Talk:Königsberg/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

History

History needs a bit of work, there is some pointless sentences like "German citizens remaining in Königsberg after 1945 died of either disease, torture, mass rape, or starvation." which didn't make sense. Basically a neutral POV and removing blogs and crappy links as a source. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 02:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Separate page

I am not debating where this should be a separate page, but for just out of curiosity why does Kaliningrad get this separate article but cities like St Petersburg (Leningrad) or Gdansk (Danzig) not? Please don't look at me as debating the article I would just like someone to explain to me :) Bezuidenhout (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably because the amount of destruction and the complete exchange of its populace is rather similar to Constantinople or Tenochtitlan. Kaliningrad is a different city at the same location as Königsberg. HerkusMonte (talk) 14:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Completely untrue-there were locations destroyed far more than this one in Poland, yet there have been not split. The current state of things is unacceptable violation of Wiki rules and the articles must be restored to one with the current name of the city. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I've always been under the impression that the two articles were split for size reasons alone—we split long articles into chronological periods all the time. As long as the two articles are clearly interlinked (which these two are), what's the problem? On the other hand, perhaps a merge request wouldn't be completely out of place, if only to gauge what the community thinks about this or to verify that the articles are split because of size, not because of the difficulty to reconcile POV issues.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 14, 2011; 16:08 (UTC)

Old pictures

I have pictures from Kaliningrad made 35 years ago. https://picasaweb.google.com/ivafamily/School196575#5494349530903640674 Does anyone knows what building it is and how it looks now? And what is the name of this castle: https://picasaweb.google.com/ivafamily/School196575#5494349580828799490 Please let me know at gintar@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gintar (talk • contribs) 20:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

King's mountain

Why Königsberg rather than Königsburg? The article twice mentions that the literal German-to-English meaning of Königsberg is King's mountain but neither says that there is a mountain or cliff (in contrast to much flat Baltic coastland) nor that it is a misnomer. Nor is there a similar translation of the names in other languages. --P64 (talk) 15:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I note what you say. But that doesn't explain your question. What exactly do you inquire?Dakhart (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Is Konigsberg named for a mountain or is it a misnomer for Konigsburg? --P64 (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's named for the castle Königsberg. From the article: Altstadt was destroyed by the Prussians during the rebellion and rebuilt in the valley below the castle hill. Castles where usually built on high ground, so that makes sense.Dakhart (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The castle Konigsberg might be Konigsbergburg. It makes a kind of sense. Thanks. It's unusual that the article translates the name as nominal reference to a geographical feature and doesn't say whether it was named for that feature. --P64 (talk) 13:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: article not moved Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 13:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Königsberg → History of Kaliningrad – It is same city, so there is no need for article with this name. PANONIAN 05:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Correction: same location, different city. Rübezahl (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

No: same city, different name. Srnec (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Different country, different name, different population, different culture - different city in the location, where Königsberg used to be. Rübezahl (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

So Rome in 1850 and Rome in 1950 were different cities? After all they were in different countries, had different populations and different cultures. Srnec (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Rome that much. Was there a military invasion? Was there extermination and expulsion of entire population? Was a new name invented, not just for the city but for every street and square? Did it become a part of a foreign empire? Educate me. Rübezahl (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

You could not step twice into the same river. Many cities have undergone transformations as complete as Königsberg's, if not always in the same timespan. But there is continuity. Srnec (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey! You're right! It was a seaport and it is a seaport. There is continuity. I take everything back. You certainly have a way of explaining things, so that I can understand them. Rübezahl (talk) 05:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you finally get it, but for somebody with so little understanding to begin with you probably shouldn't have tried to correct another. Srnec (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Oooh! You didn't get that one. Oh, well. Rübezahl (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Educate me. Srnec (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll give you three guesses, then I'll start giving you clues. You can do it, especially if you have so much more "understanding" than me. Also, can You return to the original subject, or are you done already?Rübezahl (talk) 15:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I never said I had more understanding than you.

Back to the original subject. Every city at any moment is different from itself at any other moment. Separate the moments by enough and any city could be as different from its previous self as Kaliningrad is from Königsberg. Are we not then justified in saying that Rome is a different city in the same location as Rome? Or that Beijing is a different city in the same location as Peking? Or Kinshasa/Léopoldville? If Kaliningrad's name changed back, should we move this to Königsberg (1255–1946)? It is not as if Königsberg was ever empty, nor was its entire population expelled. It is certainly fine to say that Königsberg was a different city from Kaliningrad in the same location, but it is no correction. It is also true that Königsberg was renamed Kaliningrad and the renaming accompanied no other major change, since those had already happened to old Königsberg. And Kaliningrad did not exist before it was invented. Srnec (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose, just like Constantinople is not just the "History of Istanbul" and Tenochtitlan is more than just the "History of Mexico City".HerkusMonte (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per HerkusMonte. This article describes a particular range in the history of Kaliningrad. This rename would change the scope of the article. --BDD (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reason. YBG (talk) 02:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose per same reason as Constantinople and New Amsterdam.Bezuidenhout (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The city was known as Königsberg for over 700 years. It should have its history under that name. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 20:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per reasons cited. Srnec (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Thanks for opposing the move of this article to Kaliningrad ...

(Michael Wieck, a Holocaust survivor who returned to Kaliningrad in 1992, once wrote that: “Anyone who goes to Kaliningrad today shouldn’t expect to find Königsberg. There is a building here or there that recalls the past, but these leftovers from Königsberg’s existence are like finding bones in a cemetery.") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canitz (talk • contribs) 00:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I can’t help but be slightly amused by the seemingly never ending debate about Konigsberg being the same city as Kaliningrad. It is a little bit like the planet Venus being the Evening Star as well as the Morning Star, in terms of the distinction between denotation and connotation, or the object and its meaning. It would be helpful not to confuse the two, as this seems to be at the bottom of this ongoing discussion.

The two cities would be the same for folks who reduce the meaning of a city to a specific location in a country – and so it has something to do with geography, i.e., it denotes a position on a map. But that seems to fall a little short of how we usually talk about a city, i.e., in terms of its people, its culture and its history, as well as its place and function in a country’s socio-economic or political structure. Here, we clearly do have a tale of two cities, that - in terms of space and time - happened to be collocated in space only, and definitely not in time. But even the collocation in space is an issue – since if you wanted to locate it on a map – Konigsberg only appears on maps prior to 1946, and Kaliningrad only on maps after that. So – even in strict geographic terms they are distinct entities, as all they really have in common is their longitude and latitude, for even the country that they are located in are different, including language and ethnicity.

Now on another front, you could make an argument that - within the burned out wreckage of Konigsberg- enough bricks and mortar were left to claim some degree of physical continuity between these cities here beyond mere location, but the extent to which its charred remains were violated and essentially left to rot until recently - or simply bulldozed away earlier, with the useful bits shipped back to the motherland – the unique and original City of Konigsberg definitely died when the last remaining ethnic German that hadn’t yet been starved to death was kicked out in 1945 to find their way across the distant Oder-Neisse border, courtesy of Joseph Stalin and his ethnic cleansing program so shamefully condoned by the Allied Forces

Yes, the restoration of the Dom on former Kneiphof island seems impressive, and many other older buildings have undergone some form of restoration – replete with ersatz red roofing tiles made of metal in order to appear original in connection with the 750 year celebrations. But the introduction of uninspired and deadly boring Stalinist architecture further demeaned the tragic remains of Konigsberg in the form of the usual drab apartment building blocks designed to house the communist worker-bee, by spitting in the face of the many fine century old buildings and wonderful architecture that they replaced. This includes the ultimate insult to the art of architecture anywhere – the multi-story House of Soviets at the site of the destroyed Konigsberg Castle – a concrete apparition so excruciatingly ugly, it has been frequently referred to as the ugliest building in the world.

