Talk:Jadwiga of Poland

Old talk

Jadwiga was king of Poland, not queen :) I know this is surprising, but she was crowned as _king_ :) -- I made the name Jadwiga throughout the article. Switching back and forth is confusing. There are other St. Hedwigs, but I don't think there are any other St. Jadwigas. There may be, though. --MichaelTinkler

I know, but then we should list her as St Hedwig of Hungary also, seperate or whatever. user:H.J.

In fact it's spelled "Hedvig" in Hungarian... these differences in spelling can crack one up so I think we should just call her Jadwiga. As for her being king, what about calling her "ruling queen" or "queen (on her own right)"? Alensha 00:04, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Explanation of king vs. queen issue added. --Taw

---

To MichaelTinkler This St.Hedwig (Jadwiga)is also Saint Hedwig of Hungary. Nowhere is she listed as St Jadwiga. Here is a website showing St Hedwig www.katolikus.hu/hun-saints/index.html Please look into that. Thanks user:H.J.

Please, HJ, look into 'google.com'. Enter 'saint jadwiga'. Hit return. --MichaelTinkler

---

All full of Polish language or American Polish Nobility Societies and a portrait of Saint Jadwiga spelled : Hedwigis. user:H.J.

Oh, good! You're beginning to use sources carefully rather than just typing. Yes, Poles call her Jadwiga. I'm willing to bet that the Catholic Church in Poland calls her Jadwiga, too. --MichaelTinkler

---

MT Of course they do and rightly so ,in Poland. But it is beginning to look like this supposedly English language wikipedia is becoming a Polish wikipedia. And of course political correctness will have us pronounce :Hedwigis as Jatwiga. Incidently one of my names is Hedwig from my Silesian grandmother. I suppose I should pronounce it Jatwiga. But then again I believe Jadwiga is rather Lithuanian ? user:H.J.

Well, isn't Hedwig a German name first of all ? Lysy 19:52, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

How is she named in traditional English history? (Yes, we call her Jadwiga, since she was queen of Poland, had much Polish blood in veins, and that's how was she called when she lived in Poland)szopen

I think that she is Hedwig in English. I think Michael's right and we need to differentiate, so how about either Jadwiga (which is better for Jadwiga the queen -- or we can call her Hedwig of Poland. JHK

I have nothing against Polish names and I don't find any difficulty in pronouncing or spelling Jadwiga, but if we have articles for Zoroaster and Pope John Paul II even though these are obviously the anglicized versions of the original Avestan Zarathustra and Latin Ioannes Paulus II, shouldn't we keep all names in Wikipedia in their anglicized versions for simplicity's sake? If we don't we'll soon be dealing with Motecuzoma (Montezuma) and Salah al-Din (Saladin).Bernalj90 (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

We use anglicized names when those are the better-known names among English speakers. WP:COMMONNAME. Anglicization is, with the notable exception of Popes, far less common now than it used to be. So the anglicized name will be the most correct one to use for historical figures that have long been famous in the English-speaking world, but ones who were more obscure will usually not be anglicized. Jadwiga is famous in Europe, but not so much in the Anglosphere. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 23:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not native speaker, but shouldn't that read "without evidence of any disability?" And again, she was crowned as _king_ (krol) not _queen_ (krolowa) szopen

I am an English-language-only Polka (FYI, the biggest concentration of Poles outside of Poland is that of the United States, where we speak English. - Don't assume this page is just for non-Poles just because it's in English.), and I would ask that only the legitimate names of my people's historical figures, modern day famous persons, places, etc. be used. I have no interest in being taught my own heritage wrong, nor in seeing non-Poles learn it wrong. I am required to learn British history correct, but British descendants think they can teach "alternative" versions of other people's history? Talk about a racist double-standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.98.51.63 (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The other St. Jadwiga (Hedwig)

There is another St. Jadwiga (Hedwig). She lived c.1174-1243 and was the daughter of Count Berthold IV of Andechs, Bavaria. She was married to Duke Henry of Silesia at the age of 12. The two of them founded numerous monasteries and hospitals. She acted as peacemaker when two of her sons went to war over territorial claims. When her husband died she entered one of the Cistercian monasteries she had founded. She died on October 15, 1243, and was canonized in 1267. She is the patron saint of Silesia.

Move

I moved Jadwiga to Hedwig for consistency: all other Polish monarchs are under their English names. Besides Queen Hedwig outgoogles Queen Jadwiga. -- Kpalion 17:44, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It only outgoogles it because there were multiple Queen Hedwigs. A quick once-over of unreliable google results is not the kind of "valid sources" Wikipedia cares about.

Queen vs King

Because the problem is only with Polish contributors, I will write in Polish.

Chciałbym zaprotestować przeciwko używaniu sformułowania King Hedwig, King Jadwiga itp. w angielskiej WP i zachęcić do pisania Queen Hedwig. Motywy są następujące:

1. Polska końcówka -owa oznacza żonę, a więc królowa to żona króla. Jednakże angielskie słowo queen może znaczyć zarówno żonę króla (queen consort), jak i króla-kobietę (queen regnant). Dlatego w języku angielskim nie ma przeszkód, by o Jadwidze pisać Queen Hedwig.
2. King Hedwig, a tym bardziej King Jadwiga, może być bardzo mylące, zwłaszcza dla kogoś, kto nie wie, że to żeńskie imę i może pomyśleć, iż chodzi o mężczyznę.
3. Nawet w polszczyźnie bardzo rzadko można się spotkać z formą król Jadwiga. Wszyscy na codzień mówią i piszą o niej królowa Jadwiga, nawet jeśli wiedzą, że jej oficjalny tytuł brzmiał "król".
4. Informacja o męskim tytule Jadwigi ma jednak raczej ciekawostkowy charakter i w zupełności wystarczy jedno zdanie na ten temat w artykule jej poświęconym. Nie ma najmniejszej potrzeby, by upychać to wszędzie w WP, gdzie pojawia się wzmianka na jej temat.

