Talk:Joachim Cronman

Factual accuracy disputed

Discussions relating to the factual accuracy of this article are taking place on the deletion discussion page for this article. Please refer all comments there until such a time as the deletion discussion is closed. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 14:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the following fact statemetns: the speculative birth date, that Cronman participated in the Great Northern War, that he commanded a (or the) fort at Neumünde, and that he died at Neumünde. The first two facts are not in any of the existing references, so not much to discuss there. That he commanded the great Neumünde fort is just speculation. The sources say skans, which does not automatically translate to "fort", and as far as I know there were several fortifications near Riga and Neumünde. If Cronman had any type of meaningful command of a major fort, he would have been mentioned in the source discussed below. Lewenhaupt claims Cronman died at Neumünde, but there is no mention of this in Anrep which Lewenhaupt cites. Anrep does not fail to mention where other people died, including Cronman's relatives, which makes the whole thing rather odd. Either Lewenhaupt has added Neumünde as the locale of death by mistake or he has sources we don't know about.

I've also checked out the only other specified reference relative to Cronman, Kungl. fortifikationens historia 6:2, Biografiska anteckningar ("History of the Royal Fortifications, Biographical notes"; see 2nd AfD), which is probably the least informative reference so far. Cronman has no separate entry and the only thing said about him is that he was visited at his Ingrian regiment at Narva by Jacob Grundel in 1679 before Grundel went on a trip of continental Europe. This information is mentioned in passing in Grundel's entry without any other details mentioned.

Since all previous claims of Cronman's notability (commander of a major fort, participation in war, death in battle) are currently debunked, I've reinserted {{notability}}.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

rank and title

The title of Commandant is supported by the reference as is the rank of Colonel. I am not sure why you removed it. What evidence do you have that the source I am quoting is incorrect? It is Original Research when you speculate the information is wrong in Lewenhaupt that Cronman died at Neumünde. It is best to find a source that says that Lewenhaupt is incorrect in information he provides, and avoid speculation. When two sources conflict it is best to add the information from both rather than flip a coin to choose one and dismiss another. I appreciate your work in finding sources and in translation. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to summarize his career, and that's exactly what it does right now. Army officer, late 17th century. I added that he owned estates in Livonia, but that's about it. The specifics of his ranks and his geneaology can be read a few sentences down.

What evidence do I have...? Read the thread above again, please. You already have a scan of Anrept. Lewenhaupt's cites Anrep but Lewenhaupt also has "in Neumünde". That little factoid actually doesn't tell us anything that adds to his notability, but that doesn't mean we should include anyway. When you encounter a situation like this you're supposed to play it safe by not including potentially dubious facts. That's the appropriate choice when you base an article on obviously crufty reference material. If we were talking about two historians who had written extensively on Cronman, and they were clearly disagreeing on account of differing viewpoints and interpretations, it would be worth mentioning that, but this is just an example two people who have either copied the same source slightly differently or one of them making a mistake.

Peter ^Isotalo 01:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Newspapers

Has anybody actually checked whether there's press mention? It shouldn't be too hard for somebody with access to Kungliga Biblioteket. --Paularblaster (talk) 00:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Press mention of what? All sources consistently fail to mention of battles or remarkable deeds and it seems more and more likely that he didn't even have any important command at either Narva or Neumünde. If he had, it should have generated at least some kind of mention in Kungl. fortifikationens historia instead of a single passing reference in relation to a completely different person's 3,5-year-trip of Europe.

It has taken me more than enough time to look up the flimsy print references provided already, and I am under no circumstances going to scour 17th century newspapers for someone who has drawn consistent blanks in every singe references that should have provided something even remotely interesting. When I looked up Anrep, Elgenstierna, Birgegård and Lewenhaupt, I saw nothing that indicated that Cronman stood out from the tens of thousands of people listed in those references.

Peter ^Isotalo 01:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

While your exceptional commitment to improving this article is not in doubt, there's no reason to assume that you personally are being addressed in this instance. --Paularblaster (talk) 08:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

But to answer the question: press mention of Cronman. The link above is to the digitized archive of C17/18 newspapers, so a simple search should suffice - but it does need a KB login (something I myself don't have). --Paularblaster (talk) 08:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

My objection was about overall rationality and relevance of this whole suggestion. As far as I'm concerned you're trying to incite people into making creative interpretations based on dubious source in a place where these methods are supposed to be actively discouraged. Using 17th century newspapers as a run-of-the-mill third-party source on Wikipedia is in my opinion a way to game WP:RS. Consider, for example, the following quote:

For information about academic topics, such as physics or ancient history, scholarly sources are preferred over news stories. Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context.

