Talk:Grudziądz/Archives/2012/April

Copyright violation

Some of the Inter-war history section was taken directly from [1]. Olessi 18:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Apart from possible copyright violations, the inter-war section of the history is POV and badly expressed, and needs rewriting.

--Stonemad GB 12:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Because of ongoing removal by Space Cadet and Lysy information placed here:

Foundation of City of Graudenz (Grudenc) in Prussia

The western Prussian city Grudenc aquired city rights in 1292, and joined the Prussian Confederation in 1440. Between 1466 and 1772 the city was part of the province of Royal Prussia. With the First Partition of Poland in 1772 the city became part of the Kingdom of Prussia, and, in 1871, part of the German Empire. After the construction of a railroad bridge across the Vistula in 1878, Graudenz (now Grudziądz) became an industrialized city which grew rapidly and became a city district in 1900. In the 1912 Reichstag elections, 21% of the votes were given to Polish candidates, while the National Liberal Party of Germany received 53% of all votes.

Handing over of Graudenz to Poland

Treaty of Versailles On January 23, 1920, Graudenz, despite having 84% German Prussian inhabitants, was handed to Polish republic without plebicite. External Link

• Vital Statistics of inhabitants of Graudenz since 1622-1920

German minority paramilitary organisation murdering Polish hostages in 1939

[2] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

re this edit:

[3] Actually Expulsion (academia) contradicts the usage of "expel" in this context. Per that article expulsion involves "violating rules" by students. Clearly nothing like that happened here - in fact, my main objection to the word is that it suggests some kind of blame for the students where it's obvious there was none.

I'm also not sure of the significance of this. There are more modern states, members of the EU, who still do very similar things. Like Lithuania. Volunteer Marek  21:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The pupils were forced to leave the school against their own will and were therefore "expelled". In western democracies such an expulsion happens only after a "violation of rules" by the pupil, elsewhere it's a matter of governmental exercise of power (e.g. against "enemies of the People" and their children in communist countries). The lead of Expulsion (academia) might not be complete on that aspect. If such things happen in modern Lithuania I'm sure this is (or will be) mentioned somewhere here on Wiki. HerkusMonte (talk) 08:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, you're the one who pointed to Expulsion (academia) as a justification for the use of the word - but if it's "not complete on that aspect" then it doesn't actually justify it. How about "forcibly transferred"? (Not holding my breath for info on Lithuania to appear on Wiki without getting quickly reverted). Volunteer Marek  10:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

According to this study of Poland in Nazi propaganda

Polska i Polacy w propagandzie narodowego socjalizmu w Niemczech 1919-1945 Eugeniusz Cezary Król 2006-the information about supposed two dead Germans is an error.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

pl:Włodzimierz Borodziej pushes Nazi propaganda and this tombstone (in modern Grudziądz) is a fake? Seriously? HerkusMonte (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Someone POV pushing to further national(ist) myths?

Is it just me, but Molobo's latest rows of additions seem generally to be disimproving the quality of the article, rather than improving.

From the diff:

1. in 1871 under the Germanised version of the name Graudenz. - Even the first couple of lines now apparently serve the aim of talking the reader into believeing that the town has always been and shall remain fully 'Polish' and was just somehow temporarily 'Germanized' for some period of time - a gross oversimplification.

1. the first paragraph of the section Interwar years (referenced to google.books) would previously read like that (whilst the wording there might not have been optimal, still IMO better than Molobo's). Compare:

   On January 23, 1920, in accordance with the Treaty of Versailles, Grudziądz, described as "unfortunately completely German" by the newly appointed Polish mayor, became part of the Second Polish Republic. The local populace had to acquire Polish citizenship or leave the country. This led to a significant decline of ethnic Germans, whose number within the town decreased from 34,194 in 1910 to 3,542 in 1926 and from 28,698 to 9,317 in the district

   
   Now, it reads like that:

   On January 23, 1920, in accordance with the Treaty of Versailles, Grudziądz was restored to Poland, which the official website of the city notes as the end of "150 years of slavery". During the interwar years the number of Germansn (sic!) decreased from 34,194 in 1910 to 3,542 in 1926

   Note that the scholarly sources are gone, and an obscure (apparently promotional) Polish website has been added as ref instead. Note also, how complex historical processes have been summed up (read: vulgarized) in the “good” old Molobo style to reflect Polish nationalist viewpoint and that viewpoint only.
   And I'm afraid much of Molobo's other 'hard work' on this article is of the same merit on which I shall comment later, after having analysed it first. I am waiting for other comments, but am afraid nevertheless that something has to be done again, as the same kind of biased editing seems to be going on on somewhat related articles like Recovered Territories, too. MIaceK (woof!) 21:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Its the official website of the city.As to emmigration of Germans from Poland, I will start an article on that soon. Also the town was not "completely german"-far from it-this was cherry picked quote that doesn't stand up scrutiny compered to reliable estimates by scholars(plus it wasn't even sourced to any page).Right now we have a better picture with more neutral wording. Also the reasons for German emmigration were mostly economical and emotional-this is even mentioned by pro-German historians, and can be easily sourced.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see, how replacing the hint to the the actual ethnic situation in 1920, coupled with blatantly POV changes in wording like 'restored to Poland' - not to mention the introduction of the overly emotional and hence quite unencyclopedic '150 years of slavery' remark - contributes to getting 'a better picture with more neutral wording'. MIaceK (woof!) 22:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Official statements of the city are notable. Cherry picked quote that didn't reflect the actual situation was replaced by scholarly description of situation.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Added POV template

Added POV template-information about anti-polish laws was deleted, as well as falsification of census and counting of German militar as local population.I also see that information about Nazi Germany plans regarding Jews adn Poles was deleted.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

If there are any POV problems left, then largely because quite a lot of your recent POV additions have not been checked by other users yet. Also, what you lament as deletion of information about Nazi Germany plans regarding Jews adn Poles is an unfounded concern IMO, given that your insertion of how Nazis classified those ethnicities as 'Untermenschen' remains there in the article. What I did was merely removing the disturbing (overwhelming) repetition that gave the reader no additional encyclopedic value whatsoever. Please finally try to get a bigger picture when contributing here. World doesn't revolve around Poland and the past wrongdoings against Poles shouldn't prevent us from seeking clarity and factuality, as befits an encyclopedia. MIaceK (woof!) 18:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I see you offered no explanation why anti-Polish measures against Polish inhabitants of a Polish city taken in Partitions of Poland have been deleted, besides declaring that world doesn't revolve around Poland. I am quite sure it doesn't-however this article is about Polish city and its history-which involves measures against its Polish population-asno logical or reasonable arguments I will restore the sourced information and even expand it.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The article's topic is the history of the town, not Frederick II's view of Poland, the Prussian minority policy of the 19th century or the activities of the Prussian Settlement Commission. The Commission, btw, was active in the Prussian Provinces of Posen and West Prussia, its aim was to purchase farmland/large estates. Such farmland for sure didn't exist inside the townlimits of Gr. and it is extremely unlikely that a single person moved to Gr. because of the activities of the Commission. In any case it's completely WP:OR to claim such a coherence.

Considering Molobo's punctilious reverts of statistic data when he doesn't like the facts, his generous use of information completely unrelated to the topic seems to be a case of WP:Game. HerkusMonte (talk) 12:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Frederick's view was not limited to his personal views, but to laws and treatment of people he ruled over(and discriminated). Also you are incorrect-Prussia and German settlement used funds for colonization to introduce German merchants and craftsmen into the cities to change the population balance as well. I am unaware of any exception from anti-Polish laws in Prussia in Grudziądz-it was subject to them like any other Polish inhabited city. As such this information is important part of its history-of course it can be debated how it should be put in the article, and I am willing to compromise on the issue, but information that Germanization was pursued after Prussian takeover and native Polish population was discriminated by laws and policies must be included for the whole picture.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

And you seriously believe "suffering from Germanisation" is a neutral, acceptable phrasing?Seriously, try to use a language matching some basic WP:NPOV requirements, this would be extremely helpful. HerkusMonte (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Ethnic-based laws aimed at discrimination of native population, repression against religious customs, bans on using native tongue, beating children for using their original language and Polish traditions-yes that kind of practices certain mean that Polish population suffered. Are you claiming Germanisation was a beneficial thing?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, my yesterday's reading (Kotowski) on Graudenz/Grudziadz during the interwar period also revealed much on the very “Ethnic-based laws aimed at discrimination of (...) population, repression against religious customs, bans on using native tongue” etc and you can guess who were the victims this time. As much of this seemed to reflect general Polish policies vis-a-vis her German minority, I refrained from overwhelming the article with that information, when the author wasn't directly referring to the city concerned. I suggest we keep information of such scope for wider topics like Germanization or Polonization. Frederick's views seem to be as directly relevant to our article as much as Jędrzej Giertych's ideas would seem. MIaceK (woof!) 14:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Difference being of course, that unlike Frederick, Jędrzej Giertych wasn't an emperor and in the grand scheme of things was a fairly minor figure. Volunteer Marek  16:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The article is undoubtedly biassed, but I fear trying to remedy that would be too like writing in water, giving the inherent limits of Wikipedia's structure and the dedication of agenda-pushers. As with so many other articles liable to political infections. --Keinstein (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Alright....

... how about stepping back a little, assuming good faith and trying to address the issue. I can see how some of MyMoloboaccount's phrasing is a little strong. At the same time, it's mostly a reaction to the highly POVed state of this article that existed before. So, to be specific:

1. The part on Fredrick's anti-Polish policies and Germanization belongs in the article, especially if you're going to insist on including some cherry-picked quote from a minor provincial Polish official. Seriously, including the statement from Wlodak () is an obvious attempt to push a particular POV. If you gonna put that in there it only makes sense to include information about how that complete Germanization came about. I guess you could just skip the whole thing though it'd probably be better to present ALL the information.

2. NPOV involves not just putting in cherry picked quotes and portions of the text from a particular source but adequately representing the breadth of sources. This was clearly not done in the article before hand.

3. "Suffering from Germanization" is POV. More encyclopedic wording is needed.

4. So far I haven't seen any good reason given for why sourced criticisms of the German census are being removed? Why is this not even being discussed? It just seems people are removing this part on the basis of IDON'TLIKEIT.  Volunteer Marek  01:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

At least for me, Wlodek, in fact the newly appointed mayor of the city, seems very relevant in order to illustrate the situation. If someone has problems with 'WP:IDONTLIKEIT', it seems to me the one who's questioning the relevance of his statement actually DOESN'TLIKEIT in for some reason.
As for sth being cherry-picked, I have no clue. If you're referring to my additions that I sourced to a book available at google books (and you know just as well as I do that Molobo's sources aren't accessible for most of us), then indeed, I merely chose the examples more directly related to Graudenz, to avoid controversy. I actually have my own questions regarding Molobo's 'Grudziądz#Patricipation_of_local_German_minority_in_mass_murder_of_Poles_and_Jews', that really seems to give too much weight on the activities of single representatives of the minority, like Kurt Gotze ( ;-)). In general, I really cannot figure out, why both the general framework (Frederick, Hitler, whoever) and the figures of local effect seem relevant to some of you guys, when we're dealing with Polish victimhood, whereas both the characters of the wider and the more limited scope are oftentimes said to be cherry-picked/irrelevant/??? when the effects of Polonization are discussed. I'm not specifically referring to you, Marek, but I do sense some problems here. MIaceK (woof!) 11:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The quote is obviously cherry picked, especially in the light of information in the preceding paragraph:

In the 1912 Reichstag elections, the National Liberal Party of Germany received 53% of all votes, whilst Polish candidates won 21% of votes. To resist Germanisation[5], Polish activists started to publish the newspaper "Gazeta Grudziądzka", which in 1913 reached the circulation of 128,000, rendering this at the time the third largest Polish newspaper in the whole world

Also I tried searching with the volume for "leider völlig deutschen" but it didn't return any hits. Anyway, to include information on this supposed Polonization after WWI but to insist on removing any mention of the Germanization that preceded it seems to be the essence of POV. Either both in or both out.

