![]() | A fact from Siege of Kolberg (1807) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 8 April 2011 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
The Kolberg movie page on Wikipedia says this;
"The film's extra cast accounted perhaps 5,000 soldiers and hundreds of Kolberg people participated for a daily fee of 5 ℛℳ. The number of extras is commonly exaggerated at 187,000, and claims of entire divisions of troops taking part are completely false." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.210.174 ( talk) 21:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry but the presence of Polish troops at the siege is emphasized by sources (for example Cambridge History of Poland, not to mention numerous Polish sources) and hence should be mentioned in the article. This of course makes perfect sense, since the city is now part of Poland, and Poles were one of the largest if not THE largest foreign contingent in Napoleon's army. Some kind of blind desire to just remove all instances of the word "Poles" from articles such as this is not a sufficient justification for these kinds of edits - and it is precisely this kind of behavior which entails POV pushing, not vice versa. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 12:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
So, in the section May to June, it gives a list of the Prussian units involved, my statement revolves around the Prussian cavalry. The OOB lists 113 cavalrymen in a squadron from the Freikorp and 110 cuirassiers from the von Balliodz regiment's depot. Then one sentence later, it says During the fight, a Polish unit repelled a charge of 600 Prussian cavalry. Somehow the math doesn't work out. Is this like how certain Poles on wikipedia claim that the 1939 invasion of their country was a Polish victory, I notice on the discussion page that Molobo is active here. perhaps he can explain the math, as the source for the claim of 600 Prussian cavalry is in Polish and he will have easier access to it than the rest of us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.21.102.205 ( talk) 02:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
can you answer the question, and no I am not trolling, go back in the archives and look at the discussion on the september campaign, notably Piotr, spacecadet and our famously banned Molobo, their is no mention of retreat at all in the start of that article, it's all voluntary withdrawal. How does barely 200 cavalry turn into a force three times its size? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.220.41.92 ( talk) 05:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I am not banned, I deleted my account a while ago as I decided to stop contributing regularly as my work and personal life were and are more important to me. As well, it was a little hard to get internet access in Bazar-e Panjwai. And yes, I am the same person as the one who posted above. And please Piotr, try and be civil. In that one sentence you decided to post, you not only refused to answer the question but also broke one of the 5 pillars of wikipedia: Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner, let alone mention Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks or Wikipedia:Assume good faith
Now, can someone please explain how a force containing only 223 cavalrymen can manage to mount a cavalry charge containing three times their number? -- 24.202.1.112 ( talk) 23:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Well if sources differ, then we need to figure out which one is correct, shouldn't we? After all, there is quite a difference between 223 and 600 fighting men. And reserve battalions are not mixed units, you obviously have no understanding of the military at all do you? see this [1] for an explanation of what a Prussian reserve battalion in the Napoleonic Wars was. That source even has those units you just stated explained. -- 24.202.1.112 ( talk) 21:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
P.S. I did not know simple mathematics was Original Research, I'm sorry. -- 24.202.1.112 ( talk) 23:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Or we could figure out which source is more reliable and authoritative on the subject. Since Hoepfner used the Prussian archives as a source, and Kroczyński used the French Army's archives as a source, common sense would dictate that the former source is more reliable. This is because combatants like to claim inflicting more casualties and larger defeats on the foe, and those sources are therefore less reliable. Not only that, Hoepfner's source would have actual list of units and men in the Prussian Army at Kolberg. And since Kroczyński's book is singularly concerned with Polish units, its focus is not on the siege or the number of defenders but on the Polish units involved. And no, as the source I cited above stated, there were no cavalry in those reserve units, as they were infantry units. You say we aren't allowed to conduct original research or interpret sources, but then your whole counter-argument is not only very loose interpretation of a source, but counterfactual thinking, saying "what if this unit had cavalry" etc. etc.
