Talk:Kwidzyn

Old talk (section heading added 5/12/13)

If you jokers don't stop with the reverting, I'm going to protect the page, and then one of you will be unhappy and unable to do anything about it. Let's hear the evidence one way or the other here. Stan 14:16, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

the discussion you can find here and here. As Gzornenplatz does not accept the german goverment, the Duden, the use in the German press, the homepage of the city, the Wikipedia on pl or de and even the embassy of Poland as proof there is no way to convince him; you might read the discussion itself on this pages ...Sicherlich 16:21, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm so not interested in this stupid back-and-forth, so it's protected until you people come to an agreement, which I suspect would come about more quickly if all the affected pages were to be similarly protected. Stan 17:45, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that doesn't work... Many pages were protected already because of that (like Klodzko, Szczecin or Pila) and that didn't help. Gzornenplatz simply returned to those pages after they were unprotected and the whole thing started once again. At the same time he was calling all his opponents (including yours truly) morons, idiots or dense for not agreing to his claims. See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily/Evidence and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gzornenplatz. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 11:33, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Just means people have been too impatient - if it's Gzornenplatz that is the sole problem, then work on getting a conclusion out of the arbcom. Wishful thinking is not the answer here. Stan 16:26, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

he does not agree to any other solution then his one because he is right and german press, polish WP, homepages of polish cities .... and even german & polish goverment are wrong, beause of edit wars he was alread 3 (or 4?!) times blocked on de .. at the moment for 3 weeks ...Sicherlich 19:53, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Let's hope the ArbCom will find some solution. I also appreciate the recent initiative of Jimbo who decided to enforce the WP:3RR. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 21:21, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Change of language and historical neutrality needed

This is an article that does not fullfill Wikipedias standards on a neutral standpoint. The statement that there was a "policy of forceful Germanization" in Prussia in the early 19th century is simply not true, just refer to history books (and not only Polish ones)! The Prussian administration persued for a long time a policy of great tolerance against minorities - as long as they were loyal to the Prussian crown. Just a citation from the Prussian culture minister Karl Freiherr zum Altenstein in his edict on the use of the language to be used in school 1825:

Was die Ausbreitung der deutschen Sprache betrifft, so kommt es hierbei zunächst darauf an, dass man sich selber klarmache, was man in dieser Hinsicht eigentlich wolle und solle, nämlich, ob nur ein allgemeines verstehen der deutschen Sprachen unter den polnischen Einwohnern dortiger Provinzen hingewirkt werden solle, oder ob man etwa die Absicht habe, die ganze Nation zwar allmählich und unvermerklich, aber nichtsdestoweniger so vollständig wie möglich zu germanisieren. Nach dem Urteil des Ministers ist nur das erstere nötig, ratsam und ausführbar, das andere aber unratsam und unausführbar, denn um vollkommen gute Untertanen zu sein ... ist es zwar für die Polen wünschenswert und nötig, dass sie die Landesregierungssprache verstehen und sich in ihr verständlich zu machen wissen; es ist aber nicht nötig, dass sie deshalb ihre Stammessprache aufgeben oder auch nur hintansetzen müssen. Der Besitz zweier Sprachen ...[kann] vielmehr als ein Vorzug betrachtet werden ... Religion und Sprache sind die höchsten Heiligtümer einer Nation, in denen ihre ganze Gesinnungs- und Begriffswelt gegründet ist. Eine Obrigkeit ... welche sich Angriffe dagegen erlaubt ... erbittert oder entwürdigt die Nation und schafft sich ungetreue oder schlechte Untertanen. ... Die Bildung eines Individuums und einer Nation kann nur vermittels der Muttersprache bewerkstelligt werden.

