Talk:John of Austria



Untitled

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . 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. 

move. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 21:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Based on the arguments presented below, the honourific "Don" needs to be removed from the title in order to be consistent with Wikipedia rules. Gryffindor 00:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is it "de Austria" and not "d'Austria"?
 * because it's Spanish.

This article's name seems wrong. I have never heard of "Don John of Austria" (sounds strange too). Did a google search for "Don Juan de Austria" and there are much more hits than this one. If English is to be used, it should be "John of Austria", the "Don" would have to go as honourifics are not normally used in Wikipedia articles. I would propose either "John of Austria", "Don Juan de Austria" or "Juan de Austria", but not a combination of English-Spanish... Gryffindor 15:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * In English he is commonly known as "Don John of Austria." Just from what's at hand, I see him named that way in The Timetables of History by Bernard Grun, and in Chesterton's poem, Lepanto. Tom Harrison Talk 16:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well let's see... there 31,900 hits for "Don John of Austria", 50,600 hits for "John of Austria", 110,000 for "Don Juan de Austria", and 282,000 for for "Juan de Austria". I also do not find any Wikipedia rule that says honourifics are used in articles, or is there an exception for Spaniards? Also Don is not english as far as I know. Gryffindor  16:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * He is, and has been for many years, known as Don John of Austria., . Maybe it doesn't make sense, but English often doesn't. Tom Harrison Talk 17:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * er, yes. The second link you have provided leads to "John of Austria", which to me sounds like the most correct form. Again, I cannot find any Wikipedia rule that says that this mish-mash form of Spanish and English is allowed anywhere. As to "most common name", I think the search results speak for themselves. Gryffindor  18:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Neither is there any rule that forbids it. Articles should be where people expect to find them. Still, clearly we disagree. Shall we list this on requested moves and see what other people think? Tom Harrison Talk 18:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well of course I wish we could come to some agreement. I understand your viewpoint, however I am basing my opinion on a variety of reason: Naming conventions (names and titles) 4. states that "Titles of Knighthood such as Sir and Dame should not be included..". The article states that Don is something like "Sir" in English, an honourific form. English Wikipedia also has to use English whenever possible, "Don" is not English. Using the honourific is indeed in violation of Wikipedia rules. Also, in case of doubt, Wikipedia should use the most common form. The google search shows clearly that "John of Austria" comes more often than "Don John of Austria". And "John of Austria" would be the version most in line with Wikipedia rules. Even the Spanish Wikipedia version of this article uses "Juan de Austria", without the "Don". You have also provided the link of the Free dictionary yourself, which has him listed as "John of Austria", with "Don John of Austria" redirecting to it. I think we can mention in the article itself that he is sometimes known under the Don form as well.  Gryffindor  16:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thinking about it, I have no objection to moving the page to "John of Austria", with "Don John of Austria" redirecting there. Tom Harrison Talk 18:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I mean if you really insist on keeping the "Don", I guess I can also agree with you to have it as "Don Juan de Austria", however I'm afraid that would as well be a problem since this is English Wikipedia. Gryffindor  19:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No, having thought about it, I can't see any reason the title has to include 'Don.' 'John of Austria' should be fine, and then let 'Don John of Austria' redirect there. Anybody searching for either will get the correct page; Presuambly the intro will say something like, "John of Austria, aka Don John of Austria, ..." or "Don John of Austria, ..." It leaves this page no worse off, everyone finds what they search for, and the change improves consistency with other articles. Tom Harrison Talk 19:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.