If this holds true for modern-day newspapers, it most definitely applies to stuff written 300 years ago. They can't possibly be defined as living up to Wikipedia standards of reliability. And doing this because regular secondary sources fail to come up with anything interesting makes it even less serious. If someone would actually find something on Cronman in some 1680s newspaper article, I would consider it to be original research and would report it as such.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, you don't seem to be able to distinguish between "ancient history" (when they didn't have newspapers) and modern history. Nor between ascertaining whether someone is mentioned in the press of his day, and interpreting whatever that press might say about him. The text you quote clearly means "Don't write up 'new discoveries' in specialist fields on the basis of press reports" - and not "Don't see whether something was covered in the press." Doing a search of a digitized newspaper collection is hardly "original research" in the sense that phrase is generally used. I'd almost start to think that you're just pissed off the article wasn't deleted and now have a bee in your bonnet. But there you go - that's just my opinion, not an assumption of good faith. --Paularblaster (talk) 10:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point by focusing on phrases out of context. "Ancient history" is an example, just like "science". What the quote says is that you're not really supposed to use even modern (as in modern-modern rather than early modern) newspaper to source articles. And you're implying that we should use 300-year-old newspaper articles to establish notability. Do the math. We don't need to call it original research if you're annoyed with that. Let's just label it "dubious notability extrapolation". Of course, this whole newspaper thing is still an idea you came up when you actually thought we were dealing with a war hero.

And I'm not hiding anything. I do want this article deleted, but I also want to use this as an example that you can produce tons of seemingly relevant sources about just about anyone, and still not establish any worthwhile notability. Trivial facts are still trivial, even if they're repeated in a dozen or so sources.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The point is that newspapers are not experts in ancient history or physics. They are experts in current affairs. What follows from this is not that we should never use newspapers, but that we should use them only for what they're good for: giving an indication of whether a given event or individual was considered noteworthy at the time. Let's just call it "common sense", shall we? In a military fiscal state, with 44 standing regiments in peacetime, I'd have thought being the person in command of one of those 44 regiments was not entirely "trivial", but there we get into deeper waters of perceived importance, which are explicitly left open by the notability guideline. --Paularblaster (talk) 23:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

For encyclopedic purposes, it's highly trivial. Rather than dance around the obvious, let's call a spade a a spade. Are you saying we should have articles one every single regimental commander in the Swedish armed forces that has managed to show up in more than one sources regardless of their achievements or importance to the course of history?

Peter ^Isotalo 07:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Pre-1815, I wouldn't see an issue with any colonel of a regiment or captain of a ship that we have reliable sources for. The notability guideline explicitly excludes importance, fame or achievement from its criteria. The key issue is the sources - and us not "interpreting" them but simply reporting what they say. Joachim Cronman (unlike his father and his son) is clearly a borderline case, but with the exception of BLPs we can afford to be flexible with borderline cases. --Paularblaster (talk) 07:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Notability guidelines most certainly don't "exclude" achievement as a criteria. What they do ask for is "significant coverage" in sources, which is just a more neutral way of determining importance, fame and achievement. This topic has no significant coverage in any source found so far.

So you're saying that any regimental commander that served before the arbitrary cut-off date of 1815 is eligible for inclusion? How does that not make us a directory?

Peter ^Isotalo 08:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

A telephone directory lists a name, address and phone number, this is more than a name and address. IT is a small biography, but from multiple reliable sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Phonebooks are quite reliable, so that's not the reason why they're not relevant. What we're looking for is significant, independent treatment (that is, more than just copying of static facts). No references presented so far possess any such qualities.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Web-based leads

I don't have access to the relevant print sources, but googling variant search terms (Joachim, Joakim, Jochim / Cronman, von Cronman, v. Cronman) provides a number of leads for sources on Joachim Cronman’s military career, and possibly education. Strangely, there seem to be a dozen more sources just on google books that didn’t show up during the AfD. A lot of these are fairly “raw” primary sources, so do nothing to establish notability but, with care, can be used to flesh out or substantiate some of the vaguer claims made in the secondary sources already cited.

• An index to the pre-1723 army rolls has been put up on a genealogy forum. It includes the following entries:

SAVOLAKS O-NYSLOTTS län /inf./ Öv Joakim von Cronman 1700:4,6-7, 1701:2-9.. 1702:1,2

SKÅNE-BLEKINGE /Infanteri/ Öv Joakim von Cronmans regemente; f.d. Giinthersberch [Günterberg?] 1680:3.; Ingermanländska garnisonsregt. 1681:3-4, 1682:1, 7, 1683:9,1684:1

• A number of sources are cited here, on the basis of which the following statements are made about Cronman (with the closing caveat: “Avslutningsvis vill jag mana till viss försiktighet med ovanstående. Det är väldigt mycket förflyttningar hit och dit och jag kan ha missat ett och annat.”):

1679: Joachim v. Cronman ersätter Güntersberg [in Pomerania, now Nosowo in Poland], 99 soldater återkommer från preussiska fälttåget. De soldater av Mortaignes regemente som är kvar i Estland och Livland, 1 kompani (136 meniga), sänds i oktober till Pommern.

