Talk:Royal Prussia

Talk:Gdańsk/Vote/discussion

"Royal" or "Polish"
The term "Polish Prussia" appears to be used more frequently than "Royal Prussia",  in English language sources. And it appears that the name of the province as legally defined in a founding document was written as "Polish Prussia".Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * 1. The article (§) 1 of the official and original document issued by the local authorities is clearly saying Polnisch-Preußen ist ... (Polish Prussia is ...) consequently it is an official name (legal name) recognized by those authorities and only this name can be and should be used as official. - p. 581 BurgererSF (talk) 11:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * 2. If we cannot consider an Excerpt of the State Constitution (Bill) of Polish-Prussia (translation from German) in the publication entitled Concise History and State Constitution of Polish Prussia in ancient and modern times published in 1764, as a reliable source of information, so we cannot also accept the same article saying that the region mit Polen nichts (...) gemein hat (has nothing in common with Poland) as a proof of its independence. BurgererSF (talk) 11:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah that part is straight up POV pushing by an anon sock of a banned user. Removing. At present I'm on the fence between "Polish Prussia" vs. "Royal Prussia" thing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Both terms are used in a similar extent. Friedrich uses both terms next to each other. I didn't check all results, but it seems "Polish P." is used by older sources while "Royal P." is used by more modern ones. The main misconception is to claim the "official" term was "Polish Prussia" because a single source, published in 1764 uses this term. It's a schoolbook, published by a teacher for (his?) pupils, which contains a translation of Gottfried Lengnich's "Jus Publicum Prussiae Polonae, Danzig 1758". Lengnich describes the legal situation of "Royal/Polish Prussia" but did not write the "constitution" or anything "official" about it. I would prefer the current version, which has never been disputed before (AFAIK), a move should however be discussed as provided per WP:RM. HerkusMonte (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The book contain an excerpt of bill issued by local authorities at page 581. How is it possible that such a document cannot be considered as official? BurgererSF (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * p.581 ff is a translation (Latin to German) of Gottfried Lengnich's book, it's not any kind of "official constitution" published by state or municipal authorities. HerkusMonte (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Herkus, yes I think that's right. "Polish Prussia" was the dominant term used in English until the 1970's or so but then for some reason "Royal Prussia" began taking over. The strange thing is that this was taking place alongside a trend which saw English usage abandon old German terms and switch to Polish terms - like "Stettin"  switched  to "Szczecin" in English. I don't know - the official document which founded the entity does use "Polish Prussia" OTOH. And we still have "Pomerelia", also an older term like "Polish Prussia", on Wikipedia, rather than the newer "Gdansk Pomerania", presumably only because some people start seeing red when they see the word "Gdansk".Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

2012 add-on
Shouldn't we consider a WP:RM then? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 15:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts for improvement and neutrality
Anon's not so helpful ranting aside (I am not going to reply to inflammatory claims of Polish propaganda...), Bardach on p. 181-182 of his Historia ustroju i prawa polskiego provides a helpful overview of this situation. Unfortunately my copy is damaged and some passages are missing. If somebody could obtain a good copy, it could be a good ref for improvement of this section. Royal Prussia certainly had much political and cultural autonomy, but it was a part of the Crown of Poland (if not Kingdom, exactly). Crown had a different meaning (I just recently rewrote and improved that article), and Royal Prussia was, at least till the Union of Lublin, seen a bit more like a country under real union than just "another province". The situation of Masovia, btw, was not that different (see Duchy of Masovia). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 23:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Atrakcyjność modelu demokracji szlacheckiej sprzyjała dobrowolnym inkorporacjom, choć czasem — jak w wypadku Prus Królewskich — realizacja ich rozciągała się w czasie. Był też ten model jednym z istotnych czynników zachęcających Litwinów do utrwalenia unii z Polską. Odrębny charakter miała unia z Saksonią za obu Sasów, która nie wyszła poza ramy unii personalnej. Przypadła też na okres kryzysu Rzeczpospolitej.

