Jump to content

Talk:Bolesław I the Brave

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

Encyclopedias and dictionaries

[edit]

Here is how this individual's name is spelled in English-language reference works. If you have access to other major English-language reference works, please add to this list. Thank you. --Elonka 00:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedias

[edit]
  • Bolesław I the Brave (1979 Encyclopedia Britannica)
  • Boleslaw I (online Britannica) [1]
  • Bolesław I (online Encarta) [2]
  • Boleslaus I (online Columbia) [3]

Dictionaries

[edit]
  • Boleslaw I (The Brave) ( Sokol's Polish Biographical Dictionary)

Histories

[edit]
  • Boleslav Cambridge Medieval History. Adds Chobry in index, but translates (there) the Mighty.

Consensus?

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Boleslaw I of Poland, per above consensus poll

The WP:RM entry for this article mentions that consensus was reached. The above poll does not prove consensus in my eyes, as there are too many votes against "Boleslaw I of Poland". It is obvious that "Bolslav I of Poland", the current title, is not preferred, but I would rather a poll with just the two options. So here it is. Thankyou --liquidGhoul 02:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poll to rename article to "Boleslaw I of Poland"

Support:

  1. I'm willing to support pretty much anything besides "Boleslav" at this point. --Elonka 16:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, again. Septentrionalis 01:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

  1. Use English Boleslaus I of Poland but if WP:UE is to be thrown aside, use Bolesław I of Poland with diacritic. -AjaxSmack 18:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Well, we did have consensus, with 5 out of 7 people willing to support "Boleslaw I of Poland". But then SylwiaS came and threw her support behind "Boleslaw I the Brave", which made the numbers 5 out of 8. SylwiaS, Lysy, or Charles, would you be willing to support "Boleslaw I of Poland", to prove consensus? Or do we have to re-vote this entire thing again? --Elonka 04:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And now Piotrus has withdrawn his vote (sigh). Alright, we move on to this new support/oppose vote. --Elonka 16:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to support any of the following: "Bolesław I of Poland", "Bolesław I", or "Bolesław I the Brave" but only with diacritics. Per 1979 Britannica, Encarta, and good sense.--SylwiaS | talk 18:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Diacritics are clearly not predominant English usage, and they are next to invisible on this IE computer. What is true for me is probably true for a lot of people. Septentrionalis 01:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Name, revisited

[edit]

What do you think of 'Boleslaw I the Brave of Poland' as a compromise? I really think that 'the Brave' (Chrobry) is more useful then 'of Poland', but why not have both in the title?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think most Poles recognizes "Chrobry" as anything else as Boleslaw's nickname. Most Poles don't know what "Chrobry" meant and I think they would connect that to other Boleslaw's. Szopen 07:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I don't know where to put this, BUT this information :

"In 1015 Bolesław I sent a detachment of Polish horsemen to aid his nephew Canute the Great, son of his sister Swietoslawa, in his conquest of England.[11]"

can not be fund in the mentioned source. I have the book in front of me. Jan Eskildsen 87.57.196.164 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

It is not in Davies' book, and it is not in Lawson's book either. So if you can't specify from wheer you have it, delete it. Jan Eskildsen93.165.30.156 (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Best as I can tell that source just references the fact that Canute was Boleslaw's nephew. It does not support the fact that Boleslaw send troops to aid him in the conquest of England.VolunteerMarek 02:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Now it says, that it is in the books God's Playground, which I do not believe. Why is there no page mentioned? Why not mention the original source, if is true? 22:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)Jan Eskildsen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.57.193.238 (talk)

Protection of beavers

[edit]

I heard that Boleslaw introduced some protection of beavers but I cannot cite any sources. If anyone could, I think that the information is worth placing here as that would make him one of pioneers of environmental protection. Zbihniew 23:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First "real" Christian

[edit]

I removed the comment that he was the "first real Christian" ruler of Poland as this is a statement of faith rather than one of fact. A person who converts to Christianity is as much a Christian as someone born into the faith. Velkyal (talk) 12:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Ladislaus the Bold

[edit]

Other editors have raised questions about the appropriateness of this redirect. Can we confirm or deny that it is appropriate? This should go to WP:RfD depending on consensus. EnviroboyTalkCs 19:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching the error. The redirect should of course have been from "Boleslaus the Bold." I've corrected it. Nihil novi (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chrobry or Brave?

[edit]

While some may be surprised by it, I do prefer the translation of royal nicknames, i.e. Chrobry to Brave, as Brave is much more meaningful to English readers of this article than Chrobry. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Nihil novi (talk) 03:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've got seven reliable recent sources in English on Boleslaw in front of me, and 4 of them call him "Chrobry", and 1 "the Brave". He is Chrabry [I think] in the Latin of "Gallus". Not that that means anything, but as the translation varies and the Polish one doesn't (besides an archaic a), I thought the rename would be better for pure identification purposes, esp. in consideration of the fact that "Brave" and "Bold" (i.e. Boleslaw II) are semantically almost indistinguishable in modern English. But meh, move it back if you must. Not a big deal. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undo anon edits

[edit]

Vojtech was a Czech from a Czech dynasty so his Slavic name should be used primarily. The German name, "Adalbert" should of course be included in parentheses the first time around as Encyclopedic information.radek (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, Vojtech himself chose the name Adalbert and is primarily known by that name, eg [4]. You should raise your concerns at Talk:Adalbert of Prague first. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B-class review

[edit]

For WP:POLAND: failed. Reasons: insufficient inline citations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