Translated:

As far as the extension of German language is concerned, it is important to make clear what are the aims, if only the general understanding of German language among the Polish inhabitants in certain provinces should be sufficient or if one should have the aim to Germanize the entire nation slowly and gradually as completely as possible. According to the opinion of the minister only the first aim is necessary, advisable and practicable while the other is inadvisable and unfeasible. Because, to be a loyal subject it is desirable and needful for the Poles to understand and and speak the language of government, but it is not necessary to give up their mother language or even postpone it. To be fluent in two language can be regarded as an advantage. Religion and language are the greatest sanctuaries of a nation where the entire ethos and vocabulary of concepts is grounded. An authority that attacks them provokes bitterness, debases the nation and creates illoyal and bad subjects. The education of an individual and a nation can only be done in their mother language.

(sorry for the certainly imperfect translation)

So actually Polish and Lithuanian children were taught in Polish language at school at this time! This policy of tolerence changed gradually after the foundation of the German Empire in 1871 and German language replaced all other langauges. However, one has toe emphazise that Prussia always remaind a constitutional state (in contrast to neigghboring Russia) and the Polish newspapers, associations and societies florished, despite the school policy. A second important point: not all Polish-speakers regarded themselves as Poles. Just refer to the result of the plebiscites in Marienwerder area (92% for East Prussia, i. e. Germany) and Masuria (98% for East Prussia, i.e. Germany), both areas with at least 25-35% Polish speakers (both plebiscites were held under Allied supervision after WWI).

--Furfur 06-09-21

Ordensburg castle ?

"The Teutonic Knights founded an Ordensburg castle"

I found this strange expression also in another article. Probably the author didn't think about the meaning of the word 'Ordensburg'. The expression 'Ordensburg castle' should be interpreted as "castle of the Ordensburg". That leaves the question: What is the 'Ordensburg'. Considering the context it should be an organization. But the organization is the 'Knights of the Teutonic Order', maybe shortend to 'Order'. And 'Ordensburg' was never the name of an organization, it simply is a "Burg des Ordens", which translates to "castle of the Order", or simply 'Order's castle'. => 'Ordensburg castle' = 'Order's castle castle'. I would say, that's 1 castle too much. Truchses (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Kwidzyń -- town name

It's actually 'Kwidzyń' and not 'Kwidzyn'. The redirection should be done the other way round: 'Kwidzyn' should redirect to 'Kwidzyń' --Eos różanopalca (talk) 09:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources edited/written by Nazi authors, abuse of primary sources by User:Kaiser von Europa

This edit [1] (along with several others) uses primary sources, which may be biased, for potentially controversial information. This violates the Wikipedia policy WP:PRIMARY.

The same edit uses a source, Handbuch der historischen Stätten, edited by the Nazi author Erich Weise and with contributions from other authors from Nazi Germany. Per WP:RS this is not a reliable source and should not be used in this or other articles.

Furthermore it looks like an effort is being made to obfuscate the nature of this source, by omitting the fact that Weise was the editor and instead only listing a few of the authors (like Kurt Forstreuter, another Nazi). On top of that the ISBN number of the book is being omitted. Note that previously the same editor included this information in his previous edits, but when concerns were raised about the nature of this source and Erich Weise, began omitting it. This suggests strongly that the editor in question is fully aware that this is a problematic source and is making bad faithed attempts to hide it.

Please do not restore this info without providing modern, reliable, secondary sources.Volunteer Marek 13:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kwidzyn. 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/20060626162159/http://www.wsz.kwidzyn.edu.pl/english.htm to http://www.wsz.kwidzyn.edu.pl/english.htm

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) 19:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Polonizing History

By removing my contribution all of a sudden without any consideration, volunteer Marek demonstrates he doesn't want to discuss about the history of the town in this lemma, doesn't even want to implement a selection of objective improvements in a sometimes shabby text. Do we have to understand this as the new morale of Polish historians: a new war in which national Polish presence has to be saveguarded in the course of times, even if the historical facts does not support this Polishness? Well, I am not a German at all, but a historian with a scientific consciousness, and I regret that this consciousness is not as important as a national stance. Among Wikipedians, in Wikipedy, in 2018, in Europe. 84.86.5.217 (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC) 84.86.5.217 29 March 22.59 (UTC)

Bringing together?

