Talk:Jadwiga of Poland

Name?

What kind of name is "Jadwiga Angevin"? Adam Bishop 05:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Answer: nonsense. --Ghirla | talk 14:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Not just nonsense, but Big Time Nonsense, and my experience with the editor who made the change of her name, has a prediliction to be clueless when it comes to names and their corollaries in the English language. Dr. Dan 17:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I believe Logologist went a step too far in creating Polish-English names. Could the article be possibly moved back to where it was after the discussion above (that is to Jadwiga of Poland)? Piotrus? Halibutt 20:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

When I first encountered the article it was Jadwiga. That suffices for me. I visited her sarcophagus many times and was always moved by childrens' tributes to her. They were motivated by love for her and their country. Unlike the phony propaganda showing Lenin and Stalin, bouncing children on their knees, and being concerned for their welfare, while shooting their parents and grandparents in the back of their necks. Dr. Dan 23:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Jadwiga or "Jadwiga of Poland" would be more appropriate. --Elonka 16:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Is the name version Jadviga, i.e simple v instead of double w, used? in which languages? Shilkanni 01:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently in Slovakia: "Namedays in Slovakia," October 17. logologist|Talk 05:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

In any other language??

And, are there versions in Polish that write or pronounce with simple V ?? Shilkanni 08:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

In Polish, "w" is pronounced like the German "w" and the English "v." "Jadwiga" is always written with a "w." logologist|Talk 09:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

In Polish, the letter "v" appears only in foreign words and names, particularly ones of German extraction. logologist|Talk 08:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

As a side-note: there are barely any Polish V-words of German origin. I have an impression (unsupported by anything) that most of them come from Latin rather than German, especially that German v is usually transcribed to f in Polish (cf. German: Volksdeutsche with Polish: Folksdojcz; both are pronounced the same way in both languages). Sorry for OT. //Halibutt 08:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Now, what given name? Jadwiga as used in Poland, Hungarian Hedvig as used in her home country Hungary, or Hedwig like the older St. Hedwig of Andechs she (and several en-Wiki articles, see Hedwig) was named after?

And "of Anjou" (as in cs:Hedvika z Anjou, de:Hedwig von Anjou, pl:Jadwiga Andegaweńska), "of Hungary" (also used [1]), or defaulting to "of Poland" (as in es:Eduviges I de Polonia, fr:Hedwige Ire de Pologne, it:Edvige di Polonia, nl:Hedwig van Polen, no:Jadwiga av Polen)? Curiously, the Poles call her "of Anjou", the French "of Poland".

Birthdate should also be sourced. After all, she was a princess, somebody should have bothered to record the date. Also, considering the young not-yet-teenage she was crowned and married, one year more or less makes a difference. Yet, Age of consent and Marriageable_age#Europe did not apply back then, obviously. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       14:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

She is known in English as Hedwig. This unconventional use of a Polish name is confusing and non-standard. See here, for example (and note that the Pope in question was himself Polish).

https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/travels/1997/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_08061997.html Cripipper (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC) Cripipper (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

"King Jadwiga"

I see certain people decided to be difficult about this in the past. As the Polish article makes clear, she was referred to as queen (królowa, regina) all the time. The "king" thing may have been a noteworthy item at the time of coronation, but clearly people did call her "queen" most of the time once they got over the shock of having coronated one.

As for "Jadwiga", this is just the modern Polish way of spelling the name Hedwig. In English, "Hedwig of Poland" seems to see just as much usage as "Jadwiga of Poland". The two are interchangeable, as in "Hedwig of Kalisz (Polish: Jadwiga Bolesławówna)". See also WP:UCN. --dab (𒁳) 08:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It may be even worse than this. The "Jadwiga, king of Poland" meme on the internet is exclusively derived from Wikipedia. On google books, "Hedvigis, Rex Poloniae" gets three hits, all of them Polish-language books, beginning in 1989 (not a single hit for the spelling Hedvigis, Rex Polonie given here). At the same time, Hedvigis, Regina Poloniae gets 783 hits, plus another 83 for Hedwigis Regina Poloniae. This has all the hallmarks of made-up nonsense incubated via the wiki. --dab (𒁳) 08:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You are certainly right. I have been correcting this nonsense ever since I got Maria Theresa to GA status. I believe that article too insisted that she was king rather than queen. See also Irene of Athens. Could you please link to the meme you mentioned? Surtsicna (talk) 13:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek and Cebr1979, I know that she was crowned "king", similarly to her sister, Mary, who was crowned "king" of Hungary. However, would you refer to a reliable source, published in English, which refers to her as King of Poland? Borsoka (talk) 06:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

That was easy.Cebr1979 (talk) 06:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

This one's my favourite.Cebr1979 (talk) 06:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Cebr1979, please read what reliable source means for WP purposes. Popular literature and self-published material do not qualify as such. Borsoka (talk) 06:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Please read that the article itself is already sourced and, just because they are not sources you can read for free online, doesn't mean you can just ignore them.Cebr1979 (talk) 06:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

(and you don't need to notify me every time you make a comment, I'll see it regardless)Cebr1979 (talk) 06:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Would you specify what reliable source (published in English) in the article refers to her as King of Poland? Borsoka (talk) 06:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

You need to be told that the little blue 2 inside brackets after the first time she's referred to as "King of Poland" means a ref is there if you click the blue 2?Cebr1979 (talk) 06:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh. I see now you deleted the ref. Pret-ty sneak-y.Cebr1979 (talk) 06:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Limiting ourselves to only English language sources is more or less confined to question of how to render somebody's name or a locale. Not for factual information. For that there is no restriction on what language sources we can use. Hence, a Polish source for the fact that she was a "king" is perfectly fine.

But if you want English language sources those are trivial to find: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] etc.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Problems with this version: [9] are that sources actually don't refer to her as "Queen regnant". Worse, it's quite likely our readers won't know what a "queen regnant" is (I'm not quite clear on it myself). It's wiki linked, but the link just takes you to "List of Polish monarch" which only adds to the confusion.

"Queen regnant" might (to the extent I understand what is meant by this) be simply incorrect. Jadwiga was crowned "king". An example of "queen regnant" would be Anna Jagiellonka. These are different things and certainly the people of the time felt that these had different political and legal ramifications.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's see your sources: (1) Jadwiga (Hedwig) d'Anjou ... Queen of Poland (!) (page 214); (2) Jadwiga "Maiden King" of Poland (not King of Poland and with apostrophes) (3) ... crowned "King of Poland" (with apostrophes, and she was c r o w n e d king) (4) ... called the first female "king" of Poland (with apostrophes, and she was c a l l e d king) (5) ... was crowned "king of Poland" (with apostrophes, and she was c r o w n e d king) (6) she was brought to Kraków to be crowned "King of Poland" (with apostrophes, and she was c r o w n e d king) (7) her official title was "king" (with apostrophes). Consequently (1) none of the cited sources state that she was King of Poland (because 6 of the 7 sources emphasize that she was crowned or called or titled king; (2) all cited sources use apostrophes ("...") when referring to her as king. Sorry, I do not understand why do you want to ignore the cited sources? Borsoka (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but it's hard to keep assuming good faith here (your resumption of the edit war right after you were reported, warned and narrowly escaped a block doesn't help either). You object to her being referred to as "king" because sources say that she was "c r o w n e d king"? How does that make sense.

And the apostrophe is there for emphasis - the writers realize that it's an unusual situation so they emphasize the noun king to make sure the reader understands it's not a typo.

She was crowned king of Poland. Her title was "king of Poland". She was king of Poland. You can try twisting that how you want but that's what it is and that's what sources say. Wikilawyering won't help.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

And your "was "King", that is Queen regnant of Poland" is pure OR and incorrect to boot. She was "queen regnant" of Poland between 1382 and 1384. She was "king" from 1384 until her death. Can we be precise and accurate here? After all this is an encyclopedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Would you refer to the reliable source which states that she was King of Poland without using the apostrophes? Would you refer to the reliable source which states that she was queen regnant of Poland between 1382 and 1384? Borsoka (talk) 21:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Would I? What does that mean?

Are you asking me to provide such sources? Well, first, the use of the apostrophe in sources has already been explained to you. And a source which calls her "king" without apostrophes is already in the article. So why are you asking? But fine, here's another [10]. And here's another [11].

