Talk:Siege of Kolberg (1807)

Inconsistency over the cast number
The Kolberg movie page on Wikipedia says this;

"The film's extra cast accounted perhaps 5,000 soldiers and hundreds of Kolberg people participated for a daily fee of 5 ℛℳ. The number of extras is commonly exaggerated at 187,000, and claims of entire divisions of troops taking part are completely false." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.210.174 (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Polish troops
I'm sorry but the presence of Polish troops at the siege is emphasized by sources (for example Cambridge History of Poland, not to mention numerous Polish sources) and hence should be mentioned in the article. This of course makes perfect sense, since the city is now part of Poland, and Poles were one of the largest if not THE largest foreign contingent in Napoleon's army. Some kind of blind desire to just remove all instances of the word "Poles" from articles such as this is not a sufficient justification for these kinds of edits - and it is precisely this kind of behavior which entails POV pushing, not vice versa.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody denies the presence of Polish troops, they are mentioned several times within the article. They were part of the foreign auxiliaries of the Grande Armée, to "cherry-pick" one nation out of this multi-national army is clearly a case of WP:UNDUE and it's POV-pushing to emphasize only one certain nationality in the lead-section. That Polish books focus on the Polish contingent doesn't mean Wikipedia has to follow their priorities. That the “Cambridge history of Poland” mentions only the Polish auxiliaries isn’t surprising as it’s a history of Poland and not of Kolberg or the Napoleonic wars. HerkusMonte (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Again. One more time. Polish troops were one of the largest foreign contingents of Napoleon's army. The city is in Poland today. Sources emphasize the presence of Polish troops. And, per WP:MOS, the lede is supposed to summarize the contents of the article. If, as you say, "Nobody denies the presence of Polish troops, they are mentioned several times within the article.", then the lede should summarize that information by listing their presence. What exactly is the reason or justification for this deletion? You are simply removing as many mentions of Poland as you can - per some kind of German WP:OWN of this article. Stop it. And stop removing reliably sourced text.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * They ARE mentioned as part of the foreign auxiliaries. To emphasize the Polish contingent of a multi-national army gives - again - undue weight to just one nation. Maybe we should ask for a WP:3O. HerkusMonte (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S.: Nothing was "removed", I moved your source to the proper place.
 * Oh please. Why not then just have the lede say "there was some fighting at this place between some troops" and skip the mention of who the sides were altogether? Then French troops WILL BE mentioned as part of "some troops", and ditto for the Prussian. Same faulty logic. After your revert and removal of sourced text (yes, you removed text, not 'moved' it), Polish troops are not mentioned in the lede - despite being discussed in the article itself - except in a "as part of "some troops"" kind of way. This is straight up against WP:MOS guidelines for the lede, and it is POV  pushing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have asked for a Third Opinion. HerkusMonte (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 30 is for discussions between two editors not more.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Polish rebels against Prussia need to be mentioned separately, since A-they were rebels against Prussia coming from Polish areas occupied by Prussian state and not seperate country like others, Kołobrzeg was before part of Poland and this fact was used by Polish forces to rally soldiers, C-Kołobrzeg is Polish city and Polish aspects of its history are important, D-the city of Kołobrzeg officially honours the participation of Polish troops that took part in the siege, E-the hope of the Polish forces was that Kołobrzeg will once more become part of Polish state. Thus their participation, origins are very specific, very different from the rest, and thus they need to be mentioned separately.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Per the Cambridge History of Poland 1697-1935 Page 228. Particular Polish regiments of different formations served at the sieges of Kołobrzeg (Kolberg) and Grudziądz (Graudenz). The CH of Poland also mentions that the Polish Army after Tilset was limited to 30,000 men according to the Constitution granted by Napoleon. Poland was a satellite of Napoleon at that time and did not play an independant role in European affairs. --Woogie10w (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Digby Smith, The Greenhill Napoleonic Wars Data Book has the OB of the forces involved on page 252 The Polish contingent was only 2 batts of the 1st LIR The French forces and their allies dwarfed the Polish contingent.  A Brief summary of these units France- 2 Guards regs and 9 other regts. Dutch- 8 Regts;  Italian Units 7 Regts; Confederation of the Rhine 2 regts If necessary I can copy the entire OB verbatim if there is a serious pissing contest.  Those folks that want to shine the spotlight on the Polish contingent are advised to check the direction of the wind.  It would definitely be misleading to give undue weight to the Polish contingent at Kolberg.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, nobody wants to diminish achievements of others or show Polish rebels as doing all the fighting.
 * Thanks Woogie, it's always good to hear a neutral voice. HerkusMonte (talk) 10:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Contrary to your opinion Woogie was already engaged in debate here before, and his statements do not support your edits. Also your characterisation of Poles who rebelled in Prussia against Prussians as "foreign forces" is incorrect.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

