Talk:Casimir Pulaski

Fort Pulaski
I'm under the belief that Fort Pulaski was named after Kazimierz but I'm yet to find some information on that... I'm looking but if someone can find some solid info, please add it to this article (I've heard this while in Savannah - which is cited in the article). Also, we need a Fort Pulaski page. I've got royalty free images of the Fort so I can help there. JoeHenzi 03:45, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Some infos: http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?path=/HistoryArchaeology/AntebellumEra/Places-7&id=h-610
 * --Emax 00:33, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A movie reference
As I recollect, there was a ship with his name in a movie "A year of the dragon", but I can't confirm it just now. I'm still putting the info on the page, since the movie is a cult and the name of the ship was crucial to the plot. Unregistered user (2005)

Continued POV removals of his intersex status.
Some people keep coming to this page and wholesale deleting the section about his remains, (apperently because being intersex offends some people???) last time before I undid it it was missing for almost a week. Should this page be protected maybe?★Trekker (talk) 06:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I would support some level of protection. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I think it is for the best. It is still a controversial topic and seems to be rather ongoing as of 2020.★Trekker (talk) 04:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

This is still happening. One point to consider, from recent edit summaries, is what categories to use in cases such categorization is possible but not definite. As in, our text states that he may have been intersex (female), but the categories are definitive. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Because people keep adding it to the lead and adding categories about Intersex people. it is NOT proven he was intersex at all, it was not even proven it was his skeleton bones in the casket that were feminine. Just as the discussion above came to, you can add a cited paragraph on the Smithsonian investigation if you please, but it is a THEORY, so you CANNOT state it as fact and state it as the most important biographical information, 1 in 20 men have skeletons such as this, the rest is literally making up a theory so some researcher can present "new groundbreaking research on a historical figure", it's an irrelevant curiosity EVEN IF TRUE and complete speculation, completely unfounded and nothing to do with his life, and the fact you claim people have a problem with this, when in the reverse you seem to have a perverse obsession constantly re-adding it to the top paragraph and linking as many categories as you can, proves your projection. STOP adding it beyond the paragraph about the "investigation", this is an encyclopedia not a conspiracy webpage. 136.57.146.199 (talk) 04:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The lead states "Analyses since the 1990s of Pulaski's presumed remains have raised the possibility that Pulaski was intersex." It does not state he was intersex, it states he was intersex, that is a WP:DUE representation of this. Why are you removing a see also link to the documentary The General Was Female?? The only issue that we can discuss is what categories are appropriate. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * PS. @*Treker @JasonAQuest Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a section in the article talking about this question: it has received significant attention from reliable sources, and if Pulaski was intersex that is noteworthy because the military has historically been a male-only profession. The lede of a Wikipedia article is supposed to summarize the key points of the article, so it is appropriate that there is a short neutrally worded statement about it at the end of the lede. The "See also" section is intended to link to articles on related topics, and both The General Was Female? and Intersex people and military service in the United States talk about Pulaski, so it's clearly appropriate to include link to them. The question of categories is less clear. Because he is no longer living, BLP guidance isn't relevant. I can't find a policy/guidance directly addressing it, and would suggest getting wider input since it's a question with implications beyond this article. Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * As I came here in the first place because the sources seemed to be too unscientific on first glance and as the Abstract to the paper is not accessible anymore, I would like to request that the ASU article and other sources mentioned here should be added to the article. Thank you in advance. Artifex2 (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Intersex section
I think the section on intersex should be included as it is well sourced, interesting and well documented. The article does disclose that there can’t be 100% proof positive that he was intersex but I think it balances out the hypothesis. It should not be located in the introduction or top section. I think it’s located perfectly in the article. Tentemp (talk) 03:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2024
PLEASE CHANGE "... who has been called "The Father of American cavalry" TO "who, along with his Hungarian friend, Michael Kovats, has been called "The Father of American cavalry"" Foltoscsiko (talk) 23:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


 * No, because "father" is singular. Seasider53 (talk) 23:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The existing citation does not confirm that both are referred to with this title. Jamedeus (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)