Talk:Episcopal Duchy of Warmia

Content

71.137.192.221 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has disputed the article's content, contending that there was no Duchy of Warmia, only the Bishopric of Warmia. Olessi (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Clarifying: No Dukes- No Duchy of Ermland or Warmia. Warmia was the Prince-Bishopric of Warmia

71.137... stated, that there was a Prince-Bishopric of Warmia, but no Duchy of Warmia. There were no Dukes of Warmia, the rulers of Warmia were the Prince-Bishops. In its earliest years Ermland/Warmia was one of four bishoprics of Prussia), later an exempt Prince-Bishoric. 71.137. 2 August 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.192.221 (talk) 08:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge

You're right: "Duchy of Warmia" or "episcopal duchy of Warmia" or "bishopric duchy of Warmia" is nothing more or less than Archbishopric of Warmia - (Polish: Warmińskie biskupstwo or Archidiecezja warmińska).
The article should be redirected to Archbishopric of Warmia. --Termer (talk) 03:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope, it was a separate entity (this is why pl wikipedia has pl:Księstwo Warmińskie too).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm just about to post about the subject in general to Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board. There is it seems a very good source that should sort thing out hopefully.--Termer (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
PS. Księstwo Warmińskie on Polish WP doesn't have any sources either. Are you sure this is not just some kind of misinterpretation since Herbarz polski Kaspra Niesieckiego, s. j By Kasper Niesiecki Published by Waif, 1846 seems to be very clear about the administrative divisions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth?--Termer (talk) 03:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope, but see for example those works. Certainly those two entities were closely related; where they one and the same? This needs some more research. There were indeed no "Dukes of Warmia" - bishops of Warmia were the rulers - but the bishopric had some qualities of a unique, independent duchy and hence is treated in sources as a unique bishopric, sometimes referred to as "duchy". See for example entry by Gloger here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

that's all fair enough that it has been also called a "Duchy". That's exactly what the sources in English do that I listed above. The bottom line of this is that what was it called officially as an administrative unit in the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth and if it was a different subdivision from the bishopric that existing from date x to y?. The book I mentioned that covers all subdivisions of the Polish-lithuanian state is pretty clear about it- it was a bishopric.--Termer (talk) 04:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Episcopal Duchy of Warmia

• Here you go, sometimes it pays off reading the articles On March 25, 1992, the Bishopric of Warmia was raised to an archbishopric -Polish: Archidiecezja warmińska). So that makes thing very clear: The "Bishopric of Warmia" Polish: Warmińskie biskupstwo in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is the same as Duchy of Warmia meaning "episcopal duchy of Warmia" or "bishopric duchy of Warmia" (Polish: Biskupie Księstwo Warmińskie). The Archbishopric of Warmia is about the modern archbishopric that has nothing to do with the dates 1243 – 1772 like the article suggests.

So, most of the content from Archbishopric of Warmia should go into Duchy of Warmia and the latter itself should be renamed into Episcopal Duchy of Warmia (Polish:Biskupie Księstwo Warmińskie) . The "Bishopric of Warmia" that was no duchy after 1772 should have it's own article (1772-1945) Bishopric of Ermland and from 1945 til current be part of Archbishopric of Warmia. Does that make sense?--Termer (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

More sources: the duchy-bishopric of Varmia or Ermland--Termer (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the name of Episcopal Duchy of Warmia; and I agree most of the history up to 1772 should be summarized here. It should be noted that the current archbishopric is the continuation of the past bishopric, which for centuries used to control the Duchy. The difference is that usually a bishopric has little influence on secular government - but the Duchy was an exception, a type of theocracy even, an autonomous unit within the PLC/Kingdom of Poland (albeit subordinate to it). There is a connection to the HRE's institution of Prince-Bishop. PS. Having looked at categories of the archbishopric of Warmia article (Former countries in Europe | States of the Holy Roman Empire | Former theocracies | 1243 establishments | 1772 disestablishments) as well as the infobox I now agree some form of merger is needed; however I still think both articles should exist as separate entities, and its only the content that needs to be moved: secular stuff goes here, ecclesiastical stuff remains at the archbishopric article. How does that sound? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The continuity can be easily maintained with Former subdivision infoboxes. Since it seems general articles like Warmia that have been part of many countries throughout history and have carried different names depending on POV, are never going to satisfy either sides. The solution would be to follow strictly formers subdivisions and call them with German and Polish names respectively. Since this is about Polish subdivision, it should be called Episcopal Duchy of Warmia (1466-1772), for the period of 1772-1945 there should be a separate article called Bishopric of Ermland. Since 1945 Bishopric of Warmia or Archbishopric of Warmia again.
I Still need to figure out what to call the Bishopric-Duchy from 1243-1466. Since it was part of Monastic state of the Teutonic Knights and Prussian Confederation. it should be Ermland something. I'll check with Olessi, he should know. In the end I'd get all useful facts from Warmia and/or Ermland into approperiate articles and make the names itself into disamb pages. That should solve also the problem, who is right, either calling it Warmia or Ermland.--Termer (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

