# Talk:Stephen Báthory

Danzig succesfully defended against Bathory??!?!?? I would prefer Gdnaks name too, if we call Lithuanian city by Vilnius...[[user::szopen|szopen]]  — Preceding undated comment added 08:32, 1 November 2003
Maximilian's army was defeated at Krakow, Parzymiechy, and Byczyna. He was caught and held prisoner. When released, he still was usurping title of Polish king.
The 66.47 idea that he was not interested is ridiculous. If he was not interested, why he entered Poland with army in first place!! Szopen  — Preceding undated comment added 14:52, 2 March 2004

I think our royal name policy needs to be adjusted with respect to kings of Poland.  This guy is universally known as Stefan (or Stephen) Bathory.  Similarly, Jan or John Sobieski.  Stanislas Poniatowski.  I'm not sure what the advantage of putting them in positions like this is.  Anyone else have thoughts? john k 21:39, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion names of Kings of Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth (That's not same as "King of Poland") should be written in both lithuanian and polish languages or only in his native language.
Ex. : Žygimantas Augustas, Zygmunt II August I and Jonas Sobieskis, Jan III Sobieski or leave only Žygimantas Augustas and  Jan III Sobieski. Same with Batoras. We should write his name in three languages or leave only hungarian.
I wanted to clean the mess with both Stevens B. put in the same article. Ideally, this article should be at Stefan Batory and the other at where it is now, but the Stefan Batory article has an edit history longer than one line (two lines actually...) and the move function did not work. I believe we should either ask one of the admins to move this article to where it belongs or leave it here.
Moved; cf. István Báthory. Mikkalai 07:05, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
And the policy someone chose for the Polish kings (there was some discussion on this topic some time ago) is not very sensible IMO, but at least it is consistent. I've never heard of Stanislaw August Poniatowski referred to as Stanislaus II of Poland, but at least that name is consistent with the others. That's why I chose Stefan I of Poland as a (temporary?) name. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 06:28, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Lysy, I don't see you communicating on the talk page here, either.  At any rate, the Kings of Poland templates are inappropriate, as are all the Polish officeholder templates.  We don't do such templates for any other officeholders, and there is no reason to do it for Polish kings.  Why does having a list of all Polish kings add to the article on an individual Polish king?  Why isn't a succession box sufficient? john k 15:07, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, you removed it silently on April 25th. I think it would be appropriate if you explained this before you removed the template. I find the template useful, as it puts t\he monarch in a better historical context. I also don't see any harm it makes and cannot understand why you keep removing it even if I'm sure you're aware that no consensus was reached on this. Forcing your views is not the best way of conduct on WP. Could you explain what is that you find offending in this template. I'm sure more people would appreciate it if you could contribute to the article in a positive way instead of deleting content that you don't like for some reason, especially when you know that other people find it useful. In the meantime, I would like to ask you to refrain from removing the template before a consensus is reached to do so. Lysy 17:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
There are procedures for this - namely Wikipedia:Templates for deletion. I don't think that the argument 'others don't have them, so those few that have them should be downgraded as well' is valid. True, most of the relevant articles are stubs and thus the templates stand out, but eventually they will be expanded to large size and the templates will be barely noticable. Of course, the templates can be divided without losing much content - for example into Piasts, Jagiellons and elected kings. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:08, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
The current policy on article series boxes is such: "For very long series, it is preferable to use incumbent series, which only show the elements of the series immediately preceding and succeeding the article." - Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_series_boxes.  The Kings of Poland template clearly falls under this rubrik.  By removing the template, I was following current policy.  At the very, very least the template needs to be broken up.  Can I also note that I removed the template for every prime minister of Poland, every president of Poland, and every King of Poland after Stephen (as well as Henry III of France), and nobody objected except to this one page? john k 20:18, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

At the very, very least the template needs to be present in the very article relevant to it. I.e. the 'kings of Poland' template should definetly be used in the kings of Poland article. If you go on removing template spree, make sure you leave (or add) it to the main article, ok? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
I didn't remove it from any main articles, just the articles on individual officeholders, although I did just nominate them for deletion - the information could easily be moved from the template to the main article, if the conclusion is that they shouldn't be on the individual pages.  john k 02:37, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Again, it's a good and polite practice not to remove contents when you see that others find useful. If you don't like the template, then VFD is the way to go instead. Please hold on with your deleting until it's resolved there. Lysy 08:30, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

