Talk:Malbork Castle

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

Name changed[edit]

I moved the name to internationally reckognised name. The previous version was simply German word for Castle of the Order followed by German version of the city's name. The internationally reckognised name in English is Malbork Castle. --Molobo 16:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The correct English name for this historical castle is still "Marienburg". This is because it has been this name in English since the 1300's. To try and claim otherwise now is trying to change historical fact plus it is also an insult to the Christian named heritage of this castle. Do you wish to insult our faith and religion because of your obvious politics regarding the changing of the borders as forced by the Potsdam Treaty between the Allies of WW2. It is only correct the chosen name of its founders and builders be shown at all times. If not you are in denial of history and this is most shameful according to the Christian faith as I am sure you are aware of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.139.240 (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
English language sources also use Malbork castle - see Britannica - check. The talk of the correct English name is untrue - English language sources use both, both are equally valid and picking either is not disrespectful to anyone. Please take care not to break links in your edits as you did earlier - I have explained at your talk page here. Knepflerle (talk) 09:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to "Marienburg Castle in Malbork" which combines history and present situation. -- Matthead  Discuß   13:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the move: the new name is practically unused elsewhere - see Google - and is overspecific. Compare that to the simpler unambiguous Malbork Castle, used in publications such as Britannica for example. We pick names based on simplicity and usage, not to try and include every historical perspective simultaneously. Feel free to propose at WP:RM if you would like a wider discussion though. Knepflerle (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Britannica only has as short article on the town of Malbork Poland German Marienburg, and just speaks of "the fortress" there, plus of the "vast red-brick castle of Malbork (Marienburg)" in an article on arts. The "article" http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/359863/Malbork-castle is none, it just lists search results within EB, as does http://www.britannica.com/bps/fulltext?query=Marienburg. Hardly helpful what EB has to offer there. So, what is the most frequently used name on Google Book and Scholar?

Some examples for recent use in reliable sources, each author being an expert on the field:

Those books tell about the history of the castle (first one about an event from 1902, second one about the whole history of the Teutonic Order, third one about an event from 1309). In those days the castle was known under its German name so that name was used in the books. We are discussing here about what schould be the name of an article about a still existing castle in the 21th century. 77.253.66.1 (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • or, on architecture: Peter Harrison Castles of God [4]

In the last book we have Castle of Malbork (Marienburg)

While the post-1945 location is correctly described as Malbork, Poland, the castle itself is mostly described as "the Marienburg", or "the castle at Malbork" (as the UNESCO did). I doubt any respectable author insists that the castle itself is called Malbork, or had been called so in the past, except by Poles. And Google's OCR engine can't be blamed for ignoring diacritics here.

Knepflerle, you are using a name that suggests a South West German (or Alsatian, Swiss) background, how come the opinions you voice almost always seem to oppose anything remotely "Szwab"? -- Matthead  Discuß   16:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, feel free to RM it. These names you look at above have English usage backing them up, unlike the one the article was moved to earlier. The more discussion and evidence the better. I responded to the second part at your talk, as it's not directly relevant here. Knepflerle (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Marienburg castle" is commonly used within the english speaking world, as well as by english speaking academics.
"search results" for printed sources within scholarly literature (printed articles, theses, books and abstracts from academic publishers, professional societies, online repositories and universities) at "google scholar":
  1. "Marienburg Castle" ~1050 results [5]
  1. "Malbork Castle" ~350 results [6]

--IIIraute (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of the castle[edit]

The following comment was copied from Malbork as that article focuses on the city, to be merged here. --Matthead 02:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marienburg coat of arms

The town was built around the fortress Ordensburg Marienburg, founded in 1274 on the right bank of the river Nogat by the Teutonic Knights. Both the castle and the town of Marienburg were named for their patron saint, the Virgin Mary.

