Talk:Poznań

message: Posen bishopric was founded in 968. Duke Mieszko I was unable to cope with internal enemies ,sought the support of German emperor Otto I the Great and became one of his vassals. Mieszko married Dubrawka, got baptized and promoted Christianity.
The first bishop of Posen was Jordan (968-82), who was appointed suffragan to the archbishop of Magdeburg. Posen continued to be the only bishopric until the Diocese of Gnesen, Lat. Gnesna, Polish Gniezno was created.
Duke Boleslaw I Chrobry, son of Mieszko I, chose Gnesen for a shrine for the remains of Saint Adalbert of Prague. Emperor Otto III came to the grave of St. Adalbert in AD 1000 and established the archbishopric of Gnesen and at the same time Otto III created the bishopric of Krakow, Breslau and Kolberg. Posen was severed from Magdeburg during the ensuing strife at the death of Boleslaw I in 1025. It was reattached and in 1133 the archbishop of Magdeburg Saint Norbert? still had the metropolitan jurisdiction of Magdeburg over Posen recognized.
After that time Posen became a defacto suffragan under Gnesen.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Taw (talk • contribs) 12:58, 21 December 2001 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Posen article: 

message: Posen was an important German town for quite some time, and might well have become known in English under the German name, why I don't object to the statement of that form as an alternative in the introductory paragraph, but may I ask what's the reason to have two Latin names at the same place? Is the town maybe known to the English in latinized spelling, or is the local community of Latin speakers that very significant?
Wikipedia articles ought to follow simple usability rules, as "most important things first"!
--Ruhrjung 08:52, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latinized names 

message: User:Hephaestos has protected a Polish-revisionist version of this article, mentioning the German name in a silly way (also known as Posen in German language instead of German: Posen), and almost denying (not mentioning, and removing the name) that Posen was a German city most of the time from 1793-1945. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.213.4.106 (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you know history very well German-revisionist. Poznań was a German city but among 1792 - 1918. I think also writing names of the city in other than native language is about information. Not about proof of its fixture. Polish and other nations this is idea of Wikipedia. Germans as usualy play theys own rules. Tlumaczek 06:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polish-revisionist version protected 

message: Poznan was, is and will be an important Polish city. It was the Polish capital in 10th-11th century. The first historical Polish duke Mieszko I and the first Polish king Boleslaw I the Brave are buried in Poznan cathedral.
In a overhelming majority of its 11-centuries history 900-2003 it belonged to Poland, except a small periods when it belonged to Prussia (1793-1806) and the Third Reich (1939-1945). Even in years (1815-1918) it was the capital of the Grand Duchy of Poznan under Hohenzollern kings but with the guarantee of free develpoment of Polish nation and language.
There is no doubt that there were many German-speaking inhabitants of Poznan, invited by Polish dukes and kings to settle here, and they played a significant role in the city development, culture and history. But the German speaking inhabitants of Poznan were most of the time loyal subjects of Polish kings and patriotic defenders of their Polish homeland. 
The ethnic German inhabitants of Poznan were the fucking good Poles, as good and patriotic as any others Polish citizens regardless of their ethnic origin, religion, culture, business or social status.
There's no doubt that Poznan is an old Polish city, and I find it very very rude, nationalistic and stupid to call it a German city in any period of time.
And it is very silly to publish such a nonsense 20 times a day from an anonymous IP. 
You are invited to find some new material to add value to Poznan article, and when refering to Polish-German relations please follow the example of German and Polish historians who are working together to produce one common version of history and clarify much of the confusion produced by the 19th century nationalisms:
Polish-German relations in Middle Ages
* (ed.) Rainer Riemenchneider, Die Rolle Schlesiens and Pommern in der Geschichte der deutschen-polnischen Beziehungen in Mittelater, , Georg-Eckert-Institut fuer Internationale Schulbuchforschung, Braunchweig 1980
* (ed.) Marian Biskup, Śląsk i Pomorze w historii stosunków polsko-niemieckich w średniowieczu, XII Konferencja Wspólnej Komisji Podręcznikowej PRL-RFN Historyków 5-10 VI 1979 Olsztyn, Ossolineum, Wroclaw 1983, second edition: Instytut Zachodni, Poznań 1987.
Polish-German relations in 16th-18th centuries:
* (ed.) Antoni Czubiński, Zbigniew Kulak, Śląsk i Pomorze w stosunkach polsko-niemieckich od XVI do XVII w. XIV Konferencja Wspólnej Komisji Podręcznikowej PRL-RFN Historyków, 9-14 VI 1981 r. Zamość, Instytut Zachodni, Poznań 1987 
* German edition also available
Thank you for you cooperation.
--cc 17:24, 18 October 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal City of Poznan - historical capital of Poland 