– Kpalion (talk) 15:45, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. Tak jak sowa to żona sowa, a pomidorowa to żona pomidora. A tak na serio: w europejskiej tradycji prawnej tylko w niewielu krajach przyjęło się przyzwolenie na dziedziczenie tytułu monarszego przez kobiety - stąd termin queen może być rozumiany dwojako. Z terminem king nie ma tego problemu, bo matriarchat się na naszym kontynencie nie przyjął. Oczywiście można przyjąć pisownię z queen, ale gwoli ścisłości należałoby dookreślić o jaki typ queen chodzi. Jeśli zgodzimy się na pisownię Jadwiga, queen regnant of Poland lub coś podobnego - jestem za. Samo queen of Poland jednak mi nie pasuje.
2. Racja, to jest chyba najlepszy argument za dookreśleniem. Inaczej albo komuś nieobznajomionemu ze słowiańszczyzną umknie płeć Jadwigi, albo też jej ranga.
3. Po to się sprawdza w encyklopedii, by znaleźć wiedzę dokładną, a nie potoczną. Potocznie Polskę określa się mianem Trzeciej Rzeczypospolitej - co nie znaczy że jest to termin obowiązujący oficjalnie. Podobnie jest też z powszechnymi błędami gramatycznymi - wszyscy wymawiają nazwisko Piłsudskiego jako Piłsucki, co nie znaczy że mamy zacząć tak pisać.
4. Dla mnie jest to informacja pierwszorzędnej wagi. Ciekawostką jest to, że była to jedyna władczyni w naszej historii, ale już to że polskim władcą była kobieta - niekoniecznie (nie wiem czy dość jasno się wyraziłem, mam nadzieję że zrozumiesz).

Reasumując: queen Jadwiga nie, king Jadwiga tak, queen regnant Jadwiga - w ostateczności. Co Ty na to? Halibutt 18:03, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Queen regnant Jadwiga Lysy 19:36, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oficjalny tytuł Jadwigi brzmiał Hedvig Rex Poloniæ, a więc "król", "king", a nie różnego typu pod- i nad- królowa, i tego się trzymajmy. A że w Anglii mieli "Queen regnant" to już ich problem i folklor. Przypominam także, że Jadwiga nie była jedyną władczynią, KRÓLEM Polski była też Anna Jagiellonka.

Zapraszam też do rzucenia okiem na dyskusje w niemieckiej Wikipedii Diskussion:Hedwig_I._(Polen) po angielsku :) Merewyn 12:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Queen regnant Jadwiga

I'm about to replace the occurences of Hedwig throughout the article with Jadwiga. This is how she called herself and there is no reason for using her name in German language in English wikipedia.

Lysy 11:00, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's no reason for using her name in German, some reason for using her name in Polish, but wikipedia policy is to use her name in English, which seems to be Hedwig. Eugene van der Pijll 11:11, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, is Hedwig English indeed ? No doubt about it being a German name. But does it have any etymology in English ? Besides, do you really think that translating people's names into another language is a good idea ? Should Jacques Chirac be renamed James in English wikipedia and Jakob in German ? :-) Lysy 13:13, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it has an English etymology: it is copied from the German name. Whether translating names is a good idea, is beside the point. Whether it is commonly done for a certain individual, is the only thing that is important here on wikipedia. Eugene (Note: that is not my original name; it's the English translation) 13:20, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, then let's agree that English usage is the key then. "queen Hedwig of Poland" has 23 google hits, while "queen Jadwiga of Poland" has 762 google hits. Does this convince you ? Lysy 14:26, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not really. "queen jadwiga" has 660 hits (very strange, as it should include all 762 hits for "queen jadwiga of poland); "queen hedwig" has 679, but not all about this Hedwig. However, "saint hedwig" has 853 hits, against 366 for "saint jadwiga". So I'm undecided, really. For consistency with the page title, I'd go with Hedwig here; and for consistency with the other Polish kings I would not move the article. But the two names seem to be about equally common. Eugene van der Pijll 15:12, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, your results are easy to explain. There was another person called "Saint Hedwig", she was German, born in Bavaria. So searching for "Saint Hedwig" does not give any meaningful indication as to the usage in English regarding the Polish queen. As for "queen Jadwiga", there's something strange with google, because I'm getting 996 hits on this search (in advanced mode), while only 696 for "queen hedwig" (and this one again including a number of other Hedwigs). I'm far from assuming that google has the ultimate wisdom, but the results for the very person we are discussing here were clearly in favour for "Jadwiga", by quite significant factor of 762:23 = over 33 times. As I tried to explain, your example searches seem misleading, because the results are hard to interpret (as they catch other persons as well). Similarly, I have no doubt that search for James would give more hits than for Jacques, but this does not imply that Jacques Chirac should get translated to James. However, you'd need to search for "Jacques Chirac" to find it. Having "Hedwig" instead of "Jadwiga" here seems unnecesarily confusing (as our discussion proves). Lysy 18:41, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, actually I lied: check the link. My search for "saint Hedwig" included the search term "poland", and excluded "andechs", so they are mostly links to the correct person. If you search for "saint hedwig" only, you get 35000 hits, mainly to towns in the U.S. which are named for one of the two Hedwigs, possibly proving that Hedwig was their usual name in English. But I don't know which of the two it refers to. Eugene van der Pijll 21:07, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Still, adding "Poland" to the query does not do the trick, as the other Hedwig apart of being a saint, also bore the title of Duchess of Poland :-) Check the results for yourself ... She was just canonized much, much earlier, hence more sources referring to her than to our Jadwiga in question here. Lysy 21:24, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unless there're any more arguments against it, I'll move/rename the article and its contents to Jadwiga in order to avoid further confusion. Lysy 07:36, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We should use English names for monarchs, that's a general standard. The English version of our queen's name happens to be Hedwig. It's the same as the German version? So what? English is also a Germanic language, no surprise it's got more in common with German than with Polish. We're not going to replace Chritopher Columbus with Cristobal Colon, and we shouldn't replace Hediwg with Jadwiga either. – Kpalion (talk) 17:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not all the names of the monarchs have commonly used English translations. Blindly following the rule of translating each name into English causes confusion (like here with the two Hedwigs) and make the monarchs unrecognizable. The rule should be to follow the current prevailing usage in English instead of forcing new ideas. As explained above, google shows that the largely prevailing English usage for this monarch (queen Jadwiga of Poland) is "Jadwiga", while the prevailing usage for Hedwig of Andechs is "Hedwig". These should not be confused. Lysy 18:28, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If there are no more arguments in favour of "Hedwig", I'm going to move the article to "Jadwiga of Poland". In googlewar "Jadwiga of Poland" wins against "Hedwig of Poland" by a factor of 10. Lysy 05:52, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All right, renamed. Lysy 07:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I support name change. Google argument is important on Wiki, and I have never heard of 'Hedwig'. Besides, in 95% cases the articles were [[Hedwig|Jadwiga]] anyway. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How can Wikipedia have a policy of using English names for people who do not have English names? Neither name is English. She is not English. There is no English name to be used. And, if Wikipedia factually has such a racist policy I will boycott Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.98.51.63 (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC) As for the utterly immature and off-topic bout that went down about google search results... 1. Random Google search results never has been, and never will be a valid source of reliable information. 2. The Google search engine gives each user custom results, depending on their result clicking history. That makes arguments about Google search results invalid even if it weren't off-topic. But, seeing as it was off-topic and illigitimate sourcing, it does nothing but cause one to question the validity of edits and things done on Wikipedia by the people who were guilty of such ar argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.98.51.63 (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

