Talk:John Scolvus

Name

 * John of Kolno: 322 hits
 * "John of Kolno" -wikipedia -wiki +Denmark -Scolnus -Scolvus (English pages only): 102 hits


 * John Scolvus: 40 hits
 * "Johannes Scolvus" -wikipedia -wiki (English pages only): 286 hits


 * Jan z Kolna (English pages only): 352 hits
 * "Jan z Kolna" -wikipedia -"Rising Knights" (English pages only): 10 hits

We should use the more common name. Both Polish and English translation are popular and acceptable, latin is not popular and should be reserved for Latin Wikipedia.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Piotrus, Polish POV "is not popular and should be reserved for", well, not even Polish Wiki. It is obvious that "Jan z Kolna" and its translation "John of Kolno" stem from Lelewel's patriotism, and many of the Google hits from this article which was created by User:Halibutt about 3 years ago. I am surprised that you try to play the Google game once again even though it has backfired against Polish POV many times before, e.g. when names of hotels and streets were counted. As you see above, "Johannes Scolvus" is the favourite when criteria are altered. Its easy to show that the "Jan z Kolna" hits come from a group of "Rising Knights". Many "John of Kolno" hits are from pages that use Wikipedia content or simply neglect to mention Denmark and the sourced Scolnus/Scolvus names, so hardly a serious discussion of the matter. Among the remaining hits are totally unrelated hit-fishing sites like the esoteric Global Oneness or Arthritis Pain Relief, and some with Polish POV, like "Harmony Polish Folk Ensemble", Father Jankowski's Sermon At the junction of Piastowskie Waly and John of Kolno Street, "Dziennik Zwiazkowy - Online Edition" and, first instead of least, the bold claim "The Poles may be considered to have a hereditary right in America, since it is stated on credible authority that a Pole, John of Kolno...". Other sites with Polish POV, like PolishRoots®, Polish American and Poles.org treat the matter in a rather neutral way and introduce John Scolvus first before mentioning the Polish Jan z Kolno hypothesis. Well, there are even Scolvus Jachts sailing on the Oder.


 * What counts is not Google noise, but the use among scholars, e.g. in papers hosted on .edu domains or on jstor.org. Looking for kolno site:.jstor.org yields only 8 results, most of them not relating to the sailor, and the interesting "JSTOR: The Postwar Polish Historical Novel - F. Fenikowski's The Ring with the Swan (1952), for example, based on the life of Jan of Kolno, a Pole who supposedly discovered America before Columbus ...". Some papers are downloadable as PDF, eg. Early Portuguese voyages and one by Dr. Thomas L. Hughes.
 * "John of Kolno" is not acceptable as article name, this name has no support among scholars, and most don't even bother to mention the old (and present) attempts to paint the figure Polish with the use of this name. Piotrus, move the article back to John Scolvus. -- Matthead discuß!    O       09:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No sources given for the Polish claims, so restoring to sourced NPOV and moving back to John Scolvus. -- Matthead discuß!    O       01:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

1570, Francois de Belleforest: „Et a fin que je ne semple par trop flater les nostres, ny tordre le nez a l’histoire, qui vent estre traite veritablement, il fault voir brie fuement a qui la gloire de la descouverte de ce oais boreal /labrador/ set deue, qui ne doit estre rapportee ny a l’Espagnol, Portugais, au Francoys: ven que Jean Scoluue, [b]polonois[/b] y passa dez l’an de nostre salut 1476, long temps au parauent que iamais les Roys Catholiques, ny Portugais eussent envoye Colomb on Vespucce a visiter les torres estranges; lequel seiqueur polonois, traversant la mer de Noruege et les isles d’Engrounland Thile et autres incoqneuea, vint on destroit qu’on dit Artique et oppose droittement a celuy qui es parties australes de Magellan

So the first who said he was Polish was FRENCH, so this is not POLISH claim, but rather French claim. 150.254.130.180 (talk) 08:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Scolvus. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927204928/http://www.ghi-dc.org/publications/ghipubs/bu/033/79.pdf to http://www.ghi-dc.org/publications/ghipubs/bu/033/79.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup?
This article still fails at neutrality and presents the polish origins theory as fact. If no one objects I will rewrite it to present neutral intro, background and expedition blocks, without nationality claims, and then save the discussion of origins for a separate block. -- Nidator T / C 07:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused. If by "intro" you mean the WP:LEAD, it's meant to summarise the article, so you should start their first. What do you mean by "neutral" background and expedition blocks? Just leaving out nationality?  Doug Weller  talk 11:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I meant the lead and what I called block is perhaps more properly called a section. Yes, I would like to remove the positive identifications with John of Kolno and definitive claims regarding his origins, although I'm not talking about removing or editing the historic sources. Presenting identification theories like John of Kolno (Polish) or Jon Skolp (Norwegian/Danish) should be left to a dedicated section, similiar to the speculation section the article has now. I had thought I should add a background section to give some historical background information, but as this is an article about a person perhaps that should be left to the expedition section. The infobox also has to go, I think. It is speculative. I just think the later speculation should be contained to a section where it is clearly presented as later speculation, not dropped in throughout as gospel. -- Nidator T / C 17:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)