# Talk:Jan Karol Chodkiewicz

a) In all sources Chadkievicy are given as a Ruthenian (=Belarusian or Ukrainean) family. Their roots come from either Kiev or Lithuania, but never from Poland
b) Until some time Chadkievicy were orthodox: Православные владетели Заблудова Ходкевичи славились как ревностные защитники веры и народности
c) They opposed a Union of Grand Lithuania with Poland: Григорий Х. (умер в 1572 г.), великий гетман литовский, принадлежал к числу самых ревностных противников люблинской унии
d) And, finally, you might find this interesting:
...większość szlachty ze swojego etnicznego pochodzenia była Litwinami i Rusinami, mówiła już po polsku, ale miała litewską świadomość państwową. Poczucie świadomości narodowej możemy zauważyć w słowach Jana Karola Chodkiewicza: „Polacy dawno obchodzą się tak, by nas, wielkie rody litewskie, rozdrażnione do zguby przyprowadzić”.
e). Not just forefathers of Chadkievic were Ruthenian/Litvin - he was Litvin himself and considered himself as Litvin. This is a fact.
I understand, there could be some doubt about Damijeka - but here!?
It's not about "nationalism" or trying to "take Chadkievic away from Poles". We just need a bit of objectivity here, and not a Polish-only view on this person. Please stop vandalism by some users.
--Czalex 15:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes but if you have to write anything about nationality (which is ridiculous in the context of 17th century), you should write that he was Ruthenian. He spoke Old Belarusian as his primary language (then of course Polish as his second language). Considering the alleged opposition of Chodkiewiczowie to the union of Poland with Lithaunia - I doubt it, most of nobility of the Grand Duchy (both Ruthenian nobility and Lithuanian nobility) strongly supported the idea of union between Poland and Lithuania, as they wanted to gain privileges of Polish nobility. In fact it was nobility of the Grand Duchy which was the main factor contributing to this union taking place - and they benefited from this union more than any other group in either Poland or Lithuania (as they were granted privileges the same as Polish nobility had). Peter558 (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that academic references would be preferable to online articles, I agree with you that Chodkiewicz had strong Lithuanian ancerstry and it should be mentioned in the article. As we discussed in Talk:Ignacy Domeyko article, he is one of the prime examples what it meant to be a citizen of the PLC. He was a Polish-Lithuanian, there is no doubt about this. Now, I could agree with adding Ruthenian to this, if others agree as well, however I don't think we can speak about him being Bielorussian or Ukrainian, as those nationalities evolved about two centuries later. To call him Bielorussian is just as erroneus as to call him Polish (meaning today's Poland, not the Polish as in Polish-Lithuanian Commownealth, which are not the same, obivously). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Chodkiewiczowie had Ruthenian ancestry - not Lithuanian ancestry. Their ancestry dates back to the times before pagan Lithuania conquered Ruthenian lands.
Peter558 (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

My dear Czalex !!!
At first: Ruthenian doesn't mean "belorussian" or "ukrainian". It's error. Ruthenian - it means "Ruthenian". It's Simple.
Idea of belarussian or ukrainian nation evolved 250 years after dead of Chodkiewicz (1621 year).
At second: I agree with you - roots of Chodkiewicz family was ruthenian or lithuanian-ruthenian (we don't know exactly).But it doesn't mean that in 1580 year or in 1600 year Jan Karol Chodkiewicz was Ruthenus. It's error. His family origin was ruthenian (or lithuanian-ruthenian) but he wasn't Ruthenus.
At third :
I agree with you that Chodkiewicz family was very long time Orthodox confession -it's true.
But Jan Karol and his father (probably since 1572 year) was of Roman Catholic Church confession.
And next Chodkiewicz generations was Roman confession too. 
At fourth:
You wrote: "They opposed a Union of Grand Lithuania with Poland". I'm sorry but it is not true.
The matter with Lublin Union was very complicated - outlook of Chodkiewicz family upon Union evolved and changed three times.
At fifth:
You wrote: he was Litvin himself and considered himself as Litvin. This is a fact.
It's true. But Litvin doesn't mean belarussian or ruthenian. "Litvin" means member of aristocracy and nobles in Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Aristocratic families in Grand Duchy of Lithuania regarded themselves as higher aristocracy than nobles in Polish Crown ("koroniarze", earlier than 1569 known as "Polacy", "Lachowie").
Between Polish Crown nobles and Grand Duchy Lithuania nobles was antagonism : which origin is most gentle - lithuanian or in Crown? Lithuanian aristocracy regarded themselves as more gentle than in Crown because in Grand Duchy early rised up idea about ancient roman origin of Radziwiłł, Sapieha, Chodkiewicz.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jan Karol Chodkiewicz/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 12:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I'll review this article shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Sourcing:

