Space Cadet (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 130: | Line 130: | ||
:Well, tell that to those people who voted. The summary at the top of the section [[Talk:Gdansk/Vote#VOTE: Biographies]] states clearly: ''Similar applies to other place names in the region that shares a history between Poland and Germany.'' It is not my opinion, by the way. And of course, [[Wilno]], [[Mińsk]], [[Lwów]] and even [[Lidzbark Warmiński]] do not share the period of history between Poland and Germany in the same way as Gdańsk does. [[User:Alx-pl|<font color=#055505>Alx-pl</font>]] [[User Talk:Alx-pl|<font color=#128812>D</font>]] 17:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC) |
:Well, tell that to those people who voted. The summary at the top of the section [[Talk:Gdansk/Vote#VOTE: Biographies]] states clearly: ''Similar applies to other place names in the region that shares a history between Poland and Germany.'' It is not my opinion, by the way. And of course, [[Wilno]], [[Mińsk]], [[Lwów]] and even [[Lidzbark Warmiński]] do not share the period of history between Poland and Germany in the same way as Gdańsk does. [[User:Alx-pl|<font color=#055505>Alx-pl</font>]] [[User Talk:Alx-pl|<font color=#128812>D</font>]] 17:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC) |
||
Wikipedia should be consistent and what's good for shared German - Polish history should also be good for shared Polish - Ukrainian, - Belarusian and - Lithuanian histories. The vote itself was staged, results falsified and there was never a shadow of any consensus. [[User:Space Cadet|Space Cadet]] 18:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== NPOV-section == |
== NPOV-section == |
Revision as of 18:17, 3 September 2005
Fact move to talk, because of repeated rev. vandal. Johann Georg Adam Forster (November 26, 1754 - January 10, 1794) was a German botanical collector and artist. He was born near the Hanse city of Danzig (Mokry Dwór near Gdansk) in Prussia at the time of the government of Prince Elector Kurfürst Friedrich August II. Wettin. Georg Forster was the son of Johann Reinhold Forster of Dirschau in Prussia.
Hi, are you who I think you are? Welcome back, again. Space Cadet 20:29, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hi, reference to incorrect and unreliable wikipedia entries.
Who had the idea, that Forster had to do something with the Bounty mutiny. The year of the mutiny was 1789 - at this time Forster was professor (I think at Göttingen or librarian in Mainz.--Shug 22:29, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- See german talk of William Bligh: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:William_Bligh
Dietmar 9:22, 4 May 2004
Below is the translated fragment of Treaty of Torun II from 1466. The translation is my, but I tried to do it as literally as possible. You can check with the German or English version if you like: „The Land of Chelmno (Culmen) with its towns (...), the Land of Michalow with (...), as well as the all Land of Pomerania within its ancient borders with all castles, towns (...) will be property of King Casimir and KINGDOM OF POLAND”. And: „For the mentioned His Majesty the King and kings and Kingdom of Poland will belong (from now) for all times the castles and towns mentioned on the basis of this agreement, will belong to law, property and title of KINGDOM OF POLAND and should remain the property (of the KINGDOM) for ever.”
In 1466 it was annexed to Poland (Royal Prussia was not separate entity, it was part of kingdom of Poland - this are words of the treaty. Whoever was corwned king of Poland, automathically became duke of Masovia, Red Ruthenia, Prussia or whatever etc - it was just feudal titles. OTOH, there was separate ceremony to became grand duke of Lithuania (and then he automatically received more titles reserved to dukes of Lithuania). OK? Anyone who became king of Poland AUTOMATICALLY got title of Prussian duke since Royal Prussia was part of Polish kingdom.
Until 1525 or so Royal PRussia had very substantial authonomy: separate treasury for example, also many times envoys from Royal Prussia were not sitting in Polish parliament, despite having right to it. But in 1525 the differences in law and administration of Royal Prussia was finally (and other polish separatism) was removed. So, for the best you could claim that it was Prussian 1309-1525 (Ignoring the fact, that legally Royal Prussia was part of Polish kingdom - with substantial authonomy - in 1466).