This fortified castle became the seat of the Teutonic Order and Europe's largest Gothic fortress. The river and flat terrain allowed easy access for barges a hundred kilometers from the sea. During Prussia's government by the Teutonic Knights, they collected tolls on river traffic and imposed a monopoly of the amber trade. The city later became a member of the Hanseatic League, and many Hanse meetings were held there. The castle successfully withstood a siege after the Battle of Grunwald under the guidance of Heinrich von Plauen the Elder. However, it was sold during the Thirteen Years' War in 1457 to Casimir IV, the king of Poland, by the Bohemian king's imperial soldiers in lieu of their pay. The city of Malbork under mayor Bartholomäus Blume resisted the Poles for three further years, until he was hanged. Since then, Malbork became one of the Polish royal residences until the partitions of Poland in 1772. In 1945 the castle was severely damaged as a result of fighting during World War II, but was reconstructed thereafter.

Ordensburg Marienburg is a classic example of a medieval fortress; it is the world’s largest brick castle and one of the most impressive of its kind in Europe. The castle and its museum are listed as UNESCO's World Heritage Sites. It is sometimes referred to as 'the largest heap of bricks north of the Alps'. Under continuous construction for nearly 230 years, Malbork is actually three castles nested in one another. The High, Middle and Low Castles are separated by additional dry moats and towers. It housed some 3,000 "brothers in arms". The Low Castle walls enclose 52 acres (210,000 m²), four times the area of Windsor Castle.

Ordensburg Marienburg, the Teutonic Knights' castle at Malbork (Marienburg)


Big problem[edit]

Looks liek the entire text fo the History section is copied verbatim from the castle website http://www.zamek.malbork.pl/en/historia/indexh.php (and follow links to expand each section). There's no indication that this text is any other than copyright, so I'm going to remove it from the article until someone can precis/paraphrase it. David Underdown 12:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done (by Charlie D - 21:56 28 March 2007)

World's largest[edit]

I don't see any source for this statement, although tour guides repeat it continously. UNESCO doesn't say that, and I don't understand why if it's true. Castello Sforzesco is listed in List of Brick Renaissance buildings and used to have 1000-3000 warriors in 16th century and 4000 under Napoleon (while the article say 3000 at Malbork) and covered an area of almost 27 hectares (compared to 21 for Malnork, according to the article). --Nemo 12:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting comment especially considering that the Castello Sforzesco article is almost completely (99%) without citations.  Dr. Loosmark  12:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please, this is not a competition (and anyway that numbers are sourced). Thanks to a comment in Talk:Malbork I discovered that Malbork used to call it "the largest heap of bricks north of the Alps". The website you cited is an amateur site and doesn't explain that statement, so I don't think it's enough. --Nemo 12:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this is not a competition then whatever for did you bring up the Castello Sforzesco, the article of which lacks sources almost completely? Anyway another source: Frommer's Eastern Europe, see here: [7]  Dr. Loosmark  12:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is just another tourist guide, and doesn't explain anything... I mentioned Castello Sforzesco because I verified that specific statement and I don't like to challenge unsourced statements just for the sake of it. Anyway, this statement was added to the lead section in June 2006 and below in March 2007 (by an IP). --Nemo 13:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that Castello Sforzesco is a square 180×180 m (200 m if you consider towers), while Malbork castle main buildings are about 100×200 m (rough estimate looking at Google maps), so looks like this statement can't relate to still existent buildings only, neither. Maybe Castello Sforzesco isn't considered a gothic castle by by someone? Or is some other criterion used (volume, floor space?)? --Nemo 22:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all estimating the area by looking at Google maps is original research and it is against WP:NOR. Secondly I don't understand what exactly are you complaining about, seems that you are a fanboy of this Castello Sforzesco, unfortunately Malbork Castle is bigger, watching Google maps that much is clear. Sforzesco doesn't look more than 70 x 180m on google map to me, unless you are counting that huge empty area as "castle".  Dr. Loosmark  23:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I don't mind if Castello Sforzesco is bigger or not, I didn't even mention this possibility in its article: but such a claim as "the biggest castle" requires a very good source, and actually we don't have any. I've mentioned Castello Sforzesco to show that this statement may be false, because as I said I don't like to challenge unsourced statement if I don't have any reason to think that they might be incorrect; I've added here some more details like the estimated area to try to understand what the "world's largest" claim is referring to (area, volume, floor space, what else?) but in the article I've added only sourced statements (e.g. on the total area), so there's no original research: the problem is not alleged original research, but that the lack of sources and explanations of this "world's largest" claim forces us to guess what it's referring to. --Nemo 08:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English Name[edit]

