Wikipedia

Talk:John Amos Comenius/Archive 1

< Talk:John Amos Comenius
Latest comment: 14 years ago by 91.148.159.4 in topic How he is important
Archive 1

Untitled

Duplicate article. See Komensky.
S.

Fixed. Meant to do it in the first place. Kpjas

Lissa -> Leszno

It was not Lissa city were Comenius went (Lissa is at Adriatic See), but Polish city Leszno !!!!

Someone changed this already.

chancellor Oxenstierna

Which of of this big family Oxenstierna was that? Sebastian 02:10, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)

Komná or Komňa?

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I corrected what I considered to be mistake - there was 3 times used Komná and I corrected it to Komňa. But then I looked into history and found that there was originally Komňa and somebody replaced it with Komná. So finally, I'm czech and by coincidence I live approx. 5 km from Komňa so I really know that in czech it is Komňa and I doubt that there is some english name for it. So please leave it as it is now - Komňa.

Eddie

Comenio's own hand drawn map of Moravia reads Komna. I presume that HE himself can find name for his very own village where he was born in. Also he uses "Niwnitz" instead of "Nivnice" and "Hun. Brod" instead of "Uher. Brod". I am holding and reading HIS own hand drawn map now. I presume those names beyond question, but today's Czech maps changed those names so will not change the main page because I presume that Czechs would revert them back. IEEE 23:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Little bit old.. but Niwnitz is german transcription... on lots of old maps are in german. Hun can be from ungarn/hungary == uherský (hungarian) and so on... it is 21. century... so Komensky's map is interesting curiosity, but i think it is not 100% source. --Tutchek (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Humanism

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Was Comenius really a humanist? It states in the article that he was a Protestant bishop. How then could he have been a humanist? Is humanism not alligned with agnosicism to a certain degree? Paddyman1989 21:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

There are a couple of definitions for "Humanist." The secular humanist we know of today from the Humanist Manifestos is most certainly NOT what Jon Comenius was or dared consider himself. He was a humanist because he was concerned with the welfare and the empowerment of those around him, unlike the Roman Catholic clergy of his time. ---Matt B.'s response

Gdańsk/Danzig and Elbląg/Elbing in the times of Comenius

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dear User:71.137.207.147, please learn some history before you try again changing the page. You can start from Wikipedia. Gdańsk (Danzig) and Elbląg (Elbing) were both in Poland during the life of Comenius. From History of Gdańsk:

In 1440 Danzig joined the nearby Hanseatic cities of Elbing and Thorn (Toruń) to form the Prussian Confederation, which rebelled (February 1454) against the Teutonic Order's rule and sought protection from King Casimir IV of Poland. An "Act of Incorporation of Royal Prussia" was signed in Kraków (March 6, 1454), recognizing Pomerelia as part of the Polish Kingdom. The resulting Thirteen Years' War ended with the Order's defeat and surrender to the Polish crown (Second Peace of Toruń, 19 October 1466) of its rights in Pomerelia and the rest of the area, subsequently known as Royal Prussia.

The rest of former state of the Teutonic Knights became Ducal Prussia. From the article about it:

Ducal Prussia (Polish: Prusy Książęce), or the Duchy of Prussia (German: Herzogtum Preußenⓘ), was a duchy established in 1525 in the eastern part of Prussia, after western Prussia had become the Polish province of Royal Prussia according to the Peace of Toruń (Thorn) in 1466. The first Protestant (Lutheran) state, the capital of Ducal Prussia was Königsberg.

Take note: neither Gdańsk nor Elbląg belonged to Ducal Prussia, the only state of the name at the time (Royal Prussia was simply a province of Poland). Gdańsk had a great authonomy but it certainly belonged to Poland, not Prussia and by it own choice. I have doubts whether there were any official city names at the time. The Poles (including the court of the king to whom the cities belonged) used obviously latinized versions of the Polish versions (Gedania in the case of Gdańsk) in Latin documents and the Polish name in speach. One can therefore argue that Gdańsk and Elbląg were the only official names at the time (if anything like an official name existed then). Most of the inhabitants spoke German and used the name of Danzig (therefore Dantiscum in Latin documents!) and Elbing. In short, before you start revising history again, please do some reseach. If you do not believe Wikipedia, buy any good history of Gdańsk/Danzig, Prussia or Poland. Thank you. Friendly Neighbour 16:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Danzig and Elbing in the times of Comenius

Latest comment: 18 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

Dear User Friendly Neighbor, The sources you listed are wikipedia material and posted at the bottom of each wikipedia article is a disclaimer warning.