math needs work...
So, in the section May to June, it gives a list of the Prussian units involved, my statement revolves around the Prussian cavalry. The OOB lists 113 cavalrymen in a squadron from the Freikorp and 110 cuirassiers from the von Balliodz regiment's depot. Then one sentence later, it says During the fight, a Polish unit repelled a charge of 600 Prussian cavalry. Somehow the math doesn't work out. Is this like how certain Poles on wikipedia claim that the 1939 invasion of their country was a Polish victory, I notice on the discussion page that Molobo is active here. perhaps he can explain the math, as the source for the claim of 600 Prussian cavalry is in Polish and he will have easier access to it than the rest of us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.21.102.205 (talk) 02:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this like how certain Poles on wikipedia claim that the 1939 invasion of their country was a Polish victory,  - please stop trolling.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

can you answer the question, and no I am not trolling, go back in the archives and look at the discussion on the september campaign, notably Piotr, spacecadet and our famously banned Molobo, their is no mention of retreat at all in the start of that article, it's all voluntary withdrawal. How does barely 200 cavalry turn into a force three times its size? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.220.41.92 (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Molobo is not banned. You, on the other hand... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 16:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not banned, I deleted my account a while ago as I decided to stop contributing regularly as my work and personal life were and are more important to me. As well, it was a little hard to get internet access in Bazar-e Panjwai. And yes, I am the same person as the one who posted above. And please Piotr, try and be civil. In that one sentence you decided to post, you not only refused to answer the question but also broke one of the 5 pillars of wikipedia: Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner, let alone mention Civility, No personal attacks or Assume good faith

Now, can someone please explain how a force containing only 223 cavalrymen can manage to mount a cavalry charge containing three times their number? --24.202.1.112 (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sigh, ok look. First, sometimes sources differ in the information they provide. That could simply be it. Second, you're doing OR and there may not even be a contradiction here. The OOB also lists 1000+ men in two reserve battalions without stating whether these were infantry or cavalry. Or something else might have happened. We don't know. That's why we just go with the sources and give the information that's in all of them. Volunteer Marek 00:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Well if sources differ, then we need to figure out which one is correct, shouldn't we? After all, there is quite a difference between 223 and 600 fighting men. And reserve battalions are not mixed units, you obviously have no understanding of the military at all do you? see this for an explanation of what a Prussian reserve battalion in the Napoleonic Wars was. That source even has those units you just stated explained. --24.202.1.112 (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I did not know simple mathematics was Original Research, I'm sorry. --24.202.1.112 (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well if sources differ, then we need to figure out which one is correct, shouldn't we?  - actually what we should do is find more sources to bring light on this. Go for it. And no "simple mathematics" isn't original research. What IS original research however is interpreting sources, in this particular case by assuming that the only cavalry which was present is that which is explicitly labeled as "cavalry" in one particular source. If you want to write some kind of research paper about how the Kroczyński source is just wrong be cause it doesn't add up to the numbers given in the Höpfner source, and you manage to get it published then we'll be able to include this great insight of yours, and hell, we can even credit Professor 24.202.1.112 as the author.
 * The point is that there could be a perfectly legitimate explanation for the difference in the numbers from one source to another. It could be that just some of the reserve regiments included cavalry. It could be that some of the charge was taken by mounted infantry units (not unheard of). It could be that there was a another unit not explicitly mentioned in one source, etc. etc. etc. Of course we can make up our own explanations based on our "gut feelings", which is what you're doing, or we could just present what the sources state. Volunteer Marek  01:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Or we could figure out which source is more reliable and authoritative on the subject. Since Hoepfner used the Prussian archives as a source, and Kroczyński used the French Army's archives as a source, common sense would dictate that the former source is more reliable. This is because combatants like to claim inflicting more casualties and larger defeats on the foe, and those sources are therefore less reliable. Not only that, Hoepfner's source would have actual list of units and men in the Prussian Army at Kolberg. And since Kroczyński's book is singularly concerned with Polish units, its focus is not on the siege or the number of defenders but on the Polish units involved. And no, as the source I cited above stated, there were no cavalry in those reserve units, as they were infantry units. You say we aren't allowed to conduct original research or interpret sources, but then your whole counter-argument is not only very loose interpretation of a source, but counterfactual thinking, saying "what if this unit had cavalry" etc. etc.

P.S. If you can read German, you should read the Hoepfner source, it states that only Schiller's Freikorps cavalry unit (113 cavalry) was involved in the action in question. You can find the source on google books here, page 596.  --24.202.1.112 (talk) 06:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, this is original research. Both sources are reliable.
 * But even if we play that game - and it doesn't matter because trying to decide which source is right and which one is wrong or if they're both wrong or they're both right is original research, unless you have another specific source which addresses this - if you just stopped to think for a second, you'd realize that the contention that combatants like to claim inflicting more casualties and larger defeats on the foe applies as much to Prussian as French sources. The only difference here is that you like what one source says, and don't like what another says. So you're inventing reasons to throw one out. That's not how it's done.
 *  but then your whole counter-argument... - no. Your claim would be true if I was arguing for removing the Hoepfner source the way you are trying to remove the Kroczynski source. But I'm not. I pointing out that WP:NOR and WP:NPOV requires us to keep both. Volunteer Marek 08:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Except the Prussian source isn't stating anything about casualties, it is stating the number of units present at the siege, are you now claiming that the Prussians wiped records of units from their order of battle because it was embarrassing how many men they lost? I have never said to remove the Kroczynski source, if I have, please quote me, because I can't find it. Also, why did you revert my edit? both sources clearly state that a battle involving cavalry took place in that place and that date, their is no OR present. They differ on the total number of cavalry troopers present, so I removed the mention of a certain number. It is you that seems to be intent on removing a reputable source, I never removed a reference, you did. I actually added a reference. Why are you so intent on keeping a number attached to the charge that has been shown to be dubious at best? I simply tried to find a middle ground. So indeed, I have been working more in good faith and following WP:NOR and WP:NPOV than someone who is intent on reverting what another user contributes just because of who they are. Why is the Hoepfner reference good in one part of the article but not another? --24.202.1.112 (talk) 13:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

