User talk:Burschenschafter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hi. You might want to know that 'fall of Soviet' is meainingless English. Perhaps you mean 'fall of the Soviet Union'? 'fall of communism'? It is hard to tell. Morwen 22:13, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

Your point in name of Torun from TORON in Palestine is interesting, but problem with it is that Teutonic Knights founded their city nearby Polish village called Torun, which existed there earlier. Those Polish peasants were per chance crusaders too ? Szopen 08:16, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

good point! Nevertheless, the teutonic city was the beginning of the present-day city. The name might be inspired by both. Burschenschafter 08:25, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Anyway, i kind can;'t understand your reasoning with Danzig. Danzig was incorporated into Poland with Pece of Thorn. It had substantial authonomy, but clearly it was part of Polish kingdom, as it was recognised both by citizens itself, and everyone in sight. It was not merely "under protection". From legal point of view, it was part of Polish kingdom. Szopen 08:30, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

The concept of nation-state did not exist, and it is historical falsification to call the city "Polish" because it had accepted the overlordship of the Polish king. It was a self-governing German city-state known as Danzig. Burschenschafter

Gdansk is historical POlish name, not invented later. Well, in 1490 maybe it doesn't sound exaclty "Gdansk", but neither it was exactly "Danzig". In that time they used probably "Kdansk" and "Dantzig" or similar, but this is out of scope of this discussion.

Also, Danzig was not city-state. It was part of Polish kingdom. It's status was regulated by laws issued by POLISH parliament (e.g. statut Karnkowskiego). It was part of KINGDOM, not merely recognising overlordship of the king. What supports your theory that it was city-state?

The nation-state as we know today surely don't exist, nevertheless people were calling themselves "Poles" and their kingdom "Polish", and they know what belong to it and what not.

Another point: there was already LONG discussion over using Danzig/Gdansk. You see, 1) Both names are historical names, Gdansk is older than Danzig 2) Both were used in historical period 3) Danzig was predominantly German-speaking (but always there were also Poles living there, especially amongst lower classes) 4) Nevertheless, Danzig/Gdansk was part of Polish kingdom. It had substantial authonomy, but it was "royal" city, it recognized overlordship of Polish kingdom (and not merely "Polish king"). It was incorporated unilateraly into Poland after Prussian confederation asked for it in 1454 or something and then it was confirmed (so it became official)by treaty in 1466 or soemthing. 5) Frankly, don't know how one could rpove that it was city-state. It sometimes tried to behave like that, that's for sure. But then, you could then say than every magnate was separate magnate-state. Poland-Lithuania was not centralised state, more something of federation. Szopen 08:42, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

My point is that it de facto was a city-state with, as you pointed out, substantial authonomy. When it recognized the overlordship, it was granted such rights. However, it was still known as Danzig, by itself as well as in English. The Polish name was in use by the Poles, but this was predominantly a German city (in the pre-1871 meaning).

A very large part of Europe have been formally part of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, but that does not make all of it "German" either. Burschenschafter 08:52, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, de iure it was part of Polish kingdom - a fact recognised by foreign states and Danzigers themselves. You, may argue over de facto indeed - definetely Danzig on occasions tried to behave as independent state, e.g. during Polish-Swedish wars over Inflanty - and it had their own army (as many Polish magnates :) ). But it status was regulated by POlish parliament. The HRE anaology is not that good, since HRE states wre totally independent entities in fact and HRE was way more decentralised than Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth. HRE had not common army, common treasure for example i believe, and HRE states waged wars amongst themselves.

Also, then you wold have to call every magnate possession de facto a state (as had separate armies and also were sedning their own envoys etc).

Also, you couldn't actually argue that in say 1400s or even 1500s it was known by ame "Danzig". The variants i saw of that name in medeival maps are really numerous and amongst them are Kdansk, Dantzk etc etc etc. Szopen 09:02, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, de jure it was part of the Polish kingdom. However, accepting the overlordship of a stronger state/king was not unusual in those days, especially not for a city-state like Danzig, and it did not mean the same as it does today. It does not justify calling it by its Polish name. The Polish king did not care about which name was used for the city, the deal was not about that at all. Danzig was more independent than Poland was during the Soviet time. You are yourself pointing out that it behaved as a souvereign state, which was pretty usual! Burschenschafter ~

No, i said that on occassions it tried to behave as independent state. OTOH there were Polish officials inside of the city. Besides, status of souvereign state is not regulated by laws created by foreign parliaments, isn't it?

One minor point about Heweliusz: well, he wrote letters in fluent Polish (although this was not his native language - he was sent to learn it by his parents in 1627 to some village nearby Bydgoszcz/Bromberg), in which he wrote about "our beloved Polish lands". He was definetely both Polish (by allegation) and German (by ethnicity) astronom. His case also talks a lot about what Danzigers thought about their relation to Poland, since Hevelius was member of city council. He was also later Polish noble. Szopen 09:33, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Talk:Horst Köhler[edit]

I added some explanation for you. Pleas read the attached German-langauge link. You will learn that his parents were not refugees during the war: it was German government, who gave Bessarabia to Soviets, and Germany pulled volunteer imigrants: Volksdeutsche. Of course, if they stayed in Bessarabia, they would have been deported as other non-Germans experienced. The plan behind Nazi-Soviet population transfers was to use Volksdeutsche in German collonisation effort in Poland. If you don't like the history, better do not write at all. I don't think that he was guilty of it (child is not responsible for parent) and even his parents were only tools in the Nazi machine, but I would prefer to state historical truth. Cautious 13:15, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

The Köhler family were not German citizens. So decisions of the German and Soviet governments were not their resposibility. They were per definition refugees.