Following are some factual records. Thorn, Danzig, Elbing, Prussia. A Holy Roman Empire list of 1615 specifically states Thorn, Danzig, Elbing in Prussia This work by historian Bertius also list the officers, town countries connected to SRI/HRE

Danzig records of inhabitants since Reformation

Elbing records of inhabitants since reformation

You might also look at Free City of Danzig, particularly read the section Danzig 1557-1660 and the external link.

By the way, have you looked at actual original city records of Danzig and Elbing? If not, go some day and look at and read records from Danzig and Elbing (going back many centuries) in todays Museums at Gdansk and Elblag. Let me give you a hint, a person who can only read Polish-language (or Latin ) will be of no help to you.

Somewhere here at wikipedia I have also read User: Sca's advice to some people, if you want factual history, get some history books, wikipedia is not the place. I will also not go into the problem with large amounts of onesided wikipedia entries, dictated by a particular group of people, which produce articles, such as the ones you referred to.

But I also suggest, that you read a number of history books, that you go look at factual records and that you do that for an extended time period. Perhaps then you will come up with some more factual knowledge Labbas 04 September 2006

I'll answer you in points:
  • You need not prove that Germans were the majority in both cities at the time. I said it myself above. That does not disprove that both the cities belonged to Poland at the times of Comenius. They did. You cannot change the history, however painful it is to you.
  • Again, the original records of the cities are not relevant here. We are not discussing the ethnic composition of 17th century Danzig or Elbing but which country they belonged to.
  • Actually if you looked at the documents of the time you might have notices how many white eagels (the emblems of Polish kings) they have. You might have wondered why there are no emblems of Prussia on the documents of the era. The reason was simple. Elbing did not belong to Prussia until 1772 and Gdańsk until 1793.
  • I do not understand why you refer to me the article on the Free City of Danzig. The article says (rightly) that Danzig (Gdańsk) was a free city twice in its history: 1807-1815 and 1920-1939. Comenius lived in the 17th century, when Gdańsk was most certainly the richest (and biggest) city of a state known themn as Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth which we refer to as Poland here for simplicity. It's even listed as the biggest city on the table in the artice I linked in the previous sentence.
  • It seems funny to me that you claim Wikipedia is not factual when it suits you and then refer me to a Wikipedia article.
  • You did not read my advice to you? At least not to the end? Otherwise you would not advice me to read history books while I gave you the same advice yesterday ;-)
Best regards, Friendly Neighbour 05:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi again,

you seem to get a little confused, or perhaps you do not know, that the western Prussian state emblem or seal has been the Black Prussian Eagle, but with a sword arm, a raised arm holding a sword horizontal over the head and with the inscription TERRAE PRUSSIAE or Land Preussen (State of Prussia). The governor of western Prussia in the 15th century sealed the state documents with a seal Gubernatoris Terrarum Prusie (seal of the governor of Prussia).

I cannot really fault you for being a bit mixed up, for in 1562 already a Danzig representative, named Georg Kleefeld, at Petrikau had to make it clear that the (state seal) Sigilum of Land Prussia are not under one Sigilum (seal) with Poland, because apparently some Poles already had tried to claim that at that time.

Both Prussian Eagles, the Black one of eastern or Ducal Prussia and the Black one with the sword arm from western Prussia, (by the 18th century also referred to as Prussia polnischen Anteils (by the Saxon imperial electors August, who happened to be also kings of Poland and Grand Dukes of Lithuania, etc) have been based on the Black Imperial eagle given to the Teutonic Order for Prussia by emperor Frederick II.

1586 at Thorn a new seal was established Sigillum Terrarum Prussiae which was for both parts of Prussia and was kept at Elbing. All laws, mandates etc in Prussia were sealed with this seal and not to be used for any documents with Polish language. Any law, mandate proposed in Prussia, that did not get this seal, did not become effective.

