Talk:Katarzyna Weiglowa

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion 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 proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Katarzyna Weiglowa → Catherine Vogel – Per WP:COMMONNAME. The proposed name is much, much more common than the present one. She is called Catherine Vogel in 31 English language book, with 17 calling her "Katherine Weigel" and only 2 referring to her as "Katarzyna Weiglowa". We should clearly use "the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) ". Surtsicna (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - At last, a RM I know something about. Sorry but very strongly oppose "Catherine Vogel" as archaic, see WP:Identifying reliable sources on publication dates. It's important to put a date parameter on Advanced Google Book Search and remove elderly material. In this case results since 1980 clearly show the Polish name being used. The few "modern" authors that use the "English" name "Catherine Vogel" are in fact not modern E. Cobham Brewer shows as "2001" on Google Books but in fact died in 1897, the book is a (evidently not very up to date) reprint, and so on.
 * If there is to be a move it would not be to the Victorian English "Catherine Vogel", but from Polish to German Katherine Weigel, per several sources including one important and standard authority on the period Roland Bainton did use the spelling "Katherine Weigel" Minnesota 1977 (following Earl Morse Wilbur 1945), and many sources have followed Bainton since. The problem is however that identification of Katarzyna Weiglowa as an ethnic German is incorrect. Earl Morse Wilbur and Bainton worked from German sources, Polish study wasn't widely available in English translation until the 1980s. Look in Google Scholar shows Jews and Others in Seventeenth-Century Wilno: Life in the Neighborhood D Frick - Jewish Studies Quarterly, 2005 - JSTOR using the Polish name, and that's pretty representative of modern scholarship. Transmissions of the archaic English name, and German name used by Wilbur and Bainton, are not what is used in today's scholarship. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you mean by "archaic" or "Victorian English". Could you please show me some date that explains what you are saying? If we limit the results to 21st-century books and exclude E. Cobham Brewer, there are 2 referring to her as Catherine Vogel and 1 calling her Katarzyna Weiglowa. If we limit the results to books published after 1980, we have 5 calling her Catherine Vogel and 2 calling her Katarzyna Weiglowa. In both cases, that's twice as much. The fact is that only 2 books ever published call her "Katarzyna Weiglowa" (unsurprisingly, both published by Poles), so "Catherine Vogel" will pretty much always be more common, no matter how you choose to search. Therefore, "Catherine Vogel" is far from "archaic" and is the name normally used in English to identify this woman, much like Joan of Arc and Jerome of Prague, both martyrs like Catherine, are known as Joan and Jerome. Surtsicna (talk) 08:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The Victorian era is 1837-1901. Most of the sources you found with "Catherine Vogel" date from that period. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's because most of the English language sources that refer to her at all date from that period. As I've shown already, "Catherine Vogel" is more than twice as common as "Katarzyna Weiglowa" in the 21st century and in the period from 1980 onwards - in fact, it is much more common in any period you select. Surtsicna (talk) 08:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In fact not, most of Google Book's text bank on any subject is weighted to Victorian era sources. But in this case it appears even more overweight since the name "Catherine Vogel" was replaced by the German "Katherine Weigel" in writing on the subject. This is a very narrow acadamic field. While recycled info will appear in other sources scholars on the Polish Reformation are no more than 20 or 30 academics within the last 50 years. None of them use the victorian English name.