1681: Cronmans regemente sänds till Narva.

• At a different page of the same forum, the same user says:

1664 existerar alltså i Baltikum endast ett "skånskt" regemente, nämligen Erik Silfversparres skånska, halländska och blekingska infanteriregemente. Detta övertas 1669 av Christoffer v. Güntersberch, död 1678. Han följs av Joakim v. Cronman och under Cronmans chefsskap förvandlas regementet till det värvade "Garnisonsregementet i Narva". Cronman följs 1685 av Rembert v. Funcken, vilken i sin tur avlöses av Henning Rudolf Horn af Rantzien.

• A page about the Skåne-Hallands (infanteri-)regemente (1658-1684?) says:

Regementet förekommer under benämningarna (regementschefer) . . . 1679-1684 Överste Joachim von Cronman [Litteratur: Skånska kriget 1675-79: Fanor och uniformer av Lars-Eric Höglund.]

• There’s an online digest of Savonian military information here, with a few mentions of a Joachim von Cronman, but in Finnish . . .

• A 1684 roll of regimental officers, as published in 1906, is reproduced here, with the Scanian Regiment commanded by Colonel “Jochim von Cronman”. It gives the date 23 Jan. 1679 for his commission as colonel.

• Google books gives an “eversti Joachin von Cronman” in Martti Ruuth, Savon historia (1990), p. 386 – but no preview to indicate what it might say about him

• Google books, again, gives what looks as though it might be academic information of some sort, in Album Academicum der Universität Dorpat (Tartu), 1632-1710 (a snippet that shows nothing).

• And a reference to another book about Tartu University, but with no preview at all.

• Google books also now reveals that the relevant part of the Historisk tidskrift för Finland is vol. 23-24 (1938) – outside the range that even the index is available online.

I ordered this one from the National Library in Stockholm and they are forwarding me a photocopy, they can't scan and forward, its against their copyright policy. I will order some of the others a one at a time. The fee for outside of Sweden is about $20 for each copy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

--Paularblaster (talk) 10:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• "Joachim v. Cronman ersätter Güntersberg" is not a reference to a place in Pomerania, but the officer whom Cronman replaces. He's mentioned in the line directly preceding that sentence and in several other places.
• The Finnish digest amounts to this. "Colonel Cronman already acquired sotilastorppiakin." means that Cronman secured lodging. Sotilastorppa comes from the Swedish soldattorp, a small croft supplied to enlisted soldiers as part of their payment. The part about "ruotujaon" refers to the same thing. It's all just various aspects of the Swedish allotment system.

Curiously, I count three references to Cronman on that page, only one of them mentioning Sotilastorppa, and spread of a number of years. So I'm not sure what the "amounts" in your sentence amounts to. --Paularblaster (talk) 12:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Album Academicum det Universität Dorpat is a Matrikel, a list of university alumni. It contains a two-line entry on Cronman containing minimal graduation info. I forgot to copy the exact info, but it amunts to two or so dates and what looks like a note about his studies. Elgenstierna is listed as literature and the sources (Quellen) are mostly university records.
• The article in Historisk tidskrift för Finland is about a travelogue written by Engelbert Kaempfer who served on an embassy to Russia (or something like that) in the 1680s. Cronman is mentioned only in passing as one of several colonels serving as commandants at Narva in 1683 (simultaneously, as far as I can tell). It's unclear what he's supposed to be commandant of, but it seems as if Jacob Johan von Bandemer was the officer in command of the fortress. Cronman (Krohneman) is commented by Kaempfer as being a ein leutseliger Hr., "a sociable gentleman".
• Savon historia is available at the SU library, but it was in storage and had to be ordered up. It'll be available on Monday.

What exactly are the "vaguer claims" in already cited sources that we're supposed to flesh out, btw?

Peter ^Isotalo 18:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

We now have quite specific dates for his service as colonel, for one thing, and when he transferred regiments. Also a clearer idea of how many thousands of colonels there were in the Swedish army in 1684. I'm pleased that we now know that he was a graduate of the university of Tartu, although it would be nice to know the dates of his studies and the degree that he took. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we have more geneaological info. All of it fully expected of a member of the Swedish nobility in the 17th century. Just like thousands and thousands of his peer. Again, though, what "vaguer claims"?

Peter ^Isotalo 07:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with thousands of small factual biographies on members of Swedish nobility in a reference work with 3 million entries? We have hundreds of pre Renaissance Greek and Roman writers with single paragraph biographies. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

If it came to an AfD of the ancient persons, I'd most likely vote to delete, but I'm just not going to get myself embroiled in a discussion about other stuff. I consider it completely unnecessary to use Wikipedia as a resource for genealogical entries that lack any significant secondary treatment. There are other resources for that already.

