This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Stephen Gilbert (talk | contribs) at 19:27, 28 April 2002 (moving to user talk: H. Jonat). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:27, 28 April 2002 by Stephen Gilbert (talk | contribs) (moving to user talk: H. Jonat)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Starting Talk 2002
While editing my number got mixed up with #130.94.122.Many other persons are also inputting under that number.I just figured out a way to get rid of it and hope that it works. H. Jonat
HJ, are you seriously suggesting that Napoleon and the Book of Revelation have something to do with understanding modern European history? That he was the first to 'takeover' Europe? The first to destroy pre-existing kingdoms? --MichaelTinkler
To MichaelTinkler I look at all sources and the Book of Revelation speaks of 1000 year occurances. There are many things happening that are not easily explained by scientific method. In other words many more things happen, than people rationally can understand. I am open . H. Jonat
No. All of this is quite easily accessible to rational understanding. The book of Revelation in chapter 20 speaks of A 1000 years. One. Just one. The idea of 1000 year periods is an early Christian interpretation of the Book of Revelation in light of Psalm 90 ("For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night") in which the 6 days of creation plus the original day of rest (the 7th day) are compared to 7 millennia - and the idea is that the millennium of the book of Revelation will be the 7th, so that the transition between the 6th and the 7th will be the time of the antichrist. This was cross-referenced with the belief that the world was a fairly recent creation - that it was about 5500 years old when Christ was born, and therefore the year 6000 (the time of the antichrist) was coming SOON. Needless to say, it hasn't happened yet. I know a lot about this subject - it is my favorite kind of medieval exegesis. You, however, either have never known or have misremembered. My suggestion is that you drop it, or take a look at the work of Richard Landes (here's his web page: http://www.mille.org/people/rlpages/personlandes.html). --MichaelTinkler
To MichaelTinkler I glanced through the headlines and see that people are making studies of this.
Before the year 2000 people thought it is the time , as they thought before the year 1000. In 1800 people thought that is it , in 1900 they thought this is it and before 2100 they will think it again. It could have been and could be at any time , that is my thought.
Besides the 1000 year revelation Germans have a 100 year timeline, waiting for the time when Kaiser Barbarossa , emperor Frederik( combination of I and II) Red Beard wakes up from his long sleep in the Kyffhaueser mountain in Thuringia. He did wake up a while ago. H. Jonat
- HJ, yes, people 'thought this'. It could also mean that people fall for the same mistakes over and over again. It still doesn't make it 'what the book of Revelation says' - it only makes it a particularly useless interpretation thereof. --MichaelTinkler.
Basically it seems to want to convey the message, that any time , any day, could be the day. So be on your toes, so to speak ,all the time. H. Jonat
- Well, no. What you're offering is the orthodox interpretation based on the words of Christ ('no one knows the hour but the Father'), which is the official doctrine of the Catholic Church, among others. However, what millennialist thought always does is claim:
- the end is coming soon
- WE (the associates of the prophet) know the date
- be very afraid
- (and sometimes) sell all you have and follow ME (the prophet)
- That is the pattern clearly discerned in history. See Landes, to whom I referred you, and Norman Cohn, The Pursuit of the Millennium. These are accessible and in English. There is a large body of technical material on biblical interpretation both for itself (what you just did was an orthodox piece of biblical interpretation - 'the end may come any time so be prepared') and in history (what others have said, truly or erroneously). I do a lot of work with both types. Anytime someone says 1000 years, check your purse to make sure it's still there. --MichaelTinkler
Mrs. Jonat, please check Szopen/HREargument.
