Talk:John III Sobieski

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John III Sobieski article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

An event mentioned in this article is a May 21 selected anniversary

Contents

[edit] Opening comments

In English, we don't usually put the ruler's family name. Just to repeat myself. Again. JHK

I'm pretty sure the Poles didn't call him John; what was his original name, Jan? I think it should at least be mentioned in the article. Jeronimo

Lithuanians call him Jonas. So the name have to be translated (Poles also dont't write Elisabeth 2, but Elżbieta II) or write it also in lithuanian an ruthenian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karolis-lt (talk • contribs) 11:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ermm...all respect to JHK, now departed, but in English we very usually call this fellow "John Sobieski". I think that for elected, non-dynastic Kings like the Polish ones, the surnames should be included when appropriate - as in this instance. john k 20:02, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Jeronimo, mayhaps the Poles didn't translate his name Jan into John, but this is an english-language encyclopedia, and the English name should be provided, correct? -Alex, 12.220.157.93 04:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC).

[edit] When was Jan III Sobieski elected the new monarch of the Commonwealth ?

The infobox and the main text have different dates for the Jan III Sobieski's election as the new monarch of the Commonwealth. Was it May 19 or May 21 ? --199.71.174.100 00:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Only 22 years"

Okay, 22 years is quite a while. I'm removing some of that. Reinsert it if you will. Aaрон Кинни (t) 23:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Move. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming proposal - John III Sobieski

This article was moved to the Polish name in December 2005, along with several other articles. Many of the others have since been moved back to English names and this article should be moved back too, to the English name of "John III Sobieski", as it appears in English-language reference works [1], per the Wikipedia guideline of Use English. Please indicate below if you support or oppose this move. --Elonka 04:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support, as nominator. --Elonka 04:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Well, if I remember well we already decided on Jan III Sobieski because the name was much more popular in English. Google Books Jan 297 [2] John 295 [3], Google hits Jan 95,800 [4] John 14,000 [5]--SylwiaS | talk 07:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
If ones excludes "hotel", these 95,800 hits are reduced to 19,000 [6] , or less when "street" or other place names are also excluded. According to Google counts, "Jan III Sobieski" would be a good name for a traveller's guide to Poland then ... -- Matthead discuß!   O    16:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, the same then -hotel, -street Jan 15,600 [7] John 12,800 [8].--SylwiaS | talk 18:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Among the first results for Jan, impartial sites like "gov.pl" pop up, pages titled "Jan III Sobieski: Listy do królowej Marysieńki" (do we have to consider that english?), and coins sold on ebay. For John, sites like britannica.com oder .edu sites show up first. So better stop beating this dead horse. -- Matthead discuß!   O    06:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Wait a minute, the first two sentences of the very first result for Jan deserves an honourable mention: "“He is a perfect oval which from a distance looks like a very large egg stood on the small end,” wrote one French observer, as he watched the Polish king, Jan III Sobieski. Blessed with a large head, enormous belly, and small feet, Jan Sobieski did indeed look something like an egg." -- Matthead discuß!   O    06:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you simply bring some evidence that John is more often used than Jan in English? BTW That page with Letters to Queen Marysieńka has his biography in English. I can't help it that people often look it up.--SylwiaS | talk 11:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Should be moved back to English name. If it gets left here, there will be two monarchs of Poland called John, and one call Jan (this one). Doesn't really make sense. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 09:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, as by nomination and Calgacus. -- Matthead discuß!   O    14:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as Sylwia pointed out, Jan is already the most popular ENGLISH name for this king.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  14:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Sylwia pointed out that Google can be (mis)used as a funny and useless source for naming historic figures. -- Matthead discuß!   O    16:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Charles 14:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I would actually prefer John III of Poland, but within the limits of the proposal, I vote for the requested move. Shilkanni 18:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose As soon as I saw "Jan" and "Sobieski", "Polish Monarchs" popped right into my head. "John" and "III" meant I was fumbling for my List of Popes. Per Sylwia, Jan is the common name. — MrDolomite | Talk 22:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I would, however support any combination of redirects which take all the various Jan/John/Sobieski/KingOfPoland and still get a reader where they need to go. — MrDolomite | Talk 22:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • While I prefer Jan, I wonder what do you think about John III Sobieski as compared to John III of Poland? See also John I of Poland, a monarch virtualy unknown to anybody but some people who put a very specific Wikipedia Naming Convention about rulers above such things as, oh, 99,9% of printed academic works in English language.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name as it appears in encyclopedias and dictionaries

