Talk:Casimir I the Restorer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Poland (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Middle Ages  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Old most popular name count[edit]

With regards to Talk:List_of_Polish_monarchs#Naming, here are the results of Google test for Casimir vs Kazimierz:

  • Casimir - 1,250,000 hits
  • Casimirus - 826 hits
  • Kazimierz - 740,000
  • Casimir I - 807
  • Casimirus I - 28
  • Kazimierz I - 1379
  • Casimir Odnowiciel - 27
  • Kazimierz Odnowiciel - 1070
  • Casimir the Restorer - 1110
  • Casimirus the Restorer - 18
  • Kazmierz the Restorer - 12
  • Casimir I the Restorer - 670
  • Casimirus I the Restorer - none
  • Kazmierz I the Restorer - 3
  • Casimir I Odnowiciel - [1]
  • Casimirus I Odnowiciel - none
  • Kazimierz I Odnowiciel - 761


  • Casimir 2600 vs Kazimierz 3200; Kazimierz wins
  • roman numeral vs no roman numeral - 2200 vs 2200, close tie
  • Odnowiciel vs the Restorer - 1800 vs 1800, close tie

In accordance with my propoal at

With the proposed guideline Talk:List_of_Polish_monarchs#Naming, I'd like to move this article to Kazimierz I the Restorer. Through this name seems not to be the most popular, it is made of the most popular components, and I'd like to standarise all Polish king names to Polish name/roman numeral/Nickname in English or second name in Polish.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Small update: I am not sure how google does his magic and why there are more hits for "Casimir I of Poland" (950) then "Casimir I" (860). The first one is mostly wiki and it's mirrors reflecting the old title before the move. If counted, it would give a slight win to Casimir (3450 vs 3200), but again shows how "of Poland" (with only 12 "Kazimierz I of Poland") is unused outside Wiki.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Page renaming[edit]

This page needs to be moved back to an English title. Before we submit the "Requested move" paperwork, what is the consensus on what it should be called? --22:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Casimir I or Casimir I of Poland. --Elonka 22:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Casimir I of Poland Charles 22:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

We actually should not use time for votings. The poll at Casimir III clearly told how the majority sees the situation. All these Casimirs should now simply moved, in accordance with that result. There are no particular specific factors in any of them, as far as I know (and reading the naming convention). So, polling each one may only lead us to an inconsistent result, which should be avoided. Shilkanni 23:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we're all in agreement that the article needs to be moved back to an English name, but the question is whether or not it should be "Casimir I", "Casimir I of Poland" or "Casimir I the Restorer". Personally, I'm up for any of them, as long as it gets the article off of "Kazimierz". But which one should we request? --Elonka 23:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. That means we use endlessly time for these and others already materially solved. And "the Restorer", or plain "Casimir I" were not those which won C III. I do not want inconsistency. This should be just moved to "Casimir I of Poland" and go to other issues - there are names of monarchs whose naming was not yet polled. Casimir I of Poland is the name given by naming convention. Besides, there have been others named Casimir I, such as some Silesian and Masovian dukes, and were there some German princelings too... That's one of the reasons behind naming convention: those named Casimir I are pre-emptively disambiguated by country name. Shilkanni 23:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
We seem to all be in agreement, so I have made it so.  :) --Elonka 23:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Good. Thanks. Shilkanni 23:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Name, revisited[edit]

Wouldn't 'Casmir I the Restorer of Poland' (or just 'Casimir I the Restorer') be a reasonable compromise?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I cannot see what objective need there is for a "compromise". The current name is in accordance with naming conventions. This Casimir was not even a ruler of any other country than Poland, or was he? Shilkanni 10:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
My point is, as was from the very begining, that the current naming conventions produces in case of Polish monarchs produces names used by a minority of scholars (if any). "Casimir I of Poland": 8 GP, 1 GS. ""Casimir I the Restorer": 29 GP, 1 GS. "Casimir the Restorer": 20 GP, 3 GS. I think it makes clear that we need to ad 'the Restorer' nickname (we can keep of Poland if you insist, this was before the times of PLC so this is not an issue for this monarch). The Polish "Odnowiciel" is also quite popular ([2], [3]), but from the begining I said that we should translate nicknames - nonetheless it adds further weight to the argument that nickname should be used. PS. Btw, is there anything in the guidelines that nicknames should not be used?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  12:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there is. From WP:NC (names and titles):
If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, it may be used, and there is then no need to disambiguate by adding Country. Examples: Alfred the Great, Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, Henry the Lion, Skanderbeg, etc...". But there must be consensus so strong that it would be surprising to omit the epithet; and the name must actually be unambiguous. For example, although Richard the Lionhearted is often used, Richard I is not unusual, so he is at Richard I of England; again, if two kings of different countries are both known in English as Name the Great (for example Louis the Greats of Hungary and France), do not use the epithet but disambiguate them by country (those two are at Louis I of Hungary and Louis XIV of France).
This would appear to come under the clause about Richard the Lionhearted. Simple Casimir I is neither surprising, weird, nor unintelligible. Note that the proper test would be against Casimir I, without Restorer or Odnowiciel, which gets 109 GB and 8 GS. (The results for Odnowiciel show it is popular in Polish; it appears to be almost unused in English.) Septentrionalis 20:48, 6 August 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 no move. -- tariqabjotu 23:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move 2006[edit]

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)


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)

Discussion 2006[edit]

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.

Requested move[edit]

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 PolandCasimir 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)


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.

*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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)



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)


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.

What was the Language of the Court of Casimir I[edit]

Latin? Greek? Something Slavic? Thanks in advance. JoshNarins (talk) 00:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Almost certainly Polish. Some courtiers might have spoken Latin, German and various Slavonic languages... but that's pure speculation.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
If we are guessing, my guess is Latin, and German was not even a factor. The court of the Holy Roman Empire would have been speaking Latin at this time (and would be for centuries more), as would any social-climber. The article says Casimir isn't allowed to crown himself King by orders of the Emperor. Pretty much the first written vernaculars were emerging in this period, and one can't help but think that the languages in question were seen as the language of the commoners, i.e. peasants. JoshNarins (talk) 09:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Change categories' sort orders[edit]

I hope nobody objects; I've changed the default sort order in the categories. It had been set to sort as Restorer, Casimir I the. At least in Category:House of Piast it makes more sense--and is more consistent with the bulk of the other entries--to have it sort as Casimir. If anybody feels that it should be the other way in some other category, perhaps they could change it for that particular category, rather than across the board. (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Relation to Henry III ?[edit]

" ...his relative the Emperor Henry III..." ?? Exactly how are they supposed to be related? Casimir's maternal grandmother was Ottonian dynasty, Henry III was Salian. Casimir's mother probably pulled some strings in her family network - but "relative" - not very close.... / Ola — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

    • They were descents of Otto I. Kmicic (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)