Talk:Casimir III the Great

Old talk

There is an ortography error in the sentence of the first line below the section Society under the reign of Casimir, he introduced were his attempt to put the overwhelming superiority of the nobility to an end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcosoldfox (talk • contribs) 13:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

isn't that strange that we called such a bastard, erotoman and cruel king the great? :))) I wonder if i shoudl put info about all this, because that would terrible damage his school-picture of all-good king [[szopen]]

Of course you should. Also about his double bigamy. We should give a full and true view on every topic. But this doesn't change the fact, that Casimir was indeed the great. It was him, wh brught Poland into power never seen before.

There exists a clear policy for article titles: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles). It leaves no room for "Kazimierz", which is not English, and it directs to use the numeral and the territorial designation. Moves to put an article to its NC-prescribed place can be executed by anyone. Shilkanni 23:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Please see Wikipedia:Naming_convention#Polish_monarchs.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Language Cleanup

I have cleaned up the language somewhat in this article --Twenex 13:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was see section below. Haukur 20:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Move request

Kazimierz III the Great to Casimir III of Poland. The first name should be in English, not in Polish. This was a medieval monarch, no one cannot claim that Kazimierz is precisely an original name, spelling was not so established at that time. Marrtel 17:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Poll

Wite Support or Oppose and an optional one-sentence reason. Longer parts of opinions then below at discussion.

• Support. As nominator. Use English. Marrtel 17:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose So far I have seen the user opposes names based on opinion that they were made by "Polish nationalist minority"[1]. Such rude comments should be outside of wiki and certainly not a basis for changes.--Molobo 19:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. john k 20:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. While the notion of a "Polish cabal" and the accusations of "Polish nationalism" are less than good faith, I would say, it is not a good reason for voting against a proposal that the proponent has expressed such views. Secondly, this is a prime example of a figure which, as far as I know, is indisputable better known by his English name (Casimir III of Poland or Casimir III the Great) than the current name. Srnec 20:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support as per Srnec. This is the obvious name. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 20:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)}
• Conditionally Support. Srnec's reasoning is sound, but it makes sense only if all 4 Kazimierzs are changed, along with the related disambig pages. Dpv 20:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. As for the first name, the analysis I did year ago at Talk:Kazimierz I the Restorer indicates that there Casimir and Kazimierz seem to be similarly popular in English texts. And certainly 'the Great' for this truly extraordinary ruler is more fitting then the much less informative 'of Poland'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support Charles 21:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Would you like to share your reasons for support?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I support the harmonization to name monarchs by the anglicized form of their given names when appropriate or reasonable. Charles 22:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. Weak cause I'd rather move it to Kazimierz III of Poland. //Halibutt 22:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Why? FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 23:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)}
  • Yes, why? No offence but I see this as the 'worst of both worlds' :> See below for why.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Because I always supported the descriptive and easy to use XXX of YYY style. As to the first name - I prefer not to latinize Slavic names at all cost. Casimir seems fine, but then consistency leaves us also with Vladislaus (or Wladislas, Ladislas, and so on), Stanislaus (or Stanislaw, Stanislas) and so on. //Halibutt

I also prefer not to Latinize Slavic names at all cost. The Polish "Wladyslaw," for instance, has seen so many different Latinized/Anglicized forms that it's almost impossible to figure out what the "right" latinization is. In such cases, we should stick with the Polish. But this isn't true for Casimir/Kazimierz, which is pretty universal. john k 10:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support per WP:Use English. AjaxSmack 02:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support anglicizing unconditionally in case the anglisized name has more common usage. --Irpen 03:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. This is English Wikipedia. See what is going on with Władysław II Jagiełło, the "most correct name", according to the Piotrus, to Jogaila of Lithuania. Juraune 06:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. What — mere Casimir? KonradWallenrod 08:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Otherwise, Molobo, Piotrus, Halibutt, etc will still think that they edit Polish wiki here. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Orionus 13:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Note that the user Orionus has appeared only to when the votes on monarchs started and hasn't contributed much beyond them. --Molobo 13:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, you are right. I am an expert in astronomy([2] and some links in our national wiki). But every man can have his opinion on historical questions. Am I rigth? Orionus 13:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Votes made by users that appeared during the vote and have dedicated themselfs solely to voting are usually discarded. --Molobo 13:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