But since we've already gone around in circles a number of times on this issue, I'm going to try to finish my participation in the general debate on what is or isn't notable. All I can say is that the idea that people are notable only because they lived long enough ago is completely gratuitous, especially as an argument for inclusion. If this man is notable, then the same goes for living army commanders that have roughly the same responsibilities. Setting up cut-off dates that only include people from certain time periods is an utterly arbitrary choice, and I'm saying that as a history student focusing on that very period.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I should add that this discussion completely ignores the fact that it's entirely geared towards viewing military achievements as probably the most important measurement for notability. If we look beyond that obvious systemic bias, we should include just about anyone who has ever been mentioned more than two or three times in any kind of directory or systematic survey that has ever been produced. That means that we're probably talking about millions of individuals that all deserve their own article on Wikipedia. Peter ^Isotalo 11:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you read WP:POLITICIAN? It still leaves being a member of a legislative assembly the all-trumping measurement for notability, as it should be. If Cronman had sat in a Ritterschaft (like thousands of his peers) we wouldn't need to know anything more about him for him to be an unassailable candidate for inclusion. As it is, he commanded one of the fifteen regular infantry regiments in Charles XI's army (the number of his peers in this respect perhaps not being in the thousands), and we know enough about his family, education and military career (from Swedish, Finnish and Estonian sources) to write a reasonably sourced and reasonably rounded mini-biography.

To address your concern about "arbitrary cut-off points", one of the many differences that set off early-modern armies from modern armies is a tremendous growth in army sizes, leading to "inflation" in ranks such as colonel. The change began to set in towards the end of Cronman's lifetime, but became even more marked during the French Revolutionary Wars, so that by 1815 (not an entirely arbitrary date) there was no longer any comparison with the earlier period. The same goes for all sorts of people, like judges, or professors (in early-modern times even a lazy and under-achieving professor was a public figure in a way that today's professors cannot be assumed to be). I really have no particular bias in favour of military men. --Paularblaster (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'm not discussing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Nor am I going to discuss any more guesstimates about primary sources which you have neither direct nor indirect knowledge of.

Inflation is not a factor when it comes to notability since it's not something that is measured as a certain percentage of a given whole. A regimental commander, professor, bureau clerk, tax collector, housekeeper, etc. should be considered just as notable today as they were 300 years ago or not notable at all. What should decide the issue is whether they've been received significant treatment in secondary sources, rather than pure editorial opinion. Claiming otherwise constitutes an arbitrary and very conscious decision to confer a unique type of notability to people who have been dead a certain number of years.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I wish you'd make your mind up what you are discussing. When I talk about soldiers you complain that this privileges soldiers; when I compare soldiers to other classes of people you complain that you don't want to talk about other classes of people. You insist that Cronman was no more notable "than thousands of his peers", but when I suggest that his "peers" perhaps only numbered a few dozen you object that it isn't about percentages. I'm not sure what you mean by "guesstimates": the sources we're discussing are referenced online, and anybody in a position to improve this article might well want to follow those references up. The fact that I'm not in a position to do that myself hardly invalidates them. --Paularblaster (talk) 12:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sparwenfeld

I am not sure why the reference from Johan Gabriel Sparwenfeld (2002). J.G. Sparwenfeld's diary of a journey to Russia 1684-87. Joakim Cronman (d. 1703), colonel with the garrison regiment of Narva 1679, colonel with the Savolaks and Nyslott provincial regiment 1683, commandant at Neumünde fortlet (Elgenstierna II 1936 100) keeps being deleted, its the only reference in English, and I know of no Wikipedia rule that demands that it be deleted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

All I can say is that since it merely refers to a reference (Elgenstierna) that only repeats a reference already used in the article (Lewenhaupt) and doesn't present any kind of secondary treatment. The reference is actually also not correct. The reference is to the translator and editor of Sparwenfeld, not the man himself. And the quote actually begins with a "Probably", which you have omitted.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

"Probably" is to the person referred to in the diary, and is stronger than "possibly". The micro biography in English is still valid. And as I do not have "Elgenstierna" as a reference, or the text for Lewenhaupt in Swedish this is an excellent reference, and the only one in English. There is no Wikipedia rule that demands that it be deleted, it is your personal preference that it be deleted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 11:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Right. It was "possibly", not "probably", which I've now included, since the person mentioned is is supposed to be Cronman. I've also changed the author to Birgegård, since what you're quoting is her micro-bio in the notes, not Sparwenfelds diary. I still think it's a rather irrelevant source, though, since it's a very insignifcant mention without any independent treatment of the article topic.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)