Talk:Casimir Pulaski/Archive 1

Oh how underrated!
I've been meaning to revise the introduction but have not figured out a way to make it concise. For one it needs to be mentioned that Pulaski spent his own money to fund and organize many of his units. Secondly, the fact that he saved George Washington's life at the Battle of Brandywine fails to be mentioned here. Washington thought it notable and promoted Pulaski to Brigadier General of the American Cavalry. Third, his quote `I came here, where freedom is being defended, to serve it, and to live or die for it.' should be incorporated into the article. Lastly, I think (if passed by the House and President Bush) his honorary citizenship should be mentioned in the opening summary seeing as there have only been seven people to be ever recognized in this way.

I would like to see all these things included but would like some feedback and discussion regarding the inclusion of this information. Should the opening summary be extended, should new sections be added? Thanks in advance. JRWalko 23:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Without doubt this article, as a start class, should be expanded. If you would like to work on it, WP:PWNB would sure help.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The "Father of American Cavalry"
Is designating Pulaski, "the father of American cavalry" replete with the WP:Weasel "sometimes called" appropriate, even with a citation by Leszek Szymański? It should at least be formulated grammatically, if included. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

"Full Holiday"
I'm in Illinois right now, the first Monday in March, in school. There is no full holiday! THE KC (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC).


 * By informal survey, many in Illinois could care less and finds Pulaski day to be another day to find day care when the schools are closed for no discernibly good reason. SRICE13(TALK 03:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Marching Backwards?
I suspect that the following paragraph is Wikiality and I believe it should be stricken from this article:

"On his day there is a Pulaski Day parade on Fifth Avenue in New York City ([2]). The parade is known for its nontraditional approach. Participants in the parade walk backwards to commemorate Pulaski's brave march backwards into the city of Savannah. He marched backwards into the city to confuse the British who thought that he was retreating."

Or, perhaps a link to this page is required: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Jokes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.102.62.3 (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This is indeed strange, I removed this unreferenced claim (leaving the info about the existence of the parade itself, of course).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Monument in Baltimore
I just visited Baltimore and noticed a small park in passing where the Pulaski Highway intersects E. Fayette Street. There is a statue and a cannon there - and I think it is probably a monument to General Pulaski. Can someone in Baltimore check? Then we could add it to the list of Pulaski monuments/memorials. [You can readily see the statue and cannon on Google Earth at 39°17'40.61"N  76°34'45.87"W.] Dmbstudio 19:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That is a memorial to soliders of the Spanish-American War, actually. There is a monument to Pulaski not to far away in Patterson Park. --Uac1530 (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Please Move This Back to Casimir Pulaski
Honestly, why is the English wikipedia overrun by foreigners telling native English-speakers how to spell things in English? Why does the English wikipedia have an entry with that L with a line through it, a letter that doesn't exist in English?

This is nuts. Somebody has to put a stop to these people. The argument was very clearly laid out above on the talk page. Seriously. Let's get this done.

--Uac1530 (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC) A great admirer of Casimir Pulaski.


