This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Were any territories transferred during the Union of Krewo? Article on history of Belarus had a misleading sentence indicated it happened, but as I cannot find any confirmation, I removed it (in addition it also erroneusly stated that PLC existed in 1385).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
The name of the article should be the [[Union of Kreva]].
Sign your edits, dear. Her position kind of makes sense, doesn't it, Gang? Dr. Dan 22:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC) P.S. do you mind if I copy edit your points a little?
Written, schmitten. What was it called in Lithuanian or Belarusian? That's the greater point, here. Otherwise, how was Kraków (see recent talk), written before the 20th century in English. You know "even English evolves". Can you live with it? Dr. Dan 22:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
back then, which would IMO be based on our own suppositions rather than on verifiable data (census?). What do you say? // Halibu tt 09:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Halibutt, I'm listening to both sides, and am a little undecided (believe it or not). So then, does the original document still exist? The name on it would have significance and bearing on the matter. What truly confounds me, more than anything about your edits on "these" subjects, is your persistence in thinking that Belarusians and Lithuanians did not have names for their geographical locations. And that their territory was mapped out in the Polish language, and hundreds of years later they "invented" names for these locations, and that furthermore these "inventions", were all based on the names that Poles gave them. Is there any possibility in your mind, that the Lithuanians (more so than Belarusians, because of Slavic linguistic similarities), had geographical names that the Poles patterned their naming of such locations, rather than the other way around? My studies in linguistics (including your native tongue), has opened my eyes to subjects that many Americans never become acquainted with. Lithuanian is very old, you'd be rather surprised to know how little was "invented", prior to the industrial age when products and concepts were imported from abroad. Like the Polish words for bicycle and razor blade were "invented", if those two, are examples enough. BTW, no offense, but the Stalingrad vs. Volgograd analogy, is no analogy, if Krewa was not renamed to Krewo by the Belarusians or Lithuanians. Dr. Dan 22:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
O.K., So are you saying the Poles came to a locale, in Lithuania, in 1385, which had the toponym Krewo? Dr. Dan 23:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
"You (I) have no idea, but this seems probable", ..."If there was a Ruthenian document"... yadi, yada! I'll tell you how I'll compromise with those two remarks of yours, with two of my own. One, a telegram from Pan Twardowski (from the moon no less), supporting your last positions, or two, a sign from the False Dmitriy I (that will be harder as I understand his ashes were shot from a cannon in the direction of Poland) also supporting your position. I hope your laughing, because your remarks were funny to me . And I know you enough that you can do better than that. Dr. Dan 03:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC) P.S. I'm going to play some Chopin, and go beddy-by. It's 22.40, and I was at the Hospital at 5.30 this morning. The patient was a Rodak of yours. It went well.
Let me help you understand. Focus like a laser. Your two words: Probable and If. You know like in the saying, "If my Aunt had a moustache, she'd probably be my Uncle (might not work in Sardinia though), or another variant of it. Dr. Dan 13:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC) p.s. I had a good night's sleep, thanks.
