosity (sic), until now. As a prokonsul I'm sure you know it's spelled monstrosity. And that too, Piotrus, is an ad hominem characterization of Calgacus' very erudite and scholary viewpoint and presentation of facts.
 * Dear Doctor, you seem to be citing facts from a different version of Wikipedia then the one I see. The edit in which I called Calcagues "clueless editor" using "invented name" is this one. As you can clearly see, it is not about "Jogaila of Lithuania" (which is correct in some context) but Jogaila (Władysław II) (which is a form that should never be used in the name, i.e. name1 (alternative name2)). As for my ad hominem, I don't consider warning users that their arbitrary moves are not considered polite a personal attack, although I guess the introduction of some of "Calgacus' very erudite and scholary viewpoints and presentations of facts" like "I consider your post most rude" and "your idea of "consensus" is shambolic, the rule of the rambling mob" might have contributed to the level of my arguments slipping as well. I see no point in dragging this out, especially as we seem to be making some constructive progress at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Polish rulers), and I have no time to waste on flame wars, name calling and finger pointing. EOT.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You can't use that as an excuse. You're supposed to be an admin. And your post on my talk page was much more rude than it had to be. Did you seriously consider it a realistic possibility that I would comply with such a rudely phrased request? You could have said "moves of this kind are generally disapproved of, please use the talk page before moving in future; I have moved it back in lieu of discussion; it would be appreciated if you could fix the double redirects which now exist". After all, as I said, I (naively) regarded the move as uncontroversial. Obnoxiousness in general is counter-productive, there's absolutely no point in behaving like that; and, moreover, resorting to name-calling on various wiki pages and user talk pages in not very honorable. Anyways, I hope the future will be marked by better relations. - Calgacus 21:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Bravo Prokonsul, I predicted that you would wiggle out of this, and you have done a great job in doing so. Let's let Jogaila rest in Wawel,(I truly loved to visit him, Jadwiga, and his son Wladysław III in the Cathedral). Let's meet at the Raphael Kalinowski discussion page and get on with the real heart of the matter. Try to invite SylwiaS and Appleseed over there too.Dr. Dan 22:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Verify
The following has been a subject of a slow but persistend revert war. Please provide citations to prove or disprove it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Since 1387 Moldavia was Polish fief and since 1389 Jagiełło was a supreme Lord of the Novgorod Republic as well.

DISGRACE
This article is a disgrace - it is unclear and looks thrown together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.74 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 21 February 2006

Naming conventions (Polish rulers)
See table:

The table above has been up here for over a week, nobody objecting to the new proposed name for this page, Wladyslaw II/V of Poland, Jogaila of Lithuania, so I take it that "disputes have been resolved on the discussion page".

So, I'd like to ask that the moveprotected template be removed from the article, the article be unprotected for moves, and moved to Wladyslaw II/V of Poland, Jogaila of Lithuania - does anyone object?

PS, request also posted at Requests for page protection --Francis Schonken 09:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Object strenuously. logologist|Talk 10:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd Support some of the changes while Oppose to others. This should be done in the proper place, at WP:RM and/or Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Polish rulers), and not here. Halibutt 11:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Appleseed (Talk) 13:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Partial oppose like Halibutt. Specifically, I oppose: 1) Wladyslaw II/V of Poland, Jogaila of Lithuania - monster dual name, not a single link would non-redirect 2) Google Print - 22,000 for Zygmunt, 36,000 for Sigismund - it doesn't appear like 'Zygmunt' is underused in English. Would you suggest renaming Zygmunt Bauman to 'Sigismund Bauman'? And what about Sigmund - 150,000? Sigismund III of Poland - I actually supported Vasa, and I don't think there was anybody who wanted Waza? 3) Lech Kaczyński - I oppose not using diactrics where possible. It's Wałęsa, not Walesa.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

