Talk:Esterka

Real historical figure or not?
This article is frustratingly unclear on this point. Is she definitely historical, definitely legendary, or somewhere in between?--Pharos (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a figure invented by a priest - and used to delegitimize the Jews in Poland (lambasting the nobility along the way). Icewhiz (talk) 09:30, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Antisemitism
Removal of the antisemitic origin and uses of this fable is not acceptable, and is a serious NPOV issue. What a coincidence seeing you here. The antisemitic context of its invention by a Catholic priest and subsequent uses in antisemitic Polish literature is easy to source and ia widely covered in literature. Icewhiz (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Might as well reply here as well. You're making shit up. Again. Your first source just says that this legend was indeed invented by Dlugosz. Nobody disputes that. Your second source is some post-modernist photographer who's really upset about a gallery she went to, and who's completely unqualified to comment on this topic. It's NOT Polonsky, so please stop pretending that it is. Your third source only says that this legend has sometimes been used in anti-semitic ways by, well, anti-semites. It does NOT say the legend is anti-semitic. Which would be ridiculous, seeing as how the source goes on to list favorably all the NON-anti-semitic uses of the legend in both Polish and Yiddish literature. Your claim here actually is a perfect illustration of your dishonest approach to editing - you cherry pick one sentence out of the source to push your WP:AGENDA, and ignore the two or three pages that follow that one sentence, which put the sentence in context, and which directly contradict your POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * You see antisemitism in literally everything, this is ridiculous. 4.35.246.235 (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Antisemitic myths need NPOV pages that describe them as antisemitic myths.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, but this isn't one of them. Unless you think that David Gans, Yitshak ben Moshe Rumsch, Shmuel Yosef Agnon, Karl Emil Franzos, Aaron Zeitlin and Maurycy Gottlieb were all anti-semites. Here's a piece of advice - don't take Icewhiz's word for anything.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:OSE. That there were non-antisemitic uses of this fable (including ambivalent use of this in Yiddish literature which varied quite a bit from the Polish language use) does not change the nature of the origin of this with Dlugosz and this being a recurring feature of Polish antisemitic literature.Icewhiz (talk) 07:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Your reply does not even make sense. What "OSE"? And let's see you name some of this "antisemitic literature" where it's a "recurring feature". Right now, we've got a dozen works where it's NOT used in an "anti-semitic" way and none on the other side. Stop making stuff up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I quoted sources above, e.g.- Efraim Sicher: "The first mention is by Jan Długosz a hundred years later who begins a long anti-Semitic tradition of blaming Esterka for Casimir's extension of privileges to the Jews". Now unless you have a source contradicting (and non-antisemitic uses in Yiddish literature are not a contradiction) this long anti-Semitic tradition - there is little point in this discussion.Icewhiz (talk) 08:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And it's already been pointed out that what you actually did is cherry pick one sentence out of context from your source (singular, not plural) and that the remaining two pages i the source about the subject say something completely else. Let's see. There's one sentence which you can use to twist to fit your POV. There's two pages of very useful information in the source (which is a really good source)... but you omit all of that because it doesn't fit the narrative you're trying to create. WP:TENDENTIOUS to a T-E-N-D-etc.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The full context here - pages 57-59 GizzyCatBella (talk) 07:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sicher clearly makes clear the antisemitic origin and antisemitic use in Polish writing - "The first mention is by Jan Długosz a hundred years later who begins a long anti-Semitic tradition of blaming Esterka for Casimir's extension of privileges to the Jews". He also analyzes various uses - Jewish, antisemtic, and philosemitic of Esther in general (Esterka being a local subset - in Poland and around it) - e.g. Bulgarin presenting Casimir and Esterka as evidence as a Jewish conspiracy against Poland - Esterka bewitching Casimir with her dark Jewess eyes and beguiling him to play into the Jewish hand.Icewhiz (talk) 07:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Bulgarin being Russian, not Polish. Indeed pretty much the only instances of anti-semitic uses that Sicher quotes are Russian.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sicher doesn't declare that the legend itself is anti-semitic at all. He only says (in one sentence) that Długosz's first mention of Esterka story commenced the antisemitic tradition of blaming Esterka for Casimir's extension of privileges to the Jews and indicates that Długosz started it. GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sicher - long anti-Semitic tradition to be precise. That there are non-antisemitic uses of this, does not mean we don't mention the notable antisemitic origin and subsequent antisemitic use in Poland.Icewhiz (talk) 13:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You claimed this was a "anti-semitic legend". That is not supported by sources at all. You made it up yourself and you misrepresented sources to falsely support that claim.