I am pretty sure that the toponym in Ruthenian was written Крево, which is also modern Russian and Ukrainian version (Final "a" in Belarusian variant Крэва Kreva comes from strictly phonetic nature of modern Belarusian orthography - unaccented "o" in Belarusian always becomes "a"; this phenomenon is called аканьне akańnie). In Latin, it certainly wasn't Krewo. I guess it was written Crevo (Creuo) or in similar manner. But in my opinion the whole discussion misses the point. The place still exists, its name hasn't changed, the only problem is to choose the right spelling. I think it would be nice if in such cases we just used the variant in the language of the country where the place is located presently. If it is in Belarus, use Belarusian, if in Lithuania - Lithuanian, in Poland - Polish. As simple as that. Of course, when the name of a place was changed much, one should use its traditional form, eg. Treaties of Tilsit, not Treaties of Sovetsk. Yet another case would be if the traditional version of the name was well known in historical contexts, but I don't think Krewo belongs to that category. Cyon 06:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
If I understand the edit, the name of the toponym, in Belarusian and Lithuanian is Kreva, not Krewo. Correct? Dr. Dan 13:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I have found the Latin text of the Union here: [1] and somewhat more legible here: [2]. I must admit I was wrong, in Latin text the name is written Krew. (And there is also an alternative name Кревъ in East Slavic: "Кревъ каменъ" - "Krev made of stone" [3], but still more often Крево - although it seems to be a later name [4], [5]). I give these examples not because I want to change the title of the article to Union of Krew, but in order to make clear that the idea of returning to the name used at the time of the events isn't the best solution here (especially when taken into account that spellings at that time weren't really fixed). Cyon 12:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Halibutt, never said you lied to anyone, or even inferred that. Dr. Dan 15:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Halibutt, what you say I mocked, and I say I pointed out to you, is another oxymoronic type of statement that from time to time you make, and then resent being challeged about it. "I have no idea but this seems probable". Why does this seem probable? That the toponym was Krewo, at the time in question. Especially since you added that you have no idea. I'm really not mocking this with as much hostility as you might think, but read your sentence again, and ask yourself if my questioning it has any validity. Dr. Dan 20:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Nor are you the only one that speaks and understands most of the Slavic laguages, at least at some basic level (and some of us, the Lithuanian language, and its philological history as well). No fire, no lies, and no mockery. So let's consider moving Krewo to Kreva, like Cracow to Krakow. Dr. Dan 04:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Dan and others, I still fail to understand why should we move an article on a mediaeval treaty (regardless of its meaning) to conform with a modern Lithuanian name for what is now a Belarusian village/town. If anything we should move it to some modern Belarusian spelling, though this would be an anachronism as well. Moving it to conform with modern Lithuanian name would be as bizarre as moving articles on, say, Egyptian pharaohs to conform with their modern names in the language of, say, Israel or Sudan.
But still, should we similarly rename all other articles to conform with modern spelling every time something changes at the place the treaty was signed in? Say, rename Treaty of Nonsuch to some other name as the palace does not exist any more? Or perhaps rename Battle of Breslau and battle of Stalingrad to conform with the modern names of those places (Wrocław and Volgograd, respectively)? Let's move forward: should we rename the Treaty of Finkenstein to Treaty of Kamieniec? Peace and Treaty of Pressburg to Treaty of Bratislava, Treaty of Passarowitz to Treaty of Požarevac, Treaty of Teschen to Treaty of Cieszyn, Treaty of Stettin to Treaty of Szczecin, Treaty of Karlowitz to Treaty of Sremski Karlovci, Treaty of Oliva to Treaty of Oliwa, Treaty of Labiau to Treaty of Polessk...? And how about Napoleon Bonaparte meeting Alexander I of Russia to sign the Treaties of Sovetsk (too bad they didn't meet in Lenino, it would be even more hillarious)? I'd say leave them as they are. // Halibu tt 10:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Halibutt, maybe I need to ask you this question again. Did the Polish delegation travel to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania to a castle called Kreva or Krewo? Did they go to meet with Jagiełło or Jogaila? I think this this the heart of the matter. Regarding your references to characters in changing alphabets (which includes Polish as well), it has nothing to do with phonetics. Instanbul is Istanbul, and was called that before, and after Attaturk, changed the Turkish alphabet. As to the analogies, regarding Lenino, Sovietsk, etc., if the name was (and we certainly know that it is now), Kreva, it would seem to me that the analogy doesn't support your argument at all. Dr. Dan 14:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Your certainty of how it was "called", it was definitely not called Kreva. Krew or Krewo - yup., is another matter entirely. If if is a matter of phonetics, it was never called Krełło by anybody except an English speaking person, who would pronounce Krewo in such a manner. Just as such a person would call Wrocław, Raw Claw. Perhaps another reason to use the current Belarusian name, and get the "V" sound that we all want, no?
Dr. Dan 16:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Lokyz, your edit was a "trip and a half" (feel free to email me for an idiomatic translation of the slang expression, trip and a half).
