Talk:Sigismund II Augustus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Old talk[edit]

Sigismund II Augustus was poisoned by the Medicis, who then took his throne, which afterwards was taken by the Bathory.

Sigismund II. was a member of the Order of the Golden Fleece, thus had given his pledge of allegiance to the imperial Habsburgs, see portrait with Golden Fleece: [1]

Coronation took place in 1529 in Vilnius...

Last paragraph is so full of Polish POV it's not even funny. "Only a stateman of genius"... "The most striking memorial of his greatness"... Come on! Even Lithuanian historians are quite critical of Lublin Union, let alone the nobles of Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Why the need to paint it as the greatest thing in history? Vytzka 18:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly text from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, which tended to POV. The article certainly needs revision. logologist|Talk 18:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The coronation could not take place in Vilnius: he was nominated as co-grand Duke there in 1529. Lithuania was only a grand dutchy and could not crown kings. He was crowned in Cracow, where almost all Polish kings were crowned.


He was born in 1520. In 1522 his father proclaimed him as his heir in Lithuania. In 1526 Lithuanian lords proposed crowning him king of Lithuania, but his father did not agree on account of Polish relationship. On October 18, 1529 Lithuanian Council of Lords elected him to the grand-ducal throne and in 1530 the Poles had to proclaim him king of Poland too. In 1544 he set up his court in Vilnius as Grand Duke of Lithuania. In 1548 his father died and Sigismund Augustus ascended the Polish throne. Juraune 14:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 to Sigismund II Augustus. —Nightstallion (?) 09:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dare to say that the line that he married "Calvinist"(marked by me" Barbora Radvilaite(Lithuanian version) is factually not correct - newest historiography claims that Michael Radzivil( lithuanian Mikalojus Ravila) the Black (polish Czerny) Converted to calvinism(though newest historiography doubt whether it was pure calvinism) After the deat Of his sister slowly became involved in lutheran calvinist and aryan activities. That happened approximately in yaers 1552/3/4. So I think the line for the "calvinist" should be removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Papartynas (talkcontribs) 15:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The name as it appears in most English-language encyclopedias, appears to be spelled Sigismund. The name "Zygmunt" is the Polish spelling. Is there consensus by the non-Polish majority of the Wikipedia community, to move the article back to the English version of the name? --Elonka 02:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Polish spelling is used by at least 32 English books, including the popular reference work by Norman Davies, God's Playground [2]. But I should add a disclaimer that as a Pole my note/vote should not be counted toward or against the 'consensus by the non-Polish majority of the Wikipedia community'. For the editors new to this issue, I'd recomment checking the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Polish rulers), however you should be aware that Polish editors seem to be active there, thus likely invalidating the discussion in the eyes of some.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, 30 compared with 157 for "Sigismund II Augustus" [3], and 105 for "Sigismund II August" [4]. I find it strange that here, at Talk:Sigismund III of Poland and at Talk:Michał Korybut Wiśniowiecki you cite google, show that the English name is more common, and then use the Polish name anyways. What exactly do you think is gained by such an interesting argumentative strategy? And why do you bother arguing at all when you know you can just move articles away from English names and then demand a supermajority to move them back to pages in line with wiki conventions? I think you can be pretty sure your page names are safe from being moved. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You made me feel much safer now. In return, may I interest you in such nice reading as Wikipedia:Assume good faith? I am sure you will find it intriguing. Also, you may want to note that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) has an 'exceptions' section, which stresses the existance of the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), a subset of which we are trying to discuss at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Polish rulers). Last but not least, Wikipedia:Search engine test is another useful reading, please note that 'Google dominant name' does not equal the 'most correct name for Wikipedia', although it is certainly a helpful tool.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There has been an attempt to create a naming system specifically for Polish monarchs (but it is just a proposal and never received consensus), against the system used for other European monarchs. There is also the fact that most Polish monarchs now are located in places which contravene to general naming convention. There is no consensus for permission to use an exception for Polish monarchs, and such permission should be sought from consensus atWikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) where there is the thread Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Need of particular exception/ convention for Polish monarchs. At that spot there are editors who are more or less experienced in overall picture of monarch naming and not only one country. It is deception to advertise any system for naming before a consensus there is convinced of the need for such exception. I hope all of you continue the naming scheme discussion for Polish monarchs there, before continuing or creating policy forks. Shilkanni 13:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Approval vote as survey for naming[edit]

Please add your signature under all (yes, to all) those alternatives you regard acceptable - acceptable in the sense that you can accept it as name of this article. Vote for all acceptable alternatives, even if there are two or more of such. Do not do anything to those alternatives that are not acceptable to you (do not vote explicit negative - that is not part of approval voting - in approval voting, being silent towards an alternative is the same as finding it unacceptable). (Do not add alternatives - it will probably disrupt the vote. It is thought that no other alternative than these ready ones would anyway garner any meaningful support or that other alternatives are non-alternatives, being essentially same as one of the ready ones here. If you feel strong preference to some unmentioned alternative formulation, raise it at Discussion section and see whether it ever receives any verbal support from others.)