 * Yes, very clearly leaning on oppose to Casimir. See also Diacritics and don't forget to check this.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi guys
 * I AGREE. There is no point in forcing Polish pronounciation upon foreigners.Stanazollo (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Amen. Everyone in the English speaking world spells it Casimir. Even the bill just passed in the US House granting him US citizenship does so, something which, none of the Polish supporters of *Kazimierz* has bothered to add to the article, btw.  The fact that non-native English speakers are allowed to keep using English wikipedia to fight out their cultural and political battles is one of the main reasons WP sux.  It's quite pathetic. 99.140.226.40 (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is ridiculous to say this is beating a dead horse. The move discussion occurred in 2006. What's more, the "leans opposed" used on closing it was silly once you look at the arguments. The people in favour of moving it say that this is the English language Wiki, so the most common version in English should be used. Since Casimir is the most common in English, it follows that the title should use it. Most people opposing it did so on the basis that Casimir is also used in the lead so it doesn't matter. A few other resorted to the argument that changing this spelling could result in removing the diacritical marks from other pages. Now, Piotr refers us to WP:Diacritics. This issue has little to do with diacritical marks as only the middle "l" is offers choice between diacritical and non-diacritrical versions; the main point of contention is "Casimir" versus "Kazimierz". At any rate, the guideline begins begins, "Wikipedia does not decide what characters are to be used in the name of an article's subject; English usage does." It further states in that paragraph, "Follow the general usage in English reliable sources in each case, whatever characters may or may not be used in them." What we should be trying to so here is figure out which one is more common in English. In doing so, it should be borne in mind that the more authentic spelling tends to be surprising to native speakers of English. -Rrius (talk) 05:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's another vote for English Wikipedia using, uh, English. 76.197.234.170 (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move (2)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: moved as requested. Some of the arguments offered below are often mistaken: we do use diacritics; we don't ignore what people call or called themselves; we don't always use English names. But none of those things matter here as the "common name" of the subject in English-language reliable sources is said to be "Casimir Pulaski" and only a few counter-examples were offered of alternative usages. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Kazimierz Pułaski → Casimir Pulaski — Pulaski is far better known in English by the first name "Casimir", and English usage uniformly provides for an "l" rather than "ł" in his last name. This issue was debated in 2006, when one editor said the presence of the name "Casimir Pulaski" somehow means the page shouldn't be moved to it. That is nonsensical, yet it was relied on by most editors opposing the move. Another editor said because he was a Pole, we should use a Polish spelling. That is not how Wikipedia works. Article titles are based on the most common usage in English. One editor takes this an issue about diacritical marks for all Polish-name articles. That is also a nonsense. Under the guidelines for both article titles and for use of diacritics, common English usage is the guide. For the subject of this article, the regular "l" is clearly more common. -Rrius (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:UE and WP:UCN. Pulaski notable for activities in an English speaking country, is well known in English literature, and his English name is that commonly used.  —   AjaxSmack   04:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support we're not likely to call Saint Casimir, Šventasis Kazimieras, on English Wikipedia, or are we? Dr. Dan (talk) 06:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose his name was Kazimierz Pułaski not "Casimir Pulaski". Wikipedia usually uses correct names even if other versions are used videly. Dr. Loosmark  09:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ....and the country he was born in is called Polski, not Poland, but guess what?... this is ENGLISH wikipedia.  In English, the country is spelled POLAND and the name is spelled CASIMIR PULASKI. 99.140.200.115 (talk) 11:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And what exactly have the names of the countries to do with the names of persons? Dr. Loosmark  11:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's called an analogy. To say "his name was 'Kazimierz Pułaski', not 'Casimir Pulaski'" is incredibly simplistic. First, it ignores the fact that he spent considerable time outside of Poland, so his name would have been spelled differently. Second, and more importantly, it ignores Wikipedia's rules on article titles. What the subject called himself is unimportant. What is important is what the English-speaking world calls him. This is an encyclopedia for English-speakers, after all. It is critically important that you actually read Wikipedia policies before voting on issues involving those policies. -Rrius (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's called a false analogy. Names of countries are commonly translated in modern English. Names of people aren't. James Chirac or Joseph Zapatero anyone? Or better yet Joseph Shoemaker?  // Halibutt 12:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not a false analogy. The point that you are ignoring without any justification whatsoever is that the most common English-language usage is what we base article naming decisions on. That we don't translate "Jacques" and "Jose" into English equivalents is completely irrelevant. Just as "Poland" is the most common way of referring to the country in English, so "Casimir Pulaski" is the most common way of referring to the man in English. The analogy is apt. -Rrius (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * STRONG Support The fact that the US Congressional Resolution passed last year granting him US citizenship did so under the name CASIMIR PULASKI should be sufficient evidence that in the ENGLISH speaking world, CASIMIR PULASKI is his name. Furthermore, I humbly suggest those for whom English is not a first language refrain from voting on issues of English usage on English wikipedia, just as those of us for whom Polish is not a first language respectfully refrain from voting on Polish language issues on Polish wikipedia. 99.140.200.115 (talk) 11:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Those for whom English is not a first language cannot vote? Now isn't that a bit racist? Dr. Loosmark  11:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why don't we tone down the rhetoric (and learn what a "race" is)? The point is that what is important is what he is called by English-speakers, not Polish-speakers. It is a simple matter of policy. On the Polish Wikipedia, Elizabeth II's article is at "Elżbieta II". Should English-speakers be up in arms because they aren't using "her name" is it "racist"? Of course not, it's the Polish Wikipedia, it should reflect Polish, not English, usage. For more English Wikipedia examples of people who most assuredly did not self-apply English versions of their names, see Peter I of Russia, Nicholas II of Russia, Philip II of France, Charles II of Spain, Henry VII, Holy Roman Emperor, etc. -Rrius (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why don't we tone down the rhetoric (and learn what a "race" is)? Instead of smarting off I suggest you read the article about Racism and this passage in particular: "According to the United Nations conventions, there is no distinction between the term racial discrimination and ethnic discrimination."
 * On the Polish Wikipedia, Elizabeth II's article is at "Elżbieta II". Should English-speakers be up in arms because they aren't using "her name" is it "racist"? I suggest you try to concentrate and read again what I wrote. I have not said that renaming this or any other article is racist, I only said that suggesting that those for whom English is not a first language refrain from voting can be vied as a bit racist. Dr. Loosmark  01:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * First, UN conventions are irrelevant to what words actually mean. Defining a word one way in a legal document only has meaning within that document. Also, why don't you look up "ethinic". Having a different first language does not necessarily mean you ethnically different. Americans of Polish descent speak English as their first language, yet are (or may be, depending on which definition you use) ethnically Polish. To your other point, I connected the dots. You want to completely ignore Wikipedia's rules on naming articles in favour of your own view that the Polish version is the "correct" version. Then, you jump to an accusation of "racism", which is a highly charged word, especially in the United States, where editors of this article are likely to reside. I hope you don't think I'm "smarting off" again. No, wait, I don't care. -Rrius (talk) 07:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course now you know better than UN conventions, whatever. I'm not trying to ignore Wikipedia's rules on naming article as you falsely accuse me of. On wikipedia even high rank Nazi criminals have their named written in original, see for example Hermann Göring. In the english world he's known as "Goering" and yet his name written in original. As for for accusation of racism, I have not "accused" anybody, I have only said that requesting people for whom English isn't the first language to not vote here can be viewed as a bit racist. I still maintain that view, and more, I will even add such a position doesn't make any sense. Dr. Loosmark  12:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As for ignoring Wikipedia conventions, you are ignoring them&mdash;presumably because you remain unaware of what those conventions are despite having had them explained to you already and having been given the link to read for yourself. To your example, even though the English rendering of "Göring" is "Goering", the former is somewhat more common in English. What's more, it wouldn't matter to that discussion if that article used the wrong name. The fact that one article violates naming conventions does not justify another doing so. The fact that you continue to think the article name should be based on an "original" version shows ipso facto that you are ignoring Wikipedia naming conventions. It isn't a question of "knowing better than UN conventions", it is about what the word actually means to normal people, so cut the crap. That is a highly charged word, and you shouldn't have used it. As for the allegation of racism, you said, "Now isn't that a bit racist?". That is an accusation that the editor was being racist. Trying to maintain that it isn't is just ridiculous. Whether the original comment makes sense (and I agree it doesn't) is beside the point. That editor's comment did not deserve to be called racist. -Rrius (talk) 03:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I will repeat it for the third time: that comment can be viewed as a bit racist. So what are going to do now? Dr. Loosmark  09:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's obvious you're just a troublemaker. Only a troublemaker would throw an accusation of "racism" into the discussion, then, when called on it, ask what someone's going to do about it. The basis for decision here is what is the most common usage in English. While I agree that it doesn't make sense for English-speakers to abstain just because English isn't their first language, it was not, despite being somewhat insensitive, an unreasonable suggestion. To suggest it was "a bit racist" both misunderstands what racism is (at the same time devaluing actual racism) and unnecessarily stirs up passions. When called on it, your response to was to appeal to a technical definition from a source whose views on what racism is are irrelevant to 99.99% of the English-speaking world. When you finally ran out of actual excuses for such a divisive charge, your response was to repeat it and ask, "So what are you going to do now?". What the hell does that even mean? What are you expecting me to do? I'd ask you to take your troublemaking somewhere else, but I doubt you'd honor the request, so I won't waste my time. -Rrius (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You are obviously completely unaware that "racism" isn't used exclusively for describing racial discrimination. I even provided a definition used by one of the highest authority possible, the United Nations, which proves it. But of course you know better (yeah the UN are idiots and making wrong definition of the words). But lets be very clear about something, I have not accused the anon IP of being a racist, if I intended to do that I would have just said that he is a racist. However I do not think that he is a racist and that's why I was very careful with how I put it: I did not write that the IP is a racist and I did not write that what he wrote was racist, I simply said that what he wrote can be vied as a bit racist. Then you jumped in and instead of criticizing the only thing that needed to be criticized here - the moronic request that people for whom English isn't a first language refrain from voting - you invented a bogus accusation against the person who took a stand about that. As if that wasn't enough now you are even escalating your insults by calling me a "troublemaker" 3 times. Congratulations, really. Dr. Loosmark  23:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You accused the IP of being "a bit racist" in saying what he or she said. That you still don't recognize that that is a strong charge is frankly disappointing. That you again bring up your argument that "racism" applies to more than just races is a bit confusing because we are no longer talking about that. It is also a bit annoying that you've decided I am "completely unaware" of the more expansive usage. Also, your continued insistence that I should give a flying fuck what a United Nations organization says the word means is absurd. The United Nations is not in charge of setting the definitions of words for speakers of English. The important thing here is that Pulaski's significance to the English-speaking world primarily centers on the United States, where "racism" does apply more or less exclusively to actual race and where accusations of being racist or acting racist are incredibly damaging. Europeans may throw the word around without much thought, though that has not been my experience, buy you have to be sensitive to other English speakers&mdash;especially where those sensitivities have been pointed out to you repreatedly. Given that, you should have long ago acknowledged that your accusation was well out of proportion to the IP's statement. I doubt I'll respond to anything short of such an acknowledgement as I am rather