Jump to content

Talk:Second Peace of Thorn (1466)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Old talk

[edit]

The article have to be at the historical name. In English, this is the most common. -- Nico 21:34, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The city name was and is Torun, not Thorn (this is a 19th century German name of a Polish city) -- CC 22:28, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The name was Thorn, the city was even founded by Germans. And the English name on the treaty is "Second Treaty of Thorn". Try a Google search. Nico 22:31, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I have reluctantly protected this page: if this upsets CC, Taw, and 24.2, all I can say is that the edit war seemed to be escalating, and I decided I would protect whatever form the page was in when I got there: it happened to be most recently edited by Nico. Hopefully the community can come to a decision regarding how we are to refer to these locations in Poland--until that happens, perhaps we should all take a breather and add useful content to WP somewhere else entirely. I know working on new articles always calms me down. Hopefully we can work this out soon...Jwrosenzweig 22:37, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, i guess best thing would be creating pages "Treaty of Thorn" and "Treaty of Torun" and then see which page will attract more viewings. Is that possible in wikipedia? szopen

The city name is Torun (historical and modern), and this city witnessed a peace congress in 1466. The city was later Germanised to Thorn, but there is no reason why we should use this 19th century city name to this historical event.

The peace treaty was written in Latin, and it used the name of Thorun several times, reflecting its medieval spelling. The original is still preserved and I have seen a copy of it myself. There is no reason why we should use a 19th century German name for the Polish city of Toruń. Modern spelling is Toruń, and it is a real city in Poland. Modern spelling should be used here, so please move to Second Treaty of Torun.

1466 Second Treaty of Thorn

[edit]

1525 Treaty of Krakow

[edit]

Casimir IV was put under ban for his attempt to illegally annex Prussia and the 1466 agreements and the 1525 agreements were neither authorized nore recognized by the HRE emperors, nore the popes, who had recorded supreme overlordship of Prussia with the Golden Bulls of Rimini and Rieti.

1) Casimir was put under ban? By whom? By emperor, whom he had considered his equal and who has no authority over him?
2) Attempt to illegally annex Prussia? He was invited by Prussia burghers and gentry for annexing, and anyway Teutons hold it illegally since IIRC all or almost all earlier trials ordered TO to return Gdansk to Poland!
3) Pope had not confirmed it, so what: did you read why they need confimration? It was said something in sense: "pope's confimration is not needed, but will be seeked for ensuring lsating peace", I could search for exact Dlugosz quote if you want.
So, your quote does not add anything: it tries to suggest, that Casimir was subject to emperor, it tries to suggest that pope's confirmation was needed, and that annexation was illegal, all three of which are not true.

Szopen 08:02, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cut and Paste move, title of article

[edit]

I've reverted the cut and paste move of this article to Second Treaty of Torun. If you think it should be moved, get someone to delete Second Treaty of Torun or move it somewhere else (Treaty of Torun/Thorn (1466), or some such, would be a good location), and then move the article there. Cut and paste moves are just wrong, and Space Cadet has been around long enough to know that.

On the substantive matter, Second Treaty of Thorn is more commonly used in English. There are about three times as many hits on google for "Treaty of Thorn" as there are for "Treaty of Torun". john k 16:41, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Second Treaty of Thorn is the proper name, I agree. -- Matthead  Discuß   00:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pope and treaty

[edit]

Really did pope recognized the treaty? In all history books ive read he didn't even though papal legate was a mediator. Not that this is VERY relevant, since both sides agreed that his (pope's) confirmation is not needed but only would be welcomed... I am even not sure whether pope take back the curse from the Prussian confederation Szopen 10:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

[edit]

If anybody thinks this article is POVed, or would like to explain why the de-Wiki version is better, please do so here. Otherwise I see no reason for the NPOV tag or the bizzare 'see better article on de-Wiki' note to remain in the article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Content?

[edit]

The article lacks descriptions of the actual content of the treaty. -- Matthead  Discuß   00:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and some editors here even deleted some parts of the treaty's main elements (like the fact that treaty stated clearly that Prussia was incorporated into Polish kingdom). Szopen (talk) 07:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source in Polish is here: http://pl.wikisource.org/wiki/II_pok%C3%B3j_toru%C5%84ski photocopies are here: http://dziedzictwo.polska.pl/katalog/index,Pokoj_torunski_1466,cid,2340.htm

The treaty states that "[list of the cities and lands]" will belong [..] only and exclusively to mentioned before most serence king Casimir AND POLISH KINGDOM"

