Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Stanisław August Poniatowski

Good articleStanisław August Poniatowski has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 17, 2012Good article nomineeListed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 25, 2005, November 25, 2006, November 25, 2007, November 25, 2010, November 25, 2012, November 25, 2013, November 25, 2014, November 25, 2016, November 25, 2017, November 25, 2020, and November 25, 2024.

Old talk

Moved name of the birthplace entry here, because of ongoing vandalism by Emax Place of birth: Konstadt,Upper Silesia (now Wolczyn, Poland). also see: Discussion Wolczyn

Kurfurst..., he was born in Wolczyn near Brzesc Litewski...--Emax 21:22, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Emax, the only Wolczyn on internet is in Upper Silesia. If there is one near Brest, then please show a map here to identify it. Thank you.

I would like to point out that he wasn't Stanislaw "the second". He was Stanislaw Augustus, and this name was carefuly choosen because at this time Stanislaw Leszczynski was still alive and using both "the first" and "the second" would be equally disrespectful. So I've changed that :)

Well, it seems I can't. Whatever

To his cultural excellence I suggest adding : and he funded a collection of paintings, that was dispossessed with him, Dulwich_Picture_Gallery Regnim

Done. In future, feel free to be bold and do it yourself - everybody can edit Wikipedia.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Stanisław

What is the rationale for keeping this under Latin 'Stainslaus'?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

None. Moreover, such latinized -laus endings may create, for a native English-speaker, a comic effect (they are pronounced like "louse" — in Polish, wesz) that plays into the hands of those who would make light of or belittle Poles and things Polish. logologist 23:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in that case I will give it a few days to see if anybody else comments and if there are no objections I will move latinized names from the List of Polish kings to their Polish equivalents soon.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per Wikipedia naming conventions, the article should be moved back to the most commonly-used English name of Stanislaus. Elonka 00:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide proof that Stanislaus is the most common variant of his name used in English. Also, please see Talk:Polish-Lithuanian_Commonwealth#Words_of_wisdom: (from Lukowski's book about late PLC 'Liberty's Folly'. Short version: As regards personal names, I have followed my instincts and in most cases, unless there is an extremely close English equivalent, I have kept to the Polish form. I refuse to render Stanisław as anything other then Stanisław.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we were blessed with a classic Polish name abounding in a good sampling of ą, ę, ó, ł, ś, ź, ż, cz, rz, sz, and if non-Poles around us were continually misspelling and mispronouncing it, would we take a survey to see which misspelling is the most common, then bow to the plurality and adopt that misspelling as our legitimate name? logologist|Talk 02:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found the name to be "Stanislaus" in the Columbia Encyclopedia, at encyclopedia.com, at encyclopediaofukraine.com, in the Jewish Encyclopedia, reference.com, the Catholic Encyclopedia, the History Channel, infoplease.com, 1911encyclopedia.org, and the Middle East Open Encyclopedia. Using the Polish version of the name also violates the Wikipedia guidelne of not using diacriticals in article names (it makes linking much more difficult). Further, this article was named based on earlier discussions at Wikipedia, and you did not have consensus to change it. Elonka 07:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of any rule that diactrics should not be used in name, please point me in it's direction. Reference.com and MEOE are Wiki forks using our outdated article, infoplease.com and encyclopedia.com seem to be columbia (only?) forks. What about modern Britannica? Your search is not inclusive enough, and you don't mention whether this name is used in context of Poniatowski and whether it is the only name used in those contexts (Britannica, for example, is known to use several names) - I'd recommend doing a comaprison via Google/Google Scholar/Google Print, as is our current standard.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, shouldn't the title be "Stanislaw II August of Poland", in accordance to the naming policy of monarchs, i.e "-name- -number of -nation-"? -Alex 12.220.157.93 05:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

He didn't use an ordinal, and neither did a predecessor "Stanisław," Stanisław Leszczyński, who had been ousted from the Polish throne (as Poniatowski was to be). logologist|Talk 07:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New talk

I deleted the following sentences because they are crappy English. The first sentence does not state how was he threatened. What? did some beggar shake his fist at the king? It tells the reader absolutely nothing. The second sentence does not describe how he was paralyzed or the effects of his paralyzation. Was he unable to make treaties, unable to lead his army, unable to walk without the aid of a cane?