Take for example grand duchy of Poznan. IIRC Prussian kings had the title of grand duke of Poznan, right? But that does not mean that Poznan was not part of Prussia kingdom.
So, it was Polish for some time before 1309 (no time to count: it would be to tedious, since there are times when it was Polish, then indirectly Polish, independent, again Polish etc etc etc) so it was not 300 years but say half of that amount at least then Prussian for 1466-1309 = 157 years, then authonomy part of Polish kingdom 1466-1525 = 59 years, then Polish 1525 - 17.. umm 1700 something, say 225 years for equal count, then Prussian to 1919 - say 170 years, then again Polish 19 years. So we have circa ~327 years of Prussian + 59 of authonomy, and circa ~400 years of Polish rule + 59 years when Royal Prussia was authonomous part of Polish kingdom. No matter how you turn the cat around you can still see his tail
P.S. Comment by User:Szopen. I did not want to duplicate the same arguments again.Yeti 11:49, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Yeti, please read the article Personal union and try to understand it. The king of Poland was king in Poland, but Grand Duke in Prussia (only in West Prussia of course). As to the concept of Personal union, Royal Prussia was never part of Poland. Some kings wanted it to become a part of Poland, but the West Prussian always rejected.
- What would you think if I would fool around and declare everyone who was born in Congress Poland between 1815 and 1917 to be born in XXX, (Russia) ? --Irredenta 13:44, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Unfortunatelly, personal union does not apply to Royal Prussia. I have given you strong FACTS that in 17th and 18th centuries Royal prussia was integral part of Poland (Greater Poland province). You continue your blah, blah. If you think that you are right, please give ARGUMENTS. Citation from original documents would be appreciated. Bye.Yeti 13:53, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Irredenta, you are not quite with agreement with facts. The 1525 unification of laws and administration between provinces of Royal Prussia and other Polish provinces were strongly opposed by kings and Prussian elites, but on the other hands they were storngly backed by Polish parliament and lower Prussian gentry (the deputes to Polish parliament were blackmailed, threatened etc by Prussian elites). The leaders of those Prussian elites were for example direct descendatns of emigrees from Greater Poland in second or third generation.
- Royal Prussia was not in Personal union with Poland. You could find some arguments for that BEFORE 1525 (separate treasury, local parliament, spearate laws) but definetely not after 1525, when unification of laws etc was introduced. And even before 1525 it was still not tied with personal union, because it was province of Polish kingdom, property of Polish kings. The only way to became duke of Royal Prussia was to be elected king of Poland. Could you please provide any arguments for "it was in personal union with Poland", except of course of "it was, because i think it was". The arguments backing it would be:
- there had to be separate ceremony to became duke of Royal Prussia (but there wasn't !)
- there was separate treasury, army, parliament (two of those were existing BEFORE 1525)
- There was a treaty in which it is stated that Royal Prussia and POland will be tied by person of monarch only (but there wasn't any treaty between Royal Prussia and Poland!)
- There was not a treaty stating that Royal Prussia is simply annexed into Poland (but there was!)
- There were no common institutions between Poland and Royal Prussia (But there were!)
- Documents issued in Royal Prussia would be issued as "Duke of Prussia" and not as "King of Poland" - don't know over that, i guess if you search, you could find some before 1525 (damn, or was it 1569? I had to go to my library and find the exact date.. i tend to think it was the same year when UoL was signed and also unification of Duchy of Auschwitz took place), since Polish kings tried to preserve separate status of Royal Prussia against the will of executionist' movement
For you information, for example Poland and Lithuania were in personal union BEFORE UoL, after that it became something more; (the high point of achievements of Polish executionist's movement - when finally king agreed to most of proposed reforms - ironically, today it is HE who is credited for them, not people who were fighting for them for so long...)
I am not saying you are lying out of purpose or you were not reading enough history books, i rather prefer to think that maybe you know something we don't. If so, please write it, i am always very glad to learn something new. But i have some feeling that any try to prove that Royal Prussia was not part of Poland, especially AFTER 1525, are doomed to fail.
