Talk:Duchy of Pless

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. The argument for using the English-language name is clear. The arguments from the opposers are not clear to me. DrKiernan (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

Duchy of Pszczyna → Duchy of Pless — Pless shows up more often than Pszczyna among literature written in the English language regarding its existence as a duchy and as a title. —Charles 18:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Is there any evidence for the assertions given in the move request? Knepflerle (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but there is evidence for rejection of the move: in Google Print, "Duchy of Pszczyna" vs "Duchy of Pless" wins 1:0 :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Piotrus. The English summary of Zarys dziejów kartografii śląskiej do końca XVIII wieku (Warsaw, 1976), which is what your one hit is, is perhaps the weakest testimony to the usage of actual anglophones that I have ever seen.;-> Who is the translator? Could he actually speak English? Had he done so in the previous thirty years? And as for 1-0 meaning anything, see WP:NCGN#False positives. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Piotrus and common sense. - Darwinek (talk) 12:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What common sense, Darwinek? How does common sense dictate your choice of a vote? Really now. Charles 13:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Until we have an article on Prince of Pless, or the Principality, follow the most common referent in English: Daisy, Princess of Pless. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had heard of Princess Daisy before Wikipedia existed; she is a significant source for Edwardian social history, as in Barbara Tuchman or George Dangerfield. Some English-speakers will find the fact, so far unmentioned, that this was Pless to be among its greatest claims to notability. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:UE. User:Pmanderson's note shows that a native English speaker clearly familiar with the Duchy referred to it herself in English as Pless. Current Polish or German usage is of less concern here. — AjaxSmack 06:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Same story as in most Duchies of Silesia. Time to clean up this mess caused by P.P. -- Matthead  DisOuß   11:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess I should be sorry for writing encyclopedic content. I am afraid you'll be disappointed, but I plan on doing so in the foreseeable future, no matter how much insults are thrown my way.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 14:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per common sense, evidence and other responsible editors.--Molobo (talk) 13:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Common sense how, evidence how and what do you mean about other responsible editors? Hopefully an admin will see the last incivility. It's funny that anyone can say that and think it will be taken seriously. Charles 13:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, yes it is time to clean up the mess that some editors create, right Matthead?. Tymek (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:

Although I disagree with either, I wonder: why Pless, not de:Pleß? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 12:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, because Pless is what we normally use in English, as Daisy attests. I would oppose Pleß as artificial nationalism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do remember, especially the two editors inclined to use such language as mess, that Eastern Europe is under a general sanction. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Changes[edit]

Since it has been established that Pless is used in English, I have changed the article to use that form throughout and also maintained Pszczyna as an alternative at the top. The name reflects what the lands were called in English when the duchy existed. Charles 16:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the reason for removal of the alternative name of Duchy of Pszczyna. Also, Pszczyna should be called Pszczyna, not Pless. PS. The Germanization reference is added to explain the shift in naming from Pless to Pszczyna. PSS. See also Talk:Gdansk/Vote.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is contrary to WP:NCGN. Nineteenth century Pszczyna was then, and is now retrospectively, called Pless in English. Please note also that it does not appear to ever have been called Pless in German - the German is Pleß; assertions to the contrary are errors of fact. I remove "now Germanized" as particularly misleading; it appears to have been among the least Germanized areas in Silesia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The alternative name is still there at the top. There is no evidence provided for why Pless should apparently be called Pszczyna. There is also no source given that a "shift" even exists for Pless/Pszczyna in English usage with reference to its history as a duchy. Also, what is with this Gdansk vote? Don't quote something without explaining how it applies. Really, how does it apply here? Also, for clarity, can we leave spaces between the replies? The replies are running into one another and it gets confusing between that and edit conflicts. Thank you. Charles 16:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Gdanzig vote was before WP:NCGN, and inspired its formation; but it itself has no force of precedent (that was part of the agreement, IIRC), and in some ways defies present consensus.
  • I have no reason to disbelieve that this place, as part of the medieval Kingdom of Poland is (retrospectively) called Pszczyna; but Duchy of Pszczyna appears to be original research. Similarly, I have no reason to doubt that the modern town is also called Pszczyna, as our article is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article is now under German (or English, ehm) name, so I see no problem with having Polish variant of name there. Also content disputes are different from name disputes. There is no controversy in Germanization statement, it explains the evolution of the name of that entity, although I agree it should be explained more precisely. I don't think Piotrus wants to move article back or something like that. - Darwinek (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no problem having the Polish variant listed, it's in the very first line after all. There is also controversy in the "Germanization" statement, since really, the name was not Germanized, it was Anglicized to a form which was similar to the German form. That's it. Really a note on Polonization would be more appropriate (but still not appropriate), since going from Pless to Pszczyna is exactly that. Charles 16:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pless can be used for 19th century Duchy, sure - but for its origins under Silesian Piasts before 14th century Pszczyna is the correct one.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How so? Why is that allegedly the correct name? Charles 17:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simply due to Talk:Gdansk/Vote. In the context of creation of creation of the Duchy in 12th century the name Pszczyna, not Pless, should be used. The Duchy may be more often known as Pless, but its capital is Pszczyna, not Pless.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please point to the passage of the vote that states that? Also, it has been determined that the duchy is called Pless. Why, at the same time, would its capital be called Pszczyna? Charles 17:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are not discussing 'Duchy of...'. That discussion has ended in the preceeding section. We are discussing the naming of the town, which is pretty simple.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now germanized[edit]

In the War of the Austrian Succession most of Silesia (including (including now Germanized Pless) was conquered by Prussia;

I have removed the three marked words for two reasons, besides the duplication:

  • The most natural reading is that Pless became a German-speaking town and district, just like, say, Leipzig. This does not appear to be true; we should not mislead the reader, if we ever have one.
  • I gather it is intended to mean that the name Pless, or rather Pleß, came into use around 1740. I don't see any evidence of this, and I think it unlikely; Pless had been under Habsburg suzerainity for two centuries. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Second point doesn't contradict the fact that originally this wasn't a German town with a German name so change to German population and name is germanisation.--Molobo (talk) 14:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It had a name in Polish (and I presume Poles still used it even in the nineteenth century); it had a name in German, which is likely to go back far beyond the Renaissance. It became noted in English when it was ruled by the von Hochbergs, as part of Prussia. They spoke German, although partly of Polish descent (which is their claim to the duchy); German was also the administrative language of Prussia. Therefore the English adopted a variant of the German name. No, that is not Germanization; it's not what the word means. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The town remained Polish despite heavy Germanisation efforts-even in 1829 according to German sources the po Polish population was 94,3 %[1]--Molobo (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely; it was not Germanized, and saying it was is inaccurate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The name, however, was.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not in English. Charles 11:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought English used Pless? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 14:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does, but "Germanization", whether it did or did not occur, did not change the English name. Charles 15:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not, but it most certainly was the reason Pless, not Pszczyna, became the 'English' version for that time and context.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The administrative language of Silesia became German, I suspect some time in the late Renaissance; but that is not clearly presented to the reader by the language under discussion. I do not think we should go into the matter without evidence. I see no reason to believe that Pleß was invented for the occasion; the place must have had a name in both languages, like Bolzano/Bozen. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Princes of the Duchy[edit]

In the War of the Austrian Succession most of Silesia was conquered by Prussia; but the Dukes, later Princes, of the Duchy would remain owners of the soil, and lords of the inhabitants, of Pless;

"Princes of the Duchy" is nonsense; the Princes of Pless, who are so called in English, were rulers of a principality. I regret the pointless effort to deny that the nineteenth-century area was called Pless at the time, in English, and (when speaking of the nineteenth century) still is. Since there was consensus to move here, there is unlikely to be consensus to suppress the name in the text. Please stop. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The RM determined that the English name is Pless. Molobo and Space Cadet, please do not change this unless you have irrefutable evidence proving that the name of this duchy/prinicipality and its princes and dukes was not Pless. Otherwise, you are violating NPOV and UE. Charles 16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Brittanica online, which was cited, only returns an article on the modern city. Charles 16:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same city, If you believe it should be renamed to Pless, start a vote, the vote here was regarding the Duchy's name not the name of the city itself.--Molobo (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::The request to move the page (last month) ended in no consensus, therefore let's leave it at Duchy of Pless. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that (nobodies asking for a page movement). In the content Pless (only) should be used, the Polish version need only be mention in the opening line. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but the vote was regarding the Duchy naming, not the name of city itself which is Pszczyna.If Charles believes Pszczyna should be renamed to Pless on Wikipedia he is free to start the vote.--Molobo (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be so much simplier to have Pszczyna in the opening 'only'. Can't we leave Pszczyna where it belongs, in the Polish Wikipedia? GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Molobo, you obviously don't understand that Psyczyna on EB, a SINGLE source, is about the city up to the present day and is hence given the present name. This article is about the past duchy and its capital was in the past named Pless (now Pszczyna). The form of the article was completely and totally fine but it is being mutilated in bits and pieces to include ridiculous phrasing like "princes of the duchy" and "dukes of the duchy". What are you trying to accomplish? Charles 18:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The relating article Pszczyna is in Polish. This article's content is a continuing struggle between pro-English and pro-Foreign spelling editors. It's two conflicting agendas. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The relating article is writen in English, the name is English accepted version. If you believe another one exists you should start a Request to Move the article to its proper English name. What is the English name of Pszczyna rather then Pszczyna according to you ?--Molobo (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The English name for the capital of the duchy of Pless is Pless. This is not about present day Pszczyna. The duchy was called Pless because that was the name of the capital. Charles 18:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"its capital was in the past named Pless (now Pszczyna)". That's only partially correct. While true for probably more than half of its history, for the first few (two? four?) centuries the dominant language was Polish (and Latin), and hence the name was Pszczyna (or its latin variant, whatever it may be). Hence when speaking of the early history of the duchy, it's capital should be referred to as Pszczyna; when of latter, as Pless.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've no desire to move Pszczyna to Pless. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS - Space Cadet & Molobo, do you both have to edit war over this article's content. By doing so, you're only creating the impression of disruptive editing. Get a consensus on this talk page for your changes, first. GoodDay (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think its rather clear that Pszczyna shouldn't be named Pless-the Duchy is another issue. If Charles wants this name to be standard on Wikipedia, like I said, a move request should be issued in proper article.--Molobo (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just no more 'edit warring' please. GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Time after time, this flawed argument is presented to push a point of view. Wikipedia is not consistent. The name of Pless now has no bearing one what it was called when the Duchy existed. This argument was also attempted with Cracow. Sorry, it does not work. Whether Pszczyna is at the right name or wrong name does not negate that "Duchy of Pless" and "Pless" are the right names for this article. Charles 20:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the capital is not constant even in the context of the Duchy. It was not called 'Pless' until several centuries after the Duchy's creation.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Charles but the Duchy and city are two different things.--Molobo (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed they are, Molobo, which is exactly why the history of the present city and the historical duchy are separate. But nice try, considering I'm the one who has been saying that and you are trying to turn it around (but it's not working). In the context of the duchy, it's capital was at Pless, even if it may be called Pszczyna in the present day. Piotrus, was the duchy called Pless and the city called Pszczyna at the same time? The duchy may have been created long before Pless came to exist as a name, but there came a point where the duchy and its capital were both called Pless. It's like calling the capital of the Kingdom of Hanover "Hannover" when it would have been called Hanover (now Hannover, Germany) at that time. Charles 21:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NCGN is clear; we should use what English-speakers now use to refer to the town, and the principality, in a particular historic context. This is why we use, say, Leningrad or Wilno at all: because it is usual to call those cities thus when speaking about particular periods of the past. If anyone can come up with an English source which calls the past town Pszczyna and the duchy Pless, referring to the same time, please let us see it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Separate rulers[edit]

In the War of the Austrian Succession most of Silesia was conquered by Prussia; however the Duchy retained its separate rulers.

