Talk:John I Albert

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

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. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 02:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

John I of Poland → John I Albert of Poland - 'John I of Poland' is a name virtually unknown to the world of printed publications (1 page) or academia (no hits). While I would prefer 'Jan I Olbracht', the most popular name (without the 'I' but it's useful), the last RM shown that the communicity strongly prefers the less used by professionals but more friendly to an average reader 'John'. I don't want to dispute that, nor the (IMHO unecessary) addition 'of Poland', but I think that since this king is almost always reffered to in various publications with both his first and second name (Jan Olbracht/John Albert), we should include his second name in our name. Consider: "Jan Olbracht", 333 pages), [http://books.google.com/books?q=%22Jan+I+Olbracht%22&btnG=Search+Books&as_brr=0 "Jan I Olbracht" (9 pages), [http://books.google.com/books?q=%22John+Olbracht%22&btnG=Search+Books&as_brr=0 "John Olbracht" (2 pages), "John I Albert" (5 pages), "John Albert" king Poland (204 pages). Among those books we can find virtually all important publications on Polish history, like Davies or Lukowski. Last but not least, note that Britannica also uses his second name Albert (and a numeral):[1]. Therefore I think that the move to "John I Albert of Poland" should not be controversial: we are retaining all that was won by the last RM, and adding an important part of his name used virtually by all major reference works. PS. Albert vs Olbrycht: Olbrycht is more unique and I think even more popular then Albert, but let's cosnider the less controversial (Polish...) Albert first, and then we can discuss whether we need to talk more about Olbrycht or is Albert enough of a compromise.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Support as the nominator.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I don't really care about the "of Poland" part, but it definitely looks like including "Albert" is the way to go, since that's how the name tends to appear in outside reference works. --Elonka 23:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral would support this if it were just John I Albert. Atm, John I Albert of Poland is cumbersome and implies there is more than one John I of Poland. --Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • One step at a time. I would support loosing 'of Poland', too, but for now let's see if we can change this 'original research' ('John I pf Poland') into something that a person familiar with some academic (or general) references can recognize more easily... :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since it's a survey, I'll just give my preferences: Jan I Olbracht first choice, John I Albert second (per popularity in English references). No "of Poland".--SylwiaS | talk 23:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Could support the move to John I Olbracht of Poland though the current title is perfectly fine for me. //Halibutt 00:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Use an acceptable encyclopaedic name, as used in other encyclopaedias. – Axman (☏) 12:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. john k 20:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. -  AjaxSmack  00:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Add any additional comments
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.

Name as it appears in encyclopedias and dictionaries[edit]

If you have access to other major English-language reference works, please feel free to add to this list, by including the individual's name as it appears either in an article title or index entry. --Elonka 23:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedias[edit]

  • John I Albert (1979 Encyclopedia Britannica)
  • John I Albert (online Britannica [2])

Dictionaries[edit]

  • John I, Olbracht (Albert) - (Sokol's Polish Biographical Dictionary)

Other reference works[edit]

  • John I Albert (Jan Olbracht) - A Concise History of Poland, Lukowski & Zawadzki

What?[edit]

The article mentions a town named "Kopersztyn". I Googled "Kopersztyn" and got nothing but the sentence used on the article... and vague allusions to it in different languages.... Does it even exist?-- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 03:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello????-- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 17:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the book "Dzieje staroźytne narodu litewskiego: Panowania Kazimierza i Alexandra. Tom Ósmy" is Kopersztyn refered as former Nowe-Koniecpole. [1] referes the name as polish Kopystrzyn. Now it is Kopystyryn in Ukraine.-- Ispaleny (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/304671/John-I-Albert

Old engraved portrait versus 18th century portrait painting[edit]

While the 18th century painting of John I Albert no doubt looks pretty nice, how nice a picture looks should always be secondary to the authenticity and accuracy of a picture. As such, when choosing what picture to use as a portrait in a biographical article on Wikipedia, is it generally best to chose a picture that is dated as close as possible to the time the person lived. The 18th century painting cannot be accurate because it was painted over 200 years after the person in question died. If the painter used a good source for his portrait, then simply use that source as picture for this article. If the painter did not use a source, then the portrait is pure fiction. Omegastar (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Status[edit]

