Jump to content

Talk:Casimir III the Great/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

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.
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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Casimir_III_the_Great/Archive_1&oldid=1246596595"