And so “sameness” here can at most mean that, occasionally, there is some resemblance between Konigsberg and present day Kaliningrad, but that is about the extent of it. Canitz (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing exceptional about the difference between Kaliningrad today and Königsberg a hundred years ago. Only the relatively short period in which the change took place is unusual (and even then, not unique). We wouldn't have two article had there not been a change in the city's name. That's why Constantinople and Istanbul are separate articles, but the dividing "line" is not the change from an ethno-linguistically Greek and Orthodox city to a Muslim and Turkish one. Srnec (talk) 22:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes - Thanks - no argument from me on this point, i.e., this is by no means a unique situation. My main point was to underscore that Königsberg is entitled to its own article with respect to its unique and significant history. This as opposed to seeing it relegated to a footnote under Kaliningrad, and continuing to contribute to the deafening silence around this largely ignored part of recent European history. Time to pull our dirty linen out of the closet, methinks Canitz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Ref improve tag in Poles in K section

Since I've added a "ref improve" tag to the article as a whole, the specific "ref improve - section" tag in the "Poles in Konigsberg" section is redundant (and battleground-y, but nm that). Especially, since, as I've said several times now, other sections of the article have far fewer sources and citations.

So I'm going to remove it. An alternative would be to add a few more cites to the "Poles in Konigsberg" section, and then tag every other section lacking an inline citation for every single portion of every single sentence with the "ref improve - section" tag. Which would look really ugly, so I think the first course of action is preferable.

I will also add citation needed tags where needed in the article, since some users appear to be soooooo concerned about proper sourcing that I can only assume they're itching and burning to get to work finding references for the multitude of unreffed statements (and whole sections) in this article.VolunteerMarek 23:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: I've added some 'citation tags' needed throughout the article. The way I'm approaching this is as if this was a good article nomination (maybe we can make it into one!). I do want to urge the editors who seem more concerned with objecting to the "Poles in Konigsberg" section rather than with the overall quality of this article, to do some work in regard to these very much needed citations.VolunteerMarek 23:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

An interesting question

If we could put aside the disputes for a moment, there's actually a somewhat interesting question here, with regard to the first publication of a Polish language catechism and translation of the New Testament.

As far as I can make out, the source by Vanessa Beck added by Skapperod [1] says that the first Polish language catechism - a translation of Luther's Small Catechism - was issued before 1530 in Konigsberg (Polish wikipedia states that it might have been Wittenberg instead [2] but I can't access that source - yes, I know pl wiki is not a RS but the text there broadly agrees with Beck so it's a useful starting point) by an anonymous person. But that version was substandard, mistranslated stuff and was criticized by Liboriusz Schadlika, who commenced work on an improvement, which was published by the Weinreich publisher in 1533.

The first question then is was the 1530 "anonymous" catechism published by Weinreich? If so, need a source. If not, then the date should be changed to 1533 (I believe some sources give 1533/4). Of course there's also no reason to ignore Schadlika here.

On the other hand this source [3], which was removed by Skapperod from the article with the misleading edit summary (paraphrase) "failed verification and redundant" (neither is true) says that "the first non-Catholic translation of the New Testament was procured by Jan Seklucjan", though it also notes that, basically, Seklucjan "crowd sourced" the translation to Murzynski and just took credit. The original text in this article also stated that in 1545 Seklucjan also issued the first Polish catechism, and the Polish Wikipedia says the same thing, again based on a source I can't access. The second part contradicts Beck only in so far that it claims Seklucjan's catechism was "first", though other sources do suggest he published one in 1545.

This source [4] states that in 1545 Seklucjan published a catechism, but that a dispute between Seklucjan and Malecki over the catechism turned into a dispute over a proper translation of the Bible. Also, this source makes no mention of Weinreich or Schadlika which is somewhat strange given the context.

Overall it does look like Weinreich/Schadlika published a Polish translation of Luther's Small Catechism in 1533/4 (after the anon one), Seklucjan/Murzynski published one in 1545 (there was also some dispute with Malecki). In terms of translations of the New Testament Seklucjan published a complete one sometime in the 1552/3 (also probably really translated by Murzynski) - maybe also with Weinreich who I believe had a printing monopoly in Konigsberg at the time. So maybe the 'first' applies to the publication of the first Polish language New Testament rather than catechism?

Any specific info and additional sources to clarify this would be much appreciated.VolunteerMarek 01:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

re Weinreich 1530: The name of the author is Bock, not Beck; it was not before 1530, but in 1530; page numbers are given in the ref tag, additionally pg. 144.

re failed verification: lines sourced to Wodecki/Krasovec by you [5] [6] and removed by me [7] (e/s "per failed verification for the most part") were

• quote 1st sentence: "In 1545 in Königsberg the first Polish catechism was printed by [[Jan Seklucjan]].<ref name="bibel">{{cite book | title=Interpretation Der Bibel | publisher=Continuum International Publishing Group | author=Krašovec, Jože | year=1988 | pages=1223 |isbn=1850759693}}</ref>":

failed verification: Given ref Wodecki p. 1223 does not mention 1545 at all, neither does it say anything about the first Polish catechism.

• quote 2nd sentence: "In 1551 the first translation of the [[New Testament]] in [[Polish language]] came out, issued by [[Stanisław Murzynowski]].<ref name="bibel"/>":

failed verification: Given ref Wodecki p. 1223 however says that "[p. 1222] in 1551 published [p. 1223] first the gospel of Matthew, some months later all four gospels, in 1552 other New Testament books, and finally in 1533 [sic!] the whole new Testament in one volume." Either the 1533 date or the preceding dates are most certainly a typo, as the sentence makes no sense as it is > not a good source for these dates. Nonetheless, even though the source on the (not attributed!) page 1222 states that "the publishing of the first printed non-Catholic translation of the New Testament was procured by Jan Seklucjan" with M. "as translator" (ibid), the source does not say that happened in 1551, but as shown above gives the conflicting, not trustworthy date of 1533; and it does not say that M "issued" the NT. The source thus contradicts the sentence except for the rump where it says that the translation came out.

• quote 3rd and 4th senternces: Murzynowski's collections of sermons were delivered by [[Eustace Trepka]] and in 1574 by [[Jerome Malecki]]. The works of [[Mikolaj Rej]] were printed here and [[Martin Stryjkowski]] announced here the publication of his ''Chronicle of Poland, Lithuania, Żmudz and all Rus''.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=jiukF7F_r3cC&pg=PA1222&lpg=PA1222&dq=Murzynowski+Krolewiec&source=bl&ots=9TiODAifoy&sig=JsFC3nCJ-LNkrS_LmUJ2ZWzhXk4&hl=en#v=onepage&q=Murzynowski%20Krolewiec&f=false]</ref>":

failed verification: No reference to these sentences in the given ref at all: neither cited names nor cited dates are on that (or the next) page.

Obviously, the source does not support what you sourced to it. Apart from that, it was not published in 1988, the author was Wodecki not Krašovec, and bare urls are not recommended as refs.

Since you cited the source here, you should have noticed at least when you revisited the source that nothing in that source supports the sentences you sourced to it as I have shown in detail above. You failed to do so not only when you added the source in the first place, which is not good, but you also failed to do so when you went through the source again for your above post [8] to quote the only line from the source referencing at least something from the text (rump of the 2nd sentence), which is far worse. And then you even accuse me of being "misleading" and "not true" in my e/s about that...

Skäpperöd (talk) 08:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Reply:

• The name of the author is Bock, not Beck; it was not before 1530, but in 1530; page numbers are given in the ref tag, additionally pg. 144 - ok, it's Bock. I assume you mean the anon publication was in 1530 not before 1530. Alright. I didn't ask for page numbers but thanks for providing that.
• On the failed verification question - you're right that the situation is a bit confusing, as I've tried to outline above. As it happens I also think there's some typo or mistake in this source. However, keep in mind that the Bock source broadly supports the text, though the dates aren't properly lined up. This is why I brought it up here. It would've been much better if you had cleaned up the sentence per Bock rather than removing the relevant text all together. Specifically, removing Seklucjan's part in all this is very ... unwarranted. How about we try to get this story straight (and it looks like a very interesting story actually)?
• Murzynowski's collections of sermons were delivered - yes, as I stated, the confusion here stems from the fact that the source was placed at the end of the paragraph (sort of per DYK conventions) but referred to the previous statement. I've added one reference to support part of this sentence and am looking for more (part of the problem is that the person who originally added the text sort of mangled the naming of these people, mixing up Polish, English and German spellings)
• Please feel free to rewrite the text to adequately represent the source (and fix up the details in the citation), but also, please, don't leave important aspects of the story out.