P.S. If you can read German, you should read the Hoepfner source, it states that only Schiller's Freikorps cavalry unit (113 cavalry) was involved in the action in question. You can find the source on google books here, page 596. [2] -- 24.202.1.112 ( talk) 06:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Except the Prussian source isn't stating anything about casualties, it is stating the number of units present at the siege, are you now claiming that the Prussians wiped records of units from their order of battle because it was embarrassing how many men they lost? I have never said to remove the Kroczynski source, if I have, please quote me, because I can't find it. Also, why did you revert my edit? both sources clearly state that a battle involving cavalry took place in that place and that date, their is no OR present. They differ on the total number of cavalry troopers present, so I removed the mention of a certain number. It is you that seems to be intent on removing a reputable source, I never removed a reference, you did. I actually added a reference. Why are you so intent on keeping a number attached to the charge that has been shown to be dubious at best? I simply tried to find a middle ground. So indeed, I have been working more in good faith and following WP:NOR and WP:NPOV than someone who is intent on reverting what another user contributes just because of who they are. Why is the Hoepfner reference good in one part of the article but not another? -- 24.202.1.112 ( talk) 13:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
correction: you didn't remove the source, you just misrepresented it to make it seem like it also says there were 600 troopers involved in the unsuccessful charge. -- 24.202.1.112 ( talk) 13:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
How is that even remotely true? The truth is, you are leaving a citation of a source in the article that does not support the grandiose claims you are making in your "edits". I will be making an edit in agreement with wikipedia guidelines [ [3]]. -- 24.202.1.112 ( talk) 21:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Marek, since you are from Poland, perhaps you can provide more information on this other source, as it seems rather obscure. A google search of both author and and book title only comes up with links to this article or its clones. The author seems to have disappeared from history, and the only reference to the book is this article. While the search of the museum name where this book is cited is just some obscure little museum in small town Poland. -- 24.202.1.112 ( talk) 22:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Why has this discussion become a personal attack on me and not about the topic at hand? As I have shown in this discussion, that source is at best unaccessible to anyone trying to do credible research on the topic, if not erroneous, hardly reliable. I have seen before on wikipedia, certain Polish editors will cite a Polish book on a topic in question that is almost impossible for anyone else to get access to, and expect everyone to believe it says what they claim, no matter how outlandish (and often false). Can you please answer my last post Marek, rather than just slander me. Can you find the book and provide the passage for us? As a far more reputable source makes claims to the opposite of what yours claims. -- 24.202.1.112 ( talk) 03:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Eomund, the Hoepfner source goes into detail on page 596 (I already linked to the google book in this talk, and again here [6]) listing all the units involved on the Prussian side in this action at the Wolfsberg sconce. It clearly states the only cavalry unit involved in this action was the squadron from Schiller's freikorps. It also clearly illustrates on page 579 of the same source, a clear list of all units that were a part of the garrison at the time of the action, stating the Schiller Freikorps cavalry squadron consisted of 113 troopers. -- 24.202.1.112 ( talk) 06:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
And btw, at this point I'm not sure what this dispute is supposed to be about since I'm actually fine with this version [7] of the article (aside from the pov/weasely wording that one source "states" while the other source "claims"). Like I said above, I don't have any problem with Hopfner being included. What I have a problem with is having another source being removed simply because some anon ip (who obviously is a returning user with some axes to grind, per his original comment in this thread) doesn't like it. VolunteerMarek 07:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
"legitimate criticism" Do you mean inferring that another user's opinion does not matter or is less important than yours because he is either not using an account, or because he has fewer edits than you is legitimate criticism? We are all equal on wikipedia, one user is not better than another just because he is on here more often. About my invasion of Poland comment, all you have to do is look at the discussion archives for that page to see what I was referring to. I do admit though that I fanned the flames and did not get this discussion off to a good start, and I am sorry for that. How was my comment about Molobo false? He was banned for more than a year (it was originally a permanent ban) because of his "edits". But he seems to have cooled down a lot since then.
And for the last time, I do not know what is in that phantom source you hold up as if it were the holy bible. When did I ever make that statement? I editted the article to state that it says the Polish unit repelled a cavalry charge, rather than 600. I simply removed the reference to a number as it is in dispute, when another, freely available and authoritative source states a much different number. Seriously, stop trying to sidestep the topic here. You live in Poland, I assume you speak Polish, you have access to the book (assuming it exists), I simply asked if you could enlighten us on it. I tried searching for it for over an hour online: the author's name returned absolutely zero hits, the title returned only this article and a clone, and the museum name where it apparently is kept only had a blurb about the museum's purpose. -- 24.202.1.112 ( talk) 08:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I am very sorry Marek, I got overly hostile, alas, I have found the journal online, here it is [8]. Luckily, I am Canadian, so I can speak a fair bit of French (by no means excellent), and the quotation in question is actually in French (footnoted in Polish for you too though). Les Polonais ont soutenu avec vigeur la charge de 600 hommes de cavalerie sortis de la Place, et les ont forcé de se retirer... Translated, what it says is "The Poles have repelled with vigour the charge from 600 cavalrymen (who) left the place, and they were forced to withdraw." But it also says earlier in that paragraph that this was from a report written by Loison to Marshal Berthier on 8 May. Given that Loison had a reputation of being an intriguer, and that battle reports are vague and never 100% accurate, even with today's technology, one can safely say that the claim by Loison is exaggerated. Not only that, the battle was still ongoing when he wrote this report, and his superiors were itching for news of a victory, they had already relieved the previous commander because he was not producing results.
