Talk:Wałbrzych

Added more on history

I added more on city history from city authorities, removed Germanised names from era where there is not yet a shared history that would justify using them. I also removed "Eastern Germany" as early XIX century is too early for that.--Molobo (talk) 18:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Reverted. My cited academic source clearly states that:

1) the city is situated on the territory of the medieval border forest. The so called Preseka wasn't populated.

2) archaeological findings don't support a early settlement

3) there was no castle in the 12th century, certainly no "Waldenburg" = forest castle or "Lasogród" on the territory of the city

4) Waldenburg = forest castle is identical with castle Neuhaus = newe haus (first mentioned with this name) = Polish nowy dwor

5) the territory of the city was colonized between 1290-1293, Neuhaus/nowy dwor was built at the same time

Conclusion: again highly unreliable city authorities, which shouldn't be used.

German names can be used right from the beginnings, since the settlement was a German foundation. "Eastern Germany" can be used too. The term "Germany" was used at that time, and "Eastern Germany" is simply a geographic classification. Karasek (talk) 08:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The question on city authorities as sources has been already dealt with on RS:Noticeboard and they can be freely used as long as it is stated that the information comes from them. The settlement was founded by Slavs not by Germans. You also confuse German city law with ethnic character-this is a known error in outdated German histography and I even can source that with modern scholary work. As to Eastern Germany that is a obvious POV term in regards to territories that have disputed history and ethnic character before creation of German state.

The city authorities information will be restored.--Molobo (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a question of nationalistic- minded historiography, at least not on my side, but of plausibility and the positioning of the towns history in the greater context of Silesias early history. Silesia at that time was secured by a wide, fortified border forest, the Preseka (60-80km wide at this place). The Preseka, which was uninhabitated, enclosed the dominion. The German colonists then settled on the territory of the Preseka and thus destroyed this system, which in turn led to the erection of new castles.

A Slavic settlement and a castle on the territory of the Preseka simply doesn't make sense. Yes, a Slavic castle and some Slavic settlements in this region are recorded, but they were located some kilometers up in the north (around Fürstenstein/Książ) on the inside of the Preseka, and they are almost undocumented.

Regarding "outdated German histography": my sources are all published within the last 10 years.

Regarding Eastern Germany: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Germany - Silesia was part of Prussia, Prussia was a German state. Silesia is located in the east. Karasek (talk) 08:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Please read on Original Research. Your personal views are not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia per Wiki Rules. Also we don't use Wiki to source claims, additionally terming it "Eastern Germany" is POV term that enforces the view of supposed German state's continuity where there was not one. The ethnic character of Prussia btw wasn't overwhelmingly German in certain timeframes. The city authorities are notable source of information regarding the city and you have provided no reason to remove them. This has already been discussed on RS:Noticeboard.--Molobo (talk) 08:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

All my statements can be backed up by several academic sources. This article will become a mess if the wishful thinking of a webmaster has to be refuted. Karasek (talk) 11:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure be me quest to present a reliable npov resources. However remember that personal webpages you proposed at the end of the sentence are not allowed according to Wiki guidelines. It is a difference when it comes to official pages of city authorities as they are notable. That's why I am not using personal webpages about Polish cities who were germanised later during the cours history before they were recovered by Poland.--Molobo (talk) 11:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutralised somewhat the article and attributed statements to the sources. Both sides need to be noted as to who makes what claim, and claims by German authors can't be presented as more objective then those of Polish sources. Both need to be attributed.--Molobo (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Restored to more neutral version

I restored to more neutral version. We shouldn't represent an controversial author whose books are published by political organisations with animosity to Poland and who made huge mistakes about history of Polish cities as source of ultimate truth.All viewpoints should be presented in neutral way. --Molobo (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Concur. Wałbrzych is a notable Polish city of considerable size. Attempts at political irredentism inspired by German textbooks with connections to Nazi sympathizers will not be tolerated. As far as grievances by User:Karasek are concerned, please take them to a more appropriate board in the future. --Poeticbent talk 15:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

www.wao.pl

..., the "scholary source" of the town's website, is a collection of commercial links and not the address of an encyclopedia. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The site is for sale, "Domena na sprzedaż". The only google hit for "WAO Encyklopedia" is this wiki entry, the town´s website is not up to date it seems. --ThePiedCow (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I attributed the claims, but will look for more sources