It is maybe not the most scientific kind of research, but check out the following results on google.com (books): Malbork castle ~12,300; Marienburg ~818,000 results...... so almost 77 times more hits on Marienburg within the english language that were published!--IIIraute (talk) 05:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is how we do it[edit]

  1. "Malbork Castle" -wikipedia. About 306,000 results [8]
  1. "Marienburg Castle" -wikipedia. About 106,000 results [9]

— A. Kupicki (talk) 08:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is how Google Search works :
Minus sign "-wikipedia" means that Wikipedia has been excluded from the search results. There are NO Wikipedia hits in the above numbers. Also, personal attacks and nationalistic POV pushing are both actionable per our policy guidelines. — A. Kupicki (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...lots of rubbish. How can one use the search results that have been created by the wikipedia itself? what a nonsense. You should be searching for printed sources within the english speaking world; that's how the castle is known to readers.... not your biased wikipedia search.
The UNESCO World Heritage Convention is speaking of the castle as the "Castle of the Teutonic Order in Malbork". By this Teutonic Order it has been named "Marienburg", so what's your issue? Marienburg castle is commonly used within the english speaking world, as well as by english speaking academics.
"search results" for printed sources within scholarly literature (printed articles, theses, books and abstracts from academic publishers, professional societies, online repositories and universities) at "google scholar":
  1. "Marienburg Castle" ~1050 results [10]
  1. "Malbork Castle" ~350 results [11]

--IIIraute (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "google scholar" result speaks for itself; wikipedia articles should be based on references better than putting a name into a search engine that include every unfiltered nonsense ever written. There are about 1050 published, academic sources to "Marienburg Castle" that could be used as references, whereas there are only about 350 for "Marbork Castle". Who cares about all that other rubbish appearing in a standard search. I do not understand your problem with the term "Marienburg Castle"? The castle was founded in the 13th century and developed in the 14th century by the German communities of military monks, the Teutonic Order. It was named "Marienburg". The town "Marienburg", today Malbork, was built in Prussia around the fortress Marienburg and named after the castle. Today the castle is often named Malbork, because being in town Malbork - a town that was originally named Marienburg after the castle "Marienburg".