correction: you didn't remove the source, you just misrepresented it to make it seem like it also says there were 600 troopers involved in the unsuccessful charge. --24.202.1.112 (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You didn't remove a reference you just removed text that was sourced to it and added another one to create confusion - sneaky, but not nice. You haven't shown anything dubious about the number just speculated and let us know how you feel. Which is irrelevant. Volunteer Marek 16:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

How is that even remotely true? The truth is, you are leaving a citation of a source in the article that does not support the grandiose claims you are making in your "edits". I will be making an edit in agreement with wikipedia guidelines []. --24.202.1.112 (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Marek, since you are from Poland, perhaps you can provide more information on this other source, as it seems rather obscure. A google search of both author and and book title only comes up with links to this article or its clones. The author seems to have disappeared from history, and the only reference to the book is this article. While the search of the museum name where this book is cited is just some obscure little museum in small town Poland. --24.202.1.112 (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * 24.202.1.112 ... wait! I find it strange that you are unable to locate the source, even doubt its existence, yet you somehow feel confident enough to describe what's in it, quote while Przemysław Kroczyński, in his book on the Polish rebels involved in the battle, and using French archives. If you don't have the source, and hey, are even doubting that it exists, then how do you know that Korczynski' book is based on French archives? Something's going on here. I think my initial response to you was the right one. Volunteer Marek 03:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I came here as a third opinion. I have read through the discussion and I think I understand the jist of it. However, I think that section could use some rewriting as it is a bit confusing. As I understand it, on May 7 The French, (with their allies) attacked Wolfsberg sconce. The Prussians counter-attacked with a calvary charge, but were repelled. This is where I am confused as this would seem like the French (and others) attack was successful, but the next sentence describes them attacking again. I guess my basic question was who controlled Wolfsberg sconce between May 7 and 17? If it was the French (and allies) why did they have to attack again on the 17th and how could it be the Prussians if they were repelled? Eomund (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I wasn't aware that a third opinion was asked for. But ok, yes,you got the jist. Really, the only confusion is about the numbers involved in the Prussian cavalry charged. We have one reliable source which says that the charge was by 600 cavalry men. Then 24.202.1.112 added up some numbers and decided that that must be an overestimate. Because, you know, as a famous IP address, his credentials on the matter are on par with published sources. Volunteer Marek 03:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Why has this discussion become a personal attack on me and not about the topic at hand? As I have shown in this discussion, that source is at best unaccessible to anyone trying to do credible research on the topic, if not erroneous, hardly reliable. I have seen before on wikipedia, certain Polish editors will cite a Polish book on a topic in question that is almost impossible for anyone else to get access to, and expect everyone to believe it says what they claim, no matter how outlandish (and often false). Can you please answer my last post Marek, rather than just slander me. Can you find the book and provide the passage for us? As a far more reputable source makes claims to the opposite of what yours claims. --24.202.1.112 (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * There has been no personal attacks on you, so just stop playing the victim, it's unseemly. What there has been is criticism of your stated opinions. Again, one more time, you're just conducting original research and for some reason have this notion that Wikipedia has an obligation to feature your own personal opinions over what reliable sources say. On top of that you are questioning the existence of a particular source while at the same time editing the article with comments on what is supposedly in the source.
 * The source is reliable. It's actually not that hard to obtain. It's an academic journal.
 * Now. How in the world did you manage to both doubt the sources existence and comment on its contents? Is this like some kind of super natural ESP or somethin'? Honestly, either:
 * a) you don't have access to the source, legitimately doubt it exists (AGF and all that) but were just making stuff up in your edits AS IF you knew what the source said. This is "BAD" because you're ... making stuff up as you go, or
 * b) you do have access to the source, know full well what it says, know full well that it supports the text of the article, but are playing "dumb" and doubting the existence of the source ... because it suits the IDONT'LIKEIT nature of your edit. Or are just enjoying yourself by creating controversy where none should exist, i.e. trolling (like your original comment about the Nazi invasion of Poland)
 * Please, at the very least, if you're gonna start pushing POV - pick one way to do it. Be consistent. You're trying to have it both ways and are painting yourself into a corner in the process. Either you know the source, so stop doubting its existence, or you don't know the source, so stop pretending you know what it says.
 * (Slaps himself upside the head, pov pushing ain't what it used to be). Volunteer Marek 04:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, let's all take a deep breath, relax and remember to be civil and assume good faith. I have a couple of questions about what the sources say. First, in the article, based on the Höpfner source, there is a list that breakdowns of the Prussian forces. The total cavalry in the list does not come anywhere near 600. My question is, does the Kroczyński provide a different list of Prussian troops or otherwise explain who the 600 cavalry were (ie what battalion they were with or who their commander was)? My question about the Höpfner source is, does it give a number for the cavalry involved? Or can it only be infered from the data in the aforementioned list? Hopefully these answers will help clarify what the sources actually say. Eomund (talk) 05:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yea, you know what? I apologize in advance if this seems unkind, but I'm just NOT going to take a third opinion offered by someone with only 145 (as in "one hundred forty five") live edits, who has been editing only sporadically, seriously. Especially after the last 3O person who showed up on this page went nutzoid on us for apparently no reason. Assuming good faith and all, how about you do some actual editing work here first, establish the account and everything, and then try again? Volunteer Marek 06:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Eomund, the Hoepfner source goes into detail on page 596 (I already linked to the google book in this talk, and again here ) listing all the units involved on the Prussian side in this action at the Wolfsberg sconce. It clearly states the only cavalry unit involved in this action was the squadron from Schiller's freikorps. It also clearly illustrates on page 579 of the same source, a clear list of all units that were a part of the garrison at the time of the action, stating the Schiller Freikorps cavalry squadron consisted of 113 troopers. --24.202.1.112 (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