events in Hungary in Jadwiga's lifetime dealing with her own family

This os Jadwiga's personal biography article, basically. It is not restricted to events in Poland. (And, also events in Poland are impacted by events elsewhere). I feel that at least for Jadwiga's personal bio, it is rather important to explain happenings in nearby Hungary, particularly those happenings which deal with members of Jadwiga's blood family, or the potential inheritance Jadwiga could have had in Hungary etc. For example, there presumably was some feelings in 1395-99 (in Poland) to assert her rights after the death of her childless sister. Succession rights were important in those times. For these reasons, I believe the removals made by Choess 3.6.2005 are inappropriate and those edits should be be reverted. 62.78.105.49 06:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, the parts I removed were an exact duplicate of the text you put in the article on Mary of Hungary, which is linked in this article. If you have documentary evidence that Jadwiga and Jogaila advanced a claim on Hungary, then add something about that; but I don't think it's appropriate to add lots of text on non-existent succession claims, whatever their hereditary strength, and duplicating the same paragraph across multiple articles defeats the entire point of hyperlinks in a wiki. Choess 06:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm somewhat perturbed on one point in 'legends and veneration' where it states that her carrying food in her apron would have incurred a death sentence...was she not a queen (or king) for that matter? Who would have carried out a death sentence on an anointed monarch in that day and time? It makes no sense whatsoever!Babyboy160 (talk) 03:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Santa Jadwiga

It appears that Mareczek9 just moved Jadwiga of Poland to Santa Jadwiga. Google returns a mere 14 pages for the search "santa jadwiga", none of which is in English. Moreover, in English the word Santa is used when referring to only one saint -- Saint Nicholas, as Santa Claus. I strongly recommend that this unilateral change be reversed. pmj 01:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and moved it back. There is a proposal to change all names of Polish monarchs on Talk:List of Polish monarchs, and I don't object to a renaming of this page, but "Santa Jadwiga" is clearly not the right name. Eugene van der Pijll 10:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Name?

What kind of name is "Jadwiga Angevin"? Adam Bishop 05:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Answer: nonsense. --Ghirla | talk 14:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Not just nonsense, but Big Time Nonsense, and my experience with the editor who made the change of her name, has a prediliction to be clueless when it comes to names and their corollaries in the English language. Dr. Dan 17:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I believe Logologist went a step too far in creating Polish-English names. Could the article be possibly moved back to where it was after the discussion above (that is to Jadwiga of Poland)? Piotrus? Halibutt 20:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

When I first encountered the article it was Jadwiga. That suffices for me. I visited her sarcophagus many times and was always moved by childrens' tributes to her. They were motivated by love for her and their country. Unlike the phony propaganda showing Lenin and Stalin, bouncing children on their knees, and being concerned for their welfare, while shooting their parents and grandparents in the back of their necks. Dr. Dan 23:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Jadwiga or "Jadwiga of Poland" would be more appropriate. --Elonka 16:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Is the name version Jadviga, i.e simple v instead of double w, used? in which languages? Shilkanni 01:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently in Slovakia: "Namedays in Slovakia," October 17. logologist|Talk 05:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

In any other language??

And, are there versions in Polish that write or pronounce with simple V ?? Shilkanni 08:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

In Polish, "w" is pronounced like the German "w" and the English "v." "Jadwiga" is always written with a "w." logologist|Talk 09:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

In Polish, the letter "v" appears only in foreign words and names, particularly ones of German extraction. logologist|Talk 08:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

As a side-note: there are barely any Polish V-words of German origin. I have an impression (unsupported by anything) that most of them come from Latin rather than German, especially that German v is usually transcribed to f in Polish (cf. German: Volksdeutsche with Polish: Folksdojcz; both are pronounced the same way in both languages). Sorry for OT. //Halibutt 08:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Now, what given name? Jadwiga as used in Poland, Hungarian Hedvig as used in her home country Hungary, or Hedwig like the older St. Hedwig of Andechs she (and several en-Wiki articles, see Hedwig) was named after?

And "of Anjou" (as in cs:Hedvika z Anjou, de:Hedwig von Anjou, pl:Jadwiga Andegaweńska), "of Hungary" (also used [1]), or defaulting to "of Poland" (as in es:Eduviges I de Polonia, fr:Hedwige Ire de Pologne, it:Edvige di Polonia, nl:Hedwig van Polen, no:Jadwiga av Polen)? Curiously, the Poles call her "of Anjou", the French "of Poland".

Birthdate should also be sourced. After all, she was a princess, somebody should have bothered to record the date. Also, considering the young not-yet-teenage she was crowned and married, one year more or less makes a difference. Yet, Age of consent and Marriageable_age#Europe did not apply back then, obviously. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       14:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Jegellonian university origin

Well.. Just one thing. Jadvyga's husband Jogaila (aka Jagello) was... ? Seems to me - the KING OF RZECHPOSTPOLITA (aka Lithuanian-Polish commonwealth). Therefore, everything named JEGELLON, Jegellonian, etc actualy atributes to JOGAILA - King of Poland and Grand duke of Lithuania.

University in Cracow was founded in 1364 by the king Casimirus from the Piast dynasty, this university was called Akademia Krakowska. After the death of king Casimirus, Akademia was falling slowly into financial troubles. Jadwiga decided in the testament to give all her jewelery for the support and enlargement of Akademia to university. After Jadwiga death, king Jagiello realised her will (Jadwiga was buried with a wooden crown, the golden one went for university support) - that is why it is called Jagiellonian University, and not Akademia Krakowska anymore. Merewyn 21:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Patron Saint of Queens?

The page said that Jadwiga was "Patron Saint of Queens". I thought at first that this meant that she was the patron saint of the borough of Queens, New York. Then I realized it was probably just a spelling error.

