Talk:Choszczno

Please write the article in English not German

I'm sorry but I have no idea what a "Grangrie" is. If you do a google search for "Grangrie" then you get, aside from some guy named so ... only this Wikipedia page. If you look for it on google books only German sources come up.

This is the English wikipedia and you can't seriously expect the reader to be familiar with German, and especially esoteric historical German, terminology. Right now it's impossible to make out what exactly this "Grangrie Sovin" was. It's just dropped in there all of sudden. Is it talking about the graveyard of this "Sovin"? It's granary? Actually speaking of this, what is even this "Sovin"? Do you mean "Stawin"?

Again, please try to write this article in English not in German. Particularly since it's about a Polish town.VolunteerMarek 15:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention the numerous strange grammatical constructs like "the rampart has also been addressed". By whom? Did someone get up next to the rampart and proclaim, "rampart, thee I address, what is thy bidding"? What does that mean? To address a rampart? There's stuff like that strewn through out the text being added. Again, DON'T translate texts literally because in addition to being a copyvio, it just sounds bad in English.VolunteerMarek 16:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Skapperod, seeing as how you just blind reverted all my edits, including grammar and spelling fixes, I've restored a previous version. Seriously, you changed "Odonic" to "Odolnic", reintroduced other spelling mistakes, included German language in the article that is incomprehensible to non-German speakers (i.e. most English readers) and put in all the weird grammar like this "addressed a rampart" stuff.

I'm not gonna play this game where I go through the article carefully and correct all the spelling and grammar errors bit by bit, spending a lot of time doing a thorough copy edit (does the text need to be paraphrased too?), then have you revert me wholesale just because of some other edit you don't like. What you should - what you are EXPECTED - to do in such a situation is to bring up a specific issue you have a problem with here on talk. Don't revert people just because you don't like them. VolunteerMarek 18:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I have not blindly reverted anything, your edits changed the meaning of the sourced sentences in a way that information was either deleted or plain wrong, with the sources I introduced left in place pretending scholary support for something which is in fact not supported at all.

Examples:

- You moved the sentence about the late Slavic settlement and the adjacent rampart between two sentences dealing with the 7th and 10th centuries, respectively. By that time, the late Slavic period had not even begun. Besides this, archeological finds do not have exact dates attached to them, and since there is no source dating these finds other than in archeological terms (late Slavic), it is misleading to invent a date here.

- You removed the sentence The rampart had also been addressed as late Slavic, yet an archaeological investigation did not yield late Slavic finds, but early German finds instead. Therefore, the rampart and the ruins inside are thought to be the remains of the Cistercian Grangie Sovin. I am open to discuss an alternative wording, but I oppose deletion of this vital fact. Above, you say that you did not understand what it means - you can ask or tag.

By "addressed as," I obviously meant "interpreted as," "called" or sth like that, we can change that if it is ambiguous.

You also say that you don't know what a Grangie is, but that is neither a reason to delete it. A Grangie is a kind of large farm with the estate houses in the center which is run by Cistercian conversi (men working for the order w/o being full members in the religious sense), and there are also lots of other people working there to whom the order is the feudal suzerain. Unfortunately, English wikipedia does not have an article I can link. For a start, these articles: grange cistercienne (fr.wiki) and Grangie (de.wiki) provide some basic information, you can use google.translate, but I hesitated to put an inline-interwiki link into this article.

Sovin was the name of the place, and that is not modern Stawin, but an archaeological site / historical settlement that was discontinued when Arnswalde was founded.

- You altered the sourced statement that "Hoscno" is believed to be the oldest mention of Choszczno, but that this assertion is not safe, into a statement that "Hoscno" is the oldest mention. I provide a full quote here from the reference I had linked to the statement: Usiłowałem dojść źródła owej wyssanej z palca, a już rozpowszechnionej wiadomości o pojawieniu się Choszczna jako Hoscno w 1233 względnie w 1234 r.' Niestety nie udało mi się to. Informacji tej nie podaje ani Deutsches Städtebuch (1939), ani też zbiorowa praca historyków polskich Miasta polskie w tysiącleciu (t. II, 1967 r.). Faktem jest, iż obszary wokół Choszczna nadał w 1233 r. Władysław Odonic cystersom kołbackim. Samo Choszczno nie zostało jednak przy tej okazji wymienione3. Wskazywać by to wręcz mogło, iż — przynajmniej pod nazwą Choszczno — jeszcze osady tej nie było. Niektórzy przypuszczają, że najstarsze „Choszczno" znajdowało się we wzmiankowanym przez owe dokumenty Sownie. This ref was left in place while saying the opposite of what is now suggested.

- You removed the sourced statement that Odonic did not even control the area when he made the donation, full quote source "denn über die Landschaften, die er verschenkte, übte er keine tatsächliche Herrschaftsgewalt aus" (Gahlbeck 1998:99).

- You altered the statement that Arnswalde was built two kilometers east of Sovin at the site of the modern town center to read that "the margraves expanded the existing settlements to the east, towards the site of modern city center" - which is plain wrong. The site of the modern city center is the site of medieval Arnswalde, and the settlement of Sovin was not expanded, but discontinued. Again, you left the source referencing the actual information in place as if it was referencing the wrong information that is there after your "grammar correction."

- Everything about Treben has disappeared from the article. Why? The information was sourced, and vital since Arnswalde took over Treben's function as the central market for the region, which was also sourced.

- You introduced an unsourced line that reads "However, Odonic had also promised roughly the same area to the Order of St. John . The resulting ambiguity led to a struggle for the land between the two monk orders. In 1269 the Margraviate of Brandenburg supported the Order of St. John and drove out the Cistercians, taking control over the region for itself." That is wrong. The dispute between the orders was not about overlapping claims from Odolnic's donation, but about debts Barnim owed to the St John's order, and the ruling the papal mediator made which in turn directly affected the Cistercians. I had provided the scholary source in the article. The margraves acted not as supporters of the St John's order, quote: "Es dürfte feststehen, daß sie nicht für die Johanniter Partei nahmen, denn ihr Handeln führte nicht zur Übergabe der Güter" (Gahlbeck 1998:113). To the contrary, the St John's order got nothing, because all they would have got as compensation was taken by the margraves based on the latters' rights as the Pomeranian suzerains, sources were provided.

The article now is giving wrong information despite proper sourcing. This is not acceptable. If you really just want to correct grammar and spelling, I have no objections. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Point by point.

• You moved the sentence about the late Slavic settlement and the adjacent rampart between two sentences dealing with the 7th and 10th centuries, respectively. By that time, the late Slavic period had not even begun. Besides this, archeological finds do not have exact dates attached to them, and since there is no source dating these finds other than in archeological terms (late Slavic), it is misleading to invent a date here.

Yes, I moved the sentence because it was referring a rampart which apparently was part of the Cistercian grange. But the paragraph is ... well, *was*, about the 7th century, long before the Cistercians got to the area. I simply moved the part about the rampart to where it belonged chronologically.

Additionally the present version of the article - your version - has removed any dates or chronology referring to the "late Slavic settlement" of the 7th to 12th century. And then you are trying to skip right to the 13th century when the Cistercian monks where there. So let's see. You moved:

The dates of the earliest Slavic settlement in the area.

Any (sourced) mention of Choszczno being part of Mieszko's Poland.

Any (sourced) mention of Choszczno being part of Krzywousty's Poland.

Any mention of Choszczno being part of Duchy of Greater Poland (which can also be sourced).

Skipped right to the portion of history when Choszczno was a borderland of the Duchy of Greater Poland, though it might have been contested by Barnim of Pomerania, fudged that up, and tried to cast as much doubt as possible about any links with the Duchy of Greater Poland.

Gee, a person might think that you are trying as hard as you can to remove any connections to Poland that this place might have had during this period, despite sources to the contrary. Honestly, this is POV pushing plain and simple. VolunteerMarek 03:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm striking the above because the info was actually moved not removed (I was looking at diffs and Skapperod's edits completely screwed up the chronology of the narrative making the information hard to follow). However, this sentence after Wrymoth's death however, the area subsequently eluded Polish control and was later ruled by the Duchy of Pomerania is inaccurate and quite obviously based on WP:OR which is being conducted in this footnote [1]. It may be the case that in 1250 Barnim recovered some control over the area - though even that is dubious. But, there's nothing in the info to establish that the region "eluded Polish control" between the time of Krzywousty's death 1138 and 1250 (even assuming that Barnim did take it in 1250).VolunteerMarek 03:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You failed to read the source. There is only one rampart. This rampart was referred to as late Slavic, but based on the archeological survey that yielded late Slavic finds in the adjacent settlement but did not yield Slavic finds within the rampart, but early German finds only, it seems that the rampart was constructed as part of the Cistercian fortification. You removed mention of the archaeological survey and its scholary interpretation and moved the sentence into a time period where it does simply not belong - neither the rampart nor the adjacent settlement - contrary to the source. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• You altered the sourced statement that "Hoscno" is believed to be the oldest mention of Choszczno, but that this assertion is not safe, into a statement that "Hoscno" is the oldest mention. I provide a full quote here from the reference

Ok. There are sources which state that the name "Hoscno" was recorded at this time. There is apparently one source which ... a part of? ... is doubtful of that. In that source, the person speaking is obviously responding to someone else. Who is the speaker? Who is s/he responding to it? What is the context of the discussion? Is there a counter response? I can't evaluate your claim without that information, based on a measly google books snippet. Please provide more info, or the text is simply dubious. VolunteerMarek 03:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The source is Jan M. Piskorski 1990 (1991): Review of S. Rospond's Słownik etymologiczny miast i gmin PRL (Slavia Occidentalis 46/47), pp. 368-374. I linked the snippet view just to reference the full quote. Contrary to your assumption, the quote is not part of a dialogue. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• You removed the sourced statement that Odonic did not even control the area when he made the donation

Assuming that Gahlbeck is in fact referring to Choszczno and not some other borderland area this is again, cherry picking sources. Other sources simply state that Odonic donated the area and don't question his "control" over it. It is extremely doubtful if Barnim had "control" of the area. Most likely, this being a borderland, it's likely that the possession/control was unclear which is exactly why the monks asked BOTH for the grant.VolunteerMarek 03:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

If "other sources" just mention the donation and don't go into an in-depth analysis, then that does not in any way contradict Gahlbeck or prove him wrong. What is your source for all the assumptions you made above? Skäpperöd (talk) 07:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• You altered the statement that Arnswalde was built two kilometers east of Sovin at the site of the modern town center to read that "the margraves expanded the existing settlements to the east, towards the site of modern city center" - which is plain wrong. The site of the modern city center is the site of medieval Arnswalde, and the settlement of Sovin was not expanded, but discontinued.

I'm sorry I don't understand what your objection is. My text stated that the margraves expanded the existing settlement to the east. You claim that the modern city center is the side of medieval Arnswalde/Choszczno. Where is the contradiction? If Sowin was eventually discountinued, so what? What does that have to do with anything? I think you're imagining some extraordinary significance in the difference in wording which is simply not there.VolunteerMarek 03:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between expanding a settlement towards a site that is two kilometers away, and founding a town two kilometers away. The first statement is not backed by the source, the second one is, so let's stick with what the source says. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Everything about Treben has disappeared from the article. Why? The information was sourced, and vital since Arnswalde took over Treben's function as the central market for the region, which was also sourced.

No, what was/is in the article is that the construction of this "Treben" was discontinued. Hence, it's actually a fairly minor part of the story, basically a who cares. Are you sure you're not confusing yourself with your Trebens and Sovins here? If Treben was a significant part of the story then, I'm sorry, that just does not appear to be clear from your text. Rewrite it, and propose it on talk, in a way which clarifies the situation. This one might be just a simple failure of communication.VolunteerMarek 03:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The source said that Arnswalde took over Treben's role as the central market of the region, so no it is not "a fairly minor part of the story." Skäpperöd (talk) 07:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• That is wrong. The dispute between the orders was not about overlapping claims from Odolnic's (sic) donation, but about debts Barnim owed to the St John's order

Not exactly. While the info you provide does explain the context a bit more, the dispute did originate from overlapping claims and donations. Barnim's debts might have been the excuse that the Brandenburgians used, but I'm sure the Cistercians saw things differently (why should they care about Barnim's debts, when the territory was given to them by Odonic?). VolunteerMarek 03:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

They cared because Barnim was their suzerain, and the margraves were Barnim's suzerain, and no Odonic was there when the dispute took place. Let's stick to the source. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Finally, the text you added starting with "the margraves founded the town of Arnswalde east of Sovin" and continuing with "This new town, built between 1269 and 1289" is the typical POV pushing that you have been consistently engaged in on this project. Specifically, it's the old trick of pretending that any place that was inhabited by Slavic people was only "a settlement" (i.e. backward), but as soon as a German settler or two (the progressive civiliziers of the backward peoples) appeared in their midst it magically turned into a town and hence Germans "founded" or "build" all towns that Slavs now live in. You know, if this was any other part of the globe, this kind of neo-colonialist (based on 19th century nationalist historiography) narrative would be laughed out of any article. But since this is Eastern Europe that kind of nonsense can still pass unnoticed. The only difference in this particular instance is that whereas with larger urban areas like Kolobrzeg or Szczecin you pretended that they weren't towns pre-German migration, here, honestly speaking, even after the Brandenburgian take over, it's quite likely that Choszczno/Arnswalde did not get up to a status for quite awhile (probably not till the 14th century).

I'm sorry, I'm going to revert your changes, though I'm willing to admit that some of them may be valid. Let's work out which parts are and which aren't.VolunteerMarek 03:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

That the margraves founded the town of Arnswalde 2 kilometers east of Sovin and that this new town was built between 1269 and 1289 is stated by the sources given in the reference. I cited modern German and Polish expert sources. If you have sources of equal quality contradicting these sources, then please cite them. To allege that the sources I cited have anything to do with neo-colonialism or 19th century nationalist historiography is completely without basis. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Your recent revert restored a version which is not in accordance with the sources given, and deleted vast stretches of sourced information not contradicted by any source cited. I will give you additional time to present sources that contradict the sources you reverted, and these should be of equal quality, i.e. modern expert sources. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

References

That rampart

I'm moving individual topics to their own section.

You failed to read the source. There is only one rampart. This rampart was referred to as late Slavic, but based on the archeological survey that yielded late Slavic finds in the adjacent settlement but did not yield Slavic finds within the rampart, but early German finds only, it seems that the rampart was constructed as part of the Cistercian fortification. You removed mention of the archaeological survey and its scholary interpretation and moved the sentence into a time period where it does simply not belong - neither the rampart nor the adjacent settlement - contrary to the source.

Yes I know there's only one rampart. But honestly, ok, I give up. What is the significance of this rampart? Why are you putting it in here? Did the article say that the rampart was part of the early Slavic settlement? No. Did someone deny the existence of the Cistercian settlement? No. Did someone say it was Slavic in some other publication - maybe, I have no idea, but it's unclear who, or why this is important. So at some point maybe someone out there thought this rampart was early Slavic, but it later turned out to be part of the later Cistercian grange. Ok. And? Your sentence is having a conversation with someone out there in the real world that has no relevance for this article.

It's not like anyone's denying the existence of the Cistercian settlement. So it's not that weird that they found a rampart that belongs to it. Is this supposed to be some kind of evidence that there was no earlier Slavic settlement? If so, that simply doesn't follow. If not, then it's irrelevant, or at the very least belongs in the paragraph where the Cistercians are discussed.

I'm ready to confess that I'm just not getting the relevance or the importance of this rampart. And of course I didn't read the source - it's not easily available and it is in German - I'm going by what you wrote.VolunteerMarek 23:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

First, there was no "early Slavic settlement", but a settlement where late Slavic finds were made. The significance of the rampart being the defensive work of the Cistercian grangie rather than a Slavic fort is that this is unusual (there are other Cistercian granges fortified like this, but usually one would expect a Slavic fort, and that is exactly what happened); second, there is no way to isolate the adjacent village from the rampart, as they did not exist on their own (we are talking about Cistercian land here, and I have not yet found anything indicating that the unfortified part of the village might have pre-dated the fortified part). Skäpperöd (talk) 14:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

First, this may be a matter of different terminology. The sources which were in the article which you removed referenced a Slavic settlement of the 7th or 8th century. Is that "early Slavic" or "late Slavic"?

I'm still not seeing the importance of this rampart. The statement which you put in parentheses (this is unusual (there are other Cistercian granges fortified like this, but usually one would expect a Slavic fort, and that is exactly what happened)) does not make sense. The "this is unusual" part contradicts "that is exactly what happened" part, at least as written. Maybe you're just wording things in a very confusing way.

Still, I see no reason to emphasize this. This appears like some kind of an excuse to remove the info about the pre-Cistercian settlement (whether this is "early Slavic" or "late Slavic") per WP:IDON'TLIKEIT.

I'm going to restore the previous version, but include the Hoscno stuff (see below). Let's keep working on this and we can figure it out.VolunteerMarek 02:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The source for 7th century Slavic settlement is the website of the county of Choszczno. I did not remove that sentence, it is the introductory sentence to the History section.

However, you can not confuse 7th century Slavic settlement in the area of the modern county with the late Slavic settlement near modern Choszczno. To state that Slavic peoples settled the area of the modern county is fine and in line with the source, but concluding from the respective sentence in the source that the Slavic settlement in the vicinity of modern Choszczno had been inhabited from the 7th century onwards is OR and not in line with the sources given. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok. So on this, your issue is that the settlement of the 7th century is "in the area of Choszczno" but not exactly equivalent to the site of the town? And that there was no continuity between the 7th century settlement and whatever settlement there might have existed in the 12th century? If anything, the later claim seems more ORish.VolunteerMarek 03:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hoscno

The source is Jan M. Piskorski 1990 (1991): Review of S. Rospond's Słownik etymologiczny miast i gmin PRL (Slavia Occidentalis 46/47), pp. 368-374. I linked the snippet view just to reference the full quote. Contrary to your assumption, the quote is not part of a dialogue.

Ok. Though seriously, if a work is titled a "Review of XYZ" then it is a "dialogue" between the reviewer and the person being reviewed. Hell, the sentence has quotation marks around it - someone's quoting someone and responding to it. So fine. Now we know who is being responded to - Rospond. Can you provide the full context of the review, as well as the statement of Rospond that is being reviewed?

The exact same source again states that the lands around Choszczno were given to the Cistercians by Odonic. So at least don't cherry pick quotations.VolunteerMarek 23:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Rospond deceased some years prior to the review, but I won't go into that "dialogue-or-not" any more because it really doesn't matter.

You asked for "the full context of the review, as well as the statement of Rospond that is being reviewed". Piskorski's article is about the "Słownik etymologiczny ..." in general, describing its bias and giving examples of false claims. The first part describes how the "Słownik etymologiczny ..." is biased towards stating Polish roots for the ca. 4000 toponyms it contains, no matter whether a Polish or even Slavic root actually existed. The second part is a list of examples, where some placenames are listed in alphabetical order and to each one Piskorski explains in a few paragraphs faults in the corresponding entries of the "Słownik etymologiczny ...". The list is not meant to be complete, but rather serves to illustrate of the first part. Then comes a short conclusion, where Piskorski points out the enormous impact of the "Słownik etymologiczny ..." and proposes its replacement.

I already provided the name and issue of the journal and the page numbers, but I will provide you with some quotes to verify what I said above, assuming you are still in command of the Polish language. Piskorski: "Zgodnie z mymi zainteresowaniami roz- poczęłem od etymologii z terenu szeroko pojętego historycznego pogranicza polsko-niemieckiego. W tym momencie, co ze smutkiem muszę stwierdzić, radość poczęła mijać, a jej miejsce zajęło pewne zakłopotanie." [Whereby "field of interest" is really an understatement hinting at Piskorski's scholary expertise in this topic. The next quotes give an impression of the "Słownik etymologiczny ..."'s bias:] "Otóż w zamierzeniu Autora Slownik jego, w przypadku Pomorza i Śląska, miał być „potwierdzeniem historycznej polskości tych ziem" (s. 11)." [...] "Niestety wiadomości z historii, które on przytacza są albo anachronizmem w świetle współczesnych badań, jak choćby ta o piastowskich książętach Pomorza Zachodniego wymarłych w połowie XVII w. (B. 153), albo też są dobierano w taki sposób, by wesprzeć obraz, który Autor chciał otrzymać. Obok nich są jeszcze bardzo a burdzo liczne błędy, których w każdej książce — szczególnie tego typu — nie brak, lecz tutaj jest ich stanowczo za dużo." [The last quote I provide here is to confirm that the entries in the second part of the review are meant to be an incomplete list of examples of mistakes:] "By nie pozostać gołosłownym postaram się obecnie każdy z wysuniętych tu zarzutów zilustrować przykładami. Ze względu na to, że Slownik zawiera też całą masę błędów historycznych i je trzeba będzie tu pokazać. Rzecz jasna nie dążą one do kompletności."

Within this list, there is also an entry about Choszczno, for which I already provided a partial quote above. I will nevertheless quote the full entry here for verification: "Choszczno" [list entry, followed by a quote from the "Słownik etymologiczny ...", which can be verified by looking at p. 55 of the 1984 edition:]" — 'w 1233 r. wielkopolski książę Władysław Odonic nadał Ch. cystersom z Kołbacza. Wtedy też wymieniono Hoscno, czyli Choszczno, potem Chosczno alias Arnsberg 1433 r., czyli dopiero od XV w. pojawi się wariant niem. Arnswalde, choć te ziemie opanowali Brandenburczycy już w 1269 r.'." [end of quote, the following is Piskorski's assessment:]" Z wyraźną radością oznajmia tu Rospond, że Choszczno znane pod słowiańską nazwą jakoby już od XIII w. , nazwę niemiecką uzyskuje dopiero w dwa stulecia później. Rzecz w tym jednak, iż było w sam raz odwrotnie. W źródłach pojawia się bowiem Choszczno nie w 1233 r., lecz w 1269 r. i od razu pod nazwą Arnswalde. Słowiańska nazwa Choszczna znana jest dopiero z XV w. i to właśnie ze źródeł polskich, gdyż miasto znalazło się wówczas przejściowo pod panowaniem Polaków. " [The next paragraph is the one I had already cited above:] "Usiłowałem dojść źródła owej wyssanej z palca, a już rozpowszechnionej wiadomości o pojawieniu się Choszczna jako Hoscno w 1233 względnie w 1234 r.' Niestety nie udało mi się to. Informacji tej nie podaje ani Deutsches Städtebuch (1939), ani też zbiorowa praca historyków polskich Miasta polskie w tysiącleciu (t. II, 1967 r.). Faktem jest, iż obszary wokół Choszczna nadał w 1233 r. Władysław Odonic cystersom kołbackim. Samo Choszczno nie zostało jednak przy tej okazji wymienione3. Wskazywać by to wręcz mogło, iż — przynajmniej pod nazwą Choszczno — jeszcze osady tej nie było. Niektórzy przypuszczają, że najstarsze „Choszczno" znajdowało się we wzmiankowanym przez owe dokumenty Sownie." [end of Choszno's entry, the following paragraph is about a different town]

In addition to Piskorski, the equation of Hoscno with Choszcno had already been refuted during the communist era by Teresa Kolodziejska (1962): Architektura kosciola parafialnego w Choszcznie (Materialy zach.-pom. 8), pp. 301—331; who had noted that contrary to the original commentary, later editions of the KDW had equated a Silesian "Hoscno" with Choszczno in the annotation of a 1234 document - quote Kolodziejska (1962:304): "Choszczno po raz pierwszy występuje w dokumencie z 1269 r. pod niemiecką nazwą Arnswalde, jako miejscowość w której ten dokument wystawiono. Źródła z XIII i XIV w. nic nie wspominają o nazwie „Choszczno". Istnieje wprawdzie dokument z 1234 r., w którym wymienia się „villa Hoscno". Wydawca Kodeksu Wielkopolskiego identyfikuje ją ze starą nazwą miasta Arnswalde (dzisiejsze Choszczno). Identyfikacja ta budzi zastrzeżenie, ponieważ spór między klasztorami premonstratensów we Wrocławiu a benedyktynów w Tyńcu, który jest treścią tego dokumentu, dotyczy miejscowości leżących na Śląsku Opolskim iw Małopolsce, a nie na omawianym terenie. Zresztą, także Kętrzyński, pierwszy wydawca tego dokumentu w Kodeksie Tynieckim w uwadze zaznacza, że „Hoscno stoi zapewnie mylnie za Hosino — Osino — Osin, wieś pod Raciborzem". Wynika stąd jasno, że „villam Hoscno" z dokumentu z 1234 r. nie można utożsamiać z Choszcznem na Pomorzu." Winfried Irgang and Heinrich Appelt (eds.) (1977): Schlesisches Urkundenbuch 1231-1250, p.39 and Engelbert, Kurt (ed.) (1971): Archiv für schlesische Kirchengeschichte vol. 8, p. 48 proposed that Hoscno probably refers to the village Chosz. The latter reference works are collections of transcriptions of Silesian documents in part overlapping with the Kętrzyński's KDW.

Skäpperöd (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

assuming you are still in command of the Polish language. - passive-aggressive much? And when did you become so fluent in it?

Anyway, actually, the Kolodziejska ref, combined with Piskorski's assessment does appear to be sufficient to throw significant doubt on the "Hoscno = Choszczno" identification, so yes, I'm fine with the wording you proposed earlier, though for the sake of better English it should probably just say that that identification has been question by several scholars. Please take this agreement on this particular matter in good faith and respond in kind.

Also, just wondering, can you provide the translations for the Polish passages you quote? VolunteerMarek 02:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Fine, I will do some rewording, include the Kolodziejska ref and give a short explanaition in the ref tag. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Choszczno. 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/20140114074053/http://rthzch.zschoszczno.pl/news.php?id=47 to http://rthzch.zschoszczno.pl/news.php?id=47

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) 02:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)