Zygmunt II August[edit]

I accept this alternative:

Sigismund II Augustus[edit]

I accept this alternative:

  • john k 13:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC). This would be acceptable, although I'd prefer "Sigismund II Augustus"[reply]
  • Yes. Sigismund Augustus; but I'd rather Polish monarchs got restandardized as per wiki convention. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First choice, as this is how the name is spelled in my 1979 Encyclopedia Brittanica. --Elonka 16:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second choice, most common rendering. Sarge Baldy 16:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First choice M.K. 19:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dr. Dan 20:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Only choice. This is what his name was. Any further investigation of his name, tells you all the rest about him. No need for Hirohito of Japan, either.[reply]
  • Secnd choice.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Juraune 06:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Marrtel 09:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC) (although I do not regard the ending -us necessary for August)[reply]
  • Cyon 15:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use English. Gryffindor 13:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jonathunder 06:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Pro , even better without "-us". --Matthead 21:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigismund II of Poland[edit]

I accept this alternative:

Sigismund II Augustus of Poland[edit]

I accept this alternative:


This is to build some semblance of consensus, not outright attempt to file a request for moving. Marrtel 13:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And now, after more than a day, I feel that this survey has helped to find out what would be a compromise (Using English) to satisfy the biggest number of editors here. The present name received very little support, and that is from a certain non-English corner of the world. Marrtel 21:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We could be quarreling eternally over -is- in Sigismund/Sigmund and over -us in Augustus/August. IMO, Sigismund is better, and August without -us is better. Not extremely important differences though. Marrtel 09:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see why this is such a contentious issue if there are appropriate redirects. A user can enter any of the above options in the searchbox and reach the article, which is what really counts. However, if the page is to be renamed, it should be done so in a consistent fashion. "Zygmunt II August" is accurate in Polish; "Sigismund II Augustus" is accurate in English; "Sigismund II August" is accurate in neither (though it would work in German), and should not be considered. "Sigismund II of Poland" makes sense, but it may be worth keeping the August/Augustus name, as two later kings of Poland were named "August II" and "August III", counting Zygmunt August as the first of that name. My personal preference is that, in agreement with the increasing cultural sensitivity of modern scholarship, standard English forms redirect to the most appropriate vernacular usage, but any consistent form should be acceptable. Imladjov 15:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Let me put on a helmet, and a "flak jacket", an tell you all, my friends, that when I am drawn into vote in these "plebicites", I vote once, and only once. This second and third choice nonsense (and that's what it is), is a joke. And if I'm wrong, let me then go on record as saying my sixteenth choice, is "Son of Bona", and my seventeenth choice is "Ziggy". Dr. Dan 01:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name as it appears in encyclopedias and dictionaries[edit]

The Wikipedia policy on naming says that articles should receive "the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works." For everyone's use, here is a list of how this individual's name is listed in major English-language works. If you have access to an English-language encyclopedia or dictionary that is not listed here, please feel free to add another datapoint to this list. Thanks! --Elonka 22:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Sigismund II Augustus (online Brittanica) [5]
  • Sigismund II (online Columbia) [6]
  • Sigismund II Augustus (1979 Brittanica)
  • Sigismund II Augustus (Webster's Desk Encyclopedia, in "Jagiellon dynasty" section)


  • Zygmunt II (August) (Sokol's Polish Biographical Dictionary)
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.


Please note, that in the poll above,

are confirmed sockpuppets [7]. The outcome of the vote may change based on this information -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


My Latin is more than rusty, especially without a dictionary. Could someone please explain what "nec non terrarum Cracoviae... etc. dominus et haeres" means? This is not addressed in the translation given in the article. -- Matthead discuß!   O    06:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi it it. Dominus et haeres means - "Lord and heir"--Kdebem 15:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Move[edit]

Is a number after Augustus really necessary? This guy could get by simply as Sigismund Augustus. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the II is, but the I no - it is the first time I have seen such a variant. This article should be moved back to Sigismund II Augustus. Consider: [8] vs [9]. Not to mention the RM above.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are totally right. It's clear it should be moved back to Sigismund II Augustus. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you move it? Or shall we wait a day or so to make sure there are no objections? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since there isn't even the teeniest bit of support for that name, and the poll went for "Sigismund II Augustus", it clearly has to go back. Will let the bot fix the redirects. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Double Redirect[edit]

Sigismund August Jagellon redirects to Sigismund II Augustus, and Sigismund II Augustus redirects to Sigismund II Augustus I. that's a double redirect —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Alexander Jagiellon which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 20:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Illegitimate children[edit]

In the mistresses section, it mentions 'daughter' and 'Barbara'. Are these other mistresses, or illegitimate children? If anyone knows, perhaps they could edit the article to reflect that, and thathe was not childless, but had no legitimate children? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 11:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old portrait versus 18th century portrait painting[edit]

While the 18th-century painting of Sigismund II Augustus 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, it is generally best to choose 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 a century 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) 17:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree completely. (That is why I've sometimes even used tomb effigies from the period.) Nihil novi (talk) 03:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]