Talk:Stephen V Báthory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Hungary Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Hungary. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or take part in the discussion.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
Comments: Add Comments Page

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Military work group.

	This article is part of WikiProject Eastern Europe, a WikiProject related to the nations of Eastern Europe.
GA	This article has been rated as ga-Class on the assessment scale.

An entry from Stephen V Báthory appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 1 March 2007.

	Stephen V Báthory has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 26, 2007 Good article nominee Listed October 17, 2007 Good article reassessment Kept Current Status: Good article

Contents 1 GA pass 2 One Question 3 Dracula 4 Specific or Bathory-general 5 The Move 6 Phase II 7 GA Sweeps (on hold) 8 GA Sweeps (Pass)

[edit] GA pass

Good use of references for a relatively short article. I really have nothing to suggest for this article. Good work overall. ErleGrey 01:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One Question

Was this guy related to Erzebet Bathory? (Or "Elizebeth" if you prefer the Anglosized version of the name)

As it says in the Aftermath section: yes. --Thus Spake Anittas 11:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dracula

Please understand that he was called Tepes after his death; during his time, he was called Dracula or Drăculea. He signed his name as Dracula; his cousing and ally, Stephen III of Moldavia, in his letter to the Pope called him Drăculea; and the contemporary sources call him Dracula. His father was called Dracul (see Vlad Dracul). Therefore, I kindly ask you to not change the name Tepes in the article on Stefan Báthory. Thanks. --Thus Spake Anittas 13:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Vlad III is known to historians as either Vlad III or Vlad Tepes but not as Dracula. Probably because of the latter being associated with the figure in the novel. I do not insist on Tepes but do oppose the constant using of Dracula. Also, please educate yourself about what constitutes vandalism and what not. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you understood my message. The novel took the name of Dracula from him, not the other way. His father was Dracul and as his son, he was Dracula. The contemporary sources (that is, the sources of the day) referred to him as Dracula or Draculea. Only the Turks called him the Impaler Prince, but that was also afterwards. There is to be no compromise on the matter. I have written that article and it is all sourced. Please stop changing his name or I will report you. And please read the sources and educate yourself on the matter. --Thus Spake Anittas 13:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I understood your message quite well.

What you bring forth is irrelevant. The proper name is Vlad III. Sure the novel title was taken from a really existing nickname but it is not used for him by most historians in order to avoid the confusion it creates.

Finally, please educate yourself about the follwing WP policies:

• WP:OWN: you do not own the article just because you wrote most of it
• WP:VANDAL: valid edits, even if considered wrong, are not vandalism
• WP:3RR: you have broken the three revert rule with your last edit. You are informed hereby

Ah, and please use a proper signature everywhere. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by using a "proper signature," but if we are to go back to the original topic, I will say this:

• Turnbull, Stephen. The Ottoman Empire 1326-1699—uses the name Dracula;
• Inalcik, Halil. The Ottoman Empire, The Classical Age 1300-1600—uses the name Dracula;
• Babinger, Franz (see Franz Babinger) Mehmed the Conqueror and his Time—uses the name Dracula;
• Florescu, Radu. Dracula, Prince of Many Faces: His life and his times—uses the name Dracula.

So as you can see, modern historians do refer to him as Dracula. And I don't think I violated the 3dd rule because your last edit was different from your other edits, therefore, it was the first edit on that content. You, on the other hand, should have posted your concerns on the talkpage before making these controversial edits. --Thus Spake Anittas 15:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Educate yourself:

Reverting is an edit that undoes the work of previous edits. So you reverted four times, while I reverted three times. My first edit was a positive edit and my fourth edit which was technically reverting was different from my earlier edits. All you however did was blanket reverting. That one of my edits was different from the others cannot be held (and is not held, I know many 3RR cases by now) in your favour. All you did was blanket reverting.

I might have posted on the talk page (though I am not obligated to do so) but your stone-walling "no compromise possible" attitude tells me that it wouldn't have made any difference.

