Talk:Jan Łaski

Canon?

Was the Protestant Jan Łaski in fact a "canon of Gniezno" and "canon of Kraków," as he has been categorized to be? Or is this a confusion of this Jan Łaski with his uncle, the Catholic Jan Łaski (1456–1531)? Nihil novi (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes he was ordinated Catholic priest and Catholic canon untill he converted to protestantism. see pl article. Mathiasrex (talk) 22:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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: page not moved. Discussion here has gravitated toward the consensus that a move to the Anglicized version of the article subject's name is not appropriate and that the Polish form is the most appropriate identification of the subject, per the research of editors below. Tyrol5 [Talk] 03:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

---

Jan Łaski → John a Lasco – He is widely referred to as John a Lasco in English, and this is the English Wikipedia. See WP:UE. JFH (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - There is some case for an English name here, he's no doubt remembered with affection in England where he was a pastor for 5 years and burnt alive one of his congregation. However H. Dalton's John a Lasco biography dates from 1888, and there's a bit of a "Leghorn effect" lingering in Calvinist literature; wheras English-language secular histories of Poland tend to keep this Jan Łaski (the nephew) spelled the same as Jan Łaski (the uncle):

+ Harold B. Segel Renaissance Culture in Poland: The Rise of Humanism, 1470-1543 (1989) Page 10 "On the Protestant side, clearly the most outstanding was Jan Łaski (1499—1560), a nephew of the Polish primate of the same name. Widely known in the West as Ioannes à Lasco, or John à Lasco, Łaski earned the admiration of his fellow .."

+ The Cambridge History of Poland (1971) has "At this point it will be well to add a word about the work of John Laski — better known to English readers as John a Lasco — outside Poland, in order " though the "John Laski" text in that 1971 edition is actually incorporated from Oskar Halecki's Poland (New York, 1943)

+ Amazon.com's 1st-selling history of Poland, Adam Zamoyski (1993, 2012) has "Jan Łaski, nephew of the archbishop of the same name,... known in England as Jan à Lasco" - again with a French à - but then p122 says "not easy to trace the progress of Poles abroad when a Jan Łaski became Johannes a Lasco, a Frycz-Modrzewski became Fricius Modrevius, a Goglicki Grimaldius..."

+ Amazon.com's 2nd-selling history of Poland, Norman Davies (1981, 2005) has "Jan Łaski .. As John O'Lasco he" - with an Irish O' rather than the French à more common in English "John à Lasco."

To be honest I'd question this mainly on the basis of notability in English-speaking countries. He's primarily notable in Poland, and I believe this would only be the second time en.wp has given a British/Australian/American name to a non-royal Pole, the first being Copernicus. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Third, at least: Casimir Pulaski... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I am more familiar with him as a figure in religious history in England and the Reformation in general than Polish history. Based on the current state of this article, I don't see how he is "primarily notable in Poland." Here are the current major histories of Calvinism:

• Philip Benediect's Christ's Churches Purely Reformed: A Social History of Calvinism (2002) uses John a Lasco

• John T. McNeill's The History and Character of Calvinism (1967) uses John à Lasco.

I wasn't aware of some of the texts being mentioned, so I can understand why we would keep Laski, but the fact that the only English bio on the subject used a Lasco seems compelling, even if it is old. --JFH (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Please note that even the two refs you cite use different names for him (diacritic-wise). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I realize that, but I don't think that's an argument in favor of the status quo. The most recent history of Calvinism, as well the only bio on the subject himself use John a Lasco. In Inctu's sources are all histories of Poland, and I'm arguing that he is not so much a figure in Polish history as in the international history of Calvinism, though I am willing to be corrected. --JFH (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

That would be nicely solved if we could expand the article. There is a PSB entry on him, and I'll add this to my to do list. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. As iio notes above, there is a number of alternate, English-Latin names. The nominator has failed to show any analysis to back his claim, so for now I don't see anything but ILIKEIT backing him up. Once an analysis is shown I'll reconsider this vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support he lived in England, so has an established name used in the language of England, which is "English". For that time spent in England, he garnered some notability. WP:UE -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. Britannica calls this subject "Polish Reformer Jan Laski, or Johannes à Lasco". His best known work is Forma ac ratio, which would tend to support a Latin name. "John a Lasco" sounds like people in England trying to say his Polish name, but not quite getting it right. Kauffner (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - many people of the time wrote down their name in Latin or some kind of "Latinized" form (which is actually what the "Lasco" is). Yet we do not have Henry VIII under "Henric VIII" etc. Łaski, aside from just being Polish, was also the secretary to the Polish king.Volunteer Marek 06:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Piotrus. The case for a move seems weak. --BDD (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

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.