Talk:Siege of Danzig (1577)

Military history: European / Polish / Early Modern

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	European military history task force
	Polish military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)

Poland Mid‑importance

	Poland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Split war from siege[edit]

Since for the most part, this article describes the events preceeding the siege, shouldn't this article be renamed to Polish-Danzig War and interwikilinked to pl:Wojna Rzeczypospolitej z Gdańskiem? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

Another attemp of this page creator to germanisation... Why Danzig if it was at that time integral part of the Polish Crown? It doesn`t matter that city rebelled, the same did primat-interrex and some part of pro-Habsburg szlachta and not becouse they felt German. I think that there should be made article about his funny coup d`etat with Siege of Gdańsk as a section. Or rather in the Free Election page sections about every election and notes about such insignificient incidents. Referring that Ryszard Brzeziński (proper name!) called this city Danzig for real needs referrence for itselve, otherwise should be changed to the correct name. I think it shouldn`t be called "war" (the same in Polish wiki), simply Gdańsk wasn`t sovereign state, but as i said integral part of Polish Kingdom, rebellion would sound much more correct. Mikołajski (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the reasons why Danzig is used, please see Talk:Gdansk/Vote. I do agree that the name of the article does not reflect its content, see my post above. Danzig rebellion is a valid name to consider, too.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, democratic science.... What if i would like to give my vote? I don`t see the reason why to call city, which was within Polish borders, with its German name. That "democratic researche" isn`t even based on population factor, but enough about it.

If it goes for this stub, what exactly have nationality to this siege if in previous sentence is mentioned given by the Polish Kings (in German spelling btw) law? Not to mention that there are mistakes in this artwork. Union of Lublin didn`t made Poland ,neither Lithuania, elective monarhies, Poland was electing hers Kings since Jogaila. It wasn`t just Lithuania who didn`t wanted Bathory, there was no separated representation on Free Elections. Last sentence is more than unnecessary, what else is doing part of some country than contibuteing in its issues? Rebellion is much more accurate, but it wasn`t becouse of nationality, neither it was the reason why "Lithuania" (who?) was opposeing. Mikołajski (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel encouraged to edit the article and correct errors. You can also move the article if you think some name would be better, but I suggest waiting a day or two to see if there are any objections to the proposed renaming.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Created Danzig rebellion as suggested, for the preceding political events. This article should focus on the siege itself. And please, no naming shenanigans. Germans are the ones who made THIS AND OTHER naming shenanigansThe town was called Danzig.No,it was not.It was called Gdańsk because it couldn't have been called any other way because it was part of Poland and in Polish it's Gdańsk and nothing different!Don't lie matthead!It must be called just like it was called in the language of the country that possesed it,therefore Gdańsk.Besides,what nerve of the Germans to call a city which was back then (and is now) Polish by their German name!!The nerve.Every other city in every other country on Earth is without these naming problems.Only Poland has to have Germans ignoring the fact that it was (and is0 an integral part of Poland and putting their name even though it wasn't their city.Chose people-either you apply the same rules to every country or to no country because now it's pure discrimination of Poland.Only because Gemans have such a strong position on wiki. -- Matthead Discuß 16:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did i suggested it? I think that rebel and siege shouldn`t have separate articles, the same as Habsburgs messing into our politics, just a note in Free election page, or in some other page about politics of cesarian (pro-Habsburg) and Zamoyskites (pro-"Slavic") partyies (or Execution movement). What you wrote makes this incident to looks like fights of some nationalisms and separatism of Gdańsk. Read about Stanisław Karnkowski statutes 1670 (!!!), and give better referrence than some scrap-paper to proove that Stefan Bathory didn`t confirmed Prussia Royale and Prussia Ducale rights (look at dates !...). What for you`r createing pages about Polish history if you`v got such shameful lack of knowladge about it ?!

And if it goes for a name, i`v said what i think, city which belongs to some country should be named in its official language (just like it is at now), especially if Danzig is nothing more but spelling of this citys original name. But it seems that democracy is most reliable argument... pity that i`m not allowed to participate in this name Free election. Mikołajski (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karnkowski's Statues were from 1570, not 1670. It is a fact that Zygmunt August and Batory tried to limit Gdańsk's power and failed. Do note there is little "nationalism" in this conflict, Danzigers/Gdańszczanie were fighting for economic privileges, but not for independence.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry, i was in rush and instead of "5" i put "6", but that statutes were real issue anyway. Let`s see, all of it started when Jakub Uchański proclaimed (illegaly) Maximillian II Habsburg the King of Poland (and Grand Duke of Lithuania), not when Karnkowski statutes were announced. Bathory who had at the beginning opposition of almost whole episcopate, Lithuanian chancellor Jan Chodkiewicz (who suborned Uchański to rebel) and then Lithuanian representant Knyaz Massalski... wasn`t even King, Anna Jagiello was. Bathory finally was accepted even by Uchański, and sweared all Prussia Royale and Prussia Ducale rights, every city accepted him as a King, with exception of Gdańsk. Then announced Sejm in the Toruń 19 october 1576 and imposed banition on Gdańsk. Habsburgs supported rebel in Gdańsk and were bribering people like Bartosz Paprocki, talkeing to Ivan IV the Terrible (who was also candidate in this election) about partitioning Commonwealth. Gdańsk was just a pawn in this game and it fought also against loyal cityies like Elbing (this name is original, in opposite to Danzig) with German speaking majorityies. Mikołajski (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember the scope of the article. This article is about a military siege. Details of the war - background, aftermath - belong in the Danzig rebellion.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits[edit]

Don`t worry benutzer Mathead, i`v only hid your edits, if you will consider necessary to use it without doing reversion. First of all, i don`t see the reason to hold that template (where are that numbers from?), did you saw similar in stubs about some riots? Secondly if you need so much to push your POV, at least do some researche before writeing, or stick to subjects which you`r really interested to. Greetings Mikołajski (talk) 22:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, neither your conduct nor your edit is acceptable. -- Matthead Discuß 23:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason? Mikołajski (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ach soooo "bad English", lol. Source: Paweł Jasienica: "Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narodów" book one "Srebrny wiek", if you really need, i`ll list his referrences, will Bartosz Paprocki be acceptable? Mikołajski (talk) 23:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, please list references, with page numbers. If you can provide Polish quotations on talk, I will be happy to improve their translation.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid accusations of "POV pushing", per WP:NPA and such. That applies to the all editors, of course.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, are scrap-papers from google book search acceptable? What i wrote was almost direct quotation from Jasienica, but i agree, i didn`t tryied hard to translate it correctly. Anyway, it`s not hard to compare edits in history, copy/edit and paste, i`ll do it and referrence tomorrow. If it goes for suspected personal attacks, what exactly i said which could be abusive? Mikołajski (talk) 23:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]