Talk:Elbląg

Old talk of 2002

In 1945 Elbing was taken over by Poland, the native inhabitants were expelled and replaced by Poles. The city was renamed Elblag. After the fall of the Iron Curtain there is a small minority of original Elbinger inhabitants in Elbing/Elblag? today, who are now allowed to speak their native language and use their none-Polish names once again.

What a mess. I have made the following stab at clarifying and NPOVing this paragraph:

1. The "Elbing/Elblag" construction has been resolved to just "Elblag". The sentence containing it refers to post-1945, when the city was no longer named Elbing -- referring to it as so is disingenuous.

2. There's a logical contradiction in the final clause. If the "original Elbinger"s (more on that in a second) were expelled from Poland, the Polish government were obviously not in a position to keep them from speaking German. One or the other could have happened -- I assumed it was the expulsion.

3. "Original Elbinger" is also disingenuous. The city was founded in the 13th century, hence I would imagine all the "original" inhabitants died sometime before 1300 AD. Replaced with "the city's German-speaking inhabitants."

-- Paul Drye

yep, all those are reasonable decisions. --MichaelTinkler

I am somewhat uncomfortable (ok, very uncomfortable) with the whole "original" thing. It would be good to know:

1. Was the expulsion forcible? or did the 4 powers say to the German-speakers that they would henceforth be living in poland, so they could leave if they didn't like it?

1. How many of these German speakers had been sent in as colonists by the Nazi regime?

we are by no means hearing the complete story here

I know that this part of the article has since been changed, but are you serious with a question like "did the 4 powers say to the German-speakers that they would henceforth be living in poland, so they could leave if they didn't like it.."?

---

For church records filmed by the LDS Latter Day Saints , Utah for Elbing, Westprussia, Prussia, Germany http://www.familysearch.com

Topic Germany, Preußen, Westpreußen, Elbing - Church records

Titles Kirchenbuch, 1625-1946 / Evangelische Kirche Sankt Annen Elbing Kirchenbuch, 1622-1827 / Evangelische Kirche Heiliger Leichnam Elbing Kirchenbuch, 1626-1831 / Evangelische Kirche Sankt Paulus Elbing Kirchenbuch, 1577-1816 / Evangelische Kirche Heilige Drei Könige Elbing Kirchenbuch, 1604-1877 / Evangelische Kirche. Sankt Marien Hauptkirche Elbing Kirchenbuch, 1642-1881 / Katholische Kirche Sankt Nikolai Elbing Kirchenbuch, 1744-1942 / Mennoniten Gemeinde Elbing Kirchenbuch, 1746-1809 / Preußen. Armee. Infanterie Regiment 04 Kirchenbuch, 1746-1868 / Preußen. Armee. Infanterie Regiment 14 Kirchenbuch, 1746-1920 / Evangelische Kirche. Militärgemeinde Elbing Kirchenbuch, 1871-1945 / Katholisch-Apostolische Gemeinde Elbing Kirchenbuch, 1840-1925 / Baptisten Gemeinde Elbing Record of members, 1900-1923 / Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Königsberg Branch (Ostpreußen) Record of members, 1901-1913 / Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Stolp Branch (Pommern) Record of members, 1901-1930 / Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Elbing Branch (Westpreußen)

© 2000 Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved.

Just to look at , keep the url, you can check on any city

---

Original Elbinger are some citizens of Elbing, remaining in Eilbing after it was changed to Elblag by Poland . After the Iron Curtain fell, the Germans in Poland have minority right now, They have been able to restore their German names, The Elbinger German minority have a Elbing newspaper .

---

Besides, Poland had to sign a treaty, allowing German language to the Autochtones again. Maps in Europe are in both languages Danzig/Gdanzk Elbing /Elblag etc. user:H.J.