I accept "act of Kreva" - and I do not oppose "act of Krevo", not very much at least. But I oppose those variants with "w". Marrtel 02:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Halibutt, my remarks about phonetics, were a humorous digression on my part. Since you're not a native speaker of English, it might not have come across that way. Sorry! But what then, prompted this digression about "phonetics"? It was your informing us how the toponym was called ... "it was most definitely not called Kreva. Krewo or Krew - yup". So once again you're telling us that the place was called by its Polish name. BTW, Krew is not the way a Latin rendition would be written in any of my studies of the classical version of the language. Does the original document still exist (asked earlier), or a copy from a later period? Your link to the Polish translation of it, shows the document written in what would be a much more modern format. Dr. Dan 13:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the effort, and the link. Unfortunately the magnifier doesn't work, so it's not as helpful as I hoped it might be. I enjoyed your disdain for Polglish, in a discusion we had some time ago, on another topic. Perhaps you can understand my disdain for Poltin, being used as a "Latin Language" proof of something written 500 years ago, as well. Even so, the "W" was a latecomer to Latin to approximate teutonic sounds resembling "V". Like you, I do appreciate Cyon's work, contributions, and links. They are excellent! However they in no way bolster any of your arguments about the the debate we are having. And yes, I agree that the snide side comments that are being shot at you are rude, and unnappreciated.
Having said that I accept Kreva and possibly Krevo in its name, I have to say that I oppose the use of the word "union". We better find better term used in English historiography or at least which descibes better the nature of the thing, was it act, pact, treaty, "promises", commitment, declaration,... Did those from the bride's party commit to anything, or did they sign/seal the document? Marrtel 15:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, is word in article - to incorporate – corresponds original word aplicare (applicare)? I believe that this form (incorporate) corresponds to incorporare, which was not used in this case. M.K. 14:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, consequences and also developments of this act could and often should be presented. At the moment, we have a hort history of the future union at the article. However I am now satisfied that there presumably was nothing Jagiello did afterwards to incorporate anything more tightly. And now we should think about what is a good term in English to put there to say what "aplicare" was saying in Latin. Marrtel 01:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
"Latin, applicare: to join, fix, or attach to; ad + plicare to fold, to twist together." I believe we should use some "vulgar" expression, not some technically-tasting. How about: ...promised to attach Lithuania and Poland together... - What was the original Latin verbatim sentence or two? Marrtel 23:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I read Lithuanian translation of the document and I didn't find any mention about the future coronation of Jogaila as King of Poland or that his name will be Wladislaus. Shoudn't this item be removed from the items of the treaty, and the explanation be given in the article text about what happened later? Juraune 07:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Yep. There already is that sort of division into two parts in the artucle: "and provided for the following:
Parties in the act's negotiations were Jogaila and four of his close kinsmen on one part, and underage Jadwiga's mother the Dowager Queen Elisabeth, Regent of Hungary and some Polish representatives on the other. The act appears as Jogaila's promises given to bridal family for conditions of marriage, and no commitment from the bride's party seems to have been signed.
The result was the coronation of Jogaila as King of Poland, jure uxoris the same year and his baptism. Jogaila's new baptismal name Wladislaus was chosen in honor of Jadwiga's great-grandfather king Wladislaus the Short, the penultimate Piast to occupy the royal throne of Poland and the unifier of the fragmented country. The regnal number "II" for the new king is a later invention, as is his Lithuanian name's polonized version "Jagiełło". Any contemporaneous double use of both names Wladyslaw and Jagiello (or their toponyms) together is dubious. Today the Polish refer to him as Władysław II Jagiełło."
Now we just should check much better what actually belongs to the provisions of the act, and what to its consequences:
"...provided for the following:
Any additional provisions?
Parties in the act's negotiations were Jogaila and four of his close kinsmen on one part, and underage Jadwiga's mother the Dowager Queen Elisabeth, Regent of Hungary and some Polish representatives on the other. The act appears as Jogaila's promises given to bridal family for conditions of marriage, and no commitment from the bride's party seems to have been signed. - are these mentioned in the document? who signed it? any signatures from the bride's representatives, mother or polish nobles? did they made any promises, or are there explicit conditions for them to fulfill?
The result was the coronation of Jogaila as King of Poland, jure uxoris the same year and his baptism. Jogaila's new baptismal name Wladislaus was chosen in honor of Jadwiga's great-grandfather king Wladislaus the Short, the penultimate Piast to occupy the royal throne of Poland and the unifier of the fragmented country. The regnal number "II" for the new king is a later invention, as is his Lithuanian name's polonized version "Jagiełło". Any contemporaneous double use of both names Wladyslaw and Jagiello (or their toponyms) together is dubious. Today the Polish refer to him as Władysław II Jagiełło."