As to her being "queen regnant" between 1382 and 1384, I don't really care about that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Jadwiga should be referenced as the "King" in the infobox because she was the King of Poland.-- Sleyece (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC: was she Queen of Poland, "King" of Poland or King of Poland?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I find there is consensus to describe Jadwiga as a King, and also as a Queen. The majority argument is that she is described as both in reliable sources and closely follows the logic of WP:WEIGHT though it was not sited in the RFC. AlbinoFerret 20:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

---

It is without doubt that Jadwiga was crowned King of Poland in 1384 and she was officially styled King of Poland thereafter. Modern reliable sources published in English mention that "she was crowned/called "king" of Poland", using apostrophes and past tense ([12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]). Some of the sources, including Britannica, shortly describes her as "Queen of Poland" ([19], [20]) - I guess that this is her proper modern title. I suggest that the article should begin with the following sentence: "Jadwiga ([jadˈvʲiɡa]; 1373/4 – 17 July 1399) was Queen of Poland from 1384 to her death." Furthermore, we should also mention in the lead (in the third or fourth sentence) that "She was crowned "king" in Kraków on 16 October." Thank you for your comments. Borsoka (talk) 21:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC) Here is a list of books which refer to her as Queen of Poland: [21]. Books which mention her as "King" of Poland (with apostrophes) can be found here: ([22]). Borsoka (talk) 02:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• neutral As we cannot do original research on Wikipedia, seems to me that the easiest thing to do is to call her neither. State that she was monarch or ruler of Poland and that some sources call her queen, others "king" in quotations, some "maiden king", etc. In that manner you have addressed that she was the head of state, explained the various titles and from there forward, just refer to her by name. Easily understandable to anyone and no need to worry about a possible mistranslation or misconstruction. SusunW (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
• She was crowned for the King of Poland (in regem Poloniae coronata [23]), but she used the title of Queen of Poland (Hedvigis Dei gratia regina Poloniae [24]). There is no contradiction here - two different situations and two different forms. Apparently this was a kind of catch to satisfy the condition that the only possible ruler of Poland at that time was a king. I think the safe formulation should be something like: "Jadwiga (...) was crowned in 1384 for King of Poland and used thereafter the title of Queen of Poland". Then the situation should be explained in the content of the article. Note that both calling her king only or calling her queen only is these days simply misleading. alx-pl d 23:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • If it "is without doubt that Jadwiga was crowned King of Poland in 1384 and she was officially styled King of Poland thereafter," why is this an issue? We should just call her by the title she used "when crowned and thereafter."Cebr1979 (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    • As per WP:Name and WP:NOR. Please read the reliable sources cited above: there are many sources which refer to her as Queen of Poland. Would you refer to one which mentions her as King of Poland (without using apostrophes)? Borsoka (talk) 03:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
      • There's one already in the article and I've provided two more above. Please stop pretending that these don't exist.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Yes, you added two sources published in English after my above message. please stop pretending that you had provided them before my question was raised. So, if my understanding is correct, you claim that your two sources should be preferred to the dozens of sources cited above which mention her as "king", using apostrophes? Why do you think we should accept this approach? Borsoka (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• I'd suggest checking with an official, reliable biography. Polski Slownik Biograficzny would be good (but I don't have the scan of her bio). Or any book about her. See what they say, and base our entry on that, plus a possible footnote to explain that English literature uses both. I am pretty sure Polish one uses Queen only, and overall I'd support changing the terminology in this article to queen (unless reliable sources suggest otherwise, but again, I think this probably something that can be solved via a footnote). PS. I checked the pl wiki, which is not helpful. The lead and two sentences in text use the king (król), but 90% of the text refers to her as queen (królowa), including the article's section on her (which is titled "Queen Jadwiga", and is the only one to contain the word king - in the two sentences about her being elected (in other word, the pl wiki article states, in the beginning of the section entitled Queen Jadwiga, that she was elected to be King of Poland). The section the, after the first two sentences, proceeds to call her Queen. Sigh. The lead states King, has a ref but no quote so needs verification. The section on her title does not mention the word king. Triple sigh. We need reliable sources to figure out what's happening here. Ping User:Nihil novi, User:Halibutt. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Polish literature, like English literature uses both. Usually if they're talking about her formally they use "king" although often it slips into an informal "queen".Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Note also that the Polish source that is already present in the article uses "król" so that contradicts the claim that Polish literature uses queen. Also I just reached for the closest book on Polish history to my couch. It's "Heart of Europe. The Past in Poland's Present" by Norman Davies. On page 256 Davies writes: "Jadwiga... who was crowned king (sic) in Cracow in 1384". The (sic) is in the original. Again, it's there, like the apostrophes in other sources, to make sure the reader understands that "king" is not a typo.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    • There is a lot of confusion here; including the split between encyclopedic and dictionary use of queen/king. To some degree, this is a case where sentence "Queen Jadwiga was a King" is correct. But again, I'd like to see the PSB entry. There are probably some books about her, too. Didn't Jasienica write one, for example? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support "king" and in particular the version [25] which existed before User:Borsoka started this whole unnecessary kertfule with their edit warring. Here's why: as User:Halibutt pointed out more than ten years ago ([26]), although he did this in Polish, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to educate. We do no favors to our readers by "dumbing down" the material because we think that the unusual situation regarding Jadwiga might "confuse them" or something. And the situation WAS unusual. She was not "queen regnant" (that's a particular user's OR). She was officially a "king". And there were reasons for that. Those reasons are interesting and relevant and are part of the information and knowledge that we wish to convey about this person to our readers. What user Borsoka wants to do is take the unusual, particular and interesting situation that existed here and artificially "standardize it" by turning "King Jadwiga" into "Queen regnant Jadwiga" because... because that's how it worked for other female monarchs. So what if that's how it worked in other cases? She wasn't some other female monarch. Why are we suppose to misrepresent both sources and facts to fit this unusual piece of history into some kind of conventional socket? That's completely opposite of what an encyclopedia is suppose to do.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Volunteer Marek, please update yourself before making comments. My proposal is the following: "Jadwiga ... Queen of Poland ... She was crowned "king" ... ." I do not want to hide, standardize, ... anything, I would only like to follow WP:Lead: that she was crowned "king" would be mentioned in the lead. Why do you think that her case was exceptional? Her sister, Mary, was crowned "king" of Hungary two years before Jadwiga's coronation. Borsoka (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• Polish standard popular, but definitely scientific source of knowledge for Polish kings, "Poczet królów i książąt polskich" ISBN 83-07-01822-6, is very clear. Professor Andrzej Wyrobisz writes in the lead of his article: Data urodzin królowej Jadwigi jest nieznana (The birthdate of queen Jadwiga is unknown), but a few paragraphs later on states została koronowana na króla Polski (she was crowned for King of Poland). Except from that the article by Wyrobisz consistently uses the title queen for Jadwiga. And by the way she wasn't crowned for "King" of Poland, but for King of Poland. alx-pl d 07:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree there are sources, reliable sources, that use "king". But this really needs to be discussed in the article. We need a section explaining the usage of king here. That's one. Second, we need to agree on the usage of king versus queen in the lead, but I do not believe we can do so until we have a proper section explaining - not just to readers, but to us as well - whether she was a king or "king" or queen, all of of those, of what. To prevent edit warring, I suggest we accept User:Surtsicna compromise and neutral version "monarch", until such a time we have a section explaining what kind of monarch was she--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• It's not an easy question. For me, calling her king (without apostrophes) looks silly, hence, I understand why most sources use apostrophes. Calling her monarch, while stating that she was crowned "King" of Poland or "King of Poland" [27][28] (with apostrophes), seems like a good solution, but I can also accept Borsoka's suggestion. In any case, these issues should also be carefully addressed in the article, and should preferably mentioned in the lead, as well. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 12:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The view of Koertefa is near of mine, but first we have to check the modern historiography since 1990s. I mean works of historians like Janusz Kurtyka, Jan Tęgowski or Jarosław Nikodem. Kmicic (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I could also accept a similar solution. Borsoka (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Ummmm..... Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
      • As queen here [29], in Tęgowski's Pierwsze pokolenia Giedyminowiczów (p. 229) and in the article "Akt krewski z 14 sierpnia 1385 r. - gdzie kryje się problem w dokumencie czy w jego interpretacjach?" in the most important Polish historian journal "Kwartalnik Historyczny" Vol. 108 No. 4 (2001) (written by a Lithuanian historian). As king here [30]. Kmicic (talk) 00:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

???? A second book published in Polish: so now we have four books which refers to her as king (without apostrophes). I could cite many books published in Hungarian which refers to her as "lengyel királynő" (Queen regnant of Poland). Why do you think this is relevant for the English version of WP? Borsoka (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what you are talking about. Books written in Polish can be reliable sources like anything else. This particular books was written by a prominent historian. And above Piotrus raised the question about how the Polish literature refers to her. Kmicic then asked about contemporary historians. So I provided a sources which is entitled "Jadwiga, King of Poland", no apostrophes or nothing else.