Not that I've ever seen. I've seen this in the Italian Tyrol/Alto Adige, where maps typically show German names alongside the Italian (Merano/Meran, Bressanone/Brixen), but all Polish maps that I've looked at -- including an atlas published recently in Poland -- have only the Polish names. --Marnen Laibow-Koser 13:42, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not really. Poland agreed to treat the German minority in the very same way Polish minority in Germany is treated, with the exception that some of the communes have German as their official language and double names on the welcome signs. German is also one of the officially supported minorities, which means that the German candidates to the Sejm do not have to pass the 5% quota. However, German is not an official language of Poland and the German names are used only locally in several communes (mostly around Opole. I've never heard of any significant German minority in or around Elbląg. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 17:19, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

---

Can I point out that there is no evidence for such a place as Old Prussi Land, in the sense of anythig besides "here lie dragons" on any map? It's just part of some nationalist ideal to give Prussia some proto-national roots, and fits in with Prussian saga literature, which seems to be at least derived, if not downright stolen, from information we have about the Saxons and Friesians before their conversion. If you look at "Old Prussian" the language, it's a Baltic, i.e., SLAVIC language. So even if all of this Old Prussi stuff fits in, it certainly doesn't mesh with a Germanic heritage...JHK

---

According to most popular theories, Baltic languages are not Slavic language. But of course it has nothing to do with Germanic languages. --Taw

---

Ok -- Let me be more specific. Baltic languages and Slavic languages both belong to the Satem stem of Indo-European languages, while the Germanic languages belong to the centum group. As such, Baltic languages aremuch more closely related to Slavic languages (and there is some linguistic argument that they are indeed offshoots, but TAW is correct, accepted theory sees them as two separate sub-groups). My point is that it's totally ridiculous to keep trying to tie the Old Prussians to Germanic roots -- which blows a lot of user:H.J.'s arguments in her "really belongs to Germany, not to Poland/Communist East" entries. JHK

---

To JHK's totally ridiculous point on language.One only needs to take one look at the different Baltic languages and compare them with Slavic languages.They are completely different, unless you want to say all languages are the same ( the Nostratic Macro family and linguistic Paloeontology ).Northern and Eastern Germans all have Satem pronounciation h=K Ich =ik or ek (ego in Greek). The Satem or as it is nowadays called Indo-Iranian is derived from the ancient Indo-European Armenian-Ashkenazi-Median(Iranian)-Greek-Celtic-Germanic connection , in other words Indo-Europeans coming into Old Europe.And read what it says in the entries, the Baltic language area was once much larger. All along the Baltic Sea to Moscow. Slavs conquered many of there areas starting by 600AD and intensifying after 1000 AD with the greatest territory conquered after 1945 AD.

user:H.J. -- if all one had to do was compare languages and sounds, anyone could be a linguist without special training. Whether or not the Northern and Eastern Germans pronounce things differently -- which is a dialect difference, not a basic language difference, they still speak German, a Germanic language. Baltic languages are more closely related to Slavic languages than they are to Germanic languages, according to what I have read. One of the main reasons is that the two are Satem languages, while German is Centem. Again, this is only according to what I've read by linguists. Taking your point about Slavic migrations as an historian, I would think that perhaps these invasions had an effect on pronunciation in Northern and Eastern Germany -- but it certainly doesn't change the not at all ridiculous fact that you are willing to twist facts and current scholarship in any way it suits you to prove your very biased point.

Since your point is not neutral, and your contributions almost never based on valid evidence or theory, excuse me if I'm not too worried by your judgement of my abilities.JHK

---

To Space Cadet,

I don't know what is wrong with Polish names and Polish spelling ?
My reasoning is that if the title of the article is Elblag readers would like to know how it is properly written in Polish.
Another thing writing Torun (Ger. Thorn) and so on you imply that those towns are as well Polish as German. They are Polish and they used to be German, Hanseatic, Free Towns whatever. What do you think ?
I start thinking that it might be good start another article called Elbing. Perhaps.
If you write Ger. write it in full - this is not paper encyclopedia.
To make things clear I am not a Polish nationalist, far from that. I just want to give the Polish POV to counteract H.J.
--Kpjas

Kpjas -- the reason we've been doing this as we have has more to do with English than Polish or German. We tend to use the form used in English for the time period in question. THe article is titled after the Current official English name of the city, but if there is legitimate reason to use a different name for a different period, we use that. It is very awkward, but also not abnormal -- for instance, Ancient history texts will often use Roman names for cities, rather than moder equivalents.

Much more important than which name is used, is that the article is correct, that the English flows well and logically, and that it is NPOV. It is an incredible waste of time and effort to worry about changing the name of the town, when there are much more important things at stake -- plus, it just incites edit and flame wars. JHK

---

It is right, that a seperate history should be written for Elbing. This is exactly, what I had been doning with all the German cities. Then add that since 1945 there is a place called Elblag and start that seperately.

Then people think it is right, that not only the city and country was stolen but now that the history is beeing stolen as well.

