Talk:Danzig law

This page is affected by the Gdańsk (Danzig) Vote. The following rules apply in the case 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.

The detailed vote results and the vote itself can be found on Talk:Gdansk/Vote. This vote has ended; please do not vote anymore. Comments and discussions can be added to Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion anytime. This template {{Gdansk-Vote-Notice}} can be added on the talk page of affected articles if necessary.

What is Danzig Law?

So what does this article say? What is Danzig Law? Does this article belong here? Can I get my money back?

S-O.C —Preceding unsigned comment added by Space Cadet (talk • contribs) 19:54, 26 June 2002 (UTC)[reply]

per page history, the above inserted by User:Space Cadet, noted by Jerzy 20:11, 2003 Dec 18 (UTC)

It sounds to me as if this Danzig Law approximates a city charter, at a time when monarchs generally did what they damn well pleased whenever they damn well pleased, and when major German cities had (presumably to encourage merchants to base themselves there in confidence that arbitrary changes in commercial conditions weren't going to be imposed by the monarch) complex legal statuses. I believe that an example is "magdeburgische Stadtrecht" (literally, Magdeburgian city right or city law), which (without ever pursuing the subject) i've always translated in my head as "the package of city rights that was first put together to apply to the city of Magdeburg". --Jerzy 20:11, 2003 Dec 18 (UTC)

Recht as "Law", not "Rights"

I'm very pleased to have WolfgangPeters implicitly correct my bad translation at Talk:Danzig Law, which clearly over-exploited the etymological relationship between Recht and various "rights"! I begin to believe that the best all-around equivalent of Recht is not right but justice. (Though probably the best all-around word is seldom the best translation in a given context.)

I think part of the problem about the English word law is that it has many closely related but importantly different senses. (In fact, while often "justice" is used to mean "law", the reverse, "Law is another word for justice" would be a philosophical and controversial statement. I'm about to copy-edit Danzig Law, mostly to convert usage from what i think is too strongly influenced by German-language usage, to more of the usage of native speakers of English. I know that i risk making some mistakes, especially with this one word. So i think it will be important for someone with more sensitivity to the nuances of "Recht" to check how i have tried to fit "law" to express them.

My biggest concern is that one versatile word:

(noun functioning as a noun)

"a law" means (outside the sciences): a statute, what results from a single act of law-making by a legislature or someone, like a monarch, who may rule by decree.
"the law" means (unless the context indicates otherwise): usually the whole body of laws that are in force, but sometimes the profession that includes both lawyers (also known as (AKA) attorneys in US, and barristers and solicitors in UK and probably in other British-Commonwealth countries; Rechtsangewalt or maybe it's Rechtsanwalt, in German) and judges.
law (with no article), as in "studying law", means (for more colloquial use): "the law" as defined above
lawmaker (the construction is equivalent to "maker of laws" or "one who makes laws") is a colloquial term for: "legislator", especially (at least in the US) "a member of a legislature" (in contexts where it doesn't matter which house of the legislature they belong to).

(attributive noun, i.e. noun functioning as an adjective)

law book usually means: a book containing both laws (statutes) and information useful, especially to lawyers, in understanding how to interpert those statutes, including legislative history, court decisions, and arguments based on the (supposed) underlying philosophy of the law as a whole or of a given area of the law.
(in contrast) a statute book (usually and more colloquially, "the statutes" or in some states "the General Statutes"): a book containing just the laws in force at one point in time
law suit: a proceeding in a court, started by someone who wants to benefit by having a law (other than a law for punishment of a crime) enforced.

"Law records" is unlikely to be used, but

it probably would be taken to mean the same as "legal records", meaning: records that would be important evidence in a law suit
it arguably could mean: the records maintained by a lawyer as an aid to making decisions in her professial role
it could logically (but probably not in practice) mean: records of the contents of laws, i.e., law books and/or statute books.

I'll be making my edit without being sure which sense of "law" User:WolfgangPeters had in mind (for lack of the cues most native speakers would have left), and hope for others including him, but especially those more fluently bilingual than he and i, to help out with further edits. [--Jerzy 21:50, 2004 Feb 6 (UTC) : belated sig]

A Removed Sentence

While i expect it to be a valuable part of the article, the sentence

The law were recorded in the Preussische Urkundenbuch, Regesten or law books of the Province of Prussia.

is mystifying at this point. It seems clear that this was before the 2nd partition, but was this before it had its own Willkuer? Did it change when Danzig's Hansa status did? Does it refer to the existence of the records being noted, or of their being reviewed, or does it mean Prussian had either a copy or the original in its archives? --Jerzy 21:50, 2004 Feb 6 (UTC)

Additional city seals

Additional HRR (Helig Roem. Reich) or HRE Holy Roman Empire city seals see:[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.47.62.78 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 7 February 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Original name of the 'Danziger Willkür (Danzig Law)

The Danziger Willkür (Laws of Danzig; Polish Gdański Wilkierz) was the official set of records of the laws of Danzig (Latin:L Gedanum) (now Gdańsk), the leading city of the Prussian Hanse cities.

