Talk:Wrocław/Archive 1

message: First written mentioning about Wroclaw according to my sources is from 1000, when Boleslav Chrobry founded bishopry there, at least according to www.wiem.pl szopen
:Confirmed. N. Davis quotes Thietmar's Chronicles – city called Wrotizla. Przepla 22:24, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes 

message: An email forum to discuss the city of Breslau prior to it being annexed by the Soviet Union in 1945, and then after the ethnic cleansing of its german population, made a part of communist Poland. 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Breslau-Stadt
This is a cultural forum only so poles who hate germans purely because of the 12 years of the hitler dictatorship should not join this forum. 
Have a nice day.
Sean
What about the Germans who hate Poles because of the "Vertreibung"? Are they welcome?
Xx236 10:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breslau Forum 

message: Wow, this page needs some formatting, badly. Karol 00:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout 

message: There are two pictures of the city hall in the article - how about removing the second one? 
By the way, the pictures in the article seem to be placed quite randomly - it would be a good idea to reorder them.
Pako 10:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: === Wrocław constituency ===
I removed the following list:
Members of Parliament (Sejm) elected from Wrocław constituency:
* Janusz Dobrosz, LPR 
* Jarosław Duda, PO 
* Stanisław Huskowski, PO 
* Dawid Jackiewicz, PiS
* Beata Kempa, PiS
* Wiesław Kilian, PiS 
* Janusz Krasoń, SLD-UP 
* Aldona Młyńczak, PO 
* Aleksandra Natalli-Świat, PiS 
* Sławomir Piechota, PO 
* Kazimierz Ujazdowski, PiS 
* Ewa Wolak, PO
* Bogdan Zdrojewski, PO
* Jerzy Żyszkiewicz, Samoobrona
* Władysław Frasyniuk, PD
Władysław Frasyniuk, PD is definitely not in Sejm. PD didn't get in at all.
I can't say anything about others, but the list should be fixed before reinsertion. Taw 18:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   Wrocław constituency 

message: I removed the following list:
Members of Parliament (Sejm) elected from Wrocław constituency:
* Janusz Dobrosz, LPR 
* Jarosław Duda, PO 
* Stanisław Huskowski, PO 
* Dawid Jackiewicz, PiS
* Beata Kempa, PiS
* Wiesław Kilian, PiS 
* Janusz Krasoń, SLD-UP 
* Aldona Młyńczak, PO 
* Aleksandra Natalli-Świat, PiS 
* Sławomir Piechota, PO 
* Kazimierz Ujazdowski, PiS 
* Ewa Wolak, PO
* Bogdan Zdrojewski, PO
* Jerzy Żyszkiewicz, Samoobrona
* Władysław Frasyniuk, PD
Władysław Frasyniuk, PD is definitely not in Sejm. PD didn't get in at all.
I can't say anything about others, but the list should be fixed before reinsertion. Taw 18:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrocław constituency 

message: I find it rather silly to have the "prominent residents" divided by their ethnic origin. What is the purpose of this ? --Lysytalk 19:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really see the need for it either. Olessi 19:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, if nobody explains the purpose of maintaining the separate lists, I'm going to merge and sort them in a couple of days. --Lysytalk 21:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call. Merge them. - Evv 21:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge. Känsterle 07:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prominent residents 

message: I do not want to punch a hornets nest. But I am uncomfortable with the historical images of Breslau, such as 'Wrocław City Towers in 1736', using the name 'Wroclaw'. These paintings where made when the city was indeed called Breslau. Whilst I believe the historical context justifies use of the name 'Breslau' here in and of itself, I think this even goes beyond that due to the fact that the paintings are made to represent the city of Breslau and refer to it as such. All of the paintings explicitly refer to the name Breslau either on the painting itself or in the name of painting. If someone does not present a very good reason otherwise I will look at making the appropriate changes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Globo (talk • contribs) 07:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: They use Indian names when the photo shows places which had Indian names, then.theBOBbobato (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed the correct name should be used and that is Breslau. --105.4.7.147 (talk) 11:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming of Historical Imagery 