To szopen, I appreciate your enthusiasm and volumns of material and I would like to discuss, deliberate and point out the facts to you. However, in order to utilize the time I have available and in order to be able to continue my wikipedia input , I cannot get into extensive and detailed debates. I am restricted to occasional article input only without getting into lenghty debates. Best wishes H. Jonat
If so, then perhaps You should stop writing controversial and pseudohistorical articles about Poland, it's history, it's rulers and it's people. Always a friend, Mruk
To szopen and Mruk There is a Polish German Historical Institute in Warsaw . I suggest that you contact them with questions, the english language site is http://www.dhi.waw.pl/home_eng.html , also available in polish. At that place you should be able to get first hand information. Best wishes HJ
"The German Historical Institute in Warsaw (GHI) was founded in 1993. Like the German Historical Institutes in Rome, Paris, London, and Washington the GHI in Warsaw is financed by the German Ministry of Education and Research". Now why would I consider this a first hand information? Always an admirer, Mruk
Because there you have many Polish historians working. Fellow wikipedian Piotr checked this out and seems to think they are alright. Since you are actually there, you might go and visit them. I don't even know if they will give anwers per internet. If you get a chance to visit them, please let me know. Thanks HJ
I'm not there since 1990. After my family has been "repatriated" we all ended up in various parts of the world. We started in the "Recovered Lands" Wroclaw, Legnica, Bystrzyca, Ladek Zdroj, Karpacz, Boleslawiec etc. But by now we are pretty much all over the world. Mruk
I remember you wrote to me about your family. But you don't write where you actually live now. So I cannot refer you to sources other than the internet and whatever libraries and books you have available where you live. If you want to try finding family history records, you can search at the LDS FHC Latter Day Saints , Family History Center http://www.familysearch.com for church and civil records of the towns you or your ancestors have lived.FHC have libraries with computers and micro fiche in many countries, listed on internet. Family Historians are the opposite from other Historians. Family History is based on searching for any little clue available and not leaving any stone unturned in order to find your family records. I am searching for a person who remained in the homeland of Prussia despite all the greatest hardships put under during the Communist Polish and much worse Soviet Union time. Even though this person was born there and remained in the homeland,Germans under Poland were so far not allowed to get even their birth certificates.Your family knows about all this, but others don't or don't want to know. I get emails on my Family History website fromm all over the world too with people asking for any kind of clue. The verbal info is often the only thing available. Good luck in your search HJ
I'm in the States for some time, now. I have always heard a lot about people who decided to stay in the formerly German regions of Poland. Some of them were the "autochtones" - Poles who always lived there, keeping the language and culture alive, some were the Germans who did not want to leave the homeland of their ancestors. I've never heard of a law against speaking German, but then again, maybe I'm too young, it does sound like something that could've happen in the 40's and 50's. As far as my memories, I always remember, that during my summer vacations in the "Recovered Lands" (where I have a lot of family), I heard German language all the time. Mostly from tourists, though. But I know that a lot of retired German citizens were moving to Warmia i Mazury region, even as early as the 70's. I've met some of them myself, actually, in the summer of 1989 in the city of Goldap (right on the Polish / Soviet border). Me and my buddy were hanging out in the park. We still had about two hours for our bus to arrive. We started talking to this group of older people, warming up their bones in the sun. We talked to those very nice people for about half an hour, and let me tell you, they were no tourists. Just a bunch of Goldapians enjoying their retirement. The shock came after we said Good Bye and started walking towards the bus station. These people just started speaking German! All this time they spoke to us in fluent, accent free Polish, but when alone, they seemed to prefer German. I'll write again, right now I'm at work, believe it or not, so I have to go. Wszystkiego dobrego! (All the best for you!) Mruk
To Mruk , Milai ginnis kails Goldap is very close to were my father was born in Pillkallen. Unfortunately Pillkallen wound up in the Oblast Kaliningrad section of northern East Prussia. A recent traveler just wrote me, that Pillkallen is almost all distroyed and much worse than the part taken over by the Polish.Over one million Germans did remain after the 1945-49 expulsions. They were called autochthones by the polish officials. From what I read a lot of people from Ukraine have moved in and Wolga- Germans are moving into the northern part of East Prussia. The wikipedia does not want long discussions. Therefore it would be better if you send me an email ,to have some longer talk. I am debating too much already with people that do not have an inkling .So I better quit now. Greetings HJ.
No problem! However, I have no idea what "milai ginnis kails" means. Is it Lithuanian, or perhaps Old Prussian? Because German it rather is not. I'll write soon. Your friend from accross the Odra and Nysa Luzycka. Mruk
Old Prussian , milai mille a thousand, ginnis friend , kails hail. A thousand greetings to you friend.
HJ, I have been ignoring your entries for the last 2 days. The Enea Silvio Piccolomini was beyond my self-control, though. You went into a long and substantive entry, made a link to someone's birth name, and then wrote an entry you yourself admitted was 'a summary'. It took one of the most important Renaissance intellectuals, a man who eventually became Pope, and mentioned that he was an imperial secretary and the archibishop of Warmia? Get a grip! --MichaelTinkler.
Here's a little lesson in wikification, HJ. Please hit 'edit this page' to see how this works. You consistently mess up this formatting trick. --MichaelTinkler
You wrote this nonsense phrase:
- as Holy Roman Empire Elector of Saxony
When you meant (I think):
- as Elector of Saxony
It atually doesn't matter -- what WE say in English is Duke of Saxony, because we know that the Golden Bull (from the Latin Bulla or seal) of 1356 defined the Duke of Saxony as one of the Imperial Electors. However, if we wanted to mention that he was an elector, we would say, "Imperial Elector and Duke of Saxony" or something to that effect -- but not Elector of Saxony, because that makes no sense in English! JHK
- Ah, then it *should* be and Duke of ? --MichaelTinkler.
