This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HungaryWikipedia:WikiProject HungaryTemplate:WikiProject HungaryHungary articles
King Vladislaus or Wladislaus (never Ladislaus)[edit]
The king name was Władysław in Polish and was also spelled: Wladislaus (early Latinized version) or Vladislaus (late Latin and English version), never Ladislaus. This shoud be corrected. Below is a sample of original documents sign by the Vladislaus kings. Althout the form Wladislaus was used more often, in my opinion Vladislaus is much better here, beacuse it is more modern version and more English. Vladislaus Rex 00:33, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
King Vladislaus I the Short (Władysław I Łokietek)[edit]
27.02.1298: Wladislaus Dei gracia, dux Regni Polonie et dominus Pomerania, Cuiavie, Lancicie as Siradie
7.03.1298: Wladislaus ...
1.09.1999: Wladislaus ...
King Vladislaus II Jagiello (Władysław II Jagiełło)[edit]
3.05.1386: Wladislaus Dei gracia rex Polonie Litwanieque princeps supremus et heres Russie etc.
30.09.1388: Wladislaus Dei gracia rex Polonie necnon terrarum Cracouie, Sandomirie, Syradia, Lancicie, Cuiauie, Lithuanie princeps supremus, Pomoranie Russieque dominus et heres etc.
22.04.1389: Wladislaus ...
28.01.1392: Wladislaus ...
10.05.1394: Wladislaus ...
11.04.1409: Wlodislaus (sic! with o) ...
12.12.1410: Wladislaus ...
17.07.1416: Wladislaus ...
6.09.1422: Wladislavs (sic! with v)...
24.06.1425: Wladislaus ...
King Vladislaus III of Varna (Władysław III Warneńczyk)[edit]
21.12.1436: Wladislaus Dei gratia rex Polonie Lithwanieque princeps supremus et heres Russie
16.12.1438: Wladislaus Tercius Dei gracia rex Polonie necnon terrarum Cracouie, Sandomirie, Syradie, Lancicie, Cuiauie, Lithwanieque princeps supremus, Pomeranie Russie dominus et heres et cetera
5.03.1440: Wladislaus Tercius ...
5.03.1440: Wladislaus Tercius ...
11.06.1443: Wladislaus Dei gracia Hungarie, Polonie, Dalmacie, Croacie etc. rex Litwanieque princes supremus et heres Russie etc.
11.06.1443: Wladislaus ...
17.04.1444: Wladislaus ...
19.04.1444: Wladislaus Dei gracia Polonie, Hungarie, Dalmacie, Croacie etc. rex Lithwaniaque princeps supremus et heres Russie etc.
18.08.1444: Wladislaus Dei gracia Polonie, Hungarie, Dalmacie, Croacie etc. tex necnon terrarum Cracouie, Samdomirie, Syradie, Lancicie, Cuyauie, Lithwanie princeps supremus, Pomeranie, Russieque dominus et heres etc.
20.02.1633: Vladislaus Quartus Dei gratia rex Poloniae, magnus dux Lithuaniae, Russiae, Prussiae, Masoviae, Samogitiae, Livoniaeque, necnon Suecorum, Gothorum Vandalorumque haereditarius rex, electus magnus dux Moschoviae
12.03.1633: Wladislaus Quartus ...
14.08.1634: Vladislaus Quartus ...
17.03.1637: Vladislaus Quartus ...
24.03.1637: Vladislaus Quartus ...
7.05.1638: Vladislaus IV ...
30.09.1641: Vladislaus Quartus ...
24.03.1646: Vladislaus Quartus ...
16.05.1646: Vladislaus Quartus ...
16.05.1646: Vladislaus Quartus ...
1.09.1647: Vladislaus Quartus ...
Wonder about the current, very Polish name of this article[edit]
This guy, Vladislaus III of Varna is also monarch of Hungary. Not only of Poland. Currently, this article resides under Władysław III of Varna.
I cannot see why a king of Hungary should have a Polish spelling in en-Wiki, when there are more neutral alternatives such as "Vladislas" available, neither Polish nor Hungarian.
A different issue altogether is which of his two realms is the "higher title" or "more important kingdom" meant in Wikipedia naming conventions.