English Gbook hits: "Bolesław the Brave" (ca. 50), "Bolesław I the Brave" (35), "Boleslaw the Great" (11), "Bolesław I the Great" (5). Gscholar hits: "Bolesław the Brave" (174), "Bolesław I the Brave" (33), "Bolesław the Great" (21), "Bolesław I the Great" (2). Also note Polish use: Gbooks: "Bolesław Chrobry" (210+) and "Bolesław I Chrobry" (62) vs. "Bolesław Wielki" (179) and "Bolesław I Wielki" (17); Gscholar "Bolesław Wielki" (46) and "Bolesław I Wielki" (4) vs. "Bolesław Chrobry" (1000+) and "Bolesław I Chrobry" (134).--Zoupan 01:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder about your counts. I get 7,3k for "Bolesław the Brave" Polish king + 1.1k "Boleslaw I the Brave" Polish king vs 1.3k for "Bolesław Chrobry" Polish king + 4k "Bolesław I Chrobry" Polish king. So it is not just Polish sources which use Chrobry. I do agree that it seems Brave is more common then Chrobry at about 3:2. Still, Davies uses Chrobry (ex. Norman Davies (30 September 2010). Europe: A History. Random House. p. 325. ISBN 978-1-4070-9179-2.). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please review the hits by going to the last page. Trust me, the above hits are actual.--Zoupan 13:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 August 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Bolesław I the Brave. Jenks24 (talk) 10:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Bolesław I Chrobry → Bolesław the Brave – Common name as per above section. Zoupan 02:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 08:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the Google scholar hits clearly show that Chrobry/the Brave without number is the most common: "Bolesław Wielki" (46) and "Bolesław I Wielki" (4) vs. "Bolesław Chrobry" (1000+) and "Bolesław I Chrobry" (134); "Bolesław the Brave" (174), "Bolesław I the Brave" (33), "Bolesław the Great" (21), "Bolesław I the Great" (2).--Zoupan 13:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Google Scholar does not contain many books and articles about Polish history. There are only some of them (some of them are good and some of them are poor sourced). The number is usually use only during the first mention about Bolesław (or other ruler). We should use only good dictionaries or lexicon, like Polski Słownik Biograficzny, Słownik Starożytności Słowiańskich or Lexikon des Mittelalters, and genealogical works which concerned about the number and nickname of rulers. These should be our base, not accidentally results from Google Scholar of Books Google. Kmicic (talk) 19:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with your review of the Google scholar hits, nor your insisting on using number; these include studies, peer-reviewed journals, directly connected to the subject. Those "good dictionaries" are not English works, nor should they be used as our base. We have several 11th-century monarchs of other countries without numeral such as Sweyn Forkbeard, Magnus the Good, William the Conqueror. What about these Gbook hits of English-language works:
  • Dalewski, mentioned by you, used the version "Bolesław I the Brave" (Ritual and politics : writing the history of a dynastic conflict in medieval Poland, Leiden: Brill 2008, p. 13, 103, 213) Kmicic (talk) 03:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As per common name, conciseness, widely used in English-language sources.--Zoupan 02:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Aiming for a GA

[edit]

I want to thank User:Borsoka for the recent edits. I think it is reasonable to try to aim for a WP:GA here. I have scans of the PSB entry (unfortunately, this being letter B, they are old, from the 1930s, I think). I will try to see if they can help here. We need to lose some unreferenced content, and replace few refs or verify page numbers. This is almost B-class, perhaps B-class already (would like a 2nd opinion on that). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I think, modern Polish literature should also be used. Unfortunatelly, I do not know Polish. Borsoka (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pl Wikipedia has a section about works on him (pl:Bolesław_I_Chrobry#Bibliografia), which suggests there is a modern (2000 or so) book. I do think, however, that for GA it is not necessary to use it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For now, I am passing it as a B-class. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I am done with PSB. Still there is are a few unreferenced tidbits that need a better source... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extent of his domains

[edit]

The following was a totally unreferenced section. I am moving it here - feel free to restore, with sources added. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bolesław inherited from his father a realm that was close in dimensions to modern-day Poland. It centered on the core of Polanian country, the later Greater Poland (Wielkopolska). Greater Poland encompassed the valley of river Warta, stretched to the north to the Noteć river and to the south it encompassed Kalisz. Outside of this core the nascent Poland included the surrounding areas recently subdued by Bolesław's father, Mieszko I which included: parts of Pomerania to the north, including Kołobrzeg in the west and Gdańsk in the east, Mazovia with its capital at Płock to the east and Silesia to the south-west. It is disputed whether Lesser Poland, centered around Kraków, was incorporated into the Polish realm by Mieszko I before 992 or whether it was added by Bolesław in 999. Either way by the year 1000 Bolesław was the lord of a domain larger than contemporary England, Denmark, León or Burgundy.

Bolesław I the Great / Bolesław I Wielki

[edit]

I think we can leave it in the lead. It is not a common name for him, but Google Books does show several English and few dozens Polish books using this term, so it's not a hoax. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Augustus II the Strong which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[edit]

Why is Jan Matejko's art considered ,,fantasy portrayal"? For example, Walery Eljasz Radzikowski's art of the Piast the Wheelwright is accepted. Both of those artists lived in the same time period, so why is art accepted only from one of them?

I have moved the coin image to the infobox. StAnselm (talk) 03:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Piast is, in all probability, a legendary figure. Bolesław is not. Matejko's depictionis a fantasy portrayal because it came from Matejko's imagination. It does not appear in scholarly biographies of Bolesław. I doubt the modern coin does either. If anything, the Gniezno Doors portrayal looks like something one might expect in a high-quality source specializing in early Piast kings (WP:LEADIMAGE). That image does more good in the section, however. Surtsicna (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bolesław_I_the_Brave&oldid=1252169062"