message: I shall correct myself a bit. There are references further down in the article. I have not have time to study them. But some of the older parts needs better sourcing. And most certainly the "Etymology" part - (this do to me seem stolen (or partially stolen) from the slovakian capital Bratislava. Anyway this part lacks all sources and references. I've found out that the last of the saxian dukes was "Duke Henry VI" who had no children. Before he died in 1335 he sold his Duchy (it shall be spelled that way) to "John of Bohemia" in 1327. During the Duchy era the city was independent of other parts of Saxony. Soxony was (like many other states whithin the so called "Holy Roman-German Empire") very fragmentated whith enclaves and exclaves, so many that small maps was (and still is) difficult to make. (See any central european map before the unification of Germany in 1871 after the war between France and (mainly) Preussia 1870-71). Other sources states that "Breslau around the year 900 was an "Holy Roman" outpost towards the east. In any case the city was fully or partially destroyed by the mongols during the independent time. Yet other sources states that the Hansa have been owner of the city before the independency era. The cities of Lwow and Wroclaw is connected as late as 1945-46. During the Potsdam conference Stalin demanded that the border between Poland and the USSR should follow what was stated in the secret part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty 23/8-1939. Churchill disagreed but Truman cared little (at the time of the Potsdam conference) about european borders. Poland lost a hugh territory in the east, but got in return (I'm sorry to not know all the Polish names)
Hinterpommern, Silecia (with exception of the small Görlitz area) and areas between Hinterpommern and Silesia east of Oder. And the southern part of the former East Preussia and the former freestate of Danzig, Gdansk. But the territorial
changes included the populations. Millions of both germans and poles was by the force of the red army (and NKVD) to move toward the west. The largest lost polish city was Lwow and atleast 200.000 poles were forces to move to the largest new polish city, Wroclaw. (and Lwow was emptied of all polish people) When this ethnical cleancing was done, propaganda (and violence) was needed to explain why "commerate Stalin" had commanded this. Today the lost polish parts belongs to Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine. Germany has twice declared (before and after autumn of 1989) that they have no territorial claims on Poland (or any other country). A lot of the polish history after around the year 1600 is very sad.
I have not had any intention to enoy any polish citizen. But the article about Wroclaw/Breslau (like all other towns and cities) must be sourced. And there must be space for imperative facts. Sourced or well-known. Live in peace 83.249.42.164 (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction  

message: The centance "The population was 58% Protestant, 37% Catholic (including at least 2% Polish[13]) and 5% Jewish (totaling 20,536 in the 1905 census)" is unclear. Was the Polish part of the population 2% of the catholics or 2% of the entire population ? Also wonder why (only) the precise number of Jews are mentioned among percentage figures ? I think that first mentioning the total number of inhabitants, followed by ethnical groups in percentage is sufficient. (And never use "percentage of percentage"). F.i could the entnical groups be German protestants, German catholics, Polish catholics and Jews. (assume the number of Polish protestants are too low to be mentioned, but do not know for certain) Boeing720 (talk) 07:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  2% of what 

message: Breslau no longer exists. Silesia no longer exists. The Silesian people were forced to flee to other parts of the world as punishment to Germany after the Nazis were deposed and WWII ended. It represents the largest forced migration in modern history.  There is no parallel in modern times.  It is estimated that of the 16 million German inhabitants, 2 million Germans died in the process of trying to flee the geographical areas taken away from Germany at the end of WWII. This is the ugly truth of the matter.
  
This online encyclopedia page represents the continuing argument over how this history should be recorded.  The surviving Silesians are now dying off rapidly. One needs to only do the math: the Silesians had to flee in 1945-1946; this is 2013. In another 10 years virtually no one with any birth connection to Breslau or Silesia will exist. The argument then, will be dead.
I see here in Wikipedia a very poor historical record of Breslau/Wrocław. The page is infected throughout with subtle efforts to justify that this city is now Polish. One can "read between the lines" and feel the propagandization of history in the article. Sentences are included here that no one would consider relevant in any other city's history. The authors are obviously very busy trying to get their version of history past the Wikipedia administrators. Many feel one way, many feel another way, and even the idea of labeling changes to the page as "vandalism" is hotly debated.
Almost humorous are the votes in the Danzig/Gdansk debate on what to call a city in English. Wikipedia policy is decided by 48 people voting one way. That's it -- a worldwide online encyclopedia's decision is dictated by a voting margin of a dozen or so votes. One wonders if a similar debate occurred concerning Munich/München, and if not, why not? The lack of a constituency in this vote devalues the outcome of the vote.  There are what, 6 billion humans on the face of the earth at the moment?  A cute video of a cat on YouTube gets more "thumbs-up" votes every 30 seconds than the entirety of Wiki's supposedly eternally precedent-setting Danzig/Gdansk vote. (No, I'm NOT going to provide a reference source to prove that a cute cat video on YouTube gets more than 48 votes in 30 secords flat.)  
 