PS. I'd keep the "merge" tags up there not to suggest the articles should be merged together but just to keep the discussion open in case anybody has more ideas. In case there are no objections within few days to a week or so, I'd just just clean it up and also put an end to Warmia/Ermland controversy at the same time.--Termer (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if we need to split the history of the bishopric into Bishopric of Ermland/Bishopric of Warmia/Archbishopric of Warmia; I think just Archbishopric of Warmia is enough for all of those. We can have subsections about past names in history and of course mention them in lead. I would suggest keeping the pre-1466 content in the Duchy article. PS. Good call on asking Olessi, his input is always helpful.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind having pre-1466 content included in an article about Polish-Lithuanian subdivision but I'd make it up to Olessi, I'll check with him ASAP.--Termer (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment on usually a bishopric has little influence on secular government - but the Duchy was an exception. Actually, having "prince-bishoprics" during the era in Baltic area was pretty common. For example in Old Livonia, Archbishopric of Riga, Bishopric of Courland, Bishopric of Dorpat, Bishopric of Ösel-Wiek were all "prince-bishoprics" or "Episcopal Duchy", meaning the Bishops ruled the church and the land (theocracy). Bishopric of Reval (founded by Danish Valdemar II in 13 cen not like the aricle currenl says) again was just a Bishopric that only ruled the church and was not a Duke or a Prince ruling the lands.--Termer (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, I meant that it was an exception within the Polish Kingdom, later the Commonwealth. It was indeed more common outside its borders.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The most common name for period of 1243 - 1466 seems to be Bishopric of Ermeland (114 returns in google books) that exclusively speaks of the Bishopric passed into the possession of Poland, came to Poland only in 1466 etc. At the time when "Bishopric of Ermland" (59 returns) has already (ie Warmia) provided in brackets. So my suggestion is, in order to end the Polish/German Warmia/Ermeland controversy on WP, make the Warmia/Ermeland article into a disamb page with following specifications:

Warmia/Ermeland may refer to:

• The land of Warmians

• Bishopric of Ermeland (1243-1466) Prince-Bishopric of Monastic state of the Teutonic Knights and Prussian Confederation

• Episcopal Duchy of Warmia (1466-1772) Prince-Bishopric of Polish Kingdom and later the Commonwealth

• Bishopric of Ermland 1772-1945 a Bishopric of Province of East Prussia

• Archbishopric of Warmia Polish bishopric since (1945) 1972, Archbishopric since 1992

--Termer (talk) 22:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

The following is summarized from Georg Hermanowski's Ostpreußen: Wegweiser durch ein unvergessenes Land, Erich Weise's (editor) Handburch der historischen Stätten: Ost- und Westpreussen, and the Catholic Encyclopedia. Hermanowski summarizes it as an autonomous prince-bishopric from 1243-1772. At Anagni, Prussia was divided into four dioceses, and 1/3 of the Warmian diocese was promised to the direct control of the diocese bishop. The territory of the diocese was significantly larger than the Old Prussian region of Warmia. Since the seat of the bishops ultimately became Heilsberg, the bishopric also became known as the Bishopric of Heilsberg. The bishops gradually consolidated their power and successfully resisted the attempts of the Teutonic Knights to subjugate them, as had been done to the bishops of Pomesania, Culm, and Samland. Weise writes that the bishops were still ultimately subordinate to the grand masters, and that one cannot speak of Warmian 'independence' before 1464. He also writes that the actual designation of prince-bishop (Fürstbischof) was not used until 1800.

