Talk:Kwidzyn

If you jokers don't stop with the reverting, I'm going to protect the page, and then one of you will be unhappy and unable to do anything about it. Let's hear the evidence one way or the other here. Stan 14:16, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

the discussion you can find here and here. As Gzornenplatz does not accept the german goverment, the Duden, the use in the German press, the homepage of the city, the Wikipedia on pl or de and even the embassy of Poland as proof there is no way to convince him; you might read the discussion itself on this pages ...Sicherlich 16:21, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm so not interested in this stupid back-and-forth, so it's protected until you people come to an agreement, which I suspect would come about more quickly if all the affected pages were to be similarly protected. Stan 17:45, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that doesn't work... Many pages were protected already because of that (like Klodzko, Szczecin or Pila) and that didn't help. Gzornenplatz simply returned to those pages after they were unprotected and the whole thing started once again. At the same time he was calling all his opponents (including yours truly) morons, idiots or dense for not agreing to his claims. See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily/Evidence and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gzornenplatz. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 11:33, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Just means people have been too impatient - if it's Gzornenplatz that is the sole problem, then work on getting a conclusion out of the arbcom. Wishful thinking is not the answer here. Stan 16:26, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

he does not agree to any other solution then his one because he is right and german press, polish WP, homepages of polish cities .... and even german & polish goverment are wrong, beause of edit wars he was alread 3 (or 4?!) times blocked on de .. at the moment for 3 weeks ...Sicherlich 19:53, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Let's hope the ArbCom will find some solution. I also appreciate the recent initiative of Jimbo who decided to enforce the WP:3RR. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 21:21, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Change of language and historical neutrality needed

This is an article that does not fullfill Wikipedias standards on a neutral standpoint. The statement that there was a "policy of forceful Germanization" in Prussia in the early 19th century is simply not true, just refer to history books (and not only Polish ones)! The Prussian administration persued for a long time a policy of great tolerance against minorities - as long as they were loyal to the Prussian crown. Just a citation from the Prussian culture minister Karl Freiherr zum Altenstein in his edict on the use of the language to be used in school 1825:

Was die Ausbreitung der deutschen Sprache betrifft, so kommt es hierbei zunächst darauf an, dass man sich selber klarmache, was man in dieser Hinsicht eigentlich wolle und solle, nämlich, ob nur ein allgemeines verstehen der deutschen Sprachen unter den polnischen Einwohnern dortiger Provinzen hingewirkt werden solle, oder ob man etwa die Absicht habe, die ganze Nation zwar allmählich und unvermerklich, aber nichtsdestoweniger so vollständig wie möglich zu germanisieren. Nach dem Urteil des Ministers ist nur das erstere nötig, ratsam und ausführbar, das andere aber unratsam und unausführbar, denn um vollkommen gute Untertanen zu sein ... ist es zwar für die Polen wünschenswert und nötig, dass sie die Landesregierungssprache verstehen und sich in ihr verständlich zu machen wissen; es ist aber nicht nötig, dass sie deshalb ihre Stammessprache aufgeben oder auch nur hintansetzen müssen. Der Besitz zweier Sprachen ...[kann] vielmehr als ein Vorzug betrachtet werden ... Religion und Sprache sind die höchsten Heiligtümer einer Nation, in denen ihre ganze Gesinnungs- und Begriffswelt gegründet ist. Eine Obrigkeit ... welche sich Angriffe dagegen erlaubt ... erbittert oder entwürdigt die Nation und schafft sich ungetreue oder schlechte Untertanen. ... Die Bildung eines Individuums und einer Nation kann nur vermittels der Muttersprache bewerkstelligt werden.

Translated:

As far as the extension of German language is concerned, it is important to make clear what are the aims, if only the general understanding of German language among the Polish inhabitants in certain provinces should be sufficient or if one should have the aim to Germanize the entire nation slowly and gradually as completely as possible. According to the opinion of the minister only the first aim is necessary, advisable and practicable while the other is inadvisable and unfeasible. Because, to be a loyal subject it is desirable and needful for the Poles to understand and and speak the language of government, but it is not necessary to give up their mother language or even postpone it. To be fluent in two language can be regarded as an advantage. Religion and language are the greatest sanctuaries of a nation where the entire ethos and vocabulary of concepts is grounded. An authority that attacks them provokes bitterness, debases the nation and creates illoyal and bad subjects. The education of an individual and a nation can only be done in their mother language.

(sorry for the certainly imperfect translation)

So actually Polish and Lithuanian children were taught in Polish language at school at this time! This policy of tolerence changed gradually after the foundation of the German Empire in 1871 and German language replaced all other langauges. However, one has toe emphazise that Prussia always remaind a constitutional state (in contrast to neigghboring Russia) and the Polish newspapers, associations and societies florished, despite the school policy. A second important point: not all Polish-speakers regarded themselves as Poles. Just refer to the result of the plebiscites in Marienwerder area (92% for East Prussia, i. e. Germany) and Masuria (98% for East Prussia, i.e. Germany), both areas with at least 25-35% Polish speakers (both plebiscites were held under Allied supervision after WWI).

--Furfur 06-09-21

Ordensburg castle ?

"The Teutonic Knights founded an Ordensburg castle"

I found this strange expression also in another article. Probably the author didn't think about the meaning of the word 'Ordensburg'. The expression 'Ordensburg castle' should be interpreted as "castle of the Ordensburg". That leaves the question: What is the 'Ordensburg'. Considering the context it should be an organization. But the organization is the 'Knights of the Teutonic Order', maybe shortend to 'Order'. And 'Ordensburg' was never the name of an organization, it simply is a "Burg des Ordens", which translates to "castle of the Order", or simply 'Order's castle'. => 'Ordensburg castle' = 'Order's castle castle'. I would say, that's 1 castle too much. Truchses (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)