So, basically what we have in the article is a paraphrasing of a museum newspaper which quotes a General who did not have nearly as much information as a serious researcher with access to the Prussian Army archives and the complete Order of Battle of the Prussian forces present. To give another example of the same situation, I would believe someone who said they scored 5 goals in a game off soccer, but then when someone else comes along and shows you the scoresheet and it doesn't agree with what he said, you kind of have to re-evaluate what you believe. -- 24.202.1.112 ( talk) 09:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
So wait a second, so are you seriously denying the existence of what is commonly called the fog of war? because I'm sure I could find hundreds of references on it for you if you so desire. No, my opinion of Loison doesn't matter, but it is in the page dedicated to him, fully sourced and everything. Also, if you care to read Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Scholarship you would see that it clearly states: Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. Since not only is that source quoting an erroneous General, but as it is a quote, it is a primary source, and a rather poorly investigated one at that. Whereas Hoepfner is a well regarded, reputable secondary source who used the Prussian archives to pinpoint which units were involved on the Prussian side. Also, you might actually want to read the policies you use to back up your claims "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" Third Party: Gen Loison is not a third party, hardly reliable, and did not have any chance to fact check, he had to believe what his commanders told him, thus throwing into doubt his accuracy.
You make me lol, my "original research"? Oh you mean where I cited a book by a top military historian of his day with access to Prussian archives saying that only one squadron of 113 men was involved in the action. Yes, that perfectly falls into the category of original research (that was sarcastic).
P.S. I found it "all of a sudden" after searching again, if I wasn't such a meticulous or honest editor, I would have just kept pretending it didnt exist, since you're making no attempt to do any research yourself.
P.S.S. You might want to look up Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system as that is all you've been doing, I still haven't seen one constructive, non harassing post from you yet. -- 24.202.1.112 ( talk) 10:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
There is no need to state the original research policy when none is being conducted. I'm sorry you are no longer willing to cooperate and discuss the issue. It's been a pleasure working with you. -- 24.202.1.112 ( talk) 19:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Welcome back Marek. Eomund, if you look at the article on Loison, you will see the comment about Loison being an intriguer is fully cited, as well a quick google search will give more evidence of that, especially in concern to his performance in Portugal. However, I did extrapolate a bit when I said that he was anxious about being relieved of command.
All of that is besides the point though. I do not see a problem with the state of the article after my last edit, it includes exactly what both sources state. Hoepfner has the order of battle for his research and knows exactly how many men where inside the fortress, and what units were involved in the counterattack. Loison claims in a letter to his superior that they repelled 600 cavalry, although by doing research that was found to be impossible.
Also, one must point out that the Kroczyński source is not concerned with the battle or fact checking Gen. Loison's claim, but simply cites his statements as evidence of Polish bravery.
I do not see the problem Marek has with the word "claim" it's definition is:to assert or maintain as a fact, and that is exactly what Gen. Loison did. However, as per wikipedia's guidelines on sources, a primary source such as Gen. Loison's missive is to be taken with caution, and not to be considered as reliable. From wikipedia's Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources:
Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves.
Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context.
Also, from Wikipedia:SOURCES#Reliable_sources:
Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.... as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source....
Gen. Loison is neither third-party, nor is he known for his fact-checking and accuracy. Neither was their a great degree of scrutiny made before he wrote his letter. -- 24.202.1.112 ( talk) 21:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
In an effort for consensus, instead of either claimed or stated, how about we use wrote in the article? As in In a report to Marshal Berthier on 8 May, General Loison wrote that the Poles had stopped a charge of 600 Prussian cavalry in that action... Although, the whole sentence could be removed since the previous sentence (which everyone already agrees upon) in the article states the charge only consisted of 113 troopers. Instead it could be rewritten as In a report on the action to Marshal Berthier on 8 May, General Loison praised the bravery of the Polish troops in repelling the cavalry charge.
Also, if you look at wikipedia's Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(words_to_watch)#Unsupported_attributions or weasel word, "claimed" in this context is not a weasel word. -- 24.202.1.112 ( talk) 21:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I actually think stated is less appropriate here as it gives a false sense of knowledge on the subject that Loison did not have, especially since in light of further research, the statement has been found to be false. But I think we can agree now that "wrote" is the term that will be used in the article.
Also, adding "according to Hoepfner" diminishes his research even more than "claimed" did to Loison. Since Hoepfner was working from the Prussian archives and had access to the order of battle, one would then have to be able to write "according to the Prussian order of battle". Not only that, it also makes the sentence overly-weighty and drawn out.
Marek, it is not so much Kroczynski that is not as reliable, but his source. And one must also realize that it is not reliable, as we all believe him not to have fabricated a report by Loison, but the fact that his source has been shown to be erroneous by further research. Again, the focus of Kroczynski is not on numbers in the battle, but the fighting spirit of the Poles and the accolades heaped on them by the French. Not once in his paper does he state overall fighting strengths at the battle, nor does he give a larger perspective of the battle than the parts the Poles were fighting in. His paper is throughout laced with statements by Loison praising the Poles, but barely includes anything else. From Kroczynski's paper (translated): "In part because it further emphasizes the merits of the Poles, who have contributed significantly to the success of the reconnaissance attack. Let us therefore once again return to the words of Gen. Loison..." following which is the statement about the bravery of the Poles in repelling the cavalry charge. Kroczynski's emphasis is on the bravery of the Poles, not the facts of the battle.