And btw, at this point I'm not sure what this dispute is supposed to be about since I'm actually fine with this version of the article (aside from the pov/weasely wording that one source "states" while the other source "claims"). Like I said above, I don't have any problem with Hopfner being included. What I have a problem with is having another source being removed simply because some anon ip (who obviously is a returning user with some axes to grind, per his original comment in this thread) doesn't like it. Volunteer Marek 07:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Can I just quote the first sentence of your previous comment on here Marek? There has been no personal attacks on you, so just stop playing the victim, it's unseemly. really? I mean really? you claimed there have been no personal attacks on me but your whole commenting on this topic has consisted of insulting me, and now belittling someone who is here trying to help resolve this from a third point of view. There is no reason to belittle someone else just because he hasn't editted as often as you.
 * --24.202.1.112 (talk) 07:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, you're pretending that legitimate criticism is a "personal attack". But hey, let's look at your opening line in this thread:
 * Is this like how certain Poles on wikipedia claim that the 1939 invasion of their country was a Polish victory - obvious trolling, since no "certain Poles" make that claim.
 * I notice on the discussion page that Molobo is active here and Piotr, spacecadet and our famously banned Molobo, - more of the same (false to boot).
 * So yeah, sorry if I'm not exactly bursting with good faith here, as it's obvious you're a returning editor, under an anon IP address, making trollish statements, with an axe to grind.
 * You have also completely failed to explain how you manage to know what is in a particular source and at the same time doubt the very source's existence. That just ... don't make sense to me and it doesn't seem very good faithed either.
 * Finally, what exactly is the dispute about at this point? I said I was fine with your last version. Is there something else you wish to add that is relevant? No? Then I think we're done here. Volunteer Marek 07:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"legitimate criticism" Do you mean inferring that another user's opinion does not matter or is less important than yours because he is either not using an account, or because he has fewer edits than you is legitimate criticism? We are all equal on wikipedia, one user is not better than another just because he is on here more often. About my invasion of Poland comment, all you have to do is look at the discussion archives for that page to see what I was referring to. I do admit though that I fanned the flames and did not get this discussion off to a good start, and I am sorry for that. How was my comment about Molobo false? He was banned for more than a year (it was originally a permanent ban) because of his "edits". But he seems to have cooled down a lot since then.

And for the last time, I do not know what is in that phantom source you hold up as if it were the holy bible. When did I ever make that statement? I editted the article to state that it says the Polish unit repelled a cavalry charge, rather than 600. I simply removed the reference to a number as it is in dispute, when another, freely available and authoritative source states a much different number. Seriously, stop trying to sidestep the topic here. You live in Poland, I assume you speak Polish, you have access to the book (assuming it exists), I simply asked if you could enlighten us on it. I tried searching for it for over an hour online: the author's name returned absolutely zero hits, the title returned only this article and a clone, and the museum name where it apparently is kept only had a blurb about the museum's purpose. --24.202.1.112 (talk) 08:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not a book, but as already stated (and as indicated in the citation), a journal. Kroczynski is discussing the role of the Polish troops in the siege and he talks about the report of Loison in which the general reports that on May 7th, the Polish units repelled a charge of 600 Prussian cavalry. Like the article text says. Loison then goes on to name individual soldiers who distinguished themselves in the action. The author is a historian and was a director of the National Museum in Kolobrzeg (i.e. the city that was besieged). I don't know what else needs "enlightening" as all this information has already been provided in the citation itself.
 * And while it's a bad idea to "assume" things, crazily enough, the source does exist. If that was your problem with this, then you should've been upfront about it to begin with. Volunteer Marek 08:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I am very sorry Marek, I got overly hostile, alas, I have found the journal online, here it is. Luckily, I am Canadian, so I can speak a fair bit of French (by no means excellent), and the quotation in question is actually in French (footnoted in Polish for you too though). Les Polonais ont soutenu avec vigeur la charge de 600 hommes de cavalerie sortis de la Place, et les ont forcé de se retirer... Translated, what it says is "The Poles have repelled with vigour the charge from 600 cavalrymen (who) left the place, and they were forced to withdraw." But it also says earlier in that paragraph that this was from a report written by Loison to Marshal Berthier on 8 May. Given that Loison had a reputation of being an intriguer, and that battle reports are vague and never 100% accurate, even with today's technology, one can safely say that the claim by Loison is exaggerated. Not only that, the battle was still ongoing when he wrote this report, and his superiors were itching for news of a victory, they had already relieved the previous commander because he was not producing results.