If the name Wladyslaw II is left alone, or even Wladyslaw Jagiello is left alone (forgive the lack of diactrics, I'm rushing and my computer is unnequipped), is there an objection to include that his pagan name was Jogaila, and he changed it upon taking the crown of Poland? I would think this is not only fair but historically correct, no? While we may not be trying to confuse, we are trying to educate. At least I think so. Dr. Dan 03:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The title is not supposed to be the article. Jogaila can and should be explained in the article, but to explain name changes in the title itself is - AFAIK - unheard on Wiki (and would look cumbersome to say the least).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You may have missunderstood me, I didn't mean to do so in the title. There seems to be some resistance to using the name Jogaila, prior to the Union of Krewo, and an insistence that Jagiełło, be used instead. Am I wrong? Dr. Dan 15:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Dr. Dan, the article clearly refers to Jagiełło as "Jogaila" prior to the Union of Krewo. Can you be more specific about this resistance you're seeing? Appleseed (Talk) 15:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, the other day I made some correctional additions to the History of Poland, in that I used Jogaila, prior to the Unia we Krewie, only to be reverted by Molobo. He then admonished me not to put my POV into in any articles, until disputes were settled. After explaining to him the differences between POV and fact, he called that a personal attack, and proceeded to delete portions of my comments to him (on his talk page), as he saw fit. I was under the impression that the dispute was regarding This article, and what the title should be, not other historical matters concerning the PLC or the Bitwa pod Grundwaldem, or any other pertinent matters concerning Wladyslaw II. Dr. Dan 02:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Jogaila was Lithuanian, and a King
Jogaila was Lithuanian. Fact. Jogaila is his real name, not a "Lithuanisation", because he was Lithuanian. Again, fact.

Lithuania entered into a poorly considered union with Poland, and suffered badly as the weaker part of the union. Polinisation of Lithunian names, suppression of the Lithuanian language and an attempt to downgrade the rank of Lithuanian royalty were the unfortunate results. The latter produced the fiction of "Grand Dukes of Lithuania". They were Kings, not "Grand Dukes". They needed neither Polish or Papal recognition to be Kings. They considered themselves to be Kings, and they were Kings. I'd like to see the famous monarchs of Lithuania being called kings, as they were, and as they deserve to be called.

cheers

Codman 06:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło/Archive 1


text:
MOS Technology Agnus

The MOS Technology "Agnus", usually called Agnus, is an integrated circuit in the custom chipset of the Amiga computer. The Agnus, Denise and Paula chips collectively formed the OCS and ECS chipsets.

The Agnus is the Address Generator Chip. Its main function, in chip area, is the RAM Address Generator and Register Address Encoder which handles all DMA addresses. The 8361 Agnus is made up of approximately 21000 transistors and contains DMA Channel Controllers. According to Jay Miner, original Agnus was fabricated in 5 μm manufacturing process like all OCS chipset. The Blitter and Copper are also contained here.

Agnus features:
 * The Blitter, a bitmap manipulator. The Blitter is capable of copying blocks of display data, or any arbitrary data in the on-board memory, at high speed with various raster operations as well as drawing pixel perfect lines and filling outlined polygons, while freeing the CPU for concurrent tasks.
 * "Copper", a display synchronized co-processor
 * 25 Direct Memory Access (DMA) channels, allowing graphics, sound and I/O to be used with minimal CPU intervention
 * DRAM refresh controller
 * Memory controller (memory that can be accessed by the processor and the chipset)
 * Generates the system clock from the 28 MHz oscillator
 * Video timing

Agnus was replaced by Alice in the Amiga 4000 and Amiga 1200 when the AGA chipset was introduced in 1992.