Any other direct consequences to mention? Please fill us with details. Marrtel 23:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I do prefer Queen Mother, to Dowager Queen, but a queen, is a queen, is a queen. Didn't Trotsky write a poem about it, no it was Gertrude Stein, and it was about a rose. I'm going to take a vacation on my boat. To take the laptop, or not to take the laptop, that is the question? Dr. Dan 05:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The article got renamed but I strongly object to the "act" part. In all languages I know it is known as "union." I am requesting a move.
Renata 20:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, oodles of googles. Now it's settled. Good! Dr. Dan 22:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Much of those google hits which say krewo and union, are from websites in Polish. Remember that they also show. I would like to know the situation in purely english websites, preferably yet excluding such that are results from direct translations from Polish. Shilkanni 23:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
"Act of Kreva" is a correct name. According to the newest research of historians, the document is not a "Union" of states. I repeat this once more, apparently Renata has skipped this: [7] "There is no basis for calling this document an interstate or inter-dynastic treaty or an Act of Lithuano-Polish Union, sensu strictu. Lithuanian history has no interstate agreement that could be called „the 1385 Union of Krėva“." As for me I object to calling this "Union". Everybody, that has read the original can say, that this is just a letter of Jogaila to Jadwyga's mother asking her hand. Juraune 17:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I actually refract my comments. It came to my attention that "union" in English has no meaning of "act, treaty, etc." See, for example, definiotion of word "union" at the American Heritage Dictionary. Such meaning of "union" as here does not exist, and it's not a place to invent new meanings. Renata 11:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
And Halibutt, I suppose this is why you feel the the title of the article, Union of Vilnius and Radom, is appropriate? Any objections to that one? If I'm not mistaken, you are the originator of that article in the English Wikipedia. Dr. Dan 14:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Apparently, there is no consensus to have the article renamed to "Act of Kreva". I've looked into the history of the move and it's been renamed against the policy. I've moved it back until a consensus to rename is reached. -- Lysy talk 17:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Since this seems to lead to some revert war, I've opened a formal request to move the article. -- Lysy talk 17:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was no consensus, page not moved. Eugène van der Pijll 21:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Union of Krewo → Act of Kreva – The document of Kreva is not a Union document according to the newest historical research. -- Lysy talk 17:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The present request for move was opened by its obvious opponent. Who formulated the "reason" for the move he opposes. The said person should reformulate the RM as to reflect what he requests. Henq 18:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure you meant, Ladies and gentlemen. And let's not have a vote about what you meant. Dr. Dan 13:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Please, stop!, this poll was started on a wrong basis. Halibutt, your arguments are based on oppinions of Renata and Dr. Dan, and on calling somebody "POV pushers". I don't think this applies to me, since my arguments are provided together with citations of books, written by professional historians, who are above narrow-minded nationalism. Why can't you speak for yourself and not use other people oppinions for your own use? Juraune 11:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Lokyz, it's a "rigged" game. What does "rigged" mean (isdurti, apkvalintas), it's an idiom, it's slang, and I'd give you more examples, except that I would be accused of original research. When there are not sockpuppets voting, with administrators "inviting" more sock puppets to vote, they hide behind the skirt of "No Original Research". They can't let an obviously flawed name be corrected, because it opens the door for their whole "house of cards" to fall down. Need more proof? The name for Cracow in English, is Cracow. This is the way it's been written historically, and in all of the scholarly books in English, for the longest time before this spiderweb was woven. And before "google hits" were the "final" arbiter of historical, geographical, and philosophical questions. All of the arguments and "proofs" they present, don't apply in this case and melt like a snowball in July, when confronted with an opposing view that is taken in regards to returning Cracow to English. Now do you understand the problem? Do you see why there is the perception (right or wrong), that there is a cabal? Too bad you are leaving, if you stay you can always find out what scholarly research was used to name the article, Chicken War from Wojna kokosza. Dr. Dan 02:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Her title was king, jeesh...just go and look at her page it's right at the top. -- Rpm2004 ( talk) 18:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Were any territories transferred during the Union of Krewo? Article on history of Belarus had a misleading sentence indicated it happened, but as I cannot find any confirmation, I removed it (in addition it also erroneusly stated that PLC existed in 1385).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
The name of the article should be the [[Union of Kreva]].
