Talk:Neumark

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Germany B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles B This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Poland Low‑importance 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.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Former countries: Prussia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles This article is within the scope of WikiProject Prussia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.

This article contains a translation of Neumark (Landschaft) from de.wikipedia. Translated on 12 May 2006.

Space Cadet calls this original research and removed it: [1] That is all common knowledge and all can be found on internet. Same goes for Coats of Arms of Wroclaw, the Silesian Black Eagle origin. The lack of knowledge or unwillingness to look for info or just plain destructiveness is too great. I gotto go. Labbas 23:42 8 October 2006

Well, one of the most important parts to making Wikipedia a trustworthy encyclopedia is the inclusion of sourced and verifiable information. Even if something might seem like common knowledge to you, it is usually a good idea to provide sources for information added. This is especially true for controversial topics, as many articles connected with German and Polish history tend to be at times.

As there has been contention about this article recently, I propose that it be reverted to the last version by J. 'mach' wust. The disputed information should then be discussed properly at this talk page until a mutually agreeable version is reached. Olessi 01:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about a bit deeper revert, back to Olessi 20:23, 7 June 2006 ? --Lysy^talk 04:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine as well. Olessi 22:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd certainly prefer this to revert warring, but others involved would have to agree as well of course. --Lysy^talk 03:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Labbas, Space Cadet, would this be acceptable? Olessi 17:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. I would like to see double naming. Space Cadet 00:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And if double naming is instituted, would you be willing to discuss the disputed information as I inquired about before? Olessi 05:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J mach wust, Smith 2006, Elonka, SmackBot all edited several times since 7 June 2006. They have not been asked. I personally do not think it is a good idea to remove several months of editing. Labbas 11 October 2006

Technical edits like the ones by Elonka or SmackBot were minor and can be easily redone. --Lysy^talk 04:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Their edits are practically all copyediting that I can quickly restore. Controversial editing on this article only began in October. The information added since then has not been properly sourced, was not discussed on the talk page, and has led to reverting. Olessi 21:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the dispute in October seems to have been about the population of the region in the 10th century and used this Polish government link as reference. From my understanding of the text, it does not mention the Lubusz/Neumark territory, nor does it specify the people who lived there. It does mention the unification of Polish tribes, but it does not say that Polans lived in Lubusz Land at the time or say what Slavic tribe lived there instead. The page, which seems to be a survey of Polish history for the unfamiliar as opposed to a scholarly work, does not specify how the region came under Polish control. I have edited the article to mention that the region came under Polish control during the rule of the dukes. Olessi 23:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about changing the article title to the English name of the region, New March ? --Lysy^talk 14:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not currently have access to my library, but it has been my experience that Neumark has been used more frequently in English publications than the translated New March.

• [2] (Neumark)
• [3] (New March)

Although many of the "Neumark" books are in German, there are numerous examples of its usage in English. In comparison, there are fewer usages of "New March". Olessi 23:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061015180850/http://www.z-g-v.de/english/aktuelles/?id=56 to http://www.z-g-v.de/english/aktuelles/?id=56

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 23:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060521192841/http://www.genealogienetz.de/reg/BRG/neumark/ to http://www.genealogienetz.de/reg/BRG/neumark/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 13:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]