Talk:John II Casimir Vasa

Johann Kasimir

In what language was King Jan II Kazimierz "known as Johann Kasimir"? logologist|Talk 02:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

German perhaps? //Halibutt 02:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable surmise. So will we be listing Jan Kazimierz's name, in the lead paragraph, in every European (and perhaps non-European) variant? logologist|Talk 03:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I see no need for names other than English, Polish, Latin and possibly Lithuanian.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it "Jan Kazimierz" in Polish, "Jonas Kazimieras" in Lithuanian, "Ivan Kazimir" in Belarusan, "Ioannes Casimirus" in Latin... Maed 13:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong. Jan Kazimir II in Belarusan. Azgar (talk) 14:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Page renaming

In regards Shilkanni's recent move of this article from "Jan II Kazimierz Vasa" to "John II Casimir of Poland" [1]... I would have preferred that there be a discussion about this on the talk page first, but for what it's worth, I support the new name. --Elonka 19:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd also prefer that we talk first. What do you think about the following names:

• Jan II Casimir Vasa
• John II Casimir Vasa

for the RM proposal?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I could go for "John II Casimir Vasa", but I'm going to be adamantly opposed to "Jan". My own stance is that whatever title is on a Wikipedia biography, that needs to be the easiest name that a layperson can use if they're looking up the same person in their home encyclopedia. And in English-language encyclopedias, they use John, not Jan. --Elonka 20:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Although I presonally dislike John (because in Polish it reads as ad means 'jam'), I can appreciate your arguments. So how about a WP:RM for John II Casimir Vasa? I find Vasa much more informative the Poland here (besides it was the PLC...).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Instead of individually deciding the name on this page, I think this case is a better one of "making it consistent with other monarchs", and is better discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). -Elonka 16:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I also believe that adding Vasa in nmae is better solution; Jan/John is more secondary issue M.K. 13:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Name as it appears in encyclopedias and dictionaries

Here are a few datapoints. If anyone has any others from major English-language reference works, please feel free to add them. --Elonka 17:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedias

• John II Casimir Vasa (Online Britannica [2])
• John II, king of Poland (Online Columbia [3])
• John II Casimir Vasa (1979 Encyclopedia Britannica)
• Jan II Kazimierz (Encarta [4]

Dictionaries

• John II, Casimir (Sokol's Polish Biographical Dictionary)

Other reference works

• John II Casimir (A Concise History of Poland, Lukowski & Zawadzki)
• Jan Kazimierz (Vasa), King of Poland (The Polish Way, Zamoyski)
• John II Casimir Vasa (Poland: An Illustrated History, Pogonowski)

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 consensus. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 02:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

John II Casimir of Poland → John II Casimir Vasa – Vasa better settles in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth era, points out important royal house. M.K. 23:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey

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

• Support M.K. 23:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support - it's nice to agree on something :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope that the procedures will be ok this time ;) M.K. 23:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support, support avoidance of the "of Poland" format for the now, at least until it is gone from all Polish monarchs, although I'd probably prefer John II Casimir --Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support with or without "of Poland," and I agree it's refreshing to see us all agreeing on something.  :) --Elonka 23:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Stick with naming guidelines. john k 23:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Would you support 'John II Casimir Vasa of Poland'?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    • No, "John II Casimir Vasa" is better than "John II Casimir Vasa of Poland", although I'd be amenable to John II Casimir Vasa, King of Poland (on the model of, say, Francesco de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany. The form you suggest is just to awkward. At any rate, I think that his status as a Vasa can be given in the first line with nobody being any the less informed. Titles aren't meant to inform, but to identify. john k 00:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Really? Is this said in the policy? Why should titles be diffrent then acronyms, for example? If we would go with 'article names are meant to identify, not inform', Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms) should prefer acronyms (shorter) to full names (longer), wouldn't you say so?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Quite often, the same acronym means at least two different things. Our naming policy tries to keep them separate, even encouraging (in some cases unnecessary) pre-emptive disambiguation. That is an obvious one reason why acronyms are not encouraged (but not totally prohibited) as article names. Suedois 08:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC) - We should however not put all the information to thev article name - names would tend to grow ridiculously long if we do that. There is much more space in the article text to inform people about particulars, no need to clutter article names with all sorts of trivia. Monarchs are not generally known by their surnames. Live with that fact. Suedois 08:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support I really think that with maybe the exception of some Piasts we shouldn't use "of Poland" (unless of course we'll start using "of Sarmatia" ;-)) --SylwiaS | talk 23:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Sylvia, is/ was this John Casimir generally known as monarch of Sarmatia? Suedois 08:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Sure, check Sarmatia and Sarmatism. Although just in case it wasn't clear, I'll add that I was joking. However, IMHO Poland is not more correct name here than Sarmatia.--SylwiaS | talk 09:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. No one has presented any good reason why AGAIN to diverge from the naming convention. We have manuals of style here for good reasons, please go try make a change in policy first and NOT always try to name Polish monarchs in contravention to naming conventions. Suedois 07:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose as per John, Swede and my own sense. Rules are never perfect, but they have the merit of being stable, regardless of all the POVs and beliefs. We have a convention on all monarchs, kings of Poland included. //Halibutt 10:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Vasa gives more information about person. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 11:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Sigh. That reason will provide for a recipe where we have the entire article as its title. Then it really gives more information about the person. Suedois 17:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    • so leave just blank page M.K. 17:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Vasa reflects dinasty he's from. It gives you wider prospect. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 17:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
        • How does telling what dynasty he's from give more information than telling what country he was king of? Among other things, the latter is a more basic piece of information. john k 19:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose The discussion below may be an argument to move to John II Casimir of Poland-Lithuania; it is not an argument for disambiguating by a dynastic name which will actively mislead the mere English reader into thinking him King of Sweden. Septentrionalis 02:24, 2 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.

Discussion

Add any additional comments

We have James I of England here, despite desires of local Scottish independence warriors among us. Because other places have also had princes or rulers named John Casimir, we just keep the designation of highest-title territory in names. In regard to this ruler, it was Poland, where he mostly resided at, as much as some would hate to mention the name of that country. Suedois 07:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

a bit more expl.I now that Google is not very good tool for deciding what to choose, but maybe some ideas will came out of this.

John II Casimir of Poland

John II Casimir Vasa

A better explanation why move needed:

First of all we know which state he rule - PLC – so I believe to avoid unnecessary tension removing any “of” would contribute to better understanding. Also we should not forget Swedish side and famous royal house. In this particular case adding Vasa would be more informative to reader then “of”. Besides the some sort consensus on Vasa was reached in similar cases too - Sigismund III Vasa Władysław IV Vasa M.K. 10:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is James I of England, but I'm afraid it's not a relevant case here. Here's from the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) that we all so like to mention but I'm afraid not everyone read them carefully, or is sufficiently familiar with our history:

Take care to use the correct name of the state at the time when a monarch reigned. So it is with the British: monarchs of England only up to 1707 (eg., Henry VIII of England), Great Britain from 1707-1800 (eg. Anne of Great Britain), the United Kingdom since 1801 (eg. Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom). England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom were all different states covering different geographic areas, and so they do need to be clarified.

Here we have a king of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, not of Poland. So according to the rule the title should be John II Casimir of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. No google hits [5], lol. So why we can't simply have him as John II Casimir Vasa which at least follows these rules from the conventions mentioned above:

Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem.

and

No family or middle names, except where English speakers normally use them.?--SylwiaS | talk 10:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The title of the ruler of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was "King of Poland," not "King of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth." And English speakers don't normally use his family name. They do for Stephen Bathory, for Michael Wisniowiecki, and for John Sobieski, but they don't for the Vasas. Poles use the surname, which means that "Vasa" is somewhat more frequently used in reference to Polish monarchs than to the Swedish Vasas (except Gustavus I), but in English we tend not to. We don't have Eric XIV Vasa or John III Vasa or Gustavus Adolphus Vasa. Polish conventions are different from English conventions. In English we occasionally refer to the Vasa rulers as Vasas, but not normally. We certainly don't talk about "Augustus II Wettin" or "Sigismund I Jagiellon." john k 11:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but the rules don't say: take care to use the correct title, only correct name of the state. Also, if it's not how you normally refer to this king, then how you do, since it seems that not John II Casimir of Poland. Let's just choose the most common name.--SylwiaS | talk 11:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The rules were not intended to indicate that we have to use "Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" instead of "Poland". "Poland" is the long accepted short name for this state in English, as anybody who actually reads books in English on European history will know. Beyond that, I refer to the king as "John II Casimir". we add "of Poland" because that is what the naming convention says to do. john k 14:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it’s nowhere said that the rules were intended for England only, and I’ll add that in many countries England is a well established name for the United Kingdom. Does it mean that queen Elizabeth II should be called “of England”?