Akt inkorporacji Prus z 1454. r przewidwał, że ziemie całego państwa krzyżackiego miały być podzielone na 4 województwa (chełmińskie, pomorskie, elbląskie i królewieckie). W wyniku wijny trzynastoletniej wcielono jednak do Polski tylko część państwa zakonnego - Prusy Królewskie, obejmujące od 1466 r. trzy województwa: pomorskie, chełmińskie i malborskie, oraz wyodrębnione terytorialnie dominium buskupie - Warmię. Terytoria te były traktowane przez szlachtę i miasta pruskie jako połączone z Polską unią realną. Odrębność ustrojowa Prus i jej obrona przez szlachtę i miasta pruskie wypływały z istniejących między nimi a Koroną różnic narodowościowych i społecznych. Należały tu w szczególności: wysokie stanowisko polityczno-prawne miast pruskich oraz liczebność elementu niemieckiego wśród rycerstwa, mieszczaństwa i po części chłopstwa. Biskup warmiński, wuj Mikołaja Kopernika, Łukasz Watzenrode w 1504 r. wyjaśniał, że „aczkolwiek kraj ten, Prusy, wcielony jest do Korony, to (...) nie jest tym samym krajem co Polska, ani Prusacy nie są Polakami, ale to osobny kraj i ma osobne prawa". Wyrazem tej odrębności był m.in. osobny indygenat pruski oraz zastrzeżenie, że urzędy w Prusach Królewskich król będzie nadawał tylko indygenom pruskim. Rada pruska i zjazdy stanów pruskich miały szerokie uprawnienia ustawodawcze i udział we władzy monarszej. Miały Prusy własne: pieczęć i herb, monetę, skarb i system podatkowy. Organem odrębności ustrojowej Prus Królewskich były Stany Pruskie. Na czele ich stała Rada Pruska. W jej skład pod przewodnictwem biskupa warmińskiego wchodzili wojewodowie, kasztelanowie, podkomorzowie i przedstawiciele trzech wielkich miast: Torunia, Elbląga i Gdańska. W sprawach najważniejszych, zwłaszcza podatkowych, zwłaszcza podatkowych, Rada zwoływała Ogólne Zgromadzenie Stanów. Zgromadzenie Stanów składało się z dwóch izb: ziemskiej, w której zasiadali prałaci, urzędnicy ziemscy i szlachta, oraz miejskiej, gdzie zasiadali przedstawiciele 30 mniejszych miast.Do podjęcia ostatecznych uchwał zbierały się izby połączone. Podatki dla Prus uchwalone na Ogólnym Zgromadzeniu Stanów były wyłączone spod kompetencji sejmu polskiego.

Po wprowadzeniu w Prusach Królewskich w 1526 r. sejmików ziemskich, Stany Pruskie przekształciły się w prowincjonalny sejm pruski. Składał się on z dwóch izb: rady (zwanej też senatem) oraz izby niższej, w skład której wchodzili: a) posłowie szlacheccy wybierani na sejmikach wojewódzkich i b) koło mieszczańskie, zwane inaczej gremium miast mniejszych.

Na sejmie lubelskim 1569 r., równocześnie z unią z Litwą, dokonano ściślejszego zespolenia Prus Królewskich z Koroną. Biskupi, wojewodowie i kasztelanowie pruscy zasiedli wówczas w senacie polskim, a posłowie szlacheccy — bardzo liczni — w izbie poselskiej. W 1581 r. Prusy Królewskie przyjęły polski system podatkowy, w 1585 r. uznały Trybunał Koronny za intsancje apelacyjną od sądów pruskuch. W XVII w. język polski wypierał niemczyznę z akt i obrad publicznych, w szczególności w utrzymującej się nadal odrębnej reprezentacji stanów pruskich, zwanej odtąd — analogicznie do innych prowincji — sejmikiem generalnym (lub generałem pruskim). Składał się on - inaczej niż sejmiki generalne - z dwóch izb i stanowił najwyższy organ autonomiczny Prus Królewskich. W drugiej połowie XVII w. mniejsze miasta przestały brać udział w generale. Prusy Królewskie zachowały odrębny skarb pruski i prawo sądowe chełmińskie, a od 1598 r. odrębną kodyfikację — Korekturę pruską. Wszelkie urzędy w Prusach mogła uzyskiwać tylko szlachta z tych ziem.


 * Strangely enough, the terminology "Royal Prussia" is actually a direct translation of a Polish term "Prusy Krolewskie". For a long time however, the term used in English was "Polish Prussia", and the direct-translation-from-Polish, "Royal Prussia" was rarely used. It's only in the past 30 years or so that the direct-translation-from-Polish, "Royal Prussia" has been widespread in English. This should give pause to all those folks who argue that "we shouldn't use direct translations from language X into English" as article titles, since that would suggest moving this particular article to "Polish Prussia".


 * The early autonomy of the province is already covered in the article. If there's more to be added then let's do it. But let's do it according to sources not what somebody imagines was the case. Volunteer Marek 03:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Violation of WP:POINT
These kinds of edits are simply ridiculous. You can claim "please do NOT revert ⇒ see Gdansk/Danzig Vote ⇒ Violations against the rule established by the outcome of the Gdansk-vote can be reverted exempt from the 3RR rule" all you want to but quite simply under your interpretation of the Gdansk/Danzig vote we should change Warsaw Ghetto Uprising to Warschau Ghetto Uprising (or maybe Warschau (Warsaw) Ghetto Uprising since that's pre-1945 and Warsaw "shares" a history between Poland and Germany.

I can see putting in Danzig in the relevant articles, but this has gone way past that point, into straight out disruption here. Volunteer Marek 16:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The article is affected by the Gdańsk (Danzig) Vote. "For locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name should also include a reference to other commonly used names, e.g. Stettin (now Szczecin, Poland) or Szczecin (Stettin)." ⇒⇒  The result is binding on all parties. Violations against the rule established by the outcome of this vote can be reverted exempt from the 3RR rule.--IIIraute (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Please address the question rather than slapping the above wording repeatedly in response to all comments. Do you honestly believe that "Warsaw Ghetto Uprising" should be under "Warschau Ghetto Uprising"? Because that's what your interpretation of the vote implies. Volunteer Marek 16:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No interpretation needed, as it is a very clear guideline: "For locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name should also include a reference to other commonly used names..." This is about what name to use for cities that used to have a German name in the English language - Warsaw is and was the name commonly used in English, so what is your point? I think you are really missing the point of the vote. --IIIraute (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I mean, are you really not getting it? Gdansk (Danzig) is not used, trying to claim that the city is still called Danzig, but because it was the common English term for ca. 700 years?! This is about the English language only. Apart from that, why do you advocate a Polish "Gdansk" behind the name of Danzig for all of the articles throughout its German history, but not vice versa. What is it you are endeavouring to avert? I know you do not like the ngram, but can you not at least acknowledge the fact that within the English Language the use of "Danzig" is still pervasive. Per WP:SET Danzig is probably still the most widespread name - it was used for hundreds of years - this is why we have Danzig in brackets. All in good time.--IIIraute (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'm the one that's "not getting it". Your edits are about as clear cut case of WP:POINT and IDIDN'THEARTHAT as I've seen in awhile.
 * And I've already asked you twice if you've edited under previous accounts - which given your choice of articles is a natural question. Both times you evaded with an answer. So what was your previous account and is it currently under any restrictions relating to Eastern Europe in general or Poland related articles in particular? Volunteer Marek 02:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Look, there is really no good reason for further discussion. Please comply with the Gdansk/Danzig vote. The rules are very straightforward and easy to understand and do not leave room for interpretation or WP:POINT. They are to follow - especially in the case of disputes - period. Persistent reverts against community consensus may be dealt with according to the rules in Dealing with vandalism.


 * Regarding your baseless smear campaign accusations, I repudiate your Spanish Inquisition in the strongest terms. --IIIraute (talk) 03:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Nope, your edits are generally disruptive, insisting on a misapplication and abuse of the vote.
 * And there's no "baseless smear campaign", there was a question. I notice you are repudiating my "campaign" (i.e. me asking the question) but not actually answering the question about your previous account(s) itself. Volunteer Marek 13:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm perhaps not familiar with all of the consequences of the Gdańsk vote, so if anyone of you could share one thing with me. Is there a general rule to use a German name as a first name for towns in Royal Prussia in the period 1466-1772/1793? Or does it only apply for towns with a well documented German majority population (Gdańska/Danzig for instance)? What about villages in the region most of which were either Polish or Kashubian speaking? Are they to be named in German as well for this period? The next thing is why were names of such places as Łęczyca and Sieradz also changed into German? And what the name Posen has to do with the period 1466-1793 when it was made official only after the Partitions of Poland and then was changed back to Poznań in 1918?

If there really is a rule that we need to use German names for all towns and villages in a Polish province of Royal Prussia regardless of the ethnic structure of those places than what happens with Silesia that was under Bohemian rule from 14th to 18th century, but had both Polish majority in the North and east and German majority in the south and west. Does the Gdańsk vote oblige us to use Czech names for all towns and villages, use Polish names for all towns and villages, use German names for all towns and villages or perhaps use either German or Polish names under some strict criteria (ethnicity of the majority of population in that period)? The last thing is Pommerania - west of Royal Prussia. What kind of names are to be used for what period, because it seems that German names are used there for the whole medieval part of the province's history? Opole.pl (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is a rule for the "Period from 1466 to 1793" → as well as . --IIIraute (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