message: I think we all are tired of Nico edit wars here at Poznan and in othe places. Poznan is a Polish city, badly hurt by the Germans, especially during World War II. The war is over now and the Polish-German relations and better and better these days. And Nico is startinf the WWII againg and again with his manipulations, threats and insults. Lets's have Nico banned. Mestwin of Gdansk 17:06, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: calm down, ok? Have an edit of other, unhistoric or not tied to Polish-German relations, get a rest and come back. AFAIK Nico said, that Posen is German name for Poznan, not that Poznan is German city. Is that right, Nico? Or do you believe that Poznan is German city under temporary Polish occupation where most of inhabitants is immigrants from Congress Poland? Szopen 07:57, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion was concerning the German name only.  Anyway, it's time for mr. Albinowski to be banned, IMHO. Nico 21:49, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  That's enough: lets have Nico banned 

message: radomil 08:22, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the Coat of Arms 

message: Look, Rubestahl, we've been trying to hash out a standardized way to mention the German name in the first line of these articles about current Polish cities which had a recent significant German ownership, without offending the Poles. Your "formerly known under its German name xxxx", while not much different from what I think is the best compromise "(former German name xxx)" is longer than it needs to be, without adding anything that has to be there, but does devote a lot of the most important line to a topic which irritates the current citizens of that town. Please justify or reconsider your widespread edits. Bwood 04:39, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, this version has been used on Gdansk, Szczecin etc by Yeti, Cadet, Halibutt, Przepla, Polish Politicians and Szopen, so don't tell me "the Poles will be offended". I personally prefer simple: "German name - this and that". I noticed the Poles are freaking over "former name - this and that". "Former German name ..." is ridiculous and it contains that "former" bit, which seems to indicate that those cities were never Polish before they were German, which in turn "irritates the current citizens of that town", whom you care so much about. I just wanted to stop a stupid edit war. Rübezahl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rübezahl (talk • contribs) 05:48, 23 August 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rübezahl edits 

message: While this is better than what was here previously, it is unbalanced. The Polish uprisings (while important) should not have this much detail in the *Summary*. They are best left to the various history articles, whose links are provided at the beginning of this section. This is not the place to debate how "autonomous" the Grand Duchy was (let's leave that the article about the Grand Duchy and its history). And there is no need to repeat the entire history of Wielkopolska here. A summary of the official governments through time, with references to the related geopolitical events is sufficient. Any material specific to just the town should be considered, for example the 1848 uprising which was centered in Poznan/Posen. Bwood 12:57, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent History section edits 

message: Did you have a deliberate reason for changing the American english spellings to British english? ("center" to "centre") Bwood 23:08, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Halibutt spellings 

message: I have protected this page due to an ongoing edit/revert war and page protection request on WP:RFPP. Thank you. Neutrality (hopefully!) 01:21, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
:When this page become unprotected, someone please add ja:ポズナニ.  It's a wikilink to the article in Japanese. Thanks. Revth 12:07, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protected 