Chips by capability

 * OCS Agnus which can address up to 512 kB of Chip RAM (PLCC versions add 512 kB of pseudo-fast RAM)
 * 8361 (DIP) - Amiga 1000 (NTSC); Amiga 2000 model A (NTSC)
 * 8367 (DIP) - Amiga 1000 (PAL); Amiga 2000 model A (PAL)
 * 8370 (PLCC) - Amiga 500 to Rev 5.x (NTSC); Amiga 2000 model B to Rev 4.5 (NTSC)
 * 8371 (PLCC) - Amiga 500 to Rev 5.x (PAL); Amiga 2000 model B to Rev 4.5 (PAL)
 * ECS Agnus which can address up to 1 MB of Chip RAM
 * 8372 - no data *
 * 8372A - Amiga 500 from Rev 6 (NTSC/PAL); Amiga 2000 model B from Rev 6.0 to Rev 6.3 (NTSC/PAL); Commodore CDTV
 * 8375 (318069-16 only) (PAL) - Amiga 500 from Rev 6 (PAL); Amiga 2000 model B from Rev 6.4 (PAL)
 * 8375 (318069-17 only) (NTSC) - Amiga 500 from Rev 6 (NTSC); Amiga 2000 model B from Rev 6.4 (NTSC)
 * ECS Agnus which can address up to 2 MB of Chip RAM
 * 8372AB - Amiga 3000 from Rev 6.1 to Rev 8.9 (NTSC/PAL)
 * 8372B - Amiga 3000 Rev 9 (NTSC/PAL)
 * 8375 (PAL) - Amiga 500 Plus; Amiga 600 (PAL)
 * 8375 (NTSC) - Amiga 600 (NTSC)

* Somewhere 8372A Agnus mentioned as simply "8372".

Chips by package

 * 48-lead DIP Agnus (aka thin Agnus): 8361; 8367
 * 84-contact PLCC Fat Agnus (named Fat Lady on most Amiga 2000 motherboards) 8370; 8371; 8372; 8372A; 8372AB; 8372B; 8375

Notes Fat Agnus 1MB and Fat Agnus 2MB usually known as Super Agnus; Super Fat Agnus; Fatter Agnus; Big Agnus; Big Fat Agnus, but these aren't official names.

PLCC Versions
When replacing or upgrading chips, pinouts need to be taken care of. Types are just mentioned for reference; four-digit types and pinouts/usage are not consistent.

References: A500 Service Training, A3000 Service Manual, A500+ Service Manual, A1200 schematics

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: MOS Technology Agnus


text:
Fukurokuju

In Japan, Fukurokuju (福禄寿; from Japanese fuku, "happiness"; roku, "wealth"; and ju, "longevity") is one of the Seven Lucky Gods in Japanese mythology. It has been theorized that he is a Japanese assimilation of the Chinese Three Star Gods (Fu Lu Shou) embodied in one deity. Most related in appearance to the Chinese star god Shou, he is the God of wisdom and longevity. According to some, before attaining divinity, he was a Chinese hermit of the Song dynasty and a reincarnation of the Taoist Deity, Xuantian Shangdi. It is said that during his human incarnation, he was a sennin; a immortal who could exist without eating food.

Fukurokuju probably originated from an old Chinese tale about a mythical Chinese Taoist hermit sage renowned for performing miracles in the Northern Song period (960–1127). In China, this hermit (also known as Jurōjin) was thought to embody the celestial powers of the south polar star. Fukurokuju was not always included in the earliest representations of the Seven in Japan. He was instead replaced by Kisshōten (goddess of fortune, beauty, and merit). He is now, however, an established member of the Seven Lucky Gods.

He is sometimes confused with Jurōjin, another of the Several Gods of Fortune, who by some accounts is Fukurokuju's grandson and by other accounts inhabits the same body as Fukurokuju. As such, the two are often confused.

Fukurokuju is usually portrayed as bald with long whiskers and an elongated forehead. He is said to be an incarnation of the "Southern Polestar" (南极老人, literally Old Man of the South Pole), also known as the star Canopus outside of Asia. The sacred book tied to his staff either contains the lifespan of every person on earth or a magical scripture. He is accompanied by a crane and a turtle, which are considered to be symbols of longevity. He is also sometimes accompanied by a black deer (ancient legends say a deer turns black if it is over 2000 years old).