However, this cannot continue under that Polish variant of the first name, and with all those diacritical letters (not welcome to Hungarians nor to English-speakers) which are not easy to link to. Marrtel22:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Name as it appears in encyclopedias and dictionaries[edit]
Here's how this monarch is listed in the reference works which I have easy access to. If anyone has more to add to the list, please feel free! --Elonka20:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever name is decided on, can someone at least make the page title and bolded name in the first sentence agree? I don't care to pick the wrong one and get people complaining about it, so someone with a bit more of an understanding of it, fix it please? -Bbik05:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there is no proof the king died at 20 and there appears to exist proof that he was alive and well in 1472 living in Madeira see LEOPOLD KIELANOWSKI, A ODISSEIA DE LADISLAU O VARNENSE, DIRECÇÃO REGIONAL DOS ASSUNTOS CULTURAIS, FUNCHAL 1996. A letter written by Nicolau Floris from Lisbon in 1472 to the Master of the Teutonic Knights was found in the archives of the Teutonic Knights and it says: "Vladislaus, rex Poloniae et Ungariae vivit in insulis regni Portugaliae". Furthermore Wawrzyniec Hederway, informed the imperial court that he received a letter dated October 1445 sealed with Vladislau's Royal Seal stating that he was on his way to Cyprus and planned to return to Poland. The descendants of Henrique Alemao proved to the Portuguese court in 1586 that they were descendants of the King of Poland.Colombo.bz (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This strange and unsourced claim towards the end of the biography section..."(contemporary opinions, quoted by Jan Długosz, suggested that he was homosexual)." Can anyone shed some light on this claim? A link or source to Długosz's quotes or to anything related? Thanks. Otherwise I'm not sure if it belongs in the article. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's with the picture change? It's not like the new one is contemporary to his time or anything. I feel the Bacciarelli version fits better, it shows him as he is most famous (with a crown and in armor), and matches well with the other articles that have Bacciarelli paintings for the main image.
§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.68.72.98 (talk) 05:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The table at List of Hungarian monarchs notes that Vladislaus I (aka Władysław III of Poland) is a "fourth great-grandson of Béla IV". I've been poking around his genealogy a bit and don't see any obvious lines of descent from Bela to him -- it all seems to be Jagellions and Rurikids and even though I know the Arpads and Rurikids intermarried I can't find a direct link. Does anyone know what this refers to? --Jfruh (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting to rename and move Władysław III of Poland to Władysław III Warneńczyk[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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Władysław III of Poland → Władysław III Jagiellon – This article is about a Polish King, the Supreme Duke of Lithuania, King of Hungary, and King of Croatia, so such title as『Władysław III of Poland』is misleading and exaggerates Poland for no reason. I suggest moving and renaming his article to Władysław III Jagiellon. This way he would be called identically as his brother Casimir IV Jagiellon, who inherited his titles after his death, and would be neutral, presenting himself only as a member of the Jagiellonian dynasty. Name Władysław III Jagiellon is widely used in the English language texts (e.g. HERE). -- Pofka (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Firstly, the reasoning is faulty. It is by no means misleading to call him "Władysław III of Poland"; he was, after all, the third Władysław to rule as king of Poland. He was not the third Władysław to rule Lithuania. Secondly, Poland is not highlighted for no reason. It is in the title because it is the kingdom with which he is most commonly associated in English language historiography; see WP:SOVEREIGN, and compare with Charles I of England. Thirdly and most importantly,『Władysław III Jagiellon』is not the most common name for him in English language historiography. If anything, I would suggest moving to plain Władysław III, as it is unambiguous and concise (again per WP:SOVEREIGN). Surtsicna (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Surtsicna: He inherited the Lithuanian title by birth (as contrary to the Polish crown which he did not received automatically by birth as the eldest son of Jogaila as the Polish nobles firstly had to recognize him as King). The Jagiellonian dynasty (they are equally called as Gediminids as well, from whom nobody before Jogaila were crowned as Kings of Poland) is a Lithuanian dynasty from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which began ruling Poland, starting with Jogaila (who firstly began to rule as a Grand Duke of Lithuania). Just because X version is the more frequent version doesn't make the X as better. Instead, the right version must be used. Poland is incomparably larger than Lithuania, Hungary, Croatia (the latter three certainly do not cooperate to publish publications about Władysław III Jagiellon). Władysław is his baptismal