Talk:Kołobrzeg/Archives/2011

Insulting the English Language

I do not know whom is insulting the English language by constant negative editing but I wish to remind the offender that the English language name for this place in Europe is *Colberg*.

While the Polish name for this place is at all times respected it is considered racist that the English name is attacked due to unwarranted political reasons. This is an English language Wikipedia page and not Polish or any other language page. Further attacks will be reported as according to European law.

Thank you for your respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filsdegilbert (talk • contribs) 21:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

All right, let's leave it for now, but do you have any evidence that Colberg is "the" English name? If not then it's bound to get removed sooner or later.--Kotniski (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Section D, Encarta, Britannica - Kolberg listed as German name, not as English alternative, Columbia encyclopedia, Polish form used in body text, BBC, NY Times - read the correction for an unambiguous view on modern usage... need we continue?

(The purported Colberg seems unknown [1],[2],all false positives

As I said at Talk:Bismarck_Tower_in_Szczecin - English speakers are not a race. Using the name English speakers actually see in print is not discriminatory in any way. And I would strongly advise you to read WP:NLT and consider withdrawing your final remark above. Knepflerle (talk) 00:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

City population

source: Rocznik Statystyczny 1981, Główny Urząd Statystyczny, Warszawa 1981, Rok XLI
1960: 16.700 inhabitants
1970: 26.000 inhabitants
1975: 31.800 inhabitants
1980: 38.200 inhabitants

source: Mapa wojewodztwa koszalinskiego , Państwowe Przedsiębiorstwo Wydawnictw Kartograficznych, Warszawa 1972
1940: 36.800 inhabitants
1945: ca. 3.000 inhabitants
1950: 6.800 inhabitants
1960: 16.700 inhabitants
1970: 25.600 inhabitants

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Caius2ga (talk • contribs) 20:41, 30 October 2003 (UTC)

Question to "Fürstenthum"

... administered within the Fürstenthum District ("Duchy District", ... - IMO principality would be the correct name for Fürstenthum or was it officially duchy-like ( as "gefürstete Grafschaft" or similar). Thanks for info. :) - Elysander (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The bishops at times were reichsunmittelbar, so duchy fits.

The bishops and later the secular rulers of the districts were at times princes subordinate to the Pomeranian dukes, so principality fits as well.

Skäpperöd (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for info! And sorry for my KöRlin[3] mistake! ;) - Elysander (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

And what do we make of that? Leave as is or let it read ("Duchy" or "Principality" District,...)? Skäpperöd (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The context (19th century) points to principality IMO. - Elysander (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead then, thank you! Skäpperöd (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

blanking of a section of text

Before removing whole slews of text, please note that, as long as it is properly attributed (which it was), a city's website is a perfectly reliable source. Please discuss first.radek (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Please remove the accusation of the edit being "disruptive" and take your time to read the edit summary that links the respective discussion about the reliability [4]. I further suggest that you self-revert your restoration per WP:BURDEN. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Removing a large chunk of text without discussing it first is generally seen as "disruptive" on Wikipedia. This might be especially true if policies and previous discussions are mis-quoted or misrepresented to support such wholesale deletions. Yes, I know you quoted RSN board in your edit summary. But since I've been keeping track of RSN for awhile (since I'm of the opinion that RS is the most important aspect of Wiki editing) I also happen to know that your previous arguments on that board have been rejected. For example here: [5]. Let me quote:

Official Town websites can be categorized as "Organizational self-published sites"... as such, they can be considered reliable for attributed statements as to the town's official opinion reguading itself - i.e. as long as it is attributed to the town's web site, it is a reliable source.

Or just (re)read what you were told here: [6]

Basically, you lost THAT argument over at RSN but here you are pretending that everyone agreed with you (when in fact almost no one did)radek (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If you read the discussions you linked, you will find out that many editors concurred that towns' websites are not reliable at all, and that "use with attribution" was just one oppinion. I again ask you to remove the incivil allegation of me being disruptive.