The first clause of this sentence acknowledges that a small portion of Silesia remained Austrian. The second part asserts that Pless retained "separate rulers" (i.e. separate from Frederic II of Prussia?) ; this is nonsense. Please stop it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The latest[edit]

This edit is absolutely unacceptable. The use of the one Google hit for "Duchy of Pszczyna" ( Zarys dziejów kartografii śląskiej do końca XVIII wieku (Warsaw. 1976) as though this single usage by a Polish translator proved equal weight to the standard and well-attested English usage, strains my assumption of good faith to the breaking point. The removal of the Pless-Rybnik contest, the longest reference to Pless in any on-line journal, is simply dishonest. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The omission of the victory of the Centre Party is equally bad with the rest of it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are more results with Pszczyna Duchy: Studia historiae oeconomicae Economic history - 1966 [The Feudal Obligations of Peasants to the Landowners in the Pszczyna Duchy in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century Śląsk - Page 41 Gustaw Morcinek - Silesia (Poland : Voivodeship) - 1935 The land of Pszczyna, which once constituted a duchy by itself --Molobo (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Autorstwa? Texts in Polish should determine usage on the Polish Wikipedia, not here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry my google uses sometimes Polish language when giving results. The above mentioned texts are in English language.--Molobo (talk) 04:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then please supply a link to the alleged Google results; these citations are unintelligible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just copy the titles and quotes into google books.--Molobo (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the link requested. The hits in question are #3, 11, and 14 of the 28 hits on Duchy + Pszczyna. All appear to be printed in Poland, and one of them is an off-hand translation of the title of a Polish article cited. Most of these hits are irrelevant, and5 of them also use Pless, mostly in the construct Pless (Pszczyna), which we should also do, per WP:NCGN. This does not imply that we should move Pszczyna; merely that we should call it Pless in those historic contexts where English does. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note by contrast these 86 hits for Pless and Duchy; there are more references to the Duchy of Pless on the first page alone than all hits for Duchy of Pszczyna combined, and most of them are by native speakers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking[edit]

The following text has been blanked:

but the Dukes, and later Princes, of Pless would remain owners of its soil, and lords of its inhabitants. The Dukes of Anhalt-Cöthen-Pless inherited in 1765, being descended from the earlier dukes in the female line; the last of them died in 1847, and was succeeded by Count Hans Heinrich X of Hochberg, his son-in-law. The Hochbergs <:ref>Hans Heinrich X, XI, and XIV; the dynastic numbering was, like other princely families, given to all males of the House</ref> were among the wealthiest families of Germany, and lived in great state; they maintained a herd of wisent, given to them by Alexander II of Russia in 1864, but it was reduced to three survivors during the First World War.
The Duke of Ratibor was defeated in the first election to the Imperial German Reichstag, in 1871 by Eduard Müller, one of the founders of the Centre Party, although Hans Heinrich XI von Hochberg not only endorsed him, but had so much control over the local government that he used the constables as election workers, parading the streets with drums to get out the vote; he also threatened, for example, to end wood-gathering rights for those who displeased him.
  • This has been edited so as to claim that the Duke of Ratibor in question was defeated by the Polish Nationalists in 1903. Certainly not the case; the Centre Party held the seat in the intervening thirty years; I am not sure he was still alive.

Poeticbent has neglected to indicate whether he consents to mediation. To do so, he must sign his consent.

Hans Heinrich XIV succeeded in 1907; he had married Daisy, Princess of Pless, the diarist, whose memoirs are cited by Barbara Tuchman and other social historians.

Since these are the materials for which the sources are cited, they are now valueless. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • You've pasted the same text in two different places, here and here, making it look a lot less like a message to me, nevertheless, since you want to be taken seriously, I would expect that you do the same first... and respect my sources. I'm not totally against whatever relevant information there is in your paragraphs, but the cheap editorializing and runaway digressions ought to be edited out. Here are some of the worst examples:
    1. "Princes of Pless would remain owners of its soil, and lords of its inhabitants." Gimme a break, is this a blatant WP:COPYVIO or what?
    2. "Hans Heinrich XI von Hochberg not only endorsed Eduard Müller (and, what is this guy doing here?), but had so much control over the local government that he used the constables as election workers, parading the streets with drums [blah, blah, blah… more WP:COPYVIO] to get out the vote..." I'm asking you, what does this have to do with the Duchy? Here's a simple answer: nothing! --Poeticbent talk 06:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am glad to see that I have mastered the art of encyclopedic prose. No, in fact it is not a copyvio - such charges should be accompanied with the source; it is a summary of a couple of paragraphs in Anderson (and a number of minor references in Princess Daisy's memoirs, but those apply strictly only to her own time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please observe this negative Google result. I am glad to see that this particular paraphrase of Herren und Grundbesitzern does not seem to have been hit on before. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is the Prince of Pless using his powers as landowner over Pless (the territory) to influence an election; it is directly relevant, since it is indicates what these territorial lords could and would do in Wilhelmine times. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Duchy of Pless was reckoned a Principality under Prussia; the German Widipedia says it became a Duchy again (in the Prussian Peerage, this time) in 1905. I will include this when I have sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This charge of copyvio is another falsehood. I included a piquant detail; but this is not the language of my source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I thank Poeticbent for observing that there are two Eduard Muellers. The German Wikipedia lists two more; we should eventually set up a dab page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my full reply at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Duchy of Pless#Additional issues to be mediated, where everything's explained in detail. Pmanderson continues his edit warring in spite of his request for mediation.[2] I don't even mention his insulting comment in summary when he reverted my edits: “begin clean-up” The WP:UNDUE text filled with trivia about distant German families and a Swiss politician, is not related to the subject of this article. It is fair to assume that inappropriate actions would be followed by inappropriate reasoning. The sources given by Pmanderson in support of his request for mediation lead nowhere. To be more precise, they lead to a journal licensed to JSTOR, which is inaccessible without subscription.