Please stop inventing arbitrary rules or guidelines to try and force your way on the article.

And allow me to point out that English language books which refer to her as "king without apostrophes" have also been provided. I've been bending backwards over here to accommodate you and spending my time looking stuff up but you just respond by upping the ante, increasing your demands, inventing rules out thin air and generally behaving in an unreasonable manner.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I do not invent arbitrary rules. As I mentioned, I could cite books published in Hungarian which exclusively style her as "Queen regnant", or "királynő", because in the Hungarian language there is a clear difference between a queen consort ("királyné") and a queen regnant ("királynő"). I think that we should prefer English literature. Yes, you have provided two sources. And I asked the question: why do you think that we should prefer them to the dozens of books, published in English and listed above, which refer to her as "Queen of Poland" or " "King" of Poland"? Borsoka (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I've provided more than two sources. Please don't misrepresent the situation. And yes you are inventing rules out of thin air.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Anyway. To cut the acrimony short, is everyone here happy with the present phrasing of the lede [31] as pertains to her status as king/queen (not the Hedwig nonsense, that's a separate issue)? I'm willing to live with it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. I suggest that you should study basic WP policies (including WP:English and WP:Lead) because you obviously think that it was me who invented them. I think the study of WP:civility would also be useful for you. Borsoka (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I see that you're not interested in coming to an understanding but rather wish to continue the bickering. My understanding of Wikipedia policies is perfectly fine, thank you very much, take your condescension somewhere else.

Now. Are you happy with the present phrasing of the lede or not? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the first sentence is OK for me. The lead should obviously be expanded during the next days. Borsoka (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

As I said earlier, calling her a monarch is an elegant solution. It's also good to discuss the king vs queen, but we need SOURCES. So far all I see is OR, citation needed, and discussion on talk based heavily on book titles. Once again: we need sources that discuss, in depth, the terminology here. Sadly, I am not in Poland; if I were I'd go where I can get a scan of PSB. I will ask about it on pl wiki. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

While I think the current lead is fine for now, Piotrus does bring up a good point. Do we have a source for the claim that Jadwiga was crowned "king", rather than "queen", because "Queens regnant being relatively uncommon in Europe at the time". This does look like somebody's OR. Likewise note that in text the claim for the same thing was because "(Jadwiga) was crowned "king" of Poland ... as Polish law had no provision for a female ruler (queen regnant)" is unsourced. So yes, what is needed here is a source which states explicitly WHY she was crowned "king" not "queen" rather than individual editors' speculations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• I like the current phrasing of the lead. alx-pl d 07:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Me too. Here is one source that talks about why King - "Female inheritance was without precedent in east-central Europe, where women did not have the right to inherit land at all, even less entire kingdoms. A legal fiction had to be therefore created: Mary and Jadwiga "changed sex," and were regarded and addressed as kings rather than queens." [32]. Now, this book is called an encyclopedia, and so a tertiary source, which WP disparages. The authors cite a well regarded historian (Oskar Halecki) who published a monograph titled Jadwiga of Anjou and The Rise Of East Central Europe, if anyone wants to get a hold of that one. Novickas (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your remark. Actually, Halecki is wrong. Jadwiga's grandfather, Charles I of Hungary established the royal prerogative of "prefection": the Hungarian monarch could "promote a nobleman's daughter to a son" whereby she ("he") was to be regarded as a son and she ("he") could inherit landed property from her ("his") father. (I do not refer to reliable sources, because there are three sources cited in the "prefection" article.)

Oh, the quote isn't from a book by Halecki - it's just that they cite him in the entry. But I'm thinking that Halecki might have gone into some useful detail about the King legal fiction as it related to Poland at the time. Novickas (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that source should be fine to cite the king issue as long as nobody finds a better source or one that contradicts that explanation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"English"

"Jadwiga" is just as "English" as "Hedwig". I actually know "Jadwigas" personally, who were born in US, who speak only English and who are US citizens and who have American birth certificates which say "Jadwiga", not "Hedwig" on'em. This is how English works, it's a very flexible language and English speaking countries (unlike some insecure European ones) don't restrict names to "official English names" or anything like that.

Look at article on Jose Canseco. It says: "José Canseco Capas, Jr. (born July 2, 1964)...". It DOES NOT say "José Canseco Capas, known in English as "Joseph Canseco"..."

Look at the article on Carlos Moreno. It says: "Carlos Julio Moreno is a Colombian mathematician and ...". It DOES NOT say "Carlos Julio Moreno, known in English Charles Julius Brown is a..."

We're not being ridiculous on those articles, so there's no reason for us to be ridiculous here.

Germanized name is not the same as English name.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Please read sources cited in the article: Engel 2001, Jackson 1999, Monter 2012. Borsoka (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but none of these sources say "known in English as Hedwig".Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Please. Borsoka (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Please what? Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Upon your request: please stop being ridiculous, you obviously do not understand the difference between the two cases. For further details, I refer to Surtsicna's remark and my explanation for you below. Borsoka (talk) 18:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

"I actually know "Jadwigas" personally, who were born in US..." - read WP:OR. Otherwise, as far as I know, Jose Canseco is not a royal, so the English equivalent of his name is irrelevant here. Jadwiga is clearly a Polish name. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Uh... no, how about *you* read OR. "known in English as Hedwig" is pure OR as there is no source for such a claim. "Jadwiga is clearly a Polish name" is OR as there is no source for such a claim. One could just as easily say "Hedwig is clearly a German name". Making the royalty-status of a person the litmus test of whether "the English equivalent" (sic) is relevant or not is OR and it involves pulling made up rules out of one's air.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm also at a loss as to why we need to put in "Hedwig" twice. If you are going to put in bold in the lede sentence then please remove it the italicized version.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Read more carefully. "Hedvig" is the Hungarian (native) version of her name. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, you may not know what original research means - please read WP:NOR. Thereafter you should study the reliable sources I cited above. Sorry, but I tend to think, you are only making declarations about OR and other editors' hidden intentions, because you think you can hide the lack of verifiability of your claims. The italicized version (Hedwig) was deleted in accordance with your proposal. Borsoka (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Borsoka, please take your condescending tone somewhere else. It's hard to interpret that kind of approach as anything but passive-aggressive personal attack. It's also hard not to see it as a provocation intended to rile up the person you're disagreeing with. Which is disruptive, and well, sort of shitty. I've been on Wikipedia longer than you have by a good few years and I think I have a pretty good grasp on what is and what is not OR. What is OR is asserting something when you don't have secondary sources which say it (like here). What is OR is putting something in the article based on one's OWN reading and interpretation of PRIMARY sources. Which is what you and Norden are doing here. Both of you appear to be confused on this point. You need a *source* which *explicitly* says "Hedwig is the English equivalent of Jadwiga". Not "Hedwig sounds more English to me than Jadwiga so it's the English equivalent". Not "I saw a source which used Hedwig so it's the English equivalent". That's OR.

I usually charge for my pedagogical services but in this case I'm happy to do it gratis.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Please read your comments during the last 24 hours and compare them with WP:civility. No, you obviously do not understand the concept of OR. By the way, have you referred to a source stating that "Jadwiga is her English name"? Borsoka (talk) 18:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

You are working very hard at making this discussion pointless. How am I suppose to respond to "No, you obviously do not understand the concept of OR". With "Yes, I do obviously understand the concept of OR"? And then you respond with "No you don't" and I say "yes I do" and it goes on and on and on? I EXPLAINED why "known in English as" was OR - it was based on a Wikipedia editors' (mis)understanding of primary sources (in this case works about Jadwiga). You only ASSERTED. An assertion is not an argument. It's just ... fluff. And I don't have to find a source for "Jadwiga is her English name" for the very simple reason that I am not putting "Jadwiga is her English name" into the article. Not that hard to understand really.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is irrelevant whether Hedwig is an Enlgish equivalent of Jadwiga, the important thing is that *both* are used by considerable number of reliable English sources. I just made a quick search on Google Books and I got about 530 book hits for the words Jadwiga Poland 1384 [33] and about 444 book hits for the words Hedwig Poland 1384 [34]. Therefore, we should mention both with bold. By the way, the current lead [35] looks very good, I am satisfied with it. The only thing that I do not understand is that why the note between parentheses "(Lithuanian in origin)" is important for the lead. Nevertheless, it can stay if it has some crucial importance, I just don't see the point (but I am not an expert of Polish history). KœrteFa {ταλκ} 20:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

My primary objection is to the "known in English as" part, which is OR. I'm fine with "Hedwig" being in there, even in the lede, although I don't see the point of bolding it. But hey, that's the nature of a compromise. So, again, I'm willing to live with it.