Anyway, i wonder what is your opinion of Grand Duchy of Poznan - which WAS tied in personal union with PRussia, since there are TREATIES which confirm it: do you think, that basing on that you could ignore later changes to legal system of Poznan and still claim that say in 1918 anyone born in Posen was in fact born in Polish Grand Duchy of Poznan? If no, could you please explain the differences between situation of Royal Prussia and Grand Duchy of Poznan which would explain your opinion? Szopen 07:41, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Szopen, let's abuse User_talk:John_Kenney#Conflict for this discussion, there is no sence in copying it over to half a dozen seperate pages. --Irredenta 15:23, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Anti-Polonism
- "Despite being born in Poland, Forster expressed extreme antipolish views, and often insulted Poles in his writings, thus being one of the creators of antipolonism in Prussia".
Looks like someone doesn't want readers to know what he wrote about Poland. What did he write? Please cite reliable sources(WP:CITE).NightBeAsT
- "Despite being born in Poland, Forster expressed extreme antipolish views, and often insulted Poles in his writings, thus being one of the creators of antipolonism in Prussia".
How many times did he insult? How many times did he not insult? Source required by someone who knows about all he has ever written in his life.NightBeAsT
- "Despite being born in Poland, Forster expressed extreme antipolish views, and often insulted Poles in his writings, thus being one of the creators of antipolonism in Prussia".
Cite reliable sources. NightBeAsT 00:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Done. Although I think you're exaggerating, requesting references for almost every single word. --Wojsyl (talk) 03:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Still looks like someone wants to gloss over something. What exactly does these "reliable sources" (you could have posted anything) say on his writings? Do it like this "[quotation]"(source, page, line).NightBeAsT 13:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- What is this about? You've offered references very quickly, Wojsyl. Not only did you provide "reliable sources" but you also named pages as if you really, really had a point and looked the references up. But: why have you not provided quotes so we can see that these sources came to the same conclusions as you did? This throws serious suspicion on you, dear contributor. If you or that Molobo delete {dubious} again without having the statements verified - and I doubt they can be verified because the "often" is opiniated because it's unlikely that someone has read all his sources - it is likely that you're not telling the truth here. I won't give in until you give quotes.NightBeAsT 16:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Quotes have been already given.Besides you always ignore and delete quotes if they don't suit you.The most absurd thing was your deletation of Bismarck speech explaining why he started Kulturkampf in the Kulturkampf article.--Molobo 16:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Quotes were given? Do you see any quotes or are you just lying again? And about deleting your quotes: tell the whole truth. Yes, if you mingle quotes with unreadable rant and put them on my talk page I'll delete them from my talk page just like Witkacy deletes all my comments from his. I said the quotes should be reworked. After you reworked them, I kept them on my talk page so what is your point beside libelling me by telling not the whole truth? And now on the subject of quotes: if you can find "reliable source" and pages alledgedly proving what you've said, why do you back out like a liar who has just been caught? This is a very obvious dispute and if you don't cooperate with other wikipedians there, I might like to forward this dispute because you won't stand a chance in this case, and I already know where a lot more neutral persons care about it. So choose: give in here or there.NightBeAsT 17:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Could you refrain from personal attacks ? Calling people "liars" is not going to help your case. As for the quote that Molobo gave, it was enough to follow the link he provided to see that it originated from a serious source. You might benefit by trying to read more instead of blindly reverting other editors. --Wojsyl (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Stop trying to distract from your failure to cover your quotes up. No one made personal attacks: no one said "liar". I asked whether Molobo was making false statements that he know are false (=to lie) eg calling my reverts vandalism. I know your aim is to try to change the topic because you weren't quite honest about these sources and what they stated and I know that your next comments will try to change the topic and so will Molobo.NightBeAsT 18:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Could you refrain from personal attacks ? Calling people "liars" is not going to help your