@Piotrus:, @Surtsicna:, @GizzyCatBella:, @Aldebaran69:, @Marek69:, @Borsoka: - Dear all, please forgive me for the disturbance but I have just expanded this article considerably and was hoping if you could help me in raising it to a GA Status. All advice and opinions accepted! Feel free to expand it further if you find some spare time. Many thanks! Merangs (talk) 00:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a most welcome disturbance. Thank you for your work! I will happily gnome around it. Surtsicna (talk) 09:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Merangs Good job. I can only suggest replacing some old sources with new ones: Albertrandy (1827), Benni (1876), Bobrzyński (1893) and few others. Can we not verify the facts they are used for with modern scholarship? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: - I thought so too, however, modern sources are very scarce. John Albert is a heavily overlooked figure in Polish historiography, omitted wherever possible together with his brother Alexander; most modern sources are based on the ones from the 19th century. I can try and have a dig again, but I doubt it'll be fruitful. Merangs (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Merangs That's a fair argument, if we cannot find modern soruces, and old claims are not controversial, it's fine. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Well done! Best of luck, I think you will pass GA with flying colors. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SusanLesch: - Many thanks for your kind words! Took a while to formulate and write the article as sources were limited but tried my best. Any chance you can initiate the review process? Merangs (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Afraid no. I have no knowledge of Poland. Good luck. (summoned by a bot) -SusanLesch (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, thanks for touching up the article a bit. Highly appreciated! Merangs (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:John I Albert/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 07:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, Merangs I am about to start the GA review of the article. I hope I will be able to complete it in a week. Borsoka (talk) 07:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

I beg you pardon for the delay. Please find my first comments below. Borsoka (talk) 03:05, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary remarks[edit]

  • Perhaps a short "Background" section could improve the article. It could summarize basic information about 15th-century Poland, Lithuania and the Jagiellon dynasty. (Elective monarchies, unions, the Lithuanians' attempts to preserve independence, etc.)
  • The chronology of the article is sometimes unclear. For instance, we are informed that he received Głogów in 1491 before his education is presented.

Birth and family[edit]

  • ... Wawel Castle in Kraków, which at the time served as the seat of Polish monarchs. Consider deleting the text "which at the time".
Done. Merangs (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...John was the nephew of Ladislaus the Posthumous and... Do we have to know? Perhaps a reference to Emperor Sigismund could be useful to introduce the Jagiellons' efforts to rule the Holy Roman Empire, taking into account that Frederick III was not Sigismund's descendant.
Just removed the passage as Ladislaus was not Emperor. A kin to German royalty seems too obvious as well, given that his mother was a Habsburg (already outlined earlier in the paragraph). Sigismund was an Emperor so I think that would suffice for the candidature. However, all sources mention that John's second name Albert would contribute to the cause (Albert II was King of the Romans and the second cousin to Frederick III). Merangs (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was the long ambition of his Jagiellonian predecessors to install a male member of their dynasty as Emperor in the Holy Roman Empire. Could you explain it?
It is in the source. It was the ambition of his parents as his mother was of Imperial Habsburg blood. Perhaps this can be more directly and accurately rephrased as "it was the ambition of his parents[...]" Merangs (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thus, John received the name Albert at christening to honour his maternal grandfather and in the hope of securing his candidacy to the Imperial throne. How could have his first name secured his candidacy to the Imperial throne?
Albert was not his first name and it was the intention of his mother, Elizabeth, to stress imperial lineage and his potential candidature. That's given in the source. Merangs (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A name cannot secure a candidacy to the Imperial throne especially because no Holy Roman Emperors had been called Albert (Albert I was only king). Borsoka (talk) 02:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
John I Albert was not considered for the Imperial throne by any other authority apart from his hopeful mother. That is why I have included the phrases "intention of his mother" and "potential" to become a candidate for the throne. Also, Albert II was the second cousin to HRE Frederick III as outlined in point two. Merangs (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, any attempts at bolstering his prospects of becoming Emperor proved futile. Delete: those attempts are to be mentioned later in the article.
Done. Merangs (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph summary could be mentioned in the "Background" section.
- personally, I don't believe that a separate background section is needed, however, I have added the term "background" into the subheading. Merangs (talk) 23:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • His eldest brother, Vladislaus, was destined to inherit his father's expansive realm. Poland and Lithuania, or only Poland?
Both, added source. Merangs (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This changed when in neighbouring Bohemia the disgraced and excommunicated Hussite king George of Poděbrady promised to make Vladislaus his heir if Casimir negotiated a peace treaty with Matthias Corvinus of Hungary. Could you rephrase the sentence.
- I removed the information about being "disgraced" and a "Hussite" - too off topic and rather captious for a GA article. Merangs (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...the Bohemian Diet elected him King of Bohemia Whom? Could have the Bohemian Diet elected him king of an other country?
- Specified who was proclaimed King of Bohemia. Regarding the query, the source clearly outlined that the Bohemian [noble] assembly elected Vladislaus. Merangs (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Introduce Prince Casimir as the second son of their parents. Do we have to know that he became a saint in the article's context?
- removed the passage about him becoming a saint. I also specified that he was Casimir IV's second son and his namesake. Merangs (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vladislaus inherited both kingdoms in the aftermath of the Bohemian–Hungarian War (1468–1478) and following Matthias' death in 1490. Which kingdoms? Furthermore, Hungary was not a hereditary monarchy in this time.
- changed "inherited" to "proclaimed". Specified Hungary as Vladislaus was already King of Bohemia (though contested by Matthias Corvinus during his lifetime). Merangs (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certain factions questioned this outcome and in turn voiced support for a strong-minded John, who decided to act. Certain factions? Strong-minded John?
- removed "strong-minded" and clarified that a faction of Hungarian nobles advocated for John Albert to succeed Matthias Corvinus in Hungary. Merangs (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...he forcibly returned to Poland I do not understand the text.
A way of saying he retreated back to Poland from the Kingdom of Hungary. Removed it entirely as it is redundant. Merangs (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Vladislaus granted John the Duchy of Głogów (Glogau) to satisfy his ambition and permitted him to keep the title for life Some background about Głogów? What title did he keep? Borsoka (talk) 03:05, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed "Duchy" to "Duke" for comprehension purposes; outlined that John was made duke and was permitted to keep the title for life. As to why Głogów was part of Hungary, one can access the link. I don't think we need to explore that any further and go "off topic". Merangs (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Education[edit]