 * We'll see what others say. I doubt anyone will support this use of sources. Sorry. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Why on Earth would you doubt that? The proposed name is much more common among all sources, including those published after 1980 and those published after 2000. Your opposition is not based on any data whatsoever, and I doubt anyone will be convinced by your clearly, factually incorrect argument . Surtsicna (talk) 12:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Support move to Catherine Vogel : The present name came in at 10 June 2010 and the article was expanded by User:SETI3 who has contributed mainly to articles with Polish connections[]. After a short relapse to "Catherine Zelazowska" the name "Katarzyna Weiglowa" was again given pride of place in the lead and article title by In ictu oculi who has contributed much to Biographies. While appreciating both those editor's work and diligence, it does seem that continuing to use the Polish name is less suited to this article than the one normally used in English, given that the Polish name has not yet gained wide enough currency in the literature to prevail over the long-standing usage "Vogel" (or Zelazowska). Qexigator (talk) 09:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, June 2010 is a long time ago - there wouldn't be many Polish Reformation stubs I haven't worked on - I don't recall moving maiden name Catherine Zelazowska to Katarzyna Weiglowa but the move was absolutely correct. I really don't see the argument above at all. Modern sources use either the Polish name or the German one. The "English name" is archaic, as a look at the quality of the few modern sources it appears in shows. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, recollection fades, and cannot always be relied on. Can you support your case by tracing the origin of the Vogel usage in the literature? Is it mentioned or ignored in recent publications, such as those to which you allude? I ask because I don't doubt your scholarship in this field, but to say it is "archaic" is not enough, and probably means obsolescent. Qexigator (talk) 10:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well User:Qexigator, for any subject 19th Century sources are archaic, we don't use 19th Century sources in any context on Wikipedia.
 * I don't really understand the question. You say "given that the Polish name has not yet gained wide enough currency in the literature to prevail over the long-standing usage "Vogel"" but it just isn't a verifiable statement and I've no idea where you get this idea from?? I have already documented that 1940s-70s scholarship uses the German name "Katherine Weigel" as illustrated by Williams and Bainton. Vogel isn't used in scholarly sources. Zelazowska the maiden name isn't used in scholarly sources. (Okay I see there was a 1901 Jewish Encyclopedia entry using Zelazowska which is in the article - but the same 1901 source also identifies her as a convert to Judaism, which her defence at the trial shows she wasn't - charging an Arian with Judaizing was just for convenience to justify killing a Unitarian in those days). That's by the by. This lady is known as Katherine Weigel in modern sources, except that as Polish academics have taken over from the Williams and Bainton generation we now use the Polish. This completely muddled proposal seems to want to throw us back to using sources of the 1870s. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've already told you that we can throw away all 19th-century sources and still see quite clearly that the rest refer to her as "Catherine Vogel" much more often than as "Katarzyna Weiglowa", but you've chosen to ignore that several times. In case you missed it, I am going to repost the data: 5 post-1980 English-language books call her Catherine Vogel and 2 call her Katarzyna Weiglowa; 2 21st-century English-language books use Catherine Vogel and 1 uses Katarzyna Weiglowa. There are no 19th-century sources there and no "Victorian English". It's also noteworthy that the only two English-language books ever published that call her Katarzyna Weiglowa were written by two Poles. Of course Qexigator's statement is verifiable - I've provided these links three times now, so anyone can verify this. You even admit that Katarzyna Weiglowa is the least common name in English language scholarly sources, used only by Polish academics. Surtsicna (talk) 12:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Surtsicna, maybe it's a setting problem. Your link for me doesn't produce 5 books it produces only 4: Ebenezer Cobham Brewer (not 2001), John F. Nash (not scholarly), Martindale-Hubbell International Law Directory (a mishit), New Glass Review (a miss hit). In other words = 0.
 * As for scholars studying Polish history being Polish, yes the majority are. Is this surprising? We don't have an ethnic filter on Google Books to exclude Poles. American scholars predominate in studying American history, should we exclude them from articles on American history? The reality is that while Polish scholars may have been slow in studying their own Reformation, that changed with Stanisław Kot and the generation that followed him. Scholarly material in English about Polish history is largely written by Poles themselves writing in English. Same as any other country. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The certainty of the conviction with which Iio contends for retaining "Katarzyna Weiglowa" need not be doubted, but is that editor now proposing that "Katherine Weigel" (see below) is to be preferred to Catherine Vogel, as less obsolescent and, in recent decades, more scholarly? Do the works quoted below acknowledge the earlier use of "Vogel"? By the by, it would be unnecessary and unscholarly. in the cause of modernism, to belittle Roland Bainton's works. Qexigator (talk) 13:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Qexigator, I didn't see anyone "belittle" 1970s scholarship. It's simply that 1970s scholarship worked from German translations not Polish sources, that's all.