But what about other places than Gdańsk (includnig villages) and other places than Royal Prussia? If a town was predominantly Polish but part of Bohemia which had a Habsburg monarch what name schould be mentioned as first? And on the other hand if there are articles that use only German names schould they be altered to represent both names and in what order? Opole.pl (talk) 14:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Quite honestly, if the Gdansk/Danzig vote is interpreted the way IIIRaute does it, then that's an obvious attempt at gaming of the vote - the fact that he just keeps spamming the wording of the vote pretty clearly illustrates it. I don't know, maybe it's one of those "illustrate how ridiculous something is by applying it literally" kind of experiments (though more likely, just another banned user returning to cause more trouble). As a consequence, it might be a good idea to just dump the vote, or re-do it, since it's pretty old. In fact, I've seen a number of people who are active at MOS state the opinion that the vote has been superseded by more general naming conventions. Volunteer Marek 14:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "The first reference of one name for Gdansk/Danzig in an article should also include a reference to the other name, e.g. Danzig (now Gdansk, Poland) or Gdansk (Danzig). All later occurrences of the name follow the rules for the periods as voted. The naming of many places in the region that share a history between Germany and Poland are also a source of edit wars. For locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name should also include a reference to other commonly used names, e.g. Stettin (now Szczecin, Poland) or Szczecin (Stettin). This applies to both before and after 1945. Due to the complexity of the problem, there are six periods, plus three additional clauses. To avoid further edit wars, an enforcement was also voted on, allowing the revert of edits that violate the guidelines determined by this vote."--IIIraute (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The rules are very straightforward and easy to understand and do not leave room for interpretation. They are to follow - especially in the case of disputes - period. Persistent reverts against community consensus may be dealt with according to the rules in Dealing with vandalism.--IIIraute (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

As a lawyer I'm familiar with the good faith/bad faith concept, but for the time being I would like to know how should I name places in articles concerning history of Gdańsk Pomerania, Greater Poland and Recovered Territories so I would not be engaged into an edit war with some lunatic. :) The new vote is probably needed but there are few obstacles that need to be taken into account. First - if everyone will be allowed to vote than we can imagine dozens of NPD supporters who will vote against all reason just to push their nationalistic view of history. The same things apply to Polish editors with nationalistic attitude (do not mistake it with patriotism). Remembering that there are 80 milion Germans and 40 milion Poles there is a big chance that the result of the vote will have nothing to do with the actual historical facts or with the actual usage of names in the English historical publications, but it would again just show the "strength" of both Polish and German nationalistic squads. :) Opole.pl (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

So how should I name a town or village in an article about facts from 16th century when the town was predominantly Polish but politically part of Bohemia which had a Jagiellon monarch? Opole.pl (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Look, why don't you bring up a proposal for a new vote. Until then, please comply with the rules. Thank you.--IIIraute (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no intention in engaging in any kind of quarrel, especially with those who obviously came here only to quarell, insult and disrupt. As a lawyer I would just like to know how to apply the rules in practise. If you are trying to act here as the one who knows all the rules and will defend them no matter what, than I would kindly ask for your advise in a practical problem. How should I name a town or village in an article about facts from 16th century when the town was predominantly Polish but politically part of Bohemia which had a Jagiellon monarch? I do not understand why are you being rude and uncooperative? Good manners are also part of Wikipedia rules, you can check it here: Etiquette Opole.pl (talk) 15:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * As a "Historian", I would recommend to do it the way as described by the rules. I think that's also what most "Lawyers" would recommend. Regarding your specific problem: That's why we use both names. Apart from that you obviously do not agree with the result of the vote - and that's ok - however you should accept the vote of the majority. That's the priciple of something called "Democracy".--IIIraute (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

My dear fellow, I'm simply asking about how to apply these rules of which you seem to have a great understanding. Neither lawyer nor historian should ever be denied the right to seek answers. I'm not taking part in the edit wars that were started here. I did not state anywhere any obvious and definite opinion about the vote (the word probably is a well known symptom of doubt). Going back to the problem in question: Should both names be used in the whole article or only in the begining of the article. In what order should they be used. What about Czech names - this language should have some rights here as well. Opole.pl (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Please note ⇒ it's all in the rules: "The first reference of one name...", so not through the whole article. Place names, 1308 to 1945 use their German names and "include a reference to the other name, e.g. Danzig (Gdansk)." Before 1308, and after 1945 - vice versa. This applies to places "that share a history between Germany and Poland". This vote does not deal with Czech names. I hope that helps to clarify your concerns. --IIIraute (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