He is the only member of the Seven Lucky Gods credited with the ability to resurrect the dead.

title: Fukurokuju


text: User talk:69.139.92.254

title: User talk:69.139.92.254


text:
Arkon

Arkon is a character appearing in American comic books published by Marvel Comics. Created by writer Roy Thomas and artist John Buscema, the character first appeared in The Avengers #75 (April 1970). He is the warlord and ruler of the extra-dimensional world of Polemachus.

Concept and creation
The concept of the character is that he is a hero from the sword-and-sorcery genre, in a world of modern superheroes. During an interview with co-creator John Buscema, Roy Thomas recalled, "We introduced another one of our more popular creations, Arkon the Magnificent. He had the feel of Edgar Rice Burroughs' John Carter of Mars crossed with Conan."

Publication history
Arkon debuted in The Avengers #75 (April 1970), and was created by Roy Thomas and John Buscema.

Fictional character biography
Arkon was born of noble lineage on the extra-dimensional world Polemachus. The people of the Realm of Polemachus developed a culture that glorifies warfare, and Arkon succeeded in becoming the greatest warrior of his people. Appointed Imperion (ruler) of the largest country on Polemachus, Arkon mounted military campaigns against neighboring countries in an effort to conquer the world. His dreams were forgotten when Polemachus was faced with a worldwide catastrophe in that the light-and heat-providing planetary rings were disintegrating. Arkon's scientists determined that atomic explosions occurring on Earth somehow were extra-dimensionally translated to rekindle the energy rings for about a year. Although Polemachus had not developed nuclear weaponry, the scientists predicted that if they were to atomically annihilate the Earth, their world's energy-rings would be restored to power.

Toward this goal, Arkon manipulated the Scarlet Witch into reciting a magical spell found in a Polemachian book to enable Arkon to transport himself to Earth. Attracted to the Scarlet Witch and intending to marry her, Arkon kidnapped her as well as a group of atomic scientists. The scientists were forced to construct an atomic device. Before Arkon could detonate it on Earth, however, Scarlet Witch's super team, the Avengers battled Arkon. Iron Man and Thor managed to rekindle Polemachus' energy-rings via a super device devised by Stark, and Arkon ceased hostilities with Earth.

The Avengers had cause to revisit Arkon's world when their comrade, the Black Knight, was taken captive by Arkon while searching for the Well at the Center of Time. Arkon ceased hostilities with the Avengers when he learned that he was being duped by the Asgardian Amora the Enchantress, and later reconciled with the Avengers.

Although his world now possessed the capacity for atomic weapons, Arkon was dissatisfied with the length of time it took to build a nuclear arsenal. Thus, he devised a plan to pit three extra-dimensional worlds, one of which was Earth, against one another, in hopes that the energy from the resultant nuclear conflagration could be absorbed by his world. His elaborate machinations failed, due to the efforts of the Fantastic Four.

Arkon was forced to return to Earth yet again when the machine that Iron Man had once built to rekindle Polemachus' rings failed due to Arkon's tinkering with it. Arkon traveled to Earth to recruit Thor to recharge the machine, but since Thor had left the Avengers at that time, he settled for the mutant X-Man known as Storm, who also had the ability to summon lightning, forcing her teammates to go after them. After a monumental struggle, the conflict was settled amicably. Storm through Cyclops' optic blasts helped re-energize the Energy Ring, and Arkon returned Storm and her allies to Earth. Another time, the X-Men and the Fantastic Four helped Arkon drive off an extra-dimensional invasion of Polemachus by the alien race of Badoon. After this adventure, Arkon and Storm confessed their mutual attraction for each other, and even shared a kiss, but agreed that circumstances were not right for them to pursue a relationship.