VolunteerMarek 08:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh for God's sake in regard to this, [9], please, clean up the ref and fix the years, but don't just remove Seklucjan and Murzynowski completely. The Bock source you provided dwells quite in depth on this very topic. Or did you somehow miss all that in the very source which you yourself provided? How does that work?VolunteerMarek 09:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• In 1545 in Königsberg the first Polish catechism was printed by Jan Seklucjan - as I said above, I agree that this probably was not "the first" Polish catechism. But Seklucjan certainly did publish a catechism in 1545 Simple Text of the Catechism for Simple People as <-- that source clearly indicates.
• In 1551 the first translation of the New Testament in Polish language came out, issued by Stanisław Murzynowski - as I said above, all that is needed here is to correct the 1551 date to 1553. This source further confirms the information.
• With all the removing, reverting and moving around, I'm getting a bit lost as to which version we're at. At any rate, the publication of Rej's works by Seclucjan is supported by this source.

VolunteerMarek 22:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• The Trepka is a bit hard to find online sources for, but these do exist. For example this source says Równocześnie z Seklucjanem działał w Królewcu Eustachy Trepka, który dokonał przekładu wielu ważnych dzieł ewangelickich na język polski. (trans: "Contemporary with Seklucjan, Eustachy Trepka was active in Krolewice, and made several translations of important Lutheran works into Polish"). Likewise [10] says Wśród współpracowników Seklucjana znaleźli się więc Andrzej Samuel, Stanisław Murzynowski, Wojciech Nowomiejski, Eustachy Trepka (trans: Among Seklucjan's collaborators were Andrzej Samuel, Stanislaw Murzynowski, Wojciech Nowomiejski, and Eustachy Trepka).

So like I said above, the literal text is not supported by sources (i.e. apparently the only source which explicitly states that Trepka delivered sermons written by Murzynowski is not available online), the general info is well supported.VolunteerMarek 22:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

There exists such a thing as the talk page...

I've restored the text beginning with "From the sixteenth to the twentieth century..." since it was sourced and relevant. It was not redundant, although it should probably combine the info on Weinreith's publishing The source supported the text (so no "failed verification") although I understand that the fact that the citation was placed at the end of the paragraph could've caused confusion. So moved citation to where it belong and added a cn tag to the rest - which I will provide shortly. At the same time, I've removed the cn tag from the first sentence since that sentence just introduces and describes the paragraph, hence no citation needed.

I've also removed the "Ref improve" tag from the section per my explanation above. This is one of the better sourced section of the article. I've also removed the "Undue Weight" tag which appears to be completely spurious. In fact, the sources recently provided by Skapperod show the importance of this sub topic to the overall subject matter. See the book edited by Axel Walter, a good bit of which appears to be devoted to the Polish culture and influence in the city (this is a German language source).

I've restored the image. It illustrates a good bit of what this section is about - the interaction and fusion of Polish and Prussian cultures. The University of Konigsberg was founded by Albert, but chartered by Zygmunt, at a time when Ducal Prussia was part of Poland. It captures the essence of Polish influence in the region at the time and illustrates why Albert was so keen on "importing" Polish scholars and teachers to Konigsberg.

Finally, I've undo this edit by M.K because... well, because I'm not sure why it was made. It just seems to mindlessly remove well sourced info from the article with an edit summary that makes no sense what so ever. VolunteerMarek 06:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

"The university library had a rich collection"

While K library was indeed significant but why it is mentioned under that "Poles in Königsberg" section? M.K. (talk) 06:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

How about instead of mindlessly reverting and removing sourced text you actually try and do some constructive work. Look up stuff, provide references, etc. I know it's much much harder than simply hitting the revert button, but hey, this is an encyclopedia, right?VolunteerMarek 06:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

"Constructive work" would be to put sourced text into context. I fail to see a context in your edits. 93.220.166.100 (talk) 08:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Please explain what this context is. What kind of "context" do you want here?

And just to answer M.K's original question, an answer which is blindingly obvious if one just bothers to read... the rest of the sentence which he began to quote, the reason it is in this section because "The university library had a rich collection... including a valuable collection on the history of Poland, Lithuania and Prussia".VolunteerMarek 08:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Poles in Königsberg

Just like anything here on Wikipedia this needs sources. Unsourced claims might be removed. HerkusMonte (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Tell you what Herkus, you can remove the unsourced sentences from that section, as long as you remove every other single unsourced sentence from the article (or should I do that for you?) At least that way your edits won't be tendentious and battleground-y.

Seriously, that section has as many, if not more, inline citations, as other sections of the article. Mass removal of text, based solely on a WP:IDONTLIKEIT, at this point, is quite disruptive. Especially since work on the section is in progress (I'm looking up stuff).

If you want to add a "ref improve" to the article as a whole be my guest, but quit it with the battleground.VolunteerMarek 16:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It's disruptive to remove a "sources needed" tag [11] and it's normal wiki policy to ask for sources when new stuff is added. That's not a question of "I don't like it", in this case it's rather WP:UNDUE and WP:POVPUSH. HerkusMonte (talk) 05:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It's neither. First, the appropriate tag would be 'ref improve' for the article as a whole, as already mentioned. Second, it is a bit weird when whole chunks of the article are sitting there completely unsourced but you insist on tagging-up, cutting the one section that you're likely... not to like.VolunteerMarek 05:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You realize that you're basically tagging up [12] one of the best sourced parts of the article, right? It's not so much the POV-pushing that gets to me, I'm used to that, it's the double standards.VolunteerMarek 05:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Herkus, I just wasted my time having to re-add references because of edit conflict caused by your insistence to add unjustified cn tags in every other words of the section.

Stop, back, or we're going straight to AE. This is clearly bad faithed and disruptive. let me add the references you're insisting on.VolunteerMarek 06:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to answer your aggressive, insulting reaction. However, as an experienced user you should know that you need to find sources first, adding is the second step. HerkusMonte (talk) 06:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

What's "aggressive" is putting in "citation needed" tags in every other word in every single sentence of a particular section, while the remainder of the article is sitting there unreferenced and written like crap. Ok, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but an illustrative one. And your second sentence makes no sense - how is one supposed to "add sources" in the first step, and then add text in the second step? Am I supposed to put in a bunch of refs first and then consider adding in some text that they refer to later? Can you please show me where anyone (sane or not) ever tried doing it that way on any Wikipedia article what so ever? Ever? VolunteerMarek 08:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the Poles section; what is needed is an expansion of the culture section. We should discuss the German culture, too, and others (Jewish?). If and when this or other sections become too long, they can be split. Content should be expanded, not trimmed down because other sections are poor. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing disruption on the article

Guys, it's really hard to make improvements to the article - some of which you guys asked for - while you keep jumping in, removing stuff, causing edit conflicts, reverting, trying to start edit wars and in other ways act disruptively. While at the same time completely failing to even make a statement on the talk page (and then having the nerve to use edit summaries like "per talk"! What. the. fuck.)

Specifically, to M.K. Re [13] - how am I suppose inline cite text when you keep removing what I'm adding citations for? Oh wait, it's already cited. So why the heck are you removing it?

VolunteerMarek 06:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should read the talk page before you continue your aggressive behaviour. HerkusMonte (talk) 06:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The talk page on which I've been raising issue for awhile now, with no constructive responses from you or MK? Maybe you should consider that trying to sabotage good faithed attempts to provide references and citations (which you asked for!) and improve the quality of the article is "aggressive". If I was frustrated I'd say something like "gimme a fucking break". But hey, I'm not, I'm used to it by this point.VolunteerMarek 06:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• In this edit Skapperod removed well sourced material (after previous users cn tagged it, and I provided the actual citations - is that how it works? "Cn" tag something just because YOUDONTLIKEIT and when citations are actually provided, just remove it?) with the edit summary rm not-so-significant prints

I'm sorry but the printing of Mikołaj Rej's works, who was "one of the founders of Polish literary language and literature" is most certainly NOT "not-so-significant print". It's very significant.