As for the town website's claims, I moved the ref saying that the local population engaged in salt mining, fishing and various crafts to the repective paragraph, and indicated the contentious dates given by the town's website as contrary to the scholary sources. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

No, there are several editors who state that as long as the city's webpage is not contradicted by other RS and the statements are properly attributed to the city's webpage then using the city's webpage as a source is ok. I know that you tried to misrepresent two editor's opinions at one of the numerous threads you started, and claimed that they agreed with you when in fact they did not, but that means that they still disagree with you.radek (talk) 16:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I also find it ironic that you are basing your arguments here on the fact that city's webpages can be considered SPS, while at [[7]] you've insisted on keeping vanity press SPS sources in the article.radek (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to be precise, here's more from the previous discussions:

I think that the website is reliable. It is, however, a primary source, and therefore does not help to establish information about the town's notability. I think that it can be used for sourcing normally, although reliable secondary sources would be preferred

The official town authorities definetely are notable enough that their information on history should be noted, if controversy arises it is best to mark the information as coming from the town authorities

A website maintained by a governmental organization is more reliable then a random website maintained by a private, anonymous party. It is of course not as reliable as an academic publication. Still, they are somewhat reliable.

Official Town websites can be categorized as "Organizational self-published sites"... as such, they can be considered reliable for attributed statements as to the town's official opinion reguading itself

It is, however, a verifiable and reliable source of the town's view of its own history - so use it as such, and as nothing more

No, your analysis shows that some (perhaps even most) town websites should be excluded... but others should not. It depends on the specific town website. It also depends on the statement that is being made in a specific article that we are sourcing to the town website. We should not make broad, sweeping statements about town websites.radek (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

how does it contradict?

How does the information on the city's website contradict other sources? There was a typo there which I fixed. But other than that, the city's website says that there was a Slavic settlement there in the 6th and 7th century. The two sources given otherwise state that Slavic immigration got there 7th century - this doesn't seem like a contradiction at all but rather a rough agreement (since those kind of things are always a bit uncertain). Furthermore how do other sources contradict the fact that during the 10th century fish and salt were traded there??? And please provide exact specific examples of contradiction, translated into ENGLISH (since this is the English Wikipedia).radek (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

And here's some sources, easily found if one cares to look, which support the city's website: "Several settlement sites, which grew up in the 6th/7th century, were excavated on the island of Wolin and in Kolobrzeg, where a 9th-century saltern was also..." - Polski Instytut Spraw Międzynarodowych, pg. 44

"imports along the rivers came from a period as early as the 6th or 7th century. ... The author presents the early development of Kolobrzeg, Bialogard" - Frühgeschichte der europäischen Stadt: Voraussetzungen und Grundlagen‎ - Page 157 (German source)

"Kolobrzeg in the context of the major sites between the lower Oder and the Vistula in the early Middle Ages... has been actually dated to the 6th-7th centuries" - Przemysław Urbańczyk, Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii (Polska Akademia Nauk), Natalia Kuczyńska, Tadeusz Baranowski, pg. 34

"Pomerania, and especially Kolobrzeg. was often visited by traders from Birka, ... 50% of the beads found there were dated back to the 6th — 7th century" - Národní muzeum v Praze. Archaeologický sbor, Historický klub (Prague, Czech Republic), Česká akademie věd a umění. Komise archeologická, Archeologický ústav (Československá akademie věd) (Czech source)

"under its Slavic name: Kolobrzeg, which literally means: "the bent bank. ... Slavic tribes which moved to the Occident starting in the sixth century" - The Slavs, Francis Conte, Marie-Pascale Bos, pg 24

So where's the contradiction? All I see is some serious support.radek (talk) 17:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Google book snippets showing a dotted break between the name of the town and the date are not a valid source. The half-sentences originate from different pages and contexts.

