Talk:Tiedemann Giese

Mauritius Ferber

Why Mauritius Ferber redirects here? He was another bishop of Warmia... but that's no reason for redirect here, is it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

According to pl and de wikis, there were two different persons and have two different articles. RfD.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, these [1] [2] edits show that it was necessary to fix the name. I've created a redirect pointing to Giese as he had a similar life, and the article could serve as a template for a stub which was not written until a few minutes ago. -- Matthead  Discuß   22:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Reminder

1. For Gdańsk, use the name Gdańsk before 1308 and after 1945
2. In biographies of clearly German persons, the name should be used in the form Danzig (Gdańsk) and later Danzig exclusively

-- Matthead  Discuß   01:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Bishop of Culm Vs Bishop of Chelmno?

At intermittent intervals, attempts to change the title, "Bishop of Culm" to "Bishop of Chelmno" have always ended up being reverted back to "Bishop of Culm". And, rgithly so. According to the article, Chelmno, "Culm", also spelled "Kulm", was the official name used on documents during the Medieval period.

In relation to the life and times of Tiedeman Giese, secondary sources almost exclusively use the term, "Bishop of Culm" (or Kulm) Here follows several examples:

"Copernicus's two closest friends, Rheticus and Tiedeman Giese, Bishop of Kulm, were outraged at ..." [Emphasis added] in: John Henry, Moving Heaven and Earth (Icon Science): Copernicus and the Solar System, Icon Books, 2017, [E-book edition], n.p

"sur Tiedeman Giese, évêque de Culm..." [About Tiedeman Giese, Bishop of Culm][Emphasis added] in: Gilbert Tournoy, Constant Matheeussen, Dirk Sacré (eds), Humanistica lovaniensia, Volume XLIX, p. 89

"Copernicus told Pope Paul III that all his friends, foremost of who was Tiedeman Giese, Bishop of Kulm, had long since urged him to publish his work... " [Emphasis added] in: Alexandre Koyre The Astronomical Revolution: Copernicus - Kepler - Borelli, Routledge, 2013, p. 28

"Copernicus acknowledged his indedebtness to his many friends and colleagues who had encouraged him to publish his findings- including Tiedeman Giese Bishop of Culm..." [Emphasis added] in: Jim Nelson Black, The Death of Evolution: Restoring Faith and Wonder in a World of Doubt, Zondervan, 2010, p. 42

"Tiedeman Giese was the Bishop of Kulm and a friend of Copernicus, who he encouraged." [Emphasis added] in: Galileo, Selected Writings, Oxford University Press, p. 405n

"Next to him is that scholar, my very good friend, Tiedeman Giese, Bishop of Culm, most learned in all sacred matters..." [Emphasis added] in: The Gradual Acceptance of the Copernican Theory of the Universe, p. 110 [See: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:The_Gradual_Acceptance_of_the_Copernican_Theory_of_the_Universe.djvu/118]

"Aided by Tiedeman Giese, Bishop of Culm and a lifelong friend, at length (1542) persuaded him." [Emphasis added] in: The Gradual Acceptance of the Copernican Theory of the Universe, p. 29 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:The_Gradual_Acceptance_of_the_Copernican_Theory_of_the_Universe.djvu/37

"Next to him is my devoted friend, Tiedeman Giese, Bishop of Culm, a man filled with the greatest zeal for the divine and the liberal arts." [Emphasis added] in: Lisa M. Dolling, Arthur F. Gianelli and Glenn N. Statile (eds), The Tests of Time: Readings in the Development of Physical Theory, Princeton University Press, 2003, pp 44-45

Unless otherwide specified, all these sources can be found in Google Books so that it is easy to check the original passage as it appears in the source. While the historical place name could be spelled "Culm" or "Kulm", the use should be internally consistent within the article. Therefore we should defer the first usage in the article. According to the article's revision history, the spelling "Culm" first appeared on 27 July, 2006 here and the spelling "Kulm" was already present in the article on 27 December, 2004 here.

Accordingly, I recommend that the spelling Kulm be adopted and that the modern name Chelmno, if used at all, be placed in brackets immediately after Kulm. BronHiggs (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The map below appears on the page, Royal Prussia (shown in light pink). This map clearly shows that Gdansk (Danzig), Chelmno (Culm), Torun (Thorn) and Chojnice (Konitz) were situated within the boundaries of Royal Prussia, as it was known from 1466 and 1772, and therefore was known as Royal Prussia during Giese's lifetime. The modern place names are shown with their historic place names in brackets.

BronHiggs (talk) 05:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Royal Prussia not Kingdom of Prussia

[copying discussion from user talk page to Tiedemann Giese talk page for the sake of other users who may benefit] Tiedeman Giese
The whole story takes place in Poland so Polish names should go first. And Chełmno was the original name, mot just "modern" like you insist.
Georg Giese
Royal Prussia was just a region of Poland, not even a province. Poland was the country not "Prussia". Look it up.
Johann Ernst Gotzkowsky
"Original" suggests that Konitz was a city in the Kingdom of Prussia modernly Chojnice in Poland. Chojnice is the original name, the country was Poland and "Prussia" is misleading, because there were two Prussia's at the time.
More to come, happy editing Space Veteran (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Space Veteran

The stories that we are writing about took place in the 15th and 16th-centuries. The part of Europe where the actors resided was known as Prussia. I think that Poland was a region of Prussia, and not the other way around as you suggest. Refer to Prussia for details. Moreover, the term. "Prussia" is used by the secondary sources cited in the respective articles - and there are multiple secondary sources using that term. As far as possible, authors should use terminology in line with its use in the original source being cited.

