Talk:Mary of Hungary (governor of the Netherlands)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Mary of Hungary (governor of the Netherlands) 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.
August 29, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Royalty and Nobility (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Germany (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Former countries / Holy Roman Empire  (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Holy Roman Empire task force.
 
WikiProject Silesia (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Silesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Silesia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Austria (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Women's History (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Hungary (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Requested move to Mary of Austria, Queen of Hungary[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: page moved. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


Mary of Austria (1505–1558)Mary of Austria, Queen of Hungary — Please, who could argue that she is better known as someone born in 1505 than as a woman who was Queen of Hungary?

On 3 May 2010, I moved the article to Mary of Austria, Queen of Hungary because the years of birth and death are of no use for a person who knows nothing about her. If a reader wants to find the article about a Mary of Austria who served as Queen of Hungary, will the title Mary of Austria (1505–1558) help him/her more than Mary of Austria, Queen of Hungary would? If a reader searches for the article or browses Category:Archduchesses of Austria, the proposed title will be much more helpful as a way of disambiguation. The community has agreed in several similar cases that we should use the maiden name and the marital title instead of the years of birth and death (see, for example, Talk:Margaret of Burgundy, Duchess of Bavaria).

The proposed title is not against any guideline. WP:NCNT says that we should use maiden names for past consorts. The proposed title uses the maiden name but also uses the marital title because disambiguation is neccessary. No guideline forbids that. Years of birth and death should be used only when nothing else can be used. Surtsicna (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Support There is no longer an automatic presumption in favour of using consorts' maiden names. We already had a similar move discussion with a "Margaret", this may be the least awkward way of disambiguating queens with very common names like "Mary". PatGallacher (talk) 22:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:Margaret of Burgundy, Duchess of Bavaria for the discussion I referred to. PatGallacher (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment I agree but wouldn't Maria of Austria, Queen of Hungary be better. Mary is an English version/translation of the Latin Maria. The name Mary is not used after the Middle Ages to refer to women outside of Britain.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  • There is an exception to every "rule" - this Maria is actually called Mary. For example, all English language sources cited in the article refer to her as Mary. This book also calls her Mary, which is significant because some other names are not Anglicized. The list is very long.[1] The sources which mention Maria of Austria almost always refer to her niece, Maria of Austria, Holy Roman Empress. Surtsicna (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Not necessarily, in this person's case Queen of Hungary was her highest title, in the other case Empress was her highest. Although, maybe this article should have a hatnote to the other. I continue to support this move request. PatGallacher (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
    • The Empress was Queen of Hungary just as much as her aunt was. We could just as well call this woman Mary of Austria - we would still fail at disambiguating them properly. How do you feel about Mary of Austria (governer)? Surtsicna (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Well for a start you should spell it "governor". This is one of these situations where you have to do a trade-off between various factors, no solution is devoid of problems. I still think "Queen of Hungary" is the least problematic, we are disambiguating her from her niece by calling the niece "Maria" and "Holy Roman Empress". PatGallacher (talk) 22:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
        • Thank you for spelling correction; the word is spelled guverner in my language and the feminine form in English is governess => my misspelling of governor. Anyway, having gone through several books (listed in the Bibliography section), it seems that by far the most common name is actually Mary of Hungary! If only that name wasn't already occupied. Now, if we are going to keep calling her Mary of Austria, and if we don't have to remove every bit of ambiguity, we could just as well call her simply Mary of Austria. Her niece, after all, is almost always called Maria and not Mary. Surtsicna (talk) 10:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support the move to Mary of Austria, Queen of Hungary. As Surtsicna says, dates are unsatisfactory, and should only be used when no other names or titles will suffice. Failing Queen of Hungary, why not Mary Habsburg of Austria?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Because her namesake niece was just as much member of the House of Habsburg :( My main worry right now is the fact that this woman is best known as Mary of Hungary (which is probably why the French and German Wikis call her Mary of Hungary). All biographies of her are entitled Mary of Hungary. But that name is ambigious as well. Oh. Surtsicna (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
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.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mary of Austria, Queen of Hungary/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I'll be reviewing this article for possible GA status. My review should be posted shortly. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Doing..., will continue in the morning. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I've decided to place this article on hold to allow time for the below issues to be addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Writing and formatting[edit]