 * Do you mind, can I ask why you're interested in this particular article? We probably have close to 200 biographies of Polish Arians, all of them with Polish names, even when in many cases 1950-1980s scholarship largely used German and Latin names (given transmission through German and Latin sources), and earlier 1890s-1930s scholarship would have had attempts at English names, turning Polish "Marcin" and "Jan" to English "Martin" and "John" and so on. In each case if we do not follow the current generation of research and go back to earlier generations we could give perhaps 50 to 100 of these Polish Reformation bios "English names." Why focus on one fairly minor figure, Katarzyna Weiglowa? What's different or special about her that means not following modern practice in her case? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Surt. invokes WP. There is also a common sense, worldly wise way of looking at it. At any given time, a publisher (and/or author) may have to consider what readership is expected for the work, as first published or in translation into another language such as German for German readers or Polish for Polish readers, and which name to use, and how to use it, in the work and in the title. So far, it looks like "Katarzyna Weiglowa" is in third place in English language books, whether in print or in library catalogues. Whatever name is used for the article, she deserves to be remembered and honoured by the name she had in her own day, whether the book or article title is Anglicised or not, as in the example already given: Joan of Arc. Do we use Nicolaus Copernicus or Nikolaus Kopernikus or Mikołaj Kopernik? John Amos Comenius,or Jan Amos Komenský or Ján Amos Komenský or Johann Amos Comenius or Jan Amos Komeński or Comenius-Szeges János? Raphael or Raffaello Sanzio da Urbino? Qexigator (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Qexigator,
 * We seem to have a disconnect.
 * Do you see the seven grey quotation boxes below? How many sources since 1980 support the proposed move? In ictu oculi (talk)
 * Yes, and Surt.'s rejoinder. Qexigator (talk) 16:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Qexigator, please answer the question. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * then have the decency to change your !vote. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not consider Surt.'s points or mine have been met. I remain of the opinion that the article's subject deserves attention and respect under whichever of the names is used for its title, and for that I am grateful to editors who have been composing it. Qexigator (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Qexigator this is an RM. Your friend Surtsicna proposes to rename the biography as Catherine Vogel, you have given Support to that move. I ask you again, please: In the seven grey quotation boxes of sources since 1980 how many accord with your !vote? In ictu oculi (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Please note that a subsection on "Her name in published works" has now been added by.... Qexigator (talk) 08:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ...and reverted by WP:BRD. Apart from the slightly creepy aspect of seeing my own sources presented here on the Talk page adjusted and presented like that, this is no different from the attempt to adjust the lead in favour of the RM. We don't do this when an RM is ongoing. Work on the article either stops or has clear consensus. It wasn't just that aspect either.. even if there wasn't a RM going on, the fact that, Qexigator, you don't know the basics about the Polish Reformation or the scholarship on the Polish Reformation meant that it was a fairly distorted and WP:OR-tinged version of reality. Such that it would be easier to discard and start from zero. If such a paragraph on "History of scholarship on Katarzyna Weiglowa" is needed it needs to be done by editors with the basics and actual access to the tradition via Latin, German, English and most recently Polish sources. Such a paragraph can wait till the RM is safely over. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Undo noted The undoing editor or any other is welcome to improve on it in the usual way, but that editor and any other would do well to avoid jumping to false suppositions and publishing unfounded allegations of tag teaming. That editor's sensitivity on this matter is well understood and always respected. Qexigator (talk) 10:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, then lets get back to the RM: You Support a move to Catherine Vogel. Do you have any source more recent than 1918 to justify your !vote? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: When false statements about tag teaming have been removed, the Requested move position will be reviewable by ...Qexigator (talk) 10:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. The GBook numbers here are too low to be a valid way to determine common name. The two books that use “Katarzyna Weiglowa” barely mention her. Bainton is the only modern English-language RS I found that gives any sort of account of this subject’s life (four pages long). He calls her "Katherine Weigel", so that’s what I am leaning toward. 