I have changed it to say "Patron Saint of queens". I hope this was correct, and I apologize if not. -- Dominus 22:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ancestors

As this is English wikipedia and most people reading it will be reading left to right (I note the raging battle above) is there any chance that the Ancestors bit could changed so it reads left to right with her early ancestors on the left and her on the right? I'm fairly new to wiki editing and not sure how to do it. --Wozzy25 (talk) 16:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

B-class review

This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

adding her classic English-language biography (1991)

The "Further Reading" list at the end omits the one serviceable biography in English, by far the best introduction most readers of Wikipedia will ever see. Originally written by Oscar Halecki, a famous Polish historian who taught at Fordham and died in 1974, the almost-complete manuscript entitled "Jadwiga of Anjou and the Rise of East Central Europe" was edited and published in 1991 by Halecki's former student, Thaddeus Gromada, under the sponsorship of the Polish Institute of Arts and Sciences of America. It's a bit overblown, but also fairly widely available.

Scandalous NOT to list it! 2old bill (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I encourage you to add it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

"King Jadwiga"

I see certain people decided to be difficult about this in the past. As the Polish article makes clear, she was referred to as queen (królowa, regina) all the time. The "king" thing may have been a noteworthy item at the time of coronation, but clearly people did call her "queen" most of the time once they got over the shock of having coronated one.

As for "Jadwiga", this is just the modern Polish way of spelling the name Hedwig. In English, "Hedwig of Poland" seems to see just as much usage as "Jadwiga of Poland". The two are interchangeable, as in "Hedwig of Kalisz (Polish: Jadwiga Bolesławówna)". See also WP:UCN. --dab (𒁳) 08:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It may be even worse than this. The "Jadwiga, king of Poland" meme on the internet is exclusively derived from Wikipedia. On google books, "Hedvigis, Rex Poloniae" gets three hits, all of them Polish-language books, beginning in 1989 (not a single hit for the spelling Hedvigis, Rex Polonie given here). At the same time, Hedvigis, Regina Poloniae gets 783 hits, plus another 83 for Hedwigis Regina Poloniae. This has all the hallmarks of made-up nonsense incubated via the wiki. --dab (𒁳) 08:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You are certainly right. I have been correcting this nonsense ever since I got Maria Theresa to GA status. I believe that article too insisted that she was king rather than queen. See also Irene of Athens. Could you please link to the meme you mentioned? Surtsicna (talk) 13:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek and Cebr1979, I know that she was crowned "king", similarly to her sister, Mary, who was crowned "king" of Hungary. However, would you refer to a reliable source, published in English, which refers to her as King of Poland? Borsoka (talk) 06:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

That was easy.Cebr1979 (talk) 06:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

This one's my favourite.Cebr1979 (talk) 06:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Cebr1979, please read what reliable source means for WP purposes. Popular literature and self-published material do not qualify as such. Borsoka (talk) 06:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Please read that the article itself is already sourced and, just because they are not sources you can read for free online, doesn't mean you can just ignore them.Cebr1979 (talk) 06:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

(and you don't need to notify me every time you make a comment, I'll see it regardless)Cebr1979 (talk) 06:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Would you specify what reliable source (published in English) in the article refers to her as King of Poland? Borsoka (talk) 06:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

You need to be told that the little blue 2 inside brackets after the first time she's referred to as "King of Poland" means a ref is there if you click the blue 2?Cebr1979 (talk) 06:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh. I see now you deleted the ref. Pret-ty sneak-y.Cebr1979 (talk) 06:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Limiting ourselves to only English language sources is more or less confined to question of how to render somebody's name or a locale. Not for factual information. For that there is no restriction on what language sources we can use. Hence, a Polish source for the fact that she was a "king" is perfectly fine.

But if you want English language sources those are trivial to find: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] etc.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Problems with this version: [9] are that sources actually don't refer to her as "Queen regnant". Worse, it's quite likely our readers won't know what a "queen regnant" is (I'm not quite clear on it myself). It's wiki linked, but the link just takes you to "List of Polish monarch" which only adds to the confusion.

"Queen regnant" might (to the extent I understand what is meant by this) be simply incorrect. Jadwiga was crowned "king". An example of "queen regnant" would be Anna Jagiellonka. These are different things and certainly the people of the time felt that these had different political and legal ramifications.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's see your sources: (1) Jadwiga (Hedwig) d'Anjou ... Queen of Poland (!) (page 214); (2) Jadwiga "Maiden King" of Poland (not King of Poland and with apostrophes) (3) ... crowned "King of Poland" (with apostrophes, and she was c r o w n e d king) (4) ... called the first female "king" of Poland (with apostrophes, and she was c a l l e d king) (5) ... was crowned "king of Poland" (with apostrophes, and she was c r o w n e d king) (6) she was brought to Kraków to be crowned "King of Poland" (with apostrophes, and she was c r o w n e d king) (7) her official title was "king" (with apostrophes). Consequently (1) none of the cited sources state that she was King of Poland (because 6 of the 7 sources emphasize that she was crowned or called or titled king; (2) all cited sources use apostrophes ("...") when referring to her as king. Sorry, I do not understand why do you want to ignore the cited sources? Borsoka (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but it's hard to keep assuming good faith here (your resumption of the edit war right after you were reported, warned and narrowly escaped a block doesn't help either). You object to her being referred to as "king" because sources say that she was "c r o w n e d king"? How does that make sense.

And the apostrophe is there for emphasis - the writers realize that it's an unusual situation so they emphasize the noun king to make sure the reader understands it's not a typo.

She was crowned king of Poland. Her title was "king of Poland". She was king of Poland. You can try twisting that how you want but that's what it is and that's what sources say. Wikilawyering won't help.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

And your "was "King", that is Queen regnant of Poland" is pure OR and incorrect to boot. She was "queen regnant" of Poland between 1382 and 1384. She was "king" from 1384 until her death. Can we be precise and accurate here? After all this is an encyclopedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Would you refer to the reliable source which states that she was King of Poland without using the apostrophes? Would you refer to the reliable source which states that she was queen regnant of Poland between 1382 and 1384? Borsoka (talk) 21:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Would I? What does that mean?

Are you asking me to provide such sources? Well, first, the use of the apostrophe in sources has already been explained to you. And a source which calls her "king" without apostrophes is already in the article. So why are you asking? But fine, here's another [10]. And here's another [11].