Sign your edits, dear. Her position kind of makes sense, doesn't it, Gang? Dr. Dan 22:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC) P.S. do you mind if I copy edit your points a little?
Written, schmitten. What was it called in Lithuanian or Belarusian? That's the greater point, here. Otherwise, how was Kraków (see recent talk), written before the 20th century in English. You know "even English evolves". Can you live with it? Dr. Dan 22:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
back then, which would IMO be based on our own suppositions rather than on verifiable data (census?). What do you say? // Halibu tt 09:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Halibutt, I'm listening to both sides, and am a little undecided (believe it or not). So then, does the original document still exist? The name on it would have significance and bearing on the matter. What truly confounds me, more than anything about your edits on "these" subjects, is your persistence in thinking that Belarusians and Lithuanians did not have names for their geographical locations. And that their territory was mapped out in the Polish language, and hundreds of years later they "invented" names for these locations, and that furthermore these "inventions", were all based on the names that Poles gave them. Is there any possibility in your mind, that the Lithuanians (more so than Belarusians, because of Slavic linguistic similarities), had geographical names that the Poles patterned their naming of such locations, rather than the other way around? My studies in linguistics (including your native tongue), has opened my eyes to subjects that many Americans never become acquainted with. Lithuanian is very old, you'd be rather surprised to know how little was "invented", prior to the industrial age when products and concepts were imported from abroad. Like the Polish words for bicycle and razor blade were "invented", if those two, are examples enough. BTW, no offense, but the Stalingrad vs. Volgograd analogy, is no analogy, if Krewa was not renamed to Krewo by the Belarusians or Lithuanians. Dr. Dan 22:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
O.K., So are you saying the Poles came to a locale, in Lithuania, in 1385, which had the toponym Krewo? Dr. Dan 23:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
"You (I) have no idea, but this seems probable", ..."If there was a Ruthenian document"... yadi, yada! I'll tell you how I'll compromise with those two remarks of yours, with two of my own. One, a telegram from Pan Twardowski (from the moon no less), supporting your last positions, or two, a sign from the False Dmitriy I (that will be harder as I understand his ashes were shot from a cannon in the direction of Poland) also supporting your position. I hope your laughing, because your remarks were funny to me . And I know you enough that you can do better than that. Dr. Dan 03:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC) P.S. I'm going to play some Chopin, and go beddy-by. It's 22.40, and I was at the Hospital at 5.30 this morning. The patient was a Rodak of yours. It went well.
Let me help you understand. Focus like a laser. Your two words: Probable and If. You know like in the saying, "If my Aunt had a moustache, she'd probably be my Uncle (might not work in Sardinia though), or another variant of it. Dr. Dan 13:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC) p.s. I had a good night's sleep, thanks.