So I take all my Elbing history back, that I had input into wiki sofar. The history of Elblag starts in 1945, so write about that. user:H.J.

Do not just delete content. Move it if we agree, but don't just delete. Rmhermen 09:45 Aug 22, 2002 (PDT)

---

To JHK , see Old Prussian Language and descriptions of language.H.J.

---

user:H.J., this needs to stop. You are damaging the project and wasting our time. The city is now Elblag in English. That's what the US and British governments call it. The city's history hasn't changed because the official name has. I have reverted the article, and the Elbing article will be redirected here, as was decided months ago, when Larry worked here. JHK

Local Polish dialect

Could anyone tell me what dialect is that? Kashubian language by any chance?Halibutt 22:40, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You mean the name of Elblag in a local Polish dialect. It the dialect of the Polish people living in the vicinity of Elblag, which is usually called Powiśle. The dialect is sometimes called Dialect of Malbork (dialekt malborski) but the natives prefer to call it Dialct of Sztum (dialekt sztumski). It has no direct connection with Cassubian language - Mestwin of Gdansk 01:32, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Question for JHK

you wrote: "Can I point out that there is no evidence for such a place as Old Prussi Land, in the sense of anythig besides "here lie dragons" on any map? It's just part of some nationalist ideal to give Prussia some proto-national roots, and fits in with Prussian saga literature, which seems to be at least derived, if not downright stolen, from information we have about the Saxons and Friesians before their conversion...."

What exactly are you trying to say here? I agree with your last sentence (which I did not copy above, but I'm not sure what your point about slavic languages and their relation to the polish people now in Elbag...

Replaced stuff

I replaced some stuff at the beginning as I expanded it a little:

The town of Elbing was founded in 1237 by the Teutonic Order near the former Truso. Dave 12:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Olessi edits

Hello Olessi. I see you are a distinguished editor on central Europe. Thanks for refining some of my changes. I can't say there is anything I want to seriously dispute at the moment. There are a couple of things I would like to mention though. When I first saw the article the introduction was incomprehensible, due to all those strange characters and that list of names. Those things should be in the article for those who take more of an interest in linguistics but it should not take one 20 minutes just to figure out the first sentence. Right at the moment the combination of my edits and yours have resulted in a format that isn't too bad. I notice many editors put such name lists at the end, but as I say, it doesn't look too bad where it is. The section heads serve to prevent confusion.

Second, so you want to call Elbing and Elblag the same city? Now really! Why not call Kaliningrad the same city! Why can't my neighbors here in the states with Germanic names go back to Elbing and visit all their cousins, hey? Let me ask you this. How many of the current citizens of Elblag get together on New year's eve to remember auld lang syne in Elbing?

In any case it seems to me we can go on with this. I can work with you so far, even though my perception is not yours. You can probably look forward to reading me on the other Prussian cities also, as I am interested in Prussia. My interests are more in antiquity but you can't neglect the modern; after all, people live today and not at some other time.Dave 03:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello! I should have addressed some of the changes I made on this talk page initially; I apologize for not having done so.

Thanks for your swift reply.Dave 03:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Generally, alternative names (at least for cities) are listed in the introduction of the article. Sometimes this burdens the intro considerably (Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi) and a separate naming section is then created near the beginning (Tallinn, Mukacheve). I'm not familiar with having the names listed near the end of the article, however.

I've seen it more at the end than the beginning but it isn't worth the time to do a study. I like it where it is. "If it isn't broken, don't fix it." W As I say what was originally broken about it was the unreadability it helped introduce to the intro. So now it is fixed.Dave 03:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that Truso and the city have no continuation, this is the first I have heard that Elbing and Elbląg are separate cities. Although I find it regrettable that East Prussian Germans might not be welcomed in Elbląg, it does not change the fact that the city is seen as a continuous entity from the 13th century through today.[1] Unless you can provide some reliable sources, the assertion that Elbląg is a different city from Elbing seems like original research to me. Here are some quickly found links maintaining the continuity of the city: Britannica, Columbia, American Heritage, etc.