name which is not connected with the Polish crown by no means. Jogaila (his father) was baptized as Władysław II Jagiełło since a pagan was not allowed to be crowned as a Catholic King of Poland, however his original (pagan Lithuanian) name is Jogaila. The Polish–Lithuanian unions were agreed as between equal partners, so calling a Lithuanian dynasty ruler as "of Poland" is absolutely inappropriate, therefore even the Polish Wikipedia do not use such name. Do not compare the Polish-Lithuanian rulers to something from England/Great Britain as England always was a clear dominant there. Although, if, for example, a English-French union was formed as between equal partners with one ruler he certainly would have not been called as "of England" or "of France" as it would have violated the equality of the union and torn it into pieces (though, I'm not sure if it happened before in English-French relations). So whatever the final decision will be: Władysław III or Władysław III Jagiellon, the removal of a tag "of Poland" from his name is a must in this case as it falsely denies the equality of Poland and Lithuania. One of the finest examples which showcases equality of Poland and Lithuania in this case is his 1438 Royal Seal: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:W%C5%82adys%C5%82aw_Warne%C5%84czyk_seal_1438.PNG as in it the Polish Eagle and coat of arms of Lithuania – Vytis (Pahonia) are positioned equally high above everything else (even the coat of arms of Hungary). -- Pofka (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please spare us walls of patriotic text. This is not about his ethnicity. He is by far more commonly associated with Poland in English language (and general European) historiography. That is beyond any dispute. The "of Poland" suffix is merely there for concise disambiguation. It is not nearly as dramatic as you appear to see it. Surtsicna (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Surtsicna: It is virtually incorrect and it was added by somebody who attempted to twist history or based his thoughts on poor sources. Read about equality between Poland and Lithuania at the article of the Union of Horodło of 1413, which was signed by Władysław III Jagiellon's father Jogaila: "The Lithuanian nobles and clergy were granted equal rights with the Polish nobility and clergy". The common Polish-Lithuanian rulers were neither "of Lithuania", neither "of Poland". There is a reason the Polish–Lithuanian unions culminated with the Union of Lublin of 1569 which created the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (a dual state). It does not matter if it is dramatic or not as if it is incorrect - it must be removed. Such suffixes were not used historically, therefore they violate the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view rule. -- Pofka (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A vast majority of English-speaking (and European) historians name Władysław king of Poland first. This is not a diplomatic incident of any sort, and you are taking this too personally. Patriotism should be turned off when logging into Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suggesting to name a double-ruler in a neutral name is not patriotism, it's anti-patriotism which is according to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I see that you are pushing patriotic emotions here much more than myself, which violates NPoV. There are no other Władysław III monarchs anywhere in the entire world, so such suffix is just a result of over-patriotism by somebody. It does not matter if some pro-Polish historiography, written in English, calls it like that as they are not obliged to the NPoV rule, but we in Wikipedia are. -- Pofka (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Roman Spinner: Warneńczyk (Anglicized as "of Varna") is a neutral name and I would support it as well. This historical title was given to him because he died in Varna, fighting the Ottomans (see: Battle of Varna). Bitannica.com is an excellent example of this name recognition. I never heard of Władysław III Spindleshanks, but now it is yet another argument why Władysław III of Poland cannot be named like that as it creates confusion between these two rulers and Władysław III Spindleshanks would be much more suitable for a title "of Poland" as he ruled Poland only. About "not listed as "Jagiellon" in Polish Wikipedia", well then the Polish Wikipedia has clear flaws as he was the biggest Jagiellon of all the Jagiellonians (the eldest son of Jogaila himself, who started the Jagiellonian dynasty branch of the Gediminids). -- Pofka (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Surtsicna: There is no authority, but it was used it as an example that even the neutral Polish historiography calls him as Warnenczyk (of Varna). This version of his name gained approval in this discussion as well. -- Pofka (talk) 10:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.『Władysław III Jagiellon』isn't common at all,『Władysław III of Varna』is used far more often. However, current name is consistent with Wikipedia guidelines (see WP:SOVEREIGN). KtosKto64 (talk) 03:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This project does not recognize ethnicity as defining the value of one's contribution or argument. This comment shows just how misguided this whole proposal is.Surtsicna (talk) 13:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
