Talk:Stephen Báthory

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleStephen Báthory has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 17, 2013Good article nomineeListed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 1, 2014, May 1, 2016, and May 1, 2020.

Elder[edit]

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

Name[edit]

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)

Kings of Poland template[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Requested move (old)[edit]

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.

Hallo, I have a problem with the current name. Sure it fits with the practice of Polish kings currently applied. However, there happen to be 12 men called Stephen Báthory (sure not all deserve an article but there already exist two others and one is to come). Therefore I would suggest renaming this page either Stephen Báthory, King of Poland (per the naming coventions that prefers the highest-ranking title for reigning monarchs). I don't mind using either the Polish Batory or the Hungarian Báthory spelling - but I don't think that the minute difference the Polish spelling provides is enough to distinguish him from his eleven namesakes.Str1977 (smile back) 07:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We could alternately move to Stephen of Poland, although I prefer your suggestion. john k 16:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Should we spell it Batory or Báthory? Str1977 (smile back) 17:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tended to see the Hungarian spelling more frequently. john k 00:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Please use WP:RM and wait longer before moving the article. Stefan Batory is used in 800 publications; Stephen Báthory in only 200.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any positive reason (aside from counting book titles, many probably in Polish which of courses uses the Polish name) for reverting it? Would you address the reasons raised above?
But I will follow your advise and request the move. Str1977 (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Stephen of Poland is the better option as most monarchs are styled with just heir regnal name and the country of rule. Adding in King of Poland is slightly redundant and inconsistent with most of the monarchs within wikipedia's mainspace.
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 17:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about Stephen Batory of Poland? --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 23:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that, although Stephen Báthory of Poland might be a bit better. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

  • Stefan Batory → Stephen Báthory, King of Poland —(Discuss)— This person is the most famous but still only one of all in all 12 people called "Stephen Báthory" (not all will get articles but four already have) - to improve the distinction between all these Stephens I suggest to use numerals for all of them but this here, as he is special as King of Poland - therefore the inclusion of the title, which is in line with naming convention which prefer the use of the highest ranking title for reigning monarchs. Simply using the Polish spelling Stefan Batory (which in itself I don't mind) IMHO is not enough to distinguish him from his eleven namesakes. This move was already agreed upon on talk but recently reverted. Str1977 (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC) completed 09:50, 17 August 2007[reply]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

  • Oppose, because I don't think that inclusion of Poland in the name is the best choice as this person was important not only in Poland but also in Lithuania, Romania. M.K. 18:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But Stephen Báthory of Poland, Lithuania and Transylvania (Romania didn't exist then) is not a feasible title. But the disambiguation problem remains. Str1977 (talk) 08:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't insist on the word "King". Str1977 (talk) 08:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:

Regarding usage one of the crowns, due to naming convention, we should take into account that it is not set in stone. In other hand I would not oppose to Báthory usage. M.K. 19:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

Title[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Apparent copyvio[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]


Copyright problem removed[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
No, thanks; I'll wait for the wider discussion. Novickas (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

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)[reply]

Requested move (2010)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: moved to Stephen Báthory. DrKiernan (talk) 07:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Báthory of Poland → Stephen Báthory, King of Poland — Or plain Stephen Báthory, since he's the primary topic for that name. The current title "Stephen Báthory of Poland" seems to have been adopted counter to consensus (see ancient move discussion above), and certainly isn't in accordance either with the guidelines, usage or common sense - he wasn't "of Poland" (he was Hungarian), but he became King of Poland.--Kotniski (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support either one, with preference for Stephen Báthory (and moving the current article there to Stephen Báthory (disambiguation). john k (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for "Stephen Báthory", no need for "King of Poland" unless there's some other Stephen Bathory out there (not entirely impossible since it was a pretty famous and large family) - even in that case however (I see that there are a number of other Stephen Bathories out there), I expect that this would be is the primary usage.radek (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I do not doubt that Kotniski is in good faith but no. However, if the article was under the name of István Báthory, that would be fine.--Nmate (talk) 12:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What difference would that make??--Kotniski (talk) 12:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why we would want to use a Hungarian name for a person whose primary notability is as King of Poland. john k (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We do use the Hungarian form of the surname, of course - in Polish it's Stefan Batory - but googling seems to reveal that Stephen Bathory is more commonly used in English sources than any other form of the name.--Kotniski (talk) 13:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We should use "Bathory" (with or without accent) because it's the most commonly used surname in English. "Istvan" is not, in fact, commonly used in English. If it were, that would be another matter entirely. john k (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support moving/renaming the article, but oppose the proposed new name. The reason is, that Stephen/István Báthory is by far the most well-known of all the Hungarian noblemen with the same name. Therefore I propose renaming the article either to Stephen Báthory or István Báthory (with the appropriate redirect from the other name) and inserting a disambiguation link on the top of the article the disambiguation link on top of the article should take care of the other Stephen Báthorys. CoolKoon (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like everyone so far prefers the plain name without "(King) of Poland" - I'm happy to go along with that. As regards Stephen vs. Istvan, counts on Google Books and Google Scholar both seem to show a marked advantage for Stephen (though I suppose it might depend what term you type in - I used "king of Poland" plus "Stephen Bathory"/"Istvan Bathory").--Kotniski (talk) 13:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the proposed new form with "King of Poland" in it. Hobartimus (talk) 11:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for the laconic "Stephen Báthory". Raborg (talk) 13:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Relation[edit]

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

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

B-class failed[edit]

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)[reply]