In 1464 the Polish king recognized the independence of the bishopric. Two years later this was reduced to confirmation of all rights that the bishops had previously received from the Teutonic grand masters. The king and the Warmian chapter disputed who had the power to choose the bishop, leading to the War of the Priests, which ended in the king's favor. Bishop Johannes Dantiscus resisted the Reformation and prevented the prince-bishopric's secularization, although much of its territory was lost to Protestantism. Succeeding bishops and their advisors steadfastly defended the bishopric's autonomy. From 1508-1569 the bishops chaired the Prussian diet.

Frederick II promised to respect the status quo upon the Prussian annexation of Warmia in 1772, but gradually schools were closed and episcopal land confiscated. ([1]) Joseph von Hohenzollern-Hechingen (1808-1836) was the last to have the title of Prince-Bishop of Warmia, as his successors were simply bishops. A bull of 1820 expanded the diocese to include most of East Prussia and not simply the region of Warmia/Ermland. In 1945 the diocese was transferred from German to Polish control, although the office of Bishop of Warmia was left vacant until 1972. In 1992 it was raised to an archdiocese.

It's been a while since I've read Karin Friedrich's The Other Prussia, but on maps she differentiates between Warmia and Royal Prussia (Malbork, Chełmno, Pomeranian Voivodeships). I don't remember off-hand how she addresses the effect of the Union of Lublin on Warmia.

Archbishopric of Warmia and Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Warmia both exist right now; the latter is the standard titling for modern (arch)dioceses. The medieval bishopric did attempt to become an archbishopric during the rule of Lucas von Watzenrode, but this was successfully opposed by the Archbishopric of Riga. My recommendation would be to move Archbishopric of Warmia to Prince-Bishopric of Warmia covering 1243 to ca. 1772 (Teutonic and Polish sovereignty and worldly possessions). I'm not sure of the need to differentiate between 1243-1466 and 1466-1772. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Warmia would then cover the solely spiritual bishopric from ca. 1772 to the modern day. I'm not sure of the exact year to start the latter article. Gradual suppression of the Roman Catholic Church began after the First Partition of Poland in 1772. I do not know when the temporal powers of the bishops were ended; I conjecture that the 1820 (or 1821?) bull "De salute animarum" ended that status, and Joseph von Hohenzollern-Hechingen was allowed to keep the title of Prince-Bishop until his death. The diocese's borders were expanded by the bull. I do not know how the diocese's borders were affected by WWII. In 1992 the diocese was raised to an archdiocese, with some of its territory going to the new dioceses of Elbląg and Ełk.

The Warmia article would focus on the wedge-shaped geographic region of Warmia/Ermland - first the small Old Prussian region, then its expansion by the medieval bishops. Olessi (talk) 00:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the titling of prince-bishoprics, there does not seem to be a consistent method at Category:Prince-Bishoprics. Thus, I would also be fine with Bishopric of Warmia or Bishopric of Ermland for the pre-1772 era. Olessi (talk) 00:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Olessi -Very good comments! The need for this article was to have the Polish dependency covered as a part of Administrative division of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. That's why I'd split the Teutonic dependency period separately to avoid forking co-tracking same periods in different articles. Also, The Teutonic period could be called Ermland or Ermeland and the Polish Warmia respectively. Prince-Bishopric of Warmia has 2 google books returns and basically the meaning of the name is the same as Episcopal Duchy of Warmia. So much is clear I think that current Archbishopric of Warmia needs to be renamed and the title has to be redirected to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Warmia. Any other ideas for naming and keeping the Teutonic-Polish periods either together or separate?--Termer (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I haven't seen the need so far to differentiate between pre and post 1466. The aforementioned books in my possession all indicate continuity of the bishopric until the Partitions of Poland. If there is a strong inclination toward separate articles, I would be ok with Bishopric of Ermland / Prince-Bishopric of Ermland (move from Archbishopric of Warmia) and Episcopal Duchy of Warmia.