The contribution of 84.86.5.217|needs no radical removal but can still be more clear. The existing text does certainly needs to be improved, because it does not make a difference between the Marienwerder district before and after 1919. The Polish speaking part of this district was allocated to Poland in 1919. The German spaking part had to conform its choice for Germany in a plebiscite. The majority of the Poles needed no participation in this plebiscite because of their immediate incorporation in the Polish state in 1919. 84.86.5.217 (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC) [[User talk: Kwaremont, april 2 2018, 16.10 (UTC)

August 2023

@Volunteer Marek: you reverted my removal of content which isn't even mentioned in the source here. I was able to download the book Plebiscyt 1920 roku. Walka o Polskość Warmii, Mazur i Powiśla, and used a translator to verify the cited pages, which said nothing about election fraud, anti-polish terror, and polish demonstrations in the town. Also, I got the election results for the town and district from the official Polish Governments documents from 1923 here, though I seem to have forgotten to add a citation for the results, my mistake. Crainsaw (talk) 09:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

The pdf you link to is a statistical yearbook and not the actual source that’s being cited in the article. Am I missing something? Volunteer Marek 04:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes you are missing something, if you scroll down to the first page it says "results of the plebiscite" in polish and french. There you can see the results for "District de Marienwerder" you can see the results for the district as a whole and the individual cities such as Kwidzyn. Crainsaw (talk) 04:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

That is not my question. I’m wondering why you are removing text with the justification that the info “isn’t even mentioned in the source”, and then posting links to some other source. I’m also wondering why you are claiming to have downloaded a book and checked and found it not mentioned when the source very clearly mentions the info. Volunteer Marek 04:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The information is most certainly mentioned in the source. Can you tell me what exactly is on the cited pages of this “book” you downloaded? Volunteer Marek 04:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

It's said that pp. 16-18, which said nothing about the actual plebiscite but instead were mostly about the Germans censuses and the Polish censuses and the German claims and Polish claims to the land. Crainsaw (talk) 04:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

This is absolutely not true.

The Wikipedia article text "The Inter-Allied Commission with nearly 2,000 troops often favored the Germans, and its services towards Poles were often delayed and limited" appears on page 15, second paragraphs, first and second sentences, just like the citation says. If anything one could argue that the text isn't sufficiently paraphrased. The "while the administration remained under German control" text is in the third sentence of the same paragraph.

The Wikipedia article text "The town was home to the Polish Warmian Plebiscite Committee and the Committee for Polish Affairs" appears on page 17, last paragraph, just like the citation says. The text "which, however, had to operate partly secretly" is also there although here it is presented somewhat inaccurately - the organization that had to operate secretly was a different, related one, created by the same guy.

The Wikipedia article text "On May 16, 1920, the largest Polish plebiscite demonstration in Powiśle took place in the town, and Poles had to organize defenses against attacks by German militias" is supported by information appearing on the same page, just like the citation says. In fact, the source gives anumber of participants in the demonstration: around 20,000. It mentions organizing self defense against German militias.

The Wikipedia article text "These conditions combined with German electoral fraud" is supported by text on page 18, first paragraph, just like the citation says. In addition the source mentions the influx of migrants from Germany who came to participate in the voting.

It's all in there.

Can you tell me where and how you obtained and downloaded this "book"? And if you did that, why not link to it so that others could verify rather than linking to some other source instead? Thanks. Volunteer Marek 05:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

this one right? Crainsaw (talk) 05:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

No, that one is Plebiscyt na Warmii, Mazurach i Powiślu 1920 (Plebiscite in Warmia, Mazury and Powisle 1920). Different source. Volunteer Marek 05:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a link for the correct source? I apologize for the confusion. Crainsaw (talk) 05:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