Also, the fourth paragraph of Kroczynski's article clearly explains why I do not value it as highly as Hoepfner. In it, he explains that every single one of his sources (all 95 of them) are correspondence between various French leaders that were involved, more than half his sources were Loison alone! Letters between commanders cannot be taken as credibly as serious scholarly research. -- 24.202.1.112 ( talk) 09:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
-- 24.202.1.112 ( talk) 01:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- bullshit. It is not "discredited". You just don't like it. Quit making shit up. The Hoepfner source is not "more reliable". It's just a different source. How is Hoepfner not more reliable? Not only does he have access to the order of battle of the Prussian forces at the fortress, but also knows exactly what units took part in the action. Loison does not know the strength of Prussian units and at best is an estimate by his commanders present.
- it is published in a peer reviewed journal. Quit making shit up. then let's see a review of the article then.
- already provided. Quit making shit up. Kroczynski never says it, and he never gives any proof to back up the claims of Loison, nor does he state anything about the veracity of such claims.
no, we actually know who Korczynski was (a historian who was the head of a National Museum in Kolobrzeg). According to the source, he was not the head of a museum at all. According to a google search, he was actually a highschool teacher in Kolberg, not a museum director. Not as reliable of a source as an actual historian like Hoepfner.
bad faithed trolling? banned user? please, I have never been banned and I am sticking to the contentiousness of the article, not attacking users like you have done repeatedly. -- 24.202.1.112 ( talk) 18:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
How about the actual order of battle from the Prussian military archives? is that not a more reliable source on Prussian troops concentrations than a two sentence missive by a foreign commander who wasn't even at Wolfsberg Sconce. Not only that, the two sentence missive isn't even about the Prussian troops in question, but the Poles. -- 24.202.1.112 ( talk) 05:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Currently the article claims that Polish rebels against Prussia in Prussian territories were "foreign". This is obviously false.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 14:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I see that "reinforcements" have been called in [10], [11] - as far as I can tell Herkus did not canvass in a neutral venue, he did not word the notification in a neutral way as required per WP:CANVASS, nor did he alert other editors, who may potentially disagree with him about the dispute. This is a pretty blatant attempt at manipulating the discussion and it appears to be working. Nota bene, User:Estlandia has never been active on this talk page, AFAICT, so I'm not sure exactly why he decided to show up (actually I am, but AGF and all that). (All of this makes Herkus' recent complaint at AN/I quite... funny, not to mention extremely hypocritical).
Anyway, @Woogie, the relative size of the forces is not the only determinant of notability here. Is the Italian participation discussed in "Cambridge History of Italy" (er, an equivalent of it)? From an Italian, or Hessian, perspective the participation of their troops might not have been significant (in fact, for some of the German client states, a thing they'd rather forget) - especially since to them this was/is a foreign city and a foreign land. But the participation of Poles is significant. Second, as already stated, presently the city is not in Italy, Hess or whatever, but in Poland. This also makes the participation of Polish troops more significant.
Furthermore, it's just NOT TRUE that simply mentioning Polish participation in the siege is somehow giving undue weight to this aspect of the battle. If the whole, or good chunk, of the article was all about the Polish participation, then yes that would be undue - and I'd support trimming it down. But here we're talking about a simple couple words, a single sentence or so, which enumerates the fact. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 18:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Back to topic: "foreign" refers to non-French troops. It's about the troops, not the place they fought at, there's no contradiction and it's not "unclear". HerkusMonte ( talk) 09:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 09:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
in any case, they are foreign, as they are not from the Kolberg region, but a totally different province, or outside of Prussia, and did not enjoy the support of the native population, who were predominantly German. I suggest you look up the term [12] in the dictionary Molobo, as definitions 2-5 on wiktionary clearly state that the adjective "foreign" perfectly fits this band of Polish men. -- 24.202.1.112 ( talk) 21:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Currently the article says "rarely also: Siege of Colberg",
Google Books:
I am not sure why the first sentence has four citations on it:
But is seems that the whole construction is very pointy, So I am going to change it. -- PBS ( talk) 01:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello! This is to let editors know that File:GER-COL-S-1453-Prussia-Siege_of_Kolberg-8_groschen-1807.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for December 1, 2022. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2022-12-01. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 13:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