Independent status of western Prussia ended , when it joined the kingdom of Prussia in 1772 and turned the seal in.

In 1881 Westprussia , based on the former state seal of western Prussia until 1772, re-established the Black eagle with the sword arm.

When you talk about white eagle on documents flags, etc, do you mean white eagle on red? Such is the imperial eagle of the (imperial) city of Frankfurt am Main, for example, or the white eagle on blue of the (imperial) city of Schweinfurt and a number of other previous imperial places. So you see ,not only a black eagle was based on imperial status.

To your observation on the Free City of Danzig wikipedia article, sorry, I thought I did, anyway I meant to point you to the part and external link Danzig 1557-1660, in which it states Danzig had successfully defended her autonomy against the Polish monarchy.

Best regards, Labbas 05 September 2006

I know the emblem. And whose arm and sword do you think it represents? I'll give you a hint. The same king's whose crown was added to the city emblem of Gdańsk (or Danzig if you prefer) when it was incorporated to Poland. Before that the city emblem established at the time it belonged to the Teutonic Order was simply two crosses. Both the changes were done simultaneously. By the way, the arm with sword was also the ensign of the Polish Navy at the time. Therefore you may see (or maybe not) that a black Prussian eagle under the armed hand of the king of Poland is not a symbol of independent Prussia.
Generally, please stop wasting everyon'e time and start actually reading about the history of cities you rave so much about. Your comments like "some king of Poland was dux of westPrussia. Prussia was never Poland -until 1945 conquest by Communists" show a picture of someone who has no idea on what he is talking about. I do not want to spend another 30 minutes explaining to you the difference of status of various territories having Prussia in their names. It has nothing to do with the article about Comenius. And the borders of Poland in the 17th century are well known to historians and not prone to any revisions. Full stop. And if you don't believe neither Wikipedia nor me, maybe you'll believe the map of Poland in 17th century from the Library of Congress or this EuroAtlas map of Europe in year 1600. Friendly Neighbour 17:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

To Friendly Neighbor

You would like me to believe you and show as proof this supposed map of 17th century and this supposed map of Europe in year 1600. Oh - dear - I took one look at them and they are 20/21 th century descriptions- assumptions- opinions - but they are not actual maps - One even has the year 2003 on it and one states no guarantee of complete accuracy

My advice, keep at it, in a number of years you might actually gain some knowledge of facts and not just of repeated opinions.

I applaud you for showing an interest and for trying.


End of discussion - Labbas 08 September 2006

Do you deny all the history books there are? All the historical atlases? All relevant Wikipedia articles? What kind of historical revisionist are you? Friendly Neighbour 18:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
If you do not believe modern historical maps, here is a map of Kingdom of Poland and Grand Duchy of Lithuania published by N. Vischer. Amsterdam, 17c.. If you know where Elbing is, you can see its inside the Polish borders. Take note that Prussia is also listed in the title of the map among provinces of Poland (Prussia, Cuiavia, Mazovia) in the map caption. Of course, feel free to deny this map. A good reason may be the name of the server ;-) Tschüss! Friendly Neighbour 19:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
And if you believe only the German sources, please look at this short Webpage about Elbing from a server named www.reise-nach-ostpreussen.de. It says: "In den Jahren 1466 bis 1772 gehörte Elbing zu Polen und wurde während der Herrschaft des Königs Sigismund ein wichtiger Kriegshafen.".
So please stop adding historical nonsenses to the page on Comenius. Thank you. Friendly Neighbour 19:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

to Friendly Neighbor I keep telling you, look for historical sources by historians. Hobby travel is fine for hobbies. The internet is full of hobbyists. Go look for primary sources. And please do not leave any more of your rather odd (to say it mildly) messages, I already wrote- end of discussion - that means I have already spent way too much time on this discussion. Labbas 8 September 2006


Short resume of the Danzig & Elbing argument

For the lazy editors here is a short resume:

At the time of Comenius both Danzig (Gdańsk) and Elbing (Elbląg) belonged to Poland (which at the time had the official name of Commonwealth of Poland and Lithuania). The province of Poland they were in had the official name of Royal Prussia. However, Royal Prussia was not a separete state, unlike the neighbouring Duchy of Prussia, which was dependent on Poland at the time being its fief but were a separate legal entity with its own separate ruler. Therefore writing that Danzig or Elbing were in Prussia at the time is at minumum ambiguous and certainly strongly misleading, suggesting that the cities belonged to a state named Prussia. For most readers, the name Prussia suggests Kingdom of Prussia which was created only in 1701 and came into possession of Elbing during the Partitions of Poland in 1772 and Danzig in 1793. Comenius, on the other hand, lived between 1572 and 1670 when both cities belonged to Poland. Therefore the formula "Elbing (Elbląg) in Royal Prussia, a province of Poland" is not only completely true but conveys maximum amount of formation in a short text.Friendly Neighbour 18:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Danzig and Elbing on Maps and Inhabitants Records from 1600's

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comenius&action=edit&section=8

Labbas 8 September 2006

Can't you understand that nobody questions the German majority in both cities in 17th century?
Now, the maps:
  • The first has no borders. In fact it seems to show that London and Paris belong to Germania. Please don't joke.
  • The second and fourth map clearly show the borders of the Teutonic Order and Poland in late 14th or early 15th century. They are made much later and were probably maps showing history not the present borders at the moment of its creation.
  • The third add fifth (two copies of the same map) are a real riot. They seem to be very ancient but the borders that show are obviously East Prussia and the Free City of Danzig glued together, that is the situation between 1920 and 1939. At no other time a state border cut off Danzig from its interior to the west. I believe it is some kind of Nazi pseudo-historical wall decoration, not a historical map.
Once more, why you disbelieve modern historians (Germam, Polish, British, just any) and believe undated maps of dubios authenticity bought by someone in an antique shop? Even borders on maps created actually in 17th are a dubious source for historians as thay may have been politically motivated at the time. Have you noticed that thay all are German made? Are German sources the only ones you accept? Friendly Neighbour 06:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Generally, on Wikipedia, primary sources and original research should be avoided (please read the relevant Wikipedia:No original research policy and Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline). Therefore maps of unknown authenticity, date of creation and (most importantly) aims of their authors should not be used here. I apologize for using first a 17th map of Poland - even if I did it as a desperate joke after proper secondary and tertiary sources did not convince you.
However, this is not an article on history of the cities or the surrounding land. This is an article on Commenius. The articles on Gdańsk, Elbląg, Royal Prussia, History of Poland etc. etc. state facts which are in direct contradiction with what you believe in. Why don't you continue the debate there, where people with some expertize on the subject can discuss it with you. Don't you see that even if you change the history of Danzig or Elbing in this article, you will only create a disparity between WP articles? If you really detected a conspiracy which falsified the history of Prussia, you should aim at correcting it on all the relevant articles. Why choose only one about... a Czech educator?
Therefore, please stop adding to this page unsourced pseudo-history. If you continue, I will have to report you on the administrators' noticeboard page. Thank you. Friendly Neighbour 07:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

He did not just choose "a Czech educator. He also chose Wejherowo, Expulsion of Germans after World War II, Daniel Chodowiecki, Samuel Hartlib, Treaty of Sztumska Wieś, Regina Protmann, Robert Abercromby, Fryderyk Getkant, Treaty of Oliva, Margaret Sambiria, Rise of Sweden as a Great Power etc. Space Cadet 18:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

External Links: A number of sites with (f)actual information on John Dury, Samuel Hartlib and Comenius in Elbing, Prussia]

Regarding User Friendly Neighbor contributions has so far not taken the repeated advice to read up on factual history of Elbing/Elblag and he has posted a number of what I called rather odd remarks. I urged him repeatedly to stop plastering Comenius discussion and he finally did. He has not recanted. Whats more he has encouraged of all people Space Cadet (who makes it a hobby of filling wikipedia with 'rather one-side' often unfactual entries) to continue. Therefore I am posting this message here that I feel Friendly Neighbor needs to correct his re-entry on Comenius in Elbing and he needs to apologize. Labbas 12 September 2006

Space Cadet had used Tirid Tirid as a sock puppet to push Polish POV. After some months of absence, SC has returned. -- Matthead discuß!     O       16:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Your remarks are odd, not mine. You deny not only what all history books say but also what our own Wikipedia says in many articles, among them Elbląg, Royal Prussia, History of Poland, Partitions of Poland, Gdańsk. If Royal Prussia did not beloing to Poland, you should change all those articles, not one on a Czech scholar. Friendly Neighbour 17:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Leszno was always a Polish city!