79.142.77.228 (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please let us know, if you can, whether this supports all or part of from 1980 there has been a tendency for works published in English to use the German form of her name, "Weigel", instead of "Vogel", and the Polish form is also being used more frequently - which has been added to the article by ...Qexigator (talk) 16:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as post-1980 works for the general reader go, both David Lawton (1993) and Leonard Levy (1995) use “Weigel.” Strictly speaking, it is true that more English-language sources are using her Polish name in recent years. But it is misleading to imply that this form is anything other than a variation given in a few little-read sources. Aren't Weigel and Vogel equally German? 128.204.196.75 (talk) 06:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you. That seems to put the comments for and against proposed move into better perspective. On that score, perhaps, the article name should be as proposed in this RM and the German and Polish shown as variants, revising the article to read:
 * Catherine Vogel (Polish Katarzyna Weiglowa (Wajglowa), given erroneously in a 17c. Polish source as Vogel)[1] (German: Katherine Weigel) (circa 1460 – April 19, 1539 in Kraków), was a Roman Catholic woman... --Qexigator (talk) 07:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * +The change would continue to be amply covered by redirects for all variants --Qexigator (talk) 08:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose move - 19th century sources are unacceptable. Poland was partitioned between neighboring empires back then completely out of existence. I noticed the same problems when dealing with old encyclopedias published in the West in that period. They are all atrocious. Poeticbent talk 21:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Taking into account the points made to date, it appears that the accessible information is inconclusive, depending on this or that criteria, and that it looks simplest to leave the title of the article unchanged (Katarzyna Weiglowa), if that is taken to be the name by which she was commonly known by her countrymen in her lifetime, at the time of the events on which her notability depends, relying on redirects for variants. Qexigator (talk) 21:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Alteration made to article lead
I have tried approaching Surtsicna directly to undo this but he/she has again edited the lead to take out the information that the name Vogel is incorrect:

In ictu oculi (talk) 17:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a question about how best to present the information, and avoid giving a first time reader a false emphasis or making detail over-prominent. The fact that in 1995 one scholar has written that another has erroneously given the name Vogel somewhere in something he has published has practically no relevance to the facts of her biography or the events of her lifetime, which is what the article is mainly about. But for anyone wishing to look further into the literature, this snippet of information could be most useful and it should be given a place in the article. That could be done in a section discussing the name question, touching factually on the development of usage among scholars as you have already mentioned above. Even if added as part of the body of the article, which I believe it should be, it ought not to be put in the lead in the way that has been opposed. Qexigator (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You're wrong. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Now that's convincing. Surtsicna (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

God this is tiring. Let me explain. It is not "in 1995 one scholar has written that another has erroneously given the name Vogel somewhere in something he has published". The reason I bluelinked Stanisław Lubieniecki (1623-1675) was so that anyone who didn't know who he was could click. And someone who doesn't know who Stanisław Lubieniecki (1623-1675) was has no business editing a Polish Reformation biography, since Historia Reformationis Polonicae (1685) is a key, if not the key, primary text. ‎George Huntston Williams the translator editor of Historia Reformationis Polonicae (1685) has noted "162. 'The Author erroneously gives Vogel meaning the Latin source incorrectly transcribes Wiegel (as found in Bainton's translation of the trial records) in Latin as "Vogel" That's why the name Vogel is incorrect. The same fact is documented in other sources, Janusz Tazbir and so on, but in Polish. But the English edition of the main primary source is sufficient. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I posted the above before the "Now that's convincing. Surtsicna (talk)" comment appeared.