So, basically what we have in the article is a paraphrasing of a museum newspaper which quotes a General who did not have nearly as much information as a serious researcher with access to the Prussian Army archives and the complete Order of Battle of the Prussian forces present. To give another example of the same situation, I would believe someone who said they scored 5 goals in a game off soccer, but then when someone else comes along and shows you the scoresheet and it doesn't agree with what he said, you kind of have to re-evaluate what you believe. --24.202.1.112 (talk) 09:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Ugh. There's a specific policy about what you're doing. It's called WP:Original research. Here, let me quote it for you:
 * The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented (and as presented).
 * In other words, it doesn't matter what YOUR opinion of Loison is. It doesn't matter what YOU think his reputation was. It doesn't matter how YOU think the fact that the battle was ongoing affected his report. It doesn't matter of YOUR interpretation of his reports. What matter is what reliable sources say.
 * Again, if you think you're right, then write an article on it and try to get it published in a place that specializes in publishing original research. Then we can quote it here. But Wikipedia's not that.
 * And it's amazing how all of sudden you managed to find the source after having such difficulty with it to the point of even doubting its existence. Volunteer Marek 10:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * A bit more:
 * "No original research" (NOR) is one of three core content policies that, along with Neutral point of view and Verifiability, determines the type and quality of material acceptable in articles. . Volunteer Marek 10:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

So wait a second, so are you seriously denying the existence of what is commonly called the fog of war? because I'm sure I could find hundreds of references on it for you if you so desire. No, my opinion of Loison doesn't matter, but it is in the page dedicated to him, fully sourced and everything. Also, if you care to read Identifying_reliable_sources you would see that it clearly states: ''Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised.'' Since not only is that source quoting an erroneous General, but as it is a quote, it is a primary source, and a rather poorly investigated one at that. Whereas Hoepfner is a well regarded, reputable secondary source who used the Prussian archives to pinpoint which units were involved on the Prussian side. Also, you might actually want to read the policies you use to back up your claims "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" Third Party: Gen Loison is not a third party, hardly reliable, and did not have any chance to fact check, he had to believe what his commanders told him, thus throwing into doubt his accuracy.

You make me lol, my "original research"? Oh you mean where I cited a book by a top military historian of his day with access to Prussian archives saying that only one squadron of 113 men was involved in the action. Yes, that perfectly falls into the category of original research (that was sarcastic).

P.S. I found it "all of a sudden" after searching again, if I wasn't such a meticulous or honest editor, I would have just kept pretending it didnt exist, since you're making no attempt to do any research yourself.

P.S.S. You might want to look up Gaming_the_system as that is all you've been doing, I still haven't seen one constructive, non harassing post from you yet. --24.202.1.112 (talk) 10:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sigh. So me pointing out that Wikipedia has a policy against original research = "me denying the fog of war". I'm sorry I can't take this seriously, I've put up with enough on this talk page already. Volunteer Marek 19:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to state the original research policy when none is being conducted. I'm sorry you are no longer willing to cooperate and discuss the issue. It's been a pleasure working with you. --24.202.1.112 (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah... your bad faithed passive aggressive responses like I'm sorry you are no longer willing to cooperate aren't exactly conducive to a discussion. I'm perfectly willing to cooperate and discuss, but only with someone who is interest in actual cooperation and discussion, rather than someone who's trying their best to waste my time by trolling.
 * And adding in further POV edits to the article to get me to "come back to the talk page" and starting edit wars  for no reason constitutes disruptive editing, baiting and borderline harassment. At one point I said that I was fine with the present text of the article, after your edit which included both sources into the text. At that point you started changing it further, weaseling the language and adding more POV stuff in it. What is this? "Give'em an inch and they'll take a mile". It's not exactly a framework for resolving disagreements if everytime I agree to a compromise or a solution you just try to amp the ante. Volunteer Marek  02:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay lets focus on the content rather than the editors. As I understand the dispute, Volunteer Marek   is saying that the Kroczyński is reliable just as the Höpfner source is. Since they are in disagreement we should just say what each one says. 24.202.1.112 is saying that Kroczyński is less reliable and should be given less focus.
 * 24.202.1.112, you claim Given that Loison had a reputation of being an intriguer, and that battle reports are vague and never 100% accurate, even with today's technology, one can safely say that the claim by Loison is exaggerated. Not only that, the battle was still ongoing when he wrote this report, and his superiors were itching for news of a victory, they had already relieved the previous commander because he was not producing results. Do you have any sources to support this claim? As it stands now, I agree with [User:Volunteer Marek| Volunteer Marek ]] that this looks like original research. Eomund (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 24.202.1.112, you edits are contentions because you are using original research and weseal words. Please direct me to a source that says General Loison did not correctly know the number of troops he was facing. To merely, deduce it by putting together two sources is a textbook example of synthesis. Let me remind you with this quote, If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. That is exactly what you are doing. Therefore, I am going to revert your edit. Eomund (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back Marek. Eomund, if you look at the article on Loison, you will see the comment about Loison being an intriguer is fully cited, as well a quick google search will give more evidence of that, especially in concern to his performance in Portugal. However, I did extrapolate a bit when I said that he was anxious about being relieved of command.