"During the Kościuszko Uprising in 1794 the King was threatened when Russian bribery of his contributors was revealed. He was paralyzed, as well, by radical insurgent movements."

If, after all your editing and adding facts, the reader has no idea what the writer meant, then the editing and additional facts are completely worthless. Naerhu 05:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine against him?

Why did catherine support the confederation? --User:Euyyn

Short answer: because she viewed it as a threat to her powers, a 'French-revolution diesaese' spraeding near her domain. See articles on her, Russian Enlightenment and May 3 Constitution for more info.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage

I want to know more about his marriage to Elżbieta Szydłowska. Why was she not queen? --85.226.44.74 (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed her from the infobox. They were never officially married; if there was a marriage it was secret and poorly documented. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 02:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Titles

I would like to bring up the issue of some of the royal and ducal titles belong to King Stanisław August. The current succession box I made covers the major ones, and indicates that the titles "King of Poland" and "Grand Duke of Lithuania" went to Emperor Aleksandr I. But what about the King Stanisław's lesser titles? Should they be mentioned as well? Of the King of Poland's titular domains, the Emperor of All Russias recieved several (most) and added them to the official style:

King of Poland (called Tsar of Poland in Russian) Grand Duke of Lithuania Duke of Samogitia Grand Duke of Volhynia (from Duke of Volhynia) Grand Duke of Podolia (from Duke of Podolia) Prince of Livonia (from Duke of Inflanty/Livonia) Grand Duke of Smoleńsk (from Duke of Smoleńsk) Sovereign of Chernigov (from Duke of Czernihów)

Regarding this title "Duke of Kiev", I'm not really sure what that's all about; I'm not at all familiar with this title or a "Duchy of Kiev". I thought the Emperor of Russia always bore the title "Tsar of Kiev", I don't think this was an inherited title from the King of Poland on the part of the Emperor of Russia.

Anyway, since I guess all all of these titles were subsidiary titles attached to style of the King of Poland/Grand Duke of Lithuania which were the ones with "significant meaning" if you will. By this, they may not be worthy of being included in the succession box. But maybe it should be mentioned in a small section for those who were curious or wanted to trace where titles went. Farkas János (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I figured out what is meant by "Duke of Kiev" by the way. Farkas János (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rosicrucian?

The article subject was categorized under "Rosicrucians". I see no reliable sources in this article that place him as a member of that organization. If he was - and I have no dog in this fight, I don't care if he was or not - perhaps a reliable source could be sussed out and the fact mentioned and sourced in the body of the article before he is added to the category again?

Clearly this doesn't rise to the level of a BLP issue, but I don't think it's best practice to categorize even dead people as members of societies of any kind unless evidence exists for membership. --NellieBly (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Ordynacja Ostrogska"?

According to the article:

He returned to the Commonwealth in 1754, this time not participating in the Sejm, as his parents wanted to keep him out of the political drama surrounding the "Ordynacja Ostrogska".

Could somebody clarify the sentence a little, maybe explain succinctly what the drama was? I can find the expression "Ordynacja Ostrogska" once on Wikipedia, in Fee tail#Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, but it doesn't hint at what the controversy might have been. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to PSB, familia has initiated an illegal division of the property, which the royal court opposed. I am not sure how to work it out into the article. There is a a little more, unreferenced, at Janusz Aleksander Sanguszko. I've added a link to Fee_tail#Polish-Lithuanian_Commonwealth and Ostrogski family. Pl wiki has an article on pl:Ordynacja Ostrogska. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Piotrus. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great job!

