Talk:Festung Warschau

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Poland (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Google books: 2 using Fortress Warsaw, 1 using Festung Warschau. Google Scholar for Festung Warschau gives 2 hits, both Polish, and 1 for Fortress Warsaw. Finally, Google gives 702 for Festung Warschau and 242 for Fortress Warsaw. Considering the sporadic use of this term in publications, what do you think if moving this to Fortress Warsaw, in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Untitled[edit]

Well, I wouldn't support such a move. The problem is that Festung Warschau is unambiguous, as it clearly refers to a certain phenomenon. At the same time "Fortress Warsaw" might mean both Festung Warschau, Warsaw Citadel, Warsaw fortified area of 1915-1918, and perhaps some more. How about making the Fortress Warsaw a disambiguation page? Halibutt 13:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Compare it to Festung Breslau-its a historic term, that needs no translation, since it is linked directly with policy of Nazi Germany and historic events.So it isn't just two words with meaning but its own distinc term. --Molobo 13:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright I am getting fed up with this stupid act put on by Halibutt and others. I ask for citations to confirm claims of atrocities, and they give me a novel in Polish, which I have no way of reading or getting a copy of. For all I know they could be referencing me to a recipe book on how to make the finest Polish cuisine. Or an article that has no authority on the matter, but I have no way of confirming it. This is childish, its like when your playing tag someone says "no, you cant tag me, I have forcefield". Please this is the English Wikipedia, for english speakers, if you can provide an official translation of the book then please do, so we can confirm your accusations. --Jadger 17:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Jadger, your attitude is your problem. I can confirm for you that the given reference is neither a novel nor a recipe book. Learn to use your library and try to trust and respect other wikipedians. --Lysytalk 18:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

My point is this, the English wikipedia is to further information known by english speakers, now how is an article supposed to enhance our knowledge when it's written in what looks like gibberish to us? I try to trust other Wikipedians, but Molobo's and Halibutt's reputations speak for themselves, I trusted them at first, but have grown wiser. Unfortunately, English Libraries don't carry books in Polish, as any book of importance in Polish or any other language is already translated and in the library in English. My point is finally this, a very limited percentage of the earth's population speaks Polish, and we are providing books in this language on the most widespread language's articles. Even fewer of the educated English speakers speak Polish, and so how can it be independently verified?, or can you atleast provide reviews for this book from reputable sources (in english) --Jadger 18:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I know it is often difficult, but still do try to assume good faith, I'm reminding of this myself, repeatedly, too. Assuming good faith is not important because everyone acts in good faith indeed, but because this assumption is good for collaboration and helps avoiding unnecessary conflicts, where we all come from different backgrounds and often sincerely believe different things be've been taught at schools. (I'm not trying to preach you, just explain my opinion)
Secondly, as to foreign language references, I strongly believe that one of the beauties of WP is that it can benefit from all the international editors and all the different sources that they have access to, that are often not available to individual researchers, if only for the language reasons. English language wikipedia is an international project, it is written in English, but it can use international research and it's very good, IMHO. Of course if there are English translations, they should be referenced with priority, for the convenience of the reader. You are right, that there remains the issue of verifiability, but it is also an issue for many English language sources that may be not available online, or not available in many countries. Then again, it's a matter of trust - you can ask someone who you trust more to verify it for you, so we come to WP:AFG again. I have seen bogus references in English, but this does not mean that all the references in English are bogus, does it ? --Lysytalk 18:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course it does not mean that all English references are bogus. I am assuming you mean on the English Wikipedia still, not English references on other Wikis. This is different however as the reader can read the reference as it is still in English and can see for him/herself whether it is biased or an authoritative force. Whereas in this case they cannot read it, and must assume as it is on Wikipedia that it is authoritive, when in fact it may not.

Don't get me wrong, you have thoroughly convinced me of your points, but not every reader of the Wikipedia has a Polish compadre to tell him its a good book.

Perhaps the problem here can be solved by a direct quotation (translated of course) from the book on the cutting out of tongues, that way everyone knows it is actually in the book, as another Pole viewing this would not want Poland to look bad by having the Polish version of David Irving being cited throughout Wikipedia. --Jadger 22:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

World War I Fortifications[edit]

The Germans also built a defensive system around Warsaw during the First World War, after they captured the city in 1915. It was called Brückenkopf Warschau (Przedmoście Warszawy) and was located mostly on the east bank of the Vistula. It was of course never used during World War I, but some of its bunkers were incorporated into the defensive system built during the Second World War. Here is a link describing this: [1]. Anyway, do these fortifications fall within the scope of this article? Balcer 11:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Other constellations[edit]

"which happened under various constellations in the course of history, with and without involvement of German-speaking troops." - what other constellations are we talking about here? Sounds like OR and not in the body of the article. Hence shouldn't be in the lede. Volunteer Marek  10:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)