sick of having to explain to you that what you said was wrong. -Rrius (talk) 00:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh but you don't "have" to explain your theories, nobody forces you to do that. What i find interesting is that you go bananas over something as insignificant as saying that a sentence might look a bit racist but at the same time saying rude things "flying fuck" is okay. And you are again painting my observation as an "accusation". But anyway since we have completely different views on this issue and it's unlikely that either one of us will change it i suggest we end this rather unpleasant discussion. Dr. Loosmark  22:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I should have figured you would be intellectually dishonest. Saying that someone else's sentiment is racist is serious charge about that person's words and, by extension, beliefs. Saying he or she was being a bit racist is tantamount to calling him or her racist. On the other hand, my saying, "I don't give a flying fuck" says nothing about you whatsoever; it is worlds different from saying you are a fuck, which is what you appear to want people to think I said. Whatever you intended, it is clear you were being intellectually dishonest. As I said, I should have expected it because it is of a piece with the rest of your argumentation throughout. -Rrius (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the 5000th episode of the series captain straw man. For the record: I have not said that someone's sentiment is racist. I have not said that someone's beliefs are racist. I have not called anybody a bit racist. What I did say is I explicitly stated that I don't think that the anon IP is a racist. Ok lets see so far you have 1) opened by arrogantly telling me to go to learn what race is 2) called me a troublemaker repeatedly 3) repeated the bogus claim that i called somebody a racist ad naseum 4) used rude language as "flying fuck" 5) thrown in an extra insult by calling me intellectually dishonest based on false allegation about what i want people to think. (for record my point simply that somebody using such a rude language should think twice before lecturing others). Dr. Loosmark  00:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * One more attempt. "Racism" means believing that your race is better than another. Even assuming your expansive definition of "race" whereby it includes ethnicity, nothing the editor said suggested his race or ethnicity is better. What you have failed to understand, over and over again, Loosmark, is that the editor was suggesting native speakers would have a better handle on what is common English usage than non-native speakers. That has nothing to with ethnicity. Rather, it is merely a logical argument based on premise that people with the best command of and exposure to the language are best equipped to determine what the common usage in the language is. I disagree with him not because I think that incorrect, but because I still think the non-native speakers are good enough at determining what is common usage that there is no reason for recusal. You are quite simply wrong to say that what the editor said was racist, and you should long ago have withdrawn the word in favour of something such as "insensitive" or "culturally insensitive". -Rrius (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I did not say that the editor was racist. I do not think that the editor is racist. Dr. Loosmark  00:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you didn't use those words, but saying someone is being racist is tantamount to saying they are racist. The nice distinction you can make between calling someone stupid and calling their remarks stupid just doesn't work with "racist". While intelligent people often say stupid things, if a person's words are "a bit racist", it means those words convey a belief that the person's race is better than another race. Thus, the person believes his race is better; thus, he or she is racist. What's more, once again, the statement did not suggest his race or ethnicity was better than anyone else's; it suggested that those with the greatest exposure to English are best placed to determine what is and is not common usage in English. -Rrius (talk) 01:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm tired of reading your logical fallacies so have a nice day and sayonara. Dr. Loosmark  10:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Loosmark proves the statement correct -- a native English speaker would know that "Göring" (as well as "Casimir Pulaski") is more common in English. It's not an issue of race or ethnicity -- it's an issue of *knowledge* -- and those unknowledgeable really should have the decency to recuse themselves from the discussion, and certainly should have the decency (if not the sense of irony) to refrain from throwing out slurs like "racist" in furtherance of their own chauvinistic agenda of "purifying" the English language.  In other words, people sitting in their pajamas in Warsaw (or Beijing or Ankara or Seoul, etc.) should stop trying to tell people in the English speaking world how to, uh, speak English. 63.112.58.114 (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Loosmark is not correct here, but neither is your knowledge of how Wikipedia works. If you read our policies more carefully, you would find it is the usage of sources which matters - not the opinions or anecdotes of those commenting here.  It doesn't matter whether you're sat in your pyjamas in Warsaw, or whether you're sat in a pinstripe suit under an umbrella in the drizzle next to a red pillar box in Trafalgar Square sipping weak tea with milk; the usage in the sources is the same.  And any user can analyse or comment on the usage in the sources - no matter what you think (or most likely, guess) their competence in the English language is.  Knepflerle (talk) 13:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support: Seems logical, also read somewhere we shouldn't have titles with diacritical marks. Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken)  (Locker) 20:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Such as "Göttingen"? Nihil novi (talk) 07:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That should probably be renamed as well. I heard about that convention on another RM  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken)  (Locker) 00:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all. The example of Göttingen is explicitly dealt with in WP:UE: "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage, e.g., Besançon, Søren Kierkegaard and Göttingen, but Nuremberg, delicatessen and Florence."  It's all about usage, folks. 64.241.37.140 (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, whoever told you this was completely mistaken. Diacritics are used where they are commonly used in English language publications.  This is the exact point and spirit of WP:UE by extension from WP:V. Knepflerle (talk) 12:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support per all the above. Plus it looks like he signed his name with a "C". Station1 (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The "C" may also stand for "Count" (since he was known as "Count Pulaski", a fact which doesn't appear in the wiki entry) or it may be a flourish. A more "natural" version of his signature, as well as his seal, can be found here: [].  The "L" in the surname is definitely not crossed, as it would be in the Polish form of his name, and the seal appears to incorporate a "C" and a "P" -- "Count Pulaski" or "Casimir Pulaski"?  Some expert opinion would be helpful.  In any case, as others have mentioned, what he called himself is irrelevant regarding what English speakers call him. 99.35.33.233 (talk) 12:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking thru the Library of Congress site for something signed with his full name, it seems he always signs "C Pulaski". Could possibly stand for Count, though that seems unlikely, but definitely not a flourish. Anyway, completely agree that what English speakers call him is what's important; the thing about the "C" was just my own little flourish. Station1 (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support On English WP, we should name his page as English readers will search for it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. No need for this move.  Nihil novi (talk) 07:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Care to explain? -Rrius (talk) 07:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Redirect is already there, no need to use a simplified version of his name. Besides, there's no proof he ever used the Americanised version of his surname himself.  // Halibutt 08:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Gulielmus Shakspere never used the Americanised form of his name either but the article is still at William Shakespeare, the most common English name. —   AjaxSmack   00:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And where did you take that version from? File:William Shakepeare Signature.svg?  // Halibutt 12:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You could do with reading the rest of the discussion and the relevant guidelines. We go with the common name in English without regard to what name the subject called himself. Also, the English version is neither "simplified" nor "Americanized"; it is the English version of the name. -Rrius (talk) 07:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone who insists on weighing in on how Americans spell the name of one of the heroes of the American Revolution should probably be more careful how they spell the word "Americanised".... 99.35.33.233 (talk) 12:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To the IP address...you only spell Americanize the American way Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken)  (Locker) 00:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Purplebackpack, I think in the context of Casimir Pulaski being ..."one of the heroes of the American Revolution", it doesn't seem out of line in preferring the "American" version, "Americanize". On the other hand referring to Poland in the masculine form "Polski", when Poland is definitely the feminine case in Polish, "Polska," should have been noted and corrected earlier. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. I never took a stand on the Poland issue...I just call it Poland  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken)  (Locker) 02:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. The evidence is quite clear that the proposed title is the most commonly used in English.  We should move this article to comply with our guidelines. Erudy (talk) 04:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:UE and WP:UCN. English wiki = English language = English names. Flamarande (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why won't you translate yours to English then?  // Halibutt 12:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to dignify your question with an answer, Sir. Flamarande (talk) 17:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not? I asked in good faith. After all a person's name is a person's name, be it yours, mine or Pułaski's. If we are to translate some, then why not the others?  // Halibutt 09:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a stupid question. You keep saying that a person's name is a person's name. That shows a stunning level of, to put it nicely, misinformation. The subject of this article very clearly was known by at least two different spellings of his name (a Polish one and an English one). Also, regardless of what he called himself, he is known in English as "Casimir Pulaski". You keep saying we're "translating" his name. We're not. We are using the most common version of his name in the English language. When you suggest that we should use native versions of names, you are suggesting we not follow the standard naming conventions of Wikipedia, yet you provide no reason why this article should be different. In fact, despite the fact that almost everyone supporting the change has referred to Wikipedia policy, none of those opposing has. That is telling. -Rrius (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I just wanted to point out that even Polish speaking Poles in Poland with a special interest in the good General spell his name "Casimir Pulaski" when they're communicating in the English language: []. I'd call that a slam dunk. 63.112.58.114 (talk) 03:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of the arguments above are completely irrelevant and incorrect - it doesn't matter what other language wikis do (different languages have different behaviours regarding adapting proper names, and there's certainly no "reciprocal arrangements"). The signature doesn't matter (we don't put William Shakespeare under any spelling used in his signatures, to borrow an example above). The mistaken interpretation of WP:UE regarding diacritics has been dealt with above, and the request for non-first language English speakers to refrain from commenting deserves all the disdain that can be afforded to it.
 * The idea that people have a (unique) Foo-ian name and a (unique) Goo-ian is also more often than not an over-simplification; usually in Foo-ian literature both names are used, and it is the relative frequency of the two that is important. Ratisbon, Filford and Mechlin are inventions of the English language that English writers now use far, far less frequently than the indigenous names - and what is currently commonly used in English language texts by English language authors is what counts, per WP:UE.  The mere existence of an exonym does not automatically preclude the use of an endonym - only prevailing use of the exonym does.
 * In this particular case, Kazimierz is used by some English language sources (e.g. ,) so claiming it is only a Polish usage is obvious incorrect exaggeration. However, Casimir is used in a significant majority of sources for this article - and that and that alone is what matters per WP:UE.  Support; for the reason given and not for those given above. Knepflerle (talk) 12:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just as a point of interest, you seem to be suggesting that you disagree with everything stated above, but I guess what I'd like to know is how you see your argument as being different from the one I made in initiating the move. Also, do you accept that understanding common usage is not limited the universe of sources used for the article? I think that all English-language usage is relevant and that restricting ourselves to what is cited in the article unnecessarily skews our understanding of what the most common English usage is. Obviously, the question is academic at this article, but if you didn't just misspeak, I'd be fascinated to hear your perspective. -Rrius (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:UE and WP:UCN. older ≠ wiser 15:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Strongly support' per WP:UCN and WP:UE. Varsovian (talk) 11:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * STRONG Support the conventions of wikipedia and a strong consensus support this; please get it done!! Uac1530 (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