 * That really to me sums up the problem here. Looking over the above what I see is two editors with experience in nobility articles but with no knowledge of or editing history of anything connected with the Polish Reformation have arrived at an article lacking WP:COMPETENCE to do a Google Book search, lacking the ability to read the complete unabridged quote of ‎George Huntston Williams's note on the name Vogel, but with the confidence to take information supported in black and white by the main American scholar of the subject out of the lead in order to promote an RM to the name the main American scholar says is a mistake. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * So, George Huntston Williams, a 20c. scholar learned in the topic, in 1995 published an annotated edition of History of the Polish Reformation and Nine Related Documents, mentioning that its author, Stanisław Lubieniecki, a notable scholar writing in the 17c., had erred in using the name "Vogel". There is no explanation of the error. That information, as before mentioned, could be mentioned in the article. But, in my view, it does not meet the points made in support of changing the name of the article, nor should it be in the lead in the way which has been opposed. Qexigator (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That information is in the article and has been for a long time. Your friend only deleted it 20:43, 18 September 2013‎ thirty minutes prior at 21:16, 18 September 2013‎ posting an RM to the name the article lead said was a mistake. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The actual state of affairs is as follows. The question which had arisen was whether the opening sentence should say "...(German: Katherine Weigel or in many English sources, incorrectly, Catherine Vogel)", as it had been until it was changed  to "...(German: Katherine Weigel; in many English sources called Catherine Vogel)". No mention had then been made of George Huntston Williams's annotation to History of the Polish Reformation in the 1995 edition. The question which has now arisen is whether, if that information is fully set out in the article, it should be mentioned briefly in the lead. But, please understand in view of the points made above, it should not be put in the lead in the way which has been opposed. This is the case, whichever name is used for naming the article. Qexigator (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * User:Qexigator,
 * Frankly this is beginning to look like Tag team. I see the two of you cooperating on nobility articles and that is fine, but this is not a nobility article, and WP:NCROY guidelines which support giving European counts and dukes "English names" do not apply here.
 * More importantly neither of you are addressing the fact that (1) the leading American authority says the name "Vogel" is wrong, (2) your only Google Books source since WWII is a self-published Kindle book.
 * If you or Surtsicna would please look through the the Google Books results in this RM proposal you will see how far back we have to go to find the name "Catherine Vogel" used: There's one hit in a 1947 magazine article for The Word of The Strickland Press, but the most recent book sources are Unitarian minister Joseph Henry Crooker The Winning of Religious Liberty 1918 p75 and Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics: James Hastings, ‎John Alexander Selbie, ‎Louis Herbert Gray - 1922 Volume S-Z p520. (in fact 1908 not 1922).
 * Please also note Williams refers to Weiglowa as "Katarzyna" not "Catherine" in the Harvard 1995 edition of Historia Reformationis Polonicae too.
 * User:Surtsicna,
 * The article lead has been stable for 3 years with the information that "Vogel" is incorrect in the lead. You deleted that information 30 min prior to initiating this RM. Please restore the stable lead of the article. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Why is this WP:Tag team anymore than any situation in which a user disagrees with two users? Frankly, describing this as "tag team" is a bit insulting. Neither of us has ever invoked WP:NCROY here. We've only mentioned WP:COMMONNAME, which applies to this article as much as it does to any other. If the most common name happens to be an "English name", so be it; and that is sometimes the case with martyrs (cf. Joan of Arc, Jerome of Prague, Nicholas of Basel, etc). The article was "stable" because hardly anyone edited it in three years, much like it was "stable" at Catherine Zelazowska for three years until you moved it to Katarzyna Weiglowa. Qexigator's solution is the most sensible one. Surtsicna (talk) 08:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * When I said "Frankly this is beginning to look like Wikipedia:Tag team." I only said then "beginning" - I have never had to even use that term before in a RM or any other context to the best of my recollection, I realise that the two of you are operating in good faith, but nevertheless I see a situation where editors share editing areas and Talk page communications and support each others edits. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "Support each others edits"? How come you don't see when we disagree with each other? I suppose you only see what you want to see. If you are only "beginning" to think that, then I am only beginning to be insulted. Surtsicna (talk) 11:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not an expert in these areas. I do not know how to use http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/editorinteract.html to assess such matters for example. All I know that it is strange enough already to have 1 editor with no edit history in Polish religious history articles suddenly appear and demand a move to a name used in 19th Century English sources, disregarding English modern sources because the writers are Poles writing in English, and removing from the article lead that the proposed name is actually incorrect. That is strange enough. But to then have a 2nd editor, also with no edit history in the articles, appear at the same time making exactly the same arguments for 19th Century sources, ignoring books in English written by Poles, and also editing out the content in lead that says the name Catherine Vogel is incorrect. Well it looks like what it looks like. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not an expert in these areas. I do not know how to use http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/editorinteract.html to assess such matters for example. All I know that it is strange enough already to have 1 editor with no edit history in Polish religious history articles suddenly appear and demand a move to a name used in 19th Century English sources, disregarding English modern sources because the writers are Poles writing in English, and removing from the article lead that the proposed name is actually incorrect. That is strange enough. But to then have a 2nd editor, also with no edit history in the articles, appear at the same time making exactly the same arguments for 19th Century sources, ignoring books in English written by Poles, and also editing out the content in lead that says the name Catherine Vogel is incorrect. Well it looks like what it looks like. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Page protection
I have restored the page to the stable lead as it has been for 3 years prior to Sutsicna's RM. There is no urgency to jump in an edit war a new lead when there is evidently no consensus here. The RM proposal runs for 7 days, that will supply sufficient time for other editors to comment on the RM proposal based on merits in the proposal. As far as edits to the article, hopefully editors with a proven track record in contributing to Polish Reformation and Unitarianism history articles will come forward. In the meantime any further attempts to "fix" the stable lead to support the RM by the RM proposer or his friend are politely discouraged. They have been reverted by WP:BRD but if they continue a request for page protection may become a possibility. Now please sit back and let other new editors comment. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Also if anyone has any questions about the appropriateness of making changes in support of a RM to the lead of an article when placing a RM, or while an RM is ongoing, then WT:RM is available as a forum where RM guidelines on such matters can be discussed. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The article was "stable" because hardly anyone edited it in three years, much like it was "stable" at Catherine Zelazowska for three years until you moved it to Katarzyna Weiglowa. The changes I made were NPOV-related; stating that the proposed name is incorrect would influence the outcome of a move request, but not stating anything obviously would not. You are well aware of that, but are nevertheless pushing your POV because you know that doing so will significantly influence the outcome in your favour. Surtsicna (talk) 11:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see above re WT:RM. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

"incorrectly" is incorrect
Now that the article has been revised to include the relevant information supplied above by another editor, it is no longer excusable to let the word "incorrectly" be left in the opening sentence. The above discussion shows the following to be now known and undisputed: that, of the person whose Polish name was Katarzyna Weiglowa -
 * 1_she has been "known in many English sources as Catherine Vogel"; 2_a Polish scholar writing about her in the 17c., Stanisław Lubieniecki, had given her name as "Vogel"; 3_it was not until 1995 that a published source, in English, mentioned that giving the name "Vogel" was an error on the part of the same Polish scholar (Lubieniecki),

- it necessarily follows that it is not correct to state that the English sources had been using "Vogel" for her name "incorrectly", as if the the origin of the name was in the English sources, when they had in fact been using the name given by Lubieniecki, who has only later been revealed to have given the name "erroneously". Qexigator (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that's not even remotely close.