As to the "Lithuanian in origin", I think that's some left over stray text from some long forgotten edit war.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, with regard to the Gbook searches, you actually have to go to the last page of the search to get an accurate estimate for the number of books using a particular search phrase. The number you get on the first page is completely incorrect (no idea why Google hasn't fixed this). So "Jadwiga Poland 1384" has 24 pages worth of sources, so that's actually about 240. "Hedwig Poland 1384" has 16 pages worth of sources, so that's actually about 160. So it's even more skewed towards "Jadwiga" than it seems. Second, at least some chunk of those "Hedwig Poland 1384" hits might be for Hedwig of Silesia (who was also "of Poland" in some ways) since that 1384 probably isn't going to screen these out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand your long text above. If there are academic works, published in English, which refer to her as Hedwig, why do we need to continue this discussion? Please try to respect other editor's time. Borsoka (talk) 20:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Whatever.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I also think that since a text variant was reached which seems acceptable for most of us, we can settle the dispute. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 20:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

P.S.: Thanks, Volunteer Marek, for pointing out the glitch with Google Book hits, I did not know about that. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 20:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I see this has been resolved now, but I simply must express my astonishment at Volunteer Marek's arguments. The name "Hedwig" is not notable for being the German equivalent (and actually the original form) of the name "Jadwiga". It is notable for being the English equivalent and for being used in English language literature. In that sense, Jadwiga is just as English as Hedwig, and the sentence should have said "in English also called Hedwig". That has nothing to do with German language, however. What I cannot possibly work out in my head is how a 21st-century Cuban baseball player relates to a 14th-century Polish monarch or how US birth certificates and (non-existent?) naming laws affect this article or Polish history literature. It appears that, while we are indeed "not being ridiculous on those articles", we are being ridiculous on this talk page. Surtsicna (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

They are related because the Canseco example illustrates that we don't automatically "Anglicize" (or in some cases "Germanize") people's names.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Surtsicna referred to the fact that monarchs' names are often Anglicized, but sportsmen's name almost never in books published in English. Borsoka (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it's the time period rather than "occupation" that counts. For example, we have a medieval archer (a sportsman) called William Tell and a modern monarch called Juan Carlos I. It is ridiculous to pretend that modern spellings of names were used by medieval people as if they were inscribed in some sort of a birth certificate. That is especially true for monarchs who normally used Latin. For example, I seriously doubt this woman ever signed as Jadwiga. Surtsicna (talk) 10:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I can walk to a St. Hedwig's church from where I'm sitting. In English-speaking countries, I can't find a single "St. Jadwiga's" parish. Most calendars of saints published in English refer to her as "Hedwig". These are the kind of thing we should be examining per WP:COMMONNAME when trying to figure out what is the English version of her name. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Wrong Hedwig/Jadwiga. For this Jadwiga, in English language sources, "Jadwiga of Poland" tends to outnumber "Hedwig". Volunteer Marek  06:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

"the extinguished House of Piast"

This is awkward phrasing and it's sort of incorrect as the Piasts actually survived in Mazovia and Silesia until the 16th and 17th centuries, respectively.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It's entirely incorrect. I have removed the word "extinguished". Surtsicna (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Nota bene, one of those "extinguished" Piasts, Siemowit IV, Duke of Masovia was actually trying to get the crown in place of Jadwiga.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Avoid normative statements

especially in the lede. Like "In Poland, King Louis should have been succeeded by his second daughter, Mary, and her fiancé, Sigismund of Luxemburg."

"Should" is a value judgement. This needs rephrasing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to rephrase the above statement or any other statements. Borsoka (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, this article is about Jadwiga, not about the line of succession to the Polish throne so we need to be careful not to give too much weight to who was suppose to be what in the lede.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I think we should mention that Jadwiga became only by chance queen of Poland. Furthermore, without mentioning the events preceding her accession, we cannot explain her "king" title - an explanation you demanded above. Borsoka (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "by chance" means. I guess what you're trying to say is that there were other candidates considered before her. I agree this should be mentioned but mostly in the article text. Lead should just summarize this info rather than go into the full blown description of the line of succession etc. Also, I'm not clear on how this relates to her title of "king". In fact that whole (ORish) statement about "queen regnant" being rare contradicts your statement above. She was crowned "king" because that's the title of a Polish monarch at the time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that the fact that she (originally destined to rule in Hungary) and her sister, Mary (who was the heir of their father in Poland until 1382), "changed place" is quite remarkable. Borsoka (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Well I agree with that. But I don't think this was related to the "king" vs "queen" issue. I'm not objecting to the material itself, I just think it should be phrased more succinctly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight?

Stephen C. Rowell's "suggestion that the occasional use of "rex" merely acknowledged that Jadwiga was queen regnant, not queen consort is sensible", according to The Oxford History of Poland-Lithuania, Volume I: The Making of the Polish-Lithuanian Union, 1385-1567. Volunteer Marek, why do you think that a scholar's theory, qualified as sensible by an other historian in a book published by the Oxford University Press in 2015, receives undue weight if it is mentioned in the article? Borsoka (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

As your text itself states this theory is the minority view. Yet the text goes on to explain this theory but fails to provide the majority view explanation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

And what is the majority view explanation? Borsoka (talk) 20:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's another explanation of the king thing: "...in 1384 she was crowned Rex Poloniae, the nobility thus ensuring that her eventual spouse would not easily be able to claim the royal title merely by marriage...Eventually, following Jadwiga's death in 1399, Jagiello was recognized as King of Poland." [36]

And he apparently had to have a re-coronation: "Wladyslaw-Jogaila threatened to leave Poland and tear up the union unless the Polish royal council confirmed him as 'rex et heres' in the kingdom in his own right. The magnates complied but set certain conditions, stipulating that Jogaila must undergo a re-coronation..." [37]. Novickas (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

King/Queen again

I live in a country (Hungary) where Jadwiga's elder sister, Mary, was crowned "king" two years before Jadwiga's coronation. In Hungary, Mary is never mentioned as "king" and I have not met anybody who would change her title from queen to king in the article dedicated to her. So I would like to understand why the fact that Jadwiga was crowned "king" is so important for some editors. Borsoka (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear User:Borsoka: Sorry about that. The simplest explanation is that this page has gotten a lot more views, average 211 per day over the past year or so [38] than Mary's has (average 59 per day). [39].

The WP article about the Other doesn't go into this, but Otherness has been discussed in regard to Eastern and Central Europe in books and scholarly articles.

That article doesn't mention people's fascination with what they see as the bizarre customs of the Others, but we all know it's there.

Please carry on your good work. Regards, Novickas (talk) 15:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I was obviously unclear. I would like to know the reason of several attempts to mention Jadwiga as "king", because her sister (who was also crowned "king") has never been styled as such neither by WP editors nor by historians. Borsoka (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, Christina, Queen of Sweden was also officially crowned king (rex) as that article notes. But not in the lead. There's been some discussion about that, see [40], including a suggestion to change the article title, but it never needed an RFC like this one did. As far as I can tell there weren't any edit wars over it. I'm thinking that's because Sweden doesn't seem particularly exotic to most Westerners and so there would be fewer people (that is, editors) interested in the "weird" aspect of a woman being crowned king. Also, Queen Christina (film) was very popular.

So it's exotic - notice the use of "and even some European countries" used male titles in the queen regnant article - and gets more than 3 times the readers than Mary does, which increases the chances that people will want to emphasize it. But those are just my theories and maybe it's not a good idea to speculate too much about editors' motivations. People get angry really quickly here. You could make a case that it's undue weight in the lead for this article. It's not in the lead of the Britannica article [41].