However, Pmanderson's WP:BIASed edits are elaborate enough to have originated somewhere, thus implying mechanical copying. I point your attention to the following sentence:
“Hans Heinrich XI…had so much control over the local government that he used the constables as election workers, parading the streets with drums…” [3]
The source for this information (which I discovered on my own) reads as follows:
“Hans Heinrich XI...summoned his gendarmerie...and told them to work for the re-election...The constables rode...beating their drums...”[4]

  • My source was cited, both in this article and in the Mediation Request; this cannot have taken much work of his own. WP:COPYVIO requires that we avoid the exact words of the source, WP:V requires that we convey the exact assertions. This has done both.

In any case, the whole paragraph is out of place as per WP:UNDUE having no relation to the history of the Duchy spanning hundreds of years, therefore it was trimmed down even though already reverted again. Another one of Pmanderson's preposterous statements reads:
“Princes of Pless would remain owners of its soil, and lords of its inhabitants”
The original English expression (commonly known) reads instead:
“the lords of the manor were owners of the soil”[5]

Please note that this phrase is from a book on the Enclosure Acts of England, and has in common the words owners, soil and lords - difficult to avoid when discussing quasi-feudal landowners; this is the first time I have ever seen it. The "difference in tone" is a difference in wording, which WP:COPYVIO requires; it represents the difference in fact between England and Prussian Silesia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Please note the difference in tone between the two: “lords of the manor” versus his “lords of inhabitants”.
The examples provided by Pmanderson in his request for mediation do not prove nor disprove anything. They only draw suspicion, considering that his edit warring goes on with even more offensive summaries.[6] --Poeticbent talk 18:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More Dubious claims[edit]

Poeticbent's claims at the Mediation contain the following dubious claim: He [Septentrionalis] than [sic] inserted new WP:UNDUE text filled with trivia about distant German families and a one Eduard Müller, a Swiss politician, not related to the subject of this article.

  • The sentence (quoted above) is about the family of Hochberg, Princes and Dukes of Pless, and a different Eduard Mueller, a Catholic priest, who won the parliamentary election for Pless in 1871. I await an explanation how either of these is "remote" from Pless.
  • Poeticbent's much-proclaimed source for Prince of Pszszyna actually says that the Hochbergs were called Princes of Pszczyna. This (in an unreadable footnote) was for a time the only mention of the last ruling house in the entire article. It still omits any description of them. Is this balance? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for the claim that I deleted Janczek, that vital source, please supply a diff. I do not remember doing so, and cannot find it; I may have moved it in two steps. In any case, I am content with the phrasing of my last edit:

The Duchy of Pless (Duchy of Pszczyna,[1] German: Herzogtum Pleß, Polish: Księstwo Pszczyńskie) was ...

with note

This literal translation of the Polish is used by four sources printed in Poland: Julian Janczak, Zarys dziejów kartografii śląskiej do końca XVIII wieku (An outline for the History of Cartography till the End of the 18th century), Opole: 1976; Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw: Institute of History of Science, Education and Technology, 1993, ISBN 83-86062-00-2. Accessed 2008-13-01. Tadeusz Walichnowski, Territorial Provenance of Archival Documents in International Relations (Przynaleznosc terytorialna archiwaliow Panstwa Polskiego w stosunkach miedzynarodowych), Polish Scientific Publishers, Warsaw, 1977. Polish State Archives. Nagel's Encyclopedia Guide, Poland by Nagel Publishers, 1989, 399 pages, ISBN 2826308181. Accessed 2008-13-01.

To me this seems stretching the advice of WP:NCGN to the breaking point, although it may seem little enough to others; this is always the way. In any case, it includes Janczak and three other references for the minority usage, and (what may be equally pleasing) none of the data for the usage universal in English outside Poland.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation[edit]

I have filed Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Duchy of Pless. All who want to join in are welcome; but, if you do, you should both list yourself as a party and sign agreement to mediate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Poeticbent really wants the Mediation, he must sign his agreement to it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus on dukes of Pless[edit]

I thank Piotrus for this edit. His edit comment was: restored to a useful version, but the last part is a bit unclear, and I don't see how relevant is the political history fo the Dukes to the history of the Duchy.

We could divide the article into Duchy of Pless and Duke of Pless (although Prince of Pless might be more useful). Short of that, I don't see where to put the political history of the Dukes other than here.

The unclarity is in part, I suppose, my original failure to convey Margaret Anderson's point here (no relation; I first heard of her last week). The Prince's power over his land and tenants was very great; he could enlist even the servants of the Prussian state into an election campaign, and threaten the economic position of those who voted against his chosen candidate. But it was not unlimited; the opposition candidate won anyway. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support creation an article with list of dukes and their history. Why would Prince be more correct than Duke? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I said more convenient, because a narrative account is likely to have more (and more incoming links) about the Hochbergs than about, say, the Thurzós; the nineteenth century is better documented. But the question is, should we divide at all? The new title is secondary.
A list of Dukes will be a different matter; although even there our tendency is to list them under the most recent title. Compare Earl of Argyll, which we discuss under Duke of Argyll. It is also customary to include lists of peers in the article on the peerage; although very few British peerages lasted as long as Pless. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Header[edit]

In the process of removing redundant parentheses, I have tweaked the header again. Let us discuss. WP:NCGN sets the criteria for inclusion of names as as "10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place". (I acknowledge that this is not intended for exactly this case; but the spirit seems clear.) Duchy of Pszczyna fails the first condition and gets in on the second; it seems undue weight to bold it. Comments?

Frankly, if someone wants to try another version, fine; but I'd rather discuss it.