The works by Maciej Stryjkowski (need to correct the original text) is likewise significant though not as ground breakin as Rej's.

This is all sourced. So why is it being removed? Like I said, this is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

VolunteerMarek 21:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Significance here is to be established with respect to Königsberg. Thousands and thousands of books and thousands and thousands of other printings were published there. This is not about the notability of these people, but about notability of these people/works for Königsberg, and as such an UNDUE issue. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the notability of these people, and the fact their most important works were (first!) published in Konigsberg are obviously related. There's no UNDUE here, just flimsy invented justifications for trying to remove info one doesn't like. Rej is important. His works are important. The fact that the important works of this important person were published in Konigsberg is important. This should be obvious. In fact that's sort of the problem here - that one must argue about things which are obvious.

And again, it is simply disruptive and dishonest to first tag text with a {cn} tag, and then when the citation is provided, to remove it. That's a pretty good indicator right there that someone's not editing in good faith but just playing the WP:BATTLEGROUND game.VolunteerMarek 08:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

All these accusations .... unpleasant and w/o a basis: the UNDUE issue was brought up from the beginning [14] [15][16] (together with the cn issue). It was actually me who started to source (and correct) some of the text [17] (though I'd rather like to see that paragraph in a "churches" section than there) - all that happened before you came here to edit that section. That you later provided references for some other sentences, including the Rej sentence, did address the cn issue, but not the UNDUE issue, and remember that you first provided false sources.

I provided proper sources for some of that and added proper context [18] [19] with keeping in mind UNDUE and the respective objections of at least 3 other editors (linked at the beginning of this post). So I concentrated on works that did not only have an outstanding impact, but also an outstanding connection to Kbg. (eg superlatives like the first Lithuanian-language book ever, the first Polish-language catechisms and NT ever, the Königsberg Bible etc). That Königsberg was a printing center also for many many other books is also noted, it is neither possible nor consistent with UNDUE to list them all.

The question remains: what made it so special for Königsberg that from the thousands and thousands of books printed there, the printing of a volume of M Rej, who afaik lived and worked far away, needs a mention in the Kbg. article. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

First let's get one thing straight. You say "and remember that you first provided false sources". You're lying your ass off, and the little fake-diff you provide doesn't show anything of the kind. I will note here that you engage in these kind of deceitful tactics regularly. There was no "false sources" as the discussion below clearly indicates. On the other hand *YOU* are misrepresenting the Bock source - most of it's about the Polish authors and writers in Konigsberg yet you pulled out of it... the one German name (Weinreich), wrote around any mention of Poles in Koningsberg, completely ignored what the source is actually about and REMOVED the mention of Polish writers like Seklucjan, discussed by Bock, because they don't suit your anti-Polish POV.

So no, you didn't provide proper context. You completely left it out and in fact REMOVED the context. Why did Weinreich come to Konigsberg from Polish Gdansk/Danzig? Why did Albert invite him there? To print Polish language translations. *Your* source is pretty clear on that. But the text you added is completely different in its essence.

And one more time, you're mistaking "UNDUE" with "IDONTLIKEIT". And I don't care if it's 3 other editors, since it's the same nationalist little group that's been running rough shod over Wikipedia content policies for years. Tag teaming is not consensus.

So I concentrated on works that did not only have an outstanding impact, but also an outstanding connection to Kbg. - this is completely false. So Seklucjan, whom you removed, whom the sources credit with publishing the first complete translation of New Testament, who was specifically invited to Konigsberg for that purpose, "has no outstanding connection to Konigsberg"??? Again, gimme a fucking break. How can you sit there and even make statements like that with a straight face. Have some respect for your own sources and authors.

I've already addressed Rej, and like I pointed out, your own sources address him.

Oh and btw, my query on RSN in regard to your knee-jerk mindless support of your fellow POV pusher, the anon IP - in which you state something so blindingly wrong that you either don't know a difference between a primary source and a secondary source (in which case I'm not sure if you should be editing history related articles at all) or you are simply ... ganging up on me just to gang up - gave a pretty quick and unequivocal answer [20] (obvious is obvious after all).

We are desperately in need of an outside neutral opinion here because these little bullshit games have gone on long enough.VolunteerMarek 13:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Mikolaj Rej is even discussed in the German language Bock source you yourself added! And yes, in the particular context of Konigsberg.VolunteerMarek 09:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Bock on pp. 149-150 [21] merely notes a debate whether or not two works can be attributed to Rej, that is a sidenote and has nothing to do with this discussion. There is no further mention of Rej in this volume, which is dedicated to Kbg's libraries and publications, esp. foreign-language ones, from Kbg. - that Rej has not received coverage in this context is rather an argument that inclusion here would be UNDUE, as would even be the inclusion of most stuff that is actually discussed in this volume. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• In this edit anon IP 93.220.166.100 removed well sourced information with the edit summary moved the section about Wincenty Pol to his Wiki article, which is almost shorter than the paragraph here.

While I appreciate the addition to Wincenty Pol's much too short article, I don't see any reason to remove the info from here (though perhaps it should be shortened). The fact of Pol's internment in Konigsberg is important and significant, as is his political activity in the city and his friendship with and support from German speaking faculty (which is also a nice example of Polish-German cooperation and friendship, which we should have more of! Especially on Wikipedia).

Again, the text was first tagged with a {cn} tag, then when the citation was actually provided, it was simply removed. Which is disruptive and dishonest. More WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

VolunteerMarek 22:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the IP that the information about Pol is better suited for the Pol article per WP:UNDUE, as Pol's significance for Königsberg seems to be very low. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

That's your opinion, but the fact is that sources - which were provided - see it differently. Again, you have an important person, who spend an important part of his life in this important city and this is discussed in reliable sources. Once again there is no reason to remove this info except an obstinate and close minded IDONTLIKEIT.

Oh, and did I mention that it is disruptive and dishonest to first tag something with {cn} tags, and then after I've spend my valuable time looking up the requested references and added them to the article to simply remove the text? No? Well, it is.VolunteerMarek 08:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Moved is not removed. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• In this edit anon IP 93.220.166.100 engages in pure original research based on his/her own interpretation of a primary source [22]. A quick look and some common sense readily suggests that the interpretation itself (in addition to being OR) faulty, since it would imply that there was not a single (ok, less than 5%) non-German person living in Konigsberg in 1900. Since Konigsberg was a regional capital, and the surrounding area had non-German minorities this is, well, ridiculous. A more likely possibility is that Konigsberg is simply NOT INCLUDED in these results. This is beside the fact that these kind of "official historical census" sources tend to be marred by nationalistic bias. Need a secondary sources, or this needs to go.

VolunteerMarek 22:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The source is a secondary one, and properly attributed, no OR issue here. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the source is very obviously primary. Again, why are you denying the obvious? And yes, there is very clearly OR going on here - Konigsberg is simply not included in the list of regions so saying "this means that there was 0% Poles in Konigsberg" is a very obvious, incorrect and very POV form of original research. It's playing tricks.VolunteerMarek 08:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I asked for further input over at RSN [23].VolunteerMarek 09:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• In this edit M.K removes well sourced text from the article with an edit summary nothing to do with "Poles"). He follows that up with a second revert, with edit summary mark notable Lithuanians as ""Poles"" is just simply unacceptable). He then makes a third revert (tip toeing up to the WP:3RR line - the guy's been around so knows how to play this) with the edit summary a) info is covered in different parts, b) using distorted names is not ok c) this is about PL issues not LT. And all this while I'm trying to add sources and info to the article.