Rmhermen Hi, you stated a question about a Hohenzollern. We had added the Grosse Kurfuerst (great elector) earlier to differentiate him from the other later king of Prussia, Margrave of Brandenburg etc with the same name. I also added a note on the Hohenzollern page, that all Brandenburg Margraves were electors or son of . Check out the king of Prussia Friedrich Wilhelm I 1713-40 on Talk for all his actual titles , as a sample that all of them held many more titles and territories , which are generally not listed in casual mentioning of them. H. Jonat
My question was that when I look up the translation of Kurfurst, it translates to "a kind of duke" one of 3 or 4 kinds of dukes in German nobility. It does not mention anything about "elector".
To Rmhermen Read Holy Roman Empire Elector (HRE. SRI,HRR) ,where I had earlier listed the functions of the electors. The word Kur- fuerst earlier spelling Chur (zu kuehren) means in english - to elect to be crowned. Auserkoren is translated= having been (s)elected. The electors were the people whose function in the HRE it was to (s)elect the next German king ,who would then become emperor. Fuerst can not really be translated as duke, but that is what Americans often call them. Fuerst (earlier fyrst) is originated from being the First, the first one, the leader of the tribe of Germans or of the nation. I have seen Fuerst translated as prince also. But whenever you find the title Kurfuerst, that indicates one of the seven, later more, most important officers in the HRE. Their sons were also born Kurfuerst. The list of titles for king Friedrich Wilhelm I of Prussia, has again been moved to talk. If you have not been able to find it, that's where it is located at present. H. Jonat
To szopen Before this update I briefly saw some message from you, asking me to help with some project or something , that I can't find right now. I would not mind doing that. However you should approached JHK or Michael Tinkler. H. Jonat
1. HJ, I have been ignoring your entries for the last 2 days. The Enea Silvio Piccolomini was beyond my self-control, though. You went into a long and substantive entry, made a link to someone's birth name, and then wrote an entry you yourself admitted was 'a summary'. It took one of the most important Renaissance intellectuals, a man who eventually became Pope, and mentioned that he was an imperial secretary and the archibishop of Warmia? Get a grip! --MichaelTinkler.
2. :Ah, then it *should* be and Duke of ? --MichaelTinkler.
I appreciate your , JHK or anyone else's input. I do not go much for attacks.
1. At the time E. Piccolomini was bishop of Ermland or Warmia, he was not pope. He was for years an imperial secretary,also advisor, later a pope. Therefore I linked a small mention (summary) to the Warmia statement on E. Piccolomini. That article on Pope Pius II would be too long and distracting on the Warmia page, therefore the additional small summary link to the name, not the pope.(That was my thought).
Your pages and pages of not only lenghty but in my opinion, worse, inappropiate comments on dozens of wikipedia entries does not seem to me to be in the spirit of objectivety.
You need to get a grip.
For a while it looked as if you hit the bottle too hard or something.
2. About that lenghty description of the HRE I will leave it untouched for now.
To quote another WIkipedian in similar circumstances: Pot. Kettle. Black.
Mrs Jonat: no pages in wikipedia are in somebody's control. I find it insulting that you call pages which present views of history different of yours of being out of control.
And i asked you, yes, for help, since i am not sure how German commanders and places should be called. I tried to guess how their names sound in English, but native German speaker who had some interest in History should do better.