I was saying English, as in "the English language", not the country England. In English we no longer use "England" interchangeably with "United Kingdom," and doing so would be inappropriate. We still use "Poland" interchangeably with "Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth." john k 19:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I was saying England as in the rule that you said was not intended to be used for Poland. The rule was explained on the example of England/GB/UK. But now I'll add that I know many Americans that still use England interchangeably with UK.--SylwiaS | talk 00:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Having been part of the discussion that produced that rule, I will comment: Yes, it was intended for Poland; it is intended to apply at least to all states which use European Christian names for their rulers. Septentrionalis 02:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say that Poland was a well established name for PLC rather than is. It's true that for a very long time the words were synonymous, and it's true that until recently majority of historians would simply say, Poland. But judging from more recent publications the attitude changes, and more often than not Poland-Lithuania replaces the old name. Perhaps for some it doesn't matter how the words are used since they know that "Poland" didn't mean exactly the same that "Poland" does today and they see no problem with this, but I can imagine that for the many people living in today's descendants of PLC, and having their own nationality distinguished from Polish it does. Therefore I think that the attitude of modern historians is better than that of the old ones.

People say "Polish-Lithuanisn Commonwealth" when they are specifically referring to constitutional arrangements and the like. "Poland" is still used for most purposes. We don't talk about the Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. john k 19:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps because May 3 Constitution changed the name of PLC into Poland just before Poland was partitioned.--SylwiaS | talk 00:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the Wiki rules are not sufficient since they cannot be easily applied to a king elector of PLC. And I don’t agree that e.g. this rule applies here:

Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, use the most commonly associated ones.

Because we’re talking about one state, and a king elected by its citizens, not necessarily Poles.

I understand that you prefer to adhere to rules, and I understand that adhering to rules generally protects us from mess, but perhaps in this case we simply have to agree to disagree, because I don’t think the rules work here. Unless, of course, we can agree to call him simply John II Casimir without anything else.--SylwiaS | talk 17:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

..."we should not forget Swedish side and famous royal house.." - representing that very ethnicity, I say the it is well enough for us Swedish that the TEXT of the article mentions John Casimir's claim to the throne of Sweden, and that he was driven to flee from his capital(s) and to mental depressions by certain military expeditions of late king Charles X Gustav of blessed memory. John Casimir apparently inherited only bad things from his Vasa ancestry - such as belligerent and attack-prone second cousins and a deep strife within the family. Should that be reminded even in the title? By the way, the nice word Vasa which you are so eager to include here, actually is the thing their family crest depicts, namely a cereal sheaf. Perhaps we should be logical and name him then, in English, as "John II Casimir the Cereal Sheaf". I hold my breath in anticipation of our Polish colleagues to tell us all what "cereal sheaf" happens to be in Polish. Suedois 17:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

if you insist –around five days after this pools will be closed you could make the request of moving name to John II Casimir the Cereal Sheaf and see what happends M.K. 17:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Rename

This is one the last of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth kings to have the misleading "of Poland"; three years after the last discussion - are there any opposing a move that would replace "of Poland" with "Vasa" (it would also bring him online with his father and brother: Władysław IV Vasa and Sigismund III Vasa)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Move it. M.K. (talk) 13:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John II Casimir Vasa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090707053619/http://www.mb.vu.lt/unesco/rankrasciai/autografai/karalisk/jankaz/emjankaz.htm to http://www.mb.vu.lt/unesco/rankrasciai/autografai/karalisk/jankaz/emjankaz.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110830091735/http://swiadectwotestimony.republika.pl/dedesh.html to http://swiadectwotestimony.republika.pl/dedesh.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://portal.unesco.org/ci/photos/showphoto.php/photo/4171/cat/all

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)