Regardless of whether Wiki administrators demand that I include all kinds of online references, that fact still is that Breslau was a huge German city and its inhabitants were brutalized, murdered, and evicted at the end of WWII.  The men were loaded onto cattle cars and shipped to Soviet prison camps in the Ural mountains. 
We have here a fine developing example of how history is written. Because whether the story is written with a fountain pen or a laptop computer, words are arranged to distill millions of actions, millions of lives, into a few short paragraphs that somehow will be deemed to be the official record. What is in this record? Depends on who is distilling it. People with motivations beyond an "objective" distillation are battling it out here on Wikipedia.  Even my write-up here, this very write-up, is being continuously deleted by Wiki authors. This post, even to this Talk page, will probably be quickly be deleted, and the person deleting it will post some fancy legitimate-sounding reason to justify the deletion.
  
I predict that 50 years from now, the written record contained here in Wikipedia will be noticeably more sympathetic to the Polish occupants of Breslau/Wrocław, because the victors write the history books. The descendents of the displaced Silesians will no longer feel any connection to Silesia or Breslau, and will no longer advocate an accurate recording of the history of Breslau and the events that occurred at the end of WWII.  What would be interesting to see would be a scientific analysis of the development of the official history over the course of time, and whether this shift paralleled other events, such as the original displaced population of Breslau dying off, or such as the closure of Silesian cultural organizations.
For social scientists, an analysis is currently possible that would provide interesting insights to the development of what we call "history". This would be a comparative analysis of the Wikipedia entries for Breslau in the different language versions of Wikipedia. My quick review of those entries in the Chinese, German, and English languages reveals significant differences.
To those continuously censoring this Talk section, may I try to delay your actions by 15 seconds by saying this: No, I do not need to provide verifying sources; this is a Talk section.  Look at Wikipedia:Talk Page Guidelines, wherein it is stated, "There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion, and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation." It cannot be more clear that continued deletion of my entry here on the Talk page will represent vandalism. 
SonOfARefugee (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a bit of a rant, but one you're entitled to make (and I'm pleased to see that it's still here six weeks later).  It most certainly relates to this article, and there are some valid points that you make.  The expulsion and flight of the Silesian German population (as distinct from Slav Silesians) is mentioned, but should perhaps be covered in a little more depth here, and certainly warrants greater attention at History of Wrocław, as should resettlement of the Polish population expelled from what had become part of the Soviet Union.  To be honest, the historical coverage on this page from 1945 onwards is practically non-existent, leading to a distinctly unbalanced history section, by which I mean historically unbalanced, not necessarily ethnically unbalanced.  Skinsmoke (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Study of Breslau/Wrocław Page Development as Example of How "Historical Record" Comes Into Existence 

message: The history of the city appears to stop in 1945.  We are told (mainly from image captions) that the city was almost destroyed during the war, yet we have recent images showing historical buildings.  Presumably there was a massive amount of restoration work, which deserves at least a passing mention.  How did the city develop with the influx of thousands of dispossessed people from what had become the Soviet Union?  How was a functioning city re-established without its earlier inhabitants?  Similarly, there is nothing whatever about the period under Communist rule.  Did nothing happen at all in the city during this period?  Towards the end of this period, was the city not involved at all in the rise of Solidarity, and opposition to the Communist regime?  Has nothing happened in the city since the collapse of Communism, and the restoration of democracy, other than flooding?  Skinsmoke (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Postwar history 

message: It used to be mentioned at the beginning of the page, but now it's ommited completely. It is a (big) part of the Wrocław's history, so why not mention it. Teysz Kamieński (talk) 08:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there is a dedicated section to the historical names.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should Breslau be mentioned at the beginning of the page? 

message: The relevant guideline is here: WP:NAME. It states:
If there are at least three alternative names, or there is something notable about the names themselves, a separate name section is recommended (see Lead section). These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, significant names in other languages, etc. 
Hence, if an article has a dedicated section (such as "Etymology" or "Other names" or "Historical names") there is absolutely no reason to relist the names in the lede. In fact that kind of practice smacks of irredentist "territory-marking" and can be seen as disruptive.
That is the guideline that is relevant here, not a 10 year old "vote" by a minority of the community, most of whom are long gone from Wikipedia, and which most present day Wikipedians never have heard of. A curiosity from the early days of Wikipedia should not be abused to push a POV or irredentist edits on encyclopedic articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please assume good faith? Every one of these discussions is full of accusations of people being "irridentists" or similar after about the third post. Regarding Breslau, it's the name the city was known as in English for a very long time, so there is a case for including it in the lede. People who may have read that name in older English sources will immediately know it is the same city. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  23:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming good faith is not a suicide pact. And it's precisely why we have a dedicated section to the alternative name, per Wikipedia guidelines.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NAME is a general rule, the Gdansk vote is a special rule for areas sharing a German-Polish history. A special rule supersedes the general rule (lex specialis), not vice versa. Marek knows the Gdansk vote very well and he knows that "persistent reverts against community consensus" are regarded WP:VANDALISM. His attempts to undermine this established policy by removing pretty much every single "Breslau" from the article  (and even a Gdansk vote pointer from the talk page ) actually just confirm a wellknown WP:battleground mentality HerkusMonte (talk) 11:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alt names 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Wrocław. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081016001550/http://www.dresden.de:80/en/02/11/c_03.php to http://www.dresden.de/en/02/11/c_03.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct archive. Thanks, . --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Wrocław. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140606231846/http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/Wroclaw_Ii/07-2012/124240.html to http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/Wroclaw_Ii/07-2012/124240.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150925131038/http://www.worldweatheronline.com/Wroclaw-weather-averages//PL.aspx.html to http://www.worldweatheronline.com/Wroclaw-weather-averages//PL.aspx.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No working archived captures. Replaced x 1 with active url + left 2nd using 404 capture as alternative needs to be found. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The Silesian language is spoken in Upper Silesia, not in Wrocław. BTW - there are three Upper Silesian names :szl:Wrocłow.Xx236 (talk) 05:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  silesian ? 