General McIntosh
Just before the Siege of Savannah, Pulaski was ordered to link up with General McIntosh's force at Augusta and proceed in advance of General Lincoln to Savannah. Two references on Pulaski, Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography and American National Biography, refer to McIntosh as John McIntosh. However, I could find no Revolutionary War general by that name and concluded it was actually Lachlan McIntosh. And I did find a source to support this version. So I leave this note here to indicate why I am ignoring Appletons' on this point and going with a more obscure source. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 02:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Two more Pulaski Streets
Buffalo, New York- Latitude 42.87140, Longitude -78.78935; Toledo, Ohio- Latitude 41.64511, Longitude -83.58160.

ref. USGS Topo maps Musicwriter (talk) 03:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Name
Why is this page under the name Casimir Pulaski while his name was Kazimierz Pułaski? His name was simplified by the Americans (like many names are), but he himself never used it AFAIK. For me it's like moving the Margaret Thatcher to Iron Lady... I'm moving this page to where it belongs. Halibutt 06:44, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Why? Because this is the English Wikipedia, and you'll find that his name has been written in English as Casimir Pulaski since the Revolutionary War. Perhaps you'll really move it back to where it belongs. Btw, the letter Ł does not exist in the English language either. Dr. Dan 14:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC) p.s. Margaret Thatcher to "Iron Lady" is not much of an analogy.
 * I'd say Casimir Pulaski makes more sense. English language Google results for "Casimir Pulaski" -day are manifold more numerous than English language results for "Kazimierz Pu&#322;aski" -day User:LaFoiblesse 2008-12-07 16:37 (GMT)
 * Amen. It's total bullshit that Poles who don't speak English as their first, second, or even third language are allowed to make decisions (ie, stuff the ballot box) as to what is the proper ENGLISH name for CASIMIR Pulaski on WP.  Once again nationalism triumphs over accuracy and usability on WP.  One of the many reason WP is hopelessly, fatally flawed. 68.73.93.130 (talk) 11:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The hypocrisy around this issue is made manifest when you look up the POLISH WP entry for George Washington and discover that Polish WPians insist on spelling his name "Jerzy Waszyngton". Of course you'd never find an English speaker so arrogant as to tell Polish speakers how they should spell the name of the FATHER of OUR country.  We understand that different languages use different spellings.  Too bad certain Polish WPians here on English WP aren't as understanding and considerate.  Moreover, it's too bad that WP allows them to ballot-stuff. 68.73.93.130 (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, you do realise that by demanding that English Wikipedia use English spellings in all cases, you validate the use of Polish spelling in all cases on Polish Wikipedia. If you demand that this article about a Pole be called Casimir Pulaski, then there is no reason that the Poles should not have a Jerzy Waszyngton article for the American president. That is, if we are to go by your reasoning. Now remind me, who is the hypocrite? Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * First, the rule on the English Wikipedia is that the most commonly used spelling in English is the one employed for the article title. Sometimes that means using a non-English version because a foreign version is more common among English speakers. Second, I don't think anyone here would give a rat's backside how any other language's George Washington article rendered his name. Third, the IP editor did not have a problem with rendering Washington's name in Polish for the Polish WP and didn't think you'd find an English speaker so arrogant as to try to force English spelling on the Polish WP, so your attempt to turn his charge of hypocrisy back on him was pretty silly. Third and finally, the IP editor does realise that insisting on English usage on this WP validates Polish usage on the Polish WP. That was his bloody point. Next time you decide to take umbrage at someone else's contribution, you may want to take the time to make sure you didn't wildly misinterpret what it says. -Rrius (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Appletons
A lot of the biography has been lifted verbatim from Appletons. Although not a copyright violation (since it's out of copyright) it should nevertheless by quoted, and more importantly care should be taken to verify since Appletons is notoriously unreliable. 99.149.197.216 (talk) 02:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * After a year or so experience working with Appletons', I agree with Schindler's rule that "articles on Latin American subjects should be used cautiously until verified against other sources." Please note the period. The knowledge of the editors was rather stronger on European and American history and affairs than on Latin American history and affairs, though even for the latter domain they made a very creditable, and in most cases valuable, attempt to include it in their compilation. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * While I don't think there is a reliability issue here, strict adherence to the WP:PLAGIARISM policy does require a notice of verbatim incorporation of text, so I have added one. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Naming Conventions
I'd just like point out that the German, French, Spanish, and Swedish (and Polish, of course) versions of this page all use Kazimierz Pułaski. I'm not going to request a move back to the more native spelling of Pułaski's name (though I certainly would like to) since I feel like the proponents of the Anglicised name would laugh me out of here for it. I just find it interesting that even the French, who are usually quite the defenders of their language's purity, have the proper spelling of his name, not local variants. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 09:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Since you say you don't intend to start a move discussion, it is not clear what your purpose is in writing, but I will assume you have some purpose and will respond: An English-speaking country has a significant connection with Pulaski. As a result, a common English spelling exists. Pulaski had nothing like his relationship with the United States with the other countries you named (aside from Poland), so it makes sense that (assuming they have an equivalent to WP:COMMONNAME) no native-language version is used with sufficient frequency to displace the Polish version in those languages. You titled this section "Naming Conventions", yet interestingly made no effort to discuss naming conventions at all. I will. At the English version of Wikipedia, with few exceptions (none of which are relevant here), we use the most common version of the most common name of the subject in English. As has been established in previous discussions, "Casimir Pulaski" is the most common English version, which is why the article is at this title. I hope that addresses whatever reasons you had for beginning this discussion. -Rrius (talk) 09:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand this. This was more a comment than an attempt at creating an in-depth discussion, since I regrettably missed the move debate. I really don't care what wiki guidelines say, I will always use native spellings out of respect. But I will also respect the decision that has been made here. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 10:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You say using "native" spellings is somehow respectful, suggesting that using the English version of his name is not. I would suggest to you that using the Polish version on the English Wikipedia disrespects Pulaski's contribution to the founding the United States by treating with more distance that is actually done normally by English speakers. Moreover, if you don't care about naming conventions, you should avoid naming discussions, completed or not. It is precisely that sort of disregard that was so troublesome in moving this page to a title that actually conformed to the projects guidelines rather than one that merely reflected the emotional and nationalistic preferences of certain editors. -Rrius (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "I really don't care what wiki guidelines say." Then you should stop trolling and just leave wikipedia. 70.131.144.130 (talk) 09:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

B-class review
Failed due to insufficient citations. I am also not happy with structure - no significance/remembrance, that content is partially mixed with main bio, and partially in the listified tribute. If I can, I'll try to improve this article some time this year. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 22:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Review comment
I made the following edits. (A) Moved and resized the images to avoid bunching and gapping. (B) Fixed some obviously wrong dates (1711 to 1771, 1792 to 1772). (C) Fixed some obviously wrong names (Poniatowski to Pulaski in one case, Pilaski to Pulaski). (D) Fixed some typos (interneted to interned, know to known).

There are some things I cannot fix. (E) There is a sentence, "he received a ran of a pulkownik". What is a "ran"? (F) Both Pulaski and Pułaski are used. Except for some links, one or the other spelling should be used consistently. Djmaschek (talk) 03:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. E - typo for a rank. Pulaski/Pułaski standardized. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 16:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Siege of Charleston
I think that the link to this may be correct. While the infobox there is for the battle in March 29 – May 12, 1780, the article also describes events from 1778 in the background, events in which Pulaski participated (and died). As such, I think that the link is valid as it is. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 17:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There are any number of battle articles that describe events well before those of the actual battle. But we don't say that someone who marched to New York around the time of the Battle of Long Island, was therefore in the Battle of Trenton (and those events are only separated by a few months in 1776).  To say Pulaski was in a siege whose major dates are in 1780 (when he had been dead for months), and which had an intervening major event in which he actually died, borders on the absurd.
 * Pulaski was in Charleston in May 1779, at a time when British forces from Savannah made an advance toward the city. The details of this are best describe in the background to Battle of Stono Ferry, which was the only major engagement of that thrust.  All I've been able to read of Pulaski's involvement at Charleston is that he arrived about the time the British were approaching, and skirmished with them on the same day that British General Prevost learned that Continental forces were marching toward the city.  This latter intelligence (combined with the fact that Prevost was not really prepared for a siege, having knowingly overextended his force) is typically credited with prompting the British retreat at this time.  Pulaski apparently followed and harassed them, which gained him further popularity.  None of his contributions at this time seem to have been of particular military value.  (This view is at odds with his 19th century biographers, who it seems sought to glorify every little thing he did in North America.) See Griffin (1911) for some historiography and excerpts of primary accounts.
 * Works that describe this episode against Charleston in 1779 in detail are not particularly numerous; the one in Russell is pretty good, and summarizes Pulaski's skirmish.  Magic ♪piano 19:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Wilson also has a fairly detailed account of Pulaski's work at Charleston and Prevost's maneuvers.  Magic ♪piano 20:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