I am pretty sure that the toponym in Ruthenian was written Крево, which is also modern Russian and Ukrainian version (Final "a" in Belarusian variant Крэва Kreva comes from strictly phonetic nature of modern Belarusian orthography - unaccented "o" in Belarusian always becomes "a"; this phenomenon is called аканьне akańnie). In Latin, it certainly wasn't Krewo. I guess it was written Crevo (Creuo) or in similar manner. But in my opinion the whole discussion misses the point. The place still exists, its name hasn't changed, the only problem is to choose the right spelling. I think it would be nice if in such cases we just used the variant in the language of the country where the place is located presently. If it is in Belarus, use Belarusian, if in Lithuania - Lithuanian, in Poland - Polish. As simple as that. Of course, when the name of a place was changed much, one should use its traditional form, eg. Treaties of Tilsit, not Treaties of Sovetsk. Yet another case would be if the traditional version of the name was well known in historical contexts, but I don't think Krewo belongs to that category. Cyon 06:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
If I understand the edit, the name of the toponym, in Belarusian and Lithuanian is Kreva, not Krewo. Correct? Dr. Dan 13:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I have found the Latin text of the Union here: [1] and somewhat more legible here: [2]. I must admit I was wrong, in Latin text the name is written Krew. (And there is also an alternative name Кревъ in East Slavic: "Кревъ каменъ" - "Krev made of stone" [3], but still more often Крево - although it seems to be a later name [4], [5]). I give these examples not because I want to change the title of the article to Union of Krew, but in order to make clear that the idea of returning to the name used at the time of the events isn't the best solution here (especially when taken into account that spellings at that time weren't really fixed). Cyon 12:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Halibutt, never said you lied to anyone, or even inferred that. Dr. Dan 15:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Halibutt, what you say I mocked, and I say I pointed out to you, is another oxymoronic type of statement that from time to time you make, and then resent being challeged about it. "I have no idea but this seems probable". Why does this seem probable? That the toponym was Krewo, at the time in question. Especially since you added that you have no idea. I'm really not mocking this with as much hostility as you might think, but read your sentence again, and ask yourself if my questioning it has any validity. Dr. Dan 20:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Nor are you the only one that speaks and understands most of the Slavic laguages, at least at some basic level (and some of us, the Lithuanian language, and its philological history as well). No fire, no lies, and no mockery. So let's consider moving Krewo to Kreva, like Cracow to Krakow. Dr. Dan 04:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Dan and others, I still fail to understand why should we move an article on a mediaeval treaty (regardless of its meaning) to conform with a modern Lithuanian name for what is now a Belarusian village/town. If anything we should move it to some modern Belarusian spelling, though this would be an anachronism as well. Moving it to conform with modern Lithuanian name would be as bizarre as moving articles on, say, Egyptian pharaohs to conform with their modern names in the language of, say, Israel or Sudan.
But still, should we similarly rename all other articles to conform with modern spelling every time something changes at the place the treaty was signed in? Say, rename Treaty of Nonsuch to some other name as the palace does not exist any more? Or perhaps rename Battle of Breslau and battle of Stalingrad to conform with the modern names of those places (Wrocław and Volgograd, respectively)? Let's move forward: should we rename the Treaty of Finkenstein to Treaty of Kamieniec? Peace and Treaty of Pressburg to Treaty of Bratislava, Treaty of Passarowitz to Treaty of Požarevac, Treaty of Teschen to Treaty of Cieszyn, Treaty of Stettin to Treaty of Szczecin, Treaty of Karlowitz to Treaty of Sremski Karlovci, Treaty of Oliva to Treaty of Oliwa, Treaty of Labiau to Treaty of Polessk...? And how about Napoleon Bonaparte meeting Alexander I of Russia to sign the Treaties of Sovetsk (too bad they didn't meet in Lenino, it would be even more hillarious)? I'd say leave them as they are. // Halibu tt 10:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Halibutt, maybe I need to ask you this question again. Did the Polish delegation travel to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania to a castle called Kreva or Krewo? Did they go to meet with Jagiełło or Jogaila? I think this this the heart of the matter. Regarding your references to characters in changing alphabets (which includes Polish as well), it has nothing to do with phonetics. Instanbul is Istanbul, and was called that before, and after Attaturk, changed the Turkish alphabet. As to the analogies, regarding Lenino, Sovietsk, etc., if the name was (and we certainly know that it is now), Kreva, it would seem to me that the analogy doesn't support your argument at all. Dr. Dan 14:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Your certainty of how it was "called", it was definitely not called Kreva. Krew or Krewo - yup., is another matter entirely. If if is a matter of phonetics, it was never called Krełło by anybody except an English speaking person, who would pronounce Krewo in such a manner. Just as such a person would call Wrocław, Raw Claw. Perhaps another reason to use the current Belarusian name, and get the "V" sound that we all want, no?
Dr. Dan 16:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Lokyz, your edit was a "trip and a half" (feel free to email me for an idiomatic translation of the slang expression, trip and a half).
