Talk:Warmia

message: 24.x.x.x I am starting to be fed up with you. "According to Polish agitators...", "trying to conquer Prussia in 997...".. What conflicts and skirmished were in 997? Give some PRIMARY sources. St. Adalbert was martyred, not killed in open warfare, as you seem to imply. And, for the last time, CULMERLAND (Ziemia Chelminska) was part of Poland since AT LEAST 1065 (first written mention of the city), while archeological findings confirm presence of Polish tribes since many, many decades earlier. Do you think after AT LEAST 150 years (if you would just count the years after first written mentioning) it was still "Prussian" ?? If you will continue to refuse to discuss and insist on adding such information, I will revert you without warning. Szopen 08:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  24.x.x.x 

message: Hm.. while extremely popular view, I am not sure whether this is true. I am quite sure that there were a lot of free Prussian peasants and quite a few free Prussian knights; Conquest were very brutal, true, but TO wanted to rule over the lands _and_ people, not just over barren and desolated remnants of burned villages... Someone with more knowledge on this could maybe elaborate, so we could change this sentence in the article? Szopen 12:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prussians "killed or reduced to the status of serfs" 

message: Who knows Latin here? I have books about documents about Copernicus. Unfortunately, onkly abstracts are in Polish and the rest is in Latin. One in abstract is described as Warmia canons taking oath of lyalty to king of Poland, Sigismund. If translated, it should end once and for all the discussion about to whom Copernicus swear loyalty. In other abstract, Polish text says that canons of Warmia/Ermeland described themselves as loyal subjects of POLISH KING, but again, my latin is very limited. I may scan both photos of documents (but they are of much lower quality that I had expected) and latin text in the book..
Szopen 11:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, why not? Halibutt 12:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copernicus allegiance 

message: by Caspar Henneberg  This Prussia map was used by many mapmakers for over 100 years. Ermland/Warmia in located in the center of Prussia (this in in reply to Szopen's entry on Wikipedia Warmia map ref. location of Prussia incl Ermland /Warmia to the north of Poland). MG
Warmia was not "north from kingdom of Poland" since it was RIGHT IN THE KINGDOM OF POLAND. Warmia was part of Polish kingdom, authonomous part, but nevertheless the Warmia inhabitants were putting and oath of loyalty to Polish kings and considered themselves the suibjects of Polish king (even if fiercefully defending their local privileges and authonomy.Szopen 11:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem not to understand the specifics of pre-modern states. Kingdom of Poland was decentralised state in XV century, with almost each land with separate laws and privileges, where each land was defending those privileges, yet in the same time being fiercefully loyal to Polish KINGDOM. The whole union in XVI century was simply centralisation of the state, unification of the laws and privileges, not "incorporation" of Prussia and other provinces into Poland. It had nothing to do with nationalism or ethinicity. the leaders of opposition in XVI century in Prussia, Dzialynscy, were recent newcomers from Greater Poland, and yet were defending the authonomy of Prussia (not denying however that Prussia IS part of Polish KINGDOM).
Szopen 10:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Nyah, we all know that Prussia was independent. It governed itself, made alliances for itself, had its own kings, queens, aces and jacks... er... wrong fable, I guess. Halibutt 03:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of Prussia including Ermland/Warmia around 1547 