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Leszno was part of Poland for a thousand years, with only a 123 years gap (1793-1918) when it belonged to Prussia (and Germany after its unification in 1871). Therefore using the German name (Lissa) of the city in an article about 17th century is ahistorical and possibly highly offensive to its Polish inhabitants. Friendly Neighbour 05:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, Friendly Neighbor, why don't you check {f}actual records before you put your foot in mouth. The records speak differently from what you are stating here, based on what, Space Cadet aka Tirid Tirid or on Molobo or what?

No matter, even if you input Leszno Poland, you will still come up with original church records for Lissa [1] before the supposed 1772 Partition of Poland, when Lissa supposedly became Prussian for only 123 years.

This is becoming madness. Leszno is not in what you would call Prussia (neither East nor West). Actually far from it, in the heart of historic and ethnic Poland. I do not understand what you want to prove with the church records. Most Polish cities had large German and Jewish populations. Does it prove that they belonged to Israel in 17th century? Friendly Neighbour 17:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, I just looked at the wikipedia Royal Prussia earliest history and guess what, it's from User:Space Cadet and User:Tirid Tirid and from another very interesting fellow named Caius http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Caius2ga . End of this discussion- I need to leave and do something more useful-sorry.

Hello, check this out! Space Cadet 21:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Proper historical sources proving Elbing and Danzig belonged to Poland between 1466 and 1772

Latest comment: 18 years ago8 comments1 person in discussion

It's time to end this odd argument. For Wikipedia articles, we are supposed to use proper scholarly sources, not titles of Mormon prepared microfilms or original research on maps of unknown authenticity. Royal Prussia, consisting of what we call in English Pomerelia and Warmia (Ermland) was incorported in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (usually shortened to Poland even by the scholars) in 1466 by the Treaty of Toruń. Danzig (Gdańsk) and Elbing (Elbląg) belong respectively to Pomerelia and Warmia.

The territory, known in the time as Royal Prussia (not to be confused with Ducal Prussia - at first a Polish fief, later independent, since 1701 part of the Kingdom of Prussia) changed hands only in 1772 during the first partition of Poland, except for Danzig which remained in Poland until the second partition of Poland in 1793.

All these are well estabished historical facts. They can be checked in any English language history book of Poland (I list here only the ones I have at home but a visit to decent library wil give you many more). A good start can be this excellent book by a world known British historian:

  • Norman Davies, God's Playground. A History of Poland. Vol. 1: The Origins to 1795, Vol. 2: 1795 to the Present. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981, ISBN 0-19-925339-0 / ISBN 0-19-925340-4.

Good sources are also any historical atlases covering the 17th century. The easiest to find can be

  • Herman Kinder & Werner Hilgemann, The Penguin Atlas of World History: Volume 1: From Prehistory to the Eve of the French Revolution, Penguin Books Ltd., 2004, ISBN 0-14-101263-3 (available also in USA as a Powell's Book edition).

The atlas, translated from a German (yes!) original (named dtv-Atlas Weltgeschichte, Band 1: Von den Anfängen bis zur Französischen Revolution, ISBN 3-423-03001-1), shows on page 200 the "The Polish-Lithuanian state in the 15th cent." that the above mentioned territories (listed as Ermland, Pomerellen and Kulm) "fell to Poland". On page 284, you can see in the first panel the borders of "Poland in the 17th cent." (the times of Comenius!) which clearly include the lands (and both the cities) if you know where to look for them (and any geographical atlas will help you here). On the second panel, you can see the "First partition of Poland, 1772" which made the territories - from now on renamed to West Prussia - actually go to the state of Prussia.

If you doubt any of the sources, please state your reasons and propose alternative ones (available in English and written by respected scholars, of course). Otherwise, please stop revising the 17th century history.