I accept "act of Kreva" - and I do not oppose "act of Krevo", not very much at least. But I oppose those variants with "w". Marrtel 02:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Halibutt, my remarks about phonetics, were a humorous digression on my part. Since you're not a native speaker of English, it might not have come across that way. Sorry! But what then, prompted this digression about "phonetics"? It was your informing us how the toponym was called ... "it was most definitely not called Kreva. Krewo or Krew - yup". So once again you're telling us that the place was called by its Polish name. BTW, Krew is not the way a Latin rendition would be written in any of my studies of the classical version of the language. Does the original document still exist (asked earlier), or a copy from a later period? Your link to the Polish translation of it, shows the document written in what would be a much more modern format. Dr. Dan 13:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the effort, and the link. Unfortunately the magnifier doesn't work, so it's not as helpful as I hoped it might be. I enjoyed your disdain for Polglish, in a discusion we had some time ago, on another topic. Perhaps you can understand my disdain for Poltin, being used as a "Latin Language" proof of something written 500 years ago, as well. Even so, the "W" was a latecomer to Latin to approximate teutonic sounds resembling "V". Like you, I do appreciate Cyon's work, contributions, and links. They are excellent! However they in no way bolster any of your arguments about the the debate we are having. And yes, I agree that the snide side comments that are being shot at you are rude, and unnappreciated.
Having said that I accept Kreva and possibly Krevo in its name, I have to say that I oppose the use of the word "union". We better find better term used in English historiography or at least which descibes better the nature of the thing, was it act, pact, treaty, "promises", commitment, declaration,... Did those from the bride's party commit to anything, or did they sign/seal the document? Marrtel 15:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, is word in article - to incorporate – corresponds original word aplicare (applicare)? I believe that this form (incorporate) corresponds to incorporare, which was not used in this case. M.K. 14:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, consequences and also developments of this act could and often should be presented. At the moment, we have a hort history of the future union at the article. However I am now satisfied that there presumably was nothing Jagiello did afterwards to incorporate anything more tightly. And now we should think about what is a good term in English to put there to say what "aplicare" was saying in Latin. Marrtel 01:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
"Latin, applicare: to join, fix, or attach to; ad + plicare to fold, to twist together." I believe we should use some "vulgar" expression, not some technically-tasting. How about: ...promised to attach Lithuania and Poland together... - What was the original Latin verbatim sentence or two? Marrtel 23:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I read Lithuanian translation of the document and I didn't find any mention about the future coronation of Jogaila as King of Poland or that his name will be Wladislaus. Shoudn't this item be removed from the items of the treaty, and the explanation be given in the article text about what happened later? Juraune 07:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Yep. There already is that sort of division into two parts in the artucle: "and provided for the following:
Parties in the act's negotiations were Jogaila and four of his close kinsmen on one part, and underage Jadwiga's mother the Dowager Queen Elisabeth, Regent of Hungary and some Polish representatives on the other. The act appears as Jogaila's promises given to bridal family for conditions of marriage, and no commitment from the bride's party seems to have been signed.
The result was the coronation of Jogaila as King of Poland, jure uxoris the same year and his baptism. Jogaila's new baptismal name Wladislaus was chosen in honor of Jadwiga's great-grandfather king Wladislaus the Short, the penultimate Piast to occupy the royal throne of Poland and the unifier of the fragmented country. The regnal number "II" for the new king is a later invention, as is his Lithuanian name's polonized version "Jagiełło". Any contemporaneous double use of both names Wladyslaw and Jagiello (or their toponyms) together is dubious. Today the Polish refer to him as Władysław II Jagiełło."
Now we just should check much better what actually belongs to the provisions of the act, and what to its consequences:
"...provided for the following:
Any additional provisions?
Parties in the act's negotiations were Jogaila and four of his close kinsmen on one part, and underage Jadwiga's mother the Dowager Queen Elisabeth, Regent of Hungary and some Polish representatives on the other. The act appears as Jogaila's promises given to bridal family for conditions of marriage, and no commitment from the bride's party seems to have been signed. - are these mentioned in the document? who signed it? any signatures from the bride's representatives, mother or polish nobles? did they made any promises, or are there explicit conditions for them to fulfill?
The result was the coronation of Jogaila as King of Poland, jure uxoris the same year and his baptism. Jogaila's new baptismal name Wladislaus was chosen in honor of Jadwiga's great-grandfather king Wladislaus the Short, the penultimate Piast to occupy the royal throne of Poland and the unifier of the fragmented country. The regnal number "II" for the new king is a later invention, as is his Lithuanian name's polonized version "Jagiełło". Any contemporaneous double use of both names Wladyslaw and Jagiello (or their toponyms) together is dubious. Today the Polish refer to him as Władysław II Jagiełło."