The models for the Danzig Law were the statute books of the Holy Roman Empire and of other Hanseatic cities, especially Lübeck, a sister city of Danzig.

The official copies of laws were certified by attaching seals (sigilla) as means of authentication. (The earliest known seal of the city of Danzig of 1224 was inscribed, in capital letters, Sigillum Burgensium in Dantzike, Latin/German of the empire for "Seal of the burghers in Danzig".)

The earliest known law code of Danzig was entitled: Die Gesetze der See- und Handelsstadt Danzig 1597 ("The Laws of the Sea and Trade City of Danzig, 1597). The law codes of Danzig were reprinted in 1732 by Seelmann in Danzig, and occasionally thereafter in other places.

The Danzig Law was supplanted, by laws of the Kingdom of Prussia, following the Prussian annexation of Danzig at the time of the Second Partition of Poland. posted here, because original information is repeatedly removed from wikipedia

Labbas 04 September 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.207.147 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you moved your version of the page here. I see no point in this. You said "moved here because of removal".. Nothing was in fact removed except for your bad copyediting: "the leading city of the Prussian Hanse cities". Hanse is a German, not English name and this is the English version of Wikipedia. By the way, the city was at no time both Prussian and in the Hanseatic League. The league was all but dead by the late 16th century and Gdańsk was annexed by Prussia only in 1793. The text you changed ("the capital city of the Royal Prussia") was much more factual. Royal Prussia unlike the Duchy of Prussia was not a state but a province of Poland. I'll add some explanation to the article to make it clear.

Anyway, in future please add your comments at the bottom of Talk pages, not on the top. Therefore, I moved your comment (?) here. Friendly Neighbour 05:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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 discussion on how our naming conventions apply to this specific case was move to Danzig law.

The opinions based on our core principle of reflecting English usage (in this case, common usage by English-language historiography when dealing with the period in which these city privileges were in effect) and in the Gdańsk (Danzig) Vote are unanimous in supporting the move.

From what I see, in the absence of concrete examples of usage, by following the principle of least astonishment the expected form Danzig is considered appropriate.

Those opposing the move ignore our editorial practices and appear to advocate instead for using the form Gdańsk in all instances, irrespective of context. However, such an approach would differ from common English usage, and the general guidelines of our naming conventions for geographic names do place due significance in the historical context.

I have chosen to use lower case (law) instead of a capital L (Law) for consistency with the articles on Magdeburg rights, Lübeck law and Kulm law. - Ev (talk) 11:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the page can not be moved back to Danzig law, the original title of 2004, I requested an admin to move it, according to the Danzig/Gdansk vote which requires the use of Danzig for the 1308-1945 period. -- Matthead Discuß 02:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the article Danzig law was started in 2002. There is also talk on Talk:Danzig law.-- Matthead Discuß 02:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To simplify things, I have merged the page histories of "Gdańsk law" & "Danzig law", including the respective talk pages. - Regards, Ev (talk) 08:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All moves should fallow after discussion and voting. Naturally we should use accepted Wikipedia names, and since this is English Wikipedia not German one, the title should use English accepted name aof Gdansk. --Molobo (talk) 03:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --Molobo (talk) 03:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matthead, which vote are you referring to? Where is the discussion page? This could determine the validity of the rationale seen in Molobo's post. - Found it! Molobo, please read this: Talk:Gdansk/Vote WhisperToMe (talk) 05:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had added the template to the top of this page, for anyone's convenience. Molobo knows very well about its content. Regarding "voting": no matter how many of the usual editors show up to "vote" like Molobo did, the case is clear: Danzig law covers German-language laws of the city known as Danzig for centuries. The post 1945 Polish Gdansk discontinued this tradition of city laws. Same applies to 13th century German Kulm law cities that came under Polish or Russian control in the 20th century. -- Matthead Discuß 16:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gdańsk had several names throughout centuries and the Germanised name of the original Slavic and Polish name of the city appeared only recentely and was used for short time compared to other periods. As to claim "13th century German cities"(like Warsaw, Toruń...) that is simply absurd since adoption of Madgerburg or Chelmno law doesn't indicate statehood or ethnicity. Then again I am not sure you are serious since you claimed your edits are aimed at playing with other editors[2](, I'll occasionally play with them,)...--Molobo (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to reopen the entire Gdanzig discussion (please don't!), this is not the place to do it. Until that is done, the ruling there seems clear; these laws existed only between 1400 and 1945, and the city should be called Danzig, hence the article title should be Danzig law: but the mention of the seal should say Gdansk (Danzig) (or, better still, quote the seal itself). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support this (or Danzig Law per our anon below, although WP prefers lower case). Danzig Legal Statutes is a distinction without a differnce. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It occurs to me that our anon may be supporting including both Law and Legal Statutes. I oppose that, as excessive literalism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Molobo Space Cadet (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. When referring to the city during the time period in which these laws were used, 'Danzig' is the terminology primarily used by English language historians. Olessi (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the two non-verbose Oppose votes are no obstacle to move the article to a proper name, or back to the original name of 2002 [3]. -- Matthead Discuß 02:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gdansk Law