The last time I saw this article, it was a little more than a stub. It was quite a surprise to see it grow this much. Bravo to the editor! Surtsicna (talk) 09:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you'd like to review it for B-class? I'd like to GAN it afterward. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 15:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how it's done. It's been a long time since I worked to get an article to GA status (I believe the last one was about the Polish queen Elizabeth of Bosnia) but I'd suggest nominating it as a GA immediately, since it is wonderfully sourced already. Surtsicna (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A B-class review is a more informal process than a GA review. The way I do them, is I give an article a quick read and see if it is ready for a GAN, and point out anything that is not. Usually that involves failing article due to insufficient references or lack of completeness :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 01:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would propose, perhaps, moving the section about his titles downwards. It is a minor part of his biography and it probably shouldn't precede information about his life and reign. Surtsicna (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems however a standard placement for that section as far as other articles about royalty I am familiar with, including the GA on Władysław IV Vasa. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 01:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've noticed that, but placing it after the biography (as in GA Mary I of England, FA James VI of Scotland, etc) makes more sense to me. It isn't of any great importance, just a thought. Surtsicna (talk) 10:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions

I have two questions:

  1. In "Conflicting assessments", it says "he also ... attempted to cover insufficient tax returns." What does that mean? Were taxes too low to cover the country's expenses, and he tried to make up the difference from the royal treasury? Please try to clarify.
  2. In the "Family" section, can we get dates of birth and death for Kazimierz Grabowski? Also, why is he missing from the table titled "Issue"?

Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice clarification, I used it in text. Regarding Kazimierz Grabowski, well, it is because I cannot find much sources. Pl wiki has an entry but on a wrong KG (pl:Kazimierz Grabowski). He is named in PSB, but unlike his siblings, he does not seem have a dedicated article (the sentence in PSB's bio of Poniatowski is missing a referal which is present to denote individuals who have their own entries). In a little while, I may be able to see if his mother has an article in PSB, and see if it has any more information. KG is also missing from the online geneaology ([1], [2]) which is usually pretty reliable. I also corrected another error (Aleksandra was not his daughrter, Konstancja was - she is also missing from the online genealogy, sigh). PS. PSB notes Konstancja was married to Wincenty Dernałowicz, sw website has an entry on her but with different parents: [3]. PSB is more reliable, usually, so... PPS. Just so we have more sources than just PSB, Zamoyski mentions Kazimierz on p. 439 "The king's natural sons Michal and Kazimierz Grabowski had also come to Grodno...". More on Konstancja: pl wiki entry on pl:Konstancja Dernałowicz notes that she is occasionally and erroneously seen as Konstancja Grabowska, daughter of Elżbieta and Stanisław, but the ref there is not reliable. Aargh. I am not sure how to deal with that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible error

Great job expanding this one! One query though: how could Poniatowski have died from a stroke in 1798 but left for Russia in 1799? Ruby 2010/2013 14:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, I am pretty sure it should've been 1797 not 1799 - fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Title

"King and Grand Duke of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth"?

Would be better "King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania". 98.143.71.43 (talk) 12:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, since it is less confusing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stanisław August Poniatowski. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prisoner

There is no evidence to suggest he was held as a "prisoner" in St.Petersburg. He was refused an exit visa to travel abroad, yes, but this does not make him a "prisoner". Butterwick is wrong. 2A00:23C4:B607:CF00:B4C8:57DE:371A:F851 (talk) 16:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged service with British Army - check

I came across this sentence in the article on Catherine the Great (section Personal life, subsection Poniatowski) which says of Poniatowski

In 1757, Poniatowski served in the British Army during the Seven Years' War, thus severing close relationships with Catherine.

I have raised a citation need against it but I thought editors who have access to biographies I do not have might like to check this up. If it is supported, it would be interesting if further detail could be made as the sentence raises questions - was he a combatant volunteer in British uniform or a military observer, where did he serve, with which unit/formation?Cloptonson (talk) 10:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stanis%C5%82aw_August_Poniatowski