Have you thought about posing this question at WP:Reference desk/Humanities? There's some very knowledgeable people there. Regards, Novickas (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I just looked at the traffic statistics for queen regnant, where Jadwiga and her male title are mentioned early on - it's been averaging 469 views/day for the past year or so. That might be creating some traffic here. Novickas (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Jadwiga was king before she was married to Jagiełło, after marriage she ruled the country on the same level as her husband, also as king (as two kings at a time, as a married couple) was so untimely death of Jadwiga. We Poles call her a king because the early Polish law did not foresee giving the Queen the right to inherit the throne. In our law the Queen did not rule, she was only the king's wife. That is why it is so important to us. To distinguish Jadwiga from the rest. Jadwiga była królem zanim wyszła za mąż za Jagiełłe, po małżeństwie rządziła krajem na równi z mężem, również jako król (tak dwoje krółów na raz, jako małżeństwo) było tak do przedwczesnej śmierci Jadwigi. My Polacy nazywamy Ją królem ponieważ uwczesne polskie prawo nie przewidywało nadanie kobiecie prawa dziedziczenia tronu. W naszym prawie Królowa nie rządziła, była jedynie żoną króla. Dlatego to dla nas takie ważne. Aby odróżnić Jadwigę od reszty. DawidRafał (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but this is the English version of WP, and in English language female "kings" are styled queens. As it was previously mentioned, there were many female monarchs who were crowned "kings" (including Jadwiga's sister, Mary, Queen of Hungary), but they are not mentioned as kings in English WP. Borsoka (talk) 07:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Oskar Halecki, the author of the most comprehensive English-language biography of Jadwiga, notes that she was crowned king but consistently calls her queen. That is what this Wikipedia article should do too. There is no basis in English-language historiography for calling her king of Poland. It is a curiosity that does not need to be highlighted in the infobox. Surtsicna (talk) 11:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Lead image

Should the lead image really be an 18th century fantasy portrait? Can we not get something contemporary? Anything? Surtsicna (talk) 09:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Elżbieta Bonifacja

Why is it necessary to have this modern Polish version of the child's name in this article? Why not have the Lithuanian one as well then? Or Hungarian? It certainly pops out as something misplaced there. We do not introduce anyone else like that in this article. We call her father "Louis", not "Louis (Polish: Ludwik)". One would think that, if the form Elżbieta were mentioned anywhere, it would be when introducing her (half-Polish) mother. But of course we do not do that either. Much like middle (full) names, the only names in other languages we normally give are those of the subject. Why should this be an exception? Surtsicna (talk) 08:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Swetoniusz:, would you please answer Surtsicna's above message instead of making an edit war? Borsoka (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: Because she is called Jadwiga of Poland, not of Lithuania, Germany or England. Her child most likely was baptised and named in Polish, because it was born in Poland (through given the language confusion of the court at that time, who knows, really). Anyway, as a princess of Poland, her Polish name is relevant. Whether her Lithuanian name would be relevant, I am not sure, it depends on her significance in Lithuanian historiography - I'll ping User:Renata3 for her thoughts. I'll also note Google book search: " Elżbieta Bonifacja" 1399 - 95 hits, "Elizabeth Bonifacia" 1399 - 95 hits, both terms are about as popular. Adding the Polish spelling to the article at least once seems reasonable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

1. It is highly unlikely, lest I say impossible, that the child was baptised (i.e. named) in Polish since she was born over five centuries before Polish was first used in Catholic liturgy. Latin was then not only the sole liturgical language but also the official language of the Kingdom of Poland.
2. Elizabeth Bonifacia was not immaculately conceived by Jadwiga of Poland but born to Jadwiga of Poland and Jogaila of Lithuania. The Lithuanian form of the child's name is obviously just as important if not more; the father was simply Lithuanian, and the mother a Hungarian-born, Austrian-raised, Latin-speaking Polish queen from a French dynasty. But the infant is not the subject of the article. If the form Elżbieta should be mentioned anywhere, why not when introducing the subject's half-Polish mother, who was a Polish queen (not a mere princess)? Why shouldn't the subject's father be introduced as "Louis (Polish: Ludwik)"? Isn't Pope Boniface IX's Polish name also relevant, as spiritual leader of Polish people? No, because it is customary to provide alternative versions for the subject only.
3. Your results for Elżbieta Bonifacja are in Polish language. ""Elżbieta Bonifacja" "Poland" - 4 hits and "Elizabeth Bonifacia" "Poland" - 23 results. Finally, the sources cited throughout this biography (including Oskar Halecki) name the child simply Elizabeth Bonifacia, much like Louis is named simply Louis and the other Elizabeth simply Elizabeth (not Jelisaveta, Erzsébet or Elżbieta). And for years nobody batted an eye about that, but now suddenly a 3-week-old infant should be treated differently than the subject's other relatives? It's all but reasonable. Surtsicna (talk) 00:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I concede 1 and partially 3. For 2, we don't add less common/foreign names unless context requires things, usually keeping them to article's lead/name section. This is a case where both context and logic require this, since her Polish name was mentioned in her stand-alone article, but now that it was merged, this bit of information was lost. Since she no longer has a stand-alone article where we can note her alt name, and since this was the merge target, it stands to reason this is the place to note her alt name. Nothing more, nothing less. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• What harm is there in including the Polish name? Is it necessary or mandatory? No. Could it be helpful to some reader? Sure. Why make convoluted arguments on baptismal names in mediaeval Poland when the simple question is: could someone reading this article find this info useful? Not everyone, not you personally, but someone doing some research on (say) Polish royal family names. And sure enough this is a useful info. A second question (particularly if this was a BLP) would be if this info does any harm. Can't fanthom any way that it could. So why not leave it be? Renata (talk) 04:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Should we also include the Lithuanian variant of her name? And what about its German, Ukrainian, Belarussian, Jiddish, Romanian variants? Borsoka (talk) 05:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Reductio ad absurdum, nice try. I think you're just trolling, because you previously distracted this article by removing important information like Wdowiszewski's book from bibliography (in footnotes it mentioned only as Wdowiszewski 2005) and information about Studium generale with academic source [42]. It is sad that is no reaction from administration on this vandalism. Swetoniusz (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
      • There is nothing absurd about Borsoka's question. He mentioned languages spoken by Jadwiga's subjects and by her child's father. To paraphrase Renata3's argument, what if someone was doing some research on Yiddish forms of Polish royal family names? You are being extremely rude by repeatedly accusing the user who wrote this entire article of vandalizing it, and the only administrative action likely to be carried out here is in regards to your behavior, since you have already been warned about it. Surtsicna (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
        • Extremely rude was your behavior which was clearly vandalism by removing Wdowiszewski's book from Refences section and information about Studium generalne with academic source! [43] In publication in English is also used the version Elżbieta Bonifacja, I did not find any publications in English with Lithanian or Yiddish or Japan version of name of child of Jadwiga. You removed this source from the article [44]. You could not oppose against facts, could you? Swetoniusz (talk) 21:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
          • What you resent is how I dealt with your addition. What I resent is how you deal with users, especially the one responsible for this article being a brilliantly cited biography rather than a total mess that it was before. I suggest you acquaint yourself with the principles of WP:No personal attacks and WP:Assume good faith. If you still think my or Borsoka's behavior was rude, feel free to report us and get another boomerang.
            Now, you inserted a new reference just to cover the 3-week-old infant's name in modern Polish. That is extraneous, as entire biographies dedicated just to Jadwiga and cited throughout the article constitute perfectly good sources and name the child very simply Elizabeth Bonifacia. Your addition is, in essence, fringe. If Jadwiga's biographers such as Oskar Halecki, whose work is so significant that Tadeusz Gromada wrote about the biography itself, are happy to use a single name for each of Jadwiga's relatives, including her child, why should Wikipedia concern itself with trivialities? Surtsicna (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
            • Halecki's book was significant, but it's partly out of date. You removed information which I had added and as a result of yours and Borsoka actions the quality of the article declined. This is fact, not opinion. You destroyed my work. Swetoniusz (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
              • I honestly do not know how to respond to that. I could try directing you to WP:AGF and WP:BRD, but it would fall on deaf ears. I might also suggest that you start a blog of your own, where nobody can destroy your work. If you believe Borsoka and I are vandals, as you claimed on EdJohnston's talk page, the best course of action would be to report us. Please do. Report us. Surtsicna (talk) 00:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
              • Agree. If you think that we are vandals, please do not hesitate to report us. Please also read WP:NOTHERE, because I think you are very close to be banned from our community. Borsoka (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• I have shown that Polish name is widely used, hence it is reasonable per Renata to assume it would be useful. Whether other languages would be useful, well - if Borsoka or anyone else thinks they would, please show data (relative Google books popularity) and if they are reasonably high, I will not oppose them. Nobody has so far countered the argument about Polish name being useful, so I am going to re-add it, the only open question is whether we should add others (currently I don't think there is sufficient argument nor support for them, however). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Before making unilateral changes, could you refer to other articles (preferably GAs or FAs) which use non-English forms of an individual who is not subject to the article? Borsoka (talk) 04:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