Is there a source for Warmia's inclusion in the Malbork Voivodeship? Friedrich writes, "In 1454 four palatinates (województwa) were founded, the largest being the palatinate of Pomerania, west of the Vistula river, including Danzig. To the South-East, across the Vistula river, was the palatinate of Chełmno (Kulm, Culm). In 1454 the third and fourth palatinates were Elbing and Königsberg, but after the Thirteen Years War, the administrative structure was remodelled. The Polish king transformed the palatinate of Elbing (Elbląg) into a castellanate, while Malbork (Marienburg) became the third Royal Prussian palatinate. After 1510 the rest of this palatinate was declared royal demesne land, what is known as ekonomia, under the immediate administration of the king who drew substantial income from it. The territory of Warmia (Ermland) remained under the jurisdiction of its bishop, who from 1508 became the highest provincial dignitary and head of the Prussian Landesrat" (pp 23-24). Olessi (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked into it that specifically if it was exactly Malbork Voivodeship but there are lot of sources speaking of
In 1466 the bishopric of Ermeland passed into the possession of Poland;

The bishopric of Ermeland, founded in 1243, came to Poland only in 1466;

In 1466 when, by the peace of Thorn, Ermeland with the whole of West Prussia, was ceded to Poland

in 1466, W'est Prussia was transferred to Poland, the Bishop of Ermeland became a member of the Polish senate

the treaty of Thorn (1466), by which it ceded to Poland all West Prussia, the bishopric of Ermeland, and the cities of Elbing and Thorn

etc.--Termer (talk) 02:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
PS.Prince-Bishopric of Ermland can't be sourced it seems [2]? Unlike Prince-Bishopric of Warmia or more precisely Prince-Bishopric of Warmia (Ermland) that has 2 returns on google books.--Termer (talk) 03:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
PPS. however' there would be no problem for sourcing the Bishopric of Ermeland that would cover the Teutonic period. It has 195 returns on google books.--Termer (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't denying that Polish sovereignty passed over Warmia in 1466, only questioning its level of autonomy compared to other parts of western Prussia. When conducting Google Books searches, I usually restrict the results to 100 hits per page (shows a more accurate hit count) and publications since 1950 (to avoid more archaic usage and avoid duplicate publications).

For instance:

• Bishopric of Ermland: 1-10 of 118
• Bishopric of Ermeland: 1-10 of 191
• Bishopric of Ermland: 1-73 of 73 (100 hit view)
• Bishopric of Ermeland: 1-91 of 91 (100 hit view)
• Bishopric of Ermland: 1-33 of 33 (100 hit view, since 1950)
• Bishopric of Ermeland: 1-28 of 28 (100 hit view, since 1950)

Interestingly, in his The Teutonic Knights: A Military History, William Urban differentiates between the Old Prussian region as Warmia and the German-led bishopric as Ermland. Olessi (talk) 03:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: Malbork Voivodeship: if we were to trust our maps, Duchy of Warmia was not part of it: compare Image:KsięstwoWarmińskieIRP.png to Image:MalborskieIRP.png. Pl wiki notes that voivodes of Malbork had some control over armed forces in the Duchy, but the bishops had their own military, too, and were the secular lords of the Duchy. It is a bit confusing, but I do recall (from some old readings) that the bishops of Warmia had a very large autonomy and rivaled the neighboring voivodes. According to some old Polish books on Google Print ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7]), it was ranked as a separate entity (they don't address the miltiary competences). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

RE Olessi: the Bishopric certainly had autonomy within Poland, otherwise they wouldn't call it a Duchy I'd say. I have no idea if it was as much as Duchy of Courland and Semigallia had that has been considered almost an independent sate for some time. But there definitely was a brake in the bishopric's history after it was ceded to Poland in 1466, a little like the Courland Duchy that was basically formed in the aftermath of Livonian War. So my question still remains would it justify splitting the articles up accordingly to avoid POV clashes that seem very evident at Warmia/Ermland?

The fact that William Urban differentiates between Warmia and Ermland makes perfect sense to me. That's why I'd call the articles on WP accordingly, Warmia would be the land of Warmians; Bishopric of Ermeland would be the land of Teutonic knights ; Episcopal Duchy of Warmia or Prince-Bishopric of Warmia would be the land that was part of Polish Kingdom and Commonwealth etc. and so all the way up to Warmian-Masurian Voivodeship and Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Warmia --Termer (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

So far I haven't seen any strong need to differentiate between pre- and post-1466. While subordinate to the Teutonic Knights, the bishops administered a substantial diocese and had temporal powers. In 1464 they were recognized as independent. In 1466 they were subordinated to the Polish crown, but had the same privileges confirmed as they had during the Teutonic period. The bishops sought greater independence from the grand masters, and they sought greater independence from the Polish kings. If anything, equally important changes occurred during the 1520s (loss of territory due to the Reformation) and possibly in 1569 (Union of Lublin) as happened in 1466. The books I mentioned before do not indicate a separate entity after 1466. Barring further input, the only major issues to differentiate that I see are the medieval prince-bishopric (pre-1772) and the modern (arch)diocese (post-1772).

