Talk:Livonian Order

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more inclined toward Livonian branch of the Teutonic Knights, personally. Olessi (talk) 02:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Olessi. One real historian lectured me against using term "Livonian Order" and said it be "Livonian branch of the Teutonic Knights." Renata (talk) 05:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the correct full name for this stuf in German is Landmeisterschaft des Deutschen Ordens in Livland. My English is rather poor to translate. — Jón Þórunn (talk) 07:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Support any move to reduce confusion with the Livonian Brothers of the Sword which has made the interwikis a mess (but now hopefully fixed). I would also go as far as to make Livonian Order a disambiguation page since some languages refer to the Livonian Brothers of the Sword as the Livonian Order (e.g., lv:Livonijas ordenis, lt:Livonijos ordinas) and there is the reasonable possibility of confusion in English. — AjaxSmack 01:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those two article in lv and lt do not differentiate between the two. English used to also not differentiate until just few months ago. Renata (talk) 01:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely why a disambiguation page is in order. — AjaxSmack 03:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I totally object making Livonian Order into dab page. It is a very popular link, which 90% of the time refers to "Livonian branch of the Teutonic Knights." Since there are only two pages to disambiguate a simple

hatnote should do the trick. Renata (talk) 04:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Normally I would agree with the hatnote solution but where would "Livonian Order" redirect? The are a number examples of it being used as shorthand for Livonian Brothers of the Sword. In addition to the Encarta article noted in the nomination[2], a brief web search turns up "The knights in 1202 had founded the ORDER OF THE BRETHREN OF THE SWORD, commonly referred to as the Livonian Order."[3] and "the Order of the Brothers of the Sword (Schwertbrüderorden), also known as the Knights of the Sword, or the Livonian Order."[4] I'm not sure where the 90% figure comes from or what "it is a very popular link" means but isn't this sufficient evidence to question the redirect target? If not, I will defer to those more familiar with the topic but I hope a move from the current title can proceed regardless of this discussion. — AjaxSmack 15:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: Livonian Order has 648 refs @ google books and 268 @ google scholar Please provide evidence in the form of published sources that renaming the article is justified in any way. Also Livonian Order as an autonomous branch of Teutonic order was only called so after 1237, also they used different insignia than Livonian Brothers of the Sword, or another way to put it, Encarta should get their facts straight and not confuse the 2, even though one grew out of another--Termer (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to put an end at least on WP to this confusion between Livonian Brothers of the Sword and Livonian Order , I came up with 2 published sources at this time. please let me know if more refs are needed.
    

-the Livonian Order (until 1237 the Order of the Knights of the Sword), @ Miniature empires By James Minahan ISBN:0313306109
-Swordbrothers were incorporated into the German Order in 1237, henceforth known as the Livonian Order @ The Latvians: A Short History By Andrejs Plakans
--Termer (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, is a sign for Teutonic Order. — Jón Þórunn (talk) 09:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Yes Jón Þórunn, it is the sign of Teutonic Order as well as the sign of the Livonian order since it was a part of it even though autonomous. The sign that you gave to the Livonian Order here in the article belonged to the Swordbrothers and it wasn't used after 1237. In fact all remaining swordbrothers that joined the Teutonic order had to change their mantles with the red sword and cross to the black cross on the site.--Termer (talk) 05:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I oppose the move because in Wikipedia we should prefer "
  what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity," and not what is academically correct. Neither "Teutonic Order in Livonia" nor "Livonian branch of the Teutonic Knights" are the most common names for the organization in question. A redirect from those titles to "Livonian Order" will suffice. --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • You say "reasonable minimum of ambiguity" but Encarta[5] ascribes "Livonian Order" to the Livonian Brothers of the Sword. Strictly correct or not, that's a bit more than a minimum of ambiguity. — AjaxSmack 05:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please AjaxSmack would you mind reading some of the refs and books provided above instead of referring to Encarta that has not got it right this time. --Termer (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My argument was not that Encarta or the other sources I cited above were "correct." But encyclopedias are descriptive, not prescriptive, i.e., they should reflect usage, not advocate.* That a number sources attribute "Livonian Order" to Livonian Brothers of the Sword is ex facie evidence of ambiguity. That some here have argued that the Livonian Order wasn't an order per se is another factor to consider. My support was for any move that would recognize the ambiguity of the term with the creation of a disambiguation page. — AjaxSmack 00:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*For example, the Mixing Bowl "correctly" refers to an interchange in the Pentagon road network but is popularly applied to the Springfield Interchange. Therefore, Mixing Bowl is a disambiguation page linking to both.