In so far as "nothing to do with Poles" goes - Abraham Kulwieć was a Polish-Lithuanian Lutheran theologian. I know the en-wiki article refers to him as "Lithuanian" exclusively but that's a problem with THAT article, not this one. This source clearly states "Later advocates of the Polish reformation were graduates of Wittenberg, for example, Abraham Kulwiec, Stanislaw Rafajowicz, ...". As with many people of the period, these two dudes were "Polish-Lithuanians", which is the compromise I tried to implement here. But that didn't work for M.K. WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

In so far as info is covered in different parts claim this is simply and completely false. Neither Kulwiec nor Rafajowicz - both very notable figures of the Reformation - are not mentioned anywhere else in the article. I would appreciate it if editors did not make shit up in their edit summaries. The rest of that edit summary just doesn't make sense, so I don't know how to respond to it.

VolunteerMarek 22:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Editors who are working to this article please pay additional attention to rationale above. This is how text book example of original research looks like. Presented source, which should prove that Abraomas Kulvietis is "Pole" or "polish-Lithuanian" have ZERO information on their national dependency in the first place (source only mentions that they were "advocates of the Polish reformation" so what? during their life tehy advocated for many things. so?) , while absolute majorly of academic sources let it be English, German, Lithuanian etc crystal clear state that they were Lithuanians (selected only small portion of them):

• Religions of the World, Second Edition, 2010 p.1063
• God's Playground A History of Poland– Volume 1,2005 p.139
• The Reformation, 2004 p. 330.
• Vilnius, 2002, p. 21
• Luther and Melanchthon in the Educational Thought of Central and Eastern Europe 1998, p. 135

Therefore prominent Lithuanians like Abraomas Kulvietis, Stanislovas Rapalionis has nothing to do with this weird section "Poles in Königsberg". And yes, it is already covered several years ago in proper places like [24].M.K. (talk) 10:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

MK I have trouble understanding what you are saying in the first part of your comment. What the "Presented source" shows is that Kulewiec/Kulvietis and Rafajowicz were "advocates of the Polish reformation". That's a direct quote.

And I don't know how many times I have to freakin' repeat this, but no one is denying the "Lithuanianess" of these fine folks. They were Lithuanians. But as has been pointed out to you... probably a hundred times or more since you showed up on Wikipedia, at this point in history it was entirely possible to be both Polish and Lithuanian, just like it's possible to be an Italian-American or similar. We even have an article on that Polish-Lithuanian (adjective).

This is in fact why I added "and Lithuanians" to the text which you, strangely, reverted. If you want to we could call the section "Poles and Lithuanians in Konigsberg".VolunteerMarek 13:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with MK that not everyone who was allegedly Polish and once came to Kbg. needs to be listed in the article, even more so when the "Polishness" is disputed, basically an UNDUE issue again. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Skäpperöd, nobody in serious academic field is disputed the well establish fact that Abraomas Kulvietis, Stanislovas Rapalionis were Lithuanians; so no dispute here. Personal opinions of certain wikipedia activists is not important. M.K. (talk) 10:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes, I know you agree with your tag team buddy. The truth of the matter is that we both know damn well that at this point in time a person could be both Polish and Lithuanian and there was no contradiction in this. And it's this established fact which M.K is objecting to (indeed, his tendentious denial of this reality is pretty much what has defined his presence on Wikipedia for the past five years). So yes Kulwiec and Rafajowicz were both "Polish" (per source above) and "Lithuanian". And in fact that's what my edit (reverted by M.K with an edit summary which is hard to comprehend) tried to do.VolunteerMarek 08:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Just an observation: whenever Marek happens to be in the minority, conspiracy theories are thrown around that there must be tag-teaming going on. As the guy indeed has lots of demonstrable experience in tag-teaming, he seems to believe everyone else must be just like him ^^. Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 09:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

There doesn't have to be a conspiracy for tag teaming to take place. And come on! Herkus, M.K, Skapperod and now you? We've got a full house here. Have you guys EVER broken ranks and NOT supported each other mindlessly in these discussions? VolunteerMarek 09:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Tag teaming, anyone? Sigh. Just ignore the trolls, that's my advice. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Title of this section

"Ongoing disruption" is an offensive title and not helpful for furthering a productive discussion. I propose renaming this section, eg. "disruption"-->"issues." Skäpperöd (talk) 08:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the title gets it right. So far there has been very little productive discussion, despite my attempts to initiate such (like with the question of primary publication of Polish language New Testament and Catechism). And these edits have been disruptive as I've outlined in some detail above.VolunteerMarek 08:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Article should be moved to History of Kaliningrad

We don't have separate articles for "Posen", "Danzig", "Warschau" just because they were part of a German state once in their history. I fail the reason for creating a sub article here like this is somehow a different city from the one that was under German rule, before becoming(once again I might add) part of Russian state. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Why? Constantinople doesn't redirect to History of Istanbul. Königsberg was extremely significant historically and culturally and its existence as we know it, including its population, ended in WWII. What needs to be done is for Kaliningrad to be the modern article with most of the Kaliningrad content removed from this article in order to not be a fork. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

its existence as we know it, including its population, ended in WWII As far as I see the city, just like Poznań,Wrocław or Gdańsk still exists. Just because it is no longer named with German name doesn't mean it stopped existing. And it was Russian before anyway. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 03:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The city, its institutions, its cultural heritage, its people, were all eradicated. Then the USSR and (mainly) Russians came in and built an homage to Soviet architecture on the ruins. It was Russian before anyway? Not in this universe. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

German Nazi atrocities in Krolewiec/Kaliningrad are missing.This needs to be corrected.

Currently the article misses information about German atrocities against Polish and Jewish population of Królewiec/Kaliningrad. This needs to be corrected as soon as possible as it is a vital part of the history of Królewiec/Kaliningrad. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Vanessa Bock source

This source was added by Skapperod. The title of the source is:

Die Anfange des polnischen Buchdrucks in Konigsberg
Mit einem Verzeichnis der polnischen Drucke von Hans Weinreich und Alexander Augezdecki

translation:

The beginnings of the Polish printing in Konigsberg
A directory of Polish prints by Hans Weinreich and Alexander Augezdecki

So right there we've got evidence that Polish printing in Konigsberg in the time was a significant thing, which should put to rest all the claims of "UNDUE" that are being bandied about (including by Skapperod himself).

Additionally, the source is entirely about, well, Polish printing in Konigsberg, and the text that is being added on its basis should reflect that, rather than some out-of-context info on Hans Weinreich himself (who is of course notable and should be discussed as well).

Furthermore, this source discusses the Polish translator Jan Seklucjan in some detail [25], mentions Liboriusz Schadlika ("a Polish translator"), Stanislaw Murzynowski [26], as well as Jan Malecki [27].

These are all people whom Skapperod (and others) have been trying to remove from this article, even as they add the very source which discusses them. Obviously these folks - as well as Aleksander Augezdecky of the chapter title - warrant inclusion.VolunteerMarek 05:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Geographical names

Seerappen is now Lyublino, Kaliningrad Oblast.Xx236 (talk) 12:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

This isn't "per source" this is restoring nonsensical grammar

[28]. This is beyond ridiculous. You're making reverts just to make reverts and using false ("per source"? Per what freakin source??? No source writes in such broken and mangled English!) edit summaries to do so. You just restored a sentence which said:

After the the disintegration of the Soviet Union, then due mainly pastoral activities began to follow the polonization of the local people of Polish descent

What the fuck does that mean? Like, as in, what does "then due mainly pastoral activities began to follow" mean?

Sorry to get all bad faith on you, but I know bait when I see it - this is just mindless tag-teamed reverts trying to draw me into a 3RR violation.