The only snippet where the date and the town's name are actually mentioned in the same sentence is the snippet "Several settlement sites, which grew up in the 6th/7th century, were excavated on the island of Wolin and in Kolobrzeg, where a 9th-century saltern was also" is from "Polish perspectives, Polski Instytut Spraw Międzynarodowych, 1966". Skäpperöd (talk) 07:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh you know what it's saying. And how about those quotes, in English, which show a contradiction? Where are they?radek (talk) 11:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Notable residents

I propose cleaning up a bit the notable residents section because there are some names there that IMO aren't really notable. For example who are these guys: Christian Wilhelm Gericke, Joachim Nettelbeck, Martin von Rango, Ernst Maass etc, etc? I've never heard those names before and i doubt that more than 0,1% of wikipedia readers knows them. Opinions? Loosmark (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I see that, instead of an answer, HerkusMonte just inserted another german to the list. Fine may i at least ask one thing, since she was born in 1944 and her article says she moved out when Kołobrzeg became part of Poland (which was in 1945), how do you think she's a "notable resident"? Loosmark (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Moved from main

I have moved the following text here, because it doesn't make much sense (gramatically or logically):

Lech Leciejewicz has proposed a stronghold in this area, as the medieval Gallus Anonymus chronicle can be interpreted that way and an 18th century map shows a circular elevation around St. Nicholas church. As of 2007, excavations have not supported this theory.<ref name=Jarnut289>Jörg Jarnut, Peter Johanek, ''Die Frühgeschichte der europäischen Stadt im 11. Jahrhundert'', Köln-Weimar-Wien 1998, p.285, republished in Winfried Schich, Ralf Gebuhr, Peter Neumeister, ''Wirtschaft und Kulturlandschaft - Siedlung und Wirtschaft im Bereich der [[Germania Slavica]]'', BWV Verlag, 2007, p.289, ISBN 3830503784</ref>

Who is Lech Leciejewicz? He is not the author of reference cited. How does one propose a stronghold (grammar/logic)? What does an 18th century circular elevation has to do with anything? Why is this even notable here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Lech Leciejewicz is an archeologist/historian. He has proposed that a second stronghold (besides Budzistowo) was at the salt pans, and he based his theory on a circular elevation in an 18th century map and a possible interpretation of the Gallus Anonymus chronicle. The excavations conducted there have however not shown a stronghold there yet. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

When he has proposed that? Quite a few other sources discuss the existence of a second settlement from about 8th century. I am not sure if his second stronghold = our second settlement? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"Second settlement" is to euphemistic. At the mouth of the Parseta, there were two salt mines. These were in use already before the town of Kolberg was founded, at least the Budzistowo people used these mines already. If the Bardy-Swielubie people had also mined salt there before, I don't know. The town of Kolberg was founded between Budzistowo and the salt mines, around St Mary's (the cathedral). St Nicholas was however built near the salt mines, and that's where Leciejewicz proposed a second castrum besides the castrum at Budzistowo. His rationale is that Gallus Anonymus switched between different Latin words for town/stronghold (castrum, urbs) and that he possibly meant two locations, the proto-town itself and a fort at the mines. On the 18th cty map, there is a circular elevation right at St Nicholas, which is about the only site where such a fort could have stood. The area however has changed a lot since the Middle Ages (the mouth of the parseta is now more like a channel/port, and the area around it is urbanized since Kolberg expanded northward, in contrast to Budzistowo which is to the South). So L. did not find anything there, and most probably the traces af a fort, if there was one, fell victim to urban building of the last centuries. So we probably will never know, that's why I put it "As of 2007, excavations have not supported this theory" instead of ruling it out completely. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

That's helpful; could you clarify this in the article? Most of your para above should probably be moved to the article. We can probably use a dedicated article on the history of Kołobrzeg. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather not create another scene if the history section does not expand much further. It's still all well within the proposed article size. I will re-introduce a more clarified para acc to the above later.Skäpperöd (talk) 06:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Attribution

With this edit [8] the attribution got lost. If Piskorski says immigration reached the region in the 7th century, and the website and an older work say that there were settlements already in the 6th century, then this should at least be attributed. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

"In 1945 the town [Colberg] became Polish" Clarifications needed--intl. law/de facto vs. de jure

The article states that "In 1945 the town [Colberg] became Polish". That is not quite correct; since 1945 the issue was pending in terms of international law: In 1945 it became part of the those parts of Germany that were administered by Poland. The former GDR (German Democratic Republic, commonly referred to as East Germany) recognized the so-called Oder-Neisse line on 6. Juli 1950 in the Treaty of Zgorzelec. The BRD (Bundesrepublik Deutschland, commonly referred to as West Germany) recognized the Oder-Neisse line 7. Dezember 1970 in the Treaty of Warsaw. The final recognition of Colberg being a Polish town came only 4 November 1990, German–Polish Border Treaty, which was ratified by the Polish Sejm on 26 November 1990 and the German Bundestag on 16 December 1991.