Also, I wasn't questioning Urban's differentiation between Warmia/Ermland, merely providing another source for naming variations. The numerous options (bishopric, duchy, episcopal, etc.) are just different descriptions used by different authors for the same entity. Olessi (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Olessi: "I haven't seen any strong need to differentiate between pre- and post-1466" and "the only major issues to differentiate that I see are the medieval prince-bishopric (pre-1772) and the modern (arch)diocese (post-1772)". The pre-1772 name is now good, the post 1772 should be the modern one.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

So how do we come out of this to avoid co-tracking and content forking concerns that would have some basis in case there are 2 articles that cover the periods from 1466-1722? A solution perhaps would be still going back to the suggestion to merge this article with current "Archbishopric of Warmia", rename it to Bishopric of Ermland that has a separate section of Bishopric of Ermland#Episcopal Duchy of Warmia where to this article would redirect, also from and for Administrative division of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth purposes?--Termer (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

See my proposal below. I think that bishopric of Ermland should be a subsection of the article named (as it is now) Episcopal Duchy of Warmia.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge 2

Most of content from Archbishopric of Warmia should be merged here; the modern entity is actually the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Warmia (our naming conventions support Roman Catholic Archdiocese, not Archbishopric). Archbishopric of Warmia should be either a redirect, or a disambig.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It might be just me , but it seems the Teutonic bishopric founded in the 13 cen that was originally called Ermeland even though ceded to Poland in the 15 cen. as Warmia, including all of it into an article that is about Administrative division of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth doesn't exactly make sense to me. But in case it's just me, I'd have no problem with it. Otherwise I'd consider my suggestion above, keeping all history in the main article and have the current one redirected to a section of it. Since it seems splitting the history up according to Teutonic and Polish periods is not getting supported, I drop that suggestion.--Termer (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

-Or, we could keep both articles and keep this as Main article for the Polish period. The only question remains what exactly should the Root article be called? The current Archbishopric of Warmia is obviously simply factually incorrect. If it was up to me, I'd call the Root article Bishopric of Ermland that was the original name of the Bishopric founded in the 13 cen, and then it would have a section in it Bishopric of Ermland#Episcopal Duchy of Warmia that would have

Main article: Episcopal Duchy of Warmia

note attached to it that directs to this one? How about that?--Termer (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Comment on a recent change by Piotrus [8]. I might be wrong but I'm afraid the bishopric was not a territorial subdivision after 1772. I'd keep it 1:1 according to the source. [9] meaning: the district was just Ermland that wasn't ruled by the bishopric any more, exactly like in 1945 the actual district of Ermeland that became Warmia again were separate thing from the church. Therefore in case it needs to be pointed out what happened with the bishopric after 1722, it would need to be separately pointed out according to sources available.--Termer (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Here you go: At the time of the First Partition of Poland (1772) the whole of Ermland fell to the share of the Kingdom of Prussia. In the Treaty of Warsaw (18 September, 1773), King Friedrich II, it is true, guaranteed the statiis quo and the free exercise of religion for the Catholics of the annexed provinces, nevertheless all schools and institutions for education and training under religious control were gradually suppressed, and the landed property of the Church secularized.--Termer (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

---

The entity founded in 1243 is most commonly known in English simply as the "Bishopric of Warmia" or the "Bishopric of Erm(e)land". "Episcopal Duchy of Warmia" is a rarely used designation for it. I don't think there is a pressing need to add qualifiers to the title - "Bishopric of Foo" can be differentiated from "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Foo" with a hatnote (compare Archbishopric of Mainz and Roman Catholic Diocese of Mainz). I'm not sure why the "Administrative division of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth" connection is being emphasized to necessitate a separate article. IMO, the Polish/P-L era would be fine as a section of the larger article. Archbishopric of Warmia only refers to the modern diocese and should simply be a redirect to RCAoW.