Any other direct consequences to mention? Please fill us with details. Marrtel 23:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I do prefer Queen Mother, to Dowager Queen, but a queen, is a queen, is a queen. Didn't Trotsky write a poem about it, no it was Gertrude Stein, and it was about a rose. I'm going to take a vacation on my boat. To take the laptop, or not to take the laptop, that is the question? Dr. Dan 05:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The article got renamed but I strongly object to the "act" part. In all languages I know it is known as "union." I am requesting a move.
Renata 20:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, oodles of googles. Now it's settled. Good! Dr. Dan 22:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Much of those google hits which say krewo and union, are from websites in Polish. Remember that they also show. I would like to know the situation in purely english websites, preferably yet excluding such that are results from direct translations from Polish. Shilkanni 23:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
"Act of Kreva" is a correct name. According to the newest research of historians, the document is not a "Union" of states. I repeat this once more, apparently Renata has skipped this: [7] "There is no basis for calling this document an interstate or inter-dynastic treaty or an Act of Lithuano-Polish Union, sensu strictu. Lithuanian history has no interstate agreement that could be called „the 1385 Union of Krėva“." As for me I object to calling this "Union". Everybody, that has read the original can say, that this is just a letter of Jogaila to Jadwyga's mother asking her hand. Juraune 17:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I actually refract my comments. It came to my attention that "union" in English has no meaning of "act, treaty, etc." See, for example, definiotion of word "union" at the American Heritage Dictionary. Such meaning of "union" as here does not exist, and it's not a place to invent new meanings. Renata 11:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
And Halibutt, I suppose this is why you feel the the title of the article, Union of Vilnius and Radom, is appropriate? Any objections to that one? If I'm not mistaken, you are the originator of that article in the English Wikipedia. Dr. Dan 14:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Apparently, there is no consensus to have the article renamed to "Act of Kreva". I've looked into the history of the move and it's been renamed against the policy. I've moved it back until a consensus to rename is reached. -- Lysy talk 17:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Since this seems to lead to some revert war, I've opened a formal request to move the article. -- Lysy talk 17:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was no consensus, page not moved. Eugène van der Pijll 21:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Union of Krewo → Act of Kreva – The document of Kreva is not a Union document according to the newest historical research. -- Lysy talk 17:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The present request for move was opened by its obvious opponent. Who formulated the "reason" for the move he opposes. The said person should reformulate the RM as to reflect what he requests. Henq 18:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure you meant, Ladies and gentlemen. And let's not have a vote about what you meant. Dr. Dan 13:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Please, stop!, this poll was started on a wrong basis. Halibutt, your arguments are based on oppinions of Renata and Dr. Dan, and on calling somebody "POV pushers". I don't think this applies to me, since my arguments are provided together with citations of books, written by professional historians, who are above narrow-minded nationalism. Why can't you speak for yourself and not use other people oppinions for your own use? Juraune 11:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Lokyz, it's a "rigged" game. What does "rigged" mean (isdurti, apkvalintas), it's an idiom, it's slang, and I'd give you more examples, except that I would be accused of original research. When there are not sockpuppets voting, with administrators "inviting" more sock puppets to vote, they hide behind the skirt of "No Original Research". They can't let an obviously flawed name be corrected, because it opens the door for their whole "house of cards" to fall down. Need more proof? The name for Cracow in English, is Cracow. This is the way it's been written historically, and in all of the scholarly books in English, for the longest time before this spiderweb was woven. And before "google hits" were the "final" arbiter of historical, geographical, and philosophical questions. All of the arguments and "proofs" they present, don't apply in this case and melt like a snowball in July, when confronted with an opposing view that is taken in regards to returning Cracow to English. Now do you understand the problem? Do you see why there is the perception (right or wrong), that there is a cabal? Too bad you are leaving, if you stay you can always find out what scholarly research was used to name the article, Chicken War from Wojna kokosza. Dr. Dan 02:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Her title was king, jeesh...just go and look at her page it's right at the top. -- Rpm2004 ( talk) 18:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)