message: *You should have referenced the allged position of the festival.
*The picture - people on the grass - can be made in thousands of places of the world. Nothing notable.
*Wrocław has only few minor breweries. Xx236 (talk) 07:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beer festival 

message: The pollution should be mentioned.Xx236 (talk) 07:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pollution 

message: Promotional material (WP:PROMO) added by a blocked user (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Corinne_Travels) on August 1 has been removed. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 03:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promo material removed 

message: I cringe when reading stuff like:
In the years 2013-15 was built Engine Business. In Wrocław Industrial Park operates over 250 companies from nearly 60 different industries. In Wrocław is a research and development center aviation industry...
but much as I love this city, a more competent Wikipedian needs to go through it with a fine comb... Zezen (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Copywriting needed

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Wrocław. 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/20110101174432/http://www.breslau-wroclaw.de/de/breslau/postcard/projektor/print.php?showId=1000 to http://www.breslau-wroclaw.de/de/breslau/postcard/projektor/print.php?showId=1000
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081227165825/http://miasta.gazeta.pl/wroclaw/5%2C44548%2C1501462.html to http://miasta.gazeta.pl/wroclaw/5%2C44548%2C1501462.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100609171308/http://www.rogermoorhouse.com/article1.html to http://www.rogermoorhouse.com/article1.html
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) 20:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The leading section lists conflicting pronunciations of Wrocław in English: the IPA reads /ˈvrɔt͡slɑːf/ ("VRAWTS-lahf") and the respelling reads "VRAWTS-wahf" (/ˈvrɔt͡swɑːf/). I do not hear this name in an English setting often enough to say which one is more common (dictionary.com and the Oxford dictionary also give conflicting results), but we should probably be consistent ourselves at least. Thoughts? Wyverald (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  English pronunciation? 

message: The ear of an American English speaker seems to hear the Polish-spoken name of Wrocław as "coming out" as sounding like  to their ear (as it does to my own pair) - barring any "existing prohibition" of the pronunciation respelling key's use for such a purpose, in aiding English speakers in correctly pronouncing the city's native name, what better way already exists within Wikipedia's system to get that pronunciation correct for Anglophones?
The PIPE (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of [[Help:Pronunciation respelling key]] to "get it sounding like the Polish" original in English

message: I don't understand Post-war resettlements from Poland's ethnically and religiously more diverse former eastern territories (known in Polish as Kresy) and the eastern parts of Poland., so I have reverted the edit.Xx236 (talk) 11:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious diversity 

message: During German/Prussian times the official name was Breslau. Now is Wroclaw but Germans are still calling it by the old name. Example ? German airlines. I guess they wouldn't be able to fly to Saigon these days.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.164.0.37 (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The name. 

message: Tens of thousands of Ukrainians (from Ukraine, not local ones) live in Wrocław, they generally work. I don't have numbers, but they should be mentioned.Xx236 (talk) 11:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you find a source? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: https://www.radiowroclaw.pl/articles/view/85475/Spor-polemika-dialog-Sytuacja-Ukraincow-na-Dolnym-Slasku-Jak-im-sie-zyje-jak-oceniaja-ich-Polacy 80,000 in Wrocław.Xx236 (talk) 07:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ukrainians 

message: Does anyone have a reference to the original idea of Brexit arising when Breslau left the Hanseatic League in 1474 after over 80 years?--Po Mieczu (talk) 12:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The original "Brexit"? 

message: Failed for WP:POLAND due to numerous paragraphs lacking references (failing WP:V, WP:CITE). Feel free to request a re-review when those issues are addressed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  B-class review