Pszczyna[edit]

I do not understand the purpose of LUCPOL's various tweaks of "Pszczyna, Poland". I don't object to " (Pszczyna, now in Poland)", but perhaps he could explain? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand the argument (btw, don't expect LUCPOL to read talkpages or reply in English language...) the argument is 1) that Pszczyna is not only now in Poland but was in Poland before the period of fragmentation and 2) the opposing one is that it wasn't for many centuries in between.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I agree with both points. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(in English) Duchy of Pless not only was in Poland. Tens % of history of Duchy of Pless there is no relationship with Poland. Possible to write: Pszczyna in Poland 1xxx to 1xxx year, in other country/kingdom/empire 1xxx to 1xxx year, in yet different country/kingdom/empire 1xxx to 1xxx year (PS. "1xxx" is date to supplement, "country/kingdom/empire" - to supplement of name country/kingdom/empire).
(in Polish) Księstwo Pszczyńskie nie tylko było w Polsce. Kilkadziesiąt % historii Księstwa Pszczyńskiego nie ma żadnej relacji z Polską. Można by napisać: Pszczyna w Polsce od 1xxx do 1xxx roku, w innym kraju / królestwie / imperium 1xxx do 1xxx roku, w jeszcze różnym kraju / królestwie / imperium 1xxx do 1xxx roku (PS. "1xxx" to data do uzupełnienia, "kraj / królestwo / imperium" - uzupełnić nazwę kraju / królestwa / imperium). LUCPOL (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is in Poland now and was in Poland originally, so writing that it's in Poland only now is misleading. Oh yeah! And stop using icon (in English) together with your poor imitation of that language. Cheers. Space Cadet (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Write equally well: ...Księstwo Pszczyńskie) was a duchy of Silesia, with its capital at Pless (Pszczyna, Germany or Czech or Poland))w zależności od lat/in dependence from date. PS. Do not write already personal attack for me. LUCPOL (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Tens % of history of Duchy of Pless there is no relationship with Poland. " Since Polish population remained always in majority then it always had a big connection to the issue of Poland.--Molobo (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Population is not Poland (country). In article writes about country: was a duchy of Silesia, with its capital at Pless (Pszczyna, Poland). LUCPOL (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protegé[edit]

I do not see why Poeticbent insists on describing the Duke of Ratibor as a "protegé" of the Prince of Pless. This implies in English, as in French, that the protegé is a lesser man, and requires protection. Not true here: the two men were neighbors; the Duke may not have been quite as wealthy, but he was older and of higher social rank. He also owned substantial land in the district, even if not half of it.

In English, unlike French, it is also a rare and high-faluting word. "Candidate" is the normal unmarked word for someone running for elective office. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor observation.[edit]

It seems every second sentence writes "of Pless". For better flow of the text the usage of the name should be reduced to reasonable levels.--Molobo (talk) 02:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Such WP:POV pushing is totally out of place especially with regards to peripherals like the local mine for example, which is NOT and never was a political entity. Please go ahead and restore the ballance whenever necessary. --Poeticbent talk 03:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would regret to be forced to conclude that such enthusiastic editors have failed to understand the English language.
  • Molobo, please read Protectorate before you make ungrounded assumptions about neutral language.
  • Also, please learn to spell: remaine is not English.
  • Poeticbent, what language from the WP:MOS do you claim to represent?
  • What justification do you have for omitting the verifiable facts that the house of Anhalt-Pless, and therefore the Hochbergs, descend from the older Dukes? it is, after all, their title to the estate.
  • Again, what justification is there for removing the present Hochberg claim to the style of Prince of Pless [sic]? No one else claims it.
  • That the wisent were kept in Pless implies they were herd animals, which is absurd.
  • This edit removes "of Pless", which is contrary to the WP:MOS at the price of vagueness and factual error. The interest of the mines to this article is not that they were local; there are local mines all over Silesia; it is that they belong here.
  • The title Hans Heinrich XI received was Duke of Pless; I see no presentable reason to deny it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the heroic Polish newspaper of 1829 is badly sourced (a website is only a website, and not really reliable), it is a definite find. Thanks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"a website is only a website, and not really reliable"-Might we know why you consider the University of Bielsko-Biała an unreliable source ? Also stop the personal attacks.--Molobo (talk) 04:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Better than some; but hardly any website has been through the verification that publication implies. As WP:V says: In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. This is none of the above; it would be preferable to have one, and more preferable still to have one in English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And who reviewed the diary of Mary Theresa Cornwallis-West which is used as source. Is it connected to scholary research at all. Also Non-English publications are no worse in giving knowledge then English ones.--Molobo (talk) 04:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Her editor, Desmond Chapman-Hutton, on whose footnote on the Act I am relying. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most books have editors. A diary of a princess can hardly compared to a scholary text.
Most books have editors (and publishers); most websites do not. That's the difference. An editor in good faith would have noticed that I did not say the fact or the source should be removed. In fact, I restored them; but it is not the best, which I stand by. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it can stay, but neutrality must be ensured an if she is used a source, we need to mention what kind of source writes that.--Molobo (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality is not preserved by having WP express an opinion of a source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think nobody is trying to do that. Just present what source claims what.--Molobo (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Without including a polemical description of the source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And nobody is doing that, so again a non-existing problem.--Molobo (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minimizing the use of controversial word would be helpful.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Made a Prince[edit]

The Hochbergs were Princes of Pless in the Prussian peerage; however, in 1905, Hans Heinrich XI was made a Prince, for his lifetime only - in part because he had been a Prince for fifty years;

Has it occurred to Molobo that he is writing nonsense? Hans Heinrich XI was not made a Prince in 1905; he had been one since 1855, when his father died. He was made "Duke of Pless", and we should say so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC) And I edited him to a Duke. Please do look carefully and once again stop the personal attacks.--Molobo (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have; Molobo's edit is here. This is only one of Molobo's errors.