And let me ask again why sourced criticisms of the census are being removed? Volunteer Marek  23:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

ad 4.: Because the provided sources refer to Upper Silesia. It's an ORish generalization to transcribe this to Gr..

ad "unfortunately completely German": the source is explicitly quoted, are you accusing me of a misquotation? HerkusMonte (talk) 07:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The source that referred to Upper Silesia (I'm guessing this part: Some analysts asserted that all people registering as bilingual have been classified as Germans ) was only for the last sentence. Do the other sources in the paragraph being removed also reference only Silesia?

Yes, I know - I was not accusing you of misquotation, just wanted to see the context in which the phrase was placed in the original source and couldn't find it. Anyway like I said, if you're going to include cherry picked quotes and info on supposed Polonization in the interwar period, then info on Germanization during the partitions period most certainly belongs in the article. Volunteer Marek  15:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Supposed quote not found in the book

This supposed "quote":

at that time described as "unfortunately completely German" by Josef Włodek, the newly appointed Polish mayor Quotation Was not found the source that supposedly containing it(I searched the contents on the book on googlebooks for the german words given as quote).

Also this is not what the sentence actually means:

"Es habe auf ihn,..., den Eindruck einer modernen und "leider völlig deutschen" Stadt gemacht,"

It doesn't say that Włodek described the city as completely German-it says that it give him the impression(eindruck). So the quote was manipulated in the first place. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, checking your most recent changes, one of which you sum up like this as “expanding, npov”, reveals that you still have no idea, what NPOV means. Grudziądz became part of the Second Polish Republic. changed into was restored to the Polish state is not an improvement in neutrality, but obvious POV-pushing. You seem to forget that the Polish nationalist POV does not equals NPOV. After all, throughout the centuries, it was mostly a German city. I will have to change the wording again.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 10:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

"leider völlig deutschen" Stadt - means exactly '“unfortunately completely German” town'. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 10:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

True, I can't access this on Google.books either, but the same goes for your own sources. I think we can't have it both ways, i.e. that your references are accepted without anyone else checking those and other ref's excluded, if you cannot read those. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 10:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh,you missed the point- I am quite able to access the book and search for quotes in it-the particular quote or sentence is not within it.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I must say I can't access the particular page - 127 - on google books. Nevertheless, I'm sure HerkusMonte can verify this himself, if he possesses the book.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes the quote is not found by the search within this book. Volunteer Marek also couldn't find it as he informed above.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

But you've got a mere 'snippet view' for the book, too, so this doesn't say that much. Nevertheless, I expect HerkusMonte to explain it once more. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

You don't get the point-I am able to search for phrases within the book, no such phrase as given by HK is found within it.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This is an unbelievable example of bad faith. The book is easily accessible in any German bookstore or library and I gave a detailed citation. I'm not going to discuss this anymore as Molobo obviously doesn't care for some basic principles of wikipedia. HerkusMonte (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The book is also available on Googlebooks with search included-no such quote is within the book as it is on Googlebooks. It seems something IS wrong here. On what page and what sentence is that quote from ?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Page 127 at the bottom in this paperback edition. Something is indeed wrong here, but not my citations.HerkusMonte (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Failed verification. Search for Josef mentions only one hit on page 96, and that is a wholly different person. I am afraid that your claims can't be verified by search within the book.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

My "claim" can easily be verified by reading the book, EOD. HerkusMonte (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It's also ironic that the one constantly challenging others' acceptable sources is someone who's far too often citing obscure Polish books, by nature inaccessible for most of us, incl. ones from the Communist era, when cementing his historical narrative in a wide variety of topics. In the future, I think I will have to ask Molobo as to the scientific merit of his authors in the future, or even ask for clarification on the Reputable Sources Noticeboard, if necessary. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Molobo's recent changes