  • Drawing from his personal experience, ... Delete, or alternatively explain it.
Casimir IV was not destined to inherit the throne after Jogaila; he was also poorly educated and most likely illiterate, but it's to much out of context for this article so I deleted it. Merangs (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In September 1467, chronicler and historian Johannes Longinus (Polish: Jan Długosz) had been entrusted with tutoring the royal children, including young John. By whom? Why do you use the past perfect?
Changed to past continuous and by Casimir IV (already introduced in previous sentence so adding the numeral is redundant). Merangs (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Capitalize "Church" in "church laws".
Done. Merangs (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • John and his brother Alexander frequently took part in visits to the tombs of past kings and queens, aim of which was to strengthen their love and allegiance to Poland. I suggest that this sentence should be rephrased.
Done.
  • Shortly introduce Stanisław Orzechowski (e.g., 16th-century historian/scholar)
Done. Merangs (talk) 23:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ..he quickly rose to become the royal advisor and mentor.. I suggest that this text should be rephrased.
Changed to a brief factual statement "He was initially appointed royal advisor and mentor at the behest of Queen Elizabeth." Merangs (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • He further argued for the strengthening of the king's authority... Who?
Buonaccorsi. Done Merangs (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did this review stall? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
About half of my comments has remained unanswered. Borsoka (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka: - sincere apologies but I am currently caught up with work and other duties. @Piotrus: would you be able to help at all? Merangs (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka: - Hi again. I think that I have answered all of the above queries, questions and remarks. Could you please see? Merangs (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Merangs: I suggest you should ask for a copyedit at the Guild of Copyeditors ([3]) before I continue my review. Borsoka (talk) 01:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka: - Copy edit has been requested. Merangs (talk) 02:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka: - A copy edit has been completed. Merangs (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your notice. I think I can complete the review in Sunday. Borsoka (talk) 14:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resuming the review[edit]