Now that you explain it that way I see what you mean. Whether or not I or anyone sees it as continuous or discontinuous has nothing to do with it. The determining factor is as you say the way it is predominantly treated.Dave 03:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for adding the information about the geography in and near the city. I would advise adding references for it if you find the time. Thanks! Olessi 21:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Most of what I said you can get from looking at the two interactive maps in the external links or the very common community websites that abound. They clearly show the directions north, east, south and west, and correctly depict the location of Gdansk, Frisches Haff, and so on. Also I used some material from the websites I listed under Druzno. There's nothing obscure or fancy there. But I suppose you probably mean the material on the port of Elblag, such as the draft of 1.5 m. Well, I got the whole thing off the web. There is a good site on the port. It crossed my mind to put that site in but somehow I did not.

I don't see much point in saying something like "for the direction and distance of Elblag from Lake Druzno, refer to the interactive map ..." For the statistics I suppose I could footnote the information and refer to the external link. I will work on locating that site and make sure it is available to the reader who wants to check it out and possibly learn more.Dave 03:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Since you seem skilled and to some degree authoritative I probably should explain what I am doing. I wanted to see some sort of ethnic database here, in this case some information about the Old Prussians and Truso and the Elbing vocabulary and the relationship of Elbing to the Old Prussians, Germans and Poles. Is this not a most excellent way to collect what is known and review it? On this particular article I noticed the bad format at the start. The organization seemed good but then I kept encountering errors and ambiguities, which were misleading and didn't say anything. For example, Elbing was said to be in Pogesania. But it was also in Pomesania. Then some obscure statement about the division of the dioceses was made according to which Pogesania disappeared (it didn't really). Then I realized this was like copying a manuscript. The quick summary articles were being repeated over and over but at each repetition a little more error was being introduced. Wikipedia is after all only 4 or 5 years old. So I decided to go through it correcting whatever errors I could or else this database of information would not be much good to anyone, being wrong. On a topic of this nature there are many determined partisans. So I knew I would have to do some interfacing. I'm still not sure that you are not a Polish partisan (there are also German ones and Russian ones).

Anyway I'm still going through it. Elbing is important historically to Americans. It was Protestant for quite a while. The Mennonites dominated it for a while also. There are a lot of immigrants from there here, or I should say descendants of immigrants. I know there is a space limitation. So it is important to put spaceworthy material in. That is one reason why I appreciate your edits. But, we can't leave any gross errors or ambiguities, now can we? What good would that be?

Well I need to wind down this too long comment. Gradually I'll be looking at Culm, Torun, Gdansk, Koenigsburg and all the others. Just at first glance Gdansk seemed pretty good, but I won't know until I read it in detail. That reminds me there are two more topics for your consideration:

While originally most information contributed to Wikipedia was without references, there definitely is a shift now toward sourcing contributions (see the Notes section of practically all featured articles). While general geographic data might be ok, I still would recommend sourcing it. Historical information (especially regarding the Middle Ages), should always be sourced, in my opinion, even if it is from a different language Wiki. Thanks for the "suggestion" that I might be a partisan editor- it reminds me of User:Lysy's introduction. :)

One thing I would suggest avoid doing is providing too much information here when it could be placed somewhere else. For instance, eventually I want to work on a Prussian Crusade article where the detailed history of the conquest of the Prussians would go, while details about Lübeck rights would be more fitting at Lübeck law than in this article.

Thank you for your enthusiasm for the project and happy editing! Olessi 00:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ho ho ho! I feel more confident about you from the previous paragraphs. I generally agree with you. An article is certainly more useful to researchers or database builders (like me) with ample sourcing. An article often is a sort of clearing house of information, and that is good I think. But, there are a lot of persons who want to use it just for general information. They need to be able to understand it and that is a Wikipedia goal I believe. Many times expert articles have been tagged as needing to be made comprehensible.

I agree, as I say, with minor reservations. An article needs some continuity, some connector sentences, a brief indication of what the reader might find expanded in a linked article. Where to draw the line is a judgement of course. Too far in one direction and the article is a collection of disconnected statements. Too far in the other and the theme of the article gets lost in the morass of other topics. I thought the article before I added to it erred in the direction of disconnection. You couldn't really follow what was going on, especially as many of the linked articles were or are insufficiently developed.