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There is nothing incorrect in mentioning it what Sicher said, but better than one sentence from one source is needed to rearrange the entire narrative of the article into "antisemitic legend" and maintaining the legend itself is antisemitic (anti-semitic legend - not historical) The legend might have been used traditionally by the antisemites, as per Sicher, but the legend itself is NOT antisemitic. No source claims that. Continuously describing the legend as antisemitic (antisemitic legendary wife (or concubine) and sons - not historical) and constant removal from articles  is  alarming. GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This was removed from Casimir not due to this being antisemitic, but due to an imaginary concubine being presented as factual. The presentation of the legend used in antisemitic traditions as fact in Wikipedia - was distasteful to say the least.Icewhiz (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * One more time. You claimed that the story of Esterka was a "antisemitic legend", and you intentionally misrepresented sources to pretend that they supported this false claim. THAT is distasteful. The legend was used in ... wait for it, wait for it, wait for it... JEWISH traditions. Stop making stuff up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing about the antisemitic narrative in the story of Esterka in any of the works below (to my knowledge there is zilch of it). - Shmuel Yosef Agnon and Ahron Eliasberg, eds., Das Buch von den polnischen Juden (Berlin, 1916); Haya Bar-Itzhak, Jewish Poland: Legends of Origin (Detroit, 2001); Shemu’el Benet, “Dapim historiyim, 1815–1830,” in Radom, ed. Abraham Samuel Stein, pp. 28–29 ([Tel Aviv], 1961); Chone Shmeruk, “Ha-Maga‘im ben ha-sifrut ha-polanit le-ven sifrut yidish ‘al pi sipur Esterkeh ve-Kazimir ha-Gadol Melekh Polin,” in Sifrut yidish be-Polin: Meḥkarim ve-‘iyunim historiyim, pp. 205–279 (Jerusalem, 1981); Shemu’el L. Shnayderman, “Kaz´imyez´, Kaz´mez´, Kuzmir: Metsi’ut ve-agadah,” in Pinkas Kuzmir, ed. David Sztokfisz, pp. 12–47 (Tel Aviv, 1970), his Yiddish version of the article, “Kazhimyezh, Kazhmezh, Kuzmir: Virklekhkayt un legende,” follows on pp. 48–109; Shemu’el L. Shnayderman, Ven di Vaysl hot geredt yidish (Tel Aviv, 1970). GizzyCatBella (talk) 09:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , Cat, You appear to misunderstand how myths, legends, and stories work. A story can be created by an individual for a specific purpose; the story of Esterka was created by Jan Długosz for the purpose of casting Jews in an antisemitic light. Once created, however, the mythical figure of Esterka was recast in a favorable light by later authors.12:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Where are the academic references (plural) that this what indeed occurred? For now, this is simply your OR. GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "for the purpose of casting Jews in an antisemitic light" (sic) - putting aside for the moment the fact that the phrase "antisemitic light" is grammatically nonsensical, there's actually no source for this either. All is there is that Dlugosz said that the reason Casimir granted privileges to Jews was because of Esterka, which later - unnamed - anti-semitic writers, used to complain about the relatively privileged position of Jews in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sicher says Dlugosz began the antisemitic tradition. As for "the relatively privileged position of Jews in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" - that other writers advanced the antisemitic phatasm of Paradisus Judeorum is neither here nor there.Icewhiz (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The "relatively privileged position of Jews in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" is in the very sources you provided. Indeed, it is mentioned in most Jewish sources about Esterka. So stop making stuff up. Again. Also, I have no idea what a "phatasm" is. Is that like a "fatasm" except the hipster version?Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Page protection
This page has been rewritten in an inaccurate, antisemitic, biased manner and probably needs to be protected.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * " an inaccurate, antisemitic, biased manner" - by that you mean the addition of various Jewish authors who've written about this legend? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And Nigger is acceptable vernacular between African Americans - but not otherwise. The Jewish use of this fable differs from the non-Jewish use. The use of this fable in antisemitic writing is well documented and sourced. Icewhiz (talk) 07:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * God, you're a piece of work. You have a source which compares the Esterka story in Polish literature to the use of the n-word in 21st century United States? No? Then stop making shit up. And you keep saying 'well documented and sourced' without actually providing any of these documents and sources. Stop making shit up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Grammar and spelling
There is at least one sentence that doesn't make sense. Might be grammar, might be something else. The sentence is: "Rudanovsky from Rudawa River was considered Esterka's burial." I can't tell what it is trying to say, so I can't correct it.

Also, there are at least two spellings used on this page of Kraków and two of Casimir the Great. That seems confusing and unnecessary. Surely there's a preferred spelling for both of those. --Cromwellt&#124;talk&#124;contribs 22:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)