Hi AjaxSmack it seems the 2 books I cited didn't do it? No problem, I looked up another ref for you: Eastern Europe: An Introduction to the People, Lands, and Culture By Richard C. Frucht ISBN:1576078000 -the 1236 Battle of Saule... dealt the Order of the Brethern of the Sword a mortal blow...becoming the Livonian branch of Teutonic Order (better known from this point onward as the Livonian Order) --Termer (talk) 05:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing that you're correct. I'm saying that the current title is ambiguous. Producing sources with the correct usage does not per se change this. — AjaxSmack 08:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per
  talk) 12:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Is there any reason to oppose a merger of the two articles on the Livonian "orders"? Are they not about two phases of the existence of a single, continuous entity? Srnec (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... This idea looks like a good one at first. In this book Mr. Saxton used the term "Livonian Order" for both the

1. The crusades and the military orders expanding the frontiers of medieval Latin Christianity, ed. by Zsolt Hunyadi, József Laszlovszky
2. Estonia: Identity and Independence by A. Bertriko
3. The New Cambridge Medieval History (this book deserves great attention)
4. The Encyclopedia Of Christianity
5. The Crusades by Helen J. Nicholson
6. The Later Crusades, 1274-1580: From Lyons to Alcazar
7. Historical Dictionary of Poland, 966-1945
8. Chronological Tables: Comprehending the Chronology and History of the World
9. and many others — Albert Krantz ^¿? 19:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

• There is nothing easier than putting the 2 side by side:

Livonian Order @ google books 647 returns

Livonian Order @ google scholar 261 returns

Livonian branch of the Teutonic Order @ google books

54 returns

Livonian branch of the Teutonic Order @ google scholar

12 returns.

the numbers speak for themselves, there is no reason to rename this article. The misleading confusion out there between "Livonian Order of Swordbrothers" and "Livonian Order, the branch of the Teutonic Order" is somewhat obvious but it's about 1 out of 10 sources that do it. I don't think it's a big deal and it can be explained in the articles if felt necessary.--Termer (talk) 06:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the plain numbers is nothing in comparison with clearness. But the number of using the term Livonian branch is actually more than twice more. Because as I noted, there are also used versions "Livonian branch of the Order", "Livonian branch of the Teutonic Knights", "Order's Livonian branch" or just "Livonian branch". There are 39 returns for "Livonian branch" in Google Scholar and 134 returns in Google Books. — Albert Krantz ^¿? 07:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Teutonic Order in Livonia, my first variant, is also in use. There are 107 returns in Google Books. — Albert Krantz ^¿? 06:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC).[reply

]

Also, another reason not to rename this article would be: The Teutonic Order fell into decline following its defeat in the Battle of Grunwald in 1410 , but the Livonian Order managed to maintain an independent existence ...until 1560 --Termer (talk) 06:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is slightly incorrect. The was no significant decline of the Teutonic Order after the battle of Tannenberg. Suffice it to say that the Poles could not capture Ordensburg Marienburg in 1410. Owing to Heinrich von Plauen's exertions the power of the Teutonic Order were soon restored. Have you ever heard about battle of Konitz in 1454? — Albert Krantz ^¿? 07:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Order was soon restored? I hear they in Prussia were seculirized in 1525 and Poles got