Regards. Your Friendly Neighbour 08:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


Another proper historical sources:

  • The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition 2006 in its article on East Prussia (available on-line) says: In 1466, by the Peace of Torun, the knights ceded Pomerelia (later a part of West Prussia ) and Ermeland to Poland and accepted Polish suzerainty over the rest of their domain. Elbing (Elbląg) is part of Warmia (or Ermeland which leads to the same Wikipedia article) and Danzig (Gdańsk) is part of Pomerelia as anyone can easlily check. The Columbia Encyclopedia article on Ermeland is short but highly relevant for our discurrion. It says: ERMELAND, Ermland, or Warmia, historic region of East Prussia, extending far inland from the Baltic Sea. It was ceded to Poland in 1466 by the Teutonic Knights, passed to Prussia in 1772, and reverted to Poland after World War II. Are you finally convinced? Friendly Neighbour 17:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


  • Encyclopedia Britannica 1999 CD edition (which I do own) says in its article on Prussia:
By the Second Treaty of Torun (1466) the Polish crown acquired direct sovereignty over the Teutonic Order's former possessions to the west of the lower Vistula River, together with the Kulmerland (or Chelmno district) and Ermland (Warmia) to the east; and that part of Prussia east of the Vistula River (i.e., East Prussia) was left to the order only on condition that the grand, or high, master should hold it as fief of the Polish crown. The lands along the Vistula, under Polish sovereignty, became known as Royal Prussia; thus a wedge of predominantly Polish-speaking territory came to be consolidated between German-speaking East Prussia and the German Reich to the west.

The above short fragment is copied here under the doctrine of fair use as an argument in the dispute on which country Ermland and Pomerelia belonged in 17th century. Friendly Neighbour 18:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


  • Microsoft Encarta encyclopedia 99 (a copy of which I also own) says in the article on Prussia:
After a further period of warfare, the terms of the second Peace of Thorn, in 1466, left the Knights in possession of the eastern part of Prussia, which it held as a fief of the Polish crown. Western Prussia was ceded to Poland, becoming known as Polish Royal Prussia. (...) By the end of the Seven Years' War, in 1763, Prussian territory included Silesia, and in 1772 Frederick annexed Polish Royal Prussia, thus linking his kingdom of Prussia in the east with Brandenburg and the main body of his German possessions in the west.

The above short fragment of Microsoft copyrighted material is copied here under the doctrine of fair use as an argument in the dispute on which country Ermland and Pomerelia belonged in 17th century. Friendly Neighbour 18:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


ELBING ELBING, (Géog. mod.) capitale de la contrée de Hockerland, à la Prusse royale, au palatinat de Mariembourg, en Pologne: elle n'est pas éloignée de la mer Baltique. Long. 37. 40. lat. 54. 12.

I have access to an on-line version of the encyclopedia through a University I am affiliated with. The full text is available only for subsscribing institutions but the general link is here. Friendly Neighbour 19:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


  • Karin Friedrich The Other Prussia: Royal Prussia, Poland and Liberty, 1569-1772, Cambridge University Press, 2000, a whole book on the Royal Prussia. The amazon.com short resume of the book says This book focuses on the history of Royal Prussia--the "other Prussia"--which was part of the Polish state from 1454 to 1793 (the dates are the start of anti-Teutonic Knight uprising in Prussia to the annexation of Danzig by the Kingdom of Prussia). The author is a German (yes!) historian teaching at University of Aberdeen. Here is her webpage where she says Until recently my interests have focused on Polish Prussia, c. 1500-1800, particularly on the urban élites and their distinct culture (German speaking and mostly Protestant) in the context of a noble-dominated Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Friendly Neighbour 20:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