M.K.'s comments about the subject's importance in other countries does not tally with our naming conventions. Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is also queen of many other countries, for example. All the remaining contributors seem to be happy with the title Stephen Báthory of Poland. This article has been renamed from Stefan Batory to Stephen Báthory of Poland as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 14:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Báthory of Poland is awful.  When you have "Name Ordinal of Country", it is clear that a monarch is being referred to.  "Firstname Surname of Country" is just weird. john k (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Stefan Batory is a better name; plus the RM above did not show consensus for the move to the current name. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  14:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Could an editor address the following material, which appears to be a copyvio. Source here refers to the Wayback machine version as of Jan 17, 2006 [1]. That version states Copyright ©2005 Soylent Communications. The sentences were all inserted on Feb 3 2006 [2]. 
1) Source: István Báthory spent his early years at the court of the emperor Ferdinand, subsequently attached himself to Janos Zapolya, and won equal renown as a valiant lord-marcher, and as a skilful diplomat at the imperial court.

Article: Stephen Báthory the son won renown as a valiant lord-marcher, and as a skillful diplomat at the imperial court.
2) Source: The Pearl of Poland", encouraged by her immense wealth, and almost impregnable fortifications, as well as by the secret support of Denmark and the emperor, had shut her gates against the new monarch.

Article: The city, encouraged by its immense wealth and almost impregnable fortifications, as well as by the secret support of Denmark and the emperor, had backed Emperor Maximilian II and shut her gates against the new monarch.
3) Source: Two campaigns of wearing marches, and still more exhausting sieges ensued, in which Báthory, although repeatedly hampered by the parsimony of the Diet, was uniformly successful, his skilful diplomacy at the same time allaying the suspicions of the Porte and the emperor.

Article: Two campaigns of wearing marches, and still more exhausting sieges ensued, in which Batory, although repeatedly hampered by the parsimony of the Sejm, was uniformly successful, his skilful diplomacy at the same time allaying the suspicions of the Ottomans and the emperor.
4) Source: But the king, despite the murmurs of his own officers, and the protestations of the papal nuncio, Possevino, whom the curia, deluded by the mirage of a union of the churches, had sent expressly from Rome to mediate between the tsar and the king of Poland, closely besieged the city throughout a winter of arctic severity...

Article: But the king, despite the murmurs of his own officers, and the protestations of the papal nuncio, Possevino, whom the curia, deluded by the mirage of a union of the churches, had sent expressly from Rome to mediate between the tsar and the king of Poland, closely besieged the city throughout a winter of arctic severity.
5) Source: At first his position was extremely difficult; but the sudden death of the emperor Maximilian at the very moment when that potentate, in league with the Muscovite, was about to invade Poland, completely changed the face of things, and though Stephen's distrust of the Habsburgs remained invincible, he consented at last to enter into a defensive alliance with the empire which was carried through by the papal nuncio on his return to Rome in 1578. 

Article: However, the sudden death of the emperor Maximilian at the very moment when that potentate, in league with Muscovy, was about to invade Poland, completely changed the face of things, and though Stefan's distrust of the Habsburgs remained invincible, he consented at last to enter into a defensive alliance with the Holy Roman Empire which was carried through by the papal nuncio on his return to Rome in 1578. Novickas (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I suggest you leave a message for the editor who inserted the problematic material. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  19:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.nndb.com/people/091/000097797/. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  --Novickas (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that 5 sentences justify removing 2/3 of the article and 3 years of editors work. Please remove the problematic 5 sentences instead.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  14:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what the cutoff point is for copyvio postings, it could use clarification. I've removed some 1 or 2 sentence problems myself. Possibly, tho, they'll be doing some sort of analysis of cpv problems, which could channel resources to that project, and just removing them would lose those data points. The three years of work will I'm sure be restored after an admin vets the article entry at CP problems. The instructions at Wikipedia:Copyright problems look to me like 3 alternatives: speedy delete, blank all or section, or restore clean version. Then wait for admin action. Novickas (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Removing five sentences seems a much simpler solution than removing 2/3 of an article, which went down from 15kb to 5kb, where less than 1kb of copyvio text needs to be removed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  20:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
As an editor and as an admin, you can delete the offending sentences, restore the intervening edits, and remove it from the cpvio page. Now that I've posted it, as a mere editor I'm not free to do that, per the instructions there. In the meantime we can await clarification from MRG, who is currently on a break, on the amount-of-copyvio-justifying-a-posting issue, or you could contact another admin on the cpvio project for an opinion. Novickas (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
If I had time, I'd have done so. For the record, I find the instructions you cite in need of revision: any editor should be allowed to remove copyvio sentences in such a situation. Perhaps as an admin I could authorize you to do so? :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  21:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
No, thanks; I'll wait for the wider discussion. Novickas (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Sigh. It took me 5 minutes to rewrite the sentences you claimed above were copyvio and restore the 2/3 (10kb) of non-copyvio text you blanked. Btw, I cannot find the 5th sentence you claim is in our article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  18:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Re sentence #5 (However, the sudden death of the emperor Maximilian at the very moment when that potentate...), it was inserted along with the other copyvios in Feb 2006 [3], but was removed in August 2007 by another editor. [4] I still think it may have some value as a data point, but I'm glad the earlier editor and you have fixed the problems. Regards, Novickas (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus asked my opinion here. The copyright instructions are difficult to follow, as they are spread out at various points. WP:CP essentially does provide those options and should probably be updated to accord with Wikipedia:Copyright violations, which does allow selective removal: "If some, but not all, of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the discussion page, along with the original source, if known."  Novickas, thanks for once again locating what does seem to be improperly copied text on Wikipedia. Good use of internet archives to verify. Piotrus, I appreciate your taking five minutes to rewrite those sentences. I'll alter the CP instructions to accord with the policy page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Alexander Jagiellon which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 20:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Is he related to the mass murderer?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.130.160.246 (talk) 06:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC) 

