Talk:Casimir III the Great
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Casimir III the Great article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.[1][2][3] 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.[1][2][3] 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)
References
- ^ A Psychoanalytic History of the Jews, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, Avner Falk, page 548, quote: The fifteenth-century Polish historian Jan Dlugosz (Johannes Longinus, 1415-180), author of the monumental, patriotic, and tendentious twelve-book Historiae Polonicae, attributed Kazimierz Wielki's pro-Jewish stance to a Jewish mistress named Esterka (Little Esther), who bore him four illegitimate children and lived in a royal palace near Krakow. Most modern Polish and Jewish historians dismiss this account as myth. It bears a striking resemblance to the biblical story of Queen Esther and King Ahasuerus of Persia. But myths have a psychological meaning. Did Dlugosz hate the Jews? .....
- ^ Matyjaszek, Konrad. "„Trzeba mówić po polsku”. Z Antonym Polonskym rozmawia Konrad Matyjaszek [“You need to speak Polish”: Antony Polonsky interviewed by Konrad Matyjaszek." Studia Litteraria et Historica 6 (2018)., quote: In the footsteps of Długosz, the Casimir-Esterka tradition became a more or less permanent feature of Polish antisemitic literature, the allegedly preferential status of Polish Jews was traced to Casimir’s partiality towards his mistress”
- ^ The Jew's Daughter: A Cultural History of a Conversion Narrative, Lexington Books, Efraim Sicher, page 58, quote: The first mention is by 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 and promulgation of regulations that threatened vested interests.
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:
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)
- C-Class level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles in People
- C-Class vital articles in People
- C-Class biography articles
- C-Class biography (royalty) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (royalty) articles
- Royalty work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- C-Class Poland articles
- Top-importance Poland articles
- WikiProject Poland articles
- C-Class Middle Ages articles
- High-importance Middle Ages articles
- C-Class history articles
- All WikiProject Middle Ages pages