New sections

 * I just added a new section 'Personal life'. The only thing contained in it (at this time) is content about Pulaski's membership in the Masonic Order. Looking over the page, there doesn't seem to be much else about Pulaski's personal life other than mention of his mother, brother, etc. Did Pulaski have a wife, children? I placed this new section under 'United States' as his Masonic involvements occurred in this country, however we may want to move it and have it follow after the lede section if we can add other content about his childhood, family, any wife and children, etc. As section names go, do we need a section named 'Biography'? It seems redundant, as the entire page is the Pulaski biography. IMO it should simply be omitted as it has no text in it of itself. The other sections seem to suffice without it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Also moved section for 'Personal life', following the lede. Have added and moved other content there. Have also dispensed with the redundant 'Biography' section. Also added the general 'Military life' section with brief intro' that perhaps could be expanded a bit. Hope this meets with everyone's approval. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Created section Death and Burial -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Personally I like to have a clear biography section, for describing one's life history, separate from works, legacy and such. I am pretty sure he was never married, otherwise PSB would mention it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Place of birth (Podolia)
I've come across three sources (1, 2, 3) that claim Pulaski was born in the province of Podolia. Is Warsaw located in this province? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, Warsaw is in Masovia. I'd class those sources as unreliable, they are probably rehashing some 19th century obsolete claim. PS. So far and  seem most reliable w/ regards to discussing his place and date of birth. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  07:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, but are you saying that the claim is obsolete because it was made in the 19th century (i.e.all 19th century sources obsolete) or simply because the particular claim is obsolete in of itself, regardless of the date it was made? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I am saying that I have not seen this repeated in any reliable sources, so I am assuming it's an uncommon version of an old record, most likely dating to the 19th century. Google Books for Pulaski born Podolia gives some 19th century sources, this is the oldest one I could verify ("Count Kazemierz (or Casimir) Pulaski, born in Podolia on the 4th of March, 1748"). (I also get a hit for "Harper's statistical gazetteer of the world" for 1855 but no preview for verification). I cannot find a single Polish source that would repeat this version. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  07:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, that sounds good enough for me. 'Warsaw' it shall be. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Pulaski a "mercenary"?
In the lede it says that Pulaski was "a soldier of fortune, following the endorsement of Benjamin Franklin", yet the link redirects and takes you to a page entitled Mercenary, someone who becomes a soldier for profit and personal gain. Is this really an accurate statement as concerns Pulaski? We know that he came to the United States as a foreigner, but does this automatically make him a mercenary? Wouldn't it be more accurate to refer to this man as a Freedom fighter -- esp when you consider his involvements in Poland, the saving of Washington's life, his cavalry charge at Savannah, costing him his life? Mercenaries have a reputation for not taking such risks since they're only in it for the money and want to live to collect their 'pound of salt'. I realize that some of the sources refer to him as a soldier of fortune but they distinguish this phrase in terms that his fate and exile form Poland was his fortune. In any case, Pulaski wasn't a war profiteer and engaged in the Polish uprising and American revolution for ideological reasons. It seems we won't find a source that refers to Pulaski as a Freedom fighter, but do we have to refer to him as a soldier of fortune, esp since this links to a page entitled Mercenary? This is (very) misleading. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree; this is an unreferenced relic of one of our public domain 19th century sources. Freedom fighter is better. He was fighting for ideals more so then for money. It could be a tad problematic, too, requiring a citation, just remove "as a soldier of fortune" and good riddance. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- I also reworded a passage in one of the paragraphs, trying my best not to write it like an essay, which is sort of difficult when writing about one heroic act after another, however a certain amount of embellishment is allowed in the lede so long as it is truthful and not misleading: e.g. "Heroically", "daring".  (i.e. WP:LEAD: Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article...) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Ship on which Pulaski died
The article names the Wasp as the ship on which Pulaski died in 1779, however the USS Wasp was destroyed in 1777. If the article is referring to a different Wasp then we need to be clear about this. The source for the existing statement clearly refers to a USS Wasp but makes no mention of this naval ship being a privateer, i.e.not a naval ship. -- All (?) the other Wasps were built years after Pulaski died so there is an apparent discrepancy as to the exact vessel in question. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll double check PSB later today. A Google Book search quickly confirms, however, that the ship was a United States vessel called brig or brigantine Wasp in numerous sources. I'll ask at WPMILHIST or WPSHIPS for assistance. There's probably a Wasp not mentioned on USS Wasp disambig. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships which is managed by the US Naval History and Heritage Command mentions no other USS Wasp that was in operation in the 1700s. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, all sources, including highly reliable ones, disagree by repeating the name USS Wasp in this context. Ugh. For now, the best solution would be to make a note saying, more or less, what you've said above. Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships should be linked in it, I guess. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Few more facts:
 * The ship is mentioned in all bios of Pulaski I can access:, , , , , , {{cite book|author=Ryszard Zieliński|title=Kazimierz Pułaski, 1747-1779|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=SRM9AAAAMAAJ|accessdate=22 April 2013|year=1967|publisher=Wydawn. Ministerstwa Obrony Narodowej}page=152}}, wikisource:Appletons%27_Cyclop%C3%A6dia_of_American_Biography/Pulaski,_Kazimierz, in his bio in the Polish Museum of Casimir Pulaski in Warka page (]), in Catholic Encyclopedia ,
 * (What I couldn't access due to no preview on GBooks, also disabling search within:, and
 * The word Wasp does not seem to appear in or  but I can't verify for sure, as the books are snippet view only
 * a few sources name the ship captain as a certain Samuel Bulfinch. They are very few, however. Ex. . This article seems to go into few more details, further confirming that such a ship should exist. This calls the ship "a privately owned square                                    rigger,". Perhaps it offers a clue here, if it was private, it would not be a part of US Navy?
 * --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This | referenced web page identifies the Wasp as a British privateer captured by the South Carolinas in September 1778  Fornadan (t) 14:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (overlapped with Fornadan) Even an Act of Congress can be mistaken - they clearly didn't have DANFS handy! The problem is RS, and in particular that Pinkowski's research seems to lack independent publication.  This gives the documentary evidence missing from the current cite. Bulfinch's South Carolina privateer brig Wasp is evidenced here, though the Pulanski connection only draws on Pinkowski. But despite the Act of Congress, I would think that if the majority of sources that mention Wasp describe her as a US vessel, without claiming she was a naval vessel, that should be given due weight. Also it seems that, of the RS available, only Kajencki postdates Pinkowski, so has additional importance on this issue. Davidships (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Davidships and Piotrus, these sources seem to be more than adequate for citations and at least we can distinguish between the naval ship and the privateer. If there are no objections I will get the source info into 'cite web' templates and cite the statement in question directly. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * That's a really nice ref, should be added to the text. We should also describe the ship as a South Carolinian, I guess...? And how should the USS Wasp disambig be updated, the ship is notable and should be linked (redlinked) from here and the disambig, I guess. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  02:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You could describe her as "American", from South Carolina. As this Wasp wasn't a US Navy vessel, I cannot see how it can be linked from USS Wasp, except as a footnight due to erroneous attribution.Davidships (talk) 08:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, a see also to ?? Wasp (sometimes erroneously called USS Wasp) would be helpful. What ?? should be I would leave to naval experts. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 17:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Moving along with GA evaluation
Zawed, I was wondering how the GA evaluation is coming along as we haven't heard from you in a while. If there are (a list of) specific items that you feel still need to be addressed perhaps you could relist the remaining items in a new section here on the talk page. Also, do you feel the Bibliography is up to snuff? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yikes, I've only been watching the GA2 review page. Have added a comment there. Zawed (talk) 01:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