I suggest that the sentence "In 1945 the town [Colberg] became Polish" be changed to "De facto in 1945 the town [Colberg] became Polish" and adding "de jure ...the town [Colberg] became Polish" as outlined according to the above mentioned treaties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadan (talk • contribs) 21:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"once again became part of Polish state"

With these edits [9] [10], the line

• "In 1945 the town became part of Poland"

was changed to

• "In 1945 the town once again became part of Polish state"

I object to this change for the following reasons:

• The town was not even founded when Polish dukes temporarily conquered the area in the Middle Ages, what was conquered then was a predecessor, the Pomeranian stronghold at Budzistowo/Alt-Kolberg. The town was founded in the 13th century at a different site. More important,
• medieval Poland and post-WWII Poland are two completely different states. There are a 1000 years between the medieval conquest of the area and the 1945 events. And a lot happened during that millenium, in Poland as well as in Pomerania. It is not that something happened "once again" - something completely different happend instead.

Skäpperöd (talk) 05:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Both are Polish states.And the town was already there, true it later expanded but the claim that it isn't part of it, seems POV.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

(1) "Both are Polish states" - ok, but completely different ones. Eg the medieval Polish duchy was a vassal of the HRE, but we would not want to use "once again became part of a German state" for Warsaw in 1939 either. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

(2) The town was already there? Do you have a source for that? Skäpperöd (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

(3) "the claim that it isn't part of it, seems POV" - could you please clarify what claim you are talking about? Skäpperöd (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Nobody writes that the states are identical. This is not a place to discuss your claims about alledged vassalship of Poland to HRE and claims that HRE can be called German state-if you believe so than start appropriate discussions in appropriate articles on that. Cheers. -MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The town was already there? Do you have a source for that? Sure both the city official page and Kołobrzeg county official page mention that the town already existed before new town administration regulations in 13th century[11].It also mentions that the city returned to Poland after 1945.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

When I said "source", I did not have a SPS in mind. "Once again became part of Polish state", "returned to Poland" etc are loaded terms suggesting a continuity that is just not there, and should be avoided. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

This was discussed several times, and town's webpages are completely allowed as sources about them[12]. As to your personal views see WP:OR--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

"Napoleon's and Polish troops"

With these edits [13] [14], the line

• "Napoleon's troops in the siege of Kolberg"

was changed to

• "Napoleon's and Polish troops in the siege of Kolberg"
• I object to this change because the Polish troops were part of Napoleon's (multi-ethnic) troops, not some independent army of some independent state (Duchy of Warsaw was a French client). Skäpperöd (talk) 05:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• Duchy of Warsaw was a seperate state from France and its forces were seperate as well. Cheers.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

References

What did happen here to the list of notes (no numbers)? - - Kaiser von Europa (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Lead

"As the Nazis took power in Germany, Poles and Jews were classified as untermenschen, with Jewish inhabitants attacked and discriminated in the city and eventually put in Nazi German concentration camps, while Poles were used as slaves by Germans during the Second World War."

This is true for every single village in pre-war Germany, however we don't metion it in every leadsection as the WP:LEAD should summarize the content and not give a short description of what happened all over the country. I removed this from the lead, if someones has got a specific information about the situation in K. this should be added to the resp. sub-section. HerkusMonte (talk) 08:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"This is true for every single village in pre-war Germany, however we don't metion it in every leadsection"I am only following the established routine as seen in adding line of expulsion of Germans to every Polish town and village. If postwar fate of Germans is mentioned than war fate of Poles and Jews must be mentioned as well.Since it did concern Kołobrzeg where Jews and Poles were subject to German atrocities than I see no reason not to mention it, as it is one of the most important events in history of the city--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 08:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Please consider WP:MOSINTRO. The lead section should briefly summarize the article, it's not necessary to go into detail in the lead. I'm not aware of anybody here adding "expulsion of Germans to every Polish town and village". HerkusMonte (talk) 10:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S.:..postwar movement of part of city population.. is that kind of euphemism I thought it has been overcome even in Poland since 1989. HerkusMonte (talk) 10:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