message: , click on bottom right to enlarge and to (barely) read names. Ermland/Warmia is the small wedge-shaped area in green, nearly surrounded by Ducal Prussia in pink. That should clarify the actual location of Ermland/Warmia.
Is it your understanding or believe that Prussia was Poland, because someone gave an oath to someone connected to the 'Polish Crown' ???
MG 2/2/2006
You seem still not to understand. Royal Prussia, or "Pomerellia", or "Polish Prussia" was part of POLISH KINGDOM, while in the same time being 
called "Prussia" and being understood as part of geographical Prussia. 
You can't use one map as core fundament for your theory. Just see here:
http://www.newberry.org/smith/slidesets/images/02-3.jpg
Here, somehow Danzig/Gdansk is part of Prussia, and the rest of Royal Prussia is called "Pomerellia" (1570)
And here: 
http://www.beachmaps.com/map/POLANDORTELIUS2.jpg
Map of Poland by Ortelius from late XVI century - Yo uwill see that the whoel region, including ducal Prussia, was just in his opinion part of kingdom of Poland.
http://www.beachmaps.com/map/POLANDBUCELIN.jpg
By Bucelin, around 1658; no Prussia at all, he seems to consider it part of Poland. He even marked Stettin/Szczecin as part of Poland.
But look here:
http://www.beachmaps.com/map/EUROPECLUVER2.jpg
In aroudn 1611, suddenly there is no Poland at all - it is part of "Germania". There is also "Dacia" there etc.
http://www.beachmaps.com/map/POLANDBUFFIER3.jpg
Buffier, 1711: Kingdom of Poland .. including even Ducal Prussia, by that time independent country! And Royal Prussia is called, well, Royal Prussia.
http://www.beachmaps.com/map/POLANDDUVAL.JPG
Du Val 1660. We have ther also Royal Prussia and INDEPENDENT MASOVIA (!)
http://www.beachmaps.com/map/PRUSSIAMERCATOR.jpg
Mercator from early XVI century, though known from copies from XVII century: there is no Royal Prussia, just Pomerellia, clearly showing as part of Poland.
http://www.beachmaps.com/web/POLANDMORDEN.JPG
Morden, 1680: "Royal Prussia" aaaand Zhmudz... being part of Duchy of Prussia!
http://www.castlesofpoland.com/prusy/mapy.htm
And here, you will see that many maps had not shown borders at all! On one from each you may see Royal Prussia called "pomerssen" or something like that.
And what did those maps tell us? Nothing. Simply, nothing. You think I should argue that in 1680 Samogitia was not part of Lithuania, but of Prussia, because of map of Morden? Or that Masovia was independent country in 1660 because of map from 1660?
Szopen 09:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warmia on Map of Magnus Prussia Ducatus in 1690 

message: I have tried to follow the wording of Talk:Gdansk/Vote: For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names. I have set it as Braniewo (Braunsberg) and Toruń (Thorn), which clearly meets the standards of the Vote. I removed "Torun" as an English name- the city does not have a standard English name like Warsaw or Prague, and most English textbooks refer to it as Thorn for the time period in question. Olessi 18:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Molobo, I reiterate that using "Braniewo (Braunsberg) and Toruń (Thorn)" is the correct interpretation of the Gdansk Vote. I also reiterate that "Torun" should not be included here. Torun is simply used in English when the speaker does not take the time or is unable to use the correct diacritic for Toruń. Torun is not a traditional English word like Warsaw, Prague, Copenhagen, or Moscow. Olessi 01:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, that was a rather useless waste of Wikipedia storage space. I stand by what I stated twice already. According to the Gdansk Vote, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names. Therefore, as I have already stated, "Braniewo (Braunsberg) and Toruń (Thorn)". I am not "Germanising" the names- Thorn and Braunsberg were quite common names for the towns in question during the time period in question. Please give me an adequate response as to why Thorn and Braunsberg should not be included according to the Gdansk Vote.Olessi 06:44, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

text: As I have already said, Torun is Toruń without the diacritic, and is not a traditional English name like Prague or Warsaw. There are so many Google hits for Torun because it is the current official name, and the vast majority of English websites do not use diacritics. When discussing the history of a region/place, historical names should be included. Why are Braunsberg and Thorn unacceptable to you? Olessi 17:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

text: The German names for these towns are relevant because they were used during the time period in question. The city should not be referred to as Thorn on WP post-1945, but it certainly is relevant beforehand. Torun is not a traditional English name. If it was, then the article would be at "Torun", not Toruń. Cities that have real traditional English names are found at these locations, i.e. Prague instead of Praha, Warsaw instead of Warszawa, Moscow instead of Moskva, Copenhagen instead of København. You'll notice that Toruń is found at the Polish Toruń, not the "English" Torun.... Olessi 18:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