First of all, English literature does use the Polish spelling of her name (ex. Malachi Martin (30 June 2008). Keys of This Blood: Pope John Paul II Versus Russia and the West for Control of the New World Order. Simon and Schuster. p. 504. ISBN 978-1-4391-2764-3.; I am not saying it is most common but is does happen). Second: what is a non-English form? Per the cited work, this form IS acceptable in English. The only article about a Polish individual that is using a non-Polish form that I can think of is Casimir Pulaski, because his name has been anglicized and incorporated into Polish-American culture to a unique degree. Everywhere else Polish individuals are using Polish forms (ex. Tadeusz Kościuszko not Thaddeus Kosciuszko). Granted, names of royalty are occasionally unclear, but we are not even talking about renaming anything, just providing an alternative name, a normal procedure. Ex. WJ son's such as Władysław III of Poland or Casimir IV Jagiellon mention their Polish names. Yes, in their articles, because they have them. Since EB was merged here she has no article so this is the only place it makes sense to use that name (since it was the merge's target). That name was mentioned in the stand-alone article ([45]) before this ill-concived merge that caused all that trouble. The Polish name which was present there should be present here as a matter of merging all the information, it is not more complex than that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry, I less and less understand your argumentation. If my understanding is correct, the child is not notable enough to have her own article. However, the Polish form of her name is so important that it should be mentioned as an alternative English name in the article dedicated to her mother. I must repeat my question: could you refer to other articles (preferably GAs or FAs) which use non-English/all English forms of the name of an individual who is not subject to the article? Borsoka (talk) 12:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• Seems you understand my argumentation, so why don't you understand the links I've posted? Polish names are used all throughout English Wikipedia because Polish names are more correct then obsolete Anglicization. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• No, I do not understand your argumentation. I must repeat my question for the second time, because you have been ignoring it: could you refer to other articles (preferably GAs or FAs) which use non-English/all English forms of the name of an individual who is not subject to the article? Borsoka (talk) 05:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

This is incredible. The article has never included the modern Polish version of the child's name. It has not included the Polish versions of the names of any of Jadwiga's relatives - parents, sisters, grandparents, etc. The child was introduced in 2014 simply as Elizabeth Bonifacia. For the past 13 years this was not a point of any dispute. Suddenly, Elizabeth Bonifacia is the only relative mentioned the article who must have a Polish version of her name provided. Polish-speaking editors are suddenly, after 13 years, distressed by the lack of a Polish name for a person who lived for 3 weeks. The quality of writing does not seem to be the primary concern of everyone involved; to me, this reeks of something else. Surtsicna (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Elizabeth Bonifacia's alternative names

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the Polish version (and other verifiably relevant non-English versions) of the name of Jadwiga of Poland's daughter, Elizabeth Bonifacia, be mentioned in this article? Elizabeth Bonifacia was born on or after 22 June 1399 and died on 13 July. Borsoka (talk) 04:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• Polish yes, others no. Per sources above where it is shown that the Polish name is as popular as the English (plus, she was a Polish princess...). No data on other languages have been shown so I'd say no. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Piotrus is deeply involved in the above debate. I think Piotrus' above "vote" should be ignored during this process aimed at "requesting outside input concerning disputes ... or article content". Borsoka (talk) 05:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Considering you are deeply involved in the very same debate, and that you phrased the RFC misleadingly (suggesting this concerns other languages, which it does not - only you are trying to confuse people by saying 'how about other non-Polish languages', creating strawman arguments hoping that people will say 'many languages is bad' when this issue concerns only a single (Polish) name - I find your attitude rather problematic. There is no policy or recommendation that people involved in a given discussion should not take part in an RfC, you are simply trying to silence people who disagree with you in an increasingly unfriendly manner now resorting to wikilawyering. I'll remind you of WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. Think it over. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Calm down and read the policy that I quoted above in bold, especially the words "outside input". I modified the request. Borsoka (talk) 05:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Don't tell other editors to "calm down" (especially when they're perfectly calm), it's a personal attack. And anyone can comment and !vote in an RfC, regardless of whether they participated in previous discussions or not. Just like you're allowed to start one. Volunteer Marek  13:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

You should also calm down and read the above quote, especially the words "outside input". Do you really think those words refer to parties involved in the debate? I suggest you should read the rules of RfC, because you obviously do not know them. Borsoka (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Piotrus, I have shown that your search for sources above is flawed and you said you conceded that. Yet here you are claiming that "the Polish name is as popular as the English" in the "sources above". Let me then stress once again that the sources you cited above are mainly in Polish and thus naturally use the Polish version. Hardly surprisingly, the English language sources strongly favor the English version ("Elżbieta Bonifacja" "Poland" - 4 results, "Elizabeth Bonifacia" "Poland" - 23 results). The English language biographies of Jadwiga cited in this article use a single name for each of Jadwiga's relatives, including her daughter, and for her daughter that single name used is Elizabeth Bonifacia. Surtsicna (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• I would include the Polish names of the Polish princess Elżbieta Bonifacja in the Polish and English Wikipedias. The names' English versions should, I think, also be included on the English Wikipedia. Nihil novi (talk) 10:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • • • I am really glad that you agree that the English form of her name can be mentioned in an article in the English version of WP. Do you think that the Lithuanian form of the same princess (the daughter of the Grand Duke of Lithuania) could also be included? And what about the Belarus and Ukrainian forms of her name? The father of Elżbieta Bonifacja was also styled duke of many Rus' principalities, so she was also a Galician and Vitebskian princess. Borsoka (talk) 12:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Her parents' highest titles were Polish, therefore her Polish names should suffice on the English Wikipedia. Her names in other languages can, of course, be given on the other-language Wikipedias. (The English-language Wikipedia does not list popes' names in every language of every country where the Roman Catholic Church has its outposts.) Nihil novi (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Neither do list the English language WP the non-English versions of the names of children in the articles dedicated to their parents. Borsoka (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Could you clarify, please? Nihil novi (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you refer to an article dedicated to a king or queen in English Wikipedia which lists the non-English versions (or at least mentions one non-English version) of his/her child's name? Borsoka (talk) 03:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

How about King Stanisław August Poniatowski's children:

Konstancja Żwanowa;

Michał Cichocki;

Konstancja Grabowska;

Michał Grabowski;

Izabela Grabowska;

Stanisław Grabowski;

Kazimierz Grabowski.

Nihil novi (talk) 03:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for your above reference. If my understanding is correct, only one version of the names of the illegitimate children of the Polish king is mentioned. Why do you think we should list more than one version in this article about Jadwiga? Borsoka (talk) 04:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I do not necessarily advocate for providing English-language versions of Polish given names on the English Wikipedia. Many Polish persons' given names on the English-language Wikipedia are given only in Polish. (However, the English-language versions can be provided by way of explanation.)

Nihil novi (talk) 04:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

We can conclude that (1) we have not so far found an article dedicated to a king/queen that lists more than one versions of the names of his/her children; and (2) we have found an article in which only the native (Polish) versions of the names of the illegitimate children of a king are mentioned. Borsoka (talk) 04:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

What is your point? Nihil novi (talk) 04:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

My above conclusion contains all my points. Borsoka (talk) 04:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Polish yes, Others no (Summoned by bot) Can't boot out other people's opinion because they have already expressed it. L3X1 (distænt write) 12:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• Lean towards including at least Polish First off, I don't want t discourage anyone from using RfC to settle editorial disputes, but talk about a minor issue; this was really so important no one could give ground? Sheesh. But as I'm here, I don't see any substantial problem with including the Polish name of a Polish princess. It's reasonably possible that it will be useful to at least a fraction of the readers of this page looking for additional info on the subject, which is one of the functions of an encyclopedia.