case. As for the quote that Molobo gave, it was enough to follow the link he provided to see that it originated from a serious source. You might benefit by trying to read more instead of blindly reverting other editors. --Wojsyl (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Quotes were given? Do you see any quotes or are you just lying again? And about deleting your quotes: tell the whole truth. Yes, if you mingle quotes with unreadable rant and put them on my talk page I'll delete them from my talk page just like Witkacy deletes all my comments from his. I said the quotes should be reworked. After you reworked them, I kept them on my talk page so what is your point beside libelling me by telling not the whole truth? And now on the subject of quotes: if you can find "reliable source" and pages alledgedly proving what you've said, why do you back out like a liar who has just been caught? This is a very obvious dispute and if you don't cooperate with other wikipedians there, I might like to forward this dispute because you won't stand a chance in this case, and I already know where a lot more neutral persons care about it. So choose: give in here or there.NightBeAsT 17:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Quotes have been already given.Besides you always ignore and delete quotes if they don't suit you.The most absurd thing was your deletation of Bismarck speech explaining why he started Kulturkampf in the Kulturkampf article.--Molobo 16:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- What is this about? You've offered references very quickly, Wojsyl. Not only did you provide "reliable sources" but you also named pages as if you really, really had a point and looked the references up. But: why have you not provided quotes so we can see that these sources came to the same conclusions as you did? This throws serious suspicion on you, dear contributor. If you or that Molobo delete {dubious} again without having the statements verified - and I doubt they can be verified because the "often" is opiniated because it's unlikely that someone has read all his sources - it is likely that you're not telling the truth here. I won't give in until you give quotes.NightBeAsT 16:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Nightbeast, while I might be interested in your personal opinions, they do not qualify as encyclopedic sources. If you're questioning Forster's contribution to German anti-polonism, provide a single scholarly source that disputes this fact. Until you do this, I cannot treat your concerns seriously. --Wojsyl (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Am I going to your talk page, state there for example that "You're a bastard" and post three German sources as excuse and a page reference which have nothing to do with it all, and say on the talk page "I've posted sources now, so disprove them". It's just like at court: unguilty until proven guilty, so prove he's guilty or do without. No matter how you see it, you're not telling the truth and now prattling nonsense to cover it up.NightBeAsT 17:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Except of coruse the sources given and quotes are on topic.--Molobo 17:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
A quote was given from "Black Legend of Poland" in which Forster compares Poles to cattle.--Molobo 17:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- This doesn't justify more than the quote itself: it doesn't prove he "He expressed extreme antipolish views", nor that he was "one of the precursors of antipolonism in Prussia", nor that "He was also the author of German nationalistic "Polnische Wirtschaft" stereotype, the term that he coined in 1784" - all it proves that he has ONCE insulted Poles, which does not even justify the claim that he "often insulted Poles in his writings". And you, Molobo, and me, we know that this is so and that you're trying to cover up the truth when you play down the need for quotes there.NightBeAsT 18:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- NightBeast, although I personally sympathy with your view, my own experience with Wojsyl shows me that he is a serious editor, and not one who would go lying about his sources. I only wish more Polish editors would benefit from his example, instead of falling into a polono-centric POV so easily. National pride is commendable and worthy of respect, but it's a luxury that we cannot allow ourselves here. Frankly, I would also like to see the full context of the "quote" provided by Molubo, taken directly from Forster's book, instead of showing that other unknown person at some web page says he once said four selected words (an unreliable way of backing up an argument, IMHO). Yet, at least that website exists, so the proper way to contend these arguments should be with sources that contradict them. I'm sure there must exist books or essays that discuss the (alleged) anti-polonism of Forster, so it would be great to investigate the subject and bring them to attention here. Otherwise, this discussion is deemed to failure. Just my two cents.