I really hate Google tests as a justification for "common usage in English", when we're talking about an individual who already has entire articles in major English-language encyclopedias. Here's a list of what I have easily available at the moment. If you have others, please feel free to add to the list. --Elonka 16:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopedias

  • John III Sobieski {Online Britannica [9])
  • John III, king of Poland (Online Columbia [10])
  • John III Sobieski (Encyclopedia of World History [11])

That's nice, but since we don't care about encyclopedic use at Jogaila, why care about it here? :( -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  14:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Trivia: Scutum Sobieski modifications

The constellation Scutum Sobieski was named after John III Sobieski. The trivia section speculated that the name Sobieski was dropped since no other person/house kept it's constellation person/house connection. That's speculation – fascinating – but not proper for an encyclopedia. For talk page's it might be OK, however, since some editor might know a doctor, that actually know an old pergament where astronomer X writes to astronomer Y, saying that "this family stuff in the stars is unacceptable, I will speak for removing the name sobieski", etc. (just speculation – don't take this for truth, please!). Now speculation alternatives:

  1. the name Scutum Sobieski was too long and awkward, and since there was no other shield in the sky, the astronomers decided Scutum was enough,
  2. all other "fawning" constellations were removed, f.ex. Sceptrum Brandenburgicum, Taurus Poniatovii, Telescopium Herschelii etc., but since Scutum was too well established, then only the the last name was dropped ...

Speculated: Rursus declamavi; 17:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

But ... Stars named after individuals are seldom older than from the 19th century, and almost exclusively called after their "discoverers". Earlier star names named after persons ... well ... the practical joke names Rotanev and Sualocin (allegedly after Niccolò_Cacciatore), and then Cor Caroli. Only Cor Caroli after a non-astronomer Charles II of England, which makes person names after non-astronomers among the stars incredibly rare! Rursus declamavi; 17:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Any defeats?

Can anyone tell me if Sobieski ever lost a military engagement? I checked all the articles that wikipedia has on his battles and they're all victories. I wasn't able to find much on the smaller battles so I can't tell what their result was. Help is much appreciated. JRWalko 20:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] laurel wreath

Do the depictions of him wearing the triumphant commander's laurel wreath start after the Battle of Vienna? It seems a safe bet, but I'd like to be sure before mentioning it in the article. —Charles P._(Mirv) 14:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leelee Sobieski

She has the same last name, but I don't think her Jewish descent as it pertains to bagels warrants inclusion in this article. Any assertion of lineage to Jan III Sobieski belongs in Leelee's bio. Rstandefer 16:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jan III Sobieski

Here's the beef. "Jan III Sobieski" Google Book Search yields 1087 results. These are English language titles of course. Although the same Google Book Search yields 1385 results for John III Sobieski, I would argue that, since the numbers are comparable, Wikipedia ought to promote the name most reflective of both English and Polish scientific literature. --Poeticbent talk 15:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

See above, consensus is John III Sobieski. -- Matthead discuß!     O       14:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

What consensus are you talking about? Please read the writing on the wall. There was no consensus, just a vote that went both ways and could be interpreted both ways depending on who contributed and why. I suspect however, that you wouldn't be making it difficult for the others if you actually cared.

Also: I would like to stress the importance of guidelines provided for your consideration at Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Quote: “Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another.”

Somebody, please, write in the opening line that almost half of all English language titles speak of Jan III Sobieski instead of John III Sobieski. User:Matthead carefully removed that fact from the opening paragraph which speaks volumes about his intentions. --Poeticbent talk 16:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Jan III Sobieski (Ministry of Foreigns Affairs of Poland [12])
  • Jan III Sobieski (Hyperhistory.net [13])
  • Jan III Sobieski (University of Twente in Enschede [14])
  • Jan III Sobieski (Modern History Sourcebook [15])
  • Jan III Sobieski (IntraText Digital Library [16])
  • John III Sobieski, or Jan III Sobieski, king of Poland (www.britannica.com [17])
  • Jan III Sobieski (The Royal Collection, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II [18])
  • Jan III Sobieski (Norman Davies, God's Playground: A History of Poland [19])
  • Jan III Sobieski (Library of Congress [20]), etc.