The bishopric was not an administrative subdivision of East Prussia after 1772. Its temporal territory was integrated into the Kriegs- und Domänenkammer Königsberg and then into Kreise (Max Töppen's Historisch-comparative Geographie von Preussen). The diocese then consisted of ten deaneries, which was expanded in 1821. Olessi (talk) 20:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

RE:I'm not sure why the "Administrative division of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth" connection is being emphasized to necessitate a separate article. I'm open to anything as long as we can get everybody on the same page with this. It seems Piotrus would think it's important to have a separate article about the Polish period 1466-1772? The reason for such rare naming likeEpiscopal Duchy of Warmia comes from it seems that in Polish history the bishopric is most often referred to as Duchy. that's from where it all started since the original title of this article was Duchy of Warmia--Termer (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. I think Piotrus agrees on having a single pre-1772 article (see [10]). Where he and I differ is what to call that article. He seems to support "Episcopal Duchy of Warmia", while I prefer "Bishopric of Foo". Olessi (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

So you agreeing with Piotrus' Merge 2 [11] proposal that Most of content from Archbishopric of Warmia should be merged here? If yes then we should make it happen afterwards killing Archbishopric of Warmia by redirecting the title to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Warmia. Please confirm--Termer (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
PS. You prefer "Bishopric of Foo"??--Termer (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The current "Archbishopric of Warmia" article should be moved to the desired pre-1172 title because that article has the more significant article history. Once that page history is moved to the desired title, "Archbishopric of Warmia" (by then turned into a redirect) should be edited to redirect instead to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Warmia. This current Duchy of Warmia, which has little article history, should redirect to the pre-1772 article title.

"Foo" is commonly used as a variable; I used it in this case because I am not sure which is the more appropriate title, Bishopric of Warmia or Bishopric of Erm(e)land. Olessi (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

That's basically the original proposal in the beginning of this talk page. Since Piotrus' current suggestion is another way around, moving content over here instead of redirecting this one to Archbishopric of Warmia like suggested in the beginning, it remains to be seen if everybody is on the same page with this yet. The difference between the 2 ways that you have advocated and that was the idea in the beginning. Versus Piotrus who has seen it the other way around has been also a reason why the "Administrative division of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth" connection is being emphasized to necessitate a separate article. It just felt that it would be easier to keep the German period in the first article and the Polish in this one instead of getting an agreement on either this one or another one should be redirected. But in case I'm wrong and Piotrus can agree with having this article redirected to current Archbishopric of Warmia, and then have it renamed by using a title that everybody can agree on... we might get out of this loop and still maintain one article about the subject.--Termer (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

AoW is the older article and has significantly more revisions in its history, so that should be the "main" article (regardless of its actual title). In all fairness, I am thinking of adding information about how the bishops led colonization in the region, although that might be more relevant at Warmia. If sufficient detail is added to warrant subarticles, I could imagine a division like "Bishopric of Foo (1243-1466)" and "Bishopric of Foo (1466-1772)". What I am wary of is having articles on "Bishopric of Foo" and "Episcopal Duchy of Warmia", since it was the same entity from formation to dissolution. Olessi (talk) 22:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

That all makes sense to me and was the reason why I suggested merging and redirecting this one into the older article in the first place. [12] but...Lets see what Piotrus has to say first.--Termer (talk) 23:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, edit histories can be merged by an admin anyway.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice! The new title could be Prince-Bishopric of Warmia (Ermland) Polish: Biskupie Księstwo Warmińskie German: Fürstbistum Ermland that would include both names an can be sourced to 2 returns on google books?--Termer (talk) 00:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I am a fan of short titles when possible, although I would prefer your option to the current title. I left a message on the talk page of User:DaQuirin, since he has been quite knowledgeable in the past. Olessi (talk) 00:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I like shorter names too. Honestly, I am content with the current name; in any case let's do the mergers first, and once we have the 2 stable articles, we can discuss the naming issue more. I've taken the liberty to ask one of the name experts I know, User:Pmanderson, for input here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Short titles are nice as long as we can get everybody agree on either it should be a Bishopric or a Ducy of Warmia or Ermland etc.:-)--Termer (talk) 02:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Which strikes me a good place to start. There are two questions:

• Archbishopric/Episcopal Duchy/Bishop or several other possiblities?
• Warmia or Ermland (both variously spelt).