Prussian Crusade. Good idea. I had in mind doing articles on the Prussian tribes and then going from there into the archaeology. When I started there was nothing at all. I did an article or two in which I necessarily had to talk about the Teutonic Order because there was nothing to which to link. Suddenly articles on the order began to appear, fine articles, well illustrated, not, however, as factual as they might be, written from an non-NPOV point of view, that they were always the champions of Christianity, hoorah for the good knights and all that. Nobody mentioned that the queen of Poland had to beg the knights to stop slaughtering the by then Christian Prussians. But mainly there was no comprehensive view of what the order was trying to do, how they planned to build a Baltic state, Livonia, how they invaded from both flanks, Riga and the Vistula, how the east Balts bided their time and sacrificed the west Balts, how they built the state of Lithuania and then joined it to Poland, suddenly converting to Christianity, and finally how they turned on the order when they were ready and smashed it in 1410 at Grunwald, too late for most of the Prussians. So if we are going to have an adequate historical view of the foundation of the Baltic states we certainly need and article on the Prussian Crusade and other topics. I cannot possibly do these all myself. I look forward to your articles.

Meanwhile I will try to take your advice. You can judge whether the inormation is sufficiently connected. Thanks for your interest.Dave 02:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Polish external links

The Polish external links are interesting and informative I am sure but not too many English-speakers can read them. Can't we just refer them to the Polish Wiki? It contains so much more information for the Polish readers that it seems a shame to make them read English, and the Polish sites aren't much good to the English readers.Dave 03:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Polish Common Law

Well, that sentence on the Book of Elblag whets the appetite by confusing the reader into a state of puzzlement. Have we any idea what language it is in? I thought the law was the Luebeck Law, according to the article. Anyway how did Prussian law get into Polish common law? And to top it all off I just can't find the Book of Elblag anywhere else besides Wikipedia. Can anyone help inform us non-Poles here?Dave 03:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You'll find few sources in English, but there's a 1946 Polish book speaking of "Book of Elbing". Else, you got to look for Elbinger Rechtsbuch or the all-Polish name. Calling it Book of Elblag would be ahistoric, as the town was then known as Elbing, rather than the much more recent Polish Elblag. -- Matthead  DisOuß   18:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead

I think the lead focuses to heavily on the history, not enough on other aspects. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Improper Italicization

There is also no reason to italicize former German names of now-Polish localities in the areas given to postwar Poland by the Potsdam Conference. In English, italics usually denote foreign (non-English) words for things or concepts, but not place names. Prior to 1945, Elbląg was officially Elbing, not Elbing, and the German name should not be italicized. Sca (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Nazi "popularity"

I have removed a gratuitous and undocumented reference to the "popularity" of the Nazi Party in Elbing. The Nazis were "popular" in nearly all German cities and towns in then-East Prussia, Danzig and Pomerania during the years just before World War II — mainly because they promised revision of the Versailles Treaty's creation of the Free City of Danzig and what then was commonly known (in Western Europe and the English-speaking world) as the Polish Corridor. Unless some evidence can be shown that the Nazis were particularly or unusually popular in Elbing, this reference is irrelevant, and seemed devised to indirectly blame the residents of old Elbing for what happened to the town in and after 1945. Much larger forces were at play. Sca (talk) 17:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

After 1945

Some "15th century binoculars" are mentioned. As the telescope only came in in the early 17th century, I am not sure that this is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.0.42 (talk) 12:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Elbląg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120817000528/http://www.stat.gov.pl/gus/5840_13211_PLK_HTML.htm to http://www.stat.gov.pl/gus/5840_13211_PLK_HTML.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071217111917/http://www.euhe.edu.pl:80/ to http://euhe.edu.pl/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071010151636/http://www.janski.pl/uczelnia/wydzial.html to http://www.janski.pl/uczelnia/wydzial.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.seminarium.elblag.opoka.org.pl/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tainan.gov.tw/tainan/Intro.asp?nsub=L1A400

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Elbląg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060805113641/http://www.polfracht.pl/polfracht/psal/localinf/elb/portelb1.htm to http://www.polfracht.pl/polfracht/psal/localinf/elb/portelb1.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://euhe.edu.pl/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The pronunciation of the Polish name of the city

The transcription of the Polish name of the city at the beginning of the article is [ˈɛlblɔŋk] (with [k]) but the man in the recording says [ˈɛlblɔŋg] (with [g]). The discrepancy should be resolved in one way or another.S. Valkemirer (talk) 09:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

He actually said [ˈɛlblɔ̃ɡ], with a nasal vowel and a voiced stop at the end, which is a ridiculous pronunciation that is completely outside of Standard Polish. The correct pronunciation is [ˈɛlblɔŋk]. I've replaced the recording. Sol505000 (talk) 13:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)