  • Don't use contractions in article text except where quoting
    • Yes check.svg Done, I suppose. I'll go through the article once again to check for more contractions.
  • You've currently got a mixture of British and American English = pick one and stick to it
    • I have requested help here.
      • I have given the article one copy-edit pass and did not spot any instances of British/American English that conflict. If you could you point out the ones you noticed that would be great. Thanks. --Diannaa (Talk) 21:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Well, the most obvious one is that it uses both "traveled" and "travelled". It also uses "skillful", which is American, whereas "defences" is British.
          • Thanks. --Diannaa (Talk) 21:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
            • I have now finished the copy edits. --Diannaa (Talk) 17:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Please add WP:PDATA
    • Yes check.svg Done
  • Is it possible to insert information about her governorship in the infobox?
    • Certainly. Yes check.svg Done
  • Prose would benefit from a quick read-through - there are several instances of missing articles and similar errors. Perhaps inquire at WP:GOCE?
  • "posthumously-born Archduchess Catherine" - I'm not sure I understand this. My interpretation would be that she was born dead, but then it wouldn't make sense to say she remained at Castile. Could you re-word for clarity?
    • Catherine was born after her father's death. I have linked to the article posthumous birth.
  • "This passion will later be demonstrated" - check tense, as this will not happen in the future
    • Yes check.svg Done
  • "Austria's ambassador, Andrea de Borgo, was accredited to the Queen" - I'm not sure what this means. Did the queen appoint the ambassador?
    • I suppose; the source says: "her court...formed a power-base for the Hapsburg interests represented by the ambassador Andrea de Borgo, who was actually accredited to her."
      • Well, you could say "The appointment of Austria's...", but you'd probably be better off being direct and saying "The Queen appointed Austria's ambassador, Andrea de Borgo" or similar
        • Yes check.svg Done
  • "Mary negotiated significant authority and influence" - do you mean she has authority and influence?
    • I wanted to say that she had acquired significant authority and influence. The source used the word negotiated so I thought it made sense. Would it be better to replace it with the word acquired?
      • Either use "acquired" or add "for herself" to the end of the sentence
        • Yes check.svg Done
  • Explain or link potentially unfamiliar terms like "maître de chappelle"
    • Yes check.svg Done
  • Don't start sentences with "But"
    • Yes check.svg Done

Accuracy and verifiability[edit]

  • Consider putting the footnotes into two columns
  • "This act caused great dismay of Mary's brother Ferdinand" - source?
    • It's already cited - citation number 9. Link: [2] The citation covers every sentence in the paragraph, save for the last (which is covered by another citation). Should I change something about it?
  • "Though she was relieved when her Hungarian regency ended, Mary soon experienced financial troubles, illnesses and loneliness" - source?
    • Already there, citation number 12. It covers the entire paragraph.[3]
  • "such affairs need a person wiser and older" - source?
    • Also covered by citation number 12, which can be found at the end of the paragraph that contains that quote.[4]
  • "Mary determinedly opposed this decision, explaining to Charles that Christina was too young for consummation of the marriage" - source?
    • As cited at the end of the paragraph - Jansen, pages 100-101.[5]
  • "he had learned that Mary could not easily be bullied, especially not in matters which affected her personally" - source?
    • Already cited (citation number 2).[6]
  • "she never wore anything but black after her husband's death" - source?
    • A translation of [7]. It is already mentioned that she mourned Louis all her life and that's sourced, so we can remove that claim if it's a problem.
      • Since that image description is also unsourced, you can't really include the claim
  • "She was afraid that Eleanor's death would leave her alone in the country whose customs she did not know" - source?
    • Already cited. The entire paragraph is sourced (citation number 25).
      • Okay. For many of these it's unclear whether the cited source supports the whole paragraph or not. For most of these, I think you're okay as-is, with a couple of exceptions: "such affairs need a person wiser and older", which as a direct quote is best cited immediately; "he had learned that Mary could not easily be bullied, especially not in matters which affected her personally", though not a direct quote, is such an opinionated statement that it's probably best to repeat the citation
        • Yes check.svg Done
  • "Iongh" -> "de Iongh"
    • Yes check.svg Done
  • "Koenigsberger considers Mary's reputation of sympathy for Lutheranism "much-exaggerated"" - if you're going to use the author's name in the text, you should include their full name and a brief description of their credentials, ie "Austrian historian Helmut Georg Koenigsberger considers...", or whatever his credentials are
    • Yes check.svg Done? He was an Emeritus Professor of History at King's College, University of London. Should that be mentioned or is "historian Helmut Georg Koenigsberger" enough?
      • Just "historian" is fine, thanks
  • Only sources used in "Footnotes" should appear in "Bibliography" - others should be moved into a "Further reading" section
    • Yes check.svg Done
  • Use dashes instead of hyphens for page ranges
    • Yes check.svg Done
  • "Cambridge University of Illinois Press" - double-check this
    • Yes check.svg Done
  • Piret - translate place name into English
    • Yes check.svg Done