You can try a proper WP:RM.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Before my edits, the article violated WP:MOS#Article_titles which says "If possible, the article’s title is the subject of the first sentence of the article, for example, “This Manual of Style is a style guide”". And besides, what were your unilateral move and edits, if not "for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another"? -- Matthead discuß!     O       00:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I made an edit that fixed the intro according to the article name (English Wikipedia), defended it (rv - John as per consensus article name) and then reverted back to the state before your unilateral move and changes (revert back to consensus Talk:Jan_III_Sobieski#Renaming_proposal_-_John_III_Sobieski). Poeticbent, better explain now where I "carefully removed that fact" "that almost half of all English language titles speak of Jan". All there is is this diff [21], which, compared to the last version of Piotrus, adds the underwhelming also referred to as before the other name version. -- Matthead discuß!     O       00:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don’t play dumb with me, Matthead. One look at your contributions proves that you have no interest in Polish history and the only reason you reverted all my good faith edits is to get back at Polish editors with whom you’ve been edit-warring for months over a couple of unrelated articles. A number of editors objected to John III Sobieski name change (see above), therefore my move was far from “unilateral”. It was inspired by comments from those who care about Polish history and are poised to promote it from the the same perspective.

When I changed the name of the article to Jan III Sobieski as per Ministry of Foreigns Affairs of Poland, I also included in the opening paragraph: “Jan III Sobieski, also referred to as John III Sobieski,” to indicate that both are established names in English. You removed that alternative name. You also removed all phrases and captions referring to English name Jan Sobieski, like “Monument to King Jan III Sobieski”, etc. You know better than that. --Poeticbent talk 15:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


John III Sobieski → Jan III Sobieski as per Ministry of Foreigns Affairs of Poland.[22] See above.

  • Oppose unless the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs has taken control of English Wikipedia. Has anything changed since the last round? —  AjaxSmack  06:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Per the last round, indeed.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  10:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per above, the last round, and other John and John III. No privileges for Poland, Ministry of Foreigns Affairs or Jan Sobieski. -- Matthead discuß!     O       14:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support for reasons already mentioned, Space Cadet 15:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. As explained earlier, both names are used in English on equal footing and both are used by highly reputable sources. Wikipedia stands in the forefront of change though, allowing for names acceptable from multilingual perspective. The most important difference coming from the proposed name-change reflects the guidelines established at the source, promoted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Poland among numerous English language scholars who devote their life to the study of Polish history, Norman Davies being one of them. Besides, we are far from setting the precedence here. Please see other prominent Poles whose names could hardly be questioned, like Jan Długosz, Jan Matejko, Ignacy Jan Paderewski, Jan Kochanowski, Jan Zamoyski, Jan Potocki, Jan Piotr Sapieha, Jan Wielopolski, etc. The name John derives from the Latin Johanne (see: John (name)), simplified from Johannes. Seventeenth Century English texts still spelt the name Iohn (compare the Romanian Ion). Alternative and other language forms are: Yohanna (arabic: يوحنا), Eoin (Irish language derivation of Seán), Evan (Welsh a pre-Christian Celtic), Jevan (variation of Evan), Giovanni, Gianni (Italian), and Jan (Norwegian, Dutch, and Polish). It is my belief that the name Jan III Sobieski will serve the article better. --Poeticbent talk 15:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support for reasons stated above.--Molobo 20:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Polish monarch articles need to be mass-moved by name, not individually. Not against using modern orthographically Polish names for Polish monarchs in principle, irrespective of their popularity or lack of it, just needs to be consistent and must not mislead people into thinking that monarchs had only Polish culture, when indeed some were international in culture, or often bi-cultural Polish/German, Polish/Lithuanian, etc. Not sure if this vote has even been registered. In this case, it is clear that John is primarily Polish, but I'm opposing solely because such a move would result in some Polish Johns being John, while this guy would be Jan. Does it even make that much difference? John's an international name, not a name particularly associated with any other culture (i.e. German culture), and most English speakers will think of Jan not as Polish, but as Scandinavian. Anyways, properly propose a vote on all the Johns and I may change my vote. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose English names for historical monarchs, regardless of what the treatment is in Poland or the English form given by Polish agencies. Charles 04:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikipedia uses the most common name used in English scholarship. Noel S McFerran 04:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per AjaxSmack and Charles. Olessi 19:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose; use English. We say Henry IV of France; how is this different? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, this is an English wikipedia.--Aldux 12:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, currently there is no valid ground for changing established English name. M.K. 17:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 06:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)