Our rule on both is do what English does. I will add a section for data; there are six proposed sources of evidence in WP:NCGN, which should be consulted. There are other ecclestiastical dignities which were also territorial principalities, and a quick look suggests that WP calls them Bishop of Durham or Archbishop of Cologne. As for the name, which will of course be the real rub, we should follow English sources, as we do in using both Cologne and Mainz. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Our rule on both is do what English does. Is there linguistic book regarding this naming issue that would describe to us how the modern English language is treating this name ? Also in which country, since English is very varied across the globe.

--Molobo (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Data

WP:NCGN suggests looking at six classes of source:

1. Other encyclopedias
2. Google Scholar and Google Books
3. Standard sources (here, probably, the New Cambridge Medieval and Modern History
4. Media (principally intended for places that still exist, but still interesting)
5. Consensus among us on what name is most common (hey, you never know; could happen).
6. Use of one name as a translation of the other.

There are also extensive comments on false positives. We want usage in English, not German or Polish. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Well, the names used in English derive from either German of Polish , are both quite common in English and therefor it seems it would be hard to dismiss German/Polish issue. The only thing that can be done in that sense is seeing what name has been used most often. Since google books English filter doesn't work really with such names as Warmia/Erm(e)land and includes returns from Polish and German sources; and google scholar doesn't have a filter for English language it can't be really said what's most common unless anybody wants to go through the returns manually. With names that include "Bishopric" or "Duchy" the result should be hopefully better in relation to the usage in English.

"Warmia" 925 at google books 4,580 @ google scholar

"Bishopric of Warmia" has 196 returns at google books and 7 @ google scholar

"Duchy of Warmia" 19 at google books 1 @ google scholar

"Ermland" 869 at google books 660 google scholar

"Ermeland" 732 at google books 128 google scholar

"Bishopric of Ermland" 117 at google books14 @ google scholar

"Bishopric of Ermeland" 192 at google books and 6 @ google scholar

After first look at this, it seems that for the land itself name Warmia (according to google scholar at least) is most often used and for the Bishopic the name Ermland or Ermeleand has the majority? and it makes sense too in a way since it was a German Bishopic even though part of Poland once. So does it mean that the article should be called Bishopric of Ermeland as more common name compared to the version "Bishopric of Ermeland" that together have 117+192=309 returns vs. Bishopric of Warmia that alone has 196 returns at google books + 7 @ google scholar?--Termer (talk) 18:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course not, google isn't the optimal place to determine correct terminology, since you will always find more scanned books with German names then Polish ones. Also Warmia is the original name only germanised by colonists and invaders to 'Ermland'. So we should use the primary and original name not the germanised one, just as we use Vilnius or Vilna and not polonised Wilno.--Molobo (talk) 11:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

you will always find more scanned books with German names then Polish ones Really? How many English books will you find using Warschau or Krakau? You may find more German books than Polish, but "Bishopric of Ermeland" and so on should not have significant non-English hits of either kind. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't use per standard naming issues Polonised Wilno or Lwów, we shouldn't use Germanised Ermland. Otherwise that would be double standards(And I will be the first to delete the polonised forms if it is needed).

We would use Lwów in an article on 1919-1939 by itself. So here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

And why not before-wasn't it part of Poland ? What rules are using ?

--Molobo (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Before 1772, yes, unless someone wishes to claim it for Lithuania; but the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria was not Poland. We are not here to argue that it ought to have been. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

"How many English books will you find using Warschau or Krakau?" Actually the name Cracow comes from Germanised Krakau and is found in more books then Krakow. So my point stands. --Molobo (talk) 16:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of mere fact, Cracow comes from Latin Cracovia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of mere fact, Cracow according to sources I read comes from Krakau.Nothing strange that scholars disagree though--Molobo (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Name them; they disagree with the OED. Both Cracovia and Krakau come from the local name, of course. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