The red-bellied piranha (Pygocentrus nattereri), also known as the red piranha, is a species of piranha native to South America, found in the Amazon, Paraguay, Paraná and Essequibo basins, as well as the coastal rivers of northeastern Brazil. They are omnivorous foragers and feed on insects, worms, crustaceans, and fish. Red-bellied piranhas often travel in shoals as a predatory defense but rarely exhibit group hunting behavior. Acoustic communication is common and is sometimes exhibited along with aggressive behaviors. They are also often kept as an aquarium species. This fish was photographed at Karlsruhe Zoo in Germany. Photograph credit: H. Zell
Recently featured:
|
![]() | A fact from Siege of Kolberg (1807) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 8 April 2011 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
The Kolberg movie page on Wikipedia says this;
"The film's extra cast accounted perhaps 5,000 soldiers and hundreds of Kolberg people participated for a daily fee of 5 ℛℳ. The number of extras is commonly exaggerated at 187,000, and claims of entire divisions of troops taking part are completely false." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.210.174 ( talk) 21:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry but the presence of Polish troops at the siege is emphasized by sources (for example Cambridge History of Poland, not to mention numerous Polish sources) and hence should be mentioned in the article. This of course makes perfect sense, since the city is now part of Poland, and Poles were one of the largest if not THE largest foreign contingent in Napoleon's army. Some kind of blind desire to just remove all instances of the word "Poles" from articles such as this is not a sufficient justification for these kinds of edits - and it is precisely this kind of behavior which entails POV pushing, not vice versa. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 12:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
So, in the section May to June, it gives a list of the Prussian units involved, my statement revolves around the Prussian cavalry. The OOB lists 113 cavalrymen in a squadron from the Freikorp and 110 cuirassiers from the von Balliodz regiment's depot. Then one sentence later, it says During the fight, a Polish unit repelled a charge of 600 Prussian cavalry. Somehow the math doesn't work out. Is this like how certain Poles on wikipedia claim that the 1939 invasion of their country was a Polish victory, I notice on the discussion page that Molobo is active here. perhaps he can explain the math, as the source for the claim of 600 Prussian cavalry is in Polish and he will have easier access to it than the rest of us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.21.102.205 ( talk) 02:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
can you answer the question, and no I am not trolling, go back in the archives and look at the discussion on the september campaign, notably Piotr, spacecadet and our famously banned Molobo, their is no mention of retreat at all in the start of that article, it's all voluntary withdrawal. How does barely 200 cavalry turn into a force three times its size? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.220.41.92 ( talk) 05:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I am not banned, I deleted my account a while ago as I decided to stop contributing regularly as my work and personal life were and are more important to me. As well, it was a little hard to get internet access in Bazar-e Panjwai. And yes, I am the same person as the one who posted above. And please Piotr, try and be civil. In that one sentence you decided to post, you not only refused to answer the question but also broke one of the 5 pillars of wikipedia: Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner, let alone mention Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks or Wikipedia:Assume good faith
Now, can someone please explain how a force containing only 223 cavalrymen can manage to mount a cavalry charge containing three times their number? -- 24.202.1.112 ( talk) 23:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Well if sources differ, then we need to figure out which one is correct, shouldn't we? After all, there is quite a difference between 223 and 600 fighting men. And reserve battalions are not mixed units, you obviously have no understanding of the military at all do you? see this [1] for an explanation of what a Prussian reserve battalion in the Napoleonic Wars was. That source even has those units you just stated explained. -- 24.202.1.112 ( talk) 21:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
P.S. I did not know simple mathematics was Original Research, I'm sorry. -- 24.202.1.112 ( talk) 23:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Or we could figure out which source is more reliable and authoritative on the subject. Since Hoepfner used the Prussian archives as a source, and Kroczyński used the French Army's archives as a source, common sense would dictate that the former source is more reliable. This is because combatants like to claim inflicting more casualties and larger defeats on the foe, and those sources are therefore less reliable. Not only that, Hoepfner's source would have actual list of units and men in the Prussian Army at Kolberg. And since Kroczyński's book is singularly concerned with Polish units, its focus is not on the siege or the number of defenders but on the Polish units involved. And no, as the source I cited above stated, there were no cavalry in those reserve units, as they were infantry units. You say we aren't allowed to conduct original research or interpret sources, but then your whole counter-argument is not only very loose interpretation of a source, but counterfactual thinking, saying "what if this unit had cavalry" etc. etc.