 * As I said this is why an editor who can't read Latin, Polish and German and doesn't know the sources, the context, nor the basics of the article subject, shouldn't be inserting a section on etymology into the article. It is WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. If the two of you were not working together I would remove it immediately. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * If you are claiming that the Harvard footnote, which you supplied above, is faulty please explain that more precisely, and the basis for the claim. Qexigator (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I am stating that your understanding is faulty because you don't understand the issue, or the context, or the original source. And consequently your insertion into the article is a mess of WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. What are you doing editing a Polish Reformation bio in the first place? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Continued imprecision which fails to identify the fault claimed, or ad hominem assertions about another editor's ability to understand, is not helpful or productive. What insertion is it that you are referring to? Are you objecting to anything in the Harvard footnote which is the source for "Katarzyna Weiglowa (Wajglowa) (German: Katherine Weigel; given erroneously in a Polish source of 17c. as Vogel, and known in many English sources as Catherine Vogel)"? Do you actually have a reasoned objection of any kind? If you have relevant information to add to the article in support of your point, let it be done. Has it occurred to you that any such article in an encyclopedia for the information of readers generally should be reasonably intelligible especially to those who are not specialists in the particular branch of a given topic such as a bio (any), of a Polish person (any), in connection with an historical period (any), specifically the period of the Protestant Reformation of the chuch in Europe, and in that connection, persons condemned to death? Qexigator (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Qexigator,
 * I'm sorry but the last time I shared an academic source with you you mangled it and placed it in the article supporting your own WP:OR etymology section. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It goes without saying that it is open to you like any other editor to correct an error which another editor has made inadvertently, instead of continuing to make hostile ad hominem and unreasoned remarks. Qexigator (talk) 12:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * But as I said, your edits are so full of misunderstandings and error - because you know nothing about the subject beyond wanting to give an English name to this woman - that it is easier to revert and start from scratch. I am not going to feed you with good sources and see them twisted as you did the Williams one. It is better to let the article alone. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

"Katherine", "Katarzyna Weiglowa", or "Catherine"?
In "Accusation of apostasy" she is twice mentioned by the name of "Katherine". In the two next sections she is named "Katarzyna Weiglowa". Should these all be the same, and which of the three: "Katherine", "Katarzyna Weiglowa", or "Catherine"? If other criteria and information are inconclusive, would it not be simplest to opt for the name by which she was commonly known by her countrymen in her lifetime, at the time of the events on which her notability depends? The Harvard footnote seems to support "Katarzyna Weiglowa", though some surviving records may give variants. (The other two, and variants, can be given as redirects). Qexigator (talk) 16:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Qexigator,
 * I'm sorry but I feel that the article is unlikely to be improved while you are disrupting it in support of Surtsicna's RM. If it was moved to the 1908 name Catherine Vogel as Surtsicna proposes and you support would you then withdraw and leave the article text alone?
 * I have noted the move history of another Polish article Michał Korybut Wiśniowiecki to Michael Korybut Wiśniowiecki and if that is what it will take to have the text of the article left intact I would happily accept Catherine Vogel despite lack of any sources - other than scholars mentioning it to say it is "erroneous".
 * I can request an early close move to Catherine Vogel at WT:RM if the article itself can be left in peace. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * This article will remain open to peaceable improvement in the usual way, whether or not the name is changed. If it were changed to Catherine Vogel, are you proposing that the name used in the body should be changed to "Catherine"? If so, please advise on the basis of what criteria. Qexigator (talk) 11:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Subject to other comments, it now looks as though, of the three, "Catherine" would be either preferred or least unacceptable. This may be in recognition of letting the article's information be presented so as to be reasonably intelligible for the information of readers generally, and especially those who are not specialists in the particular branch of the topic; and letting that criterion prevail over opting for the name by which she was commonly known by her countrymen in her lifetime, at the time of the events on which her notability depends. If "Catherine" prevails, then the article name would be "Catherine Vogel", and the opening sentence would be
 * Catherine Vogel (Polish Katarzyna Weiglowa (Wajglowa), given erroneously in a 17c. Polish source as Vogel)[1] (German: Katherine Weigel) (circa 1460 – April 19, 1539 in Kraków), was a Roman Catholic woman...