GA Review
Here is the link to the  actual GA review  for those new to this talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Birthplace
Perhaps it shouldbe mentioned, that Pułaski's birthplace is the current Mikulski House at Nowy Świat 53 : the manour itself doesn't exist anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.6.9.17 (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Franciszka z Krasinskich
I commented the "There is no evidence of any wife or other romantic woman in Pulaski's life other than Franciaska Krasinaka, the morganatic wife of Prince Karol of Courlandia., ref to due to several problems:
 * first, it is unclear what this sentence suggests? Affair? Platonic love? Mother-to-son love? Something else?
 * "Franciaska Krasinaka" is clearly mispelled, should probably be pl:Franciszka z Krasińskich
 * Prince Karol is linked to Karol Stanisław "Panie Kochanku" Radziwiłł, where I think the right person is Charles of Saxony, Duke of Courland; both of them have already been mentioned in other parts of the article (please don't use different names for the same person, it's bad style...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Re: Romantic woman -- the source provides us with no details here, but 'romantic' would suggest something more than a platonic affair. Spelling was taken from source. Feel free to fix any discrepancies and improve on style. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd really like to see more refs before restoring this claim. It's not mentioned in the PSB, where instead IIRC it is noted she would become his mentor/patron, thus suggesting a rather different type of relationship. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Being born into a prominent Catholic family isn't worth mentioning in half sentence in the lede, per summary of his life? Being Catholic is mentioned in 'Personal life' and later can be expanded on if there are sources, but it still seems we should mention this in the lede, which is supposed to be a summary of the text that follows. Being born into a prominent Catholic family isn't exactly an insignificant detail. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Most families in Poland at that time were Catholic. It would be worth mentioning if his family wasn't Catholic, otherwise it's I think redundant. Regarding prominent family, it was so-so; anyway, isn't it enough to just link Pulaski family? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A "romantic woman" is not a woman with whom someone has had a romance. The phrase can mean a few different things, but that is not one. If this is the term used by the source, it is odd, and we would need significantly more context from the source to figure out just what to do with it. If it was a turn of phrase created by an editor here, it needs to be fixed even if we do get the refs Piotrus is asking for. -Rrius (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Rrius, your statement is an opinion, and a most unusual one. What is "odd" about having a romance with a romantic woman? The statement stands on its own -- we don't need to "figure out" what else to do with it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, not nearly everyone knows that most people of that time were Catholic in Poland, in fact, most people today, especially younger people, are historically ignorant, especially about the distant history of other countries besides their own. Also, the content/context regarding a romantic relationship is sourced by Szymański, one of the leading sources for Pulaski. These are general and basic facts about his personal life and belong in the Persoanl life section. Can we please un-hide that sourced statement? Another good reason to include this basic context is 'depth of knowledge', which is expected for a FA, so we should aim high on that note alone. Is the plan now to sit ideal with a GA and do nothing else with it besides tweak it? As it is, this biography has very little to say about Pulaski's personal life. This is the Pulaski biography, not just a history article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Extraordinary claims (like that Pulaski had a romantic relationship) should be supported by more than a passing reference. Please cite at least one more reliable source that he had an affair with Franciszka. So far, it looks to me like this is a fringe, undue and possibly misintepreted claim. Regarding religion, I see no problem mentioning it in text, but I simply don't see this is relevant in the lead. As far as I know we don't discuss religiosity of individuals in the lead unless it is relevant to their life; for Pulaski it's not very important. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fair. I'll look around for another source concerning religion and any woman he may of had a relationship with. The note about his relationship with, uh, what's her name, is sourced by Szymański. Do you really think it could be a fringe statement? I'm going away this weekend -- will get to it by Monday if someone else hasn't already. I'm off. btw, thanks for the 'Pierogi'! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Casimir Pulaski Monument in Savannah
Feel free to comment and improve on this new DYK. Needs a photo and GPS coordinates! --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Flags in info box
There seems to be some confusion as to which flag or coat of arms should be used in the Casimir Pulaski and Tadeusz Kościuszko info boxes. If Pulaski and Kościuszko were from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth which was established in 1595 and disappeared in 1795, shouldn't we use one of the images? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably better. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The flag, I should think as it will match the use of a flag for the US. And yes, we should use the one that actually pertains to the country as it existed in his lifetime. -Rrius (talk) 08:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * One of the contributing editors here had included the (above left) flag but it was removed for a reason that seems questionable in the corresponding edit history. This is the flag used in the info box on the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth page and was used here (and prior to) when this article became a GA. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The "flag" found in the infobox at Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth is correctly labeled there as a royal banner from c. 1605. So firstly, it was a royal banner, not a flag (these are two different things). Secondly, what was valid in 1605 was not valid in 1746. This illustration is a modern rendering of a royal banner pictured on the Stockholm Roll (no article in English Wikipeida yet, but if you read Polish, see pl:Rulon polski). It bears the coat of arms of not only Poland and Lithuania, but also Sweden, because the Polish king at that time had a personal claim to the Swedish throne. Polish kings in the 18th century had no claims to Sweden whatsoever. Using the 1605 royal banner as if it was some official design of a national flag throughout the history of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is simply wrong. The Commonwealth did not have a flag in the modern sense. Each individual king had his royal banner, that's all.
 * On a more general note, please read WP:INFOBOXFLAG, the first sentence of which says, "Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. Flag icons are visually distracting in infoboxes and lead to unnecessary disputes when over-used." This case is a great example of why trying too hard to have "flags" in an infobox is a bad idea. — Kpalion(talk) 20:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I take the silence as concession to my arguments, so I will remove the icons from infoboxes in both articles. In any case, please do not revert without responding here first. — Kpalion(talk) 20:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Banner of the nuns
Where is the story of the Moravian nuns of Bethlehem, PA presenting Pulaski with a silken battle flag? Longfellow thought enough of the incident to write a poem about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.46.188 (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Photo request: grapeshot that killed Pulaski
As seen for example at, it is an exhibit at the "Pulaski Grapeshot that killed Count Casimir Pulaski, October 1779. A-1361 Georgia Historical Society Artifact Collection, Item A-1361-48". Anyone passing through the region and able to visit the Georgia Historical Society and take a free pic for the article? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * PS. Or we could try emailing the GHS at ? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * PPS. Done - emailed Elyse Butler, "Membership and Outreach Associate". --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Casimir Pulaski. 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/20120722013614/http://castle.eiu.edu/~insight/pulaski/pulaski.htm to http://castle.eiu.edu/~insight/pulaski/pulaski.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120722013614/http://castle.eiu.edu/~insight/pulaski/pulaski.htm to http://castle.eiu.edu/~insight/pulaski/pulaski.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100901023219/http://castle.eiu.edu:80/~insight/pulaski/pulaski.htm to http://castle.eiu.edu/~insight/pulaski/pulaski.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Birth and death dates
I reverted the changes to Pulaski's birth and death dates made by user User:64.107.1.95 even though they are sourced (in the edit summary), because:
 * 1) This user is a notorious vandal and puppeeter with a modus operandi of making subtle (and, so far, always incorrect) date changes to articles (among many other things -- see User:Dijxtra/Sock for details). It appears that he surfs the web for any source that contradicts commonly-accepted data -- dates in particular -- and adopts a mindless holy crusade to force Wikipedia to accept this data. Not conducive to my being comfortable about this, to being with.
 * 2) I have some questions about the source. Some of the language seems slightly less than scholarly ("Never before were so many errors made against one man as in the case of Pulaski," Pinkowski said. "He was a victim of corruption, lies, forgeries, trumped up charges, revisions of history and defamation of character."). And the Polish-American Journal is of a reputation unknown to me. Pinkowski may be correct, but for now I don't think we have enough verification to change the commonly-accepted dates. Herostratus 19:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Users like Herostratus keep on changing everything that's correct, vandals like that should not be allowed. This historian spent his lifetime on Pulaski and I would rather listen to him than to some wiki criminal like Herostratus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.1.116 (talk • contribs)


 * So what is his birth date? OK, I understand that the day of the month is questionable, but two different years (1745 and 1746) are given in the article. The Cath. Encyc. and one of the other refs here say 1748. I have 2 dead-tree dictionaries here, one says 1748 with a "?", the other 1747. Oj kochany!--BillFlis 17:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 1745 and 1746: 4 March 1746 is stated up top in the Intro, then that is forgotten in the Bio section where instead two dates in March of 1745 are given. Then if one looks at the photo of the statue in Freedom Plaza, it reads: 1747. — RVJ (talk) 06:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * An argument in favor his birthday being March 4 instead of March 6 is that March 4 is the feast day of St. Casimir, the patron saint of Poland. It seems an odd coincidence that they'd give him that name if he were actually born 2 days later. Mawode (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

This article give varying birth years (1745 and 1747) throughout, although states accepted date = 1745 Thisdaytrivia (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #eeffee; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . 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. 

no consensus, leaning on oppose. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 10:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
Kazimierz Pułaski → Casimir Pulaski – Wikipedia policy is to prefer English or most common version of a name — Dhartung | Talk 20:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