      "usually discarded" since when? Requested moves are publicized just because everyone can give his opinion on the matter.--Panairjdde 14:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

      • But new user votes are usually discarded. See Talk:Polish Biographical Dictionary for a RM example of that. Personally I always said that there should be a clear rule from when a user gains the right to vote. The rule of thumbs seems to be few weeks on Wiki and few hundred edits.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
      • To clarify (please keep in mind that English is not Molobo's first language): All Wikipedia editors are welcome to participate in these polls, and outside comment is both appreciated and encouraged. In some cases though, unscrupulous users have been known to create throwaway accounts (these are called sockpuppets, see WP:SOCK) in order to try and pad a vote. So, it is routine for a reviewing admin to check that all users involved in a vote, have a history of edits somewhere on Wikipedia, over a period of more than just the last few days, to prove that they're a real account, and not a sockpuppet. There is disagreement as to how many edits a particular user needs to have in order to be considered "real". In some cases, 50 might be enough, though some other editors like to see a few hundred, and a few hardcore users don't trust anybody with fewer than a thousand.  ;) But to repeat: it is not necessary to actually have edits on the article that is being discussed, in order to be able to weigh in with a poll. And even the new users are welcome to participate and comment, even if their votes might not be given as much weight. In Orionus' case in particular, I believe that what Molobo is referring to is the fact Orionis' first ever post was on June 11, and that he has fewer than 50 edits on the account, most of which are votes on Polish monarchs [3], which does seem a bit unusual for a new user to immediately jump into so many polls like that. So I recommend Orionis spend time editing other articles around Wikipedia to build up his edit count, and until he's got a few more articles under his belt, don't be surprised if there's a raised eyebrow here and there. --Elonka 22:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Thank you, Elonka. Really I am new in wikipedia community. And I am slightly upset with the above reaction to my votes. Originally I voted only for Jogaila (or at least Jagiello) instead of present name Władysław II Jagiełło. Next day I found an invitation to vote on Polish medieval monarchs naming. And I also expressed my opinion... Orionus 07:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. as per nomination --Panairjdde 14:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support It does say "use English" in the guidelines after all... Gryffindor 15:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Appleseed (Talk) 15:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I'm for either Casimir III the Great or Casimir III of Poland, but we do need to get some coordination on this. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support Use English. It would be useful to discuss epithets sepately, however. Septentrionalis 17:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support as per nom, use English.--Matthead 21:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose too many questions unanswered at present; get a general solution before embarking on one-off changes. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. logologist|Talk 01:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. -- Anatopism 02:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Angus McLellan. - Mattergy 07:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Radomil talk 15:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support. Every single encyclopedia I checked, lists this guy's name as Casimir, with only minor variations after that. Sokol's Polish Biographical Dictionary: Casimir III (The Great). 1979 Encyclopedia Britannica: Casimir III the Great, of Poland, Online Britannica: Casimir III [4], Webster's Desk Encyclopedia: Casimir III aka Casimir the Great. Columbia Online: Casimir III [5]. This article should never have been moved to a Polish spelling.[6] --Elonka 19:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • As I wrote below, I can see the reasons for Casimir over Kazimierz. But do you 'strongly support' 'of Poland' instead of 'Great'?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
    • One poll at a time.  :) For now, I strongly support getting this article off of the "Kazimierz" name, as soon as possible. Any user who sees the article title of "Kazimierz" and tries to use it to find an article on him in their own local encyclopedia, is going to have a hard time since none of the major reference works refer to him by that name. We can debate the "of Poland" and "the Great" decision later. In fact, I would see it as a sign of good faith if you would please change your vote in the above poll to help speed the process. --Elonka 05:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Use English. - 167.7.39.139 00:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Olessi 16:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Aldux 20:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support, per several others. Jonathunder 07:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Use English. Jay32183 16:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support - This is the English-language Wikipedia.Dogface 01:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Currently running at 21-9 (with one support being "conditional" and another "weak"), can this page be moved yet? Srnec 20:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