Totally messed up THirteen years war! Except for spelling errors, and for fact that i have to put much work to reshape it, what's so messed up there? szopen
to Szopen, I added the following statements to my page: Many different people input articles in wikipedia. Texts change constantly. Therefore much of the contents do not remain my input. Articles needing more work: The 13 year war article was somewhat done. Then pages and pages of none-english text appeared. I have not taken a look at it since.The messed up statement was my reaction. JHK reads German language. She is a history teacher and she as native knows how American English speakers want to translate names and places. I will not get into it, because I do not have the current academic inside knowledge and sometimes disagree with the way names and places are translated (often beyond recognition). I would not be of any help to you. H. Jonat
Hi Larry, Somehow my number got changed while updating. It changed to 130.94.122, which is another person's , who is still adding articles. What should I do ? H. Jonat
Helga -- there is nothing you CAN do. Have you changed internet providers lately, or are you working from a different computer? The 130.94.122.xxx is your IP (internet protocol) address. Many other people can have that address besides you -- at one time (the last three numberswould be different). If you don't have your "own" (aka static) IP address, you may occasionally have a different address, depending on your provider. So, if you want people to know it's you, you may want to log in every time you write. JHK
- Unfortunately, this is actually a new Misplaced Pages bug. Everyone who is not logged in appears as 130.94.122.xxx. --Zundark, 2002 Feb
To JHK and Zundark Thanks to both of you for your suggestions.I did post the message as soon as I realized it, to make people aware. I was right next to a 130.. # when edit conflict appeared and afterwards my page was changed to this number.I did not change server or computer or anything. I notice that an awfull lot of entries now have this number. I tried signing up with a different password, but it didn't let me. I am signed in now and am trying to see what happens. With all the computerbugs going around, this needs to be checked further. H. Jonat
- Clarification for you -- (and Zundark's right, i should have checked the Misplaced Pages bugs page first). This is a "bug" in the code that makes wikipedia work -- it just means that there is a line of code that may have an error as small as an extra space. It's analogous (in a VERY simplified way) to trying to make something bold in HTML and forgetting to put the at the end, so you'd see something like this:
words in bold
Instead of this:
words in bold
It's not like a virus, that is code somebody deliberately wrote in order to infect your computer and damage files, so it won't "go around." JHK
HJ -- You're doing it again. Creating articles with titles that just don't make sense in English. For example, we don't call Prince Andrew, 'Prince Andrew Windsor'. I think he's something like HRH Andrew, Duke of York. PLEASE stop creating articles with nonsensical titles -- especially when those articles have absolutely no useful information. Albert (or whatever) I the Brave Wettin is neither the man's appropriate name nor title. You have started so many of these stubs, but really contributed little that is helpful. Why, oh why, can't you take some pride in your work, and some responsibility for what you put up on the site??? Quality is much more important than quantity -- and the rate at which you put up stubs that need re-writing as close to phenomenal. Don't you care at all that some of us don't want the wikipedia to appear a joke -- that it would be good to prove that people without advanced degrees can be great contributors? JHK
Thank you, JHK, just what I was going to say. There are two points here:
1. I'd rather be writing good articles of my own than waste time correcting others' basic factual errors which should have been cleared up BEFORE submission.
2. We need to sort out standard styles BEFORE the site gets cluttered with a chaotic assortment of English and German royal/ducal nemes (WITHOUT their proper titles).
HJ, I notice you haven't contributed to the discussion of standards in this matter: your actions are frankly beginning to look like deliberate vandalism. Please cool it and give the rest of us a chance to get on with our work. And do some research BEFORE submitting errors, rather than relying on others to do your work for you. David Parker
Transferred from text: Numerous pieces of correspondence between the different Prussian factions and the emperors as well as other documents have been published. This large volume of documents covering hundreds of cities and towns involved are now in the process of being integrated in a centralized Prussian Documents system. The emperor was the highest judge in matters which could not be taken care of on a more local level. The Prussian Confederation was subject to the emperor (Pr.U.413 #506)
The arrangements between western Prussia with Casimir IV Jagiello and Elizabeth Habsburg were of a defensive protection alliance nature. Though parts of Prussia were ruled by the Polish monarchs, the people and language remained German. For a glimpse at the Prussian Documents (Preussische Urkunden) see 1
Western Prussia did not have "arrangements of a defensive nature" with Poland. It was a part of the territory over which the Polish kings held sovereignty. Much of the population indeed remained German-speaking, especially in the towns. But can you, H Jonat, put a proportion on it? If you valued historical fact at all rather than merely seeking at every turn to impose your own national chauvinist prejudice on every article, others might be inclined to take your argumants seriously. Let's look at some of the "contributions" we've had from H Jonat:
The Prussians (Germans) in 1454-66 successfully resisted an attempted Polish takeover. WRONG. The Prussian Conferederation accepted Polish sovereignty to free itself (successfully, with Polish help) from the (German) Teutonic Order.
Prussia was subject to the Empire throughout these centuries. WRONG. The Empire NEVER held practical authority in the region, despite earlier claims of "protection" extending to Riga. The Teutonic Order looked to the Pope as its suzerain. After 1466 western Prussia was under Polish rule, eastern Prussia under Polish suzerainty. No Emperor. The fact that the Pope and Emperor didn't support the second Treaty of Thorn was of no consequence: the Emperor had no say in the area, and neither he nor the Pope were signatories. The Order signed away its rights in the west and accepted the Polish king as overlord in the east.