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


 * Support. See Naming conventions (use English) and Naming conventions (common names); Wikipedia policy is quite clear. --Dhartung | Talk 21:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. I originally began altering the way I did because links to Kazimierz Pułaski were far more numerous than Casimir Pulaski. I was mistaken though, my apologies, and you can find and help undo all the Cas → Kaz changes I made in my contributions. Craig R. Nielsen 21:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No harm done. All may be repaired in due time. --Dhartung | Talk 07:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. No question whatsoever. older ≠ wiser 22:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral (for now). Columbia Encyclopedia uses English spelling, Britannica uses Polish spelling. Balcer 01:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, but Britannica actually says "English Casimir Pulaski"! Both sources agree what his name was in both languages, the only question is what goes in the title. --Dhartung | Talk 07:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose, all is ok as long as his "English" name is also mentioned in the header - and definitely no need to move. Halibutt 11:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose He was a Pole. Should we rename Karol Wojtyła to Charles Wojtyła ?.--Molobo 13:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course not; that would violate Naming conventions (common names). You will notice that his article is under the common English version of his name, Pope John Paul II. --Dhartung | Talk 14:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Halibutt--SylwiaS | talk 15:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, also per Halibutt. Appleseed (Talk) 18:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support à la Copernicus, Marie Curie, Joseph Conrad, or Frédéric Chopin. AjaxSmack 18:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose as I am afraid what it could do - would we de-diactric Lech Walesa next, and move Tadeusz Kościuszko to Thaddeus Kosciusko?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 21:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. Agree with Halibutt and Piotr. Olessi 22:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strenuously oppose. logologist|Talk 03:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strenuously support. This is English Wiki, not International Wiki. Use the spelling that would be used in any English book. --Tysto 03:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments
 * This is the English-language Wikipedia, the most common English transliteration is appropriate. "Casimir Pulaski" is the form used by almost all authoritative US sources: White House, Pulaski Co, GA, Library of Congress. Americans understand that it's originally a name in another language; most of the people celebrating "Casimir Pulaski Day" are Polish-Americans. --Dhartung | Talk 21:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Here are some Google Books and Google Scholar results. Olessi 22:31, 7 March 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.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Casimir Pulaski. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://castle.eiu.edu/~insight/pulaski/pulaski.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100817083502/http://www.muzeumpulaski.pl/html/kazimierz_pu3aski.html to http://www.muzeumpulaski.pl/html/kazimierz_pu3aski.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Casimir Pulaski vs Kazimierz Pułaski
I realize that the man is seen as an American hero of some sorts, but the man only spent two years of his life in America until his death and never identified himself as an American. Further, outside of the United States, he is known much more for his achievements in Poland and Europe than in America, so much so that Benjamin Franklin wanted to hire him in the first place. The man was brought over to America as a mercenary and died as a mercenary. I see no reason at all why his name should be Anglicized, the article should be renamed to the Polish version and have Casimir Pulaski redirect here. (polskaGOLA) (talk) 05:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree; you may want to start a proper WP:RM. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, General Pulaski is an American hero, along with Marie-Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette (AKA General Lafayette) who should probably receive the credit for recruiting Puklaski rather than George Franklin. And while Pulaski was had to flee Poland, he received US citizenry after his demise, Illinois celebrates Pulaski each March, and my several roads and highways are named after him. The part that is really disconcerting is the lack of reference to either Pulaski or Lafayette during our US holidays on Memorial day, July 4th, or Labor Day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.2.140.119 (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Add sentence to lead: re: confirmation of his skeleton/burial?
Currently, the lead ends with " Despite his fame, there have been uncertainties and controversies surrounding both his place and date of birth and burial." However, due to the results of the genetic testing done, we now have confirmation that Pulaski's bones are interred at Monterey Square in Savannah. Should this be reflected in the lead? Ganesha811 (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Since I doubt everyone is convinced, saying that it's been disputed satisfies NPOV. Leave the specifics to the body of the article. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * While I do agree the specifics of the questions of both Pulaski's ultimate fate and his sex should be reserved for the body of the article, I think your response conflates those two very much separate issues. At present the lead only mentions that there is debate about his places of birth and burial, but says nothing about the debate regarding his sex. I agree that the lead is not the place to lay out the entire body of evidence/conclusions of researchers, but I do think the new developments do bring us to a place that a brief mention of the issue is due in the lead, as it impacts upon a rather significant emerging facet of the Pulaski narrative, as an encyclopedic subject. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 00:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Allegedly a woman or intersex
Some anthropologists are claiming that this subject may have actually been a woman or intersex. No, seriously, this is not an April Fool's joke: NBC News USA Today. How should this be incorporated into the article?&thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 17:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


 * it's all junk science. They have already did a DNA comparison so they know full well whether or not "he" has a y chromosome. He is clearly male and is not "intersexed" as he was baptized male. The whole idea of "intersexed" is that you can't determine the sex. absolute trash 71.89.114.35 (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This seems like a strange and strong reaction. This article (https://asunow.asu.edu/20190405-discoveries-asu-bioarchaeologist-uncovers-200-year-old-mystery) seems to lay out the evidence and research process clearly. Could you specify why you think it's junk science? The baptism seems irrelevant, as it is a historical fact and not a biological one. Ganesha811 (talk) 02:41, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Many reasons. First, idnifying remains on skeletal featurs is only accurate 90-95% of the time depending on wich study you look at. Further, if he did have adrenal hyperplasia as suggested as a possibility he would not have had tthe skeleton he id. It would have been a more masculine skeleton. It's completely bunk not backed up by biology or anthropology. Extreme claims require extreme evidence. This has flimsy evidence and a hypothesis easily debunked. This is blatant attempt to get publicity for a fringe theory 71.89.114.35 (talk) 00:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously saying that a test with 90-95% accuracy is not credible? Obviously that isn't "proof", but it seems like pretty strong evidence to me, which is worthy of coverage. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * yes, because Occam's razor says 5-10% chance of error is much more likely than the 0.0001% chance of Congenital adrenal hyperplasia, which is even further reduced by the fact the skeleton should be masculinized not feminized if he atually had that disorder 71.89.114.35 (talk) 05:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Statistics don't work the way you think they do. -Jason A. Quest
 * Actually, they do. The incidence rates for CAS is 1 in 10,000. That's 0.0001%, exactly as I wrote. maybe you need to learn some basic statistics before you talk about it, eh?71.89.114.35 (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

(talk) 14:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Somewhat prominently, but not at length, I should think. From all appearances, the researchers are fairly confident about their findings--they describe the morphology of the skeleton as being "as female as can be" and they went through some pains to track down the remains of a relative to confirm the identity of said skeleton via DNA evidence. There could be challenges to the findings in time; the skeleton being female has been known for some while, but there was some resistance to embracing Pulaski as intersex without a DNA comparison, which only more recently became viable. Whether this testing will be sufficient to convert skeptics in the relevant scientific communities is hard to know, but the development certainly raises credibility of the claim.


 * Presently some information about the possibility that Pulaski's sex was not strictly male is found in a subsection towards the end of the article labelled "modern analysis of sex"; it already covers most of the salient details of the sex issue, except the recent DNA evidence. Discussion of that development should be added to the section, and given the increased profile of this claim, it may be time to integrate that information into an earlier section (the "personal life" section, between the two present paragraph of that section seems like the best of imperfect options base don how the article is currently structured), rather than burying the info near the end of the article. A very quick one-sentence reference at the end of the lead also strikes me as perfectly WP:DUE at this point. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 02:50, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * no it should be removed as the unsupported trash that it is. They know with 100% certainty what his sex was. They are trying to build bogus media coverage for their idiotic TV program . I dont think wikipedia is supposed to be an advertiser for recentist undue garbage. And how is any of this "due" what did this person's historical importance have anything to do with sex? Nothing. it's completely undue trash advertising for garbage TV. I can find 10 times more media coverage suggesting Michele Obama is a man but is that on her wikipage? 71.89.114.35 (talk) 04:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I reverted your wanton removal of the section. It appears you have no valid opposition to mention of the findings of the study (as found in reliable sources) other than your strong opinion on the matter and a notable ignorance as to what the word "intersexed" means. Might I suggest looking it up on Wikipedia? I am not a active wiki editor, but even I understand you don't revert well sourced content repeatedly without seeking consensus. --68.131.9.235 (talk) 06:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Your comments and involvement here are beginning to quickly become WP:disruptive and your stances seem predicated more in your own conspiracy theory conjecture, ideological opposition, and WP:original research (built upon your own woefully inadequate understanding of the genetics and development physiology involved here) than upon any statements found in sources as weighed by this project's policies. Your theory (that this is some sort of media hoax and that the scientists involved could simply view the DNA to determine with 100% accuracy whether Pulaski was intersex and that they therefor must be sitting on that information for the sake of a false narrative) holds absolutely zero water: numerous intersex conditions arise in individuals whose genetics reflect normal diploid sex chromosome combination, due to developmental and epigenetic factors. Beyond that, the researchers here have clearly indicated the skeleton in question here is a XX individual (they've said it expressly in some interviews and even in those where they do not, they make statements about their inquiry that make it plain that it could only be such an individual).  So your entire conspiracy theory goes up in smoke, just like that, and makes it clear that you are making some rather wild allegations about these scientists, their motives, and the conclusions to be drawn here, despite lacking even a basic grade school understanding of the biology involved and despite the fact that even minimal review of the sources already present in the article debunks your theory, even for those without an understanding of the science.  And unfortunately, you seem to have put in a similar level of effort to researching our policies and how they impact the question here.


 * Beyond the factual concerns with your assertions, you really need to adjust the tone of your approach: running around screaming "trash" at claims you don't like isn't going to convince anyone to credit your perspective as well informed or well considered. Rather, it makes it look like you are (for whatever reason) far, far too close to this subject matter and far too under-educated in our processes to produce ab objective opinion that works within the framework of our content policies. Or, in other words, you are WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia broadly, but rather want to litigate this particular fact for ideological reasons. If you are going to continue to contribute here, please moderate the tone of your claims some and reserve commentary for facts expressly made within the WP:reliable sources involved and stay well away from your own personal WP:OR and conspiracy speculation about the underlying facts, which wouldn't be welcome here even if you were qualified to float such theories about the science involved, which (bluntly speaking) you clearly aren't. And definitely need to stop WP:edit warring to remove sourced content from the article so as to conform it to your own idiosyncratic beliefs: continued behaviour in this vein will almost certainly result in your editing privileges being curtailed. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 23:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I just saw this on asu.edu ("The general was female?") mentioning the TV show. I do have to wonder why they did DNA analysis and then didn't mention the presence or absence of a Y chromosome in that article. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 08:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, this goes into a little more detail:
 * The documentary posits that Pulaski had an intersex condition called congenital adrenal hyperplasia, in which a genetic female with XX chromosomes is exposed to high amounts of testosterone in utero and is born with genitals that can look quite masculine. That would explain a document highlighted in the documentary, in which a priest noted that Casimir was baptized at home as a baby due to a “debility” that appears to have precluded a more public baptism.