Ah, Wikipedia.VolunteerMarek 09:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The bad English was already there, I just added that the "local" Poles were transferred to the city by the Soviets after WW2. The (Polish) source is probably your own [29]. Interestingly this source tells a completely different story than what the article previously claimed. The "development of the Polish element in this region" was not "effectively stopped by the Soviets", instead the Soviets forced Poles from Eastern territories to settle there and thus created a Polish element. Interesting, isn't it? 93.220.166.100 (talk) 09:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah.... except the source doesn't say what the IP is saying it says. What the source says is:

Od 1544 do 1945 roku w Królewcu funkcjonował uniwersytet, który odegrał również ważną rolę w dziejach kultury polskiej. W latach 1718-1720 wydawany był pierwszy w historii periodyk polski - gazeta "Poczta Królewiecka", a od 1828 roku działało seminarium polskie. (Trans: Between 1544 and 1945 in Konigsberg a University was operating, which played an important role in the history of Polish culture. In the years 1718-1720 here was published the first ever Polish language weekly - the newspaper "Poczta Krolewiecka" and from 1828 there was a Polish Seminary)

Does that look like "Soviets created the Polish element after the war" to you? This is (at least) the second time on this talk page that the IP has claimed that some source or sources say something which they don't. Don't encourage him/her.VolunteerMarek 08:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The source [30] was used in this paragraph:

"After the Second World War and the takeover of the administration in these areas by the Soviets, further development of the Polish element in this region was effectively stopped. The changes came with the disintegration of the Soviet Union, then due mainly pastoral activities began to follow the polonization of the local people of Polish descent. The first steps were made by a Polish priest from Grodno (Hrodna), Jerzy Stackiewicz."

I looked into the source, and found this in the article:

"Liczba osób polskiego pochodzenia mieszkających na terytorium obwodu kaliningradzkiego jest zapewne większa niż 5 tysięcy - jak podają oficjalne dane z roku 1993. Polacy to głównie przesiedleńcy z okresu zagospodarowywania obwodu w latach czterdziestych i pięćdziesiątych XX wieku z Białorusi, krajów bałtyckich, Litwy, Ukrainy i Rosji." (The number of people of Polish origin living in the Kaliningrad region is probably higher than 5000. Poles were largely resettled in the 1940s and 1950s from Belarus, the Baltic countries, Lithuania, the Ukraine and Russia.). So, the source contradicts the paragraph, that's why I changed it to:

"After the the disintegration of the Soviet Union, then due mainly pastoral activities began to follow the polonization of the local people of Polish descent, which were tranferred to Kaliningrad by the Soviets in the 1940s and 1950s from Belarus, the Baltic states, the Ukraine and Russia. The first steps were made by a Polish priest from Grodno (Hrodna), Jerzy Stackiewicz."

But since this article is about Königsberg and ends in 1945 this information should be moved to the article about Kaliningrad anyway. 93.220.155.248 (talk) 10:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree that the paragraph contradicted the source before the IP clarified it, and that this should probably go the Kaliningrad article. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

And Jerzy St. does not seem to have played such an elevated role that he needs to be discussed in the article? Skäpperöd (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

This article touches upon post WW2 developments in the Königsberg#Russian_Kaliningrad section, so there's no reason why this section cannot link up to Kaliningrad and the present as well. Unless you want to remove that section too? As for Stackiewicz, it's not up to you but to sources to decide.VolunteerMarek 14:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

If this article can link up to Kaliningrad and the present we don't need two seperate articles anymore. The Polish source clearly states that the Soviets resettled Poles from other Soviet territories to the Soviet city Kaliningrad. This has nothing to do with Königsberg anymore but belongs to Kaliningrad. 93.220.155.248 (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that, my point exactly. The only thing Königsberg and Kaliningrad share are location. Whatever Slavic or other peoples were settled into Kaliningrad has nothing with the historical role in and contributions to Königsberg. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

We need an RfC

I think it's pretty obvious at this point that we've reached an impasse and that this situation cannot be resolved without outside involvement, particularly since the editors mixed up in this dispute include all the "usual suspects" (myself included).

If someone else wants to start one, be my guest, but please keep in mind that RfCs are suppose to be neutrally worded and succinct (of course you can get all POV in your own comments). If not I'll try to write something up later today. In the mean time it would probably be a good idea if editors just left the article alone for a bit (personally I'm not even gonna revert anon IP 93.220... 's latest removal of well sourced content [31]).

VolunteerMarek 14:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The content wasn't deleted but moved to Kaliningrad, since the content in question was about Poles in Kaliningrad, and not in Königsberg.93.220.155.248 (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Per that logic, the entire Königsberg#Russian_Kaliningrad section should be "not deleted but moved" to Kaliningrad, since it is about "Russian Kaliningrad" rather than Konigsberg. Look, it's fine if articles on topic A, which is related to topic B, make some mention of topic B. Otherwise all Wikipedia articles would read ridiculous (I mean, more than usual).VolunteerMarek 15:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, the section about Kaliningrad should be mostly moved too, since it was decided that the two cities are more or less unrelated. Happenings after 1945 belong to the article about Kaliningrad. The Poles were resettled by the Soviets from Soviet territory to the Soviet city of Kaliningrad. This has absolutely nothing to do with German Königsberg. 93.220.180.76 (talk) 09:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I've protected the article for a week—whatever is going on here, it looks awful lot like an edit war. Talk it out, please, will you?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 3, 2012; 15:49 (UTC)

Thanks. Trying.VolunteerMarek 15:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks also. I agree that the content on Kaliningrad belongs in Kaliningrad, not here, otherwise we create a POV fork that Kaliningrad is somehow historically continuous with Königsberg. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Local Poles

IMO it is incorrect to split the history of Poles between two articles. The place is the same, people the same; only name different. I suggest to consolidate into (a quite sizeable) separate article, Poles in Königsberg and Kaliningrad or History of the Poles in Königsberg and Kaliningrad. In this way part of conflict (about WP:UNDUE will disappear. Or, may be better to take a bit wider, Poles in East Prussia and Kaliningrad Oblast. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

No, neither the people nor the place is the same. That's why the article was splitted. But yes, at least Poles in East Prussia and Kaliningrad Oblast would make some sense. This here is POV pushing and not much else. There never was a notable Polish minority in Königsberg, only Polish students and academics because of the university, quite strong connections to Poland because of the status as an early centre of printing and Protestantism, and some influx after the Polish partitions. This context gets completely ignored, and students, books and soldiers don't equal a minority. And there is no notable minority in Kaliningrad either. I'm still puzzled what makes them so notable that they need to get mentioned and even deserve their own section. 93.220.180.76 (talk) 09:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes the people (Poles) and the place (territory East Prussia) are the same. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Poles were notable population in Krolewiec-with some estimates of around 40% of population being Polish and as such any history of Krolewiec must include their history as well. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

'any history of Krolewiec' - it's still 'Krolewiec' for you? ;-) Any sources for 40% Polish? Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 14:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know there was no historic research that discovered Krolewiec as a name didn't exist. Further sources on Polish aspects of this city of course can be added, preferably once this article is aptly renamed History of Kaliningrad. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

To some of the comments above, there is no history of Germans, Poles, or Lithuanians in "Kaliningrad". VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean? There are whole books on the subject. For example: Wybitni Polacy w Królewcu: XVI-XX wiek Sławomir Augusiewicz, Janusz Jasiński, Tadeusz Oracki Are they falsification?.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 03:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I think he means that there isn't much of such a history after 1945.VolunteerMarek 04:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I mean history of Kaliningrad before 1945.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 06:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no "history of 'Kaliningrad'" prior to 1945. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Please provide full quote

Another question regarding what seems like another dubious phrasing. The text right now says:

was opened for foreign Protestant refuges (Undeutschen = non-Germans), especially Lithuanians and Poles

with a citation to this work [32].

The problem is that I don't see how just because the source refers to "non-Germans" they're automatically "foreign" and "refuges". Is that in the source? If so can you provide the actual basis for that claim (rather than just the fact that there were non-German speaking Poles and Lithuanians hanging around the city at the time, which we already know)?

Additionally this seems to contradict info in several other sources, including Bock (again, German source added by Skapperod), which emphasize that a good portion of the purpose of the University, of the sponsorship of printers and translators and generally speaking, the provision of the religious services and amenities was done for the "Polish subjects of Duke Albert". If they were his "subjects" (Untertanen = subjects, I believe), then they weren't "foreign refuges". Of course there WERE "foreign" refuges (though moving from Poland proper to one of its fiefs ... not sure how "foreign" that makes you. If I move to Puerto Rico, am I a "foreigner" there?) in Ducal Prussia, but the question is whether the provision of these religious services and amenities was done for them exclusively, or for Polish Prussians in general.

