Livonian Order is part of WikiProject Estonia, a project to maintain and expand
Estonia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.EstoniaWikipedia:WikiProject EstoniaTemplate:WikiProject EstoniaEstonia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a
WikiProject dedicated to coverage of
Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the
project page, or contribute to the
project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latvia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Latvia related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatviaWikipedia:WikiProject LatviaTemplate:WikiProject LatviaLatvia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Lithuania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LithuaniaWikipedia:WikiProject LithuaniaTemplate:WikiProject LithuaniaLithuania articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please
join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
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 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.
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
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
WP:COMMONNAME, and Encarta clearly states "The knights in 1202 had founded the Order of the Brethren of the Sword, commonly referred to as the Livonian Order".
Martintg (
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
Livonian Brothers of the Sword and the
Livonian branch of the Teutonic Order. But as we know the Livonian branch of the Teutonic Order was just a branch of an other military Order, but not a
separate military order. I believe that the common name (Livonian Order) is misleading here.
WP:COMMONNAME: In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading, then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative. This alternative could be the Livonian branch of the Teutonic Order. This variant is used in:
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
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
Ordensburg Marienburg in 1457. Unlike Livonian order that was only secularized in 1561 and formed
Duchy of Courland and Semigallia. So even though Livonian order was a part of a larger international organization, Teutonic Order at the time, it had its own history and name that is widely used. Also, please stop going over articles on WP by replacing
Livonian order] with "Teutonic order in Livonia". And not only because it's factually incorrect, the Livonian order was ruling not only in Livonia but also in Estonia and Courland. I don't have anything much to add to this debate, other than repeat myself, there is no good reason to rename this article.--
Termer (
talk) 03:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Termer, do you know what
Livonia is? If the term
Teutonic Order in Livonia is wrong as you would like to portray, could you please explain me, why
hereWolter von Plettenberg was called “Master of the Teutonic Order in Livonia”? There is also a German book Wolter von Plettenberg. Der grösste Ordensmeister Livlands (ed. by Norbert Angermann). Lüneburg, 1985. Do you think it should be called „Der Ordensmeister Livlands, Estlands und Kurlands“? Unsinn! Nonsence! Estonia and Courland were parts of Livonia. If you knew what Livonia is, I doubt that you would say that my edit you reverted
here was factually incorrect. Further, we should use common name of a person or thing only when it „does not conflict with the names of other people or things“. I hope you are agree with the point that
Livonian Brothers of the Sword and
Livonian branch of the Teutonic Order were different organizations. So I think it will be good to change „Linonian Order“ in the articles either to
Livonian Brothers of the Sword as I have done
here and
here, or to
Livonian branch of the Teutonic Order. Otherwise the unique solution will be to replace this article with a disambiguation page, as
AjaxSmack have suggested.
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
1. the way you've put it Teutonic Order in
Livonia instead of
Livonian Order would be ambiguous in the context since you're clearly mixing up
Livonia with
Livonian Confederation. there would be nothing wrong with saying
Teutonic Order in
Livonia since their HQ was based in the hart of Livonia, in Wenden. However Estonia and Courland were never parts of
Livonia (sorry but that would be nonsense indeed), but according to the current article naming conventions used on WP: parts of
Livonian Confederation. Now limiting the order to "in Livonia" only like you had done would exclude the orders lands in Estonia and Courland, that were , once again according to current
WP:Naming conventions parts of
Livonian Confederation not
Livonia 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
this map to understand what
Livonia is. You can easily see that Estonia and Courland are in Livonia. I also have found for you a number of XVI century documents in Low German and one in Latin. This organisation is mentioned there as
Teutonic Order 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 "
Teutonic Order in
Livonia" is called
Livonian Order. For the second, thank you for providing the full citation, however, the facts including equal to a command have been added already earlier to the article. and please also consider not useing such extensive direct citations on WP in the future as this is considered
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.
Armour image
without some sort of caption explaining what is distinct about it, that's just a picture of a suit of 15th-16th century full plate armour. unless it can be shown what its connection to the subject of the article is, it shouldn't be there.
Toyokuni3 (
talk) 04:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)reply
The cation is there. Or are you saying it's not clear enough: Body armor used by the Livonian Order? In fact it is a photo of an authentic body armor that was used back then by the Teutonic knights in Old Livonia, thats currently on display at the history museum, the place where the pic was taken. The image description should say it all if you click on it.--
Termer (
talk) 06:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)reply