- BTW, I hope you all like my redesign of the article better. I tried to keep all the contents as integral as they were. - Shauri 18:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Link is already given to review of scientific book that includes summary of Forster views. --Molobo 19:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- I know, Molombo, that's why I say that the website exists, and that's also the reason why I kept it at the article when I redesigned its layout. It is also the reason why I recommended NightBeast to provide sources of his own to contend it, instead of deleting the reference to it. What I said is that I'd personally prefer the quote to be taken from the original source rather than from a second hand one: the more intermediates, the more an idea can be distorted. That's especially true when the "quote" is not the center of the idea discussed by the source, but more like an incidental comment, and this is exactly the case. Personally, I consider it insufficient, and I wouldn't provide such an incomplete source to support my arguments; but hey, you're not me, and you're free to do what you want. - Shauri 12:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- You may well be right but the feeling that they're dishonest there and try to cover up something is very strong and the possibility of them only pretending to cover it someting up and then come up with evidence only to show that I've been wrong is little in my opinion. I've to go for today and hope that some others join this discussion and express their opinions on it.NightBeAsT 19:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Nightbeast, I apologize. I might have been overreacting, but I found your constant denial of facts quite irritating. I will not provide the quotes that you request because ... I do not have the sources at home. You've asked for the sources, I made bibliographical notes and provided them. I did not make notes for quoting the sources, as you did not request this. Now I'm not going to waste my time to look again for quotes only to satisfy your next request. It's your turn now - you have the sources that you asked for. If you consider them inadequate, please provide your specific concerns. I agree that Stasiewski's article may be questioned, as being influenced by Nazi ideology. But Krause's book and especially Bömelburg's article seem quite credible to me. If you have any specific objections, voice them but do not discredit sources only because they contradict your personal opinions. --Wojsyl (talk) 08:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oh come on. "I found your constant denial of facts quite irritating", "I did not make notes for quoting the sources, as you did not request this", "I'm not going to waste my time to look again for quotes", "It's your turn now - you have the sources that you asked for" "do not discredit sources only because they contradict your personal opinions." Come on! I know the behaviour when someone is bluffing: look how long I've investigated the article about Anti-Polonism (Talk: Anti-Polonism). Let's just play with our cards on the table. All these "references" come from the Internet and pretend to prove your assertions in the wiki article but in reality are just references for and by other sources on the Internet: Reference No1, Reference No2, Reference No3", Reference No4. I don't know where your claims are from but they needed and still need reliable sources to be based on. I judged them {dubious} because they claim to be able to say how many times Forster has insulted Poles, which is absurd in my opinion - "often" is certainly too far-fetched. I'm not calling you a liar (sorry if I have given you this impression, Wojsyl) but a good bluffer. It's just that lately I've been very sick of these bluffers (eg on Kulturkampf, Anti-Polonism and everything else connected to the propagandistic contributions by Molobo and Witkacy). I'd be happy if you could rework that paragraph, Wojsyl, or anyone else (except for Molobo and Witkacy of course) who knows something about the case.NightBeAsT 12:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not able to say "how many times" since as I said I do not have access to the contents of the sources that I provided bibliographical references for. I also don't think that any source would respond to your question "now many times". I'm afraid I'm not able to contribute to the article more now. I've only added some more facts, most to them well known, and copyedited a bit. Hopefully you like it better now then before. I hope that Alx-pl will be able to improve it further, when he does his research for more online sources, so that we end up with more complete and balanced article. Thanks for not calling me a liar. --Wojsyl (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oh come on. "I found your constant denial of facts quite irritating", "I did not make notes for quoting the sources, as you did not request this", "I'm not going to waste my time to look again for quotes", "It's your turn now - you have the sources that you asked for" "do not discredit sources only because they contradict your personal opinions." Come on! I know the behaviour when someone is bluffing: look how long I've investigated the article about Anti-Polonism (Talk: Anti-Polonism). Let's just play with our cards on the table. All these "references" come from the Internet and pretend to prove your assertions in the wiki article but in reality are just references for and by other sources on the Internet: Reference No1, Reference No2, Reference No3", Reference No4. I don't know where your claims are from but they needed and still need reliable sources