Bock also states that part of the purpose of the establishment of the University was to provide "Polish rural populations" (of the Duchy), as well as Lithuanians, with Polish speaking priests and bibles:

"Mit der Grundung der Universitat im Jahre 1544 wurde deshalb auch das Ziel verfolgt, die Versorgung v.a. der landlichen Bevolkerung mit polnischen - aber ebenso litauischen - Pfarren zu verbessern: (Bock) (quote about Albert arranging scholarship for Polish speaking students to get them to come follows).

So while, sure, some Poles arrived in Konigsberg at this time - particularly Lutheran priests - there already was a Polish population there. In fact, that's why the Polish priest came to the Duchy in the first place.VolunteerMarek 16:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

You just provided an incredible insightful proof how little you know about the topic. "Ungerman" in this context means "not speaking the German language". One of the major concerns of the Protestant movement was to make the words of god accessible to the common people, that's why sermons were held in the language of the people, and not in Latin. The language of the people in Königsberg was German, that's why the churches were considered German. If there was no Polish church before it means that the number of Poles in the city was to low for a Polish parish. That a Polish minority existed in Eastern Prussia is of no interest here, since they obviously didn't live in Königsberg but mostly in the southern parts of the duchy. When the number of non-German Protestants in Königsberg went up this new parish received a church. That the new parish wasn't Lithuanian or Polish but combined all non-Germans (= not speaking the German language) means that the number of Poles or Lithuanians wasn't big enough for a Lithaunian or Polish parish. The Protestant refuges in question arrived around 1530, which was before the Polish edict of toleration of 1573, and maybe there also was an influx from Poles from Austria too, after 1575. 93.220.156.64 (talk) 07:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's a nice piece of original research, unfortunately it contradicts the source. And at any rate, what you are doing is taking Skapperod's interpretation of the source at face value, rather than the source itself. The source speaks of providing religious services to the Duke's "Polish subjects", of the high demand for Polish language religious texts and to provision of these services to the Duchy's Polish and Lithuanian populations.

Anyway, that's sort of neither here nor there. The basic question was - where in the source does it say that the Polish and Lithuanians in the Duchy were exclusively "foreign refugees"? It's a simple question. VolunteerMarek 08:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Skapperod, instead of filing baseless WP:AE requests, can you please provide a response here? VolunteerMarek 00:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

In light of a lack of response soon, I will remove what looks like original research not supported by the source.VolunteerMarek 23:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Number of Poles in the city. Again: why notable?

User VolunteerMarek complained here about the use of a website ([33]) as a source, which lists districts with minorities of more than 5%. Since Königsberg isn't mentioned there he argues that the source can't be used. So, here are the numbers for 1905:

Königsberg: 223.770

Jews: 4415

Protestant Poles: 202

Catholic Poles: 223

All Poles: 425 (0,18%)

(Source: Gemeindelexikon für das Königreich Preußen/Provinz Ostpreußen, Berlin, 1907, Verlag des Königlichen Statistischen Landesamtes, page 118, 119)

In the article about Kaliningrad we also learn that 0,5% of all inhabitants are Poles today. Could someone please enlighten me why a minority of less than 1 percent is notable for the history of the city? And how an article can be written that doesn't suffer from undue weight if less than 1 percent get mentioned like we see it now? 93.220.156.64 (talk) 08:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

To answer your general question - even if this data is solid it's just for 1905. This doesn't say anything about Poles in the 1500's, 1600's, and 1700's - after which there was a lot of Germanization.

The section is warranted because:

We have whole sources devoted to it [34], [35]

Even German language sources like Bock [36] deal with the subject.

Poles (and yes, Lithuanians) played a major role in the academic, religious and cultural life of the city, in particular the University of Konigsberg, of which quite a number of rectors were Poles.

Konigsberg, for historical reason, was a center of Polish language printing, publication and media. First translation of the Lutheran Catechism published here. First translation of the New Testament. First magazine etc.

That should be enough for now, but of course there's more.VolunteerMarek 08:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

VM is correct. Königsberg was a center of Polish Protestantism. Not to mention being the capital of Ducal Prussia for nearly a century. Read some history, folks. (And to our anon IP, that is one of the reasons, again, why "Königsberg" needs to be its own article, named as such, separate from Kaliningrad, to eliminate confusing the two. Except for inhabiting the same geographic location they don't have anything to do with each other.) VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

And you think the place of the only Protestant university in this part of the world, with one of the few printing presses available back then, wasn't equally important for the German, (Old-)Prussian, Masurian and Lithuanian Protestantism? The world doesn't center around Poland. And some scholars, students and books still don't equal a minority, what a section "Poles in Königsberg" suggests. 93.220.168.6 (talk) 06:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The answer is simply to expand content where it is missing. Nothing good comes of denouncing content as "undue" simply because someone spent time and care on it—when that content is completely appropriate to the intended context. I suggest involving others interested in Königsberg's past to further expand content which falls short regarding other groups active in Königsberg in its role as a cross-cultural intellectual center. If someone objects to the contribution of Poles in that regard, I suggest you beef up the rest of the content and integrate the content which has been added. I'm tired of people suggesting that deleting something is a positive contribution and I'm tired of people suggesting there's some Polish aggrandizement society undermining Wikipedia. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Keeping the expanded "Polish" content separate for now simply makes it easier to maintain, I don't see that separation as anything else. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I second this. If you have sources which talk about the importance of Konigsberg to Old Prussians and Masurians (the stuff on Lithuanians can be combined with the stuff on the Poles - and I already proposed changing the name of the section to "Poles and Lithuanians in Konigsberg") then please add them and I'll try to help with that myself.VolunteerMarek 19:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

http://www.lituanus.org/1996/96_3_03.htm - The Lithuanian language seminar at Königsberg University was also important in maintaining the Lithuanian language. ... Gaigalaitis was a student of Lithuanian letters, a Ph. D. from Königsberg University

http://www.spaudos.lt/LietKalba/Books.en.htm Xx236 (talk) 06:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it might tone down the controversy if we rename the section "Poles and Lithuanians in Konigsberg" (as I already suggested) and expand the info pertaining to Lithuanian translators, publishers and academics, as well as their works.VolunteerMarek 08:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that the section (and subsection) is characterized as being about people when the actual focus is Königsberg's centuries-long role as a center of intellect. I would retitle the entire section and then look to organize chronologically and not by ethnicity or religion. I think it would also be worthwhile to create an "intellectual timeline" of significant events. Unfortunately my plates are all full at the moment, the best I can do at the moment is offer suggestions for improving article organization and focus.VєсrumЬа ►TALK 13:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I think to some extent that kind of organization would work better at University of Konigsberg, which was the center of this intellectual center. It might work here as well but it would require some constructive input and work from others to be viable. Right now the section is mostly about Poles, with a couple Lithuanians, or Polish-Lithuanians, mentioned.VolunteerMarek 19:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Poles in Königsberg... why?

I would like to know why a section about Poles is needed in this article. Was this minority big enough, and relevant enough, to get mentioned? I notice that the section avoids to tell numbers, like how many Poles actually lived in the city. Is a minority of less than 5% (but probably less than 1%) notable? What about undue weight? 93.220.155.212 (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Strikes me as example of undue weight compared to overall article, as well.M.K. (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Because sources cover it.VolunteerMarek 16:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, currently the number of sources is rather limited and many highly dubious claims are completely unsourced. No reason, off course, not to shout "battleground" whenever someone asks for sources. HerkusMonte (talk) 05:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

What are the dubious claims? There are as many if not more sources in this section than any other. Why not remove the "Weimar Republic" section since that's completely unsourced? VolunteerMarek 05:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the sources cover it, but you twist them to add your own POV to the article. Not a single one of your _sourced_ facts necessitates this section. Polish students (and teachers) are also documented at the universities of Prague, Bologna or Leipzig, and as the only (Protestant) university in this part of Europe the university of Königsberg was of course visited by students from all surrounding countries, including (Protestant) Poles, whose only other nearby universities were (the Catholic university of) Kraków and Frankfurt/Oder, which were very far away for many of them. But these students don't represent a minority. The fact that books in Polish were printed in Königsberg is explainable by the fact that the only other printing press in this region was in Gdanzig, thus everyone, especially of Protestant faith, had to go to one of the two cities. That's why the first book in Lithuanian was pubished in Königsberg too. Polish books printed in Königsberg don't represent a Polish minority either. The students at the university and the books simply illustrate the fact that Königsberg, and especially the university, became an important center of Protestantism during the 16th century which influenced neighbouring countries. THIS should be in the article.