  • Hans Rothfels, Frontiers and Mass Migrations in Eastern Central Europe, The Review of Politics, Vol. 8, No. 1. (Jan., 1946), pp. 37-67. A very interesting paper by a German author giving the German perspective of the new "provisional" frontier between Germany and Poland and the "elimination of national minorites". However, unlike User:71.137.207.147, he has no doubts about the Polish episode in the history of Prussia. He writes on page 46 about the Treaty of Toruń of 1466:
With the Treaty of Thorn Pomerelia or "Royal Prussia" (West Prussia), as it came to be known, reverted to Poland. Besides to the province to the west of the Vistula, it included the German maritime towns of Danzig and Elbing..
There follows several pages on the waning number of Poles in East Prussia in subsequent centuries but there is no doubt the author accepts that the above mentioned cities were in Poland until late 18th century. Friendly Neighbour 20:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Modern Germany also has no problem with the Polish episode in the history off Prussia. For example 'Deutsche und Polen - Wege zur Versöhnung, Pädagogische Handreichung by Dr. Christine Paschen, a document for German history teachers about German-Polish historical controversies and common history in general (available on-line), confirms in a timeline on page 15 that Warmia (Emland) and Pomerelia (Westpreußen) became Polish in 1466. It even names Danzig by name as coming "under the rule of the Polish crown":
1454-1466. Die Stände Preußens mit Danzig und Thorn erheben sich gegen den Deutschen Orden, Beginn des Dreizehnjährigen Krieges zwischen dem Orden und Polen. Im Zweiten Thorner Frieden muss der Deutsche Orden dem polnischen König Westpreußen und das Ermland abtreten, Danzig kommt unter die Herrschaft der polnischen Krone.

Does one need more sources? I believe that's enough. Friendly Neighbour 21:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Danzig and Elbing on Imperial Reichsmatrikel

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Danzig and Elbing are on the list of Imperial Cities (Freie Reichsstaedte) from 1521 and again on the Imperial Matrikel list from 1615 Civitates Liber Imperiales, also a number of bishops of other Prussia cities. This original book on the same above link also lists the complete government offices of the HRE empire:

Ordines Imperii

  • Septem Principes Electores (Seven Prince Electors)
  • Archi Duces
  • Magni Duces
  • Patriarchae
  • Primates
  • Archipiscopi
  • Magnus Magister Ordinis Theutonici in Borussi (Grand Masters Teutonic Order in Prussia)
  • Episcopi
  • Suffraganes
  • Sub Magno Magistro Ordinis Theutonici D Maria quiu in Borussia (Prussia)
  • Episcopus Ermlandiae (Bishop of Ermland (Warmia, Prussia)
  • Episcopus Heilsbergensis (Bishop of Heilsberg, Prussia)
  • Episcopus Culmensis qui Culmenseensis (Bishop of Culm Culmsee,(Kulm, Kulmsee) Prussia)
  • Episcopus Premislaviensis
  • Episcopus Pomesaniensis (Bishop of Pomesania, Prussia)
  • Episcopus Sambiensis qui Samlandia (Bishop of Samland, Prussia)
  • Episcopus Risenburgensis (Bishop of Risenburg, Prussia)
  • Abbas
  • Principes
  • Duces
  • Landgravi
  • Marchiones
  • Principes simpliciter
  • Burggravi
  • Comites etc

The matrikel of the empire were valid until it was desolved by 1804/06.

This book by distinguished historian Petrus Bertius, 1615 was posted previously but 'conveniently overlooked (?) , disregarded (?) by Friendly Neighbour

How much actual research could have gone into the book, offered by Friendly Neighbor instead? The book The Penguin Atlas of World History: Volume 1: From Prehistory to the Eve of the French Revolution, Penguin Books Ltd., 2004, is available for sale on internet for $ 10.00 or used for $ 2.50. Labbas 18 September 2006


This is clearly original research as defined in the official Wikipedia:No original research policy. This is not an admittable source for a Wikipedia article.
You ask How much actual research could have gone into the book, offered by Friendly Neighbor instead? Are you joking? A historical atlas of the world in two books with about 300 pages of maps (some of them 2-6 panels) and 300 pages of text? These are years of research for both the German authors. The price has nothing to do with the amount of work because the atlas has been re-printed for at least three decades (and the German original even longer). Please learn what marginal costs are. Friendly Neighbour 17:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Disregard of original sources and history

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

After posting documents and sources, Friendly Neighbour again removed the information, claiming 'Reverting the unsourced edit #76508063 [2] Wikipedia user:Friendly Neighbour is disregarding recorded history. This disregard seems to be alligned with a large number of ongoing attempts at wikipedia to keep vital information from reaching the general public in order to advance the claim that 'Danzig was Polish/ Danzig was in Poland', such as this edit: [3]


Re-inserting link to documents here- Civitates Liber Imperiales: Danzig and Elbing, both in Prussia, see list Ordines Imperii, pages 226,227

Labbas 19 September 2006

No, you are the party who disregards scholarly history. I offered respected sources by British and German historians. You offer only your original research based on primary sources, which goes 100% against the relevant Wikipedia policy (WP:NOR). Friendly Neighbour 17:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Again and again I tell you, Friendly Neighbor, to read and read a lot, but again you disregard it. You even post wikipedia Primary Source, but - again - you did not read this either.