Arkon was later prodded via a dream-suggestion to return to Earth because a Hollywood movie had been made about him. This subliminal coaxing was from Amora the Enchantress. She had been given the task of killing Doctor Strange during the "Acts of Vengeance" campaign (where all the major villains teamed up and tried to see if "swapping" foes would result in the defeat of their heroic enemies). Arkon fought Wonder Man to punish him for appearing in the "Arkon" movies, and told him to warn the studio not to make any more. The Enchantress tricks Arkon into battling Dr Strange, but with the help of Clea, they are able to defeat her.

Some time later, Arkon traveled to Earth to employ the Avengers West Coast and Fantastic Four as pawns in his war with rival otherworldly monarch Thundra, until he made peace with Thundra after realizing they shared a strong mutual attraction. Later, with Thundra as his consort, Arkon sought Avengers' aid in repairing Polemachus' energy ring and protecting the maiden Astra from becoming a human sacrifice to Polemachus' religious zealots led by the high priest Anskar.

During the Secret Wars storyline, Arkon finds himself on the Battleworld domain of Weirdworld. After many failed attempts to find his kingdom Polemachus, Arkon finally arrived at the end of the Weirdworld and discovered it was a floating island. He was ready to step off the cliff to meet his fate on the ground below when an uncontrolled dragon appeared from nowhere. Seeing this as his opportunity to finally find his kingdom, Arkon stole the beast from the ogres that tried to control it and rode it through Weirdworld's sky only to be caught by apes who used a strange fish and a line to fish the dragon out of the sky to the bottom of the sea. Imprisoned alone in a cell with his hands bound, Arkon resorts to brute force running headfirst into the walls to escape his captivity in Apelantis. While it does not result in his escape, Arkon's actions attract the attention of a crystalline being named Warbow. Warbow explains to Arkon that while he has been able to escape the prison on his own, he is always recaptured by the underwater apes before he could reach the surface of the lagoon. Warbow offers to assist Arkon in escaping in the hopes that they both can manage it together and save his captive prince Crystar where they find his pieces in a bag. As Arkon fights off the underwater apes, he dreams of the home he seeks to return to. As he describes the world, he comes to the sad realization that he is losing his memory of his home. After reaching a safe place, Warbow gave Arkon his map as he had promised. But to Arkon's surprise, it had many places he had not ever seen in his journey through Weirdworld. Enraged, Arkon left Warbow behind and continued his quest for Polemachus. Lost, Arkon ended up in the "Swayin' Saloon" where Skull the Slayer was waiting for him.

While drinking, Skull the Slayer revealed to Arkon that he was sent by Morgan le Fay to kill him and both started to fight. In a failed attempt of killing himself as well as his enemy, Arkon cut the ropes that kept the saloon suspended and they fell into the swamp below. When Arkon regained consciousness after the fall, he found himself trapped in vines and surrounded by the Man-Things. Arkon began to hallucinate about seeing Polemachus upside down when Skull freed him from the vines by attacking him fiercely. Arkon managed to get one of his Battle-Bolts and overcame his enemy. Before he could kill him, he was immobilized by the burning touch of one of the Man-Things. This time, Arkon hallucinated about his worst fear....Polemachus burning in front of his eyes. The hallucination ended with the arrival of the Swamp Queen of the Man-Things, a version of Jennifer Kale who is behind the rebellion against Morgan le Fay. After a brief conversation with the two warriors, the Swamp Queen forced them to face their fears in order to survive it and become her allies against le Fay. However, only Skull accepted the offer to become her ally. Arkon fled from the Forest of the Man-Things having remembered the path which led to Polemachus. Upon reaching the rock that was supposed to be the entrance to his kingdom, Arkon found himself yet again in front of a cliff at the end of Weirdworld. Filled with sadness and rage, Arkon pointed one of his Battle-Bolts towards his own belly ready to kill himself, unknowing that Polemachus was in fact in Weirdworld, suspended upside down as the underside of the floating island. At the last minute, Arkon gave up on killing himself preferring to use his rage to conquer Weirdworld in order to turn it into his new kingdom instead. He was confronted by the Witch Queen le Fay and her army of ogres. Having been hit by a missile launched by the ogres, Arkon fell from Weirdworld and finally saw his kingdom under it before being saved from certain death by the Swamp Queen and her Man-Things who were accompanied by an army composed of the other inhabitants of Weirdworld including Skull the Slayer, Warbow, an army of Elves, an army of Eyemazons, an army of Man-Wolves, and the resurrected Crystar. A fierce battle ensued between the Swamp Queen's forces and le Fay's forces for the fate of Weirdworld. However, none of them emerged victorious as Battleworld collapsed after God Emperor Doom was defeated during the Secret War. With Weirdworld now a part of Earth-616 and located in the Bermuda Triangle, Arkon resumed his journey to find Polemachus.