In the case of Tiedeman Giese, multiple sources state explicitly that he was the Bishop of Culm (and not the Bishop of Chelmno). As far as practical, editors should use technical terms as they appear in the original source used. In this article, prior editing changes have attempted to use replace modern names, and these were reverted to the historical names as far back as 2006. All I can see is your assertion that Chelmno was the original name, but this viewpoint is not consistent with the language used by multiple historians cited in the article.

In the case of Gotozkowsky article, I can see that inconsistency raising its head again. In the first part of the your argument you claim that Konitz was "modernly Chojnice" and that it was in Prussia, and subsequently insist that Chojnice is the original name and it was in Poland. I simply cannot follow this type of logic.

From a style perspective, historical names should go first rather than Polish names, German names or some other native name. Modern names, if included at all, (and it is optional) should be in brackets and immediately follow the historical name for period in which the narrative occurs.

You have not addressed the apparent inconsistencies in your edits - why change some from modern to historical names in some articles and historical to modern in other articles?

Well, if You think that in XV and XVI centuries Poland was a part of Prussia, than maybe you should refer to Prussia but for basics. I also recommend Royal Prussia, Duchy of Prussia, Brandenburg-Prussia

For you all German names seem to be "historical" and Polish names "modern".Space Veteran (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Johann Ernst Gotzkowsky

"Original" means the version you called "original". I pointed out that the original version would imply the city was Konitz, Kingdom of Prussia. when in fact it was Chojnice, Poland. I'll write soon, happy editing.Space Veteran (talk) 02:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Did you read the articles I recommended? Any more questions? In the future, however, try to be a little bit more self sufficient. Just a suggestion. Happy editing! Space Veteran (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Space Veteran Actually I had read those articles even before you recommended them, thanks. And what I read there makes it very clear that these towns were in the Royal Prussia. I placed a map on the talk page for Tiedemann Giese. The map also shows that Konitz is another name for Chojnice in Royal Prussia. Perhaps you should take your own advice and read the articles. BronHiggs (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually it's very unlikely, that you read those articles before, because then you wouldn't write that you think that Poland was a part of Prussia in 15, 16 centuries. Thank you very much!

Now let me explain that map to you: The names are not divided into "modern" and "historical", but between contemporary Polish (no brackets) and German (brackets). Polish names first, because these lands were under Poland then. I'll buy bishop of Culm. I prefer "Chojnice (Konitz), Poland" over "Chojnice (Konitz), Royal Prussia. Country seems pretty important to me. And Royal Prussia wasn't even a province of Poland. I will write soon, happy editing.Space Veteran (talk) 23:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Plus: the term is awfully confusing to some people (I don't mean you). They think Kingdom of Prussia. Space Veteran (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Space Veteran I think you are playing little semantic games here. Danzig is both the historical name and the German name for a city that has been variously claimed by Germany, Poland and Russia at different times in its thousand-year history. From a very early stage in its development, Danzig was part of the Teutonic order and its population was ethnically German. This explains why the city took the German name, and why this name also became its historical name. Even when Danzig was annexed by Prussia, it retained a unique and far-reaching form of independence, e.g. had its own judiciary and minted its own coinage because its inhabitants resisted becoming part of the Poland. At that time, Danzig, Torun and Kulm became part of Royal Prussia, and not Polish Prussia.

The use of the correct geographic determination, "Royal Prussia" need not be confusing. Wikipedia has links to relevant pages such as Royal Prussia, embedded in articles, for the benefit of users who are interested in learning more about the background. It is not up to editors to 'reinvent history' on the basis of some assumption about what might or might not be confusing to some users. As Wikipedia editors we're expected to accurately report what reliable sources have to say on a subject, and to avoid introducing our own subjective biases into articles.

BronHiggs (talk) 02:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Space Veteran Wikipedia has been the subject of endless debates about the German vs Polish forms of place names. On the talk page of Talk:Tiedemann Giese, you will find the following policy applies in the event of disputes:

": For Gdańsk, use the name Danzig between 1308 and 1945

For Gdańsk, use the name Gdańsk before 1308 and after 1945

In biographies of clearly German persons, the name should be used in the form Danzig (Gdańsk) and later Danzig exclusively

In biographies of clearly Polish persons, the name should be used in the form Gdańsk (Danzig) and later Gdańsk exclusively.

For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) or Gdańsk (Danzig). An English language reference that primarily uses this name should be provided on the talk page if a dispute arises.

Reverts to conform with community consensus are excluded from the three-revert rule (3RR). Only the place names can be reverted exempt from the 3RR according to the outcome of this vote, additional changes fall again under the 3RR. Please use descriptive edit summaries.

Persistent reverts against community consensus despite multiple warnings may be dealt with according to the rules in Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism. In case of doubt, assume good faith and do not bite newcomers."

This policy came about following a vote and reaching a consensus; see Talk:Gdansk/Vote.

BronHiggs (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)