Talk:Frombork

message: church records since 1600's of  Taufen Heiraten Tote (birth marriage death) of inhabitants of Frauenburg/Prussia  are filmed. Frauenburg became Frombork in 1945.
-------
Occupation records (Zunftbuecher) of Frauenburg since 1600's are also filmed by the LDS Mormons  
--------
== Older discussion == This is getting ridiculous.  I tried to compromise by letting HJ take it out of here and put it in Frauenburg.  But it doesn't belong in both places, and I'm going to delete it from SOMEWHERE. -- Zoe
Cities often change their names. It doesn't make sense to have bits of  information about those cities stored under each and every names. Instead the information belongs under the city's correct name, which is its current name. See for instance Danzig/Dansk, Thorn/Torun etc. AxelBoldt
----
I'm all for making Frauenburg a disambiguation page for the reasons i wrote at the beginning of the article.  There are lots of Frauenburgs, some of which were arguably more important that modern Frombork at different times in European history.  Frombork is actually a great way of differentiating the one Helga likes so much from the others. HK
----
Right now the Frombork page reads poorly, IMO. Instead of having Frombork listed solely at the beginning, and then repeated instances of "Frombork (Frauenburg)" as it is now, I feel the following would read better and be more consistent with other eastern European cities (Gdansk, Szczecin): 
Intro: "Frombork (German: Frauenburg)." All references to the city in the article would be as Frombork, with the possible exception of the founding of the city. Olessi 18:07, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vital Statistics of inhabitants of Frauenburg/Prussia 

message: I have two questions about the monument section:
#"stone monument to people from East Prussia that drowned in the Vistula Lagoon during the exodus in 1945". What is the exodus being referred to here?
#"a memorial honoring Boy Scouts and people who took part in Operation 1001 in the years 1966-1973,aimed at rebuilding the town from enourmous devastation made by German occupiers". I recommend that "German" be changed to "Nazi", as by the time the town was destroyed during the war, it had been part of East Prussia and Germany for a long time. In addition, the town had also been damaged by the Soviets, not just the Nazis. Something like "a memorial honoring Boy Scouts and people who took part in Operation 1001 in the years 1966-1973, aimed at rebuilding the town after its wartime devastation" sounds much less POV to me. Olessi 03:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It just reads odd to me. "Occupation" doesn't seem like the right word to have been used on the monument. "Garrisoned" seems to be a better word, as the town was politically part of Germany during the war and had not been annexed in 1939. "devastation made by German occupiers" indicates in English to me that the town was occupied like Warszawa or Kraków. Could you translate the exact text on the monument for the article? Also, what is the exodus in 1945? Olessi 05:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This one, erected in 2001, reads: "450,000 ostpreussische Fluchtlinge flohen ueber Haff und Nehrung gejagt vom unerbittlichen Krieg. Viele ertranken, andere starben in Eis und Schnee. Ihr Opfer mahnt zu Verstaendigung und Frieden. Jan.-Febr. 1945". --Lysy (talk) 02:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: What if the text is changed to say 'monument praising soldiers of the Red Army who fell while "liberating" Frombork in 1945' (or variations thereof)? Olessi 01:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, I don't care. I only wanted to explain (or excuse) the previous wording. In the Soviet parlance, they were "liberating" everything, including Poland in 1939 and Berlin in 1945. It could be also read as "liberating Germans from the Nazis", which was also politically correct, as if Nazis were some other, abstract nation. --Lysy (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monument clarification 

message: Here is the photo of the memorial. It was erected in 1985, and the language of the times was certainly "liberating", not "conquering" the town by the Red Army. If you look at the photo closer, the plaque there reads: "CHWAŁA BOHATEROM ARMII CZERWONEJ POLEGŁYM W CZASIE WYZWALANIA FROMBORKA", which means "Glory to the heroes of the Red Army who fell while liberating Frombork". If the monument was erected today, this would of course be phrased differently, but I doubt if there are many monuments dedicated to Red Army being built in Central Europe these days. --Lysy (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What if the text is changed to say 'monument praising soldiers of the Red Army who fell while "liberating" Frombork in 1945' (or variations thereof)? Olessi 01:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, I don't care. I only wanted to explain (or excuse) the previous wording. In the Soviet parlance, they were "liberating" everything, including Poland in 1939 and Berlin in 1945. It could be also read as "liberating Germans from the Nazis", which was also politically correct, as if Nazis were some other, abstract nation. --Lysy (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another monument