If you're talking about Elizabeth Báthory, then yes, he was her uncle.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Quick fail for B-class for WP:POLAND: lack of inline citations throughout. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 22:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Acording to Battle of Byczyna, War of the Polish Succession (1587–1588) and Sigismund III Vasa, Sigismund III Vasa was elected king of Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth 19 August 1587, opposit what is written here: "The Emperor's brother Archduke Maximilian, was elected King but was contested by the Swedish Sigismund III Vasa, who defeated Maximilian at the Byczyna and succeeded as ruler of the Commonwealth." I  gues the three other artickles are right, and this artickle should be corrected?
PerV (talk) 09:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

After reading both on Polish and Lithuanian wikipedia (with googletranslate) I think the real story is that the sejm was split on the question. As far as I understand the Polish nobles was split into two groups, one supported Sigismund III Vasa and the other supported Archduke Maximilian. Further as far as I understood, the the Lithuanian nobles didn't participate in the vote. Both groups of polish nobles afterwards claimed that their respective candidate to the throne was elected. How does this sound?
At least I will write like this on da:wiki till I see changes on en:wiki!
PerV (talk) 14:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You are right; I am pretty sure it was me who wrote and ref'ed most of War of the Polish Succession (1587–1588) and it should be mostly clear there: "the election was disputed by the other candidate, Maximilian III of Austria, and opponents of Sigismund chose not to respect the election outcome, decreeing that Maximilian was the rightful monarch three days later". So the caption you mention here is not entirely correct; it should be reversed - Maximilian was the one who contested elected Sigismund. Mind you, IIRC, I am pretty sure Maximilian tried to cry foul at some procedural issues, both candidates were doing bribery to the extreme, and so on. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The town/castle is mentioned once, as a place of the death. The king used to live there  Stephen Báthory of Poland who made a royal residence here Xx236 (talk) 06:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

User @Pofka added in this edit information that Bathory was elevated as grand duke in Vilnius in 1580 receiving a sword and a cap. In reality he received from the Pope blessed sword and hat as a confirmation of his status as Fidei Defensor, as a sign of gratitude for his fights against Turks and Tatars. This is confirmed by Jerzy Besala in his biography of the king (p. 295-296). Please revert your changes as the content you added is now misleading. Cheers Marcelus (talk) 22:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Pofka's edit is not misleading, he's simply writing what he's found in sources. I checked and reliable sources call it the way Pofka wrote about it.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 09:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Well then sources are misleading; because reception of the blessed sword and hat from Pope isn't the same as elevation of the Grand Duke. Marcelus (talk) 10:51, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
If I understood correctly from what I read about this event, then there is a possible synthesis of seemingly contradicting sources by saying that the presentation of the blessed sword and hat from the Pope was interpreted as elevation to a Grand Duke. But no matter my opinion(s) on this, sources must state it, because WP:VERIFIABILITY matters. If RS say it was enthronement, then it was one, as far as I am concerned.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
I think it's worth moving the discussion to: Talk:Grand_Duchy_of_Lithuania#Quotes_and_additional_explanation_about_the_1580_ceremony_of_the_Lithuanian_Grand_Duke_Stephen_Báthory. Since @Pofka decided to ignore this discussion and start it in several other places. Marcelus (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Do we have RS stating this? The edit diffed above is for 15min, which does not seem like an authority on history. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)