P.S. If you can read German, you should read the Hoepfner source, it states that only Schiller's Freikorps cavalry unit (113 cavalry) was involved in the action in question. You can find the source on google books here, page 596. [2] -- 24.202.1.112 ( talk) 06:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Except the Prussian source isn't stating anything about casualties, it is stating the number of units present at the siege, are you now claiming that the Prussians wiped records of units from their order of battle because it was embarrassing how many men they lost? I have never said to remove the Kroczynski source, if I have, please quote me, because I can't find it. Also, why did you revert my edit? both sources clearly state that a battle involving cavalry took place in that place and that date, their is no OR present. They differ on the total number of cavalry troopers present, so I removed the mention of a certain number. It is you that seems to be intent on removing a reputable source, I never removed a reference, you did. I actually added a reference. Why are you so intent on keeping a number attached to the charge that has been shown to be dubious at best? I simply tried to find a middle ground. So indeed, I have been working more in good faith and following WP:NOR and WP:NPOV than someone who is intent on reverting what another user contributes just because of who they are. Why is the Hoepfner reference good in one part of the article but not another? -- 24.202.1.112 ( talk) 13:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
correction: you didn't remove the source, you just misrepresented it to make it seem like it also says there were 600 troopers involved in the unsuccessful charge. -- 24.202.1.112 ( talk) 13:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
How is that even remotely true? The truth is, you are leaving a citation of a source in the article that does not support the grandiose claims you are making in your "edits". I will be making an edit in agreement with wikipedia guidelines [ [3]]. -- 24.202.1.112 ( talk) 21:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Marek, since you are from Poland, perhaps you can provide more information on this other source, as it seems rather obscure. A google search of both author and and book title only comes up with links to this article or its clones. The author seems to have disappeared from history, and the only reference to the book is this article. While the search of the museum name where this book is cited is just some obscure little museum in small town Poland. -- 24.202.1.112 ( talk) 22:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Why has this discussion become a personal attack on me and not about the topic at hand? As I have shown in this discussion, that source is at best unaccessible to anyone trying to do credible research on the topic, if not erroneous, hardly reliable. I have seen before on wikipedia, certain Polish editors will cite a Polish book on a topic in question that is almost impossible for anyone else to get access to, and expect everyone to believe it says what they claim, no matter how outlandish (and often false). Can you please answer my last post Marek, rather than just slander me. Can you find the book and provide the passage for us? As a far more reputable source makes claims to the opposite of what yours claims. -- 24.202.1.112 ( talk) 03:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Eomund, the Hoepfner source goes into detail on page 596 (I already linked to the google book in this talk, and again here [6]) listing all the units involved on the Prussian side in this action at the Wolfsberg sconce. It clearly states the only cavalry unit involved in this action was the squadron from Schiller's freikorps. It also clearly illustrates on page 579 of the same source, a clear list of all units that were a part of the garrison at the time of the action, stating the Schiller Freikorps cavalry squadron consisted of 113 troopers. -- 24.202.1.112 ( talk) 06:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
And btw, at this point I'm not sure what this dispute is supposed to be about since I'm actually fine with this version [7] of the article (aside from the pov/weasely wording that one source "states" while the other source "claims"). Like I said above, I don't have any problem with Hopfner being included. What I have a problem with is having another source being removed simply because some anon ip (who obviously is a returning user with some axes to grind, per his original comment in this thread) doesn't like it. VolunteerMarek 07:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
"legitimate criticism" Do you mean inferring that another user's opinion does not matter or is less important than yours because he is either not using an account, or because he has fewer edits than you is legitimate criticism? We are all equal on wikipedia, one user is not better than another just because he is on here more often. About my invasion of Poland comment, all you have to do is look at the discussion archives for that page to see what I was referring to. I do admit though that I fanned the flames and did not get this discussion off to a good start, and I am sorry for that. How was my comment about Molobo false? He was banned for more than a year (it was originally a permanent ban) because of his "edits". But he seems to have cooled down a lot since then.
And for the last time, I do not know what is in that phantom source you hold up as if it were the holy bible. When did I ever make that statement? I editted the article to state that it says the Polish unit repelled a cavalry charge, rather than 600. I simply removed the reference to a number as it is in dispute, when another, freely available and authoritative source states a much different number. Seriously, stop trying to sidestep the topic here. You live in Poland, I assume you speak Polish, you have access to the book (assuming it exists), I simply asked if you could enlighten us on it. I tried searching for it for over an hour online: the author's name returned absolutely zero hits, the title returned only this article and a clone, and the museum name where it apparently is kept only had a blurb about the museum's purpose. -- 24.202.1.112 ( talk) 08:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I am very sorry Marek, I got overly hostile, alas, I have found the journal online, here it is [8]. Luckily, I am Canadian, so I can speak a fair bit of French (by no means excellent), and the quotation in question is actually in French (footnoted in Polish for you too though). Les Polonais ont soutenu avec vigeur la charge de 600 hommes de cavalerie sortis de la Place, et les ont forcé de se retirer... Translated, what it says is "The Poles have repelled with vigour the charge from 600 cavalrymen (who) left the place, and they were forced to withdraw." But it also says earlier in that paragraph that this was from a report written by Loison to Marshal Berthier on 8 May. Given that Loison had a reputation of being an intriguer, and that battle reports are vague and never 100% accurate, even with today's technology, one can safely say that the claim by Loison is exaggerated. Not only that, the battle was still ongoing when he wrote this report, and his superiors were itching for news of a victory, they had already relieved the previous commander because he was not producing results.