On a separate note, Borsoka, if you don't understand that anyone is free to lodge a response to an RfC, regardless of whether they have previously spoken on the issues inquired about, you clearly don't have much experience with the process you are invoking and probably should have done more research before availing yourself of it. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The subject of this article is Queen Jadwiga. The English-speaking biographers of Queen Jadwiga, cited in this article and in nearly every treatise about her, name her parents Louis and Elizabeth and her child Elizabeth Bonifacia. Oskar Halecki wrote: "The young daughters of Louis the Great whose mother, wife and mother-in-law were named Elizabeth, certainly had to participate in the devotion to that other girl of royal blood. Jadwiga herself gave the name Elizabeth to her only child before its premature death."
We do not provide Polish versions of the names of her parents. The biographers do not see any need to go into onomastics for any of her relatives. Why is it suddenly so important to treat one of her relatives, a very minor one, differently than we treat the others and differently than secondary sources do? It makes no sense within the article. Surtsicna (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Polish definitely yes, Others probably yes as well, for now. Relevance, usage. Since she does not have a separate article, we need to cover plausible redirects as searchable terms. When an englisch counterpart for pl:Elżbieta Bonifacja created, all names but Polish (and en: of course, ) must be moved there (and redirecte retargeted). Staszek Lem (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
• Only one name, the one used in English language biographies of the subject of this article (Elizabeth Bonifacia). I see no need to provide alternatives if no alternatives are offered for the subject's father (frequently called Lajos), mother (sometimes called Erzsebet or Elżbieta), sister (often called Maria), and other relatives. The argument that the Polish version is necessary since there is no longer an article about the infant does not convince me. This Wikipedia lacks articles about many people mentioned in this article. The Polish bishop Maffiolo Lampugnano is called simply that, with no "Polish version" although one is easy to find and verify; the papal legate to Poland is called simply John of Messina; the Hungarian archbishop is called simply John Kanizsai, etc. All these names are from Oskar Halecki's biography of Jadwiga, on which the article is mostly based. Halecki calls Jadwiga's daughter simply Elizabeth. Why shouldn't we? Why should she suddenly be the exception to us? And if for some reason she should be, then of course let's include all relevant versions. Surtsicna (talk) 23:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  • This Wikipedia lacks articles about many people mentioned in this article, sure thing, but daughter is immediately relevant family member, unlike bishops and generals. Native spelling is useful for text searches, and surely there is more polish-language sources than english ones. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I honestly have no idea how family relationships have any bearing on this; the bishops all interacted with the subject, and the name of one of them is mentioned more often than that of the child (which would suggest that he is, in fact, more relevant). I fail to see why we should expect readers of this article to want to read about Elizabeth Bonifacia in Polish but not about Maffiolo Lampugnano. Surtsicna (talk) 00:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Because family relationship is an immediate relevance. Therefore it is high chance people may want to read more about Elizabeth elsewhere, since wikipedia failed to provide info. If you think people would like to read about Maffiolo, go ahead, add more spellings. (By the way "Maffiolo Lampugnano" is not a "Polish bishop". He is an Italian bishop sent to Poland, and his name in Poland is the same.) Wikipedia is a tool not only to read, but also an aid to find info elsewhere. Please do not assume that everybody judges relevance the same way as you. And in case of disagreement "I honestly have no idea" is an invalid argument for removal of information. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
        • There is nothing more to read about Elizabeth. She died aged 3 weeks. This article contains everything about her; if you feel that Wikipedia somehow failed to provide some info, please add it. But let's be realistic: there isn't much to write about a 3-week-old infant who died 6 centuries ago. Maffiolo Lampugnano was Bishop of Płock, i.e. a Polish prelate. In Polish he is apparently often known by the Latinized form Maffiolus de Lampugnano; he is listed as such by pl.wiki. It is obvious that we disagree on what's relevant, but it appears that my understanding of relevance curiously corresponds to that of Jadwiga's biographers. Surtsicna (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
          • Maffiolus de Lampugnano -- an article a useful addition would be, I say. instead of bickering about local relevance. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
          • it appears that my understanding of relevance curiously corresponds to that of Jadwiga's biographers -- very humble, aren't we? Still, Polish wikipedians read books other than you and probably know more than you on the subject. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
            • You have missed my point entirely; I did not claim to be an expert but advocated following the example of the experts, i.e. of Jadwiga's biographers cited in this article. I am not sure what you mean by "read books other than you" (please explain if it's an important point) but since you're bringing them up as relevant, I should note that Polish Wikipedians do not mention any alternative version of Elizabeth's name, not even in an entire article dedicated to her. Huh... Surtsicna (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
              • You have missed my point entirely: since you are a non-expert as you claim, how on Earth you know what all experts have written everywhere? Also Polish Wikipedians do not mention any alternative version of Elizabeth's name -- Oh, really? "Elżbieta" looks pretty much like an alternative to "Elizabeth". Staszek Lem (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
              • Here's an example for you:

Keys of This Blood: Pope John Paul II Versus Russia and the West for ...

https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1439127646

Malachi Martin - 2008 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions

With the death of Elzbieta Bonifacja, infant daughter of King Wladyslaw, in 1399, the Piast dynasty was at its end. Any betting man of the time with an ounce of sense and a modest amount of experience would have put his money on the side of ...

Staszek Lem (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

You brought up pl:Elżbieta Bonifacja, Polish Wiki's article. It does not mention any name other than the main name. You brought up pl:Elżbieta Bonifacja as an example, yet it does not include exactly what you say articles should include, which I found puzzling. I also did not claim to know what "all experts have written everywhere"; I am only referring to the authors of the English-language biographies cited in this article. And how do I know what name(s) they used? By reading their books while working on en.wiki's articles about Jadwiga and her family throughout the years. Speaking of, it just fascinates me how users who have barely (or rather not at all) contributed to this article in the past 13 years now have such a strong opinion as to what it should or should not include. Surtsicna (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

By that I obviously mean alternative to the page title - I don't care what you meant; you wrote what you wrote.

I am only referring to the authors of the English-language biographies cited in this article. - Well, I am not; see the quite above. Wikipedia is not an ultimate source of wisdom; time to learn this, colleague.

fascinates me how users who have barely - Ah, so I see you have ownership feelings. Good bye and a good day to you; no longer interested in this chat. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

And I stand by what I wrote. There is not one alternative name to be found at pl:Elżbieta Bonifacja. Not even a Lithuanian one. But I understand that you do not want to address that, as it is rather embarrasing that you brought it up.
Wikipedia is based on secondary sources. I am arguing for following the example of biographies of the subject of this article. It is pure WP:V; no need to be condenscending about it.
I cannot possibly have ownership feelings, as I am far from the greatest contributor. But I have had an interest in the article throughout the years. I am merely wondering why this is suddenly so important to those who have not shown much/any interest before. A patriotic duty to defend certain content, perhaps? Surtsicna (talk) 10:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit warring / content dispute

Y'all got the "bold" and "revert" parts down pat. Now please "discuss". Thanks, 15:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim, why have you not protected the article at the version before all the edit warring took place, at the version that was stable for the past 13 years? We are not debating whether to exclude long-standing content but whether to include something new. You have protected the inclusion of the new content, which does not make sense. Surtsicna (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

SHow me the permalink and I will consider it. My protection of the article was not to take sides, but to stop disruption while discussion took place. I'm sure your preferred version is best, but that should be discussed here, no.????Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by permalink, Dlohcierekim, but here are the last versions from the years 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016. This is the version prior to the edit warring. I understand that you did not intend to take sides, but you inadvertently did precisely that by protecting the inclusion of the disputed content rather than the version that has been stable since the very beginning (for the past 13 years). Surtsicna (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Leave me out of your dispute

• I protected here.
• Surtsicna demanded that I change back to pre-edit war version.
• Volunteer Marek comes to my talk page to insult me by accusing me of admin abuse and demand I restore the version he prefers. Neither is discussing on the article talk. I refuse to be their edit war proxie. They need to discuss the changes.Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: First, I did not "insult" you. I criticized your actions. I hope you understand the difference. And if you think that having to hear some criticism is an "insult", well, that's just further evidence that you may not have the competence or the temperament to wield the admin tools. Second, *you were* an edit proxy. You protected a page, then while it was under protection made controversial edits. It doesn't matter why you did it. Protecting, then editing, is a no-no. See WP:INVOLVED. This wasn't vandalism that you undid but actual controversial edits. Specifically: 1) you removed reliable sources from the article, 2) you changed the spelling of a name for some reason, 3) you replaced the word "pagan" with "heathen" which can be seen as POV, 4) you added (or re-added) some dude's blog as a source for some sketchy and questionable content (concerning the way-too-precise time and date of a birth in the 14th century!) and a few other potentially controversial changes. You don't want to discuss the merits of these changes? Fine. But then don't make them while protecting the page.