All of that is besides the point though. I do not see a problem with the state of the article after my last edit, it includes exactly what both sources state. Hoepfner has the order of battle for his research and knows exactly how many men where inside the fortress, and what units were involved in the counterattack. Loison claims in a letter to his superior that they repelled 600 cavalry, although by doing research that was found to be impossible.

Also, one must point out that the Kroczyński source is not concerned with the battle or fact checking Gen. Loison's claim, but simply cites his statements as evidence of Polish bravery.

I do not see the problem Marek has with the word "claim" it's definition is:to assert or maintain as a fact, and that is exactly what Gen. Loison did. However, as per wikipedia's guidelines on sources, a primary source such as Gen. Loison's missive is to be taken with caution, and not to be considered as reliable. From wikipedia's Identifying_reliable_sources:

''Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves.''

''Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context.''

Also, from SOURCES:

''Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.... as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source....''

Gen. Loison is neither third-party, nor is he known for his fact-checking and accuracy. Neither was their a great degree of scrutiny made before he wrote his letter. --24.202.1.112 (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

In an effort for consensus, instead of either claimed or stated, how about we use wrote in the article? As in In a report to Marshal Berthier on 8 May, General Loison wrote that the Poles had stopped a charge of 600 Prussian cavalry in that action... Although, the whole sentence could be removed since the previous sentence (which everyone already agrees upon) in the article states the charge only consisted of 113 troopers. Instead it could be rewritten as In a report on the action to Marshal Berthier on 8 May, General Loison praised the bravery of the Polish troops in repelling the cavalry charge.

Also, if you look at wikipedia's Manual_of_Style_(words_to_watch) or weasel word, "claimed" in this context is not a weasel word. --24.202.1.112 (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You are right, I used the wrong label it is not a weseal word but rather a synonym for said. That being said I like this version better. (You have removed the OR saying General Loison did not know how many troops were attacking. (We must leave that to the reader.) I agree that the Kroczyński source is not as reliable as Höpfner source. However, I do not know if it should be so summarily dismissed. Perhaps we should add an 'according to Höpfner' to the sentence. ie In a report to Marshal Berthier on 8 May, General Loison stated that the Poles had stopped a charge of 600 Prussian cavalry in that action,[31] although according to Höpfner the Prussian cavalry forces in Kolberg equalled barely one third of that number. or something like that. What do you (both of you) think? Eomund (talk) 05:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Unless Hopfner EXPLICITLY states that Loison exaggerated the number then we should not use the "although". Again, that would be "mind-reading" the sources. I am fine with writing that Loison wrote etc. But no, don't remove or rewrite the sentence to avoid mentioning the size of the force as reported by Loison.
 * Also I'm not sure if "Kroczynski is not as reliable as Hopfner" - they're both reliable and they're both bringing different perspectives to the table and that's why both of them should be included. Volunteer Marek 06:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I actually think stated is less appropriate here as it gives a false sense of knowledge on the subject that Loison did not have, especially since in light of further research, the statement has been found to be false. But I think we can agree now that "wrote" is the term that will be used in the article.

Also, adding "according to Hoepfner" diminishes his research even more than "claimed" did to Loison. Since Hoepfner was working from the Prussian archives and had access to the order of battle, one would then have to be able to write "according to the Prussian order of battle". Not only that, it also makes the sentence overly-weighty and drawn out.

Marek, it is not so much Kroczynski that is not as reliable, but his source. And one must also realize that it is not reliable, as we all believe him not to have fabricated a report by Loison, but the fact that his source has been shown to be erroneous by further research. Again, the focus of Kroczynski is not on numbers in the battle, but the fighting spirit of the Poles and the accolades heaped on them by the French. Not once in his paper does he state overall fighting strengths at the battle, nor does he give a larger perspective of the battle than the parts the Poles were fighting in. His paper is throughout laced with statements by Loison praising the Poles, but barely includes anything else. From Kroczynski's paper (translated): "In part because it further emphasizes the merits of the Poles, who have contributed significantly to the success of the reconnaissance attack. Let us therefore once again return to the words of Gen. Loison..." following which is the statement about the bravery of the Poles in repelling the cavalry charge. Kroczynski's emphasis is on the bravery of the Poles, not the facts of the battle.