So, basically what we have in the article is a paraphrasing of a museum newspaper which quotes a General who did not have nearly as much information as a serious researcher with access to the Prussian Army archives and the complete Order of Battle of the Prussian forces present. To give another example of the same situation, I would believe someone who said they scored 5 goals in a game off soccer, but then when someone else comes along and shows you the scoresheet and it doesn't agree with what he said, you kind of have to re-evaluate what you believe. -- 24.202.1.112 ( talk) 09:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
So wait a second, so are you seriously denying the existence of what is commonly called the fog of war? because I'm sure I could find hundreds of references on it for you if you so desire. No, my opinion of Loison doesn't matter, but it is in the page dedicated to him, fully sourced and everything. Also, if you care to read Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Scholarship you would see that it clearly states: Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. Since not only is that source quoting an erroneous General, but as it is a quote, it is a primary source, and a rather poorly investigated one at that. Whereas Hoepfner is a well regarded, reputable secondary source who used the Prussian archives to pinpoint which units were involved on the Prussian side. Also, you might actually want to read the policies you use to back up your claims "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" Third Party: Gen Loison is not a third party, hardly reliable, and did not have any chance to fact check, he had to believe what his commanders told him, thus throwing into doubt his accuracy.
You make me lol, my "original research"? Oh you mean where I cited a book by a top military historian of his day with access to Prussian archives saying that only one squadron of 113 men was involved in the action. Yes, that perfectly falls into the category of original research (that was sarcastic).
P.S. I found it "all of a sudden" after searching again, if I wasn't such a meticulous or honest editor, I would have just kept pretending it didnt exist, since you're making no attempt to do any research yourself.
P.S.S. You might want to look up Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system as that is all you've been doing, I still haven't seen one constructive, non harassing post from you yet. -- 24.202.1.112 ( talk) 10:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
There is no need to state the original research policy when none is being conducted. I'm sorry you are no longer willing to cooperate and discuss the issue. It's been a pleasure working with you. -- 24.202.1.112 ( talk) 19:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Welcome back Marek. Eomund, if you look at the article on Loison, you will see the comment about Loison being an intriguer is fully cited, as well a quick google search will give more evidence of that, especially in concern to his performance in Portugal. However, I did extrapolate a bit when I said that he was anxious about being relieved of command.
All of that is besides the point though. I do not see a problem with the state of the article after my last edit, it includes exactly what both sources state. Hoepfner has the order of battle for his research and knows exactly how many men where inside the fortress, and what units were involved in the counterattack. Loison claims in a letter to his superior that they repelled 600 cavalry, although by doing research that was found to be impossible.
Also, one must point out that the Kroczyński source is not concerned with the battle or fact checking Gen. Loison's claim, but simply cites his statements as evidence of Polish bravery.
I do not see the problem Marek has with the word "claim" it's definition is:to assert or maintain as a fact, and that is exactly what Gen. Loison did. However, as per wikipedia's guidelines on sources, a primary source such as Gen. Loison's missive is to be taken with caution, and not to be considered as reliable. From wikipedia's Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources:
Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves.
Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context.
Also, from Wikipedia:SOURCES#Reliable_sources:
Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.... as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source....
Gen. Loison is neither third-party, nor is he known for his fact-checking and accuracy. Neither was their a great degree of scrutiny made before he wrote his letter. -- 24.202.1.112 ( talk) 21:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
In an effort for consensus, instead of either claimed or stated, how about we use wrote in the article? As in In a report to Marshal Berthier on 8 May, General Loison wrote that the Poles had stopped a charge of 600 Prussian cavalry in that action... Although, the whole sentence could be removed since the previous sentence (which everyone already agrees upon) in the article states the charge only consisted of 113 troopers. Instead it could be rewritten as In a report on the action to Marshal Berthier on 8 May, General Loison praised the bravery of the Polish troops in repelling the cavalry charge.
Also, if you look at wikipedia's Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(words_to_watch)#Unsupported_attributions or weasel word, "claimed" in this context is not a weasel word. -- 24.202.1.112 ( talk) 21:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I actually think stated is less appropriate here as it gives a false sense of knowledge on the subject that Loison did not have, especially since in light of further research, the statement has been found to be false. But I think we can agree now that "wrote" is the term that will be used in the article.
Also, adding "according to Hoepfner" diminishes his research even more than "claimed" did to Loison. Since Hoepfner was working from the Prussian archives and had access to the order of battle, one would then have to be able to write "according to the Prussian order of battle". Not only that, it also makes the sentence overly-weighty and drawn out.
Marek, it is not so much Kroczynski that is not as reliable, but his source. And one must also realize that it is not reliable, as we all believe him not to have fabricated a report by Loison, but the fact that his source has been shown to be erroneous by further research. Again, the focus of Kroczynski is not on numbers in the battle, but the fighting spirit of the Poles and the accolades heaped on them by the French. Not once in his paper does he state overall fighting strengths at the battle, nor does he give a larger perspective of the battle than the parts the Poles were fighting in. His paper is throughout laced with statements by Loison praising the Poles, but barely includes anything else. From Kroczynski's paper (translated): "In part because it further emphasizes the merits of the Poles, who have contributed significantly to the success of the reconnaissance attack. Let us therefore once again return to the words of Gen. Loison..." following which is the statement about the bravery of the Poles in repelling the cavalry charge. Kroczynski's emphasis is on the bravery of the Poles, not the facts of the battle.