What;s more in the text of treaty NEVER IT IS STATED that Prussian confederation was a side: it was peace treaty between Polish king and his allies and supporters and Teutonic order. In other words, some editor here __on purpose __ deleted true information and inserted false informations into the article. Szopen (talk) 07:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here what treaty says about Prussian confederation: 1) Between whom was the war? "które powstały między najjaśniejszym księciem panem Kazimierzem, z Bożej łaski królem polskim, wielkim księciem litewskim, panem i dziedzicem Rusi i Prus wyżej wspomnianym, i najjaśniejszymi książętami panami Konradem, Kazimierzem, Bolesławem, Januszem, książętami Mazowsza, Henrykiem, księciem słupskim, oraz wielebnym ojcem księdzem Pawłem, biskupem warmińskim, i kapitułą jego, Stefanem, wojewodą mołdawskim, Królestwem Polskim, ziemiami i innymi posiadłościami temuż panu królowi i królestwu podległemu,"

i.e "between Polish king, lord and inheritor of Russia and Russia, several dukes, bishop of Warmia, Stefan voivode of Moldavia, Polish kingdom and its lands and other belongings of that king and kingdom"

2) And now, prepare, treaty mentions Pussian confederation: The hostilities between Teutonic Order and Polish king, "poddanym naszymi w ziemiach pruskich" - OUR SUBJECTS IN PRUSSIAN LAND. That's all. No any other mentioning about Prussian Confederation. Probably because it was subject of Polish king since 1454 (or 1455, can't remember), when Prussian delegates asked Polish king to incorporate Prussia into Polish kingdom. Polish king then of course did it, and Prussians took and oath of loyalty in 1454 (or 1455). In other words, Prussian confederation was not side in the war. They were simply subjects of Polish king, out of their own will. Szopen (talk) 08:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move to Second Peace of Thorn (1466). Parsecboy (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:COMMONNAME, an article's title should be at the most common phrasing used in English.

The following is a perusal of Google Books. Google results by themselves can be fickle and the exact numbers may differ depending when a query is conducted, but the proportions indicate primary English usage.




An examination of Google Books publications indicates the predominance of "Thorn" over Toruń/Torun in historical usage. Although there are many older publications within the results, newer books prefer Thorn over Toruń/Torun as well ([1] [2]; [3] [4]). Although the city Toruń is in modern Poland, this is an article about a historic treaty. The better titles seem to me to be First Peace of Thorn or Peace of Thorn (1466). The current title, Peace of Toruń (1466), is rarely used in English compared to the alternatives. Olessi (talk) 05:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Molobo advertised Peace of Toruń (1411) at Portal talk:Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board#Important voting. I have subsequently listed both 1411 and 1466 at Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages/General#Medieval peace treaties and Wikipedia talk:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board#Medieval peace treaties. Olessi (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support a quick move back to Second Treaty of Thorn without much further ado, as it was this name under which it was created in 2002 before it was moved twice, hardly with consensus:
03:04, 12 July 2005 Space Cadet (Second Treaty of Thorn moved to Second Peace of Toruń)
7:52, 4 February 2006 Appleseed (moved Second Peace of Toruń to Peace of Toruń (1466): create consistent title)
How about using Second Peace Treaty of Thorn (1466) to cover all combinations? -- Matthead  Discuß   02:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. Google counts are hardly best way to establish the proper name. Due to German occupation of Poland and eradication of Polish state by Germany, google lists several German publications that insisted on German names and hence such results won't be neutral.--Molobo (talk) 11:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. Google hits also largely represent publications from Cold War period when German names were favored. What do encyclopedias say? Space Cadet (talk) 14:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is Cold War still going on between Poland and England? As of 2005, English historian, Norman Davies (honorary doctor of the universities of Lublin and Gdańsk, member in the Polish Academy of Learning), in God's Playground (required reading in many Polish classrooms) uses several times "of Thorn" (Published 2005), in regard to both 15th century Treaty of Thorn as well as to the 1724 Tumult of Thorn, but never "of Torun" (or "of Toruń"). Besides, the article on the Blood-bath of Thorn was moved to Tumult of Thorn (Toruń) in Dec 2007, hardly with consensus. This needs to be fixed, too. And according to WP:5P, WP:NPOV, WP:V WP:RS, WP:CS, WP:NOR, Wikipedia should not echo other "encyclopedic" Tertiary sources. -- Matthead  Discuß   09:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question - there appears to be consensus to move the page, is there a decided-upon version of the title? Once that's chosen, I can close the proposal and move the page. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 13:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to evidence presented above, Peace beats the rather general Treaty. I'd say it is helpful to include both Second and a clarifying 1466, so I suggest Second Peace of Thorn (1466). -- Matthead  Discuß   17:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

[edit]

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 13:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to

[edit]

It has been suggested (by User:Armbrust) that this page be moved to Second Peace of Thorn. That looks like a good idea, but given that the current name was the result of a consensus decision here on this page, it should first be proposed here on this page. 08:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Peace_of_Thorn_(1466)&oldid=1210291651"