H Jonat uses a "1570" map (in fact the title page says 1598) to "prove" that Poland didn't possess sovereignty over Prussia, and even goes on to suggest that Poland didn't exist as a kingdom (this is between the Lublin Union and the Polish capture of Moscow, when the kingdom was at the height of its power). The atlas in which the map appears says a couple of pages later that "Prussia belongs totally under the crown of Poland, except the Duchy of Prussia, which is comprised in it, yet having for the present a distinct Duke." This duke's descendant goes on in 1660 to free himself from Polishoverlordship. A later descendant proclaims himself king in Prussia because the Empire has no authority there.
Next, H Jonat uses some coins from the 1610s to claim direct Hapsburg rule over Prussia. The titles she cites are actually phantom offices related to the post of Grand Master of the Teutonic Order, which had lost its hold on eastern (now ducal) Prussia to its own former head (still a Polish vassal) 90 years earlier.
On top of this, H Jonat doesn't know when the Brussian dukedom passed from the Ansbach to the Brandenburg Hohenzollern line (1618, not 1568); she thinks Brandenburg's steadfastly Lutheran margrave Johann Georg "let the Jesuits take over" (and then explains this by a confusion with a later Johann Georg who adopted Calvinism!); and she imagines there were multiple dukes reigning simultaneously (one perhaps even a Habsburg!)
I've better things to do with my time than keep re-correcting such gibberish. I'm going to revert this article every time it's vandalised, because that's what it's come to. I hope to be able to incoprporate any intelligent additions by others, but if any are accidentally lost, please point them out to me. David Parker
Above text contains a good amount of things different from what I have said. I had added another source of legal documents (Preussische Urkunden. There are numerous imperial documents stating the status of Prussia. It is obvious that there is some pre-conceived and very determined force of English speakers , that insists on declaring everything to have been and to be Slavic and particularly Polish. It does not matter to this pre-demined force, what the actual facts were, they are constantly disregarded with derogative remarks. I tell you what, I give up to this force that is always right. It does not matter what the true facts were. All of Germany and all of Prussia and all the Angles and Saxons and all other Germans have all actually been always Polish. H. Jonat
entries on individual codices that refer to pictures are useless until wikipedia can display pictures. What is this entry supposed to be about? Is the Behem Codex going to be used to prove something later? Is it important for something OTHER than images of daily life that we can't see? The initial entry, of course, was saying something about the ethnic origin of Balthasar Behem (assuming that because his name means Bohemian that he was from Bohemia, as opposed to some male relative). MichaelTinkler
Having followed up this odd entry (search, discover that HJ had referred to it on Krakow and the U of K page, click on the Jagiellonian Univ., search their page) I discover that the Balthasar Behem Codex is in Latin, German, and Polish! Yes, Polish! Who would have known, given her entry? See the link: . MichaelTinkler
Looking at the page one can make out the following words of the codex at the university, see written below" (see outside link:]) "On virtual exibition by the Jagiellonian University of Krakow, a sample page of the original 1505 codex shows an illustration depicting bakers, titled : 46 Pistores . 'Dis ist der briff und gesetze der becker zu Crakow...der Stad Crakow bekenne offenthun--beschlossen haben wy dy ..hanttwergks der becker ..satzungen.. "
This code book of the city and guilds of Krakow includes 27 miniatures,which illustrate the daily life of craftsmen and merchants.It is a legal announcement in German Language documenting their formation of the backer's guild and states the charters and statutes."
Nowhere does it show any Polish or Latin on this particular page stating the baker's guild announcement.
Unfortunately some people at wikipedia remove large parts of wikipedia entries , only to find the information missing later.
Of course the current library exibit in Poland would also show Polish translation. H. Jonat
To HJ: Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary. Not even a biographical dictionary. If you're going to create entries for obscure members of German royal families, please include enough that the reader will know why it matters. Not just a woman's parents, husband, and children: anyone looking it up will probably already know most of that. What did she do? If it was a dynastic marriage, how did it affect alliances? Vicki Rosenzweig
Hi Vicki,
I would like to answer more in detail, but you are not asking about anyone specific. Are you referring to the lists I started on the German kings and emperors, or the Hohenzollern or the Saxon dukes, kings, emperors or the Habsburg or the Wettin or Wittelsbach or the Jagiello's or the Vasa's ? Or perhaps all of them ? You may know all these dynasties and all their family members, but the majority of the readers of wikipedia don't or did not until they were listed here.Those "obscure members",women and children, who are mostly "overlooked" or "discarded as irrelevant" by the historians interested in battles, were in fact a most vital part of the whole story. Unless you specifically mention those obscure first name people, such as Adelaide, Theophanu, Oda, Rixa (Richeza), Gisela, Judith, Gunhilda, Christina, etc etc you are not getting a comprehensive history. It were not only the father's of the land (see reference George Washington but just as important the mother's of the land that governed European countries for many centuries.That is why I have been inputting all these lists and people. I start with the basic genealogy and add to it as well as other wikipedians who have been busily adding to these lists also.I have been spending way too much time , even though I would like to put all the details in, as you would like to see it done. I would like that too.Unfortunately a large part of my time has been spent having to argue. Like I said, I cannot spent that much time.