Also, the fourth paragraph of Kroczynski's article clearly explains why I do not value it as highly as Hoepfner. In it, he explains that every single one of his sources (all 95 of them) are correspondence between various French leaders that were involved, more than half his sources were Loison alone! Letters between commanders cannot be taken as credibly as serious scholarly research. --24.202.1.112 (talk) 09:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * his source has been shown to be erroneous by further research. - according to YOU and YOU alone. Unless you have source which explicitly states that there's something wrong with Korczynski, this is just WP:Original Research.
 * His paper is throughout laced with statements by Loison praising the Poles, but barely includes anything else. - that is your evaluation of the paper. It is not the job of Wikipedia editors to let the world know how they feel about particular reliable sources. That is just WP:Original Research.
 * the fourth paragraph of Kroczynski's article clearly explains why I do not value it as highly as Hoepfner - ok, but why should we care? I can turn around and say that I value the Kroczynski source above all others in the article, what then? An argument about whose feelings are more important? Your feelings on the matter are just WP:Original Research.
 * Letters between commanders cannot be taken as credibly as serious scholarly research. - but the source being used is not the letters but rather Kroczynski, a secondary source, who happens to rely on the letters, which are a primary source. That's what serious scholarly research does - analyzes primary sources. Wikipedia editors however should NOT analyze primary sources, and just present the information that is found in secondary sources.  Volunteer Marek  20:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

--24.202.1.112 (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you find any other sources to back up the claims by Loison? If you can't, then because it is defined by wikipedia as a less reliable source, it is to be discredited when there is evidence from a more reliable source that he was in error.
 * I was simply stating that the Kroczynski article, according to wikipedia guidelines, is not as reliable, and hence why I think you are giving it too much credibility.
 * You can not be more wrong, that is intentionally manipulative to say that. If Kroczynski says that 600 Prussians attacked the poles at Wolfsberg sconce, please tell me a page number so I can read it.  Kroczynski never says that the Poles repelled a charge of 600 Prussians, what he does say is that Loison commented on the bravery of the polish soldiers. Kroczynski's article is supposed to be peer-reviewed in order to meet wikipedia's guidelines, and no one can find any reviews of this article, nor any information about the author, and this article was published 30 years ago!


 * If you can't, then because it is defined by wikipedia as a less reliable source - bullshit. It is NOT "defined by Wikipedia as a less reliable source". You just don't like it. Quit making shit up.
 *  it is to be discredited when there is evidence from a more reliable source that he was in error. - bullshit. It is not "discredited". You just don't like it. Quit making shit up. The Hoepfner source is not "more reliable". It's just a different source.
 * Kroczynski article, according to wikipedia guidelines, is not as reliable, - bullshit. According to wikipedia guidelines it is not "as reliable". You just don't like it. Quit making shit up.
 * If Kroczynski says that 600 Prussians attacked the poles at Wolfsberg sconce, please tell me a page number so I can read it. - already provided. Quit making shit up.
 * Kroczynski's article is supposed to be peer-reviewed in order to meet wikipedia's guidelines - it is published in a peer reviewed journal. Quit making shit up.
 * no one can find any reviews of this article, nor any information about the author, and this article was published 30 years ago! - no, we actually know who Korczynski was (a historian who was the head of a National Museum in Kolobrzeg). Quit making shit up.
 * Now. Can someone explain to me why I'm supposed to waste my time on what is obviously bad faithed trolling by a formerly banned user returning under an anonymous IP to cause more trouble again? Volunteer Marek  04:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

''- bullshit. It is not "discredited". You just don't like it. Quit making shit up. The Hoepfner source is not "more reliable". It's just a different source.'' How is Hoepfner not more reliable? Not only does he have access to the order of battle of the Prussian forces at the fortress, but also knows exactly what units took part in the action. Loison does not know the strength of Prussian units and at best is an estimate by his commanders present.

''- it is published in a peer reviewed journal. Quit making shit up.'' then let's see a review of the article then.

''- already provided. Quit making shit up.'' Kroczynski never says it, and he never gives any proof to back up the claims of Loison, nor does he state anything about the veracity of such claims.

no, we actually know who Korczynski was (a historian who was the head of a National Museum in Kolobrzeg). According to the source, he was not the head of a museum at all. According to a google search, he was actually a highschool teacher in Kolberg, not a museum director. Not as reliable of a source as an actual historian like Hoepfner.

bad faithed trolling? banned user? please, I have never been banned and I am sticking to the contentiousness of the article, not attacking users like you have done repeatedly. --24.202.1.112 (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to add that according to WP:BURDEN The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Therefore, if you, 24.202.1.112, want to add or restore something saying Hoepfner is more reliable than Korczynski, please provide a source. Eomund (talk) 03:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