to be based on. I judged them {dubious} because they claim to be able to say how many times Forster has insulted Poles, which is absurd in my opinion - "often" is certainly too far-fetched. I'm not calling you a liar (sorry if I have given you this impression, Wojsyl) but a good bluffer. It's just that lately I've been very sick of these bluffers (eg on Kulturkampf, Anti-Polonism and everything else connected to the propagandistic contributions by Molobo and Witkacy). I'd be happy if you could rework that paragraph, Wojsyl, or anyone else (except for Molobo and Witkacy of course) who knows something about the case.NightBeAsT 12:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Nightbeast, I apologize. I might have been overreacting, but I found your constant denial of facts quite irritating. I will not provide the quotes that you request because ... I do not have the sources at home. You've asked for the sources, I made bibliographical notes and provided them. I did not make notes for quoting the sources, as you did not request this. Now I'm not going to waste my time to look again for quotes only to satisfy your next request. It's your turn now - you have the sources that you asked for. If you consider them inadequate, please provide your specific concerns. I agree that Stasiewski's article may be questioned, as being influenced by Nazi ideology. But Krause's book and especially Bömelburg's article seem quite credible to me. If you have any specific objections, voice them but do not discredit sources only because they contradict your personal opinions. --Wojsyl (talk) 08:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- You may well be right but the feeling that they're dishonest there and try to cover up something is very strong and the possibility of them only pretending to cover it someting up and then come up with evidence only to show that I've been wrong is little in my opinion. I've to go for today and hope that some others join this discussion and express their opinions on it.NightBeAsT 19:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
"it doesn't prove he "He expressed extreme antipolish views"" Of course.Calling Poles "cattle in human form" isn't antipolish at all.Nice. --Molobo 19:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Actually no, not necessarily. Anti-Polonism is defined as an "irrational fear or malicious hostility toward Poles", not "when someone has once insulted Poles as a whole". You can only speculate why Forster acted so - but don't speculate, Molobo, because your constant jumping to self-righteous conclusions on Talk: Anti-Polonism is already getting boring.NightBeAsT 12:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Constant deletion of the Gdansk voting notice
The Gdansk vote has created a rule which you are to follow, Witkacy and Space Cadet. I was not involved in the voting at all and you can cry about the outcome as long as you want to but the outcome is definite. Deleting the notice from the talk page is therefore Avoidance Vandalism. I don't know what reasons you have to delete it but if you've reasons you're not afraid to state, do it. Every pointless unexplained revert only undermines your credibility because it indicates vandalism. If you're really under the illusion that you're right, address Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion and the administrator who added the notice, and try to convince them there. Until then the administrator's decision is definite.NightBeAsT 16:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Well, actually, that's one big mess... Admins don't determine policy, and article talk pages are an extremely dubious place to establish policy, too. What really amazes me is that there's more heated reverting of the notice, than of the article edit it's supposedly concerning. I'm not much bothered about the former, but the latter seems pretty obvious. Would anyone care to argue on it's supposed merits why the Polish-names only could possibly be superior? Or is anti-vote disruption the real goal here? At any rate, I'm replacing the previous wording, as I've seen no argument whatsoever for the new one. Alai 04:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- And while we're at this - shouldn't that notice apply to Royal Prussia too? The constant use of the name Gdansk at that article should be replaced by Danzig, since most of its related History falls in the 1308-1945 period described at the Vote Resolution. - Shauri 22:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- I've noticed several articles like that, in fact. Unfortunately, I don't think the "notice" is helping; judging by results, it's a bit more like a red-bordered flag to a bull. It provokes an immediate edit war on the notice, too, and isn't generally regarded as enforceable. Better IMO to just make the appropriate edits, in the short term, and in the longer, to resolve the underlying dispute someplace where it can actually be seen to be in line with policy (and thus be able to modify it) -- i.e., at a naming conventions page. Alai 17:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- And while we're at this - shouldn't that notice apply to Royal Prussia too? The constant use of the name Gdansk at that article should be replaced by Danzig, since most of its related History falls in the 1308-1945 period described at the Vote Resolution. - Shauri 22:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Results on VOTE: Period from 1466 to 1793
48 votes for using Gdańsk 47 votes for using Danzig [1] --Witkacy 13:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- No, actually, Witkacy, you *forgot* to tell us about the real outcome.