You however could have explained your opposition earlier instead of wrongfully accusing me of vandalism.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

How about I educate myself on 3dd and you educate yourself on Dracula? As for accusing you of vandalism, I have not. I just typed it too fast and added another v, without thinking too much about it. If I were to accuse you of vandalism, I would have done so in writing. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

All right. I accept your explanation regarding the typo. I already know a bit about Vlad but one can always learn more. I never wanted to suggest that your version is flat-out wrong - however, I think that 1) Vlad III or even Vlad Tepes (many famous nicknames of rulers were used only posthumously) is more common than Dracula 2) it is better for the article's credibilty to avoid the name too closely associated with the novel's character. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, neither version can be said to be wrong, but if one must insist on using the other alternative, then the English version is usually Vlad the Impaler; and if one wants to use the Ro version on Wiki, they should add diacritics (Ţ)epe(ş). In my opinion, internationally, we should use the name Dracula, except for Turks, who have their own name for him (Kazıklı Bey). In Ro, I don't call him Dracula....I call him Tepes, and that is the natural way to refer to him in Ro. Outside Ro, most academical works on him use the name Dracula. Now, you may be wondering why the article on him is called Vlad III the Impaler. The answer to that is somehow silly: a user decided to move the entire article to that name. No one opposed his move. I couldn't oppose his move because at the time, I was banned. I will, however, start a consensus and ask for the original title to be restored. I will add all my academical sources that I possess; and I want to do it right, not the way he did it. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with your assessment that Dracula is the standard name used for Vlad III in the west (if look past its usage for advertising a book). I perfectly agree with the move. Of course you can contest it but until you do and succeed, shouldn't WP be somewhat consistent (especially if there is no issue of POV or factual accuracy involved)? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Some of the books mentioned above did not use his name to advertise the book itself, because he was barely mentioned in some of its chapters. If you check the list on Amazon, you will see that the majority of the books mention him as Dracula. Lastly, on Wiki, it seems that the alias of a name is rarely used. Mehmed the Conqueror is Mehmed II; Stephen the Great is Stephen III of Moldavia; Ivan the Terrible is Ivan IV of Russia; and so on. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). --Thus Spake Anittas 10:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

My point regarding advertisement was that it is one possible motive for using the D name while ommiting it may at the same level be motivated by aiming at seriosity.

If WP rarely uses such nick names, as your list suggests, why should Vlad III be different? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It's just that: it shouldn't. According to the name convention, the article should be named Vlad III Dracula or Vlad III of Wallachia or Vlad III Dracula of Wallachia. Ask the experts. --Thus Spake Anittas 13:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Now I get your meaning. However, you are inconsistent: if Tepes is not admissable, neither is Dracula. The naming convention would require the title "Vlad III of Wallachia". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Dracula was adopted as a family name and it became a clan of the Basarab family (Draculesti); the other one was Danesti. Altough, yes, one could wonder why he shouldn't be called Vlad III Basarab of Wallachia. All I can say is that he and his father officially adopted the two name variants. --Thus Spake Anittas 15:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether one can speak of family names is problematic. Note that Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor does not contain a family name, even though the dynasty had a name.

Also Dracula is not a family name at all but a surname special to Vlad III - his father was Dracul, the son was Dracul-ea, son of the Dragon. But would a prospective son of Vlad had been Dracula too? And what about his brother? Was he Dracula too? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, good point. Radu was not a dracul, but he did belong to the Draculesti family. I guess it will be up to the voters to decide. --Thus Spake Anittas 18:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That's what I meant "Dracul" and "Dracula" are surnames specific to their holders, Vlad II and Vlad III. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Specific or Bathory-general

I wonder how much of the information contained in here is relevant to this specific Bathory. Is there any clearer information about the descendants of "the son of Dracula"? And why are they indirect descendants of the Corvinus family? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Move

This is wrong. You are supposed to discuss the removal of sourced material and the move of an article or a different title. To be clear on the matter, the English version is to be used, as explained in the name convention link that I have given you. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong?