• 2 books use "Kazimierz III the Great"
• 14 book use "Kazimierz III Wielki"
• 33 books use "Kazimierz the Great"
• 164 use "Kazimierz Wielki"
• 46 books use "Casimir III the Great"
• 242 use "Casimir the Great"

but

• Only 19 books use "Casimir III of Poland"

I can see the argument that Casimir is slightly more popular then Kazimierz (although 286:213 is not a major diff). I certainly see no reason to adopt a veriant prefered by 19 vs 500! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The use of of Poland has always been an exception to the "most common English usage" rule; we have just made that explicit. A separate poll on the Great vs. of Poland would be sensible; I'm not setting it up because I'm not sure how I would vote. Septentrionalis 17:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The usage "Casimir III of Poland" is not his "name". Casimir is his name, "the Great" his epithet, and III his ordinal. "Of Poland" is a descriptor we use on Wikipedia to prevent ambiguity and to inform. Casimir III tells the ignorant nothing, Casimir the Great something more, but Casimir III of Poland tells us that he was a ruler of Poland, which is tells us more about him than anything else. The statement above, "...certainly 'the Great' for this truly extraordinary ruler is more fitting then the much less informative 'of Poland'," is not really true. It doesn't matter whether an author never has reason to use the full phrase "Casimir III of Poland," he is writing in context, but the title of an encyclopedia article has no context. Srnec 01:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

So, Lawrence of Arabia would be... a ruler of Arabia? KonradWallenrod 08:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean T. E. Lawrence? john k 10:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No, Lawrence of Arabia would be his name (Lawrence) plus his byname/epithet ("of Arabia"). Lawrence of Arabia is not his name, only part of it is part of his full name. If it were Lawrence III of Arabia, it would be proper to assume that he was the third Lawrence to rule Arabia. Srnec 15:58, 13 June 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.

Poll results

Okay, wow, this is tough. I'll start with User:Dpv. His vote is conditional on certain other pages being moved and since I haven't even looked at those polls yet I think the only thing I can do is set it aside for a while. Other users cast an unambiguous vote for or against the proposed move. User:Halibutt was the only one to qualify his vote was "weak".

When judging the result of a poll like this there are several things to pay attention to. One is the experience of editors involved. In my opinion it takes a while to become sufficiently familiar with the way things are done on Wikipedia to give an educated view on something as arcane as the naming conventions of European royalty. To set an arbitrary minimum I'd say a month and 100 edits and I think that's still being generous. Only a couple of editors, User:167.7.39.139 and User:Orionus fall below this minimum. Newbies are, of course, welcome to participate in polls and if they offer good arguments they may sway experienced editors, but I think we have to set a minimum somewhere - that also discourages the creation of votestacking sockpuppets.

When it comes to puppets it looks to me like User:Logologist, User:Anatopism and User:Mattergy are probably all operated by the same person (look at their edit histories). People are welcome to edit using multiple accounts but when it comes to votes it's enough to express one's opinion through one of them. If User:Logologist tells me I'm mistaken we can ask for a 'checkuser' to confirm or deny the association.

When it comes to votes on individual articles I'm inclined to give more weight to the opinion of users who have edited the article in the past, in this case User:Piotrus, User:Appleseed, User:Logologist and User:Halibutt.

User:Marrtel posted notices on the talk pages of many users, soliciting their views on this poll. It seems to me that he may only have contacted people he thought likely to agree with him on the issue. This taints the poll somewhat and may mean it is not representative of the opinions of Wikipedians as a whole. I'm sure that everyone who voted did so in good faith and gave their honest opinion but the participants in the poll may not be a fair sample of those who care about the issue.

All these factors are noted in the tally below.