--IIIraute (talk) 19:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Google scholar results look very different when Malbork castle as a phrase is searched for, as opposed to documents containing Malbork and castle, which is what the previous Google scholar searches effectively did. When this is done "Malbork Castle" produces 101 results and Marienburg Castle 65. While the results are slightly in favour of using the name Malbork as opposed to Marienburg, it wouldn't hurt to tone down the discussion a bit. There's no need for accusation of nationalist POV on either side. Clearly both terms are used, but the name is a relatively minor point considering the article needs substantial expansion. A motor company wouldn't fuss about the name of a car when things aren't runnning smoothly under the bonnet. Nev1 (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I do agree about your point of the extension of the article, your point about the search results is not right. One cannot just phrase "Marienburg castle". What about search results for other phrases, such as "castle of Marienburg" vs "Castle of Malbork", "Castle in Marienburg" vs "Castle in Malbork", "Marienburg fortress" vs "Malbork fortress" or just "Marienburg Poland" vs "Malbork Poland". Marienburg always appears more often. The reason is: the castle was named Marienburg when built. Therefore, logic has to be on Marienburgs side, as one cannot name Malbork without mentioning Marienburg, but Marienburg without Malbork. Malbork is just the polish translation of Marienburg castle & city. (A Volkswagen car should be allowed to be called a Volkswagen, even if owned and driven by a polish national calling it "Ludowy samochód")--IIIraute (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So neither of the Google searches were effective, which is why WP:GHITS warns that raw result numbers is not always an effective measure. As a rule of thumb, Wikipedia uses the common name in the English language, hence we have an article on "Italy" rather than "Italia" and still have an article on Volkswagen. The castle would have been called Marienburg when it was founded, but then Krak des Chevaliers was called "Crac de l'Ospital" when the Knights Hospitaller rebuilt it. So the issue is what do English-language sources call the castle? Know The architecture of Poland (1971) and Emery "Malbork Castle - Poland" (2007) use Malbork. Nev1 (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The google sholar & books results are effective indeed; most of the results speak of "Marienburg". The reason is that academics tend to use original terms. I do not want not get rid of the one or the other, but Marienburg should be seen as equallly important to the article than Marbork. There are dozens of recent books that use "Marienburg", among them many current academic standard works:
Jerzy Lukowski, W. H. Zawadzki, "A concise history of Poland", (2006)
Rosamond McKitterick, Michael Jones "The New Cambridge Medieval History: c. 1300-c. 1415" (1995)
Zsolt Hunyadi, József Laszlovszky; "The Crusades and the military orders", (2001)
David Watkin, "A history of Western architecture", (2005)
J. E. Kaufmann, H. W. Kaufmann, Robert M. Jurga, "The medieval fortress",(2004)
Stephen Turnbull, Peter Dennis "Crusader Castles of the Teutonic Knights (1)", (2003)
David Nicolle, Graham Turner, "Teutonic Knight: 1190-1561", (2007)
Peter Harrison, "Castles of God: fortified religious buildings of the world", (2004)
John H. Stubbs, World Monuments Fund (New York, N.Y.), "Time honored: a global view of architectural conservation", (2009)
Karin Friedrich, "The Other Prussia: Royal Prussia, Poland and Liberty, 1569-1772", (2006)
D. M. Field, D. M. Field, "The world's greatest architecture: past and present", (2002)
Ion Grumeza, "The Roots of Balkanization: Eastern Europe C.E. 500-1500", (2010)
James A. Michener, James A. Michener, "Poland", (1987)
William Urban, "The Teutonic Knights: a military history", (2003)
Tomasz Torbus, "Poland", (1999)
Marshall Cavendish Corporation, Steven Maddocks, Dale Anderson, "Exploring the Middle Ages", (2006)
Andrejs Plakans, "A Concise History of the Baltic States", (2011)
Armin Tuulse, "Castles of the Western world", (2002)

--IIIraute (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the sources you give above use both Marienburg and Malbork as the castle's name, for starters there's Turnbull (2003), Lukowski & Zawadzki (2006), Hunyadi & Laszlovszky (2001), Harrison (2004). I've not checked them all, but of those I did check the majority did use a mixture of names. I think this shows that the situation isn't as simple as you suggest. Nev1 (talk) 01:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should go through all of them; when using Malbork, than usually in brackets next to Marienburg. However, most of them only use Marienburg.--IIIraute (talk) 01:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I go through those sources it won't be for the purposes of deciding the name of the article. There are more important issues like content which need to be addressed. As far as I'm concerned it could be called either, but if the article's not improving it doesn't matter a jot. Nev1 (talk) 01:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I suggested earlier, Marienburg should be seen as equally important as Malbork; that is my contribution for improving the article. Why don't you start improving the rest?--IIIraute (talk) 01:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did, but sadly my time is not limitless and I have other articles I'd like to write first. I had hoped that if editors here have time to search for sources with which to debate the article's name they might also use the sources they have been Googling to improve the article. Nev1 (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are right. But I cannot promise that I will find the time and attention this article deserves. I will try. I hope though, not every single edit will be as painfully difficult as my last one. Apart from that: Since one is getting redirected from "Ordensburg Marienburg" to "Malbork Castle", maybe (Ordensburg Marienburg) should be put in brackets after "Malbork Castle". --IIIraute (talk) 02:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing edit: 153.19.182.21, 14:22, 12 December 2011‎. See discussion above↑.--IIIraute (talk) 02:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Gdansk-Vote-Notice ↑↑ --IIIraute (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to talk GV, it is quite simple. The castle is now in Poland, we use the Polish name. End of story. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not between 1308 and 1945. UNESCO → [12] --IIIraute (talk) 02:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for proving that UNESCO also uses Malbork. And the point is, the castle is in Poland now, so the lead and article title should use Malbork. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
UNESCO → "Castle of the Teutonic Order in Malbork".--IIIraute (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

