Talk:Prussia (region)

Moved to talk
Following was moved to the talk:

"It should be noted that the Brandenburg-Prussian union is often considered as the legitimate extent of Greater Prussia."

And why is that? Take over of Prussia by Brandenburg created new state.

"All the Prussian territories affected by their connection to the crown of Poland remained German speaking people and German as official state language. " Sure. In Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth there were a freedom of using national language. Since Prussia remained split over different languages, different languages were in used, also latin.

"The crown of Poland itself was held by the Lithuanian Jagiello and Swedish Vasas, married to the imperial Habsburgs and for a hundred years by the imperial Saxon electors and kings of Poland, the Wettins"

This is not related. Kings of England are also Germans by nationality, but they ordered to bomb Dresden.

Context!
I first thought this should be merged with East Prussia... I see now that apparently this article is about a geographically indentical area, but under Polish rule. As such it covers the history of the area from the 15th century until 1660.

Excuse me, but I think this kind of split-up without giving context is rubbish. I will try to amend the article by placing it in context: I'll give it an introductory paragraph, and in the paragraph mentioning the post-1660 history, I'll add a link to East Prussia. And I'll check what it says in East Prussia about the earlier history; probably I'll add a link there to this article. Lupo 07:27, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Province?
The article currently states the "Province of Prussia" (as opposed to the "Province of Prussia" within the Kingdom of Prussia) was a province of Poland consisting of Royal Prussia and Ducal Prussia. How accurate is that? Royal Prussia was a semi-autonomous province within Poland, while Ducal Prussia only paid homage to Poland as a vassal. How did they therefore constitute one province within the Kingdom of Poland?

The information in this article only seems to duplicate that of Royal Prussia and Ducal Prussia. If the current information is indeed incorrect, might it not be better to have instead a Prussia (Baltic region) or Prussia (region) (or similarly titled) article discussing the medieval boundaries of "Prussia" (the lands of the Baltic Prussians). I have seen several articles linking to Prussia when the desired information was about medieval Prussia, not the later state of Brandenburg-Prussia. Olessi 14:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The intro has since been changed to the following: Prussia was a region in the Polish kingdom and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth from the 15th century until 1660, consisting of a Royal Prussia, a semi-autonomous province, and Ducal Prussia, a vassal state that paid homage to the Polish king.


 * However, I still think this article should be changed to describe the region of Baltic Prussia, instead of a seemingly artificial construct region of Poland/P-L. Changing the subject would allow text like, "Ottokar II of Bohemia campaigned in Prussia ", instead of "Ottokar II of Bohemia campaigned in Prussia " (which would erroneously link to the Brandenburg-Prussia state). Olessi 19:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You are right. At the moment, almost all of this article is already covered by Origins of Prussia, Old Prussians, Royal Prussia and Ducal Prussia. If this article is to go ahead, care must be taken in wikilinking and context. It must be made very clear that this article refers to a geographical region and to no particular political entity. The changes you have made are right - the previous statement that the whole region was a Polish province was way too misleading. There are so many articles that link to the wrong version of Prussia: old, ducal, royal, Brandenburg-Prussia, kingdom, province, free state (the last entry doesnt exist yet, but i'm working on it). These links must be corrected wherever we find them. - 52 Pickup 20:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Eventually I will try to to translate de:Preußen (historische Landschaft) to this article. Olessi 17:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge
There is a similar article at Old Prussia. Olessi 23:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would rather merge Old Prussia with Origins of Prussia with keeping the article name Old Prussia. Prussia (region) should be left as it is. --Der Eberswalder 00:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

About first sentences and the title-map
1. "Prussia was a historical region in Central Europe" is absolutely incorrect statement. And, in article Historical regions of Central Europe there are no Prussia at all. I propose "ethnical region" or "ethnical and historical region" here, because Prussians were autochtons in this region and nothing common with Germans until 13th century.

2. Title map is absolutely incorect in point of view to Prussia as ethnic region: spread of Germans were historically late and secondary event; "Letts" NEVER (til today) were in the territories depicted (tribes of Lithuanians and Prussians can be here only). So map must be changed.

3. "It is now divided between Poland, Russia, and Lithuania." - I guess "divided" is not correct word here. The mentioned states have not divided Prussia. Sorry I'm not English but maybe more correct is "spread"?