Oppose

• Piotrus - experienced editor, has edited the article
• Appleseed - experienced editor, has edited the article
• Logologist - experienced editor, has edited the article <--Now revealed to be using sockpuppets, as established by CheckUser.see User:Mackensen on WP:ANI
• Anatopism - experienced editor (looks like a puppet of Logologist) <--Sockpuppet No.1.
• Mattergy - experienced editor (looks like a puppet of Logologist) <--Sockpuppet No.2.
• Molobo - experienced editor
• KonradWallenrod - experienced editor <--Sockpuppet No.3.
• Radomil - experienced editor
• Angusmclellan - experienced editor, solicited by Martell

Support

• Marrtel - experienced editor
• Cfvh - experienced editor
• AjaxSmack - experienced editor
• Ghirlandajo - experienced editor
• Panairjdde - experienced editor
• Elonka - experienced editor
• Olessi - experienced editor
• Jay32183 - experienced editor
• John_Kenney - experienced editor, solicited by Marrtel
• Srnec - experienced editor, solicited by Marrtel
• Jtdirl - experienced editor, solicited by Marrtel
• Irpen - experienced editor, solicited by Marrtel
• Juraune - experienced editor, solicited by Marrtel
• Gryffindor - experienced editor, solicited by Marrtel
• Calgacus - experienced editor, solicited by Marrtel
• Pmanderson - experienced editor, solicited by Marrtel
• Matthead - experienced editor, solicited by Martel
• Aldux - experienced editor, solicited by Martel
• Jonathunder - experienced editor, solicited by Martel
• Halibutt - experienced editor, solicited by Martell, weak support, has edited the article
• Orionus - < 100 edits, first edit 11 June, solicited by Marrtel
• 167.7.39.139 - 15 edits

Complex

• Dpv - experienced editor, vote can not be processed at this time

It would be tempting to say simply that the poll is tainted and a new one should be started but I don't think that would necessarily be the best option. Holding endless polls on the names of Polish monarchs may not be the best use of our time and a new poll (perhaps an approval vote with multiple options) can just as well be held after the page is moved.

So, in order to weigh all the factors above into a decision for or against a move I've come up with an arbitrary system of multiplication modifiers.

• Vote is marked as "weak": x 0.5
• User seems to be a puppet: x 0.0
• User has less than 100 edits: x 0.0
• User was solicited to come to the poll: x 0.5
• User has edited the article: x 2.0

If the weighted tally comes out as >60% in favor of a move I'll move the page. I have no idea if it will, I'll start counting now. Haukur 19:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hm, is double counting votes allowed? Charles 20:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, with this method I get:

• Weighted oppose: 9.5
• Weighted support: 14

Support percentage: 14/23.5 = 59.6%

Ouch. That was much closer than I would have liked but I'd best stick with what I said and not move the page. Obviously this all depends on completely arbitrary factors and if I had set any one of them differently in a direction more favorable to pro-movers the result would have gone their way. :| I hope no-one gets mad at me. I was trying to be as fair as I could and take everything into account. I personally have no opinion on the best location for this article but I believe Process is Important and we should be diligent in interpreting polls. If you want a second opinion I suggest contacting User:Nightstallion who has a lot of experience with move-requests or you can post a notice on WP:AN/WP:ANI. Haukur 20:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That is outrageous. An overwhelming majority voted to move the page. Instead we have this cock-and-bull nonsense about weighed votes being used to overturn a clear decision. The outcome could hardly be clearer. 9 opposed. 22 Support. That is just over 29% opposed, and just under 71% supporting. That is a clear majority of a move. If one accepts the claim that two of the votes in the opposed camp were sockpuppets, as suggested, that reduces the opposed camp to 24%. How it can possibly be suggested that a situation where at most less than one in three of people voting, possibly as little as less than one in four, can oppose something and still "win" the outcome by blocking the vote, is mindboggling. In accordance with the clear vote, and the fact that the weighed majority surpassed the 60% threshhold by at least 10%, I'm moving the page in accordance with the decision of those who voted. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 20:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)}