message: Sorry about the multiple edits to this, I keep thinking of new things to say and realizing others aren't important, since you can find an argument for either side anywhere. At first I chose to defend the lesser represented of the two, but I think I'll just insert my other two cents.
Words like "occupied" are very suggestive of point of view...I went through this article and tried to be as impartial as possible. I only used terms like "return and restore" when the change in power is exchanged back and forth within a short period of time, such as it in the Forties or the period during Napoleon's implementation of the Duchy of Warsaw. Being an American, I thought it would be interesting to offer as an example the way the United States (ca. 1776) never is referred to as an "occupier" despite our seizure of Native American or Mexican lands...then again, these regions have yet to change hands again, so that could be
the reason why such terminology is used. It could also be because this appears to be a rather permanent change. An interesting note about Poland and Germany is that the borders DO appear to be finalized, especially now that the divide between ethnicities is rather distinguished. Ironic how the Pan-Germanic movement created a solution to this former problem, but it wasn't the one most had envisioned and in the process, also lost land that I really wouldn't consider Polish except prior to the 1400's (Szczecin, Słupsk), though now it is almost fully populated by that majority. It's also kind of funny that Germany was united under Prussia, and yet the territories that made up Prussia - except for those close to Berlin - cease to exist as part of the German state. This is another reason why the solution is likely to be final, since two ethnic groups are not competing over the same land - barring any future belligerence. 
--24.72.227.2 08:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  comment on NPOV 

message: The 'history of Poznan' is a section already within the page, so I cut the historical information out of the introduction that was also included in the 'history of poland' section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.21.204 (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: intro

message: Related stub just created, likely should be linked from here.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just want to say: awesome job, Radomil!-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Royal Castle in Poznań]]

message: Hi
why am I able changing all articles except Posnan? I get the message that I would be on a SPAM Blacklist. I have never been informed nor did I ever had someone who disagreed anything about my input. So I do not understand what is going on. Please help.
Thank you
(Fujicolor 03:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  why am I on the blacklist? 

message: Do we write names of the cities because of information or because the city sometime they belonged to somebody? 193.109.212.37 13:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names in other languages 

message: The discussion of the use of other names in the opening line seems to be 4 years old, and does not seem to have come to consensus.  The city was under German rule for 200 of the last 300 years - readers will expect the German name to immediately follow the Polish: Poznań (; see also other names) This is the solution for other cities that were part of Germany or its predecessor states for a significant period of time, and it makes sense here as well. Jd2718 (talk) 11:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct about the number of years. But these are 120 of the more recent years. Poznań is and was a Polish city, but the German presence and period of rule are significant. Jd2718 (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Disucsion was caused by number of names in heading and their order. German rule over the city, not counting ocupation during world war II, extended 90 years ago, so those 120 yeras are not so recent. Order was also cause of problem. For instant: why german name should be before Latin, while latin was language of administration for over 600 years (so about 60% of town's history)? And what about Yiddish name? Language of significant minority present in history of Poznań as long as Germans? Radomil talk 14:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No one is taking any names out. It is just a question of moving Posen up, directly after Poznań. And 90 years ago is long, but still just a few generations. This is still considered modern history. Jd2718 (talk) 14:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But it is only one of opinions, marking German name as so important, not any neutral POV... Radomil talk 14:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be normal in other WP articles on now-Polish, sometime German cities to include the German name in the lead. Sometimes other names (Latin, Kashubian, Lithuanian, Yiddish... appear as well). Posen certainly seems to be an important historical name under which readers might have encoutered this city in the English literature. Latin and Yiddish names less so, but they could appear in the lead too, after Posen. It isn't a POV issue (no-one's disputing what the names were), just a question of what information is likely to be useful for readers.--Kotniski (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Not at all. Was one of two offical names (Grand Duchy was bilingual) other examples of towns with simmilar problems are Prague or Bratislava. I do not mind If Liviv would be trated in this same way. Radomil talk 19:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I bet you would mind. Yes, OK, during the brief Napoleonic period it was Poznan, but during the entire Prussian and German Empire period it was Posen. I know you don't like this but it's a fact, and omitting it is childish and unencyclopaedic. Gdansk, Szczecin, Wroclaw, Olsztyn and Katowice all give the German name immediately after the Polish name. Encyclopaedias need to be consistent, and not to pander to the patriotic sentiment of some users. Even the Polish Wikipedia gives Posen immediately after Poznan! (http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pozna%C5%84) Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No one is ommitin it. It's just other solution of prblem, not grading if German or Latin name is more important. And as for Grand Duchy... read terms of Congress of Vienna... Polish autonomy was guarantee by international treaty. Prussia abolished this authonomy in 1846. Up this time Grand Duchy was autonomic, bilingual, and kept outside of German Confederation. History of Middle Europe (or Mitteleuropa) is not so simple Radomil talk 19:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