I had to revert your {http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grudzi%C4%85dz&diff=412530395&oldid=412526845 today's changes]. First, you erased what Kotowski said (p. 95): schon in der frühesten Phase polnischer Minderheitenpolitik alle deutschen Organisationen, auch noch so harmlose wie ein Laientheater, streng überwacht wurden. I think I had correctly summarized his points. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 14:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Replacing passages, that had staid there for some days

Anti-German propaganda was disseminated in the local press. Fearful of a “re-Germanization” of the city, the Polish paper Słowo Pomorskie (23.19.1923) criticized the authorities of Grudziądz for tolerating the local German amateur theatre "Deutsche Bühne". The mayor responded by pointing out that the theatre was being monitored because of suspected “anti-state activities”. According to Kotowski, this episode indicates that even the most minor activities of the German minority were closely scrutinized by the Polish authorities beginning with the earliest phase of Polish rule

with poorly phrased, somewhat ORis (in interpretation) sentences like that

German organisations were closely watched by the Polish authorities from the start of Polish minority policy [sic!].According to Kotowski, such organisation as local German theatre "Deutsche Bühne" were harmless, however according to Polish newspaper Słowo Pomorskie it had a potential for re-germanisation [sic!], and local mayor informed that it was watched for anti-state activites

is not an improvement in the encyclopedic quality. A theatre possessing 'a potential of re-germanization' hoe can one attribute this to Kotowski? Sorry but this was way over the counter. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 14:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Kotowski doesn't write that past 1920 was "earliest phase of Polish rule". I added proper tag-you are manipulating the source.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Did you notice that I had added the year 1923? Kotowski referred to events in 1923 and made the conclusion that from the earliest phase on, German organizations were closely scrutinized. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 14:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

You manipulated the quote-he writes about Polish minority policy not earliest phase of Polish rule-which as we all know came hundreds of years before, before Prussian Partition of Polish territories.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe the sources had been summarized well enough (and also considering the context, i.e. 1923) that no-one would come to the conclusion, that Kotowski was considering Polish policies of the medieval ages. But we can of course additional qualify the passages further, if you're fearing a misunderstanding. Anyway, I'm sure my summary of Kotowski's writings was much more accurate than yours, which seemed to have been knit together just to support your own version of events, that you further in different articles concerning German/Polish common heritage. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 14:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Funny, too, that you would start 'requesting sources' for each and every sentence I've entered that ydoesn't match your POV version of history. Given that none of your own sources - incl. some obscure PRL one you added today - can be accessed by any of us outside Poland, this looks rather odd...

Request confirmation

November 1933 two German craftsmen were killed by a Polish mob in the context of a local election campaign. This info is given without any page or quote. Attempts to find this within the book using search for November, Grudziądz(in Germanized name) were fruitless. Available other sources claim this was an error.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like to remind Molobo, that the topic of the article is Graudenz/Grudziądz, and not Frederick II (or his supposed Polonophobia). Compare the article in its present state with the pendants in German or Polish Wikipedia. Currently, the article seems to pay quite undue attention to only tangentially (if at all) related aspects, like Germanization, the First Partition of Poland or Frederick's supposed dislike of Poles. If it was so crystal clear, why did he advise his successors to learn Polish, a policy followed by the Hohenzollern dynasty until Frederick III decided not to let William II learn the language? You're overemphasizing just one side of the coin. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 10:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Now why does a conqueror suggest that his successors learn the language of people they subdued ? Tough question...Anyway this is an OR and not really serious. I am frankly astonished that you claim they are other "sides of the coin" to attempts to destroy Polish people...--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The cucumber is native to Grudziadz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.29.243.34 (talk) 04:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Latin name

I am quite sure that graudensis is not the name of the city, but the adjective, see for example the title of a picture of the town:

• Latin: Obsidio civitatis et Arcis Graudensis (Siege of the city and citadel of Grudziądz) [4]

where graudensis' is an adjective meaning "of Grudziądz".  Andreas  ^(T) 15:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)