You mean you can't be bothered to spend the time it takes to write an accurate article that actually says anything? Readers may not have heard of these people before, but after reading one of your innumerable pointless genealogical entries they still aren't going to know anything about them except "born... married... acceded... died".
Don't seek refuge in "you are not asking about anyone specific" - this relates to all of your unresearched entries for obscure princelings except those just lifted en bloc from other sources. If you're going to write an article about someone, say what they did and why they're significant: being someone's great-grandfather doesn't merit an encyclopedia entry. David Parker
The whole eastern part of today's Germany, DID start as Slavonic land. Or should I say, before Germans conquered this area, there were several, highly organized Slavonic countries, with well developed cities, administrative organisations, very advanced judiciary systems and rich religious life. Yes, some GERMANIC tribes were present there before, but they were more nomads, than developed social organisations, who left behind themselves nothing more, but some camps and old fire places. Space Cadet
To Space Cadet !! This sounds just like you have copied the Communist Propaganda Pages H. Jonat
You obviously never experienced Communism! Or a legitimate history course! Perhaps, except your local, village, Hitlerjugend (or is it Bund Deutsche Mädel?) meetings, when you and your friends burned history books. Space Cadet
To Space Cadet: You have succeeded in making me far more sympathetic with H. Jonat than anything she has written has yet managed. I was really hoping Godwin's Law didn't apply to wikipedia. Vicki Rosenzweig
Save your sympathy for someone who deserves it, Vicki: the pathological German irredentism (to the extent of even deleting references to the German government's acceptance of the post-1945 borders!); insistence on playing up the German part in any development in eastern Europe and denial of German defeats (the battle of Bitonto was an Austrian victory!); and an interminable stream of untruths, distortions (writing about Riga as if it was only inhabited by Germans!) and inability to present reasoned counter-argument, down even to labelling oppposing views "communist propaganda" - don't be surprised if people draw unsavoury parallels. David Parker
D. Parker etc, who are constantly belittling,they have a little mind ! Besides that, nearly all of D. Parker's statement is a riddle. I have no idea what he is referring to.
As to the trying to be intimidating D. Parker and the beyond all words Space Cadet, it seems that the choking sounds I hear are coming from them choking on their words !
To Vicki, you bring a ray of sunshine to an otherwise gloomy world. Thanks ! H. Jonat
Intimidating? Please explain. And I think you understand only too well what I'm referring to.
Now that you have "cleaned up" your talk page (and please don't vandalise other people's messages - I don't post in italic), perhaps you'd like to address your "contributions" list, removing the articles which you merely plagiarised from other sources or submitted in a form of such abysmally poor intellectual content that they have since had to be rewritten in their entirety by others competent to do so.
I'm also still waiting for a reply from you as to the question of Old Prussian language(s): If you are similarly incapable of offering an intelligent opinion on this, I shall of course make whatever changes I think appropriate, hoping that others will be able to contribute improvements where necessary. David Parker
Posted the following note on Michael Tinkler's pape on Mar 14 : M. T. , please take a look at Widewuto and at the Cromer description of Prussia. In my original Widewuto text I did not write that St. Adalbert's death in 997 happened under Widewuto and Prutenos reign. While you edited that, somehow it now reads to be that timeframe. When you read bishop Cromer's report you will find a different time span. Please adjust the Widewuto text so that it does not read as if St Adalbert's death and Widewuto are at the same time. Thank you. H. J.
Another 11th c source also places this in the 6- 7 Century
Was Braunsberg in Prussia in 1924 or already part of Poland? --rmhermen
I'm not sure. erg. I just know that the article didn't work as cribbed.J Hofmann Kemp
Answer to rmhermen : Braunsberg in 1924 was in the Deutsche Reich (Germany, Weimarer Republic) and in the province of Ostpreussen (East Prussia). Once again, the outside link to a map of 1600 is 1 On the top section of the map you can follow along the Baltic Sea coast and locate the following cities (spelled in the style of that time): Danzig, Marienburg, Elbing, Mulhausen, Frauenburg, Braunsberg, (Samland) Koenigsberg. The so-called Polish Corridor was draws just left of Elbing. Braunsberg is almost at the Soviet Union/Russia border of the Kaliningrad Oblast H. Jonat
Frau Jonat, about the crow... I hope you're not still mad. I'm sending a couple of pictures as a make up gift. There is no parody this time. These eagles just returned to their original look, from the first time Prussia was a Polish province.