text: P.S. Piervously was this same solution as on pl: but there were edit wars if Latin or German name goes first... History is complex... even now Radomil talk 19:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

text: It is rear view of Railway Directorate. Radomil talk 22:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth, as a Polish editor, I think that "Posen" should come first (after Poznan), since nobody speaks Latin anymore (you know what I mean) (and if you look at the way other cities are listed, Latin usually comes last). On the positive side, it's nice that the discussions about naming conventions have moved on to such triviality, though discussed in a much more civil manner.radek (talk) 04:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

text: WP:ELNO is a guideline of sites we should not link to.  Basically I'd say delete it either if it adds no further encyclopaedic information for the reader, or if the link is there more for the website's benefit by increasing traffic than the readers' benefit. Knepflerle (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  name in German 

message: Do we need links to several sites for commercial companies? E.g. hotels, hostels etc? I wanted to undo recent additions, but I hesitated. What's wikipedia policy on this? Szopen (talk) 12:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:ELNO is a guideline of sites we should not link to.  Basically I'd say delete it either if it adds no further encyclopaedic information for the reader, or if the link is there more for the website's benefit by increasing traffic than the readers' benefit. Knepflerle (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to commercial sites 

message: I don't think the montage of photos currently at the top of the infobox really tells the reader anything except that this is a city with lots of buildings. And it takes up quite a lot of space, forcing the actual infobox down off the first screen. Can we move it to somewhere else, or perhaps get rid of it, if all the important locations are already depicted in captioned images?--Kotniski (talk) 11:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image at top of infobox

message: Skapperod added a claim that the "German settlers constituted the majority in Polish towns of that time". I don't think the source he presented supports his claim.  Dr. Loosmark  12:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been sorted out and verified here. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nope it has not been "sorted out", far from it.  Dr. Loosmark  10:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

text: There seems to be a source that says that the "burghers" of towns at some time were primarily of German origin. Were the entire population of towns considered to be burghers?--Kotniski (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "German majority" 

message: This article does not meet B-class criteria, due to missing key sections (ex. economy) and insufficient inline referencing (there are entire sections unreferenced). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  16:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: B-class review failed