Election of Successor[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

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.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Báthory → Stefan Batory – There are two reasons for this move. First, this article was moved from Stefan Batory to Stephen Báthory in 2007 ([5], [6]) despite a clearly inconclusive RM. I think this is sufficient ground to revert this move; if anyone wants to move it to the "Stephen Báthory" they should first prove gain consensus following proper procedures. Second, Stefan Batory was a king of Poland, and this is the Polish rendering of his name, whereas the current name is a weird mix of anglicized first name (Stephen) and Hungarian spelling of his surname (Báthory). Lastly, per WP:COMMONAME, Google Book search for ""Stephen Báthory" Poland" shows 345 hits; whereas "stefan batory" Poland about 2,700 - a rather significant difference in favor of the Polish variant. PS. Also consider the time graph of use of Stephen Bathory vs. Stefan Batory: [7] (English works only) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you inclunde "Poland" as a key word in the Google Books search? 79.117.184.130 (talk) 10:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is the common name of the country Batory was the king of? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There was a single renowned Stephen (Stefan) Bat(h)ory in history, so there is no need to add an extra word in the search. The comparison should be between "Stephen Bathory" (11,900 results) and "Stefan Batory" (6,020 results)79.117.184.130 (talk) 10:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, no: Stephen Báthory (disambiguation). There were several notable Stephen's Bathory's (through only one predominately known as Stefan Batory). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now you convinced me, I support the move. 79.117.169.22 (talk) 13:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. Stefan Batory was also King of Poland, which is a more important dignity than the title of prince of Transylvania . It is not important whether the sources are Polish, German or Russian. The criterium is the language they are written in (they must be written in English). 79.117.169.22 (talk) 13:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and "Stephen Báthory" is more common in English. Anyway Báthory was only a co-monarch in an elective monarchy, where the monarch had largely symbolic function. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, there was no such concept as a co-monarch, and the monarch role was hardly symbolic in the Commonwealth (while it was somewhat more limited compared to many other countries, kings played a major role in Commonwealth politics and with the exception of the joke that was Henri Valois all were major shapers of the Commonwealth's destiny). For Batory, becoming the King of Poland was the pinnacle of his life, and a defining moment in his notability; if you look at his biographies they dedicate most of their length to the his ten years as the king. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anna Jagiellon and Stephen Báthory ruled over Poland and Lithuania together. So he was a co-monarch. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In title, yes. In practice, she was a woman in the 16th century - she lost all the little influence she had after she got married, and she did not regain it until Batory's death. And yes, I know that there were some contemporary women which had more influence on politics; nothing I've read suggest she did. She was just a king's wife, a queen, with little real power or influence (as her pl wiki article states, she did try to play a role in internal politics, but her influence was hardly significant). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. He was more Hungarian than Polish; I suspect this trend of polonizing names of non-Poles would eventually lead to an article titled Henryk Walezy. The suggested name is also not more common than the present one. 316 books refer to a "king" named "Stephen Bathory", 270 books to a "king" named "Stefan Batory", and 135 books to a "king" named "Istvan Bathory" (with further 76 using the Hungarian.name order). Thus, the present title is the most common name, with the Polish and Hungarian version as (almost equally common) alternatives. Surtsicna (talk) 13:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your hypothetical example, concerning Henri de Valois, is not a valid argument. He sat on the Polish throne for only 4 months, from February to June 1574, before decamping to reign, disastrously, in France for 15 years, from 1574 to 1589. Nihil novi (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stephen is not the only foreigner king of Poland who is not known by the Polish version of his name. Henry of Valois is just one of several, and the first I thought of. Surtsicna (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is still a bad example. Whereas Batory is primarily known for being King of Poland, and this has been the defining part of his life, for Valois it is a footnote in his life. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The example is completely irrelevant to the main point, which is that this man is not best known as Stefan and that he was not Polish. He is best known as Stephen and was Hungarian. If you want better examples of foreigner kings of Poland naturally not known by their Polish name, take Frederick Augustus I of Saxony, Sigismund of Sweden, and Louis I of Hungary. Surtsicna (talk) 11:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It is not the Polish or Hungarian Wikipedia. It is the English Wikipedia, therefore the best option is the English variant.--Wirgensein (talk) 18:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per Norden1990's argument (about the prevalence of "Stephen Báthory" in English-language sources and his Hungarian affiliations, not necessarily about his co-monarchship). FactStraight (talk) 07:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Stefan Batory" is also used by publications in Polish language, which is may also be included in the diagram. In contrast, "Stephen Báthory" is a clearly English variant of Báthori or Báthory István's name. This kind of Polonization is very harmful, in my opinion. Stephen Báthory was a member of a prominent Hungarian noble family, which gave several politicians, commanders etc. to the Hungarian history. According to the standardization, "Stephen Báthory" is the best solution for English wiki. Who will be the next? Ludwik Węgierski? --Norden1990 (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As it is clearly stated in the diagram, it is using only the English text corpus of work, so your argument doesn't hold, again. Importance of his family is irrelevant; this is an article about an individual, not his family, which nobody is proposing to be renamed. I see you've given up on arguing he was more important to Hungarian then Polish history, this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first three or four works of your search ("Stefan Batory") are Polish language books, for instance... I didn't give up my argument: Báthory was just as important in history of Hungary, like in the Polish history. Despite of the article's current Polish-centric status. As I sad: "Stephen Báthory" is definitely the most common name in English language. He was a Hungarian and Polish royal, which fact also strengthens my position. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you see Polish books in my link? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
here. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Piotrus gave sufficient arguments. Kcdlp (talk) 14:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Norden you can say stuff like "As I sad: "Stephen Báthory" is definitely the most common name in English language." over and over and over again but it simply just isn't true, as evidenced by the links provided. Saying something repeatedly over and over again does not make it true, providing evidence for the assertion shows that it's not false. But you haven't done that at all. And this is even accounting for the fact that any search of English language sources for "Stephen Bathory" brings up all the hits for all the OTHER Stephen Bathory's in history who are NOT referred to as Stefan Batory in English language sources. Argue evidence, not your prejudices/priors. Volunteer Marek  02:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. His native first name was "Istvan". Its English variant is "Stephen" and not "Stefan". Fakirbakir (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Báthory" is the original family name and "Stephen" is a neutral (English) variant (see: John Hunyadi).--Rovibroni (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Grodno/Hrodna[edit]

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)[reply]

Bathory's sword[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephen_Báthory&oldid=1193676144"