Please don't act immediately, I'll post to WP:ANI and we can have broader input. Haukur 21:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I see you have now performed the move. I've asked for input at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Closing_of_a_move_request_poll_-_request_for_review. Haukur 21:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with the chosen multipliers, but thanks for what appears to be a good faith effort to be fair, Haukurth. I can appreciate how much bookkeeping was involved in tallying that, not to mention doing the sockpuppet checks. In terms of the x2 multiplier for those who have edited the article though, I think that that's a bit much, especially because it's not something that the voters were aware of. Speaking for myself, I definitely have edited articles on European/Polish royalty, and have even created them (see August Czartoryski and Maria Amparo), and I very easily could have participated in the editing of this article, so I'm not sure it's entirely fair to give such a large discount to my vote simply because I haven't gotten around to editing this particular one yet. But I do understand what you were trying to go for, even if I disagree with your final tally. --Elonka 21:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, maybe multiplying by two is too much. Since two users have taken issue with that already I probably won't do it again in the future. Thanks for the input! Haukur 21:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I do approve of your will to go deep into this discussion and analyze it in much detail. Don't let yourself be discourgaged from such approach - in the group that 'loses the vote' will always be people who will try to 'kill the proverbial messanger'. You are doing good job!--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 08:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

I've investigated the claims of sockpuppetry. Please see here. Mackensen (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Clearly the 9 oppose votes actually are 5 6. Even by Haukur's strange calculations, that produces a clear 60%+ in favour of the move. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 18:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)}

Are we throwing out 3 or 4 sockpuppet votes? And are IPs allowed to vote? Appleseed (Talk) 19:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if the fourth vote you were talking about was Logologist's (i.e. if a sockmaster is allowed to keep his single vote), but it appears that I'm the one accused of being the fourth sock. How disheartening. Appleseed (Talk) 19:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't discount my vote just yet. I've contacted User:Jtdirl (the accuser) about this. Appleseed (Talk) 20:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Only sockpuppets should be discounted, Logologists vote should stay, IP shouldn't as well as those people with few edits. --Molobo 19:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The English form still is favoured by the majority of voters, whether eligible by your standards or any others presented. Charles 19:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The English form Please provide evidence that this is an English form and not an imaginary creation. Please remember that Wiki isn't a democracy and voting is just a guideline. If users from country the article relates to have grounds to object the change, then it is signal that something is wrong with that the proposal, not with people from that country. --Molobo 20:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Care to present evidence that this is an established English form rather then imaginary creation ? Also please present counting as to the vote that overall voting achieves concensus. Also remember that Wiki isn't democracy, vote is just a guideline. --Molobo 19:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I made a typo. I should have written Anatopism (talk · contribs) -->, not Appleseed. That's what happens when one tries to watch Coronation Street and type at the same time. Apologies, Appleseed, for the error. I never meant to suggest that you are a sockpuppet. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 20:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)}

Thank you for admiting your mistake here, for a moment I was afraid this was turning into some sort of a witch hunt.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Legal sons

What's the position of official Polish historiography abuot the Niemirza (sp?) and second Kazimierz illegitimate son? I guess we should some info about this to article too? Szopen 08:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"Legal"? СЛУЖБА (talk) 14:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Map?

Since Kazimierz the Great "left a country doubled in size," it might be interesting to see a map or maps illustrating his gains (and also, apparently, the loss of Silesia). Sca 17:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Rename

In line with almost all other Polish monarchs, this article should be renamed to Casimir III the Great. Any comments? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Tittle-tattles?

It's late and so maybe I'm just tired. Why is the one section near the end given the title "tittle-tattles?" It's been that way for like a year so I'm guessing there's a reason, but I'm blanking on what reason. Can someone explain?--T. Anthony (talk) 09:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it. It contained no sources and it was equal to Wikipedia:Trivia. Surtsicna (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Something missing?

"His three daughters by his fourth wife were very young and regarded as of dubious legitimacy because of their father's bigamy. Because all of the five children he fathered with his first and fourth wife were daughters, he would have no lawful male heir to his throne."