Claims is not an opinion but a neutral statement. A diary of a princess can't be treated as scholary source especially regarding actions of her husband, and notice must be made that informs the reader to the nature of the source. I see no reason not to adress the person in her full name, perhaps reducing it a bit to improve the flow of the article.--Molobo (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • False; please do not try to evaluate tone in a language in which you are not fluent; claims strongly implies speciously.
  • Calling a married woman by her maiden name is an error, unless she used it herself or others did. Her full name when she wrote was Mary Theresa, Princess of Pless; but since she did not use "Mary Theresa" (see the work cited, p.62) Daisy, Princess of Pless would be right.
  • Converting a main clause into a long parenthesis does not improve the flow of anything.
  • It is also clear that Molobo has never read the passage cited, or he would not describe it as a diary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think its good mediation started, I regard the above tone and remarks are very uncivil even on border on PA's.--Molobo (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to join the Mediation; do remember to sign in two places, declaring your acceptance. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Btw my original question was regarding improving the flow of the article, Pless is repeated in every sentence almost, it would be nice if you would come up with more ideas to improve the text and make it less akward by reducing the mention of Pless to reasnoble number rather then having it in every sentence, sometimes numerous times even in one. Which of course reads terrible.--Molobo (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do; since, however, we have entire paragraphs without Pless at all, it seems difficult to further avoid the subject of the article without awkwardness; but we can drop "(as Daisy, Princess of Pless asserts)" if you like. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Variation for the sake of variation (for who would suppose that Molobo had an ideological or nationalist agenda here?) is also a specific for bad style in English, although more Latinate languages may tolerate it. See elegant variation and the section of Modern English Usage with the same title. In short, if we do this, it will read terribly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bohemia[edit]

This was never part of the Czech Republic; I doubt we should, but if we're going to elaborate, let's get it right. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Germanization[edit]

So why do we have two, substantially identical, paragraphs on Germanization? I have moved them next to each other; but do let's merge them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peacock?[edit]

If this means "saintly", that is, as indiciated, a summary of Margaret Anderson's quotations from contempotary sources. If not, what is its intended meaning?

But this edit is almost enritely disruptive. The restoration of a {{cn}} tag, while removing the citation which answers it is particularly bizarre. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Princess diaries not such a good source it seems[edit]

Princeses wrtiting about their Princes don't seem to be a good source. passed, but never enforced[4] ) Polish Expropriation Act of 1908 Four Polish estates were taken over by authorities under this Act.--Molobo (talk) 01:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Four, over all of Prussian Poland? I'm underwhelmed; but we can amend the wording when he comes up with a source.
  • I remind him that the source for the unenforcement is not the Princess, but her editor. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any book other the the Princess diary about her life as a Princess.--Molobo (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So the diary of the princess contains false information. It is still sourced from the diary rather then any other book, regardless of who edited Princesses memories of her life as wife of a Prince.--Molobo (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a source for the four actual expropriations; they would still not mean falsehood, but over-generalization. Why Molobo insists on harping on the life of a prince escapes me, since I must assume it is not envy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming that something did not happen, when it did is a blatant faleshood in the diaries of the princess. It is obvious that the diaries of the princess are not a reliable source. Her claims should be moved to article about her.

Source of info for four estates:Der polnischen Grenzstreifen 1914-1918-Ein Beitrag zur deutschen Kriegspolitik, in Ersten Weltkrieg by Imanuel Geiss.. --Molobo (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page number, please, and if this is an article, journal of publication. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.20; I cannot say that it casts doubt on the reliability of the editor that he missed four isolated exceptions; it is also Geiss's point that the fervor of parliamentary opposition did in fact stymie this "barbarous" (if I may quote Daisy) policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thank Molobo for finally coming up with a source, after a day of asking; but claiming that anything had been "shown" before that is a deliberate misstatement of fact. (As it is, not much has.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If somebody claims nothing happened, when in fact it did, it is a obvious that it is a falsehood. Therefor the diaries of the princess are hardly reliable source of information. As to your "isolated", "exceptions" those are your theories, and OR.--Molobo (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is another misstatement. Geiss makes quite clear that those were the only cases before the war, on the same day, in the same administrative action. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for confirming that the diary contains false information and the events it claims never happened, did in fact happen.
And where did I confirm that? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the same day, in the same administrative action. Nothing of the sort in my edition of the book. Which page do you claim as containing that information.--Molobo (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not at present have the book in front of me; but it is on page 20. If I recall correctly, the date is April 17, 1911, but I may have the day wrong. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not recall correctly; Geiss says that the government made no use of the bill, but that in 1911, under different political circumstances and with a new Chancellor, "the Greater Ostmark movement succeeded with four Polish properties". The implication seems clear enough to me, but my Sprachgefühl may be faulty. None of this, however, affects this, or any recent, text of the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Whether the memoirs of Daisy, Princess of Pless, are a reliable source". Please consult WP:RSN. It was created for this very purpose.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Done Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not done-you asked a twisted version of the criticism adressed-whetever we can present a source by a wife of a prince as objective source towards the prince, without pointing out that it contain false information. Your question was if a source can be used if it has "one error". That's something different. All the claim the princess makes about her prince are presented as facts, without restraint as to obvious subjectivity of the source towards her own husband and without any mention as to the nature of the source of those claims.--Molobo (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the source you're referring to? Sciurinæ (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes thanks for spotting that one-a bold falsification of history. I have an appropiate view of other bold claims the author makes and will mark claims in similar spirit from that falsficiation of history as dubious untill other sources are provided.--Molobo (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that a biography? Is this really the one you are dismissing as diaries and memoirs? Sciurinæ (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, he's dismissing the memoir the biography quotes here, with no trace of disagreement; but the secondary source would settle this, if WP:V had any weight here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nineteen thirties[edit]

The Times describes Hans Heinrich XVII as using Prince of Pless in 1943; since his father died in 1938, the synthesis that he used it in 1933 was unwarranted. But it is Original Research to suggest that he ceased to use the title at all. I have added his biography; enjoy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That information should be moved to proper article on that family, as already the current article is more about them then about Duchy of Pszczyna.--Molobo (talk) 12:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Duchy of Pless is naturally going to be about the Dukes; but we can move to Prince of Pless if it will make anybody happier. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Present-day[edit]

I don't know why anybody insists on the qualifier; the wording of WP:NCGN implies that what we should say is simple "Pless (Pszczyna)."