As to her being "queen regnant" between 1382 and 1384, I don't really care about that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC: was she Queen of Poland, "King" of Poland or King of Poland?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I find there is consensus to describe Jadwiga as a King, and also as a Queen. The majority argument is that she is described as both in reliable sources and closely follows the logic of WP:WEIGHT though it was not sited in the RFC. AlbinoFerret 20:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

---

It is without doubt that Jadwiga was crowned King of Poland in 1384 and she was officially styled King of Poland thereafter. Modern reliable sources published in English mention that "she was crowned/called "king" of Poland", using apostrophes and past tense ([12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]). Some of the sources, including Britannica, shortly describes her as "Queen of Poland" ([19], [20]) - I guess that this is her proper modern title. I suggest that the article should begin with the following sentence: "Jadwiga ([jadˈvʲiɡa]; 1373/4 – 17 July 1399) was Queen of Poland from 1384 to her death." Furthermore, we should also mention in the lead (in the third or fourth sentence) that "She was crowned "king" in Kraków on 16 October." Thank you for your comments. Borsoka (talk) 21:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC) Here is a list of books which refer to her as Queen of Poland: [21]. Books which mention her as "King" of Poland (with apostrophes) can be found here: ([22]). Borsoka (talk) 02:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• neutral As we cannot do original research on Wikipedia, seems to me that the easiest thing to do is to call her neither. State that she was monarch or ruler of Poland and that some sources call her queen, others "king" in quotations, some "maiden king", etc. In that manner you have addressed that she was the head of state, explained the various titles and from there forward, just refer to her by name. Easily understandable to anyone and no need to worry about a possible mistranslation or misconstruction. SusunW (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
• She was crowned for the King of Poland (in regem Poloniae coronata [23]), but she used the title of Queen of Poland (Hedvigis Dei gratia regina Poloniae [24]). There is no contradiction here - two different situations and two different forms. Apparently this was a kind of catch to satisfy the condition that the only possible ruler of Poland at that time was a king. I think the safe formulation should be something like: "Jadwiga (...) was crowned in 1384 for King of Poland and used thereafter the title of Queen of Poland". Then the situation should be explained in the content of the article. Note that both calling her king only or calling her queen only is these days simply misleading. alx-pl d 23:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • If it "is without doubt that Jadwiga was crowned King of Poland in 1384 and she was officially styled King of Poland thereafter," why is this an issue? We should just call her by the title she used "when crowned and thereafter."Cebr1979 (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    • As per WP:Name and WP:NOR. Please read the reliable sources cited above: there are many sources which refer to her as Queen of Poland. Would you refer to one which mentions her as King of Poland (without using apostrophes)? Borsoka (talk) 03:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
      • There's one already in the article and I've provided two more above. Please stop pretending that these don't exist.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Yes, you added two sources published in English after my above message. please stop pretending that you had provided them before my question was raised. So, if my understanding is correct, you claim that your two sources should be preferred to the dozens of sources cited above which mention her as "king", using apostrophes? Why do you think we should accept this approach? Borsoka (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• I'd suggest checking with an official, reliable biography. Polski Slownik Biograficzny would be good (but I don't have the scan of her bio). Or any book about her. See what they say, and base our entry on that, plus a possible footnote to explain that English literature uses both. I am pretty sure Polish one uses Queen only, and overall I'd support changing the terminology in this article to queen (unless reliable sources suggest otherwise, but again, I think this probably something that can be solved via a footnote). PS. I checked the pl wiki, which is not helpful. The lead and two sentences in text use the king (król), but 90% of the text refers to her as queen (królowa), including the article's section on her (which is titled "Queen Jadwiga", and is the only one to contain the word king - in the two sentences about her being elected (in other word, the pl wiki article states, in the beginning of the section entitled Queen Jadwiga, that she was elected to be King of Poland). The section the, after the first two sentences, proceeds to call her Queen. Sigh. The lead states King, has a ref but no quote so needs verification. The section on her title does not mention the word king. Triple sigh. We need reliable sources to figure out what's happening here. Ping User:Nihil novi, User:Halibutt. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Polish literature, like English literature uses both. Usually if they're talking about her formally they use "king" although often it slips into an informal "queen".Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Note also that the Polish source that is already present in the article uses "król" so that contradicts the claim that Polish literature uses queen. Also I just reached for the closest book on Polish history to my couch. It's "Heart of Europe. The Past in Poland's Present" by Norman Davies. On page 256 Davies writes: "Jadwiga... who was crowned king (sic) in Cracow in 1384". The (sic) is in the original. Again, it's there, like the apostrophes in other sources, to make sure the reader understands that "king" is not a typo.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    • There is a lot of confusion here; including the split between encyclopedic and dictionary use of queen/king. To some degree, this is a case where sentence "Queen Jadwiga was a King" is correct. But again, I'd like to see the PSB entry. There are probably some books about her, too. Didn't Jasienica write one, for example? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support "king" and in particular the version [25] which existed before User:Borsoka started this whole unnecessary kertfule with their edit warring. Here's why: as User:Halibutt pointed out more than ten years ago ([26]), although he did this in Polish, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to educate. We do no favors to our readers by "dumbing down" the material because we think that the unusual situation regarding Jadwiga might "confuse them" or something. And the situation WAS unusual. She was not "queen regnant" (that's a particular user's OR). She was officially a "king". And there were reasons for that. Those reasons are interesting and relevant and are part of the information and knowledge that we wish to convey about this person to our readers. What user Borsoka wants to do is take the unusual, particular and interesting situation that existed here and artificially "standardize it" by turning "King Jadwiga" into "Queen regnant Jadwiga" because... because that's how it worked for other female monarchs. So what if that's how it worked in other cases? She wasn't some other female monarch. Why are we suppose to misrepresent both sources and facts to fit this unusual piece of history into some kind of conventional socket? That's completely opposite of what an encyclopedia is suppose to do.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Volunteer Marek, please update yourself before making comments. My proposal is the following: "Jadwiga ... Queen of Poland ... She was crowned "king" ... ." I do not want to hide, standardize, ... anything, I would only like to follow WP:Lead: that she was crowned "king" would be mentioned in the lead. Why do you think that her case was exceptional? Her sister, Mary, was crowned "king" of Hungary two years before Jadwiga's coronation. Borsoka (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• Polish standard popular, but definitely scientific source of knowledge for Polish kings, "Poczet królów i książąt polskich" ISBN 83-07-01822-6, is very clear. Professor Andrzej Wyrobisz writes in the lead of his article: Data urodzin królowej Jadwigi jest nieznana (The birthdate of queen Jadwiga is unknown), but a few paragraphs later on states została koronowana na króla Polski (she was crowned for King of Poland). Except from that the article by Wyrobisz consistently uses the title queen for Jadwiga. And by the way she wasn't crowned for "King" of Poland, but for King of Poland. alx-pl d 07:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree there are sources, reliable sources, that use "king". But this really needs to be discussed in the article. We need a section explaining the usage of king here. That's one. Second, we need to agree on the usage of king versus queen in the lead, but I do not believe we can do so until we have a proper section explaining - not just to readers, but to us as well - whether she was a king or "king" or queen, all of of those, of what. To prevent edit warring, I suggest we accept User:Surtsicna compromise and neutral version "monarch", until such a time we have a section explaining what kind of monarch was she--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• It's not an easy question. For me, calling her king (without apostrophes) looks silly, hence, I understand why most sources use apostrophes. Calling her monarch, while stating that she was crowned "King" of Poland or "King of Poland" [27][28] (with apostrophes), seems like a good solution, but I can also accept Borsoka's suggestion. In any case, these issues should also be carefully addressed in the article, and should preferably mentioned in the lead, as well. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 12:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The view of Koertefa is near of mine, but first we have to check the modern historiography since 1990s. I mean works of historians like Janusz Kurtyka, Jan Tęgowski or Jarosław Nikodem. Kmicic (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I could also accept a similar solution. Borsoka (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Ummmm..... Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
      • As queen here [29], in Tęgowski's Pierwsze pokolenia Giedyminowiczów (p. 229) and in the article "Akt krewski z 14 sierpnia 1385 r. - gdzie kryje się problem w dokumencie czy w jego interpretacjach?" in the most important Polish historian journal "Kwartalnik Historyczny" Vol. 108 No. 4 (2001) (written by a Lithuanian historian). As king here [30]. Kmicic (talk) 00:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

???? A second book published in Polish: so now we have four books which refers to her as king (without apostrophes). I could cite many books published in Hungarian which refers to her as "lengyel királynő" (Queen regnant of Poland). Why do you think this is relevant for the English version of WP? Borsoka (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what you are talking about. Books written in Polish can be reliable sources like anything else. This particular books was written by a prominent historian. And above Piotrus raised the question about how the Polish literature refers to her. Kmicic then asked about contemporary historians. So I provided a sources which is entitled "Jadwiga, King of Poland", no apostrophes or nothing else.

Please stop inventing arbitrary rules or guidelines to try and force your way on the article.

And allow me to point out that English language books which refer to her as "king without apostrophes" have also been provided. I've been bending backwards over here to accommodate you and spending my time looking stuff up but you just respond by upping the ante, increasing your demands, inventing rules out thin air and generally behaving in an unreasonable manner.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I do not invent arbitrary rules. As I mentioned, I could cite books published in Hungarian which exclusively style her as "Queen regnant", or "királynő", because in the Hungarian language there is a clear difference between a queen consort ("királyné") and a queen regnant ("királynő"). I think that we should prefer English literature. Yes, you have provided two sources. And I asked the question: why do you think that we should prefer them to the dozens of books, published in English and listed above, which refer to her as "Queen of Poland" or " "King" of Poland"? Borsoka (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I've provided more than two sources. Please don't misrepresent the situation. And yes you are inventing rules out of thin air.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Anyway. To cut the acrimony short, is everyone here happy with the present phrasing of the lede [31] as pertains to her status as king/queen (not the Hedwig nonsense, that's a separate issue)? I'm willing to live with it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. I suggest that you should study basic WP policies (including WP:English and WP:Lead) because you obviously think that it was me who invented them. I think the study of WP:civility would also be useful for you. Borsoka (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I see that you're not interested in coming to an understanding but rather wish to continue the bickering. My understanding of Wikipedia policies is perfectly fine, thank you very much, take your condescension somewhere else.

Now. Are you happy with the present phrasing of the lede or not? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the first sentence is OK for me. The lead should obviously be expanded during the next days. Borsoka (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

As I said earlier, calling her a monarch is an elegant solution. It's also good to discuss the king vs queen, but we need SOURCES. So far all I see is OR, citation needed, and discussion on talk based heavily on book titles. Once again: we need sources that discuss, in depth, the terminology here. Sadly, I am not in Poland; if I were I'd go where I can get a scan of PSB. I will ask about it on pl wiki. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

While I think the current lead is fine for now, Piotrus does bring up a good point. Do we have a source for the claim that Jadwiga was crowned "king", rather than "queen", because "Queens regnant being relatively uncommon in Europe at the time". This does look like somebody's OR. Likewise note that in text the claim for the same thing was because "(Jadwiga) was crowned "king" of Poland ... as Polish law had no provision for a female ruler (queen regnant)" is unsourced. So yes, what is needed here is a source which states explicitly WHY she was crowned "king" not "queen" rather than individual editors' speculations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• I like the current phrasing of the lead. alx-pl d 07:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Me too. Here is one source that talks about why King - "Female inheritance was without precedent in east-central Europe, where women did not have the right to inherit land at all, even less entire kingdoms. A legal fiction had to be therefore created: Mary and Jadwiga "changed sex," and were regarded and addressed as kings rather than queens." [32]. Now, this book is called an encyclopedia, and so a tertiary source, which WP disparages. The authors cite a well regarded historian (Oskar Halecki) who published a monograph titled Jadwiga of Anjou and The Rise Of East Central Europe, if anyone wants to get a hold of that one. Novickas (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your remark. Actually, Halecki is wrong. Jadwiga's grandfather, Charles I of Hungary established the royal prerogative of "prefection": the Hungarian monarch could "promote a nobleman's daughter to a son" whereby she ("he") was to be regarded as a son and she ("he") could inherit landed property from her ("his") father. (I do not refer to reliable sources, because there are three sources cited in the "prefection" article.)

Oh, the quote isn't from a book by Halecki - it's just that they cite him in the entry. But I'm thinking that Halecki might have gone into some useful detail about the King legal fiction as it related to Poland at the time. Novickas (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that source should be fine to cite the king issue as long as nobody finds a better source or one that contradicts that explanation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"English"

"Jadwiga" is just as "English" as "Hedwig". I actually know "Jadwigas" personally, who were born in US, who speak only English and who are US citizens and who have American birth certificates which say "Jadwiga", not "Hedwig" on'em. This is how English works, it's a very flexible language and English speaking countries (unlike some insecure European ones) don't restrict names to "official English names" or anything like that.