text: The city should not be referred to as "Thorn" pre 1945 either. There was never any vote on it and it had completely different history than Gdańsk. Space Cadet 18:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. While using "Danzig" for "Gdańsk" before 1945 may seem reasonable, "Thorn" until the end of WW2 is absurd. Why not "Warschau" and "Krakau" then ? --Lysy (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not trying to argue that Thorn is the only name that should be used; I was merely stating that the name Thorn should never be used in a history section referring to events post-1945. Toruń is a city that shares a history with Germany and Poland, and it seems to me would meet the critera for the Vote. Toruń (Thorn), Thorn (Toruń), Thorn (Toruń) and variations thereof all seem fine to include in a history section. Olessi 20:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I originally started editing this page to uphold part of the Gdansk Vote, although I think the results of the vote were too vague to effectively cover all particularities. The majority of English-language history books do not use the Polish-language names to refer to towns in the region originally controlled by the Teutonic Order (I can't think of any that would use the name Braniewo when referring to 18th century history), which is why I think it makes sense to include both the Polish and German names. However, revert wars are a waste of time, and our energies would be much better spent adding content to articles instead of going in circles discussing naming issues. As a compromise, I am willing to remove the German names from the History section, as the German names are also mentioned further down in the article in the Major Towns section. However, I also do not want to see that dreadful looking "Torun" (without diacritic). ;-) You might want to take a look at the removal of the ń from Gdańsk at Historical Eastern Germany... Olessi 20:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Molobo, you really shouldn't trust Google to be a reliable indicator of academic content. When talking about the present-day localities, of course English sites are going to use the Polish names. Detailed textbooks usually use the historical terms, however, when referring to events from centuries prior; however, it naturally is rather impractical for us to look at every book. And, in case you did not notice, I am using the Polish names, and had already changed it before you asked about it again. I thought this issue was closed. Olessi 19:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Then I'm sure you can see the logic of "Wilno (now Vilnius)" and "Braunsberg ( now Braniewo)". Olessi 15:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gdansk/Vote 

message: :The Latin name Warmia is derived from the Old Prussian tribal chief Warmo, while the German name Ermland is derived from Warmo's wife and widow Erma.
I see this a bit suspicious. Varmi -> Ermland could be a natural corruption of a tribe's name. Please provide references. Also, I find it very improbable for a land to be named by Teutons after a woman. mikka (t) 17:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I had added that section by directly translating from de:Warmia. The tribal name origin, of course, does make considerably more sense. Olessi 22:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Today I added three more Prussian tribes and while digging the refs I saw that name origins af most of them are unknown. The very original source of knowledge about them is 13th century Chronicon terrae Prussiae, which simply matches toponyms with tribal names. Most of these tribes were exterminated right at the time of this manuscript. Later, as it usually happens historians started lots of guesswork, none of which is decisive. mikka (t) 02:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Varmo and Erma 

message: Some users feel that the German names of towns are irrelevant for this article. If this was an article about an official administrative unit (Warmian-Masurian Voivodship, for instance), I would agree with that logic. However, this is an article about a historic region without a current official status, and as the German names are frequently referred in historical publications, listing the German names is informative. I have added "historic" as a qualifying term. Olessi 18:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that German names are relevant for historic reasons. At least as long as we don't have a separate article about the History of Warmia I think they should stay here. Most of Warmia and Mazury were thouroughly Germanized throughout 19th and the beginning of 20th century and it's good to remeber this. Many of the names were changed into German already in the 1930s. Interestingly, while not inhabitated by ethnic Germans, these were the regions where Nazism won most support. --Lysytalk 19:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The Warmian population was mostly germanized since the 13th century. German names are certainly important in all East and West Prussian articles, except perhaps when it comes to the administrational units of Russia and Poland. Compare it with Ireland. --Der Eberswalder 18:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  German names 