But doesn't this vote concern only place names in the region of Gdańsk, which share a history between Germany and Poland? The date 1308 surely suggests it. The year 1308 is only relevant for the Gdańsk region and has nothing to do with other regions of Poland that, for some period, were under German rule. For instance the region of Poznań - it won't be named Posen before 1793 and after 1918. The same thing with Silesia and other places besides territories of Gdańsk Pomerania. Opole.pl (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No, not only in the region of Gdansk. Opole, for example, received German town law as early as in 1254. Regarding this article, the vote does not conflict with: Stettin, Thorn, Tuchel, Elbing, Marienburg, Kulm, Stuhm, Putzig, (Pomerelia), Preußisch Stargard; however I agree that in this case it should not apply to Posen and Schwetz .--IIIraute (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The towns in Poland generally recieved German town law as country long and wide. German town law was considered an optimal solution in Polish conditions by our rulers. What is more also local villages were granted German based privileges regardless of their language structure. The vote applies only for Gdańsk Pomerania because it refers to dates:1308 and 1466 that mark the period of Teutonic Knights 150 years rule over Gdańsk Pomerania (later Royal Prussia from 1772 till 1919 West Prussia today again Gdańsk Pomerania). Opole.pl (talk) 01:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * but the vote was in favour for Danzig, etc. for the whole period of 1308 to 1945 - also to create some consistency.--IIIraute (talk) 01:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

There is also a question of Königsberg. This town is in the region of Ducal Prussia also affected by the peace of Thorn. If you consider Szczecin also part of the Gdańsk vote therefore Königsberg and all other cities that were located in Ducal Prussia - a fief of Poland (formally part of the Crown) should also be named in both languages - at least in their first apperance of that name in the articles. That is supported also by the fact that most of the settlements in the south of Ducal Prussia were Polish speaking since 15th century (imigration from Masovia). Opole.pl (talk) 01:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I know, they should generally be named in both languages at the beginning - that's in the vote. Stettin for example is directly mentioned in the vote.--IIIraute (talk) 01:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: A fief relationship, a military occupation, a military or economic alliance etc. establish endeed all certain relationships but can alone hardly establish a shared history. Was 'Królewiec' ever an officially used name in Königsberg or in the dukedom of Prussia? Henrig (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Duchy of Prussia was sending representatives to the Polish Diet. In Polish Diet the official language was Polish. Also Poles had a substantial population in Królewiec. Obviously they didn't call the city Königsberg, either.Skoranka (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You're sure, they sent representatives (members) to the Polish Diet? Henrig (talk) 23:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Even Albrecht himself showed up every once in a while.Skoranka (talk) 02:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * At Putin's recent inauguration you could see Silvio Berlusconi and Gerhard Schröder. Helmut Schmidt as German Chancellor, once even gave a speech in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, but naturally, he never was a member of the parliament. You see, that's a difference. Henrig (talk) 07:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand visits of foreign politics with feudal connections. Ducal Prussia was a fief of Poland. It was formally part of the kingdom, granted to Albrecht by king Sigismund. Albrecht became a vassal of Poland. It was Sigismund who granted a charter for the Królewiec University just to give you one example. It worked exactly the same as in other countries, for instance Dukes of Normandy were vassals of French kings and their duchy was part of the Kingdom of France. Opole.pl (talk) 15:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It's so easy. Skoranka has written, the Duchy of Prussia had been sending representatives to the Polish Diet. Just provide a reliable and verifiable English source, which says, that the duchy had its own deputies in the diet! That's all! Btw., a fief relationship outside the state of the overlord was in no way identical with being part of this state. For instance, states like Smaller Armenia or Cyprus were at one point fiefs of the Holy Roman Emperor, but never a part of the HRE itself. Henrig (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This aspect of the conversation should probably be split off. Anyway, at least the Grand Master was to sit in the Polish Diet . And half the Knights had to be Polish. Now, that's up to the Prussian Homage so at the moment I'm not sure how the rules changed after that but I'm sure it could be easily looked up. Volunteer Marek 19:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I guess, this concerns demands in peace negotiations and generally the process, in which the Polish king ultimately helped (persuaded?) his close relative Albert, the Grand Master of the TO, to replace the rule of the TO in Prussia with the rule of Albert's own family and the Polish king as his protector and overlord. Of interest for the relation between Poland and the Duchy of Prussia, apart from the fief relationship between the duke and the Polish king, would be the question, whether the duchy had its own deputies in the Polish diet. Henrig (talk) 08:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The vote also states that: "The first reference of one name for Gdansk/Danzig in an article should also include a reference to the other name, e.g. Danzig (now Gdansk, Poland) or Gdansk (Danzig). This applies to both before and after 1945". Most Polish users here seem to have no problem with the crosslinking rule for the period before 1945 - as it seem to suit their POV to have a Gdansk in brackets behind the Danzig; however when it comes to apply the rule to past 1945 (to have a Danzig in brackets) - they react very allergic. The point is that "Danzig" was the common English term for ca. 650? years. A lot of stuff that is still around has been published during this time. So, why would one advocate a Polish "Gdansk" behind the name of Danzig for all of the articles throughout its German history, but not vice versa → see: - it doesn't matter how precise the google books ngram is, but it gives a general impression of how widespread the German names still are - please also have a look at this  So why is it so bad to serve the reader both names in 2012? --IIIraute (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