Look at article on Jose Canseco. It says: "José Canseco Capas, Jr. (born July 2, 1964)...". It DOES NOT say "José Canseco Capas, known in English as "Joseph Canseco"..."

Look at the article on Carlos Moreno. It says: "Carlos Julio Moreno is a Colombian mathematician and ...". It DOES NOT say "Carlos Julio Moreno, known in English Charles Julius Brown is a..."

We're not being ridiculous on those articles, so there's no reason for us to be ridiculous here.

Germanized name is not the same as English name.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Please read sources cited in the article: Engel 2001, Jackson 1999, Monter 2012. Borsoka (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but none of these sources say "known in English as Hedwig".Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Please. Borsoka (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Please what? Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Upon your request: please stop being ridiculous, you obviously do not understand the difference between the two cases. For further details, I refer to Surtsicna's remark and my explanation for you below. Borsoka (talk) 18:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

"I actually know "Jadwigas" personally, who were born in US..." - read WP:OR. Otherwise, as far as I know, Jose Canseco is not a royal, so the English equivalent of his name is irrelevant here. Jadwiga is clearly a Polish name. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Uh... no, how about *you* read OR. "known in English as Hedwig" is pure OR as there is no source for such a claim. "Jadwiga is clearly a Polish name" is OR as there is no source for such a claim. One could just as easily say "Hedwig is clearly a German name". Making the royalty-status of a person the litmus test of whether "the English equivalent" (sic) is relevant or not is OR and it involves pulling made up rules out of one's air.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm also at a loss as to why we need to put in "Hedwig" twice. If you are going to put in bold in the lede sentence then please remove it the italicized version.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Read more carefully. "Hedvig" is the Hungarian (native) version of her name. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, you may not know what original research means - please read WP:NOR. Thereafter you should study the reliable sources I cited above. Sorry, but I tend to think, you are only making declarations about OR and other editors' hidden intentions, because you think you can hide the lack of verifiability of your claims. The italicized version (Hedwig) was deleted in accordance with your proposal. Borsoka (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Borsoka, please take your condescending tone somewhere else. It's hard to interpret that kind of approach as anything but passive-aggressive personal attack. It's also hard not to see it as a provocation intended to rile up the person you're disagreeing with. Which is disruptive, and well, sort of shitty. I've been on Wikipedia longer than you have by a good few years and I think I have a pretty good grasp on what is and what is not OR. What is OR is asserting something when you don't have secondary sources which say it (like here). What is OR is putting something in the article based on one's OWN reading and interpretation of PRIMARY sources. Which is what you and Norden are doing here. Both of you appear to be confused on this point. You need a *source* which *explicitly* says "Hedwig is the English equivalent of Jadwiga". Not "Hedwig sounds more English to me than Jadwiga so it's the English equivalent". Not "I saw a source which used Hedwig so it's the English equivalent". That's OR.

I usually charge for my pedagogical services but in this case I'm happy to do it gratis.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Please read your comments during the last 24 hours and compare them with WP:civility. No, you obviously do not understand the concept of OR. By the way, have you referred to a source stating that "Jadwiga is her English name"? Borsoka (talk) 18:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

You are working very hard at making this discussion pointless. How am I suppose to respond to "No, you obviously do not understand the concept of OR". With "Yes, I do obviously understand the concept of OR"? And then you respond with "No you don't" and I say "yes I do" and it goes on and on and on? I EXPLAINED why "known in English as" was OR - it was based on a Wikipedia editors' (mis)understanding of primary sources (in this case works about Jadwiga). You only ASSERTED. An assertion is not an argument. It's just ... fluff. And I don't have to find a source for "Jadwiga is her English name" for the very simple reason that I am not putting "Jadwiga is her English name" into the article. Not that hard to understand really.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is irrelevant whether Hedwig is an Enlgish equivalent of Jadwiga, the important thing is that *both* are used by considerable number of reliable English sources. I just made a quick search on Google Books and I got about 530 book hits for the words Jadwiga Poland 1384 [33] and about 444 book hits for the words Hedwig Poland 1384 [34]. Therefore, we should mention both with bold. By the way, the current lead [35] looks very good, I am satisfied with it. The only thing that I do not understand is that why the note between parentheses "(Lithuanian in origin)" is important for the lead. Nevertheless, it can stay if it has some crucial importance, I just don't see the point (but I am not an expert of Polish history). KœrteFa {ταλκ} 20:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

My primary objection is to the "known in English as" part, which is OR. I'm fine with "Hedwig" being in there, even in the lede, although I don't see the point of bolding it. But hey, that's the nature of a compromise. So, again, I'm willing to live with it.

As to the "Lithuanian in origin", I think that's some left over stray text from some long forgotten edit war.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, with regard to the Gbook searches, you actually have to go to the last page of the search to get an accurate estimate for the number of books using a particular search phrase. The number you get on the first page is completely incorrect (no idea why Google hasn't fixed this). So "Jadwiga Poland 1384" has 24 pages worth of sources, so that's actually about 240. "Hedwig Poland 1384" has 16 pages worth of sources, so that's actually about 160. So it's even more skewed towards "Jadwiga" than it seems. Second, at least some chunk of those "Hedwig Poland 1384" hits might be for Hedwig of Silesia (who was also "of Poland" in some ways) since that 1384 probably isn't going to screen these out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand your long text above. If there are academic works, published in English, which refer to her as Hedwig, why do we need to continue this discussion? Please try to respect other editor's time. Borsoka (talk) 20:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Whatever.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I also think that since a text variant was reached which seems acceptable for most of us, we can settle the dispute. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 20:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

P.S.: Thanks, Volunteer Marek, for pointing out the glitch with Google Book hits, I did not know about that. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 20:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I see this has been resolved now, but I simply must express my astonishment at Volunteer Marek's arguments. The name "Hedwig" is not notable for being the German equivalent (and actually the original form) of the name "Jadwiga". It is notable for being the English equivalent and for being used in English language literature. In that sense, Jadwiga is just as English as Hedwig, and the sentence should have said "in English also called Hedwig". That has nothing to do with German language, however. What I cannot possibly work out in my head is how a 21st-century Cuban baseball player relates to a 14th-century Polish monarch or how US birth certificates and (non-existent?) naming laws affect this article or Polish history literature. It appears that, while we are indeed "not being ridiculous on those articles", we are being ridiculous on this talk page. Surtsicna (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