As part of the All-New, All-Different Marvel event, Arkon is still searching for Polemachus and comes across the survivors of the airplane that crash-landed onto Weirdworld upon going through the Bermuda Triangle. He saves them and tells them that they need to get away from the plane wreck.

When Arkon was sighted on Earth, Thundra and Tyndall arrived to look for help in finding him. Their search for Arkon was interrupted by the arrival of Warbow and his Crystal Warriors, the Magma Men, and the Savage Elves of Klarn as Thundra tells Tyndall to find the Squadron Supreme. When the Squadron Supreme, Tyndall, and Thundra end up on Weirdworld, they are ambushed by Arkon. It was discovered that Arkon has been possessed by an evil madness as he assists Modred and Warrior Woman into taking down Nighthawk, Blur, and Tyndall. When the three of them bring Nighthawk, Blur, and Tyndall to a specific castle, they find it inhabited by a revived Doctor Druid.

Powers and abilities
Arkon possesses a range of superhuman abilities, including superhuman strength, speed, stamina, agility, reflexes, and durability. He also has an accelerated healing factor, enabling him to rapidly heal damaged tissue should he sustain injury. While all of his people possess these same physical attributes, Arkon's are much more developed than the majority of his race.

He is a cunning military strategist. He is an extraordinary hand-to-hand combatant and swordsman, and is highly skilled in the usage of his throwing weapons, which were designed by the scientists and craftsmen of Polemachus. Arkon wields a collection of three energy weapons shaped like stylized lightning bolts that he carries in a quiver. Each of these bolts has a specific function and color. The golden bolts are used to open gateways to different dimensional planes. The scarlet and black bolts are used as offensive weapons and generate powerful explosive blasts when they hit their target. He also carries a shield.

Arkon has been known to ride dinosaur-like reptilian mounts, some of which walk on two legs and others on four. Other reptilian mounts he uses have wings enabling them to carry him through the air.

Reception
Journalists of Comic Book Resources expressed interest in seing a movie after Arkon exploring his relationship with Thundra in the Weirdworld.

JLA/Avengers
Arkon, Thundra, and all of Polemachus were last seen being wiped out by Krona during the JLA/Avengers crossover miniseries. However, since this took place in an intercompany crossover story, Arkon, Thundra, and Polemachus itself were all restored to normal when the miniseries ended. This is further evidenced by Thundra's subsequent appearances in the Marvel Universe since the miniseries ended.

Earth-65
In this universe, Arkon is a character in a tabletop roleplaying game.

Television

 * Arkon appears in the X-Men: The Animated Series episode "Storm Front," voiced by Paul Haddad. This version is a conqueror and slaver who posed as an innocent man whose planet is being ravaged by extreme weather. Storm initially falls victim to this ruse, but eventually learns the truth and nearly destroys the planet in her rage before being convinced to stop.
 * Arkon appears in the Hulk and the Agents of S.M.A.S.H. episode "The Hunted," voiced by Liam O'Brien. This version captured Goom and her children in an effort to hunt Earth's superheroes, only to be defeated by the Hulk and chased away by Monster Island's monsters.

Video games

 * Arkon appears as a playable character in Lego Marvel Avengers.

title: Arkon