Talk:House of Griffin

Phantasy origins

I removed the following sentence:

"The interesting thing is that the Griffins themselves in the XVII century derived their roots from legendary persons called Gryphus or Baltus. "

Though maybe amusing, noble families in that period all had invented phantasy origins, primarily Trojan or sth like that. This is nothing notable or important. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Your personal dislike or amusement regarding the information is not an argument for deleting sourced information. The article should present a balanced view, and shouldn't be based on soley German sources.--Molobo (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The deleted information is not sourced. German sources btw are not necessarily unbalanced. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I added this sentence with sourcing. This, in my opinion, is important. For example, noble people in Poland in XVII century sow their origins not in Piasts but in mythological tribe of Sarmatians Wroman (talk) 10:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said, that was a common trend in this period. Is this information stated in the other nobility articles? Skäpperöd (talk) 12:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Polish vs. German histography on origins of Griffins

I added passage about "Polish histography" since I know books in Polish so it seemed fair to me to put it in this way. If Skäpperöd know German books on this subject and they say the same thing than deletion of "Polish histography" is fully understandable. Wroman (talk) 10:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I removed it. There is no dispute and German historians do not know more than their Polish colleagues about the origins. They all derive their knowledge from the same sparse records. There were of course dukes before Wartislaw I, and some are known by name. There is of course speculation about if those earlier dukes were of the same noble house, and how they were connected to each other, but noone knows. Same about the Piast speculation: No proof whatsoever. That's why I had started the section with Wartislaw and Ratibor. Although Ratibor's branch is not that well documented, the main branch of the Griffins is pretty good documented since Wartislaw I. There are however exceptions, eg one is not that sure how Wartislaw II fits in and sometimes there were so many Bogislaws/Wartislaws/Barnims at the same time that one does not really know which one a document is about. Also, the numbers have to be used with care, some historians count(ed) them in a different way. Since original documents are limited and by now have been studied, I don't think the information as presented in the article will change anymore in the future. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Dear Skäpperöd, many thanks for your work and commitment and analytical view. I know that it is not easy on the historical Wiki. You are absolutely right. Kind regards, S v Pomm

Unmotivated move

I see no good arguments for this move. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it was a good move. "House of Pomerania" is potentially misleading as it could refer to other notable families of the region, for example the Samborides or the Swenzones. "House of Griffins" (or "House of Griffin") is specific and unambiguous. Additionally, "House of Griffins" follows convention we use elsewhere, "House of Pomerania" does not. We have Piast Dynasty rather than "House of Poland" etc. I believe the mover also justified the move sufficiently in their move summary.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

How does this solve ambiguity? There must be other CoA's with a griffin. Is this more common in reliable sources than "House of Pomerania"? A google book seach mainly turns up hits about a Roman palace. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You're right it doesn't, though I think it's an improvement. How about "Griffins (dynasty)"?Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, checking google books a bit, "House of Pomerania" might indeed be the most widely used. Maybe "House of Pomerania (Griffins)"?Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not quite convinced that disambiguation is necessary, but in that case the singular "Griffin" should be used. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The dynasty seems more often referred to as of Pomerania than Griffin or Griffins. Not every dynasty is named by the same name. For example, few are named after their coat of arms, most ruling dynasties are named after their primary fief. Tinynanorobots (talk) 17:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Problematic Lead

The lead tries to contain more information than it should and is poorly written. Take this sentence for example:

"After vassalage to Bolesław III Wrymouth of Poland from 1121 to 1135, the dynasty entered Henry the Lion's Duchy of Saxony in 1164, and passed to the Holy Roman Emperor in 1181; they remained vassals of the Emperor thereafter, except for a Danish period from the late 1180s to 1227."

Now this makes it seem as if the family moved to Saxony in 1164, and were personal vassals and not lord of a feudal state. Anyway, I moved most of it to the body. Tinynanorobots (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense. Volunteer Marek  17:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate move

Administrator, please help!

Rather than asking for help to move this to House of Griffins, a page which already is occupied by a redirect, an editor invented this name, including a "the", which is to be found nowhere else in English literature as the name of this dynasty. Lead text and bolding now make no sense. I'm usually willing to update such text when somebody does a move and doesn't bother with follow-up, but find it useless to do so now. Should be moved to the redirect page, and this page can be deleted. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 04:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)