message: How can we change this sentence: 
:With the end of war Frombork was returned to Poland after 173 years of German rule resulting from forced dismemberment of the country 
so that it is easier acceptable to everyone ? I quite liked this one: 
:With the end of war Frombork became part of Poland again 173 years after being forcefully partitioned away. 
but Sca removed it in a somewhat arogant way :-( 
How about:
:With the end of war Frombork became part of Poland again, 173 years after having been forcefully partitioned away. ?
--Lysytalk 20:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the last one. BTW Removing a whole sentence as Sca did, is not a minor change, is it?--SylwiaS | talk 20:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I really think the last sentence proposed by Lysy is ok. It's already clear from the context of the paragraph that it was under Prussian/German rule.--SylwiaS | talk 21:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that "forcefully" could go, as far as I'm concerned. --Lysytalk 22:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I generally agree, but... I really don't think that the origin of this statement is POV, only that it's a struggle to NPOV the statement about German expellees. Of course, those are all facts. Germans were expelled, Poland was forcefully partitioned. The problem with POV here is not lack of facts, only the manner of presenting them. We have two choices. One is writing the history of the town – joining Poland, partitions, wars, then Frombork’s return to Poland. (A short paragraph with several dates.) The other is writing the history of its inhabitants – living under Teutonic order rule, joining Poland at request, defending against Teutons, forced Germanization of Poles, German expellees etc. If we want to present the situation of the people, we should present it in its entirety. However, I still don't think that the second way is needed in the city's article at all. There are other articles that deal with it. I agree that there’s no need to repeat it everywhere. So I have no problem with the sentence: ‘’With the end of the war Frombork became part of Poland again through the post-war treaties, although settlement was not finalized until 1990’’ as long as there is no mentioning about German expellees. Otherwise the article is POV until we add the full history. Actually I think Sca should do it, since he’s the one who has the time for adding the history of inhabitants everywhere.--SylwiaS | talk 23:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good observations. Instead of subtracting information about German expellees, it is better to have information about the ethnic composition of the town before partitions (which Molobo and I do not have figures on), Germanization policies of Prussian/German governments (which is not to say the population was completely Polish when part of Royal Prussia), the removal of the German-speaking inhabitants in 1945, and the resettlement of the city by Poles who had themselves been expelled. However, I'm not sure why you nominated Sca to add such information. Why would you think he has the time to add the history of inhabitants everywhere? Olessi 05:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see the need to duplicate information. The article already states the date of partitioning, states it was ruled by Prussia, states it was ruled by Germany, and states it was ruled by Poland again. Olessi 05:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Including "forcefully" should therefore be done at the first mention of the Partitions in the 18th century section, not while discussing the city's situation 173 years later. Olessi 05:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems POV to me when the length of time is included with phrasing like "forced Prussian/German rule". By itself, it is not POV. I will strike out the original instance, however. Olessi 05:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Would you mind if I therefore changed part of the article to read something like "Resulting from the First Partition of Poland Frombork came under the rule of the Kingdom of Prussia in 1772, 306 years after its removal from the Monastic State of the Teutonic Order."? BTW, Molobo, could you leave your signature on the same line that your text ends on? Having your "-- ~~~~" on a separate line can make moving conversations more complicated than necessary. Olessi 05:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the feeling that this is not the place for our discussion anyway. It should be explained in History of Warmia and History of Masuria but not the Frombork article. --Lysytalk 17:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are probably correct. For the record I am fine with the phrasing at Piła: "After the war Piła was returned to Poland after 130 years of Prussian and German rule". Olessi 21:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 173 years

message: The repeated edits of Molobo by changing/adding
*was forced to become
*under the control 
*was reunited with
*returned to 
*after having been forcibly partitioned away
violate the Wikipedia:NPOV policy and can't be tolerated. 
As "173 years " is concerned, this is simple math, but I added the number in a fitting place. Also added a timeline overview with copy&paste, maybe this helps --Matthead 07:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your formatting skills illustrate your rhetorical prowess. BTW: This is not the Spanish Inquisition. There is a separate article on the Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. No need to make judgements here - and certainly no POV ones. --Matthead 22:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV again 

message: *The city of Frauenburg – henceforth known by its Polish name Frombork – was resettled by Poles, many of them expellees from areas of eastern Poland that had been annexed by the Soviet Union. 
*Please provide scholary source that shows the city wasn't known by Polish name before 1945, and not a single Pole lived in it before that date
--Molobo 23:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed section

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Frombork. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607170650/http://www.bj.uj.edu.pl/bjmanus/revol/images/072r.jpg to http://www.bj.uj.edu.pl/bjmanus/revol/images/072r.jpg
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified