Jump to content

Talk:Chojnice

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Why no mention of a seminal event - the antisemitic rioting of 1900?

Erika Trautmann (1897-1968), née Nehring. See Franz Altheim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.8.98.118 (talk) 11:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erich Weise - question for Kaiser of Europe

[edit]

Ummm, is this [1] the same Erich Weise who was a SS Obersturmführer? If so, why are you adding Nazi sources to the article? Volunteer Marek 22:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect

[edit]

Re: [2] - no, Pomeralia (Gdansk Pomerania) was controlled by Poland/Piasts as early as 10th century.Volunteer Marek 20:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tables based on very old and problematic sources

[edit]

Re: [3]. Yes, it's sourced. It's sourced to 19th century primary source and given the wave of nationalism sweeping Europe at the time, we shouldn't take these at face value. IF these numbers are given credence by secondary sources that are more recent, then it's fine to include them. Otherwise, see WP:PRIMARY, and keep them out.Volunteer Marek 23:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will probably create an article on the Nazi Erich Weise. Obviously Nazis aren't reliable source of information about Polish history. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC) I created this article. Very unreliable Nazi with involvement with abuse of Jews and war crimes. Needs to be removed. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

100 Poles

[edit]

Regarding this [4]. It does seem extremely strange that in the 1907 election 61.3% of inhabitants voted for the Polish Party but yet there were somehow only 100 Poles in the town. In the same page it seems to say that 23000 were Poles in the district as a whole (out of 52483)

I can't be sure since the source is in German but the way it's listed suggests that the (100 Poles) is referencing the 502 Jews. As in "502 Jews, 100 of whom were Polish". That would make sense of the numbers.

This actually highlights the danger of using primary sources and having them interpreted by Wikipedia editors (yes, I know Rademacher is a secondary source, but what is being used here is basically a reprint of a primary source found in Rademacher).Volunteer Marek 22:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is my impression as well. As far as I remember the term sonstige was often used to inhabitants without German citizenship, and in this case the numbers could mean "Polish Jews" that is Jewish immigrants from Congress Poland as they were named in German Empire. In any case 100 Poles in view of election results is extremely unlikely... --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chojnice. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chojnice. 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:

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) 15:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

[edit]

@Volunteer Marek: - Fancy meeting you here. Please specify how the Zeszyty Chojnickie - a local magazine financed by the Chojnice municipality[5] - is a WP:RS for WWII history. In addition, per WP:NOENG, please provide quotes + translations for each of your modifications - diff sourced to Zeszyty Chojnickie. As a side note - you've introduced a duplication in the "Population" section in relation to the "World War II and Nazi occupation (1939–1945)" section. Icewhiz (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's fancy isn't? You showing up to an article you've never edited before but which was a target of a now indef-banned user I had serious trouble with a few years back and whose sock puppet I reverted recently. Want to explain that one?
And the source is reliable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't edited this article since 2013. I got to this article by searching for a particular distortion in all mainspace articles. A local municipal publication is generally far from reliable for history - please back up your assertion. And quotes+translations please - of each and individual bit you sourced to this local Polish publication - per WP:NOENG - you are required to provide this. Icewhiz (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will also note that in diff - you removed text I added in diff - which I removed since it was a duplicate to diff (which added earlier German atrocities). Your edit summary of - "restore, it's in the source, though Icewhiz might have removed it" - is false - as I added it on 13:11 and rephrased + added a few more atrocities on 13:33. Icewhiz (talk) 16:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Piotrus: - in regards to diff - using a local (municipally funded) source is OK for the local museum. However the assertion of "Chojnice was a town in Polish Pomerania which had experienced the heaviest Germanization out of areas of the Prussian partition of Poland" and to a lesser extent "As symbolic gesture of regained freedom, one of Chojnice citizens Barbara Stammowa broke shackles on the balcony of city town hall-in revenge Nazis murdered her in 1939 when the town was re-occupied by Germany" - should have a higher quality source. Unlike another bit I challenged (which was counter-factual based on mainstream sources) - I don't believe this bit to be necessarily untrue (i.e. "heaviest Germanization" - seems quite possibly correct per my knowledge of the field - but I did not verify. The account of Stammowa - don't know absent verifying this). For Germanization there should be ample sourcing available. Icewhiz (talk) 06:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • There may be better sources, but I think that regional "academic" work cited is sufficient (Chojnickie Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Nauk „ZESZYTY CHOJNICKIE” [6]). Well, regional academic, probably publishes amateurish-research, not sure about peer review... and I can't find much about the authors, they are probably not professional historians. Nonetheless, while I wouldn't use it for controversial claims, as you say, the claims made here are not particularly controversial, and I don't think improving the sourcing on this is a priority. Regarding Stammowa, I cannot find any other corraborating sources, so TBH it could be argued that the account is WP:UNDUE, but I doubt it is a hoax. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chojnice&oldid=1200872646"