Then there is the strange, unsourced claim that "In the first half of nineteenth century, the Polish language was equivalent to the German language in the city." This doesn't support a Polish minority in the city either. It could also mean that, after the Polish partitions, Prussia took measures that all Prussian citizens could communicate in their native language at administrative offices in every part of the country. I know numbers from the official census of 1900, and a Polish minority isn't documented in Königsberg. There are Polish minorities in other parts of Eastern Prussia, like Rössel, Lyck or Johannisburg, or even in Bochum, Dortmund or Gelsenkirchen, but not in Königsberg. 93.220.172.210 (talk) 06:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the sources cover it, but you twist them to add your own POV to the article. Not a single one of your _sourced_ facts necessitates this section. - I take it you actually bothered to read the sources and are not just making stuff up? And what's with the concurrent tag teaming? VolunteerMarek 06:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Königsberg, and especially the University of K., was a center of the Lutheranism. The translation of the Bible was Luther's main purpose. That's why we know anything about the Old Prussian language, that's why the first Lithuanian books were published in K'berg and that's why Lutheran books were translated into Polish. To stress only the Polish aspect of the Lutheran missionary activities is obviously POV pushing and WP:UNDUE. HerkusMonte (talk) 06:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course it was. But I'm not sure what your point is? Unless you're going by some stereotype of Pole=Catholic (usually associated with the Polish far right, ironically enough). During this time, the beginnings of the reformation, Poles were converting to Lutheranism just like Germans and this was an important Polish cultural center. See the source provided by Skapperod, it goes to some length about the subject. And btw, it is completely false that the article "stress(es) only the Polish aspect of the Lutheran missionary activities". In fact you got it backwards. The rest of the article for some strange reason takes great pains to not mention the obvious links to Poland and tries so hard to write around the Polish connections that it sounds sophmoric. This is the section on Poles in Konigsberg so of course it will talk about Polish Lutheranism.VolunteerMarek 06:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• I suggest removing this section completely, incorporating portions of relevant info to existing parts as this section becoming more and more POV issue, like including founding Lithuanians as Poes. And this section is simply too large compered to overall article. M.K. (talk) 06:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, to condense history only under the aspect of nationality is problematic. A specific section "Germans in Cracow/Warsaw/Lodz" emphasizing German students, professors or whatever just because they were German would hardly survive a minute. HerkusMonte (talk) 06:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

And finally this section should be about POLES not about others, like Lithuanians presented as Poles. This is not an encyclopedic approach. M.K. (talk) 06:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

"Germans in Cracow" might work. I'd be willing to help with that. This is the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, and even then, it's not made particularly convincing. VolunteerMarek 06:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Konigsberg played a prominent role in the culture of Poland and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, as is noted here>>> [[37]]. The second Polish language newspaper ever printed was located in Konigsberg upon its founding in 1718, the Poczta Krolewiecka and that should be noted in this article. Perhaps it would be prudent to cite this source and to incorporate some of the following information here also.--Orestek (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. There is too much undue weight here and the way the section is written is obviously POV in favour of Poles. 118.100.73.20 (talk) 10:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's see...10x as many Jews as Poles in the city, but there is an entire section about the minuscule Polish minority and nothing about the much larger Jewish community. Something is not right. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident.Udibi (talk) 08:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Your claim above is completely unreferenced. And of course it is meaningless without stating exactly WHEN it refers to. I guess it's possible that in 1910, after a century of Germanization, there were 10x as many Jews as Poles in the city (though see source below). But in 1630, that's just impossible as that would imply there were 70,000+ Jews in Konigsberg which would be more than twice its population at the time. Of course the Jewish history of the city SHOULD be covered in the article. You (and others here) are welcome to do so. Here's a source to get you started: [38] (But watch out, this source might be a far right nationalist Jewish source advocating the incorporation of Konigsberg into Israel or something, since, you know, it dares to write about Jewish inhabitants of the city).VolunteerMarek 16:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Seklucjan portion of the text

The article is due to be unprotected, roughly, tomorrow. Let's at least get this piece of controversy resolved:

The current version of the article states

In 1545 in Königsberg a Polish catechism was printed by Jan Seklucjan. In 1551 the first translation of the New Testament in Polish language came out, issued by Stanisław Murzynowski. Murzynowski's collections of sermons were delivered by Eustace Trepka and in 1574 by Hieronim Malecki. The works of Mikolaj Rej were printed here by Seklucjan. Marcin Stryjkowski announced in Krolewiec the publication of his Kronika Polska, Litewska, Żmudzka, i wszystkiej Rusi ("A Chronicle of Poland, Lithuania, Samogitia and all Rus").

Taking it one piece at a time: The relevant current text of the article states: “ In 1545 in Königsberg a Polish catechism was printed by Jan Seklucjan”

The source states: “In 1545 Seklucjan published a “Simple Text of the Catechism for the Simple People” [39]

The relevant current text of the article states: “ In 1551 the first translation of the New Testament in Polish language came out, issued by Stanisław Murzynowski.”"

The source states: “(Seklucjan) used a very modest but talented humanist Stanisalw Murzynowski from Krolewiec as translator, and in 1551 published first the Gospel of Matthew, some months later all four Gospels, in 1552 other New Testament books, and finally in 1553 the whole New Testament in one volume”" [40]

The relevant current text of the article states: “Murzynowski's collections of sermons were delivered by Eustace Trepka and in 1574 by Hieronim Malecki. The works of Mikolaj Rej were printed here by Seklucjan”

The source states: "Source:”Seklucjan also published the works of Mikolaj Rej, the father of Polish literature”[41]

The relevant current text of the article states: “ Marcin Stryjkowski announced in Krolewiec the publication of his Kronika Polska, Litewska, Żmudzka, i wszystkiej Rusi ("A Chronicle of Poland, Lithuania, Samogitia and all Rus")”

The source states: "Source: In 1582, Stryjkowski published his chronicle at Konigsberg (Krolewiec)" [42]

That basically leaves the part about Trepka unsourced. At this point, in the interest of compromise, I'm willing to leave Trepka out because I cannot find anything detailed enough about him. However, I just want it noted that he was active in Konigsberg at this time and did cooperate with Seklucjan so there was really nothing wrong with including him [43], [44] [45]. If someone can find a more detailed source on the guy, then we can add that text back in. VolunteerMarek 08:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

With regard to Malecki - there are actually two of them, Jan and Hieronim. Jan is worthy of mentioning in his own right as he competed with Seklucjan to be the "authorized" translator into Polish of the gospels. Hieronim was his son, also a theologian, translator and publisher. At this point I'm willing to leave him out as well, pending further research.VolunteerMarek 08:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

http://www.spxvi.edu.pl/spxvi/korpus.php?menu=4&id=135 Eustachy Trepka Xx236 (talk) 10:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

pl:Jan Malecki, de:Johannes MaletiusXx236 (talk) 10:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

For the first one, it'd be nice to have source which links him to Seklucjan.VolunteerMarek 01:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, in light of lack of response by others I will change and source the text accordingly.VolunteerMarek 23:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

While that does address the sourcing concerns, it does not address the UNDUE concerns raised in the sections above. There is obviously a need to re-think the "Poles"-approach, away from the ethnic viewpoint of a list of Poles who at some point studied or published in Königsberg. Vecrumba's comments are imho a good start. Thus, this is not ripe for inclusion yet. Skäpperöd (talk) 04:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It is included, just the wording and sources need to be fixed. The current organization of the article, like it or not, includes a "Poles in Konigsberg section", so within that framework the inclusion of the info - particularly of someone as important as Seklucjan - makes perfect sense.

As to the whole WP:UNDUE issue - which does look more like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT issue at this point - I already suggested an RfC on the matter.VolunteerMarek 04:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)