When it comes to Królewiec/Königsberg it was you who had deleted the name Królewiec and left only Königsberg in this Polish related article. The problem with the publications that are from prewar is that they refer to the name that was actual for the time of their publication - prewar. Now this name is not actual anymore, we don't say in 2012 about the history of Danzig neither in Polish nor in English. That's because city official name is Slavic again as it was in the times of it's foundation over 1000 years ago. The fact is that with the passing years the name Danzig will disappear from the English publications in the same way that Wilno and Lwów are being replaced by Vilnius and Lviv. Keeping alive the old name here in Wikipedia won't change this inevitable course of action. That's just how it is. For instance the old Slavic name from before 1308 was replaced and was no longer recognisable in most of foreign languages for several hundred years. But it was still present in Polish and some other Slavic languages until it was made official again. The name Danzig lasts only in German language and that's ok but we are on enWiki. There are other examples. In historical articles concerning Helsinki there is usually only one mentioning of the historic name Helsingfors in the begining and later on Helsinki continues even for the period of Swedish and Russian rule when the city spoke predominantly Swedish. I don't see any Sweeds complaining about this fact. Opole.pl (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, regarding Königsberg I must have made a mistake. Regarding the rest of your argument I have to say that it is obviously pointless to discuss this matter any further. This is why a vote was established. :Nobody claims that Danzig is still the name - it also might disappear one day completely, and nobody wants to change "this inevitable course of action". But for now it hasn't, and as shown in the Ngram, its still very much there. May I also remind you about the fact that the name is currently used on the WP throughout the period of 1308 - 1945 - that's quite a lot of articles - so it is still used a lot within the English language.


 * You do understand that you are talking about articles on a web page made by various people: mostly by enthusiasts and not by scholars.


 * are you a scholar - I thought you are a lawyer - what qualifies you? so don't be so patronising. What you call "enthusiasts" are all what the WP is about - and their editing is not inferior to that of any scholars.--IIIraute (talk) 03:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I am preparing my PHD thesis at Wrocław University and I am an author of several papers published inter alia by C.H.Beck (three articles), Wolters Kluwer (two articles) and other. I'm not saying that your lack of scientific background makes you a worse editor than I am.


 * → → that's very kind of you - now I feel much better. Being a published Historian (BA History, University of London - MLitt, University of Cambridge - Ph.D. University of Glasgow) - I have only been teaching at the University of London, Berlin, Barcelona and Düsseldorf - so now that you are telling me that my lack of scientific background doesn't make me a worse editor, really makes me feel much better, indeed.--IIIraute (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm just reminding you that different people make their edits here, and many times Wikipedia was a subject to pranks. For instance articles were created about things and people that never existed. That's why I alway tell my students to use Wikipedia for their private purposes, but when they are writting a paper or an essay I would like to see a broad, not only internet based, Bibliography. Opole.pl (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * ...oh, really?!? where I come from your students wouldn't be allowed a single one.--IIIraute (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The whole point of this conversation is that some editors try to save the old names for Wikipedia purposes only. They fight edit wars about them and then state that the names are still in use on Wikipedia so that is an agument to continue using them on Wikipedia. It's a kind of vicious circle. Opole.pl (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * → → nope: &  ← ←  --IIIraute (talk) 03:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, please note, we are not going to discuss the Gdansk/Danzig vote here again. This already has been done. There has been a lengthy discussion on Talk:Gdansk listing nearly every argument imaginable. Numerous previous attempts to reach a consensus have been unsuccessful. This is what the rules were established for - so please comply with them - being the result of a majority-vote: "The first reference of one name for Gdansk/Danzig in an article should also include a reference to the other name, e.g. Danzig (now Gdansk, Poland) or Gdansk (Danzig). This applies to both before and after 1945". --IIIraute (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I had a look into the Gdańsk vote and there are few rules that were not mentioned here or were left without any comment.
 * There is: "the first reference of one name should also include a reference to other commonly used names". It doesn't say anywhere that later on there can't be both names as well. Cross-Naming is generally allowed throughout the articles and therefore is not against the result of the vote. It is stated differently only in the Biographies section.