[2]. The source you looked at (Wiergowski) says more or less the same thing, just on different pages, 19-34. Volunteer Marek 05:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Since when is the Institute of National Remembrance a reliable source? They've been criticized many times by scholars, within and outside of Poland. Their founding amendment says "protecting the reputation of the Republic of Poland and the Polish Nation" 4 times. I highly doubt they're NPOV. The exhibition randomly included a quote from a politician named Robert Gontarz, who is currently serving in the Sejm, the quote said: Groszki, Na Tej Ziemi, przed latami, Zabrzmiał patriotyczny dzwon. Nie chcąc dłużej być z Niemcami, Wybierając polski tron. Na Tej Ziemi, Orzeł Biały, Swych przyjaciół ciągle miał, Których serca do wolności grały, Dając siłę, aby wstał. Na Tej Ziemi, dla Ojczyzny, Oddaliście cenny głos, Wybierając zamiast złota, Piękny, trudny los. Na Tej Ziemi, dziś stoimy, Czyny Wasze wspominamy, Chcąc powiedzieć Wam w prostocie, Że wciąż o tym pamiętamy. Whichtranslates to "Peas On this Earth, years ago, A patriotic bell sounded. No longer wanting to be with the Germans, Choosing the Polish throne. On This Earth, the White Eagle, His friends still had, Whose hearts to freedom played, Giving strength to stand up. On This Earth, for the Fatherland, You gave your precious vote, Choosing instead of gold, A beautiful, difficult fate. On this Earth, today, we stand, Remembering your deeds, Wanting to tell you in simplicity, That we still remember." Crainsaw (talk) 05:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

It’s RS. Being criticized, or even biased, does not make it unreliable. Sources can’t be “NPOV” or “POV” just reliable or not. I have no idea what the poem has to do with anything, or Gontarz for that matter since neither is quoted or used as a source. Your objection however was that the info was not in the source. It very clearly is. The same info is, with different details, in the Wegierski book which you yourself brought up. Volunteer Marek 05:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:COISOURCE Crainsaw (talk) 05:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

That’s a fairly obscure reference to a Wikipedia policy but I fail to see how it is at all relevant here. The exhibition itself was co organized by historians from a a research institute. Volunteer Marek 05:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The last page of the exhibition itself says: Wystawę przygotowało

Oddziałowe Biuro Edukacji Narodowej Instytutu Pamięci Narodowej –

Komisja Ścigania Zbrodni przeciwko Narodowi Polskiemu w Białymstoku, Delegatura Instytutu Pamięci Narodowej w Olsztynie oraz, which means prepared by the IPN. The research institute only helped prepare the boards according to the last page and not the actual content. And the policy is relevant since the IPN is not independent of the government and has an inherent conflict of interest, which is also pointed out by the usage of "Protecting the reputation of Poland" in the Amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance. Crainsaw (talk) 05:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

No, the COISOURCE policy you cite refers to situations where a publication has a financial stake in the subject they’re writing about. That is not the case here, clearly. There are lots and lots of institutions which are not “independent of the government” which are reliable and most certainly are not considered to have a “conflict of interest”, albeit an entirely different thing.

The exhibition was prepared by both IPN and the Northern Institute, albeit the latter focused on the Powisle part of it. Volunteer Marek 06:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

COISOURCE: Any publication put out by an organization is clearly not independent of any topic that organization has an interest in promoting... Independent studies, if available, are preferred... Also the Wegierski is published by Ridero which is a publisher for independent authors. Crainsaw (talk) 06:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

That’s sloppy wording (which is why that is an essay not policy). Obviously if an organization publishes something it has an interest in promoting it. If Smithsonian, which is not independent of the government, writes about Science, it has interest in promoting Science. The COISOURCE essay is clearly referring to situations where an organization has a financial interest in what it is writing about, as is obvious from the examples given. Please undo your revert since your objection and basis for removal turned out to be untrue. Volunteer Marek 06:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll revert the edit for now. But just so you know, I'll be posting a discussion at WP:RSN regarding the reliability of the exhibition. Crainsaw (talk) 07:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

And like I said, this info is also in the Wegierski source you brought up, albeit with slightly different details. Volunteer Marek 06:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)