1. Livonian branch of the Teutonic Order. Otherwise the unique solution will be to replace this article with a disambiguation page, as AjaxSmack
   have suggested.
2. Yes, Teutonic Ordenstaat in Prussia were seculirized in 1525. But after Grand Master Albert of Prussia converted to Lutheranism, the
   Monastic state of the Teutonic Order
   , but the Order itself exists.
3. it had its own history and name? What do you mean? It was just a part of Teutonic Order, and that you can easily read in William Urban’s book The Teutonic Knights: A Military History, which you have linked in the article. Livonian Masters of the Teutonic Order were appointed by the Grand Master of Teutonic Order. Wherefore Mr. Urban narrates history of Livonian branch of the Teutonic Order, if this branch had its own one? The links you have put in the article don’t help at all. William Urban used the name „Livonian Order“ for his popular book, but in his article The Organization of Defense of the Livonian Frontier in the Thirteenth Century in Speculum (Vol. 48, №3 (Jul., 1973), p. 530) he used is the correct name “Livonian branch of the Teutonic Knights” and doesn't use the name “Livonian Order” at all, even to notice that this organization is better known under another name (this article is available in PDF format). In the article The Prussian-Lithuanian Frontier of 1242 in Lithuanian Quarterly Journal of Arts and Sciences (Vol. 21, №4 (Winter 1975)) he also tries to avoid using the term „Livonian Order“ and speaks only about Teutonic Order and Sword-brother Order. Another book you have put (Eastern Europe: An Introduction to the People, Lands, and Culture) clearly states, that it was „simply the Livonian branch of the entire Teutonic Order“. The widespread using of unclear and incorrect name is a bad reason to keep it. Especially as the correct and clear name is also often appears in historical books on the subject. — Albert Krantz ^¿? 11:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment to Albert Krantz

1. the way you've put it

alone.
2, 3. :*Livonian Masters of the Teutonic Order were appointed by the Grand Master of Teutonic Order.?
Like the grandmaster in Prussia, the master in Livonia was elected by his brother knights for a lifetime term. The grandmaster exercised supervisory powers,... not until 1309 did he move to Marienburg,...even later did he not limit local autonomy much, he rarely deigned to visit Livonia or even send ambassadors for oversight. Livonian Crusade By William L Urban ISBN:0929700457, p12,14
--Termer (talk) 02:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the article Gotthard Kettler I just have translated a little from the German article. U.a. this passage: [er] war der letzte Meister des Deutschen Ordens in Livland und erster Herzog von Kurland und Semgallen, the last Master of the Teutonic Order in Livonia and the first Duke of Courland and Semigallia. The translation is correct, don’t you think? Do you think German article also requires your correction? Livonia was a province of Teutonic Order, and Gotthard von Kettler was a governor, or master (German: Landmeister) of this province. So I think my edit here was Okay. — Albert Krantz ^¿? 04:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I want you to take a look at

Teutonic Order in Livonia

:

Gothart, meister Teutsches ordenns zu Liefflandt (English: Gotthard, master of Teutonic Order in Livonia)

Duitsches ordens tho Liflande (English: Teutonic Order in Livonia)

Recke, meister Duitsches ordenns tho Lifflandt (English: Recke, master of Teutonic Order in Livonia)

Teutschenn ordens meister zu Lifflanndt (English: master of Teutonic Order in Livonia)

Herman van Bruggeney, meyster Duitsches ordens tho Liflande (English: Hermann von Bruggeney, master of Teutonic Order in Livonia)

Sancte Marie domus Theutonicorum in Liuonia (English: Teutonic House of Saint Mary in Livonia)

I think that Low German and Latin names are to be considered official. — Albert Krantz ^¿? 19:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Incorrect citation. In his book The Livonian Crusade William Urban writes: Although the Livonian Order was semi-autonomous, it was also part of a great international organization. The pope and emperor were patrons and, in theory, joint rulers over them. The grandmaster exercised supervisory powers; at first he was unimportant, because he lived so far away (until the fall of Acre in 1290 he resided in the Holy Land, then in Venice, and not until 1309 did he move to Marienburg castle in Prussia); even later he did not limit local autonomy much, because he rarely deigned to visit Livonia or even send ambassadors for oversight and review. Nevertheless, the grandmaster’s powers were extensive, his advice was long considered equal to a command, and his orders were obeyed without question. (text). — Albert Krantz ^¿? 04:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

For the first part, while translating articles, please familiarize yourself with the concept of |wikifying: meaning currently in English WP "

WP:Copyvio. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 06:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

So do you now agree with the idea of moving this article ? — Albert Krantz ^¿? 06:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

• Termer, please, don't make edits like [6] or [7]. It is absolutely wrong, this map is titled Livoniae nova descriptio, the new description of Livonia, not Confoederationis Livoniae nova descriptio. Thanks. — Albert Krantz ^¿? 06:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

• To all users, please, be clever, do not ignore common sence. Historicaly, after the batle of Saule (Siauliai) in the Baltic left only one independent military order. This is true. --Kwasura (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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