How about the actual order of battle from the Prussian military archives? is that not a more reliable source on Prussian troops concentrations than a two sentence missive by a foreign commander who wasn't even at Wolfsberg Sconce. Not only that, the two sentence missive isn't even about the Prussian troops in question, but the Poles. --24.202.1.112 (talk) 05:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction
Currently the article claims that Polish rebels against Prussia in Prussian territories were "foreign". This is obviously false.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * They were 'foreign auxiliaries' in the sense that they were not French forces, but foreigners who sided with the French.Estlandia (dialogue) 16:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That sentence is unclear and suggests Poles fighting for liberation from the Prussia were foreigners, which can mislead readers, the sentence needs to be clarified to avoid confusion.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I see that "reinforcements" have been called in, - as far as I can tell Herkus did not canvass in a neutral venue, he did not word the notification in a neutral way as required per WP:CANVASS, nor did he alert other editors, who may potentially disagree with him about the dispute. This is a pretty blatant attempt at manipulating the discussion and it appears to be working. Nota bene, User:Estlandia has never been active on this talk page, AFAICT, so I'm not sure exactly why he decided to show up (actually I am, but AGF and all that). (All of this makes Herkus' recent complaint at AN/I quite... funny, not to mention extremely hypocritical).

Anyway, @Woogie, the relative size of the forces is not the only determinant of notability here. Is the Italian participation discussed in "Cambridge History of Italy" (er, an equivalent of it)? From an Italian, or Hessian, perspective the participation of their troops might not have been significant (in fact, for some of the German client states, a thing they'd rather forget) - especially since to them this was/is a foreign city and a foreign land. But the participation of Poles is significant. Second, as already stated, presently the city is not in Italy, Hess or whatever, but in Poland. This also makes the participation of Polish troops more significant.

Furthermore, it's just NOT TRUE that simply mentioning Polish participation in the siege is somehow giving undue weight to this aspect of the battle. If the whole, or good chunk, of the article was all about the Polish participation, then yes that would be undue - and I'd support trimming it down. But here we're talking about a simple couple words, a single sentence or so, which enumerates the fact. Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Marek you are correct in saying that the Polish contingent played a notable role by helping revive the Polish national spirit, although as puppets of Napoleon. With that said, the small Polish contingent did not win the battle. It brings to mind the Battle of Monte Cassino, Poles in 1944 could be proud of their participation in the struggle against Hitler. To be honest I know next to nothing about the battle in 1807, I only got involved because Herkus dragged my ass into this food fight.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The article doesn't say the Polish contingent won the battle. It just mentions their participation in the battle.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The Siege of Colberg was missed in Polish Legions (Napoleonic period). The article only scratches the surface of the Polish role in Napoleon's campaigns. We need to expand this interesting topic on Wikipedia. I am willing to work with other editors who want to improve Polish Legions (Napoleonic period) and create new articles will detail the campaigns of the Polish forces under Napoleon. At this point all I see are Alligators running to the Admin Noticeboard to make allegations of grievous misconduct--Woogie10w (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * A very knowledgeable editor about that particular topic is User:Belissarius so you should ask him for help. I can help, time permitting. Right now I got to finish writing up some German-Polish beer makers.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Back to topic: "foreign" refers to non-French troops. It's about the troops, not the place they fought at, there's no contradiction and it's not "unclear". HerkusMonte (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * ts completely unclear and could suggest that Poles rising against Prussian occupation were from abroad and not from territories under Prussian control. This needs to be clarified so that the readers know clearly the difference from Polish rebels and armies from abroad.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There are two aspects, one, whose forces whom was part of; then of the "whom", who were, relative to the theatre of action, inhabitants and who were invaders. For example, the Latvian contingent, though much smaller, of the German army caught in the Courland Pocket is significant not because of numbers but because the Latvians were fighting to save their homeland--and held out to the very end of the war while division after division of the Red Army were slaughtered. (Not the Soviet version of history, of course.) Motivation is significant regardless of pure numbers. Lecturing editors that significance is based purely on numbers of participants in forces rather misses the entire point. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

in any case, they are foreign, as they are not from the Kolberg region, but a totally different province, or outside of Prussia, and did not enjoy the support of the native population, who were predominantly German. I suggest you look up the term |foreign in the dictionary Molobo, as definitions 2-5 on wiktionary clearly state that the adjective "foreign" perfectly fits this band of Polish men. --24.202.1.112 (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Siege of Colberg
Currently the article says "rarely also: Siege of Colberg",

Google Books:
 * "Siege of Colberg" 1807 returns 434 books
 * "Siege of Kolberg" 1807 returns about 80
 * of Kołobrzeg" 1807 one book translated from Polish.

I am not sure why the first sentence has four citations on it:
 * Between Napoleon and Tsar Alexander: The Polish Question at Tilsit, 1807 Zawadzki, Hubert,Central Europe, Volume 7, Number 2, November 2009, pp. 110-124
 * Napoleonic military history: a bibliography Donald Horward, page 639, 1986
 * Between Napoleon and Tsar Alexander: The Polish Question at Tilsit, 1807 Zawadzki, Hubert,Central Europe, Volume 7, Number 2, November 2009, pp. 110-124
 * Napoleonic military history: a bibliography Donald Horward, page 639, 1986

But is seems that the whole construction is very pointy, So I am going to change it. -- PBS (talk) 01:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hello! This is to let editors know that File:GER-COL-S-1453-Prussia-Siege_of_Kolberg-8_groschen-1807.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for December 1, 2022. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2022-12-01. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 13:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)