German Name[edit]

Could you change the German name "Ordensburg Marienburg" to "Marienburg" or "Die Marienburg" (to separate it from the German name of the town)? "Ordensburg Marienburg" sounds weird in German. Ordensburg is only an explanation what kind of castle it is, but it is not a part of the name. Apologize for my bad English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.56.109.61 (talk) 06:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Usual annoying revert warring[edit]

In this context "remove vandalism" as in this edit summary [13] is a personal attack as very clearly these edits are not vandalism.

Likewise, "article has been stable" or "restore original version" [14] are NOT legitimate reasons for making blind reverts. If we were to "restore original versions" we'd pretty much have to erase all of Wikipedia, back to 2002. Cut the BS. Don't try to use "restore original version" as an empty excuse for undoing legitimate improvements or engaging in POV pushing.

VolunteerMarek 01:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

all your typical POV changes were unsourced, however you did remove sourced material; also: Gdansk-Vote → vandalism. please also see → UNESCO [15] --IIIraute (talk) 01:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My changes mostly removed crappy text (like who exactly sold the castle during the 13 years war). Removing unsourced text does not require sources, so explanations like "your changes were unsourced" make no sense what so ever in this context. You are just making up excuses for your blind reverts. Gdansk-Vote has nothing to do with these edits. Quit making stuff up.VolunteerMarek 01:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So far all your edit summaries were completely inappropriate and misleading:
see Gdansk-Vote - the edits have nothing to do with the Gdansk-Danzig vote, you're just invoking that vote as a carte blanche to revert others for no reason. Quit it.
restore original version - there's nothing privilaged about the "original version", particularly if it includes nonsnese unsourced text. If we were to restore "original versions" all Wikipedia articles would be stubs (more or less).
remove vandalism] - DO NOT refer to legitimate edits as "vandalism" as that constitutes a personal attack and is disruptive.
rmv unsourced changes - in what universe does removing unsourced text need sources??? This edit summaary makes no sense what so ever.
[16] - the article's title is "Malbor Castle" and that's how it should be introduced in the lede. A single source does not trump the article title supported by a plethora of sources, per WP:COMMONNAME.
Please, if you're going to revert, articulate your reasons rather than making up excuses for your edit warring.VolunteerMarek 02:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article is affected by the Gdańsk (Danzig) Vote. "For locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name should also include a reference to other commonly used names, e.g. Stettin (now Szczecin, Poland) or Szczecin (Stettin)." ⇒⇒ The result is binding on all parties. Violations against the rule established by the outcome of this vote can be reverted exempt from the 3RR rule.[17] --IIIraute (talk) 02:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And this has NOTHING to do with the edits! What in the world are you talking about???VolunteerMarek 02:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources: Jerzy Lukowski, W. H. Zawadzki, "A concise history of Poland", (2006) Rosamond McKitterick, Michael Jones "The New Cambridge Medieval History: c. 1300-c. 1415" (1995) Zsolt Hunyadi, József Laszlovszky; "The Crusades and the military orders", (2001) David Watkin, "A history of Western architecture", (2005) J. E. Kaufmann, H. W. Kaufmann, Robert M. Jurga, "The medieval fortress",(2004) Stephen Turnbull, Peter Dennis "Crusader Castles of the Teutonic Knights (1)", (2003) David Nicolle, Graham Turner, "Teutonic Knight: 1190-1561", (2007) Peter Harrison, "Castles of God: fortified religious buildings of the world", (2004) John H. Stubbs, World Monuments Fund (New York, N.Y.), "Time honored: a global view of architectural conservation", (2009) Karin Friedrich, "The Other Prussia: Royal Prussia, Poland and Liberty, 1569-1772", (2006) D. M. Field, D. M. Field, "The world's greatest architecture: past and present", (2002) Ion Grumeza, "The Roots of Balkanization: Eastern Europe C.E. 500-1500", (2010) James A. Michener, James A. Michener, "Poland", (1987) William Urban, "The Teutonic Knights: a military history", (2003) Tomasz Torbus, "Poland", (1999) Marshall Cavendish Corporation, Steven Maddocks, Dale Anderson, "Exploring the Middle Ages", (2006) Andrejs Plakans, "A Concise History of the Baltic States", (2011) Armin Tuulse, "Castles of the Western world", (2002)--IIIraute (talk) 02:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What in the world do any of these sources have to do with anything? Stop making nonsensical comments.VolunteerMarek 02:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...you removed: "It was built in Prussia by the Teutonic Knights, a German Roman Catholic religious order of crusaders, in a form of an Ordensburg fortress. The Order named it Marienburg (Mary's Castle). The town which grew around it was also named Marienburg." why? --IIIraute (talk) 02:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because it already says it was build by the Teutonic Knights. No reason to include the same info ten different times, just as some kind of exercise in irredentist territory marking.VolunteerMarek 03:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
..."...Roman Catholic religious order... in a form of an Ordensburg fortress. The Order named it Marienburg (Mary's Castle). The town which grew around it was also named Marienburg." → so that's all included in "Teutonic Knights"?--IIIraute (talk) 03:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not directly relevant to what this article is about. It's unsourced. It's repeating info that's found elsewhere in the article. It's tendetious irredentist territory marking.VolunteerMarek 03:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And in point of fact I did not remove that sentence - you're making stuff up again - just shortened it to keep it on topic.VolunteerMarek 03:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
yes you did. just compare the different versions. stop lying.--IIIraute (talk) 03:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not lying - quit it with the personal attacks. I said I shorted it to keep it on topic which is exactly what I did.VolunteerMarek 03:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...but you did remove it - so you are lying.--IIIraute (talk) 03:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)--IIIraute (talk) 03:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, whatever you say.VolunteerMarek 03:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And one more time, what do any of the sources you posted above have to do with any of this? What does the Gdansk-Danzig vote have to do with anything?VolunteerMarek 03:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Danzig-Vote for 1308 - 1945. UNESCO is a pretty good source for now - don't you think so? --IIIraute (talk) 03:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What does the Gdansk-Danzig vote or UNESCO have to do with any of this? You are mindlessly invoking the GD vote for edits that are completely unrelated to it. You are just simply blind reverting. You are not making any sense.VolunteerMarek 03:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pattern of mindless reverting probably indicative with issues with WP:OWN[edit]