message: It should be added that at the Congress of Vienna there was a confrontation between Russia and Prussia opposing France, Britain and Austria about the creation of a Polish state. Prussia and Russia wanted a constitutional united Polish state, Britain and France rejected. This was the major point of disagreement, almost resulting into a war.
Basically it was Britain's divide and conquer tactics that aimed at installing problems and weakening any possible opponent rather than "giving peace".
Prussia initially had no interest in annexing any territory that was Polish. So called Polish partitions were about a dysfunctional political unit that was already under Russian control. Prussia was interested in Saxony, whose duke was "Polish" king of that Russian controlled Poland. At the Vienna congress Prussia wanted Saxony instead of the Posen/Poznan territory and Russia wanted to establish a Polish constitutional kingdom, which would have led into a Poland in its ethnic boundaries, i.e. in boundaries were people regarded themselves as Poles.
Apparently, because western culture is anti-German and Prussia ethnically cleansed, certain aspects of history are left out for distorting understanding of issues. Another such distorted topic is about the term Ostsiedlung or Eastern Colonization. This does not compare to French and British colonization of overseas territories, because settlers from Germany were invited to come and not sent as conquerers from any German state. They were legal immigrants.
In connection with WWII, borders between Poland and Germany after WWI were never agreed by Germany and result of the Polish attack on Germany at the end of the war. Polish-German borders were legally disputed for a number of reasons. Poland expelled a large number of the 2.4 million Germans who came under Polish control and even killed many. Normalization between Germany and Poland was not achieved before WWII, Hitler wanted to recognize Polish borders in return for a transit road to detached Eastern Prussia and a return of Danzig that was 96% German on plebiscite and whose population wanted to belong to Germany. Britain gave a guarantee to Poland for escalating the Danzig conflict and Polish military wanted war because they expected victory in a big alliance paving way for annexation of Eastern Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia. After German victory, the pre-WWI population of Germans was re-established. Hitler tried to end war and settle with Britain 42 times and wanted to establish a Poland in its ethnic boundaries but Britain refused any talks, finally ceded Poland to Soviet Union and not declaring war on Soviet Union when they invaded Poland.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.153.19.174 (talk) 07:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about a city in Poland. No trolling please. --Lysytalk 07:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  text biased and unbalanced 

message: I understand some of the Polish nationalism on here, but often times people write incorrect information when they're "in the heat of the moment".  To the poster who claims Posen "always was, is, and always will be" a Polish city has glaring mistakes in the explanation.  The fact is (and feel free to do research to educate yourself) Posen was part of Prussia, and then the German Empire from 1793 to post WW1 in 1918/1919.  YES, during the Napoleon led Polish Uprising of 1806 the City briefly switched back to Polish control for about 9 years (1806-1815).  But history is accurate in claiming the City was a part of Germanic statehood for nearly 115 years.  During this time, the Prussians (Germans if you like) greatly fortified and expanded the City into a stronghold and center of culture and trade in the area.  The Germans of the city weren't "invited" by the Polish rulers to settle - rather the Prussians encouraged settlement into these areas in order to "Germanize" them.  In fact for most of the 19th century, many Posen residents who never knew the days of being part of Poland, and of Polish decent, would have considered themselves Germans of Polish decent.  You may not like to hear these facts, but they are indeed, facts.  Part of my family lived in Posen and originally settled there in the mid-19th century during Prussian rule.  Once the City was handed over to Poland after WW1, they moved, along with many others, back to Germany.  To say they were "Good Poles" is completely inaccurate.  One side of the City was German, and the other side was Polish.  After WW1, the city then became primarily Polish as the ethnic Germans migrated back.  It's fine to have an opinion, but when it comes to history, we really need to base these on facts.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.92.61.10 (talk) 15:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOTFORUM. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

text: @208.92.61.10 By the 1840s, the German population of Poznań didn't exceed 40%. Even at the height of German inhabitance, the city was still majority Polish. 85.128.6.226 (talk) 13:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  There's some inaccurate information on Poznan History 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Poznań. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120714064143/http://www.raanana.muni.il:80/English/Topics/My+City/Sister+Cities/ to http://www.raanana.muni.il/English/Topics/My+City/Sister+Cities/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Confirmed as being the correct link. Thanks, . --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Poznań. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140719025116/http://www.szfao.gov.cn/zwgk/wsz/201103/t20110322_1645217.htm to http://www.szfao.gov.cn/zwgk/wsz/201103/t20110322_1645217.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131113092638/http://www.szfao.gov.cn/ygwl/yxyc/ycgy/201101/t20110120_1631663.htm to http://www.szfao.gov.cn/ygwl/yxyc/ycgy/201101/t20110120_1631663.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141112101846/http://www.szfao.gov.cn/ygwl/yxyc/yhjl/ to http://www.szfao.gov.cn/ygwl/yxyc/yhjl/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140718035924/http://mysite.verizon.net/vze85xxc/polegl/RZESZ.html to http://mysite.verizon.net/vze85xxc/polegl/RZESZ.html/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Confirmed as correct x 4. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified