Talk:Wolgast

Polonized name
I deleted the Polonized form of Wolgast ("Wologoszcz"). Wolgast neither had belonged to Poland nor ever had Polish population. The only connection to Poland is, that Wartislaw I of Pomerania had been defeated by the Piasts in 1121, before conquering the Wolgast area in 1123. At that time, the wendish burgh at the site of future Wolgast was named Hologast, not Wologoszcz. Wartislaws duchy regained complete independence from the Piasts in 1135, the city of Wolgast was founded a century later. So only a decade of Hologast can be related to Poland, but even that seems to be kind of artificial for at that time there was no "Poland" in terms of a national state. Therefore, the Polonized form of Wolgast only serves one purpose, to make the latter Duchy of Pommern-Wolgast look somewhat Polish, although it never was, in the course of Polish propaganda Polonizing the history of Pomerania and justify Polish post-WWII territorial gains in Pomerania as it was part of a so-called recovered territory with a Polish history.141.53.36.64 08:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Wołogoszcz was important center of Slavic culture. Polish name is revelant as a part of towns heritage (it is closest to slavic name used by Pommeranians - in Pomeranian language Wòłogòszcz, not "Hologast") According to presented above way of thinking we should remove German names from Gdynia and few other places. P.S. Please, do not mix propaganda with history, not all people do that... Radomil talk 07:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

''Wołogoszcz was important center of Slavic culture. Polish name is revelant as a part of towns heritage (it is closest to slavic name used by Pommeranians - in Pomeranian language Wòłogòszcz, not "Hologast") '' Yes, Wolgast was a semi-important Slavic stronghold. They had a small navy and controlled the surrounding strip of land. But the local population, though Slavic (Liutizian), was neither Polish nor Pomeranian. When conquered by Pomeranian duke Wartislaw, the site was named Hologast or Hologost (Source: http://www.phf.uni-rostock.de/imd/Forschung/HomeMare2/Infosys/Wolgast71.htm) , not Wologoszcz. The town soon errected at the Hologast site was settled by Germans and local Slavs, was given German law - and named Wolgast. At that time, the gentry was already German or Germanized, so it is very unlikely that the name Hologast was in use by any of them for the new town. Even if the Kashub pronounciation by an East Pomeranian minority really was "Wologoszcz" or something close to that, there is no need to polonize this and to attach this Polonized spelling to Wolgast's history or present. If you insist on a Slavic name for Wolgast, take the name local Slavs called the fort before the German town was founded at that site.

According to presented above way of thinking we should remove German names from Gdynia and few other places. In contrast to Wolgast, Gdynia had both a Polish and a German history, and a variety of Polish and German names were in common and in official use for this place. That is not the case with Wolgast. Skäpperöd 08:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Technically no, Gdynia had hardly any German history. It was occupied by Germans for quite a long time, that's true, however back then it was only a small village, not even worth mentioning compared to Gdańsk, and it was never even germanized (unlike Gdańsk or other towns in the region). The city was built by Poles and Kashubians only, and the city of Gdynia was never controlled by Germans, except for years 1939-1945. Slavic Wołogoszcz on the other hand was one of the main settlements in the region, possibly the center of a Slavic pagan cult of Weles (Veles), a Slavic god. The name of the town itself is of Slavic origin, so the only reason I see for removing Slavic names from this article is German nationalist propaganda. Oh, and if you are using the argument, that 'there was no Poland at the time', then I am sorry, but we would also have to remove most German names from Polish Wikipedia, because Germany has only existed for some 150 years. Anyway, instead of the Polish name I added the Pommeranian (Kashubian) name, which is the best solution in my opinion, and hope it will not be removed. ZaSztutow (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Town charter plus other stuff
Re:. First, it's fine to add sourced info but please don't remove relevant info as well, especially in one big edit which makes it hard to see exactly what kind of changes are being made. In particular the fact that Otto's mission was sponsored by Boleslaw Krzywousty is notable (it's mentioned in virtually all relevant sources). Same goes for the fact that it was aided by Warcislaw who was Boleslaw's vassal.

Second, in regard to the dating of the city's Lubeck town law, the current text claims there was a letter confirming the existence of town law "written in or before 1159", and this is sourced to page 160 of Schmidt. I'm not seeing it. The text on the page of that source in fact seems to say that Wolgast is mentioned in sources only a few times (three (1128, 1184, 1254)? If so where do all these "names in contemporary sources" come from?) and the date 1159 does not appear anywhere on this or nearby pages. In fact the text seems to explicitly state that the town law was granted "before the mid 13th century". Is this a mistake or am I missing something?

As an aside, I'm also wondering if the Kasimir mentioned in Schmidt is supposed to be Casimir I, Duke of Pomerania. If so, didn't that guy die in 1180 or 1181, but the text says that he was in Wolgast in 1184? Or is it referring to his burial? Or a different Casimir. Again, maybe I'm misunderstanding this. Volunteer Marek 19:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * re Boleslaw: he sponsored Otto's first mission, here we are talking about the second one (1128).
 * re 1159: The quote for the dating of the letter is: "Dieses Schreiben ist allerdings nicht datiert; im PUB ist es zum Jahr 1159 eingeordnet, vielleicht ist es aber schon zu 1150 zu setzen" (Schmidt 2009: 160).
 * Skäpperöd (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Umm, no, he sponsored both of them.
 * And please check your source again, that's not what it says. Last time I made a minor sourcing error you accused me of "falsifying sources" and that was a much more minor mistake (putting in a citation at the end of a paragraph rather than a particular sentence). Here you're way off. By about 100 years. Volunteer Marek 01:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you did not find the quote, probably because PUB is spelled out in the book?
 * re Boleslaw:
 * Schmidt on pp. 105 and 107 makes it clear that Otto von Bamberg's second mission (1128) was not made on Boleslaw's behalf, but on behalf of Wartislaw and Lothair. Schmidt rather reports the conflict between Wartislaw and Boleslaw at that time and also Otto's mediation between the two, but the mediation was after Otto's stay in Wolgast.
 * Another source giving this more condensed is Kirsch (2004): Slawen und Deutsche in der Uckermark (Forschungen Zur Geschichte und Kultur des östlichen Mitteleuropa): "Auf Initiative Polens kam es zur ersten Missionsreise des Bamberger Bischofs Otto in den Jahren 1124/25. Eine zweite Missionsreise erfolgte 1128 auf der Grundlage veränderter politischer Bedingungen. Sie wurde vom deutschen König Lothar von Supplinburg, dem Magdeburger Erzbistum und vor allem von Albrecht dem Bären aus dem Hause der Askanier unterstützt"
 * A 3rd source is Benl (1999) in Buchholz (ed): Pommern, p. 26: "[...] veranlaßten Wartislaw, den Bischof von Bamberg um einen zweiten Missionszug zu bitten. Diesmal zog Otto unter ausdrücklichem Schutz des römisch-deutschen Königs Lothar und der deutschen Reichsgewalt."
 * Skäpperöd (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know why you did not find the quote, probably because PUB is spelled out in the book - I'm not finding it in the book because that's not what the book says. Presumably you have the source. Presumably when you typed out the quote above you looked at the source. That's a actually a strange mistake to make if one is starring right at the source, has been alerted to the mistake and is typing straight from it. But I'm assuming it was a mistake. Please check again. Volunteer Marek 15:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The book is also preview-able at google books, so the sentence is easily verifiable: . What kind of copy do you use that you can't find the sentence? Skäpperöd (talk) 06:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. Now compare the search term you used with what you claim the source says above. Volunteer Marek 07:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A typo, it is of course 1259 instead of 1159, and it would not have been that hard for you to point that out. Much drama about really nothing. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I did point it out, saying you were off by 100 years. I was wondering though if I was missing something in the source or if this was a repeat of the argument we had over at Ostsiedlung and History of Pomerania about the dating of German settlement in the area. Volunteer Marek 17:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Translation mistake
I will revert this edit because, as is obvious also from the edit summary, the edit is based on a wrong translation: Stadt is "town"/"city," Burg is "castle." Skäpperöd (talk) 06:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * "burg" can mean a town or a castle, though I really doubt that a chronicler would describe a castle as "opulent". Especially a medieval one. The part of the article text you're adding "it is however unclear whether this should be read" is not in the source, which doesn't say anything about "unclear", just says "burg or stadt". Reasonable translation is simply "city or town". Volunteer  Marek 07:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Burg means "castle," not town. The source does say "unclear" ("nicht eindeutig"), and also explains why (civitas was then used either in the sense of castrum=Burg=castle or urbs=Stadt=town/city). Where did you get the idea that Burg means town? Skäpperöd (talk) 07:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Local tribes
Regarding this edit: The source (Ruchhöft) makes it clear that no tribes were documented in Wolgast and its surroundings. So it is wrong to speak of "local" tribes documented. There were tribes documented in the wider area, however, so I will revert that edit back to "in the area." If that could be phrased better, I have no objections, but "local" is straight against the point of the source. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * If you want to remove the word "local" then go ahead and do that. Also, does the source really says "it is unclear...". I'm asking because of the section right above this one. Volunteer Marek 07:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)