Talk:Andreas Schlüter

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[[Category:]]

Old Danzig/Gdansk naming controversy[edit]

When the article mentions he works in Poland it assumes Gdansk. Gdansk was a Part of Poland at that time and It should be refrenced by its Polish Name. In my edit I did refrence the German name also.

Kommiec 02:31, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I’m reverting you because you are a vandal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Problem_users#User:Kommiec
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress

Why can't you do something useful, instead of just removing German names? Nico 02:37, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Who says I am removing the german names right next to Gdansk it says (German: Danzig)It was a part of Poland and Gdansk should be the name used. The people that put me on that list are biased. Anyone could put anybody on the list of Vandals.

Kommiec 02:41, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It was not a part of Poland, but a free city. Keep your revisionism out of this article. Why can't you find a Pole to edit? This article deals with a German, which knew the city as Danzig, as it did itself.

You are btw. considered a vandal by several admins. Nico 02:52, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Show me where it was a free city in 1694 ? When the Article mentions he worked in Poland it means Gdansk and Warsaw. Just because he was German it dose not have a right to rename the city unless you want to rename New York to New Amsterdam for all the dutch.

Kommiec 02:54, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

http://sabaoth.infoserve.pl/danzig-online/hge.html

Please read number 3 NICO it was not a free city. "3. In the Kingdom of Poland (1454 - 1793)"

Kommiec 03:04, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Actually i am not too eager. I Thikn it's absurd to mention that it is NOW POLAND, sicne before 1793 it was also Poland. It was not free city in Poland. It was part of Poland, which was given substantial authonomy inside of the state. I once read that "Polishness" of German-speaking Danzigers was bigger than that of Polish-speaking Masurians. Definetely they themselves considered part of Poland, and were considered part of Poland by other states.

I may add, that Danzig authonomy and status were not totally unique in Commonwealth. Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth (today usually nicknamed just Poland, which is not totally accurate) was decetralised state, and many magnates were having their own armies and signed their own diplomats just as Danzig. Danzig however clearly was recognising the overlordship of Polish crown, that is, it was part of Poland. It of course fiercely defended it's own authonomy, but was loyal to Polish crown in other occasions, providing Polish kings with soldiers, fleet and funds multiple times.

Note that i wrote "Danzig" not "Gdansk". In that time Danzig was already predominantly German-speaking city. szopen

JOhn Kenney, i don't like (now Gdansk) sentence. I would prefer some other wording, because during Shluter life it was Gdansk too. I would prefer Danzig (Gdansk), but i would want to wait before some rules would be finally made. Szopen

That's fine with me. john 08:32, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Space Cadet: Ale o ssssso chodzi? Danzig (Gdansk) is i guess good compromise on the name. Schluter knew his city probably as "Danzig", as most (but not all) inhabitants. Poles knew the city as Gdansk, as Polish inhabitants of the city. Therefore, either Gdansk (Danzig) or Danzig (Gdansk) form should be used, since it clearly suggest that both are alternative names. Szopen

O ten tramwaj, kochany, co nie chodzi! It's about convention that will allow us to avoid endless discussions about nothing. It's about nonsensical idea of using different names for the same subject for no other reason that some petty sentimentality. I could be sentimental about Lwow, but I'm not, for the sake of consistency and educational and informative value of encyclopedic articles - it's L'viv, period! Space Cadet 13:18, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Space Cadet, there is no convention. Danzig and Gdansk are alternative English names for Polish city Gdansk. The goal of wikipedia is to have encyclopedia, not to enlighten the masses. Danzig (Gdansk) IMHO is good compromise, sicne it does not imply that it is _now_ Gdansk and formerly was Danzig, but rather that this too are alternative names. Wonder how old are you.

Swoja droga, jakim trzeba byc zadufanym w sobie czlowiekiem, zeby zamiast podejmowac dyskusje wyzywac czlowieka proponujacego kompromis od palantow. Szopen

Explanation of the changes: 1) There was revert war over Gdansk/Danzig. Danzig (Gdansk) is a compromise which was supposed to stop such revert war (ridiculous: take a look on article history. It is article about Polish-German painter, yet the last 50 changes were edits changing Gdansk to Danzig and vice versa 2) Danzig is nt just German name. It's also name by which still the city is known in English world, although the fact probably will change in the future. Therefore it's reasonable to mention both names 3) There is no such case, i believe, with Frauenburg. It's small city so there is no point in making alternative name too. Szopen

This is eminently sensible, Szopen. Unfortunately, it will do no good. I wouldn't especially mind if we changed it to Gdansk (Danzig), although I think the other is better, as the man is (ethno-linguistically) German, and probably called his home city Danzig, but whatever. Space Cadet, again, if you could please actually cite sources (other than Britannica) that refer to the city consistently as "Gdansk", rather than merely claiming authority to know that all sources do this, due to your 15 years of research, perhaps we would get somewhere. john 14:25, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Space Cadet, i've carefully read this talk page and I have not seen your "explanations" of the changes. You answered me when I write that you are not reading talk page and ignoring it. As you may seen, the referring to historical Gdansk as "Gdansk" exclusively, especially in context of German-speaking person, is not something to which people tend to agree.

I have not started edit war. Quite the opposite. Look at the page history page. John and me came to something which we saw as compromise after long series of wars against Nico and others. Then came 24.x who simply reverted it. Then you came. Szopen

basic informations[edit]

The basic informations about the artist are false (born place and date etc. - more in history of the article), compare for ex. M. Karpowicz, Barok w Polsce, Warszawa 1988, Encyklopedia sztuki polskiej, red. prof. Jan K. Ostrowski or any other Encyclopedia of Eastern Europe Art —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.70.48.88 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 1 August 2007

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 10:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Info[edit]

He was the architect of The original Amber Room - there is nothing in the article about that. Not even in the article about the original Amber Room. That´s poor. --87.78.134.50 23:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned in both articles that Andreas Schlüter created the Amber Room. -- Matthead discuß!     O       01:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Andreas Schlüter. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 00:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

birth date[edit]

The lead says he was born in Gdansk in 1659, but the first section says 1664 probably in Hamburg. Please reconcile. —howcheng {chat} 21:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andreas_Schlüter&oldid=1208226513"