The move? Or the other edits?

I think the move needed to avoid the confusion between the three Stephen Bathory.

I distinguished the two earlier ones by adding their respective titles, while the third is left at his Polish name.

However, I do not object to Stephen being used as a first name. I never considered this myself. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

And one more thing: I do not need to discuss everything on the talk page prior to making edits. I followed the advice of "being bold". But we can discuss it now. What are your specific objections. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Would both of you please read the full version of that: Bold, revert, discuss? which says: be bold until reverted, as has now happened.

As for the substantive issue, is there disagreement with Stephen Bathory, which seems familiar to this English-speaker? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Allright, after what you Pm and Ghirlandajo on ANI have said I will change the Istvans to Stephens, even though I am surprised why Anittas doesn't request that. Well, whatever happened to ... Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phase II

He belonged to the Ecsed family, but that doesn't mean that the title should read S. B. of Ecsed. Not in Wiki articles. All royalties belonged to a prominent family, but we don't add the title "of X." And I would like the aftermath sourced material to be restored, as it is on-topic for his legacy. --Thus Spake Anittas 22:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no "aftermath sourced material" to be restored expect one or two lines dealing more with the entire Bathory family. You should reply above.

I am beginning to doubt whether your objections are serious. You obviously prefer to to distinguish people by having articles on "Stephen Báthory" (this one), "Istvan Bàthory" (the later King's father - you somehow never complained about that name), and "Stefan Batory" - distinguished only by minute spelling differences. That is not feasible. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

And of course there are countless articles in which we give first name - family name - name of the family branch. 22:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I am okay with this version, altough I still find it disrespectful to make such a move without discussing it first. Even though the article is short, it took me hours to collect the sources and write it all down; and if you haven't noticed, I work alone, because no one seems to care about these topics enough to really work on them. And no, I'm not talking about owning articles, but about general courtesy. As for the reason why I opposed the move, I think it is very clear: the name is not used in English academia. I thought that was crystal clear for everyone who are familiar with Wiki. Example: it is Canute the Great, not Knut den Store. Anyway, this is all water under the bridge for me, so let's just forget all about it. --Thus Spake Anittas 22:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you think I have a staff at hand. I respect the effort you put into the article but that cannot stop others from tweaking it here and there (and my edits were nothing more) nor from asking questions.

I am not disappointed that you disagreed with the move but how you reacted to it. As I said, I was wavering between Stephen (for everyone) and Istvan (for everyone but the Polish King) when I contemplated the two moves and Istvan won out at that moment. Had it been Stephen everywhere, that wouldn't have been an issue.

Sometimes you explain things endlessly without no one responding and other times you make a bold move ending in complaints. That's life.

But past is past. As for present issues: I do have the feeling that some of the stuff included here should be at Báthory, such as the family section here. Regarding the Vlad marriage, the link to this specific Bathory is not clear to me, neither is the reference to the Corvinus family. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Halloho! Why are you removing that fact that he was a Voivod? Why are you removing the "what" tag? Why are you suppressing the asking of valid questions? This is ownership of the article and it will not do. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what is so unclear. The section is about his legacy; it is about lineage which he helped to build. That is relevant. The book doesn't say whom he married and perhaps it is not known. The hint that there was a link between the families is the gesture of Ferdinand towards the two brothers. That doesn't mean that you can add a tag and demand to know whom he married. And "woiwod" is for sure not an English word. Why not use Voivode? --Thus Spake Anittas 22:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

See answer above. --Thus Spake Anittas 22:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh my. Again:

What did Stephen Bathory of Ecsed, who voivod (and not Prince!!!!!) of Transylvania 1479 to 1493 do regarding this marriage. Was he involved? If not, this has to go somewhere else (articles on Vlad III, Vlad's son, Draculesti, Bathory). If you do not know and the book does not say, that is no reason to revert my putting a tag there. If you do not know, maybe someone else does! But you apparently want this all to be vague.

And yes, I can add a tag whenever it is appropriate and it is here.