  • Chronology is still a problem: his rule in Glogau is mentioned before his education is completed.
  • ...Lithuanian nobility and minorities... Minorities? Could you clarify it?
  • ...would threaten their sovereignty Sovereignty? I assume their power/authority/hegemony.
  • ...as the Jagiellonians possessed no blood relations... Consider introducing the Jagiellonians as Jogaila's descendants.
  • ...the Piasts, who de facto ruled since the creation of statehood in AD 966 Why "de facto"? After 1370, the Piasts de facto ruled only Mazovia.
  • Why Ladislaus III instead of Władysław III?
  • ...his younger son Casimir... Perhaps "his younger son (John's father) Casimir"?
  • ...Casimir's lineage and sons to become the potential successors to both titles Why not "Casimir to unite Lithuania and Poland"?
  • ...he was initially branded as illegitimate by the Poles Why? As far as I remember he was thought to be a bastard.
  • Why Johannes Longinus instead of Jan Długos?
  • ...the princes were raised...in accordance with Church laws I do not understand the text.
  • Introduce the Union of Horodło.
  • ...Lithuania was to elect the Grand Duke by its own independent assembly of nobles in Vilnius. Consider rephrasing it.
  • Why "Polish Crown Diet" instead of "Polish Diet"?
  • In turn, the Polish Crown Diet was obliged to nominate the King of Poland Consider rephrasing it.
  • ...in the Crown ... in the Grand Duchy Why not "in Poland" and "in Lithuania"?
  • An electoral tribunal convened on 15 August 1492 in the city of Piotrków. I assume in Poland.
  • John's successful 1487 engagement during the Polish–Ottoman War (1485–1503) against the Crimean Khanate This info comes out of the blue. It should be mentioned in the previous section.
  • Hardline soldiers?
  • ...John turned to Vladislaus... Perhaps "John turned to his brother Vladislaus"? Borsoka (talk) 04:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Merangs: do you think you will have a chance to deal with my above comments in the near future? Borsoka (talk) 06:22, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka: - Hi Borsoka, apologies for the delays. Unfortunately, I won't be able to look into it until this weekend. Merangs (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I try to complete the review in two days. Borsoka (talk) 14:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...in return for favours or military support Unverified.
  • Introduce Aleksander Gieysztor.
  • Introduce Byron Sherwin.
  • Do not link Christianity.
  • Introduce Mazovia and its relationship with the Polish Crown at the beginning of section "Intervention in Mazovia...", or in a separate "Background" section.
  • Delink Piast when it is mentioned for the second time in section "Intervention in Mazovia..."
  • ...absolute sovereignty over East-Central Europe. Why absolute sovereignty instead of sovereignty? Over East-Central Europe? Does the term refer to Poland?
  • ... Janusz II died heirless ... He died childless because his brother could have been his heir.
  • ...his brother Konrad hurried to secure his disputed succession... Disputed by whom and why? On what did John I Albert establish his claim to Masovia?
  • Why did John I Albert capture Płock? I assume that the local bishop died because you mention that a new bishop is elected. If this is the case, the death of the bishop should be mentioned, because the election of the new bishop comes out of the blue.
  • ... ecclesiastical city of Płock... What does it mean? I assume the city was Janusz II's seat.
  • ...primary bishopric... What does it mean?
  • Introduce Moldavia and its relationship with the Polish Crown at the beginning of section "Invasion of Moldavia", or in a separate "Background" section
  • Do not link Christendom.
  • When Stephen III is first mentioned, introduce him as prince of Moldavia.
  • Why did John Cicero attend the conference?
  • Mention in brackets that Leutschau is now Levoča in Slovakia.
  • ...was met with staunch resistance from the Hungarians Why?
  • Delink Moldavia when it is mentioned for the second time.
  • ...civil taxes... What is a civil tax?
  • The true motive behind his personal crusade was concealed, and all religious dimensions were excluded. What were his true motives? Why did he hide them and why were religious dimensions hidden?
  • Be consequent when referring to John I Albert's brother (Cardinal Frederick or Cardinal Frederick Jagiellon).
  • Did Stephen III persuaded Alexander of Lithuania not to participate in the campaign or the Lithuanian noblemen did not want to invade Moldavia?
  • Who was the Ottoman sultan?
  • ...suffered from disease ... What kind of disease?
  • A truce was signed. Between whom?
  • A truce was signed. At the Battle of the Cosmin Forest in Bukovina, the Moldavians routed the retreating Poles... Was the Moldavian attack a breach of the truce?
  • Mention in brackets that Lwów is now Lviv in Ukraine.
  • A link to Prussia? I guess only parts of Prussia were ceded to Poland.
  • ...John tried to secure his brother Frederick as Watzenrode's successor in the Holy See The Holy See is the papacy.
  • When did Johann von Tiefen die?
  • Why do you mention the German title of the Grand Master? Borsoka (talk) 05:08, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Merangs: am I wrong when supposing that you are not interested in the nomination any more? Borsoka (talk) 04:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka: - Apologies, but I am unable to complete the above questions alone and within the month due to outside activities and work. As I have received no aid from other Wikipedians linked to WikiProject Poland, I suggest that this nomination comes to a close. Merangs (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am really sorry for it but I understand it. RL is sometimes demanding. I hope you will have time to complete the article in the near future. Borsoka (talk) 02:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Merangs Just a passing comment that I might have been able to help if I was pinged. I did have this page watchlisted but I wasn't monitoring it. I don't think anyone from WPPOLAND new this was falling behind... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:56, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE - Copy Editing[edit]

On behalf of the Guild Of Copy Editors, I will be copy editing this article. Merangs has requested the copy edit. Please refrain from editing this article until the copy edit has been completed. 多多123 (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit statuses will be posted under this message: 多多123 (talk) 11:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Working 多多123 (talk) 11:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done 多多123 (talk) 11:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)多多123 (talk) 11:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_I_Albert&oldid=1207835220"