File:WarmiaMazury1.JPG File:WarmiaMazury2.JPG Space Cadet
Someone has placed a parody of a Prussian Eagle on this wiki: Crow entrance. The parody, that had been posted , a depiction of a Prussian crow, by itself, may have been meant to be more or less humerous, by the person, who entered it.(To look at the image you need to look at the wiki history of the Prussian crow entrance). It has by now been removed.
Taking this still existing wiki:Prussian crow link and the (at the moment removed) image in connection with the wiki: Crow text, it becomes representative of the murderous actions taken against the Prussian people starting after 1919 and by the millions in 1944/1945 till 1949 and ongoing (taking away Prussians homeland, expulsions, exiling, genocide).
Should this parody of a specification of a crow be here ?
H. Jonat
Frau Jonat! Thousand apologies! But does't "Polish Goose" (Polnische Dummkopf)sound much worse than Prussian Crow (Preussische Krahe). Anyway, in my defence, it wasn't the Prussian Eagle, the parody was intended at. You just didn't get.
Space Cadet
To Space Cadet ,
I thought you were already kicked of wiki for your "Nazi" remark ? Well, I guess you apologized to someone then too.
I know that you are trying to translate things on internet by the automatic translation services. I have looked at a few, and found that they do no translate anywhere near acceptable.Therefore they should be used with a great big warning lable , because they most likely create more mischief and harm, than good.
Now to your "Polish Goose" (Polnische Dummkopf). Why do you write that here? What do I have to do with it?
Nevertheless,to answer your question "Polish Goose" would be translated "Polnische Gans". "Dummkopf" in English means "dumb head". In German slang language, and childish people would call each other "Dumme Gans" or "Dumme Kuh" , "dumb goose" or "dumb cow", most often , men would say that to or about a female, as in American they say "dumb broad". Instead of dumb you can also use "bloede" , which is :more dumb ,retarded. Gans is always female, die Gans. So you might have possibly read this somewhere on some internet talk forum. But that does not belong in the wiki articles or wiki talk discussions.
Do did not explain, what you meant by putting a "Prussian crow" on the serious article about crows, other than saying to me "you did not get it". What was it, that was supposed to be gotten ?
You need to make a difference between casual conversation and worldwide supposedly scholarly entries.
I do not know, but I think that basically you mean well. Therefore I would accept your thousand apologies. But I do not really know who is apologizing, is it Space Cadet ?, or is it Pan Mruk ? aka Richard Grayson ? aka Mrukkert von Engeldorf ? (also known as: from Los Angeles).
Perhaps you should next sign as "Spaced out Cadet"
To H. Jonat from Space Cadet. (I'm not so sure about "Spaced out Cadet", have you resorted to name calling again in lack of other arguments?, please explain.)
- No! Nobody attempted to kick me off.
- No! I didn't apologize to anybody. BTW, did you have to apologize for your Commie remark? Remember, back on the Estrid talk page, when you ran out of patience and historical knowledge, and switched to offensive accusations, suggesting that I use Communist propaganda?
- No! It was not a Nazi remark! Having been a member of HJ or BDM as a child, does not make anybody a Nazi!If a child did not want to join, he (and his whole family) would be considered an enemy of the state and sent to KL.
- No! I don't use Beta automatic translations, because I can't understand a word. (And speaking of warning labels, I should probably start employing them, every time I use expression "thousand apologies" as bitter irony).
- Polish goose was a disparaging term in XIX and XX century used by German propaganda in the occupied Polish territories, to describe the Polish White Eagle and I would be surprised, if you were truly not aware of that.
- Also, if I'm a Communist, expression "Pan" does not apply (try to be consistent). Proper form would be "towarzysz", which means "comrade".
- And no! It's not Los Angeles (although you're very close). It's actually a beautiful suburb of Sacramento, with a well developed Polish community - Me, Myself and I.
Spaced out Cadet (your wish is my command! - WARNING!!! - bitter irony).