- Results on VOTE: Period from 1466 to 1793
- Votes for Danzig: 46 votes (excluding 1 vote due to low edit count of the voter)
- Votes for Gdansk: 36 votes (excluding 12 votes due to low edit count of the voters or anonymous voting) (Talk:Gdansk/Vote).NightBeAsT 14:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Nassenhuben/Mokry Dwór reverts
Guys, does it really matter which name comes first ? Don't you have better things to do ? Anyway, what was the official name of the village in 1754. I believe it belonged to Poland at that time, right ? --Wojsyl (talk) 12:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- The problem is that the policy voted there: Talk:Gdansk/Vote#VOTE: Biographies states that the German name should go first and both names should be mentioned at the first occurrence. Besides, I agree that this is a bit irrational as well as the vote for the period 1466 to 1793 is (where the bit is considerably larger). Alx-pl D 13:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Sincerely, I'm a bit confused. The voting concerned naming of Danzig/Gdańsk city. How do they apply to other cities and villages across wikipedia ? I don't intend to discuss here the sensibility of the voting outcome or whether voting or consensus is the proper way to establish a policy. I just don't see what this has to do with Nassenhuben/Mokry Dwór village here. If I read the results of the vote correctly, it says: "For Gdańsk, use the name Danzig between 1308 and 1945", and does not mention anything about other towns or villages in Poland or elsewhere. Or am I missing something ... ? --Wojsyl (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Note that the message from the template above states:
- 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, e.g. Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) or Gdańsk (Danzig).
- This means that the form which stays in accordance with this policy is Nassenhuben (now [[Mokry Dwór]], Poland) (as Forster identified himself rather with the German nation). Alx-pl D 16:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Nonsense! A lot of votes were justified by the fact that Danzig existed as the name of the city in English language for centuries! Now, don't tell me that the same is true for Nassenhuben! If you want to extrapolate the results of the vote onto other cities - try Wilno, Mińsk and Lwów! Space Cadet 16:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Well, tell that to those people who voted. The summary at the top of the section Talk:Gdansk/Vote#VOTE: Biographies states clearly: Similar applies to other place names in the region that shares a history between Poland and Germany. It is not my opinion, by the way. And of course, Wilno, Mińsk, Lwów and even Lidzbark Warmiński do not share the period of history between Poland and Germany in the same way as Gdańsk does. Alx-pl D 17:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia should be consistent and what's good for shared German - Polish history should also be good for shared Polish - Ukrainian, - Belarusian and - Lithuanian histories. The vote itself was staged, results falsified and there was never a shadow of any consensus. Space Cadet 18:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
NPOV-section
This source suggests that Forster was also controversial for Germans, French and Englishmen so the current version of the section Biography is out of balance and thus POV. Alx-pl D 16:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Well done. An online source hopefully will appeal to Nightbeast better than biographical references.
- A Scotsman from origin, a Pole by birth, a cosmopolite by character – he never stayed long anywhere. The Poles could not forget the malicious saying – “polnische Wirtschaft”, the Germans couldn’t overlook the fact that he supported joining the Rhine region to France, the English people – the fact that he was a republican, and the French always considered him a foreigner.
- The article currently mentions that Forster was expelled from Germany for his French sympathies and that he was famous of his anti-Polish statements. As for being considered a foreigner by French or a republican by English, I don't consider these serious enough to make it into the article. But feel free to add this if you think it would improve the balance. --Wojsyl (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I'll try to find more material with regard to this issue within a few days to resovle the NPOV mark. Alx-pl D 17:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Here is a short description of the Mainz Republic history in which Forster played a notable role 17:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Here is a description of the conflict between Cook and Forster (and Forster's father). 18:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Here is a thorough description of the Mainz affair 20:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- This source states that the term Polnische Wirtschaft was mentioned in a private letter from 1784. 11:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Here is a fragment of another private letter of Froster from 1786 in which he expresses his negative attitude to Poles. 11:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)