Talk:Stanisław August Poniatowski

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.
Poland Portal
Stanisław August Poniatowski is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Poland on Wikipedia. To participate simply edit the article or see our current projects and discussions. On the main project page we have some tools to help you out. Don't hesitate to ask questions!
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Stanisław August Poniatowski is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Lithuania on Wikipedia. To participate simply edit the article or see our to-do list. On the project page we have some tools to help you out. Don't hesitate to ask questions!
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Comments Please leave a short summary to explain the ratings and to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] Old talk

Moved name of the birthplace entry her, because of ongoing vandalism by Emax Place of birth: Konstadt,Upper Silesia (now Wolczyn, Poland). also see: Discussion Wolczyn

Kurfurst..., he was born in Wolczyn near Brzesc Litewski...--Emax 21:22, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Emax, the only Wolczyn on internet is in Upper Silesia. If there is one near Brest, then please show a map here to identify it. Thank you.

I would like to point out that he wasn't Stanislaw "the second". He was Stanislaw Augustus, and this name was carefuly choosen because at this time Stanislaw Leszczynski was still alive and using both "the first" and "the second" would be equally disrespectfull. So I've changed that :)

Well, it seems I can't. Whatever

[edit] Dulwich_Picture_Gallery

To his cultural excellence I suggest adding : and he funded a collection of paintings, that was dispossessed with him, Dulwich_Picture_Gallery Regnim

Done. In future, feel free to be bold and do it yourself - everybody can edit Wikipedia.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Move to Stanisław

What is the rationale for keeping this under Latin 'Stainslaus'?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

None. Moreover, such latinized -laus endings may create, for a native English-speaker, a comic effect (they are pronounced like "louse" — in Polish, wesz) that plays into the hands of those who would make light of or belittle Poles and things Polish. logologist 23:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, in that case I will give it a few days to see if anybody else comments and if there are no objections I will move latinized names from the List of Polish kings to their Polish equivalents soon.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - Per Wikipedia naming conventions, the article should be moved back to the most commonly-used English name of Stanislaus. Elonka 00:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Please provide proof that Stanislaus is the most common variant of his name used in English. Also, please see Talk:Polish-Lithuanian_Commonwealth#Words_of_wisdom: (from Lukowski's book about late PLC 'Liberty's Folly'. Short version: As regards personal names, I have followed my instincts and in most cases, unless there is an extremely close English equivalent, I have kept to the Polish form. I refuse to render Stanisław as anything other then Stanisław.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
If we were blessed with a classic Polish name abounding in a good sampling of ą, ę, ó, ł, ś, ź, ż, cz, rz, sz, and if non-Poles around us were continually misspelling and mispronouncing it, would we take a survey to see which misspelling is the most common, then bow to the plurality and adopt that misspelling as our legitimate name? logologist|Talk 02:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I found the name to be "Stanislaus" in the Columbia Encyclopedia, at encyclopedia.com, at encyclopediaofukraine.com, in the Jewish Encyclopedia, reference.com, the Catholic Encyclopedia, the History Channel, infoplease.com, 1911encyclopedia.org, and the Middle East Open Encyclopedia. Using the Polish version of the name also violates the Wikipedia guidelne of not using diacriticals in article names (it makes linking much more difficult). Further, this article was named based on earlier discussions at Wikipedia, and you did not have consensus to change it. Elonka 07:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I am not aware of any rule that diactrics should not be used in name, please point me in it's direction. Reference.com and MEOE are Wiki forks using our outdated article, infoplease.com and encyclopedia.com seem to be columbia (only?) forks. What about modern Britannica? Your search is not inclusive enough, and you don't mention whether this name is used in context of Poniatowski and whether it is the only name used in those contexts (Britannica, for example, is known to use several names) - I'd recommend doing a comaprison via Google/Google Scholar/Google Print, as is our current standard.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Wait, shouldn't the title be "Stanislaw II August of Poland", in accordance to the naming policy of monarchs, i.e "-name- -number of -nation-"? -Alex 12.220.157.93 05:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC).

He didn't use an ordinal, and neither did a predecessor "Stanisław," Stanisław Leszczyński, who had been ousted from the Polish throne (as Poniatowski was to be). logologist|Talk 07:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New talk

I deleted the following sentences because they are crappy English. The first sentence does not state how was he threatened. What? did some beggar shake his fist at the king? It tells the reader absolutely nothing. The second sentence does not describe how he was paralyzed or the effects of his paralyzation. Was he unable to make treaties, unable to lead his army, unable to walk without the aid of a cane?

"During the Kościuszko Uprising in 1794 the King was threatened when Russian bribery of his contributors was revealed. He was paralyzed, as well, by radical insurgent movements."

If, after all your editing and adding facts, the reader has no idea what the writer meant, then the editing and additional facts are completely worthless. Naerhu 05:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catherine against him?

Why did catherine support the confederation? --User:Euyyn

Short answer: because she viewed it as a threat to her powers, a 'French-revolution diesaese' spraeding near her domain. See articles on her, Russian Enlightenment and May 3 Constitution for more info.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)