Talk:Casimir I of Poland

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 no move. -- tariqabjotu 23:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move 2006

Casimir I of Poland → Casimir I the Restorer of Poland – reasons: see above.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  12:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support as a nominator.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  12:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose as above. Septentrionalis 21:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Cognomens are rarely, if ever, combined with territorial designations. Charles 17:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, not common English usage. Also, Richard Lionheart redirects to Richard I, etc. Ashibaka tock 17:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Though the name Casimir the Restorer is a valid by-name, I do not believe that it is in common enough usage to justify changing the title of the article. Britannica sticks with "Casimir I" [4], as does Columbia [5]. Even Encarta only uses "Kazimierz I" [6] --Elonka 20:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion 2006

Add any additional comments

Please see discussion above.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  12:58, 6 August 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.

The following discussion is an archived discussion 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 proposal was no move. DrKiernan (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Casimir I of Poland → Casimir I the Restorer — Name is out of line with most other Polish monarchs. "Of Poland" is absurdly redundant, and the guidelines arguments for imposing such an redundacy has effectively died a death ( see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)) . —Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support as nom. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

*Oppose as 'of Poland' is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Well, it's out of line with most other Polish monarchs. Why does Casimir I get special treatment? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

  In that case of Poland should be for all Polish monarchs (assuming they all ruled all of Poland, not just part of it). GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

  I've chosen to cancel my 'opinon' as I'm not familiar with Polish monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Looking at Category:Polish monarchs I see that many do follow the same convention as this one; There's no special treatment for Casimir I. And there's no evidence that any depart from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), which allows cognomens but on a case by case basis. No case has been made above, rather the appeal is to standardisation, but the name is already the standardised one. Andrewa (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support per my arguments in many places over the years.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support-more specific and widespread title regarding his historic role.--Molobo (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• oppose Not most common English usage, which is Casimir I. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• But we are keeping Casimir I? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Both versions are OK but "of Poland" seems quite self-evident to me. - Darwinek (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support "Casimir I the Restorer" as the more communicative version. In Poland, he is generally known simply as "Kazimierz the Restorer" (and actually my first choice for Wikipedia would be "Kazimierz I the Restorer," given the choice). Nihil novi (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support more appropriate Space Cadet (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose as renaming would be in violation of WP:NCNT. Names of articles on other Polish monarchs not being in line with this one is an argument in favour of renaming those articles, not in favour of renaming this article. —Gabbe (talk) 00:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

  See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles); support for such naming is virtually dead. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

  I've read that talk page and I'm not at all convinced that "support for such naming is virtually dead". —Gabbe (talk) 08:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

  Well, you've presumably already seen why citing the guidelines won't really work. They've been voted down by a 2 to 1 margin, and could be removed right now; they haven't been removed because the we've all agreed to work around the edges for now while precise implementation is still being discussed; but citing the guidelines in favour of the guidelines is circular. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

  • The guidelines do, however, reflect present usage elsewhere in Wikipedia; they are therefore what most readers will come to expect. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

  Not for Polish monarchs, of which Casimir is one. The present usage that people are so unhappy with was only the result of enforcing the guidelines in the first place, so it's still circular to cite the guidelines to support the guidelines. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support per Darwinek & Piotrus. WHATaintNOcountryIeverHEARDofDOtheySPEAKenglishINwhat (talk) 05:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Casimir I of Poland is just fine, not need to attribute "the restorer". Wikipedia uses Frederick II of Prussia, too, even though he arguably is known as "the Great". No double standards. -- Matthead  Discuß   03:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

  So change your Frederick to "Great", I'll back you. Space Cadet (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

  Second. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

  Thirded. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

  Fourthed. Nihil novi (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

  So there are now move requests on Frederick the Great, as well as William the Conqueror, William Rufus, Constantine the Great, Richard the Lionheart, Philip Augustus and William the Lion. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

  Yikes! All those move requests just to promote this move here? WP:POINT, anyone? Could have hardly guessed who or what Rufus and Augustus were or did, while William II of England and Philip II of France is telling. Keeping monarchs under standard naming "X of Land" makes much more sense than moving to nicknames, no matter how famous they may be to some. What next, moving two moustached persons to The Tramp and Der Führer? -- Matthead  Discuß   00:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support per Darwinek. Tymek (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support per Darwinek and Piotrus. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 19:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Like Nihil novi I'd as soon dispense with the numeral, but this is still an improvement. If it's obvious that Algidiras et al are "of Lithuania" to the extent that at doesn't need saying, as the sacred guideline claims, it's no less obvious that Casimir is "of Poland". Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - consistency is important. Deb (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• And this proposal is intended to bring the few inconsistent names in line with the rest... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: 'Casimir I The Restorer'? Stop someone on the street in Britain, any street, any person, and ask them if they've heard of such a person? Of course the article should be in the best form applicable to the English-speaking world and an English-language encyclopaedia. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 11:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