Looking quickly at the history, I see that IIIraute has a habit of making completely mindless and unjustifed reverts [18]. Obviously this castle is not a "military structure" - the designation "World Heritage Site" is much more appropriate. But IIIraute blindly reverted the change (with no edit summary). Why? Cuz the person that made the original edit had a Polish looking username?VolunteerMarek 03:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...yes, yes - one of your many personal attacks → [19]. --IIIraute (talk) 03:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing the issue. Yes, this castle is a "military structure". The remnants of the Teutonic Knights are hiding in the cellars and stockpiling nuclear warheads with little black crosses painted on them.VolunteerMarek 03:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not free of mistakes. It was built as a military structure, so it is still one to some degree, isn't it?--IIIraute (talk) 03:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...which you might have thought about before mindlessly reverting anyone who edits this article.VolunteerMarek 04:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...how many reverts (before today) did I do in the last 6 months? so stop spreading nonsense.--IIIraute (talk) 04:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching this exchange from the sidelines with great distress. Already since October 2011 – when IIIraute (talk · contribs) showed up here for the first time – he's been pushing his POV very aggressively, mostly by interpreting sources rather than citing them. Why? Because English is not sufficient enough when it comes to Eastern territories once controlled by the imperial and Nazi Germany in present day Poland. English must be augmented with German; the castle is not a castle without Ordensburg, and so on. Marienburg, Marienburg, Marienburg... as if the place was still in Germany today. That's why his POV is so hard to accept. Poeticbent talk 04:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...oh, gosh - the Poland alliance again. Don't we know each other - talk about stalking. Contrary to both of you, I have been working on this article for quite a long time - even before October 2011. None of you have.--IIIraute (talk) 04:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gee that's funny, because the earliest edits to this article by User:IIIraute are from October 2011, so either you're making stuff up again, or your talking about some previous account of yours. If it's the latter, can you please disclose your prior accounts and indicate which "before October 2011" edits are yours?
And in regards to your edits on this article since October 2011, I wouldn't call it "working" - it's just the same mindless reverting of everyone who tries to edit this article. It's not like you actually added anything of substance to the article.VolunteerMarek 05:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
how did you get to this article today, right after my revert?--IIIraute (talk) 05:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try. Let me repeat the question which you are trying to avoid answering: the earliest edits to this article by User:IIIraute are from October 2011, so either you're making stuff up again, or your talking about some previous account of yours. If it's the latter, can you please disclose your prior accounts and indicate which "before October 2011" edits are yours?
VolunteerMarek 05:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...yes Marek, the usual - let us all know what makes you tick → [20] ← --IIIraute (talk) 05:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, answer the question. Where you making stuff up, or were you referring to previous undisclosed accounts? It's not that hard and the evasiveness just makes it worse.VolunteerMarek 05:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...makes what worse? have you totally lost it - Marek! this is not your personal pseudo court of the inquisition!! You did try before → [21] ←. Stop your smear campaigns towards other editors and don't take yourself so important! --IIIraute (talk) 05:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The earliest edits to this article by User:IIIraute are from October 2011, so either you're making stuff up again, or your talking about some previous account of yours. If it's the latter, can you please disclose your prior accounts and indicate which "before October 2011" edits are yours? VolunteerMarek 05:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I better leave this without further comment [22],[23]. --IIIraute (talk) 05:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop engaging in personal attacks. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mind? This is a personal attack → [24] - and you played your part in it, Piotr.--IIIraute (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SPI is not a PA, and you should think hard about the fact that your editing is so similar to the one by an editor who is permbanned from Poland topics. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do not. Why are your edits so similar to that of Marek? The SPI was full of personal attacks. Marek constantly gets blocked for PA's. His last block was just a couple of days ago → [25]. Did I ever get blocked - no.--IIIraute (talk) 17:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC) I[reply]
No, the SPI was not full of personal attacks, and it was well founded given the statistically low probability that you and the other user would have such similar edits and views, even on obscure topics and articles. It did not "acquit" you, it was closed as "inconclusive". And no I don't constantly get blocked for PA. You're making stuff up again.VolunteerMarek 17:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
People can read it for themselves. The result was "Inconclusive, bordering on Unrelated, wasn't it? So much blood you had put into this - and all for nothing!--IIIraute (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Intro of the lede[edit]

