![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
..., 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)
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)
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)
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)
The first paragraph could be clarified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.248.205 ( talk) 18:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
..., 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)
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)
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)
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)
The first paragraph could be clarified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.248.205 ( talk) 18:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)