The only possible sourcing issue in the article is the ancestry tree. Could you provide a source for that, or point me to an appropriate policy dealing with such information - I looked for one but found none?--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Good point. I am not familiar with a policy, but I agree a ref is needed. I found one website ([1]), reliability is problematic (seems like a website is maintained by a one person amateur). Another website I found is non-free... and the editor who added the section is inactive since 2008. I left him a message but I don't expect much; in a few days I guess - giving him the AGF snowflake chance of becoming active -  I'll just have to move that section here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Images:

A couple images need have US PD licence tags. Those are: JKChodkiewicz.JPG, Jan Karol Chodkiewicz.PNG. Please add those.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Done. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
MOS:

There is a wikilink pointing to disambiguating page Belsky. Please point it to an appropriate article.
External links are fine (no action required)
Duplicate link to Stanisław Żółkiewski need be removed per WP:OVERLINK.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
There is at least one easter egg in the article: The "Polish aristocratic family" is linked to Zborowski family. Per WP:EGG I suggest changing the linked text to "Zborowski family". Please remedy any other similar instances in the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Since Dorpat and Tartu are the same, I suggest changing Dorpat (Tartu) to Dorpat (modern-day Tartu) or something along those lines. In addition, there's no need to link both, since the two point to the same article.
In famous heavy hussars - "famous" should be clarified (why were they famous and how is that relevant for the topic) and supported by sources directly - otherwise that word should be removed per WP:PEACOCK.
In that vein, see if words like "some" and "many" are used redundantly. For instance in ... was unpopular among many Lithuanian magnates... I cannot really tell what purpose does the "many" serve. Being unpopular implies "unpopular by many (or most)". In this way it appears that the statement is vague and uncertain. I think simple removal of the word "many" would improve the situation.
Continuing from the previous point, in case of Chodkiewicz fought some inconclusive battles against the Muscovites... "some" is likewise redundant and has the same impact as "many" in the previous point.
The article employs two date formats eg: 11 October 1617 and October 14, 1621. Please make the format consistent throughout the article per WP:DATESNO.
All done. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Prose:

I'd recommend splitting He gained military experience in the fight against the rebellious Cossacks during the Severyn Nalyvaiko uprising under Field Crown Hetman Stanisław Żółkiewski, in which he participated in the Battle of Kaniów on April 14, 1596, and in the siege of the Cossack tabor near Lubny. in two sentences.
I suspect there were more than just generals defeated in ... and defeated the Swedish generals ... Perhaps "Swedish troops" or "Swedish army" or something else would serve the purpose better. If, on the other hand, there is info which generals exactly, add those names.
"Latvia" is not needed in (modern Salaspils, Latvia).
While not that unclear, sentence An army of 160,000 Turks and 60,000 Tatars led by Sultan Osman II in person advanced on the Polish frontier, toward the Commonwealth forces, numbering about 70,000, half of them Cossacks, under Petro Konashevych-Sahaidachny). would probably read better if it were broken in two.
All done. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, this is about it. All the items specified should be fairly simple to address. Nice article, cheers!--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Two more things - I assume the "Bibliography" is meant as a Further reading section. If so it should follow references and precede external links section per WP:ORDER and should be formatted as all other cites in the article. Also, please add ISBN or OCLC parameters to book cites if at all available.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry. this slipped my mind. I'll try to address this soon (traveling this week). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
No rush.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I've done some formatting to those sections, please let me know if this is better now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
All but a couple of issues done - please format the items in "Reference" just like those in the "Further reading", using {{cite book}} templates and add OCLC numbers for the books. The numbers can be found even for very old editions where there are no ISBNs (for instance here.--Tomobe03 (talk) 07:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I have done so for some books, but for the other it's a total mess. Consider the myriad entries worldcat has for this single work: [2]. For [3], we just have three, would you like to roll a d6/2 and chose one number? Same for tome 3 of PSB, I see at least 3 valid entries on worldcat for it ([4]). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Ok, don't sweat it then. What is the difference between references 6 and 7? Did you mean to point one of those at another page number?--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Yep, copy and paste error, fixed now, thanks for noticing! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Right. I trust everything's good to go now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:V, the following unreferenced section was removed from the article. Feel free to restore it if references can be located (I couldn't find any). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)