Talk:Jadwiga of Poland

message: What kind of name is "Jadwiga Angevin"? Adam Bishop 05:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Answer: nonsense. --Ghirla | talk 14:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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.  with ; both are pronounced the same way in both languages). Sorry for OT. //Halibutt 08:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name? 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  "the extinguished House of Piast" 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Avoid normative statements 

message: 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. , 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: And what is the majority view explanation? Borsoka (talk) 20:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lead image 

message: Y'all got the "bold" and "revert" parts down pat. Now please "discuss". Thanks, 15:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[WP:PP#Content disputes|Edit warring / content dispute]] 

message: Wdowiszewski is cited in footnotes as Wdowiszewski 2005. I added the information about his book into references section. I do not why Surtsicna   ,  and Borsoka  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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 . 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  Oh my. This is helpless. Surtsicna (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  , 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)
thread_title:  Wdowiszewski 

message: The Polish version is used in publications and summaries in English, e.g. , also in popular publications . 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: "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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  Did I add Latin version of Jadwiga's daughter name? No. So your argument is irrelevant. Swetoniusz (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  Nice eristic trick. If really you want see arguments, just read carefully the talk page. Swetoniusz (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  The information in the article of Elizabeth of Bosnia were removed by you , so your are lying. Swetoniusz (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  No. As Borsoka explained to you, there is virtually no difference between " 1349" and " 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)
replies: text:  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  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)
replies: text: , 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)
thread_title:  Name of daughter 

message: Compare Treaty of Lubowla (1412).Xx236 (talk) 07:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lubowla or Stará Ľubovňa? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Previously you wrote that you will not continue this childish debate . Interesting. Swetoniusz (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, about your baseless accusations. Borsoka (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I started debate yesterday , 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Well, I, for one, am much obliged to you for sharing it. Surtsicna (talk) 09:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{ping|Swetoniusz}} 

message: From the lead: Jadwiga was crowned "king" in Poland's capital Danial Bass (talk) 10:27, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Not queen? King?