It says:

As a general rule, however, modern historians prefer to go back to available primary sources and to seek new (in other words, forgotten or lost) ones. Primary sources, whether accurate or not, offer new input into historical questions and most modern history revolves around heavy use of archives and special collections for the purpose of finding useful primary sources. A work on history is not likely to be taken seriously as scholarship if it only cites secondary sources, as it does not indicate that original research has been done.

Labbas 19 September 2006

The WP:NOR policy in a nutshell is: Articles may not contain any previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories. Moreover, articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements that serves to advance a position.
So please cite any published syntheses of sources which contradict all the history books, atlases and encyclopedia which unanimously claim that between 1466 and 1772 both Elbing and Danzig belonged to Poland. Friendly Neighbour 18:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Once more, can you find any scholarly sources countering all the books, papers and encyclopedias I listed in the section Proper historical sources proving Elbing and Danzig belonged to Poland between 1466 and 1772? If not, please stop adding unsourced information into this article and wasting a lot of both your and my time. Friendly Neighbour 21:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Post mortem analysis

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Labbas is a manipulator of sources.

Labbas manipulated even his crucial - so long searched - source: Danzig and Elbing listed on Imperial Reichsmatrikel. He delivered us the long list of Matricula Ordinum S. Imperii Romani but did not even mention that on the top of the list there are 11 Reges (i.e. Kings): Franciae, Hungariae, Poloniae, Angliae, Scotiae, Hiberniae, Daniae, Sueciae, Norwegiae, Dalmatiae, Croatiae. So, the whole book is about some geopolitical concept, idea universalis based on the legacy of Roman Empire. There are many strange cities in this list not only 'Dantiscum quae et Gedanum' and 'Elbinga' but also 'Cracouia' (Kraków in Poland), 'Reualia' (Tallinn in Estonia), 'Nugardia' (Novgorod in Russia). Recapitulating: beware of sources cited by Labbas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marqoz (talk • contribs) 22:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Some comments and requests

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

1. This is not very clear:

"Then Comenius went to Leszno again and during the Northern Wars in 1655 declared his support for the Protestant Swedish side, for which his house, his manuscripts, and the school's printing press were burned down by Polish partisans in 1656."

As far as I know (and I try to disregard as much as I can what I had learned in Catholic-focused Poland), the war wasn't just Poland against Sweden. AFAIR Polish Protestants (not very numerous, but present in Western Poland - Leszno being the example) were involved on the Swedish side. The word "partisans" is also kind of strange in this context. Were there partisans in 17th century? Wasn't that a full-scale war, rather than a partisan one?

So I would change Polish partisans to Polish Catholics or something similar.


2. The argument over Elbląg/Elbing does not belong here, so I'd go as far as deleting it, or at lease please continue on on the proper discussion page Talk:Elbląg!

Personally, I'd comment that the level of the discussion has IMHO reached bottom. You people make me sick. From time to time there's a German who can't stand that history has moved borders (to a German disadvantage), but against him there are hordes of Poles who know nothing other than what they learned in school. I'd suggest both parties to give up, because you're not going to reach an agreement. Leave it to third parties, like that Welsh historian (can't remember his name). He's neither a Catholic fanatic, nor a Nazi.

Regards,

LMB (talk) 13:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

How he is important

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There's almost nothing about what's special and important in Comenius' work and opinions; it has been argued that he is a figure of universal significance, and here he comes across as an insignificant local hero. The German wikipedia has a section about Comenius; it has no inline references, but I guess it should be translated if there is no other way to include info on how Comenius is important.

P.S. The fact that this huge discussion page does not address this, but rather consists of idiotic nationalistic discussions completely unrelated to the subject matter shows that all editors who exhibit symptoms of patriotism should be banned on sight.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Amos_Comenius/Archive_1&oldid=1252625203"