  Do you have any idea what you're talking about? The cognomen applied to the ruler is to be used simply because this is how they are called, not because of any appropriateness to the name. Frederick the Great is a particularly dubious designation, for instance. And the point isn't that most English speakers haven't heard of "Casimir the Restorer." Most English speakers haven't heard of Casimir I at all. Those who have heard of him have usually heard of his cognomen. And it has nothing in particular to do with nationalism - the poor Poles seem to get accused of nationalism for the slightest violations. Philip the Good sold out France to the English for his own personal gain - that doesn't sound so good to me. Are we displaying pro-Burgundian nationalism by calling him by the name history knows him as? His father [[John the Fearless] may have been fearless, but he was also a self-aggrandizing asshole who murdered his own relatives and so forth. A name is a name. It should not be taken as indicative of moral approval. john k (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

  I don't think we largely disagree. The names you are speaking of are largely meaningless but 'The Restorer'? I just don;t think we on the English-languag Wikipedia should be affording him such a name, which no-one else gives him except the Poles. It has already failed one proposal of this nature. I have no objection to a redirect from 'the restorer' to the Casimir I of Poland page. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 08:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  The restorer is certainly less offensive than calling other rulerls great or conquerors - and as a Pole I have no problem with Greats of Prussia or Russia, even if they did invade and ravage Poland in their times. And in any case, Casimir did not wage any war on foreign power, the hostilities he was involved with were related to the Polish civil wars - and the Poles, as you himself pointed out, unanimously agree on calling him 'The Restorer'.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 09:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  Which nationalities had their homelands taken from them by Casimir I? What are you talking about? So far as I can gather, Casimir's campaigns took place almost entirely within the bounds of lands which had been ruled by his father and grandfather. john k (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support per Piotrus and Darwinek. LUCPOL (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. This nickname is not at all so overwhelmingly well known that it would be justified in sense the Wikipedia conventions require. Additionally, there are POV concerns. Systematical name, Casimir I, is much better for this use. Shilkanni (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Fits with the name forms used for other Polish monarchs. john k (talk) 23:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. We should stick with the form that is used by other major reference works, which is most commonly "Casimir I". --Elonka 23:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • But "Casimir I" remains in the title. See Augustus II the Strong, Casimir IV Jagiellon. john k (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Per John; see also below for examples of scholarly works and encyclopedias using 'the Restorer'.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• support - Wikipedia shouldn't create names and "cognomens" (like "of Poland"), but use those that already are existing. Radomil talk 21:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unknown in English. Schwartz und Weiss (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• False, as shown by example below.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Data

Scholar.google.com

• "Casimir the Restorer"; 13 hits.
• "Casimir I of Poland"; 5 hits —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk • contribs) 05:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• "Casimir I" and Poland; 45 hits.
• Casimir I the Restorer: 1 hit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedias:

Elonka said above Britannica sticks with "Casimir I" [7], as does Columbia [8]. Even Encarta only uses "Kazimierz I" [9] Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hence out of exact (inside "") versions, Casimir the Restorer is the most common. But per our conventions, numerals are useful, so Casimir I the Restorer is the best option. Do note that ""Casimir I" and Restorer gives 37 hits! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Only two of which are relevant, the others being such hits as the Polish Ministry of Culture and Arts for sponsoring the restoration of the ... S. Mirecki; Dr. Michael G, Sendzimir; and Colonel and Mrs. Casimir I. Lenard, all ... . I'm underwhelmed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Search for Kazimierz and "The Restorer" on google books gives : [10] 70 hits.--Molobo (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Those appear to be largely germane, at least. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Few examples

"The Encyclopedia Americana - Page 762

Inc Grolier, Grolier Incorporated - Reference - 1999

CASIMIR, I, kaz'i-mir (1016-1058), called Casimir ( Polish, Kazimierz ) the

Restorer, was ruler of Poland from about 1034."

"A Concise History of Poland - Page 6

Jerzy Lukowski, Hubert Zawadzki - History - 2001 -

Mieszko IPs son, Casimir (Kazimierz) 'the Restorer'"

"The Early Slavs: Culture and Society in Early Medieval Eastern Europe

Paul M. Barford - History - 2001

Page 166: "The prestige of the country was returned under Kazimierz the Restorer (1034-58)"

But these are the opinions of the Poles, not of the English-speaking world. Put it in the article as text, certainly, but we are supposed to aim for neutrality and CASIMIR I or Casimir I of Poland fits that bill perfectly, otherwise we are going to offend other nations surrounding Poland. regards, David Lauder (talk) 11:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Do explain how Encyclopedia Americana or a work by Paul M. Barford are opinions of the Poles.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

the form "the Restorer" is hardly very Polish sounding. It's a cognomen, and while it was given, presumably, by medieval chroniclers, it's still frequently given in sources in all languages. john k (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Since he was never crowned, Casimir I, Duke of Poland, following the Britannica's text, has a good deal to be said for it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

And should we rename Ivan IV of Russia to Ivan IV, Tsar of Russia too? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Quite possibly; we already distinguish the German and Holy Roman Emperors from Kings. But we don't have to go that far for a parallel; later Piast dukes are Duke of Wherever too. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Gee, this is just plain anal.Why don't you do something about removing the tag before renaming the article? I would have thought that would have been more important. Get a life, guys.--Gazzster (talk) 12:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.