[4] This google book search makes it pretty clear, that English and Polish language sources are unfamiliar with Gdansk Law and that that is pretty much an incorrect translation of the German 'Danziger Recht oder Willkür. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.223.2 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that link shows that Polish sources do not often translate it into Gdański Wilkierz; interesting, but germane to the Polish WP, not to us. What translation do you suggest? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danziger Recht oder Willkür = How about Danzig Law or Legal Statutes 76.8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.223.2 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latest page moves

For context: at 17:11, 2 May 2008, User:Schwartz und Weiss moved the page to Danzig/Gdańsk law (diff.) - Ev (talk) 08:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danzig/Gdańsk law? A step in the right direction, but the other foot is still stuck. -- Matthead Discuß 23:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have merged the page histories of "Danzig law" & "Gdańsk law" (including "Danzig/Gdańsk law"). While doing it, and as a mere technicism, I have reverted the article moved back to "Gdańsk law" (diff.), a simple name, because double or "segmented" article names are disfavored. - Regards, Ev (talk) 08:22, 4 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.

City of Danzig, Prussia (not subjugated by Polish kingdom/commonwealth) with Danzig law continued as part of Prussian Law for all states of Prussia

Juribus municipalibus Terrarum Prussiae Danzig dem polnischen Reich nicht unterworfen Danzig was not subjugated to Polish kingdom/commonwealth S 424

Juribus municipalibus Terrarum Prussiae Rechtssystem fuer Danzig wie ganz Preussen Danzig together with all of Land of Prussia continued one Law system S 27

Preussische Staedte liessen 1452 Privilegien von Kaiser Friedrich III bestaetigen Prussian cities had law system verified by emperor Frederick III in 1452 S 29

Huldigungs- Eide…die Stadt Danzig dem Koenig von Polen und sonst niemanden die Treue gelobet..

Es ist ein Fehler, wann zuweilen vorgegeben wird, die Republik Polen sein Herr ueber die Stadt und ihre Rechte

Allegiance oaths…the city of Danzig pledged allegiance to the person of king of Poland and to no one else.

It is a mistake, when sometimes it is assumed that the republic of Poland is (was) highest overlord over Danzig and her rights (laws system) S 44

Koenig von Polen als Schirmherr Danzig’s , King of Poland protector of Danzig, could wrote letters, suggestions, Danzig always furnished, paid for own troops S 69, 70 An Observer 9.6.2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.133.69.190 (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read up on Danzig, Danzig Law, Reinhold Curicke etc

I find that some people keep adding to Danzig, Poland or change it to Gdansk, such as in Reinhold Curicke or Danzig law. It is not Gdansk, Poland untill conquest in 1945, but Danzig, Prussia or Danzig, Royal Prussia, but not Danzig Royal Prussia, Poland.

I collected a number of historical facts for Danzig, Danzig law and Prussia, of which it was a continous part.

I posted these at Talk:Danzig law [5] (also above)

It is pointed out that (even then) the false assumptions (about Danzig) are sometimes made (es ist ein Fehler, wann zuweilen vorgegeben wird, die Republik Polen sei Herr ueber die Stadt (Danzig) und ihre Recht usw). I realize that this will take some time to read through. This false assumption, that Danzig was Poland or Royal Prussia, was Poland is often repeted, it is nevertheless false and Wikipedia should not engage in entering false assumptions or claims. An Observer 9.6.2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.133.68.253 (talk) 02:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]