They are related because the Canseco example illustrates that we don't automatically "Anglicize" (or in some cases "Germanize") people's names.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Surtsicna referred to the fact that monarchs' names are often Anglicized, but sportsmen's name almost never in books published in English. Borsoka (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it's the time period rather than "occupation" that counts. For example, we have a medieval archer (a sportsman) called William Tell and a modern monarch called Juan Carlos I. It is ridiculous to pretend that modern spellings of names were used by medieval people as if they were inscribed in some sort of a birth certificate. That is especially true for monarchs who normally used Latin. For example, I seriously doubt this woman ever signed as Jadwiga. Surtsicna (talk) 10:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I can walk to a St. Hedwig's church from where I'm sitting. In English-speaking countries, I can't find a single "St. Jadwiga's" parish. Most calendars of saints published in English refer to her as "Hedwig". These are the kind of thing we should be examining per WP:COMMONNAME when trying to figure out what is the English version of her name. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Wrong Hedwig/Jadwiga. For this Jadwiga, in English language sources, "Jadwiga of Poland" tends to outnumber "Hedwig". Volunteer Marek  06:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

"the extinguished House of Piast"

This is awkward phrasing and it's sort of incorrect as the Piasts actually survived in Mazovia and Silesia until the 16th and 17th centuries, respectively.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It's entirely incorrect. I have removed the word "extinguished". Surtsicna (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Nota bene, one of those "extinguished" Piasts, Siemowit IV, Duke of Masovia was actually trying to get the crown in place of Jadwiga.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Avoid normative statements

especially in the lede. Like "In Poland, King Louis should have been succeeded by his second daughter, Mary, and her fiancé, Sigismund of Luxemburg."

"Should" is a value judgement. This needs rephrasing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to rephrase the above statement or any other statements. Borsoka (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, this article is about Jadwiga, not about the line of succession to the Polish throne so we need to be careful not to give too much weight to who was suppose to be what in the lede.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I think we should mention that Jadwiga became only by chance queen of Poland. Furthermore, without mentioning the events preceding her accession, we cannot explain her "king" title - an explanation you demanded above. Borsoka (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "by chance" means. I guess what you're trying to say is that there were other candidates considered before her. I agree this should be mentioned but mostly in the article text. Lead should just summarize this info rather than go into the full blown description of the line of succession etc. Also, I'm not clear on how this relates to her title of "king". In fact that whole (ORish) statement about "queen regnant" being rare contradicts your statement above. She was crowned "king" because that's the title of a Polish monarch at the time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that the fact that she (originally destined to rule in Hungary) and her sister, Mary (who was the heir of their father in Poland until 1382), "changed place" is quite remarkable. Borsoka (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Well I agree with that. But I don't think this was related to the "king" vs "queen" issue. I'm not objecting to the material itself, I just think it should be phrased more succinctly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight?

Stephen C. Rowell's "suggestion that the occasional use of "rex" merely acknowledged that Jadwiga was queen regnant, not queen consort is sensible", according to The Oxford History of Poland-Lithuania, Volume I: The Making of the Polish-Lithuanian Union, 1385-1567. Volunteer Marek, why do you think that a scholar's theory, qualified as sensible by an other historian in a book published by the Oxford University Press in 2015, receives undue weight if it is mentioned in the article? Borsoka (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

As your text itself states this theory is the minority view. Yet the text goes on to explain this theory but fails to provide the majority view explanation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

And what is the majority view explanation? Borsoka (talk) 20:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's another explanation of the king thing: "...in 1384 she was crowned Rex Poloniae, the nobility thus ensuring that her eventual spouse would not easily be able to claim the royal title merely by marriage...Eventually, following Jadwiga's death in 1399, Jagiello was recognized as King of Poland." [36]

And he apparently had to have a re-coronation: "Wladyslaw-Jogaila threatened to leave Poland and tear up the union unless the Polish royal council confirmed him as 'rex et heres' in the kingdom in his own right. The magnates complied but set certain conditions, stipulating that Jogaila must undergo a re-coronation..." [37]. Novickas (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

King/Queen again

I live in a country (Hungary) where Jadwiga's elder sister, Mary, was crowned "king" two years before Jadwiga's coronation. In Hungary, Mary is never mentioned as "king" and I have not met anybody who would change her title from queen to king in the article dedicated to her. So I would like to understand why the fact that Jadwiga was crowned "king" is so important for some editors. Borsoka (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear User:Borsoka: Sorry about that. The simplest explanation is that this page has gotten a lot more views, average 211 per day over the past year or so [38] than Mary's has (average 59 per day). [39].

The WP article about the Other doesn't go into this, but Otherness has been discussed in regard to Eastern and Central Europe in books and scholarly articles.

That article doesn't mention people's fascination with what they see as the bizarre customs of the Others, but we all know it's there.

Please carry on your good work. Regards, Novickas (talk) 15:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I was obviously unclear. I would like to know the reason of several attempts to mention Jadwiga as "king", because her sister (who was also crowned "king") has never been styled as such neither by WP editors nor by historians. Borsoka (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, Christina, Queen of Sweden was also officially crowned king (rex) as that article notes. But not in the lead. There's been some discussion about that, see [40], including a suggestion to change the article title, but it never needed an RFC like this one did. As far as I can tell there weren't any edit wars over it. I'm thinking that's because Sweden doesn't seem particularly exotic to most Westerners and so there would be fewer people (that is, editors) interested in the "weird" aspect of a woman being crowned king. Also, Queen Christina (film) was very popular.

So it's exotic - notice the use of "and even some European countries" used male titles in the queen regnant article - and gets more than 3 times the readers than Mary does, which increases the chances that people will want to emphasize it. But those are just my theories and maybe it's not a good idea to speculate too much about editors' motivations. People get angry really quickly here. You could make a case that it's undue weight in the lead for this article. It's not in the lead of the Britannica article [41].

Have you thought about posing this question at WP:Reference desk/Humanities? There's some very knowledgeable people there. Regards, Novickas (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I just looked at the traffic statistics for queen regnant, where Jadwiga and her male title are mentioned early on - it's been averaging 469 views/day for the past year or so. That might be creating some traffic here. Novickas (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)