Fr. Jonat --
Have you ever head the phrase, "the pot calling the kettle black"? or, "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"? Others here already mentioned to SC that the crow was in bad taste (and he took it down immediately), but most of his history is pretty decent, if leaning towards the Polish interpretation of things. However, since your contributions have never been anything but biased, not to mention badly written and often walking the line of outright plagiarism, AND continuously disregard any of the naming conventions or any other guidelines to be found on this encyclopedia, what gives you the right to attack anyone?J Hofmann Kemp
About the "Danti{s}cus" article: Of what nationality is Professor "Kotoviki" (because it sounds like a made up or badly misspelled Polish name)? Is the professor really not aware that:
- It's Dantiscus not Danticus (even all the German websites seem to possess that knowledge)
- Jan Dantyszek (as he is generally known in the country of his was birth, life and death - Poland)was
a Polish diplomat and ambassador for 28 years
- he spent a big portion of his life at the court of the Polish kings
- as Polish soldier he took part of the campaign, against the Turks and Moldavians
- Warmia was in Poland until 1772 which may explain the mystery of why "Ermeland remained Catholic
despite the surrounding Prussian lands turning Protestant"
- Flachsbinder was his father's nickname, the family name was von Hoefen
- about the only German thing about him was his grandfather;
or did you filter it out as "irrelevant"?
The name of the Professor is corrected now. (I tried to find it again, could not., but today it came up on http://www.altavista.com : Dantiscus. I also changed the heading to show the different spellings. "Fassbinder" was added by someone other than me. Therefore I now changed the text to reflect that. The German Institute in Warsaw : Deutsche Historische Institute DHI (I mentioned them months ago) is working with Polish experts to decipher the German language records in the "regained", or rather "reconquered"land , among them the German Language records of the prince-bishop of Ermland , Danti(s)cus. This has not been done by the Polish "liberators of the land" since take-over. It was started after 1992 and the DHI was approached in 1995, I believe.
I do not know (yet), when Danti(s)cus received the prince-bishop (Reichsfuerst) title, perhaps in 1515 by Maximilian in Vienna ? I originally did put an entry on the "first" Congress of Vienna (1515) and the importance of the emperor adopting Louis etc etc , but little remained. Emperor Maximilian made a deal with Sigismund I (then neglected to support the Protestants) Just as the Habsburgs were "inheriting" Hungary, Poland etc, they had set out to take over the Hanseatic League and inherit Prussia and what all else. It was more important that all should remain Catholic and it did not matter what language, as long as they were of the "correct political religion of that time".
By the way the grandmasters did not pledge allegiance to the Polish king (except Paul von Russdorf ?) and when Albrecht von Brandenburg Prussia became grandmaster, he also refused. He only pledged allegiance to his uncle Sigismund I on a personal basis , after he stepped down as grand master.
I know Danti(s)cus also received titles from emperor Charles V, date ? When this Danzig burgher became an Ermland resident, that was a different "state" ,he may or may not have been prince-bishop before becoming bishop of Ermland.
Under emperor Maximilian II's son Maximilian (III) the Teutonic Knights Grandmaster was a Habsburg (himself). Maximilian II and III were also elected king of Poland.
Sigismund I was duke of Silesia, later king of Poland. Sigismund III Vasa was king of Sweden, Gothland, Vandalorum and king of Poland and kept the official title king of Sweden all his life. The kings of Sweden were Reichsfuersten, or imperial princes for at least that part of Germany or Holy Roman Empire, that they ruled. And so on and so on.
It was standard procedure for all the rulers of Europe to interchange positions, offices, titles, if you will, because they were all intermarried and they bought and sold titles to territories and countries.
To the Erm(e)land spelling. I had entered an article under Ermland, because that is the modern spelling, even though centuries ago it was spelled Ermeland. Search engines give you much more info on Ermland, but again someone had changed wiki to Ermeland. Oh well. H. Jonat
Helga -- you MUST put the titles of the books you used. If those books are under copyright, you MUST put quotes around anything you've taken verbatim. If the books or articles are copyrighted, you can't do a "based on" article in the way you can with the 1911 encyclopedia, for example. This is really important for the wikipedia. These authors have every right to sue the hell out of people who use their work without following copyright law. Since wikipedia can be edited by anybody, it's also really important not to rely too much on copyighted works and incorporate those works into the site, because somebody else could very easily make changes that mess up the citations -- and then that could still be potentially harmful. Please go back over your work and do what's necessary to make this "bullet proof" J Hofmann Kemp
Unless I quote a book, these articles are on internet, http://www.altavista.com
- Even if they are on the internet, they might be copyrighted. Also, I can't necessarily find the exact articles by going to the altavista main page. Could you please take care of providing verification that the information is not copyrighted, and also make any necessary changes in the article? Thanks! J Hofmann Kemp
Hey Helga -- I think it may be time for you to move your user page fully over to the user:namespace and turn H. Jonat into a redirect. I'll do this for you in about a week if you don't have time to get around to doing it. Cheers! --maveric149, Thursday, April 25, 2002
Hi maveric149, I do not know anything about this. If you think that it is alright, please go ahead, in a week or so. Maybe you could drop me a line of explanation. Thanks a lot, see you then H. Jonat Fri Apr 26