While speaking of the land of Warmia, definitely the original name + the way it's called by the cartography published in English nowadays; that is also confirmed by the google book and scholar returns as the most common name used makes sense to me. On the other hand, the German bishopric that was founded on the colonized land and existed as a political entity from 1243 – 1772, calling it with the name used in English that derives from the German version makes also sense, simply becaose it was a German bishopric. And since it is getting confirmed by google books and scholar that the Bishopric has been most often called Erm(e)land. Therefore I'd suggest keeping the article about the land as it is Warmia and renaming Archbishopric of Warmia to Bishopric of Ermeland. --Termer (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Since we don't use Lwów University for time when it was in Poland or Wilno University for time it was in Poland neither should we use germanised names especially as there couldn't be a German bishopric in 1243 since Germany was founded 1871 and German national identity only started to be evident in second half of XIX century. The most proper name is Warmia and Archbishopric of Warmia since it concerns the region in its existance area. Also it was subordinated to Poland and therefore the original Polish language applies--Molobo (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Comparing Universities that exist today with a semi-independent state during middle ages, that maintained autonomy also during the Polish period doesn't seem to have a parallel in it.--Termer (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine, since this is what I was afraid of and was talking about all along, I go back to my earlier suggestion. By keeping both articles, making the first one about the Teutonic period (1243-1466), by renaming it to Bishopric of Ermeland and redirecting Archbishopric of Warmia as a name of the modern bishopric to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Warmia. This article here would remain to be about the Polish period of (1466-1772) called like it is or renamed to Warmia-Foo. Unless anybody else has any alternative ideas how to get the discussion out of this loop, WP:Content forking problem remains unsolved regarding the articles.--Termer (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

PS. Unless everybody is fine with merging the articles into Bishopric of Warmia, I wouldn't have any problems with it, and we can just end it, go ahead an make it happen.--Termer (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Moving the articles into Bishopric of Warmia would be an elegant and good solution. Then we can have subsections in history part.--Molobo (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Termer's original suggestion seems entirely reasonable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

In order to avoid confusing things further, my original suggestion was to merge this article with current "Archbishopric of Warmia" , that followed with a suggestion to keep both articles by making those about the Teutonic and Polish periods respectively. Since the suggestion didn't get supported by Olessi and Piotrus, I withdrew it for a while. By now, since it seems things are in gridlock due to the naming controversy and we've gone into a third loop with this discussion. In case we can get Olessi and Piortus on board with the idea keeping both articles by making one about the Teutonic and the second about Polish period, it would be a solution that hopefully would create 2 stable articles on WP. Keeping the periods together, even though there was continuity within the "Prince-Bishopic-Duchy" itself, I simply can't see how a general article about the Teutonic political entity created by William of Modena in the 13 cen is going to have the template "Polish subdivision" from the 15 cen. attached to it in the long run. Smells like trouble to me. Hope that Olessi and Piotrus can see it too by now and some kind of solution for the articles could be achieved.--Termer (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If and when we get enough content, I have no problems with pre-1466 Bishopric of Ermland. Until such a point, we certainly need an article separate from the modern archbishopric to fill the administrative division of the PLC.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

---

The Old Prussian Land of Warmia/Ermland

The Old Prussian, who that part of Prussia was named for was Warmo. However he soon died and the name of the land was named for his widow Erma. Since Prussia was divided into four bishoprics in 1243 by Papal Legate William of Modena, the Old Prussian name was used by the Catholic church, therefore the Latin name is Warmia. The territorial name is Ermland, earlier outdated version also Ermeland. The four bishoprics of Prussia, incl. Warmia stood under the archbishop of Riga. When the civil wars in Prussia for and against the rule by the Teutonic Order erupted (Thirteen Years War and in the aftermath the bishopric of Warmia/Ermland, under (Lucas Watzenrode received exempt status in 1512 and was directly put under the pope. The bishops became Reichsfuersten, Imperial Prince-Bishops in 1356 under emperor Charles IV and remained so until (end of Holy Roman Empire 1806) or in the 20th century, Exempt Status remain till 20th c.

When the bishopric of Ermland along with all people from East Prussia etc were ethnically cleansed-expelled- chased out by the Communists, the Ermland bishop was expelled by Polish bishop August Hlond. The popes kept the Bishopseat vacant and gave the Ermland Bishop the rank as Special Bishop of the refugees/expellees.

After 1972 a new Polish bishopric/diocese was installed, which it never has been before and in 1992 it was made a new archbishopric or archdiocese.

The Prussian bishopric of Warmia or Ermland existed from 1243 - 1945, only then a break came.

An Observer 27 September 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.197.97 (talk) 05:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

All good other than you're missing the fact that after 1772 it was no longer a state but just a bishopric.--Termer (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)