Daily page views
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page is affected by the
Gdańsk (Danzig) Vote. The following rules apply in the case of disputes:
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. |
Double standards in regards to naming: when Germanic states acquire territories it is "incorporation". When Poland acquires territory it is "conquest".-- Molobo ( talk) 01:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I found a sentence that Poland was 'destroyed'. This seems a very extreme POV. It was subject to internal rivalry in regards to throne, but not "destruction".-- Molobo ( talk) 01:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
The sentence clearly wrote "In the 1030s, the early Polish state was destroyed"-- Molobo ( talk) 13:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
The article is almost completely based on German publications, without any other viewpoints. Thus a great deal of text is focused on German history, naming and views, without introducing readers to views by other inhabitants of the region. Also there seems to be severe violations of double naming rule with German names given for periods where there was no German history at all(for example Kołobrzeg in 960AD). I will add the unbalanced template to this article due to this. Also note very dubious claims about Holy Roman Empire "subduing Poland". -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 17:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
The Gdansk/Danzig vote template on this talk page very clearly states: "
...
Since the scope of this article is Early Middle Ages - i.e. prior to 1308 more or less - the naming convention, as agreed to in the vote, should be of the form "Gdańsk (Danzig)", "Szczecin (Stettin)", "Kolobrzeg (Kolberg)" etc., not the other way around. radek ( talk) 21:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Right here [1]. Please read the actual vote in case you haven't done so already. In fact the proposal explicitly uses the example of "Szczecin (Stettin)" and states that this applies to before 1945 as well as after. Clearly Szczecin is not in this "Pomerelia". In fact "Pomerelia" does not appear anywhere in the vote page. So again, this is simply your "creative" interpretation of the vote - which is in fact contrary to the vote itself. radek ( talk) 22:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I would also like to remind all editors involved that the Gdansk/Danzig vote is a compromise, and like all compromises it just can't make EVERYONE happy. But it does the job of preventing multiple edit wars and time wasting disputes over naming. It's somewhat of a fragile compromise - and failing to observe it, or wikilawyering around it makes it even more fragile. So I want to ask everyone not to upset this compromise and observe the vote, otherwise the compromise will become a dead letter and there is the possibility that this could lead to all sorts of unnecessary edit wars and drama. radek ( talk) 23:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The article is based primarily on German based sources, it would be useful to include other publications. For example this The Scandinavian settlements were larger than the early Slavic ones, their craftsmen had a considerably higher productivity, and in contrast to the early Slavs, the Scandinavians were capable of seafaring Seems a largly pov claim based on a German publication. It would be useful to know what non-German historiography has to say about that. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 17:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
"The small tribes dwelling west of the Oder river were known collectively as "Veleti" (Wilzi), since the late 10th century as "Lutici" (Lutici), the tribes further east as "Pomeranians"." - the page given in Piskorski is 30 but I don't see it there. I'm not seeing it on pages 28, 29 or 31 for that matter. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 18:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
This article is pretty close, but 1) few (very few, but still) paras are unreferenced. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Daily page views
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page is affected by the
Gdańsk (Danzig) Vote. The following rules apply in the case of disputes:
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. |
Double standards in regards to naming: when Germanic states acquire territories it is "incorporation". When Poland acquires territory it is "conquest".-- Molobo ( talk) 01:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I found a sentence that Poland was 'destroyed'. This seems a very extreme POV. It was subject to internal rivalry in regards to throne, but not "destruction".-- Molobo ( talk) 01:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
The sentence clearly wrote "In the 1030s, the early Polish state was destroyed"-- Molobo ( talk) 13:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
The article is almost completely based on German publications, without any other viewpoints. Thus a great deal of text is focused on German history, naming and views, without introducing readers to views by other inhabitants of the region. Also there seems to be severe violations of double naming rule with German names given for periods where there was no German history at all(for example Kołobrzeg in 960AD). I will add the unbalanced template to this article due to this. Also note very dubious claims about Holy Roman Empire "subduing Poland". -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 17:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
The Gdansk/Danzig vote template on this talk page very clearly states: "
...
Since the scope of this article is Early Middle Ages - i.e. prior to 1308 more or less - the naming convention, as agreed to in the vote, should be of the form "Gdańsk (Danzig)", "Szczecin (Stettin)", "Kolobrzeg (Kolberg)" etc., not the other way around. radek ( talk) 21:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Right here [1]. Please read the actual vote in case you haven't done so already. In fact the proposal explicitly uses the example of "Szczecin (Stettin)" and states that this applies to before 1945 as well as after. Clearly Szczecin is not in this "Pomerelia". In fact "Pomerelia" does not appear anywhere in the vote page. So again, this is simply your "creative" interpretation of the vote - which is in fact contrary to the vote itself. radek ( talk) 22:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I would also like to remind all editors involved that the Gdansk/Danzig vote is a compromise, and like all compromises it just can't make EVERYONE happy. But it does the job of preventing multiple edit wars and time wasting disputes over naming. It's somewhat of a fragile compromise - and failing to observe it, or wikilawyering around it makes it even more fragile. So I want to ask everyone not to upset this compromise and observe the vote, otherwise the compromise will become a dead letter and there is the possibility that this could lead to all sorts of unnecessary edit wars and drama. radek ( talk) 23:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The article is based primarily on German based sources, it would be useful to include other publications. For example this The Scandinavian settlements were larger than the early Slavic ones, their craftsmen had a considerably higher productivity, and in contrast to the early Slavs, the Scandinavians were capable of seafaring Seems a largly pov claim based on a German publication. It would be useful to know what non-German historiography has to say about that. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 17:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
"The small tribes dwelling west of the Oder river were known collectively as "Veleti" (Wilzi), since the late 10th century as "Lutici" (Lutici), the tribes further east as "Pomeranians"." - the page given in Piskorski is 30 but I don't see it there. I'm not seeing it on pages 28, 29 or 31 for that matter. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 18:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
This article is pretty close, but 1) few (very few, but still) paras are unreferenced. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)