 * It would also explain why, despite a markedly female-looking skeleton, Pulaski was raised male and appears to have identified as male all his life.

I'd include that link in the article. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 08:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The man was clearly intersex, this has been suspected for years now and we have confirmation now. Anyone who would be upset by this is a really strange person.★Trekker (talk) 11:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:Verifiability not WP:Truth. We should report what is said/published, without trying to verify the truth of the allegation. Latter is beyond our function. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 11:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * One can editorialize with whatever words one wants but there is clearly already tons of research on this which states it is the case. So I don't see the point of even entertaining people who try to deny it.★Trekker (talk) 12:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Trekker, as noted above, I'm all for increasing the profile of this interpretation, up to and including brief mention in the lead. But your response to Thirteen is in error on two different levels here:
 * 1) Nothing is cut an dry about this case. The evidence is mounting, but it's hardly a fait accompli, especially as the broader scientific community has yet to even have an opportunity to review the methodologies and conclusions of the team now claiming to have confirmed the skeleton's identity. And there's not a "ton of research" confirming their conclusions--there's one team's (as yet unpublished) assertions after earlier work on the same theory proved inconclusive, owing to the limits of the technology at the time. More time and review is needed before any genuine scientific authority (including, one would presume, even those who are promoting this theory) would consider this matter "settled".
 * 2) You dismiss Thirteen's distinction between "the truth" and WP:verifiability as it operates on this project far too impulsively for an editor here. Even if you an I were associates of the researchers here, and had complete access to their research and findings and were completely won over by them, we still couldn't include those conclusions here without support from reliable sources, and such sources must be treated as a factor of WP:WEIGHT.
 * So, while I do absolutely support bringing this content more to the fore, the wording should be approached judiciously for now, by faithfully representing the team's most recent findings, but with attribution and without stating them as empirical fact in Wikipedia's voice (for the present time, anyway). <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 00:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the congenital adrenal hyperplasia theory mentioned above, is it correct that insufficient DNA was recovered from the Savannah skeleton to determine if the individual was XX? -- ToE 00:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

As the person who got this to GA few years back, I find this quite interesting. I think this should be discussed in the article, however, I don't think there's yet a consensus among historians for this - I just changed the wording from 'was' to 'may have been' in the lead. On another note, Polish media reported this, without any comments from Polish historians, who I guess are not involved in this anyway. Anyway, I also suggest attributing this to the research team. Their findings are controversial (as in, challenging an established fact). While IMHO they make a good argument, let's keep in mind WP:UNDUE, etc. It may take years or decades for other scientists to concur (or challenge this), and we should represent this neutrally. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The verb "suggests" already indicated that it was not conclusive, but "may have been" works too. –Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Any peer reviewed studies?
For all the buzz this has generated, the academic side of this is lacking. All we have is a conference paper that AFAIK nobody here has even seen an abstract of because it's so restricted/paywalled (I am a sociologist with uni access and can't get it myself... register link is broken, I think? - and yes, I also tried Library Genesis, too) and a documentary obviously is not peer reviewed (ditto for university newspapers/bulletins). Did anyone find any proper academic references? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Mitochondrial DNA
Hi, let's talk about this mitochondrial DNA thing. The reason I undid your addition was not because of a typo, but because the source provided said nothing about Pulaski specifically - it talked generically about mitochondrial DNA. Given that, it seemed like original research, drawing conclusions about the Pulaski study, not reflecting what is said in a reliable, published source. I think there is probably a source out there that discusses this issue with regards to Pulaski (though I couldn't find one with just a brief search), so it would be best to find it and add that to the article. Let's figure this out! Ganesha811 (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Any thoughts ? Ganesha811 (talk) 15:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Given your lack of response, I'm going to revert your change tomorrow, unless there's an objection. Ganesha811 (talk) 01:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I was just wondering about the possibility for Pulaski to share mtDNA with his grandniece. My understanding of "grandniece" is a "grand-daughter of a sibling". With no female siblings, Pulaski should not have same mtDNA as his grandniece, unless this was the case described in the cited article - then the grandniece could have two sets of mtDNA. Another option is a different understanding of the definition of grandniece, in which case it would be nice to have a link to the original research publication by Smithsonian, with descriptions of family ties between Pulaski and his grandniece Witkowska (as per the TV program by Smithsonian), showing relation along the maternal line of inheritance. Unfortunately this article contains links to newspaper citations only, and not to original research, so if you find the link to the family tree of Pulaski and Witkowska, as well the DNA test results publication, please, add.

On a side, from the TV program it is clear, the remains were moved around 1850, from a place that now is a graveyard to the square where the monument is located, where they were kept in a box of approx. 1 foot, by 1 foot, by 2 feet - definitely not the original casket. A possibility arises, that although the bones add up to one skeleton, they do not originate from the same body - the pelvis may belong to a different person buried in the same vicinity of Greenwich Plantation, now cemetery. The bones are badly degraded, as no nuclear DNA was found, even though paleo-geneticists have found 40 thousand years old neanderthal nuclear DNA, as they cite in the Smithsonian TV program suggesting Pulaski's intersex identity. The mtDNA comes from a foot, and according to the second DNA testing conducted on the remains, is fairly rare, and shared with grandniece Witkowska, however the TV program does not clarify exactly how Pulaski and Witkowska were related, showing the genealogical tree.

After writing the above I have found information, that Pulaski, after all, had sisters, and Teresa Witkowska was a descendant of one of them. Still a full genealogy tree, with Teresa Witkowska's position on it, showing continuous maternal line of inheritance, would be helpful.

Even with the mtDNA pointing to the remains being Pulaski, his intersex status, and specifically diagnosis of congenital adrenal hyperplasia, as suggested in the Smithsonian TV program, continues to be a hypothesis, a big "maybe". The 1996 report, pointing to the female shape of the pelvis, still says these features are “seen in only about one in 20 male skeletons.” Abc966 (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It deserves mention.  A short paragraph with relevant citations.  Not in the lead.   it should not overshadow Pulaski's accomplishments and towering presence.
 * Nevertheless, the discussion, the studies and the controversy exist. But we should avoid WP:Undue; article needs balance. This is not rug-sized; but WP:Not censored.  That's my thoughts.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 14:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * User:7&6=thirteen, I agree. As has now found that Pulaski did have sisters, I think we can put the whole mitochondrial DNA issue to rest. As to other elements around the testing of the remains, we need to make sure we are basing our writing upon reliable sources - if there are reliable sources pointing to controversies or issues with the Smithsonian report, they may be worth a mention. But we can't bring up our own issues with the study that are not based in another source, or risk violating WP:NOR. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Put in good and proper WP:RSs. GIGO sources and the object of the DNA obviously is critical.  But we will not settle it here. And it's not our job. experts may disagree, and we should report that.  But this is not worth hyperventilating over.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 14:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

He was honored with the name of a US Submarine. Why no mention?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Casimir_Pulaski_(SSBN-633) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.1.85.166 (talk) 17:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It is mentioned under "Tributes and commemoration", 3rd paragraph. Station1 (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 22:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

"saved the life of George Washington"
I was intrigued by the lede's assertion that Pulaski saved Washington's life, so I looked for it in the body, and found it as an extrapolation from his actions at Brandywine preventing it from turning from a defeat to a disaster. It seemed a leap to conclude that that "saved Washington's life"; I couldn't work out if the author of the claim was arguing that Washington would have fallen in battle during a disastrous defeat, despite him getting away personally unharmed from plenty of such defeats before (Long Island, Kip's Bay, White Plains), or if they were arguing that if Washington had been captured he would have been executed, despite other captured Continental generals (Lord Stirling, John Sullivan) being paroled and exchanged as per the military custom of the time. So I checked the citation for the claim, and discovered that it's the text of the 2009 Congressional resolution granting him honorary citizenship. I would think it's uncontroversial to say that the text of a piece of legislation is not a scholarly historical work and absolutely fails WP:RS. "Preventing Washington's capture" seems like a phrase whose inclusion could be justified in the body (though I would say not in the lede) based on the properly-cited material already present about the Battle of Brandywine (as I say, Washington had escaped from disasters before, but the text mentions the Continental line of retreat being under threat), but "saving Washington's life" requires a reliable citation, which it currently lacks. At the moment it seems a piece of bald-faced puffery written by a congressional staffer or, more likely, whoever it was that was lobbying for the 2009 act in the first place, who probably provided a pre-written bill to the resolution's sponsors. Binabik80 (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)