Finally I am sick and tired of your stonewalling blanket reverting. You call for explanations by me but you never give anything specific. If you object to the spelling of Voivod you could have corrected it. Instead you revert to "prince" nonsense again and again. The voivod of Transylvania is distinguished from the Prince of Transsylvania, a title exting after 1570 but not in the 15th century. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The Aftermath section is, as I have told you before, about his legacy in his lineage. Please, stop disturbing the article. --Thus Spake Anittas 03:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You still have not told me what lineage you are talking about. I dug up a genealogy of the family from a book on the Polish King, which answered many of my questions. But it contains no children for this Stephen Bathory. This doesn't mean that there were non but if you know you should enlighten us.

The question is: how is Vlad Jr. and his descendants linked to THIS PARTICULAR Stephen Bathory? Please answer this question!! Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I will store the passage in question here, for further use:

According to novelist Raymond Rudorff's Dracula Archive, published in 1972, the legitimate son of Vlad Dracula, who was also named Vlad, "had married into the Báthory family;" this was later confirmed by the fact that the Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand I granted the brothers Ladislas and John Dracula— the indirect descendents of the Corvinus family — a patent of nobility and their coat of arms would would consist of "a sword covering three wolf teeth on a blood-red crest: the arms of Báthory family."^[1]

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps (on hold)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. Whilst it is generally well-written and meets most of the GA standards, in reassessing the article I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

Specifically, under criteria 2b, the referencing requirements have recently been tightened up. As a rule of thumb, every paragraph should be cited (preferably at the end to cover its content) with additional in-line cites for statements that need them. Stephen V Báthory has some very well-referenced sections, but significant gaps in others. In addition, the final section (Aftermath) might benefit from more detail - perhaps the last line of the previous section belongs here too?

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN.

Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, EyeSerene^TALK 12:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I linked to the article on Báthory for the aftermath section and in addition, there is also a link to the list of Transylvanian rulers, but I think the article has all the sources it needs. Could you be more specific and tell us what part of the article lacks in sources? <i checked section 2b and this is what it says:

(b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons

I don't think we have any such statement that is not sourced up. --Thus Spake Anittas 16:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I should have been more specific in my comments - sorry about that! I was really referring to the Family history section, which is completely unreferenced (a single cite at the end of the section would be enough, assuming the source covers the information there). The sentence at the end of Battle of Bread Field ("As a result of his cruelty in Transylvania, especially against the Szekelys, he was deposed by the King in 1493 and died shortly afterwards.") could also do with a cite.

The rest of the article is very well referenced - no argument there ;) I hope this helps, and thank you for your interest. All the best, EyeSerene^TALK 17:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't add that sentence there. I did, however, added the info in the aftermath section and forgot to remove it from the end of the battle of field section. I think it was Str...something that added the info to the article. She also wrote the article on Báthory and I think the info is accurate, but I will remove it and if she wants, she can source it later. I hope this will fix the problem. --Thus Spake Anittas 18:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That is better - all we need now is a reference for the "Family history" section. I've had a look online, but couldn't really find anything (although this site here might be useful?). I did also leave a note for Str1977 when I posted the reassessment - maybe she he might be able to source this bit? EyeSerene^TALK 09:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that fragment is controversial, as we can access the information in the list of Transylvanian rulers. That fragment was also added by Str. In fact, those two fragments that you have pointed to, are probably the only fragments included in the article by Str. I don't think you should fail the article for that small piece not being sourced up. I think it gets a bit too much to seperately source every single statement that is being made, but if it bothers you so much, you can just remove it. --Thus Spake Anittas 16:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

HE read it and posted references for the family section, the one's I used for the Bathory article. Actually my contribution to this article was small and right now I am busy with other things. Cheers, Str1977 ^(talk) 10:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to do that. I'll go ahead and pass the reassessment. EyeSerene^TALK 11:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps (Pass)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe, following the changes detailed above, the article now meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, EyeSerene^TALK 11:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)