I attributed the claims, but as this dispute is ongoing perhaps mediation needs to be started, also I will try to get hold of some more sources. Added one source and added different view. Also removed Germanised names as too early for shared history.--Molobo (talk) 15:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

In fact, you removed attributions. The city's website is not "the city". Neither it is a scholary source, it is a WP:SPS. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there no other way to solve this mess?

I'm just a Wiki- noob without experience in such cases, but: is there no other way to solve this mess? We have six(!) sources on one side and one(!) source, the website of the city, on the other. Are city websites considered as equally reliable as these books? Is it really necessary to constantly insert the phrase "according to..." and/or the name of the author, which badly hurts the readability? And if it's necessary, why aren't always all authors mentioned who support one claim? Isn't this a matter of principle? Karasek (talk) 10:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

What statements are you referring to? There does seem to be some difference among scholars - at least, I haven't checked any of the sources, but there is a source (non-website) given for the claim that there was a settlement in 1191, while others say not before late 13th century. In this situation it seems quite appropriate to attribute all assertions explicitly. --Kotniski (talk) 11:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, the only source which supports this claim is Naso (17th century historian), and he is only mentioned in a subordinate clause by Weczerka (my primary source) because that's were the idea of an earlier settlement originally comes from. Weczerka however rebuts this claim, and his view is supported by several other sources. The sources in turn also refute some of the other statements of the city website. Karasek (talk) 11:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, someone has added a more precise reference to Naso (I have no way of checking it through), so he isn't "only" mentioned in W's subordinate clause. Does W. refer to any primary or older sources to support his claims? It might be interesting to mention them too.--Kotniski (talk) 12:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't notice that someone added another reference. Sorry. Weczerka offers several sources which support him, but they are not attributed to certain claims and probably mostly cover later times, since this town was pretty insignificant until the 19th century.

But my problem is a different one: all sources except one support one view of the history of the city. This one source gets refuted by all other sources on several points. Not only this, but the claims of this one source are sometimes totally implausible and in conflict with other topics. For example: this one source states that the German name of the town was a translation of the earlier Polish name. I'm not aware of any translated town name in the area of the German Ostsiedlung. Dresden, Leipzig, Berlin, Breslau, Liegnitz, they are all linuistic alterations of existing Slavic names, but no translations. And if the name Lasograd really existed, why didn't the Communists rename the town back to Lasograd, since these names were a major point to prove the Polishness of these regions? They discussed for years if former Neisse should be spelled Nysa or Nisa, but they didn't care about Lasograd?

To me this source is simply noncredible and shouldn't be used. But I'm a noob without a deeper understanding of the Wiki rules. I don't know if a town website is a reliable source or a self-published source, and i don't know what happens if a cited source writes bollocks. Karasek (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

B-class review failed

This article does not meet B-class criteria, due to missing key sections (ex. economy) and insufficient inline referencing (there are entire sections unreferenced). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Clarify

The first paragraph could be clarified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.248.205 (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

See the fourth and fifth lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.248.205 (talk) 11:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Waldenburg

The town has certainly improved since last visiting there over twenty years ago. It is unfortunate to say the least the town stood still in time for so many decades when the new border was forced even further westwards and the communists took over and the locals then ethnically cleansed for being German speakers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.209.193 (talk) 21:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Improper Italicization

There is no grammatical or expository reason to italicize former German names of now-Polish, -Lithuanian or -Russian localities in the areas transferred under border changes promulgated at the Potsdam Conference. In English, italics usually denote foreign (non-English) words for things or concepts, but not place names. In German times, Wałbrzych was officially Waldenburg, not Waldenburg, and the German name should not be italicized. Sca (talk) 14:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)