Talk:Treaty of Wehlau

Most of my edits are rather self-explanatory. Could you give your sources for the date? I was always taught that the treaty was signed on Sept. 9, not 19th. As to the name Welawa/Wehlau: I moved the article because: -- [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 21:25, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Until the treaty the town was Welawa, it changed hands after the treaty
 * The Treaty of Welawa wins with Treaty of Wehlau by a huge margin in Google ("Treaty of Welawa" - 323, "Treaty of Wehlau" - 38)

Welawa is fine. And I made a mistake with the date. Rübezahl 22:56, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

..and Ducal Prussia wasnt a part of Poland
..."get it?" Ksenon 03:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

More so than Spain a part of Austria. I got it. Space Cadet 03:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Not much talk
For all the reverting going on, there is a distressing lack of talk on this page. Please be nice, chat more, revert less. Your friendly admin support, William M. Connolley 20:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC).

Royal claims...
...gave way to self determination. Besides, there were no claims, as the Second Polish Republic had no legitimate claims to the land of a fief of the Polish kingdom. Now please stop, this is getting tedious. Ksenon 17:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

While the information is esoterically interesting, I don't believe it relevant to include. I don't see how a treaty signed between nobility/royalty in the 17th century should have been valid for post-Romantic nationalism citizens in the 20th century. The Second Polish Republic was not the same entity as the Kingdom of Poland. If the Second Polish Republic had immediately followed the Kingdom of Poland, it is possible the treaty would have continued (similar to modern Russia inheriting many of the responsibilities of the former Soviet Union). However, the fall of the Kingdom of Poland through the partition of the PLC and its disappearance from 1795-1918 rendered its treaties null and void in international law. I'm not aware of anyone who views Russian-controlled Congress Poland or the Central Power-controlled Regency Kingdom of Poland as being valid successors to the Kingdom of Poland, and the Second Polish Republic was not heir to the legalities of the kingdom. Olessi 21:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly, though try explaining anything to the POV crusaders, with limited knowledge on the subject at that. Ksenon 21:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Nobody here speaks about legal aspects :)( I'm sure you can prove Poland had no legal right to exist anyway ;)) Just about return of former Polish territory. Its actually interesting to see that all of territories that found themselfs in Poland after WW2 were in the past part of Polish realm. Anyway Poland considers itself heir to Commonwealth. I wouldn't be so sure of Second Polish Republic as well, since it claimed reperations from SU concering Partitons of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth to which Soviets agreed.

--Molobo 21:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If the Polish diplomats at Versailles after World War I used the Treaty of Welawa as justification for their claims on the territory, then that should definitely be listed here. If they didn't (and instead based their claims on the territory based on the population of Poles living there), then it doesn't seem relevant to go into post-17th century history in this article. That's what I meant when I was talking about the validity of the treaty in the 20th century. I personally do not know if the diplomats referred to this treaty when the Second Polish Republic was being created. Olessi 22:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not know either, we are just mentioning that the territory returned only after WW2. --Molobo 22:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Terms of the treaty
In this edit user 24.23.39.36 adds that the treaty was to be renewed upon the death of each ruler; therefore, the treaty would cease to be applicable if future rulers did not renew it (and the status quo would henceforth result). Are these terms of the treaty verifiable? Olessi 05:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 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. 

move. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) Seen this already? 11:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
Treaty of Welawa → Treaty of Wehlau – "Treaty of Wehlau" (or "Peace of Wehlau") is used much more frequently than "... of Welawa" in English-language publications.

Survey

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


 * Support as originator. Olessi 04:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose not much difference in use, the naming issue might be result of dominance of German history rather then Polish one, we don't have to repeat other's mistakes. --Molobo 11:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. There is clearly a difference in use if once looks at academic souces and encyclopedias. As per such, I vote for consistensy of WP to other sources. Otherwise, we should move Kijowan voivodship to Kiev or Kyiv one. No one uses Polish name for the city nowadays. --Irpen 11:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Please take a note that Molobo frantically spams the talk pages of all Polish wikipedians, asking them to vote in his favour. Therefore I will not be surprised if the result will turn out to be rigged up. --Ghirla -трёп- 11:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. See Ghirla. --Matthead 23:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per originator. Edwy (talk) 11:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support -- Chris 73 | Talk 11:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, no need to change it.  // Halibutt
 * Oppose - more frequent use represents "common knowledge" and not encyclopedic information. Space Cadet 14:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments

I ran some English-language Google tests with the mirror filter. It is important to keep in mind that when using regular Google, the number of total search hits differs on the first page and the last page. I have put the actual total number of hits (given on the last page) in parentheses. While looking through the various regular Google search links, it seemed that most of the hits were merely Wiki mirrors (shown by using the filter). YMMV.
 * Treaty of Welawa: 235 (49)
 * Treaty of Wehlau: 136 (66)
 * Peace of Welawa: 0
 * Peace of Wehlau: 1

Google Books
 * Treaty of Welawa: 0
 * Treaty of Wehlau: 23
 * Peace of Welawa: 0
 * Peace of Wehlau: 4

Google Scholar
 * Treaty of Welawa: 0
 * Treaty of Wehlau: 5
 * Peace of Welawa: 0
 * Peace of Wehlau: 1

Encyclopedia Britannica titles their article Treaty of Wehlau with the introduction: "Wehlau also spelled Welawa". Encyclopedia Columbia does not have information on the topic. While this historical event does not seem to be discussed much in English publications, when it does it is referred to as Wehlau, not Welawa. Olessi 04:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Space Cadet mentions "more frequent use represents "common knowledge" and not encyclopedic information." I am confused by what he means. "Wehlau" is the preferred usage in encyclopedic information (Britannica, Google Books, Google Scholar). By looking at the total number of hits in the regular Google search (final page of search results), there are ultimately more provided for Wehlau as well (more "common knowledge"). Almost every single hit for Welawa in regular Google is for a Wiki-mirror, and the phrase is non-existent in Google's publication searches. Olessi 16:07, 7 April 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.

Request confirmation on unsourced claim
I added tag for confirmation on unsourced claim.--Molobo (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)