Broad[edit]

  • "she took control over a powerful political faction and neutralised another one" - could you be more specific?
    • Unfortunatly, I can't, as the source itself is not specific. Apparently, that action of hers is mentioned because the historian wanted to describe how much political power she held.
      • Okay. In that case, just remove "one" from the end of the sentence.
        • Yes check.svg Done
  • A bit too much emphasis on her "happy marriage"
    • The article says their marriage was happy twice. Should I remove that statement from the lead or...? At one point, I even though there was not enough emphasis on her happy marriage, as her biographers tend to write about it a lot. I suppose it's because arranged marriages are rarely happy.
      • It says that exact phrase twice, that they fell in love, that they had little time to spend together, that she continuously mourned him, that she had truly loved him...all in all, it's a bit too much.
        • I understand. I got rid of some of those stuff[8] but had to keep the last two you had cited (though with some modifications). I am not sure how to reword the "The couple fell in love upon being united in Buda" sentence. Any suggestions?

Neutrality[edit]

  • Check out WP:W2W and WP:ASF - avoid editorial bias
  • Make sure that everything is written in an encyclopedic tone - certain phrasings are a bit essay-like

Could you please be more specific about these two advices? Is the article biased in favour of Mary? Or is there too much emphasis on her ugliness and cynicism? Could you please cite one essay-like sentence (so that I know what to fix)?

I wouldn't say it's overtly biased either in favour of or against Mary. The issue is more the tone - it's flowery and opinionated in places, and doesn't reflect what we would expect from a neutral encyclopedia article, which is generally more factual and academic. You use some words listed at W2W (great, feel). You talk a lot about people's feelings - they're bitter, they're dismayed, they're reluctant, etc. Per WP:ASF, you should avoid asserting opinions or emotions in favour of facts - instead of saying Charles "refused to listen", say he "proceeded despite her objections". Also, be wary of supporting stereotypes, like "truly feminine" - instead ", qualities considered feminine by contemporary society".
I see. I've tried to fix the problem - [9].

Stability[edit]

No issues noted

Images[edit]

  • Despite their shortened nature, captions should be written in clear and correct prose
    • Which images have captions written in unclear or incorrect prose? I've fixed some mistakes - such as "[a] portrait", if that's what you meant.
  • Don't sandwich text between images and a side-bar quote
    • Yes check.svg Done
  • Why does the coat of arms have no caption to explain it?
    • Yes check.svg Done
  • Avoid copying the description of an image in the caption
    • Which image's caption is copied from the description? Some captions are so simple that it's hard to reword them (eg. images in "Queen of Hungary and Bohemia" section).
      • The one involving the colour of her clothing is a direct translation of the description
        • I've removed that sentence altogether. It was unsourced and not really important.
  • Not required, but it would be helpful to translate some of the image description pages into English
    • Yes check.svg Done
  • File:Kasteel van Binche.JPG has the wrong licensing tag - this is a photo of a 2D work of art, therefore the photographer does not hold copyright
    • How can I fix that? Am I allowed to change the licensing tag myself?
      • Yes, you are, so long as you explain your reasoning either in your edit summary or on the talk page.
        • Yes check.svg Done

Move to Mary of Hungary (governor)[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: page moved to Mary of Hungary (governor of the Netherlands). Of the alternatives suggested, this one seems to be one that satisfies the most concerns raised in the discussion. I would also add that there is truly no need to tell the closing admin to ignore any particular argument. We're good at this, thanks. - GTBacchus(talk) 17:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)



Mary of Austria, Queen of HungaryMary of Hungary (governor) — "Mary of Austria, Queen of Hungary" is highly ambigious. Her niece and namesake was just as much Queen of Hungary and Bohemia as she was.