In addition, having noticed the discussion on the 'naming dispute' that has (re-[?])erupted, I took a look here, and I must say that in addition to the usual WP:UNDUE and POV problems, someone has been entering material that is so poorly written in terms of language, that it could hardly be accepted in a reference work. “town was won from Nazi Germany by Polish and Soviet troops ” or “Poles and Jews were classified as untermenschen, with Jewish inhabitants attacked and discriminated in the city and eventually put in Nazi German concentration camps” or “the local Slavic population was unable to compete economically with the German arrivals who received several alleviation of taxes and benefits, and as result impoverished” are just some examples of the misleading or incomprehensible wording. Whilst linguistic incompetence alone shouldn't be a rationale to ban anyone, if this is coupled with general disruptive attitude, one asks what's the use of having such users here. I think the banning of User:Jo0doe should give some food for thought here. If someone is systematically incapable of seeing beyond the biases deriving from his own national sentiments or myths and persistently keeps entering his semi-illiterate out of context rant into various articles, some measures might indeed be considered. Wikipedia is supposed to be a reference work, not some 'Axis forum', where one can indeed post whatever comes to his/her mind (and as the case may be, use machine translation to be able to do so). I tried to fix the more unfortunate phrases, whilst trying to avoid touching any 'sensitive issues' (read: removing someone's POV changes), leaving this to fully impartial users. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Siege

Re [15]. The edit summary is "correct, link main article". Linking the main article's fine. The correction is only partially correct. True, the Polish troops were not "from the Polish state of the Duchy of Warsaw (it was technically established shortly after the siege, though the areas involved were already controlled by the French and Poles) but I don't see the reason to remove any mentioning of the fact that Polish troops were present at the siege. They were Polish troops. The city's now in Poland. There's streets named after the Polish commanders and such in the city today. Hence it's notable and relevant information. So how about really correcting the statement but not removing relevant information? Would

the town was besieged by Napoleon's army, which included Polish soldiers of the Poznan Legion, from mid-March to 2 July 1807

be alright?Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This would still unduely emphasize the role of the Polish regiment. The army was international, if we go to detail all the French client states whose forces participated in the 1807 siege, we get a very long list. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the city is not in Italy or Saxony or Malta. It's in Poland. AFAIK there's no streets and plazas in the city named after Italian or Saxon commanders and units. Hence the participation of Polish troops IS notable. On what criteria, other than IDON'TLIKEIT are you basing this "unduely" on?Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Nota bene; sources do, for some reason or another, "unduely emphasize" the presence of Polish troops at the siege. Should be enough.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The town became Polish in 1945, and that was a completely different Poland than the one in 1807, and the post-war street naming followed some nationalist/communist ideology which obviously disqualifies as a basis for emphasis in encyclopedic articles.

In the siege participated

• three Italian regiments
• one Saxon regiment
• two Württemberg regiments
• one Polish regiment
• two Nassau battallions
• one Holland regiment
• three French regiments
• ...

There is no reason to single out the Polish regiment's participation for emphasis on the basis that completely different Poles gained the town under completely different circumstances in a completely different era 150 years after that siege and had the streets renamed. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter when the town became Polish or why YOU think streets were named in a way that they were (your statement is a bit strange - not to mention completely unsourced - I'm not sure how anything disqualifies anything here, you just made this up). What matters is whether the Polish participation is mentioned in the sourced. Which it is. And of course these were "different Poles". People usually don't live for 138 years. I don't see what your point is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I am surprised that you claim I made anything up. Not just the Polish participation is sourced, but all other parties in the above list are sourced, too. That the streets were all renamed after the town became Polish in 1945 - any map will do as a source. And that nationalist communism was the ideology of the post-war Polish state is no secret either. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

First, the word "Kolberg" doesn't seem to appear in your source, so at best you've got here a piece of SYNTH that you're doing. Second, what you made up is the contention that somehow the fact that streets were renamed in 1945 for whatever reason, somehow bars us from discussing Polish participation in the siege of 1807. Can you provide ANY Wikipedia policy or guideline which would support this strange assertion?Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)