message: On Nazi atrocities that was removed from the article to an isolated obscure page, I see no reason why such information should be removed from history of Warmia, while other parts of history remain. I hope I am wrong, but this looked like an attempt to remove certain parts of history from the reader. This was a drastic solution and shouldn't be taken without discussing this on the talk page.
--Molobo 02:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My response to Rory096 at Talk:Nazi crimes in Warmia: >>The disputed section had been the subject of a revert war for two weeks (without Talk discussion) and, IMO, was going into excessive depth in a breadth article. Instead of removing the information altogether as other users have done, I moved it into a new article where information about the time period can be listed in greater detail, and clearly added a link to this new article within the text of the original article. I did not initially add a link to this article in the "See also" subheader; I have now done so. Compare the edits before and after for your own opinion.<< Olessi 04:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I restored information

message: I due believe it was the Teutonic order who attacked the Baltic and Slavic peoples, User:Matthead however seems to have a somewhat different historical perspective. It turns out the peoples of the east weren't attacked, but "challenged" by the teutonic order. In another edit, the order doesn't attack or challenge but simply "arrives". What are Mattheads arguments for these edits?Rex 10:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See my edit. It was not the region like Masovia that made attempts to conquest, it was the rulers there, and these are otherwise claimed as Poles. The Order has arrived after an invitation of Konrad, like reinforcements for Konrad. It was not the Orders idea to attack. How about a NPOV version like: "Several times conquest attempts from Masovia were successfully repelled by Prussians and they only began to coordinate after the 12th century conquest attempts from the Monastic State/Kulmerland."? Not good? Anyway, I adjusted the wording. -- Matthead discuß!     O       12:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not NPOV. Prussians were not just "repelling" the conquest attempts. They were actively raiding Masovia to the point Culmland and northern Masovia were totally depopulated. Szopen 09:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The Teutonic Order conquered and cristianized the area because they were asked to do so in 1226 by Duke Konrad I Mazowiecki. They were encouraged by Pope Gregory IX, see Northern Crusades. This guy was also involved. --Der Eberswalder 18:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "But we only obeyed the orders", right ? --Lysytalk 01:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: BTW, what does User:Rex Germanus/Rex' nationalism scale try to make? -- Matthead discuß!     O       23:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A point? Space Cadet 01:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ... like the black one taken by User:Witkacy ?-- Matthead discuß!     O       02:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, kinda... minus the personal trips and offensiveness. Space Cadet 04:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  German POV. - Polish agression 

message: A number of attacks by Masovia and Poland (starting in 997) intensified by Konrad I of Masovia, who had attacked, (requested and got a crusade in 1209) and only after he was sucessfully repelled by the Prussians, did he call in the Teutonic Order. Also referenced in Catholic Encyclopedia 1209 crudade against 'pagan' Prussians 
Following Text from Catholic Encyclopedia
Having failed in all his attempts to induce the barons of the Latin Empire to undertake an expedition against Palestine, and understanding at last the cause of failure of the crusade in 1204, Innocent III resolved (1207) to organize a new crusade and to take no further notice of Constantinople. Circumstances, however, were unfavourable. Instead of concentrating the forces of Christendom against the Mohammedans, the pope himself disbanded them by proclaiming (1209) a crusade against the Albigenses in the south of France, and against the Almohades of Spain (1213), the pagans of Prussia, and John Lackland of England.  Labbas 15 January 2007
:Still, this is so vague, and open to interpretations. --Lysytalk 06:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Crusade of Konrad of Masovia

message: The link Nazi crimes in Warmia is called Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles now and does not mention explicit crimes in WARMIA, I removed it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by HerkusMonte (talk • contribs) 13:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazi crimes in Warmia 

message: Warmia bishops were NOT granted prince-bishop status by HRE emperor - they CLAIMED the title. My sources all agree, that there is no trace of such emperor's privilege, and bishop usurped their title. Szopen (talk) 08:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Prnce-bishop

message: What's this with the Warmians? None of the other Prussian tribes have all these tags and arguments and whatnot. I notice that there are practically no notes. We need notes. Once that has been done on an idea-by-idea basis all the baloney, if there is any, will just vanish away. There's no need to get any warmer about the Warmians than any other Prussians. Why argue when you can usually look it up? First do the work then what you say has some impact.Dave (talk) 03:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The furor, the furor 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Prussian tribes map.png Nominated for Deletion