Well, everyone is young when they're born, surely this needs to be put in context. I'm assuming it's referring to when Casimir died, but the paragraph about his death comes after this one. So why was them being young relevant and when? 84.114.214.144 (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

B-class review

Failed for WPPOLAND due to insufficient density of inline citations and poor coverage. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

anti-Semitic legend removed

I removed an anti-Semitic legend that was being presented as factual. There may be merit to presenting the anti-Semitic legend of blaming Esterka for Casimir's relative tolerance of Jews, however such a presentation should make clear that this is a legend (begun some 100 years after events) with no historical basis (beyond Casimir's relative tolerance to Jews and the Church's disdain of this - the figure and progeny are legends, not factual). Icewhiz (talk) 10:01, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

It was a legend, but calling it "an anti-Semitic legend" is sort of dumb, since, per your own source, the legend was prominent in Yiddish (Jewish) literature. Next time, instead of searching for key words which reflect your POV (in this case "Esterka antisemitic"), how about you actually bother reading YOUR OWN source? Will save trouble later on.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

And the legend is notable enough so that it should be mentioned, including the fact that she was portrayed as a "Jewish folk hero".Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

What a coincidence seeing you here. If mentioned, the antisemitic context of its invention by a Catholic priest and subsequent used in antisemitic Polish literature should be clearly stated. That there are uses that are not antisemitic in Jewish literature (which differ on many details), does not change the context of its invention and use in antisemitic tracts.Icewhiz (talk) 15:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

There is no "antisemitic context of its invention". You made that up. Nobody disputes that it's a legend, first related by Dlugosz. That's all the first source you provide says. Your second source is that photographer, Janicka, again, that you drag out, every time you want to accuse Poles of being antisemitic about, well, everything. You really need to find a new hobby. It's really the tediousness and dull-mindedness of your bigotry that is tiring, not the continued indulgence of your prejudices on Wikipedia (which is par for the course around here). Your third source just says that the legend has been used in anti-semitic ways, by, well, anti-semites. That same source then goes on at length to enumerate all the NON-anti-semitic ways in which the legend has been used in both Polish and Yiddish language literature, as well as in art. That source does not actually name any "antisemitic tracts", which again, is something you made up. In case you really are having difficulty understanding what Sicher is saying, and are not just pretending to do so, so that you can excuse your - once again - blatant misrepresentation of a source: he is NOT saying the legend is anti-semitic. He is saying that USING the legend to complain about the privileged position of the Jews in the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth is anti-semitic. Why are you allowed to edit this topic area again? After all the falsifications and misrepresentations and the very blatant and obvious WP:AGENDA your edits evidence? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:00, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

While Janicka is an excellent source - I am not citing her. The first source quite obviously expands on Długosz hate - if you continue on reading it. The second source (by Konrad Matyjaszek, not Janicka) says "permanent feature of Polish antisemitic literature". The third - "...Jan Długosz a hundred years later who begins a long anti-Semitic tradition of blaming Esterka for Casimir's extension of privileges to the Jews...". Additional sources on the antisemitic use of this in Polish literature are quite easy to find. Icewhiz (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Nah, she's not. And yes you are citing her - as a tertiary source. It's her in your second source, in a footnote. And you're obviously trying to be provocative about this "Dlugosz hate", which is also par for the course for you. What does the source actually say? Well, in the portion that's visible, it just says that 1) we don't know what Dlugosz's motivation was, 2) that Dlugosz attributed Casimir's favorable policy towards Jews to Esterka and 3) that Casimir did indeed have such a policy. So... you're making stuff up again? And your third source? You just quoted that cherry picked fragment once again, in an utterly dishonest misrepresentation of the source, which then goes on for two pages about all the non-anti-semitic uses of the legend. And which does not say the legend is anti-semitic, contrary to your false assertion.

If these "additional sources" are "quite easy to find", then find them and let us see them rather than keep making vacuous assertions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I mean, it's pretty obvious from the way you entered the sources that you've already done all kinds of searches for, quote, "Esterka antisemitic", to pedantly cherry pick stuff in accordance with your POV, and apparently this is the best you could come up with. Here, why not try this for a change: first read the sources, THEN form an opinion, not vice versa.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Contemporary Polish banknote with the image of the king Casimir III the Great (1310-1370).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Augustus II the Strong which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Society under the Reigin of Casimir

Why does the article say he was "facetiously called the Peasant's King"? The examples cited seem to indicate this title was given unironically, and with full respect. 14:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)