Talk:Legnica

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

B-class review failed[edit]

This article does not meet B-class criteria, due to missing key sections (ex. economy) and insufficient inline referencing (there are entire sections unreferenced). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Piano factory[edit]

There seems to be a piano facotry in Legnica too, or at least there has been. I had a Legnica piano. -- Tarquin 10:53 Aug 23, 2002 (PDT)

Moved from Polish board[edit]

Shortly before his another forced departure Molobo grossly altered the neutrality of Legnica article.[1] That was later followed by Space Cadet's removal of a POV tag Ghirla attempted to use to alert the readers. Since I can't read the source Molobo cites, could other Polish editors look into the matter? The main part of the issue is how to strike a balance in not focusing on too narrow a detail in broad topic articles. If such balance is abandoned, any article can be thrown off-balance in any direction since some episodes favored by bearers of any POV have occured all the time in the world's history. How valid this info is and how much of it is appropriate for the article, is the question to readers that both can read the source and have an idea from experience of what amount of detail is appropriate. --Irpen 02:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This situation is similar to Molobo's additions to the Warmia article a few weeks back. I thought there was sufficient information to warrant the Nazi crimes in Warmia article (feel free to rename if anyone has a better title for it), but I'm not sure if there is sufficient information yet for a "Soviet crimes in Legnica" article. I also agree with the importance of differentiating breadth articles from depth articles, and striking a balance when not enough information is available for a depth article. Olessi 02:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And also similar to Ghirlandajo's and Irpen's POV campaign elsewhere. With the difference that Molobo's edits seemed much better referenced. Or am I wrong? //Halibutt 02:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting to note that Talk:Legnica is practically empty (it has one edit, from 2002). Apparently none of the participants in the revert war thought it worthwhile to present any arguments. Incidentally, adding POV tags without any explanation about what is the POV problem in the article is just bad practice. The tag points users to discussion on the talk page, and there is nothing there. This is definitely an incorrect use of that particular tag. Balcer 02:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Halibutt, thanks for your constructive response. Balcer, when tag was added it was explained in summary. Not as good as a talk page discussion, but this was not a tag without explanation. Now back to the issue. Could you or others look at the matter and the source and make sure the article is balanced by both the tone and the amount of the detail which is appropriate? Halibutt already expressed his take on that. That any amount of detail, if referenced, is appropriate to add to any article. May I ask Halibutt whether he would agree to copying of the info of Polish troops behavior in Kiev to the Kiev and History of Kiev article? I added this well referenced info only to Kiev Offensive together with with the Rydz' parade of "Victors-Liberators" but perhaps, I should have added everything in a similar detail to those articles as well. As well as to the History of the Polish Army. I will give it a thought but in the meanwhile, someone please look at Legnica. --Irpen 03:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving the discussion here. Molobo's edit was a direct translation of the relevant passage in the IPN report about the activities of the Soviet Army in Lower Silesia and their impact on the Polish population. The largest Soviet army bases were in Lower Silesia, and Legnica served as the headquarters of these forces. As such, the town was to a large extent under Soviet jurisdiction. That part of its history has to be mentioned.

On the other hand, the incident with the Soviet troops kicking out Polish inhabitants, who anyway could have been living in the city for only a few months, does not seem to be that significant. The rather lengthy history of the city in Polish Wikipedia made no mention of it, until Molobo himself added the information a few days ago. Plus, even the IPN report admits that the severity of the Soviet actions was greatly exaggerated by rumors. The report makes no mention of anyone killed or wounded by the Soviet army during these actions. On the whole then, the incident does not seem to me a very significant one, but it should not be omitted altogether. I will try to tone things down and remove the offending passages. Balcer 03:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Balcer. As to what Irpen wrote, I believe the talk page of an article on Legnica is not the best place to ask about Kiev, is it. But for a brief response - I wouldn't oppose it if it wasn't a complete invention of the post-war Soviet propaganda, not supported by any modern source. But of course, feel free to use some Great Soviet Encyclopaedia or Russia Under the Sceptre of Romanovs and then withdraw from discussion as soon as someone finds evidence to the contrary. //Halibutt 15:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poles founded city?[edit]

Based on the fact that the entire area was at one point settled by East Germanic tribes (the Vandals and the Goths) well before the Lechs arrived, what evidence is there that Liegnitz (I can't pronounce the Polish spellings of cities, so I use the Anglo-Germanic forms) was actually founded by Poles, and not by East Germans? Ameise -- chat

I mean, it could have easily originated with the German verb Legen (Proto-Germanic: Legjan, English: to lay) as well, and that is even a closer fit, as all the beginning constonants then match with both the Polish and Anglo-German forms. Ameise -- chat 18:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any sources on the actual foundation of the city; the German Wikipedia states that it was first documented in 1004, by which time the area was populated by Slavs. Olessi 23:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, just because it is the first time documented does not mean that that was when it was ofunded... my point is that nomenclaturally it seems to match the Germanic form more than the Polish form... it is entirely possible that Vandals/Goths founded the city, and during the migration period the area was settled by West Slavs? Ameise -- chat 12:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're forgetting that Germanics and Slavonics were once one "nation" with one language. In Polish language the word core leg- (archaic lig-) also means "lie down". So there. Space Cadet 14:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Nonsense"[edit]

  • Tacitus was NOT an ethnographer, his sources were only second hand at best and there are reasons to believe that he used older material in his work - so reliability of many things he wrote in questionable.
  • The link for "Lugidunum" doesn't state that it was in fact the same city (or even the same location) as Legnica, so it is worthless.
  • Slavonic people settled in the area all the way to Laba (later Elbe) river in the 6th century the latest, so the claim that they "conquered" this land in 1000 AD is ridiculous. Now, if you consider Wends to have had been Slavonic, then Slavs were present in the territory of so called "Magna Germania" even during Tacitus' time.
  • Majority of ethnographers and archaeologists point to the regions of today's western Ukraine as the "craddle" of Slavonic peoples and Ukraine is hardly in Asia, so the "Asian" statement does not make any sense.
  • I'll leave the "Silesian" Piast alone, although I'm aware of the motives behind consistently inserting it into the text. Therefore I'll insert "Silesian" before "branch". Space Cadet 14:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see your points, though I'd still like to see more evidence on the subject; I unfortunately have very few sources readily available to me on the early Medieval and Ancient histories of Liegnitz/Legnica and Silesia in general. Antman -- chat 01:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Legniczanin removed Lugidunum, stating that it refers to Głogów. Is there a source for this? Olessi 15:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC) [2] --Legniczanin 20:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tacitus[edit]

I believe that Tacitus' work deserves a mention on the page, but perhaps not in the beginning. Antman -- chat 23:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B-class review failed[edit]

This article does not meet B-class criteria, due to most sections being stub-sections with next to no content and insufficient inline referencing (there are entire sections unreferenced). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Public transport[edit]

Is the railway station still open? The article seems to suggest that it closed in 2003. Biscuittin (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is still open. There is an article [3] in Polish Wikipedia. Can somebody translate it please? Biscuittin (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Legnica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Legnica&oldid=1203541318"