The most common name, without any doubt, is Mary of Hungary. That is the name of all the biographies used here as references and the name used by most of the other presented sources. The books not used as sources but mentioned in the Further reading section also call her Mary of Hungary. Almost every book about her and every book that mentions her calls her Mary of Hungary. britannica is among them. It is by far the most common name even according to Google Books search results: "Mary of Hungary" Netherlands gets 5.670, while "Mary of Austria" Netherlands gets miserable 330.

Since "Mary of Hungary" on its own is quite ambigious (due to the existence of a queen regnant of Hungary named Mary), it makes sense to add a disambiguator that describes her best. She is best known for being one of the most able governors of the Netherlands ever. WP:Common name is the most basic rule about naming articles and it is clearly in favour of the proposed title.

(I would have nothing against Mary of Hungary (governor of the Netherlands), though this one might be more suitable because it is shorter.) Surtsicna (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

This Mary of Hungary is considerably more notable than the earlier one. She can be Mary of Hungary without disambiguation. If she needs disambiguation, it should be something that appears in the sources, for example Mary of Hungary, regent of the Netherlands. Kauffner (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not quite sure that she is significantly more notable than the last Angevin monarch of Hungary. Either way, the word "governor" appears in the sources as well. Mary of Hungary, Governor of the Netherlands, Mary of Hungary, regent of the Netherlands, Mary of Hungary (regent of the Netherlands), Mary of Hungary (regent) and Mary of Hungary (governor of the Netherlands) are all alternatives I would support. Surtsicna (talk) 13:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Mary, What? of Hungary. The title avoids an ugly disambiguator. --Bermicourt (talk) 11:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Mary, Queen of Hungary is not only ambigious but also taken, so the ugly disambiguator suggestion is still better. Surtsicna (talk) 13:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
    • If Bermicourt doesn't have anything more to add, the argument should be ignored. Surtsicna (talk) 14:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Don't take on role of judge - that's for the neutral administrator to decide. The fact that Mary, Queen of Hungary is taken isn't a ground to remove the title; in fact, it's inconsistent not to use it. What we need is a better disambiguator e.g. a second title for both of them. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
        • I shouldn't wait nine days for you to respond. Anyway, if you know a title that disambiguates this Mary from both her niece the Empress and the Angevin monarch, please say what that title is. I don't believe such title exists. There's nothing inconsistent about the lack of the word queen in the title; it's inconsistent to put the title into the article about the Angevin monarch because the articles about the other monarchs in Category:Hungarian monarchs are named X of Y. Besides, the sources call her Mary of Hungary. Not Mary, Queen of Hungary, just Mary of Hungary - because she is notable as governor of the Netherlands, not as a Hungarian queen. Please provide a constructive argument and suggest an acceptable alternative if you have one. Surtsicna (talk) 19:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per arguments given, but decidedly prefer "governor of the Netherlands" as the disambiguator; just "(governor)" implies we mean governor of Hungary.--Kotniski (talk) 07:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
    • She was a governor of Hungary as well, in the name of her other brother. Surtsicna (talk) 13:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's just confusing.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Could you please explain what is confusing? She was Mary of Hungary. Everyone knows her as such. Only the current title can be confusing because it's ambigious and extremely rarely used. Simply saying that "it's just confusing" is not an acceptable argument. Surtsicna (talk) 11:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
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.

Improperly identified image in article[edit]

I have removed this image from the article. The museum it's housed in has identified the sitter as Anne of Hungary and Bohemia, Mary's sister-in-law, and comparison of this portraits to other portraits of the two women seems corroborative. I've also nominated the image for deletion on Commons, as the image already exists under correct identification there. --NellieBly (talk) 06:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)