Gyvas (registered in Lithuanian Wikipedia), July 20, 2008, 16:30EET

Vote to rewrite, merge or remove this page
 All,

This article seems to be of sufficiently low quality to merit review, with the aim of either merging it with another, similar, page on the Origins of Prussia or deleting it entirely and staring afresh. The first sections are particularly dubious Ahmedalalousi (talk) 03:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Lithuania Minor
@Cukrakalnis can you explain the reasoning behind this revert? What's the point in highlighting this particular part of Prussia? Marcelus (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Can you explain the reasoning behind your revert? I just returned the situation to the status quo. It is very reasonable to highlight Lithuania Minor considering that it was obviously a major part of Prussia whose capital it included. Cukrakalnis (talk) 09:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * First of all you didn't resotore any status quo, because I reverted change that was made literally less than hour before. Secondly my reasoning was in the description: irrelevant fact more suited to Lithuania Minor article; highlighting this part of Prussia makes no sense in this article. Marcelus (talk) 10:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I did restore the status quo because the mention of Land Litauen was there for 3 days (it was added on August 7 ) before you reverted it on August 10 . Your reasoning is faulty because mentioning a region within a wider region in which it is situated is very sensible. Cukrakalnis (talk) 10:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It isn't. There is no reason to distinguish this region from the several of which Prussia was composed. You are unable to give such a reason except for the one that is wrong (Königsberg was located in Sambia/Samland, which can be seen on the map). Marcelus (talk) 11:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Your reasoning is faulty and your statements are wrong, because as can be seen on the map, Königsberg is part of Lithuania Minor. Cukrakalnis (talk) 17:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you really don't see there "Samland" literally next to the name of the city? Even if it was it's not a good enough reason to highlight it. Marcelus (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Samland is literally part of Land Litauen as can be seen from the similar hue of green. Natangen is mostly yellow while Oberland is mostly red. It seems you misunderstood the real borders of Lithuania Minor. Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Blue isn't a hue of green. You clearly confusing part of the name Samland, as part of the name (Land) Litauen. Marcelus (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Samland, Litauen and the smaller unit in between them are grouped together considering the similar hue of colour they have. This means we can assume that all three are grouped under roughly one colour ranging from clear green to greenish cyan. You can see the paintbrush strokes and the material used for the colour is obviously water-based, so if you dilute green, you get a lighter colour, which is actually very light, even bluish, green (which seemed to you to be blue). I would call it Cyan, which tends towards green. After all, there is an immense variety of colours and sometimes a colour may have a hue that can be ascribed to two colours simultaneously. Also, keep in mind, that time takes a toll on colours, and the colour we see now could be slightly different from what it was before. As it says in the article on cyan, The pigments in color photographs may degrade at different rates, potentially resulting in a cyan tint. - this could apply to this map, even if it is not a photograph. You can clearly see that the colour range on the map is limited to only a few colours.
 * I recommend that you look at other maps by the same author - - to better understand what I am saying. Look at this map of the Kingdom of Hungary -  where the Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg) and Principality of Transylvania (1711–1867) are obviously all connected to Hungary by being of a similar colour, although the borders between them are obviously demarcated and the difference is noticeable, but they are all part of one. Just like in this map, in which you seem intent to deny the belonging of Sambia to Lithuania Minor. I inform you that there are several borders for Lithuania Minor - one in the broad sense (which includes Sambia inter alia) and another in the narrow sense (that does not include Sambia) .--Cukrakalnis (talk) 13:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Let me repeat myself on this map Litauen is blue and Samland is green, there is visible border between those two. But it doesn't even matter, because there is no reason to hightlight Litauen even if Koenigsberg was part of it. I can understand your personal attachment to this region as a Lithuanian person, but you should put that aside. Marcelus (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem is a fallacy. Samland is historically part of Lithuania Minor. A visible border between the two on that map does not mean they are not part of a larger whole, as can be understood from their similar colours, which is confirmed by looking at other maps created by the same creator. As the article says, Lithuanian culture thrived in the part of the region known as Lithuania Minor, which makes the map of Lithuania Minor relevant. The connection between the two is obvious judging by their proximity and thus the inclusion of the mention is justified.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You are wrong, sorry; and you have nothing substantial to back it up. Let me repeat again: Lithuania Minor isn't relevant here, sentence you cited doesn't make it to be in any way; Samland isn't part of Lithania Minor, certainly not on this map. Also Lithuania Minor isn't even mentioned on the map, there is only a province called Litauen. Marcelus (talk) 17:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You have broken the 1RR rule that is imposed on you as of User talk:Marcelus. Please revert yourself -.
 * You are the one that's wrong. Sambia is part of Lithuania Minor as sources say, and sources instead of opinions is what counts on Wikipedia. Lithuania Minor is mentioned in this article and highlighting it in a map that is closeby is highly reasonable. At this point it seems that nothing that I will say or point to will convince you to stop erasing Lithuania Minor from this article. Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't broke any rule, I didn't erase Lithuania Minor, and you failed to present convicing reason why one of the several of the Prussian regions should be mentioned in the label under the Euler map. It is the same as if a map of the entire continent was captioned in an article about Europe: "Map of Europe (with one of the countries titled as Lithuania)". It makes no sense. Marcelus (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:1RR applies to you and this is your second revert of the same material. You are literally erasing the link to Lithuania Minor in your edit and you dare say that you didn't erase Lithuania Minor. I did not fail to present convincing reasons to mention it in the caption, but instead you already made your mind up to remove it and nothing that I will say will convince you, as can be seen from this exchange. You are making wrong comparisons, as well as practically ignoring most of what I had written and contradicting WP:RS. Lithuania Minor is mentioned in the text of the article close to where the map containing that region, which was mentioned in the text, was being highlighted. Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 1RR applies to reverts within 24-hours period, also I wasn't edit warring but dedicated a lot of time to explain it to you. You are literally erasing the link to Lithuania Minor in your edit and you dare say that you didn't erase Lithuania Minor, that's a bit overreaction don't you think? And no, I didn't "erase Lithuania Minor". Marcelus (talk) 07:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)