I see no question that the town is now called Pszczyna; I see no question that it was Pszczyna is the twelfth century; I think it is clear that is was Pless in the nineteenth century.

Two questions, therefore:

  • Does anyone have evidence that the facts were otherwise?
  • What difference does it make whether we say present-day, originally and present-day or nothing at all? If we know what people see in each others' text, we may be able to reach compromise. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC), puzzled.[reply]

No the wording should be Pszczyna (Pleß) for double naming guidelines. Once again if you want to change the name of the town as it is on Wikipedia do it through voting, not by backdoor changes.--Molobo (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop inventing guidelines; both these claims are false.
  • [When] the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used.
  • In cases when a widely accepted historic English name is used, it should be followed by the modern English name in parentheses on the first occurrence of the name in applicable sections of the article in the format: "historical name (modern name)."
We agree, except perhaps Matthead, that Pszczyna is the modern English name; it would probably also be the English name for 1150. Since the Duchy ceased to exist 80-some years ago, this article does not deal with modern Pszczyna. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speak of the devil ... and he agrees that Pszczyna is a Polish name, and so apparently are Pczszyna, Pszcyna, Pzczyna and even Pless. Regarding it being an English name - can you spell it properly without looking it up first? Can others spell it by heart? Or pronounce it? What about similar names, like for post-1945 Stettin (Szcecin?) or Bromberg (Bydgoczsz)? -- Matthead  Discuß   22:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding historic use: "The city is first mentioned in a document from 1327" as civitas Plesna. -- Matthead  Discuß   22:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing the Duchy with the town.If you want to change the name of the town, go through normal procedure. Also please no Original Research--Molobo (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a template for your posts? The same broken record, over and over and over... This is not about the present town whatsoever. It is about the duchy and its capital (which did not have different names). Charles 22:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please remain civil. Indeed the voting was on the name of the duchy, not about the town. As to its name, if you want to rename it, start a proper procedure.--Molobo (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Civility requires the same. We are not stupid, we know the other article does not have to be named. We are not talking about the article Pszczyna at all. Get over that little hurdle you've found yourself in over and over and stop disrupting Wikipedia to push your POV. Charles 23:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry the article states at the beginning that the Duchy had its capital in the town of Pszczyna.--Molobo (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read WP:NCGN or the Gdanzig agreement which inspired it; use of a name for a town in 2008 does not decide what name we should give the same place in 1908; nor the other way around. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get back to the merits of present-day now? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above support your claim as far as I can see. --Molobo (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to look again or get some help. Charles 02:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None are so blind... Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic point-scoring[edit]

This edit is most undesirable. In discussing the elections for the Reichstag, in the late nineteenth century, from Silesia, we use the contemporary name in English: Glogau; those who wish to know more about it (including what it is now called) should click on the link. Nor do we link half a compound name.

I note that this is the second attempt to impose this bad writing; custom is WP:BRD. Marek has been bold; I have reverted; I will give him 24 hours to discuss. If there is none, I will restore the pre-existing text, and introduce any further reverters to WP:Dispute resolution. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. The Gdansk/Danzig vote is pretty clear on this: The naming of many places in the region that share a history between Germany and Poland are also a source of edit wars. For these places, the first reference of one name should also include a reference to other commonly used names, e.g. Stettin (now Szczecin, Poland) or Szczecin (Stettin). [7].
2. The Gdansk/Danzig vote further states: Reverts to conform with community consensus (i.e. - the vote, VM) are excluded from the three-revert rule (3RR). - so technically I could revert you a couple dozen times within any period of time and it would not be a 3RR violation (not that I would do that), because...
3. The Gdansk/Danzig vote also states: Persistent reverts against community consensus despite multiple warnings may be dealt with according to the rules in Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism.. In other words, persistent reverts of the application of the vote are to be treated as vandalism.
4. I don't think this is "bad writing". Don't call it that please. It's encyclopedic writing in that it a) applies the encyclopedia's own policies and b) provides more information to the reader.
5. Drop the "ethnic point-scoring" crap. It's an application of an existing policy nothing more.
Overall, the Danzig/Gdansk vote IS a compromise which means it's not perfect. It does however do what it's supposed to - prevent edit wars and countless disputes. But compromises only work if they are observed by all participants (hence the provision that violations of the compromise can be treated as vandalism).
Also, adding a POV tag to the article, which is overall pretty decent, over this very minor issue is pretty silly and quite out of proportion. Volunteer Marek  20:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Gdanzig vote was an armistice on that issue only between two irrational parties - which are still at it. It was later superseded, after much discussion, by WP:NCGN.
Will anyone else defend the contorted forms and bizarre links exemplified by
Father Eduard Müller, a priest born in Quilitz (Kwielice) near Glogau (Głogów) who was active as Catholic missionary in Protestant Berlin, won anyway
and the district of Pless-Rybnik in the parliament of the North German Confederation,
as good writing? And if so, will any of them fail to be volunteers for the same national cause?
The POV tag is our defense against ethnic writing - Polish, German, or Foolander.
Is there any answer here, but because the Gdanzig decision says so? If not, I see no reason to wait 24 hours to restore the long-stable text. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a link to where the G/D vote is 'superseded'? The NCGN does not address this issue at all as far as I can tell. BTW, the two parties are actually NOT at it, at least not until you started this here. Wroclaw, Torun etc. etc. have seen no edit wars or arguments in a long time. I guess, if the G/D vote no longer applies someone could go over there and remove all those extraneous and unjustified "Breslaus" and "Thorns".
The first sentence about muller is ok - to the extent that it's bad writing that's not because of the (name) parentheses but because it's a long run on with some not-all-that-relevant information. If you want we could just remove the entire "born in Quilitz (Kwielice) near Glogau (Głogów)" part.
I agree that the partial link to Rybnik is suboptimal. Unfortunately there's no article at present on the district of "Pless-Rybnik", AFAIK, which is what it really should link to. Still, since readers might wonder wth is this Rybnik, a link to the city is worthwhile. Volunteer Marek  20:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not at it? That's because the various Eastern European decisions are actually working. Have you heard of them?
I began nothing; I reverted an effort to begin ethnic editing - I would do so against either side, and have done so.
As for the district of Pless-Rybnik, I will put in a red link; if anybody feels like writing articles about the parliamentary districts of the North German Confederation, they can do so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I am still going to ignore all this ethnic-editing baiting that you are making and try to focus on the issue, which you are now ignoring.

