This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
I have cleaned up the language somewhat in this article -- Twenex 13:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was see section below. Haukur 20:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
but
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)
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
References
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 23:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
I have cleaned up the language somewhat in this article -- Twenex 13:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was see section below. Haukur 20:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
but
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)
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
References
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 23:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)