 * No, it is not: "The first reference of one name for Gdansk/Danzig in an article should also include a reference to the other name, e.g. Danzig (now Gdansk, Poland) or Gdansk (Danzig). All later occurrences of the name follow the rules for the periods as voted above."
 * This part you quote is for Gdańsk related articles. I quoted the part that was concerning other names such as Szczecin. There were different votes and different outcomes there. Opole.pl (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, they relate to each other. What does first refernce mean to you - if it was ment to go throughout the article - why would it say that the "first reference" of one name should also include a reference to other commonly used names - ...so because you think it is obvious that the second, the third, the fourth, and so on mention of the name should be double-named, the rule points out the first reference - that makes no sense at all. --IIIraute (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it is obvious, I say that it is not forbidden. Opole.pl (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Those part's are related but state different rules for Gdańsk and different rules for other cities. For Gdańsk we have periods in which certain names are to be used, with a double-naming rule for the first mentioning of the city: The first reference of one name for Gdansk/Danzig in an article should also include a reference to the other name, e.g. Danzig (now Gdansk, Poland) or Gdansk (Danzig). All later occurrences of the name follow the rules for the periods as voted. In case of other cities we have only cross naming rules that were a subject of a different vote: For locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name should also include a reference to other commonly used names, e.g. Stettin (now Szczecin, Poland) or Szczecin (Stettin). There is nothing there about name usage throughout the article. If you are in favour of a literal interpretation then you must accept that. We don't have a precise rule for cities other than Gdańsk which would state that it is forbidden to use double-names in the whole article. Can you show me a rule that would state: All later occurrences of the name follow the rules for the periods as voted for Szczecin as it states for Gdańsk? Opole.pl (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I am sure you can explain how the article benefits from multiple double-naming? Also, the votes clearly relate to each other: "The naming of many places in the region that share a history between Germany and Poland are also a source of edit wars. For these places, the first reference of one name should also include a reference to other commonly used names, e.g. Stettin (now Szczecin, Poland) or Szczecin (Stettin)." --IIIraute (talk) 04:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not the matter what benefits from what. It's a matter of interpretation that tells us what can we do without breaking the rules. The fact is that we don't have a precise rule for cities other than Gdańsk which would state that it is forbidden to use double-names in the whole article. Opole.pl (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * ...otherwise this would of course also mean that we would have to double-name all post 1945 articles troughout the text, as "this applies to both before and after 1945". I think you misunderstood the crosslinking rule.--IIIraute (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Nope Opole.pl (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * oh yes, indeed, no double standard please! → This applies to both before and after 1945. That's what the rule states. --IIIraute (talk) 04:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * In that same page we have: "This rule is to be followed in the case of a dispute, if there is no dispute, deviations from this rule are possible." Therefore it is not wrong to use those names freely when noone argues about it. Opole.pl (talk) 13:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, how do you call this? that's what I call a dispute. Just because "deviations from this rule are possible", doesn't mean that the rule doesn't apply and is not to be followed in general. Changing the first mention on Posen and Schwetz was such a deviation, wasn't it? - Great you finally made the effort to have a look at the Gdansk vote! --IIIraute (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The most important thing is that in both cases - Gdańsk and other names - the rules established by the vote are enforceable only when there is a dispute (if there is no dispute, deviations from this rule are possible). Therefore, there is a course of conduct that need to be taken before the enforcement of the "Gdansk vote rules":
 * First, there must be some kind of a dispute between different users. This implies that editors are not allowed to change names without any discussion just because the vote says so. The Gdańsk vote allows achieving compromises in particular articles without having to use the "Gdansk vote rule".
 * If a dispute is not resolved after both sides exchange relevant arguments, than one of them is allowed to change the names in the manner stipulated by the results of the vote. Opole.pl (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Yet we need to remeber that every rules are subject to interpretation
 * no interpretation - you need to subordinate your POV.--IIIraute (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong:
 * In our language inter alia we have two basic types of expressions. We have sentences in the logical sense which tell us "how it is". For instance: "That table is brown." Because it is a sentence in the logical sense we can tell that it is true (the table is actually brown) or that it is false (the table is red, there is no table at all).
 * There are also directives in our language that tell us "How it should be". But because they are not sentences in the logical sense we cannot say that they are true or false. Those directives compose of different sets of rules: law, social conventions, various game rules and obviously rules that are used on Wikipedia for Wikipedia purposes. Because we cannot say about those rules that they are true or false therefore they are a subject of interpretation. It may be a very quick interpretation because the rule is simple (If you kill a man you will be imprisoned for 25 years or for life) but usually there is a need to interpret rules using many different and sofisticated ways of interpretation. The point is that we always interprete, sometimes without being aware of it. :) Opole.pl (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * this ↑ is a joke, right? or am I in the loony bin? (no offense meant)--IIIraute (talk) 00:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You are not in a loony bin, I'm just trying to tech you simple logic truths that are applicable to law and othern rules - such as the Gdańsk vote. Read carefully this quote from Wikipedia: '''In logic a statement is either (a) a meaningful declarative sentence that is either true or false, or (b) what is asserted or made by the use of a declarative sentence. In the latter case, a statement is distinct from a sentence in that a sentence is only one formulation of a statement, whereas there may be many other formulations expressing the same statement.''' Rules are neither true nor false. They are a subject to interpretation. As Nietzsche once said: "All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth." If you have any other questions do not hesitate and ask. Opole.pl (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