Please self-revert your last edit to this article. Volunteer Marek  13:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I've done too much already. If I revert, someone will once again demand I revert. This has already happened and it grows tedious. Please seek consensus on the talk page as to which superb version is best. Once consensus is reached, we can all move forward. Thanks, Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Almost forgot, there is a section of WP:RFPP where you can find instructions to make an edit request.Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done

Wdowiszewski

Wdowiszewski is cited in footnotes as Wdowiszewski 2005. I added the information about his book into references section. I do not why Surtsicna [46] [47] [48], [49] and Borsoka [50] were removing this book from reference section. For it is obviously act of vandalism. The did not explain they edit-war in talk. I will restored this important information. Swetoniusz (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

No, it was not an obvious act of vandalism. You were (and are) engaged in an edit war about the Polish version of the name of her daughter and you were (and are) making pseudo-edits to hide it. Please remember that you were (and are) at the edge of a serious punishments because of your continuous personal attacks. Borsoka (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Borsoka, please avoid personal attack and blaming me! Next time I will notice this to administration. Previous time administrator omitted the fact that you with Surtsicna were removing Wdowiszewski's book [51]. Yes, this was vandalism. Removing many times book from the reference section is clearly vandalism. Instead being sorry and apologize me, you constantly attack me. Please, stop. Swetoniusz (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Borsoka and I have already asked that you do report us to administrators. In fact, I begged that you report us (again). Hopefully an administrator will then explain to you that accusing long-standing editors of vandalism is precisely the kind of behaviour not desirable on this project. Surtsicna (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I assumed good faith, but you started edit war and with no reason removing many times Wdowiszewski's book form reference section. Later, you removed information with source from the article about Elizabeth of Bosnia. I will not report all you editions which lower quality of articles as I have not so much time and I have life outside Wikipedia. Swetoniusz (talk) 22:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

All edits regarding Wdowiszewski's book and Elizabeth of Bosnia were explained on the talk page by Borsoka and/or me. You did not bother to respond on the talk pages until threatened by a block. In the end you were the one warned by administrators not to engage in edit warring. Please do not twist the facts. Surtsicna (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

How dare you accuse my of twisting facts? Behave yourselve! I do not see any explanation why you and Borsoka Wdowiszewski's, probably as do not exist. Swetoniusz (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh my. This is helpless. Surtsicna (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@Swetoniusz:, as I have mentioned you, if you think, any of my edits constitute vandalism, please do not hesitate to report me on the relevant page. Otherwise, stop making baseless accusations. Borsoka (talk) 04:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Name of daughter

The Polish version is used in publications and summaries in English, e.g. [52], also in popular publications [53]. I do not know that happened with other version of her name. If yes, they should be mentioned in the article. If not, they should not. Swetoniusz (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Could you refer to other articles (preferably GAs or FAs) which use non-English/all English forms of the name of an individual who is not subject to the article? Borsoka (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

"Queen Jadvyga's first child Bonifacija", quoting the National Museum Palace of the Grand Dukes of Lithuania. The fact that a version is used in marginal contexts, however, does not mean that it has to be used in this article. The subject's father is frequently called Lajos in English language publications. Does this mean we ought to provide this alternative version of his name when mentioning him in an article that is not about him? Surtsicna (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

If Louis the Great would not have his own article, yes. But as I know, there is an article about Louis. Swetoniusz (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

And what does that have to do with anything? Plenty of people with no biographies on Wikipedia are mentioned in this article with only the most common of their English language names. For example, the legate sent to investigate the subject's marriage is called Maffiolo Lampugnano, not Maffiolo Lampugnano (Latin: Maffiolus de Lampugnano). Surtsicna (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Did I add Latin version of Jadwiga's daughter name? No. So your argument is irrelevant. Swetoniusz (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

So what is your argument then? That versions used in English language publications are only relevant if they are, in fact, Polish versions?
(Oh, by the way, this Latin form of Lampugnano's name is also the Polish version. Does that make it relevant now?) Surtsicna (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Nice eristic trick. If really you want see arguments, just read carefully the talk page. Swetoniusz (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

If you are going to accuse those who prove the inconsistency or faultiness of your logic of trickery (or dark magic or what not), one cannot expect to engage in any fruitful discussion with you. (And for what it's worth, nowhere on this page are answers to these questions. Hardly surprising, as I only now posed them, here.) Surtsicna (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

You removed with no reason publications from reference section (Wdowiszewski's book). You also with now reason removed information with sources (information about Studium Generale; in the article Elisabeth of Bosnia information about date of her birth). You also started a crusade against the version of name of Jadwiga's daughter used in publications in English, which is important and valuable information. And you have a nerve to accuse me of fruitless discussion? How can anybody treat you seriously? Swetoniusz (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

If it were important and valuable information, it would have been found in the most important and valuable biographies of the subject of this article, but it is not. The source you added was there to cover that trivial piece of information and nothing else. The information at Elizabeth of Bosnia was not removed; it is right there. Please understand that your edits (much like mine) are not sacred; if you do not want anyone to "destroy your work", as you put it, then perhaps a project built by 128,643 editors together might not be the best place for you. Surtsicna (talk) 22:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

The information in the article of Elizabeth of Bosnia were removed by you [54], so your are lying. Swetoniusz (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

No. As Borsoka explained to you, there is virtually no difference between "c. 1349" and "c. 1350". You never bothered denying or discussing that. You object to the removal of anything you add, even when that info is already in the article. Should I have gone screaming when Borsoka reverted my addition? Of course not. Surtsicna (talk) 23:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Borsoka's explanation was based on weak arguments and he nothing explained. Few minutes ago you revert my edition in the article Elizabeth of Kuyavia and put false information [55] as her father was not Kazimierz II (Casimir II), but Kazimierz III. I do not know what a game you are playing but I do not want involve. Swetoniusz (talk) 23:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@Swetoniusz:, would you please try not to expand your many debates to all Talk pages? This is the talk page of the article about Jadwiga of Poland. Borsoka (talk) 04:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Lubowla or Stará Ľubovňa?

Compare Treaty of Lubowla (1412).Xx236 (talk) 07:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Swetoniusz:

Please, do not ignore an ongoing debate on the Talk page of Mary, Queen of Hungary. Please do not rever other editors' edits, because it may have serious consequences as per WP:3RR. Borsoka (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Please, write true. I pointed many times my arguments and you as Surtscina could not give good arguments for putting information that mislead readers. As you could not give good arguments and you could not refute arguments I show, I do not see any reason to keep partially false information in this article.

As you falsely charging me with ignoring debate, I could not dispute with you. Swetoniusz (talk) 12:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Please read the relevant discussions of the above mentioned Talk page and try to avoid personal attacks. Sorry, I do not want to duplicate the debate, so her I will ignore all your remarks which are connected to the ongoing debate. Borsoka (talk) 13:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Previously you wrote that you will not continue this childish debate [56]. Interesting. Swetoniusz (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, about your baseless accusations. Borsoka (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

As I started debate yesterday [57], you accussed me that I am ignoring debate. There is only one word to describe your behaviour. Swetoniusz (talk) 13:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

"Don't address other users in a heading: Headings invite all users to comment. Headings may be about specific edits but not specifically about the user. (Some exceptions are made at administrative noticeboards, where reporting problems by name is normal.) Never use headings to attack other users: While no personal attacks and assuming good faith apply everywhere at Wikipedia, using headings to attack other users by naming them in the heading is especially egregious, as it places their names prominently in the Table of Contents, and can thus enter that heading in the edit summary of the page's edit history. As edit summaries and edit histories are not normally subject to revision, that wording can then haunt them and damage their credibility for an indefinite time period, even though edit histories are excluded from search engines.[3] Reporting on another user's edits from a neutral point of view is an exception, especially reporting edit warring or other incidents to administrators. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#New topics and headings on talk pages Mannanan51 (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Pardon my bluntness, but that lecture would have been ridiculous even if it were not 47 too days late. Surtsicna (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Remarkable policy. It assumes that wikipedians primarily name other editors in a negative context. I will remember this policy in the future. I think it is not Swetoniusz's name that can haunt him or damage his credibility. Borsoka (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not a lecture, it's simply a quote from the guidelines, which should be self-explanatory. Mannanan51 (talk) 05:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, I, for one, am much obliged to you for sharing it. Surtsicna (talk) 09:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Not queen? King?

From the lead: Jadwiga was crowned "king" in Poland's capital Danial Bass (talk) 10:27, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, he was crowned "rex" of Poland just like her elder sister Mary had been crowned "rex" of Hungary in 1382. Borsoka (talk) 10:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Danial Bass, I can confirm. Mary and Jadwiga was daugthers of King Louis I of Hungary. Having no male siblings, Mary was crowned "king" of Hungary on 17 September 1382, seven days after Louis the Great's death. She became a “male” by law, because it would be impossible to became a queen instead of a king in Hungary in that medieval times. But she was too young and remained unpopular and it was many inheritence conflict in that time, finally her husban Sigismund became the king together with Mary. OrionNimrod (talk) 06:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)