"John of Austria" is an oxymoron. No one know of such person. It is "Don Juan of Austria (or de Austria)"! If you call him John why do not translate his title as well. We'd get a "Honorable John of Austria" instead of Don Juan. One more John on English Wilkipedia pages.Vitoldus44 23:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If wikipedia naming conventions mean we can't include "Don" in the title of this article, then Wikipedia naming conventions are wrong. john k (talk) 02:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Again with the naming convention - should be in Spanish
Wikipedians, sorry for again raising this issue, but IMHO the article's name should be Don Juan de Austria (in spanish, the most frequently found online for this spanish person), and then there should be redirects from the english translated name (as this is the english wikipedia). I've just seen in the Main Page other names of spaniards, in spanish (as I could expect to see). As an example,please bear in mind the following cases: José de San Martín, Pedro de Mendoza, Juan de Garay, Domingo Sarmiento, Juan Manuel de Rosas, just to mention a few. Unless there is a reasonable cause for not doing so, I'll move this page to the accepted spanish name (mentioned above) before end of this month. Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 11:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please request a move and prove that English language sources call him "Juan de Austria". Surtsicna (talk) 13:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for raising this to my attention. How do you "request a move"? What is that process for? Why should that be proved? The fact is that in the English Wikipedia are several examples of notable figures where their names are kepe in their original language (in this case, spanish), and anyway thr eredirecte from the english translations would cater for english-speaking readers. Please bear in mind that the English Wikipedia is accessed by most prople who don't speak english as first language (eg: native spanish speakers like me). Also please let me know where in Wikipedia naming conventions says that this specific article can't have its name in spanish (which is the more frequent name as demonstrated earlier in the discussion), consistently with so many other. Thanks and regards, DPdH (talk) 16:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:Requested moves. You should prove that the title you suggest is the the most common name used by English language sources because those names are used by English Wikipedia, not the names used by Spanish language sources. If Pedro de Mendoza is called Pedro de Mendoza by English language sources, we should call him Pedro de Mendoza. If John of Austria is not called Juan de Austria by a majority of English language sources, we shouldn't call him Juan de Austria. It's quite simple. It doesn't matter what your (or mine) first language is; what matters is how English language sources refer to a person. Surtsicna (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, Encyclopaedia Britannica online uses the spanish name "Juan de Austria" in its article (retrieved minutes ago). Do you need any better example of a verifiable english languaje source? Regards, DPdH (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And the "Commons" category and gallery is named in spanish. Same as the US Navy Gunboat named after him (a former Spanish Navy cruiser). Cheers, DPdH (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should be Juan and not John. His biography published in 1966 by Amarie Dennis is titled Don Juan of Austria. I vote for Juan. GS3 (talk) 09:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Being the bastard child of a Flemish Holy Roman Emperor and a middle class German woman makes John not particularly comparable to any of your examples. I tend to think the article should be at Don John of Austria, which is, I think, how he is best known, but he is usually referred to by the anglicized "John" rather than the Spanish "Juan." john k (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to disagree with you, but being a bastard child does not make Juan de Austria less notable than any of the examples I mentioned. And certainly has nothing to do with the naming of the article. Regards, DPdH (talk) 16:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * John K did not say it made him less notable. He said that it made this case much different than those that you had cited. You can't compare him to conquistadors. Surtsicna (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it's unclear to me why the case is different or not comparable with those I've mentioned (by the way, not all of them are conquistadores). Can you please explain further? Thanks, DPdH (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Royalty (even royal bastards) are generally going to be named differently from ordinary people. Find reliable sources in English that call him "Don Juan de Austria," and then we can talk. john k (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Apart from sounding a bit pedantic to me (and I might be wrong), you probably haven't seen my note above related to the article in Encyclopaedia Britannica online. If you believe this source to be reliable, then we could keep talking. DPdH (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a reliable source, yes - I hadn't seen that when I posted, my apologies. As you can see below, Braudel (or his translator) uses "Don John of Austria", although that's obviously an older source.  I don't have much in the way of useful recent sources to look to, but I think that history books, rather than other encyclopedia articles, are the best guide. john k (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

"Don" is a sort of style, is it not? I don't think it should be included in the article title any more than "HRH". I believe that he was John of Austria but not being any sort of title "of Austria". Seven Letters 21:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * HRH's are generally not referred to as such in standard historical works. Don John is generally called Don John in such works.  That is, for example, what Sian Reynolds's translation of Braudel's Mediterranean calls him. john k (talk) 04:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

messed up
Something in the formatting of this page makes it almost illegible. The emblazoning is on the left and a bunch of other stuff. In my years of reading Wikipedia I've never seen a page look this bad. 4.249.63.207 (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Illegitimate
I think this is a poor indirect way to indicate he was born out of wedlock. As with in-wedlock (marital) and out-of-wedlock (extramarital?) children, their societal status depends on the attitude of various groups, some of which are going to be more influenced by their birth status than others. But the birth status seems the key issue, and "illegitimate" seems just kind of a weasel word. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Illegitimate" is the normal word used in English to refer to someone born out of wedlock, and is certainly such for this period of time. john k (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

van Veen marriage
The latest version of this article showed, that Juan d'Austria was allegedly married with Hillegonda van Veen. This is based on only one source and highly disputed. Experts like Charles Petrie, Austrian and Spanish Historians never pursued this theory. Neither german nor spanish Wikipedia versions have any entry on this behalf. The only source for this allegation comes from a book by G. Eschausier: "Het Leidsche Geslacht van Veen" (1912). If Hillegonda van Veen, daughter of the famous Cornelis van Veen and sister of the even more famous Otto van Veen was married to him and they had a son, this would be better documented than in Eschauziers family chronicles. Additionally, all the entries regarding this dubious offspring come from the same source, which probably also spreads this theory via his own website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.125.4.110 (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

After checking the Eschausier source (found the booklet at a Dutch Antiques Bookshoop), even there is no information about a possible marriage between Hillegonda and Juan. The previous entry therefore is complete invention and the User HiddenHistoryBuff should be blocked from faking historical facts. All faked details have been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.116.4.242 (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Oct 1573 Conquest of Tunisia
Sure, it went south the next year, but it still seems a fairly major accomplishment that should at least be mentioned in the guy's bio. — Llywelyn II   20:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Battle of Lepanto 1571.jpg

Meeting(s) with Charles V?
From the introductory section: "Charles V met his son only once...." From the "Early life" section: "Charles resided nearby at the Monastery of Yuste, and until his own death in September of that year, he saw his son several times."

This inconsistency should be cleared up by someone who knows about the subject or is willing to learn about it. If "he saw his son" means looked out the window and glimpsed him without meeting him, that should be explained. JamesMLane t c 02:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Vicar of Spanish Italy?
While working on fixing links to disambiguation pages, I came across this article, which links twice to John's position as Vicar of Spanish Italy (once in the infobox, once in the political offices template at the bottom). The "Spanish Italy" link is to a disambiguation page (Spanish Italy (disambiguation)), but I am unsure which entity from that is correct.

Additionally, there is no mention of this office or what it consisted of in the text of the article. I feel like an office like that should probably be explained (with a citation of some sort). I am no expert on John or the general time period, so I thought that I would mention it here. It looks like @Muwatallis II has been doing a lot of work here recently and added this office, so I figured I would notify them of this discussion. Thanks, Cleancutkid (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)