and how the "Gdansk rule" should be applied may be understood differently by various users. When this happens a third pary should resolve the dispute. A WikiAdmin is the only qualified person for this kind of task. Opole.pl (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Look, I think it was all said - that's what the rules were established for. If you have a problem with them - as you obviously have - bring up a new vote. There is always one side that will be disappointed by the outcome, that's ok, otherwise one wouldn't need a vote - however you should accept the vote of the majority. So please comply with the rules. There is really nothing more to say. Period. --IIIraute (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Enforcement: "Violations against the rule established by the outcome of this vote can be reverted exempt from the 3RR rule. In more complex edits, only the place names can be reverted exempt from the 3RR rule according to the outcome of this vote, additional changes fall again under the 3RR rule. The reverted user should receive a note or link of the vote results on this page. Persistent reverts in violation of the outcome of this vote despite multiple warnings may be dealt with according to the rules in Dealing with vandalism". --IIIraute (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Perhaps what I wrote above will make you understand. I'm not challenging the vote I'm stating that you misinterpret it a little bit. That's how rules work. When you are in a court one lawyer tells you that you broke a rule and another one tells you that you did not. That's because rules are subject to interpretation and different people may interprete them differently. Opole.pl (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see: "Give way to oncoming traffic!" = a matter of interpretation? ...yes, what do you mean by "give way" ...and, "oncoming traffic"....please explain and debate...! or "All vehicles prohibited except bicycles being pushed by pedestrians." = a matter of interpretation? ...yes, indeed, - does this abstract four-wheeled cube with the attached exhaust system really qualify as a "v-e-h-i-c-l-e"?... if anything, would it not rather qualify as a "m-o-t-o-r-c-a-r"? - please discuss! Honi soit qui mal y pense. --IIIraute (talk) 01:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Read below and above and everything will become clear to you. :) Opole.pl (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I see that you have little knowlege of how law and other rules work. Si I will give a quote from... Wikipedia concerning this matter:

'''Statutory interpretation is the process by which courts interpret and apply legislation. Some amount of interpretation is always necessary when a case involves a statute. Sometimes the words of a statute have a plain and straightforward meaning. But in many cases, there is some ambiguity or vagueness in the words of the statute that must be resolved by the judge. To find the meanings of statutes, judges use various tools and methods of statutory interpretation, including traditional canons of statutory interpretation, legislative history, and purpose. In common law jurisdictions, the judiciary may apply rules of statutory interpretation to legislation enacted by the legislature or to delegated legislation such as administrative agency regulations.''' Opole.pl (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Adding dom of Prussia to succeeded by in info' paragraph as shortcut?
As to simplify, is it not prudent to simply say that in the info' paragraph? As it is, West Prussia (current successor) only leads to bunch short-lived and eventually absorbed occurrences. I've seen relatively similar stuff happen 'longst this chronology, mostly regarding Holy Roman Empire's successors/predecessors. Not doing it my self since I'm unsure.81.92.27.129 (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Concern: Map
I am confused by the language of the map, featuring city names all in Polish (with German heteronyms in brackets). It is my understanding that at the time, both Royal Prussia and Ducal Prussia were culturally, legally and administratively German entities. Royal Prussia, while inviting the suzerainty of the Polish King, remained largely autonomous in its internal affairs, mint etc. If this is correct, the city names should be primarily represented in their German iteration. Andrea80796 (talk) 12:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)