Back on topic. The title of this article is "Malbork Castle". On Wikipedia, the first sentence of an article's lede introduces the subject and it does so by including the title of the article in bold. This is just standard practice. So the first sentence of the article should be "The Malbork Castle (Polish: zamek w Malborku; German: Ordensburg Marienburg) is the largest castle in the world by surface area, and the largest brick building in Europe." Not "The Castle of the Teutonic Order in Malbork..." since that is NOT the title of this article. Of course the UNESCO name can - and should be - mentioned in the article, but the first sentence needs to match up with the article title.

Note that this has NOTHING to do with Gdansk-Danzig vote and any raising of that (old, outdated, superseded) vote are just red herrings which do nothing but derail the discussion.VolunteerMarek 19:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scibor or Teczynski[edit]

Currently the article states that during the 13 Years War the castle was purchased from the Czech mercenaries by "Stibor de Poniec of Ostoja" - whoever that is (I could maybe find a Scibor of Ostoja, but the "de Poniec" is just weird - the wlink is just to the Wikipedia article on the clan Ostoja - which has it's own crazy problems). However, I think the castle was actually purchased by Andrzej Tęczyński (1461). The source at the end of the paragraph is completely irrelevant to that piece of information... or to any of the other information in this article.Volunteer Marek 02:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malbork_Castle&oldid=1208734073"