Also, the fourth paragraph of Kroczynski's article clearly explains why I do not value it as highly as Hoepfner. In it, he explains that every single one of his sources (all 95 of them) are correspondence between various French leaders that were involved, more than half his sources were Loison alone! Letters between commanders cannot be taken as credibly as serious scholarly research. -- 24.202.1.112 ( talk) 09:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
-- 24.202.1.112 ( talk) 01:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- bullshit. It is not "discredited". You just don't like it. Quit making shit up. The Hoepfner source is not "more reliable". It's just a different source. How is Hoepfner not more reliable? Not only does he have access to the order of battle of the Prussian forces at the fortress, but also knows exactly what units took part in the action. Loison does not know the strength of Prussian units and at best is an estimate by his commanders present.
- it is published in a peer reviewed journal. Quit making shit up. then let's see a review of the article then.
- already provided. Quit making shit up. Kroczynski never says it, and he never gives any proof to back up the claims of Loison, nor does he state anything about the veracity of such claims.
no, we actually know who Korczynski was (a historian who was the head of a National Museum in Kolobrzeg). According to the source, he was not the head of a museum at all. According to a google search, he was actually a highschool teacher in Kolberg, not a museum director. Not as reliable of a source as an actual historian like Hoepfner.
bad faithed trolling? banned user? please, I have never been banned and I am sticking to the contentiousness of the article, not attacking users like you have done repeatedly. -- 24.202.1.112 ( talk) 18:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
How about the actual order of battle from the Prussian military archives? is that not a more reliable source on Prussian troops concentrations than a two sentence missive by a foreign commander who wasn't even at Wolfsberg Sconce. Not only that, the two sentence missive isn't even about the Prussian troops in question, but the Poles. -- 24.202.1.112 ( talk) 05:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Currently the article claims that Polish rebels against Prussia in Prussian territories were "foreign". This is obviously false.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 14:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I see that "reinforcements" have been called in [10], [11] - as far as I can tell Herkus did not canvass in a neutral venue, he did not word the notification in a neutral way as required per WP:CANVASS, nor did he alert other editors, who may potentially disagree with him about the dispute. This is a pretty blatant attempt at manipulating the discussion and it appears to be working. Nota bene, User:Estlandia has never been active on this talk page, AFAICT, so I'm not sure exactly why he decided to show up (actually I am, but AGF and all that). (All of this makes Herkus' recent complaint at AN/I quite... funny, not to mention extremely hypocritical).
Anyway, @Woogie, the relative size of the forces is not the only determinant of notability here. Is the Italian participation discussed in "Cambridge History of Italy" (er, an equivalent of it)? From an Italian, or Hessian, perspective the participation of their troops might not have been significant (in fact, for some of the German client states, a thing they'd rather forget) - especially since to them this was/is a foreign city and a foreign land. But the participation of Poles is significant. Second, as already stated, presently the city is not in Italy, Hess or whatever, but in Poland. This also makes the participation of Polish troops more significant.
Furthermore, it's just NOT TRUE that simply mentioning Polish participation in the siege is somehow giving undue weight to this aspect of the battle. If the whole, or good chunk, of the article was all about the Polish participation, then yes that would be undue - and I'd support trimming it down. But here we're talking about a simple couple words, a single sentence or so, which enumerates the fact. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 18:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Back to topic: "foreign" refers to non-French troops. It's about the troops, not the place they fought at, there's no contradiction and it's not "unclear". HerkusMonte ( talk) 09:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 09:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
in any case, they are foreign, as they are not from the Kolberg region, but a totally different province, or outside of Prussia, and did not enjoy the support of the native population, who were predominantly German. I suggest you look up the term [12] in the dictionary Molobo, as definitions 2-5 on wiktionary clearly state that the adjective "foreign" perfectly fits this band of Polish men. -- 24.202.1.112 ( talk) 21:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Currently the article says "rarely also: Siege of Colberg",
Google Books:
I am not sure why the first sentence has four citations on it:
But is seems that the whole construction is very pointy, So I am going to change it. -- PBS ( talk) 01:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello! This is to let editors know that File:GER-COL-S-1453-Prussia-Siege_of_Kolberg-8_groschen-1807.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for December 1, 2022. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2022-12-01. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 13:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
The red-bellied piranha (Pygocentrus nattereri), also known as the red piranha, is a species of piranha native to South America, found in the Amazon, Paraguay, Paraná and Essequibo basins, as well as the coastal rivers of northeastern Brazil. They are omnivorous foragers and feed on insects, worms, crustaceans, and fish. Red-bellied piranhas often travel in shoals as a predatory defense but rarely exhibit group hunting behavior. Acoustic communication is common and is sometimes exhibited along with aggressive behaviors. They are also often kept as an aquarium species. This fish was photographed at Karlsruhe Zoo in Germany. Photograph credit: H. Zell
Recently featured:
|