 * Would editors settle for that? Qexigator (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Qexigator
 * Sorry, that's not good enough. So far your and Surtsicna's edits to the article have been restricted only to your adjustments to the lead to remove scholarly opinion that the name in Surtsicna's RM proposal is "erroneous." If I were to go along with this it would simply be to reduce disruption, if your view is that having given the article an "erroneous" name as a title would open the door to other edits that defeats the purpose for me of agreeing to an "English name." What else do you intend to do to the article? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I regret to have to say that your remarks are becoming increasingly unintelligible, in part due to misrepresenting my comments, in a way that seems strangely inconsistent with a claim to superior expertise in matters of scholarship. This section is concerned with a simple question concerned with consistency in the article as clearly set out at the top. Qexigator (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * When I say "sorry that's not good enough" I was responding to your comment that you intend to make further edits. That in itself is already cause for concern. Your proposed lead above is nonsense.
 * This is totally illogical. If Smith is correct what are you doing writing that it was given erroneously as Smith? But I am not going to debate this with someone who knows nothing about the subject. You can have the English name in the title, but to agree to edit with you on this article would turn it into a bigger mess than what you have already made. It is better for me to walk away and not fuel activity with providing new sources, then hopefully what is happening now will stop. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is totally illogical. If Smith is correct what are you doing writing that it was given erroneously as Smith? But I am not going to debate this with someone who knows nothing about the subject. You can have the English name in the title, but to agree to edit with you on this article would turn it into a bigger mess than what you have already made. It is better for me to walk away and not fuel activity with providing new sources, then hopefully what is happening now will stop. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, let all concerned please note that no one has asked that editor to walk away and that the editor's contribution had been duly acknowledged and comments scrupulously attended to.
 * The statement is logical, but at first sight may be not easy enough to comprehend. It may be more acceptable to retain the ref. to the Harvard footnote, but omit from the text the words: (... given erroneously in a 17c. Polish source as Vogel). But in any case, "incorrectly" was incorrect. Qexigator (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not going to waste more time on this, you have already been presented with a clear statement in English:
 * This means that the name Vogel is wikt:erroneous.
 * wikt:erroneous and wikt:incorrect both mean the same thing. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I had read the Harvard note. "erroneous" and "incorrect" are not identical and depending on context a good writer of English prose can choose the one most suited to his text (a less good writer is at risk of making a less good choice). The Harvard editor chose "erroneous" which, if correct there, is correct in the article. Is there any other source to show that he was mistaken? Can we now leave it at that? Qexigator (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I had read the Harvard note. "erroneous" and "incorrect" are not identical and depending on context a good writer of English prose can choose the one most suited to his text (a less good writer is at risk of making a less good choice). The Harvard editor chose "erroneous" which, if correct there, is correct in the article. Is there any other source to show that he was mistaken? Can we now leave it at that? Qexigator (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

"Daughter of Nicholas Radziwill"
Probably the Jewish Encyclopedia had in mind Elżbieta Mielecka, daughter of Mikołaj "the Black" Radziwiłł, but unfortunately I cannot write this into the article, having no sources to confirm. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In one blog I found a probable ref: "Janusz Tazbir, s. 303-304." Does anyone have access to this work to verify? (I mean the statement about influence of Mielecka on Weiglowa; about Mielecka herself, see, eg., here) Staszek Lem (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Scratch the above (stupid me): dates do not match. Either JE is wrong, or another daughter of another M. Radziwill was associated with Judaism. A curious coincidence it would be. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your contributions. I'm afraid pretty much every single word in the JE 1911 entry is wrong. Just as pretty much every word in other encyclopedias of the time is wrong. Which is unfortunate as this article started off as a stub copied from some old encyclopedia. No source prior to 1950 really has anything uuseful to say and should be deleted unless confirmed by a modern source. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

No Hebrew article?
There is apparently no article corresponding to this one on Hebrew Wikipedia. And if so, why not? We would certainly expect there to be. And there ought to be. Toddcs (talk) 12:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)