Please provide a link to where D/G vote is superseded.

Please read my #1 above which clearly shows that your claim that "The Gdanzig vote was an armistice on that issue only" is incorrect.

Please remember that violations of the Danzig/Gdansk vote are vandalism, can be reverted as much as needed since they are vandalism, and that a persistence in violating the vote can lead to the same sanctions which would be applied for repeated vandalism. I do not call other editors' edits vandalism lightly and generally assume good faith - the D/G vote however is quite explicit about this. Volunteer Marek  20:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you act on that, here or elsewhere, I will request revision of the EEML case. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And once again you make threats instead of actually addressing the issue. I have done nothing wrong, I would be perfectly within Wikipedia guidelines to revert your edits as vandalism based on the DGvote and I am only discussing this with you out of a sense of personal courtesy. A courtesy to which you are replying with belligerence, threats and bullying.
Since you insist on bringing up irrelevancies, how about your block log [8], including a block for "(Personal attacks or harassment: Multiple personal attacks despite pledge not to and User RFC in progress" which you then got unblocked with a "User appears willing to modify tone in future (and alter existing NPA statements that lead to the block)" - what happened to that "willingness to modify tone"???
Again, where does it say that GDvote no longer applies? Diffs please. How many freakin times do I need to repeat a simple request before I get an honest answer rather than bullying, evasion and harassment? Volunteer Marek  21:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My block log - half of which is unblocks - consists almost entirely of my declining to go along with the attempts of various editors to make content disputes about the POV they wish to impose into specious conduct disputes. Such efforts are admissions that there is no valud content dispute. So here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those particular blocks seem to concern the WAY that you conduct discussions rather than what the discussions are about. Same here. And the unblock appears to have been made only because you made a promise to change your ways. Don't see that here.
Again, where does it say that GDvote no longer applies? Volunteer Marek  21:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you more content to discuss? or are you going to Wiki-lawyer until the cows come home? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not wikilawyering. Where does it say that GDvote no longer applies? This is the sixth or seventh time I am repeating this question. I am being extremely patient in putting up with this. Volunteer Marek  22:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is Wikilawyering. Wikipedia is not a system of legislation; we do not suppose that any page which hasn't been edited or discussed for five years still binds the consensus; still less that it entitles any one editor to interpret it however they like. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not Wikilawyering, it's a simple request. YOU asserted that Gdanzig vote no longer applies (and justified your reverts and threats by that assertion). I simply asked in response WHERE it says that the Gdanzig vote no longer applies. Honestly, I would like to know. After I directly asked you to provide a link to support your assertion you became abusive and incivil and tried your best to evade having to actually support your assertion. Finally, after apparently being unable to fulfill the request, and support your assertion, you're trying to switch tactics and dismiss any disagreement and a simple request as "Wikilawyering". It is not and your evasiveness is disruptive as it potentially violates both WP:AGF and WP:BATTLEGROUND (nevermind about the incivil part).
So, one more time, where does it say that the GDvote no longer applies? Volunteer Marek  22:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One last time: it doesn't have to. Pages from 2005 are not automatically valid unless specifically repealed - and that is policy (Wikipedia is not governed by statute: it is not a moot court, and rules are not the purpose of the community); this is twice true for a page on a single issue never put up for a wider scope. Thank you for confirming that you have no content discussions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that the Gdanzig vote doesn't apply in this particular case because Pmanderson has decided that it doesn't. Unfortunately the Gdanzig vote explicitly states that violations of the vote are to be treated as vandalism. You can't just make this kind of decision all by yourself anymore than I can decide that WP:VANDAL no longer applies.

Up above you claimed that It was later superseded, after much discussion, by WP:NCGN. Now you're backing off from that assertion and instead insisting that you have the right to unilaterally declare a long standing Wikipedia policy null and void. Now that's Wikilawyering.

There is nothing to indicate that GDvote is no longer valid. It has been referred to in the recent past, the templates for it are still on article talk pages, it has worked to prevent pointless disputes, such as this one, which you decided to initiate for reasons I can't fathom.

I might also point out that up above you state Marek has been bold; I have reverted; I will give him 24 hours to discuss. If there is none, I will restore the pre-existing text, at 19:41. Obviously the discussion commenced shortly after, way before 24 hrs. In the meantime I did not make a single edit to the article. Yet you decided to revert some more, because apparently your impatience got the better of you and you reverted at 20:44 [9]. Ok. At the very least, if you're going to revert editors, please don't first say that you will not revert them for 24 hours. If you suspect you won't be able to restrain yourself, don't make promises you can't keep.

Finally, what is this supposed to mean: Thank you for confirming that you have no content discussions. What content am I supposed to be discussing? This is a discussion about NAMING, which you yourself initiated, as about naming. Are you just throwing any ol' accusation you can think of at me? This appears to be just another obstructionist tactic and as such constitutes disruptive behavior on your part, which has been adding up on this talk page. Seriously, for someone fresh off of an AN/I thread that almost resulted in some serious sanctions (did it? Can't remember) to jump in and engage in exactly the kind of behavior that was a subject of discussion really says something about a user's ability for self-control. Volunteer Marek  23:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Duchy of Pless. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Duchy_of_Pless&oldid=1201673511"