Should we have notes on Polish colonisation efforts in every articles related to Poles living or born in the German areas occupied after the war? Burschenschafter

There were no refugees. They made the decision of emigration to Germany themselves - read link I send you in German (on the talk page!). You hardly can compare the 2 situations. Poles from Skierbieszow were deported to Auschwitz and their children to Germany. Moreover Germans were settled in the area, that were not annexed to Germany even unitarely. Poles after WW2 were settled within of borders of Poland, recognized internationally. Cautious 07:51, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Sure I can compare the situations. The Germans were killed or deported by the Polish racist apartheid regime after the war. And the Köhlers were not German citizens; despite this fact, they were deported by Stalin. Btw, you should learn better English before you start messing with the Köhler article. Burschenschafter

First of all, Germans were not killed in Poland after WW2. The second: since they didn't posses Polish citizenship, they constituted the population of foreign aliens and according to international law, it is legal to deport such a person. However, it would have never happenned, if Germans hadn't been ethnic cleansing the parts of Poland. And Köhlers took part in it. Cautious 08:47, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of Nico[edit]

Are you a sockpuppet of Nico?

Cautious 08:48, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Languages of Poland[edit]

If you insist on putting the false information that German language is one of the official languages of Poland, why don't you try to make it similarily to the note about Sorbian in the Germany article? German is an official language in several commons (6 AFAIR) while the overall number of all commons is 2489. Halibutt 00:36, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I do not agree that it is false information, but the way it is done in the Germany article is a good idea. Note that I never said German was an official language "of" Poland. Burschenschafter

I elaborated a bit, hope you like it. Halibutt 05:04, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Naming issues[edit]

I have made a proposition in Talk:Gdansk/Naming convention#Other_concepts. In short, it's sing most controversial names when first name appears in artcile and making a msg saying that the names are controversial and pointing to article explaining why. Please, contribute your opinion.Szopen 10:42, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Naming wars[edit]

Since you were either directly or indirectly once involved into edits revolving around "proper" naming of cities like Gdansk/Danzig etc i thought you may be interested in my proposition in User:Szopen/NamingWar. I would want to create a way aimed at stopping the revert wars in future - through creating something like a msg (in see also list or header) explaining that's there is compromise and why, and by linking to the article explaining changes of the statuses of the Royal Prussia province (I would prefer it ot have it as separate article, not scatter it in plethora other articles). I would be happy to hear from you. Szopen 09:15, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Could you possibly explain your manipulating over Szczecin at Talk:Szczecin? I know that we are at revert war now, but let's discuss it. I can promise that at the moment when you start talking, I won't revert your changes. Nevertheless no more revert for tonight as I am going to sleep. Przepla 23:45, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

hi caddie[edit]

if you continue with your actions, we will have to separate the articles. One article Danzig which deals with the city before 1945/46 and one article Gdansk which deals with the city after 1946. How about that? Burschenschafter

How about serprate the WIKIPEDIAs. One that deals with the real world and one that deals with yours? Space Cadet 13:41, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dear Space Cadet,

the Wikipedias are already separated. The People's Republic of Poland version, dealing with your world, are found here:

Viele Grüße -- Burschenschafter 18:43, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dear Nico,
People Republic of Poland doesn't exist for over 14 years, 11 before foundation of WIKIPEDIA. And how would you know which world the Polish WIKI is dealing with if you don't know the language? Why don't you write a book describing your alternate history - where Gdansk was never Polish before 1945, where all Polish kings were German and didn't even speak Polish, etc. - it could be fascinating, and you would be able to really unleash your imagination, instead of just quoting XIX century Prussian "historians", the way you do here. Your friend, SC

Guys, could you please stop the revert war and try to find a common version? What is wrong with the version proposed by Bwood and apparently accepted by all of us (none of us likes it, but it seems like a good compromise at least...)? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 21:27, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
Everything is wrong. As I have said before, the former names needs to be bolded, especially in the cases of Danzig, Stettin and Breslau, and those names are not the "former German name(s)", but the current German names. Burschenschafter

Article Licensing[edit]

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:


Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Image tag[edit]

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image:

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status?

You can use {{gfdl}} if you wish to release your own work under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{PD-self}} if you wish to release your own work to the public domain, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use of someone else's work, and so on. Click here for a list of the various tags.

If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the image from, and I'll tag it for you. (And if you know exactly what this means and are really tired of the constant reminders, please excuse me. They will stop once the tagging project is complete.) Thanks so much. Denni 22:50, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at Wikipedia:Untagged_Images. Thanks again.


Thankyou for this uploaded image, please cite source and copyright, thanks. Duk 06:15, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)