Talk:Tumult of Thorn (Toruń): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:58, 12 November 2007

Title

Are there any sources for the current title of the article? I haven't found any publications referring to the incident as the "Toruń Blood tribunal". I do not have the book personally, but Davies refers to the city as "Thorn" in God's Playground.[1] Also, the capitalization should be made consistent (with the current phrasing, either Toruń Blood Tribunal or Toruń blood tribunal). Olessi 19:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article pretty much repeats what's already in Torun article. I haven't spot anything new. I think either this should be removed, or Torun article should be shortened. Szopen 07:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Norman Davies lists 1724 Tumult of Thorn as an entry in a time line. He points out that one single incident .. could brand the name of Thorn forever with the mark of Catholic fanatism, yet continues to use the belittling "Tumult of Thorn" (which mirrors the Polish Tumult Toruński) while struggling with German grammar: "Thus ended the 'Tumult of Thorn', der Thorner Blutbad. In Polish history books, it rarely finds mention. In Protestant Europe, and particularly in England, it was the sole event for which the name of Copernicus's birthplace was remembered. Others, like EB1911, call the executions beheading the burgomaster and nine other leading Protestant citizens, an act of oppression which is known as the "blood-bath of Thorn.". This naming [2], also as Thorn blood-bath, or +1724 +massacre +Thorn seems to be the most common, even though bloody assizes and +1724 +tribunal +Thorn show up also.

In short: Blood Bath of Thorn or blood-bath of Thorn is the best name, thus I'll move to the spelling chosen by EB1911. After I had created the article, I moved Thorn Blood tribunal to Toruń Blood tribunal over redirect: Thorn misleading here after realizing that thorn in connection with blood will likely be misunderstood.-- Matthead ^discuß! O 18:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Piotrus moved [3] the article without any reason other than "please discuss it at talk first". Discussing at this talk page here is exactly what PP did not. -- Matthead ^discuß! O 16:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You moved it first [4] which is nothing bad in the start of the article, then Olessi reworded it [5] which is not controversial. Then you came with name change [6] which definitely is controversial. All next moves are just restorations of original state before your undiscussed move. Let's rather discuss the better name than fighting each other in endless edit war. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 13:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Blood Tribunal of Toruń → Execution at Thorn — the previous titles were:

Thorn Blood tribunal - 0 Google book hits
Toruń Blood tribunal - 0 Google book hits
Blood Tribunal of Toruń - 0 Google book hits
Blood-bath of Thorn - 19 Google book hits.

The title "Execution at Thorn" has 27 Google book hits. It also describes the event in a more neutral and real way than "Blood-bath of Thorn". Sciurinæ 18:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Support as nominator. Sciurinæ 18:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain. I will wait for others to present more evidence, but it does appear the new name is more popular. Has anybody checked 'Thorn/Toruń tribunal' or 'trial'? And what's the rationale for Thorn instead of Toruń?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per below-the name of the event is Tumult of Torun, and tumult is used in English language.For example, Riot Act:

The Riot Act (1 Geo. 1, c. 5) of 1714 was an act introduced by the Parliament of Great Britain authorising local authorities to declare any group of more than twelve people to be unlawfully assembled, and thus have to disperse or face punitive action. The Act, whose long title was "An act for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies, and for the more speedy and effectual punishing the rioters", came into force on August 1, 1715, and remained on the statute books until 1973.

--Molobo 09:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Molobo. Space Cadet 13:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support a move from the current title, as it has not been used in English.[7][8] Although I am not sure yet what the ideal title is, I am leaning toward "Tumult of Thorn", as it has been used in far more recent publications than "Executions at Thorn" or other alternatives. I do object to Molobo's suggestion of "Tumult of Torun", however, as it is simply not a phrasing used in English.[9],[10] Olessi 15:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support in order to improve naming by adopting an English expression used at the time. I still think Executions at Thorn would be better, though. -- Matthead ^discuß! O 15:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since for historical periods we DON'T use historical English language or terminology (it would be absurd in some cases), "adopting an English expression used at the time" would not improve naming but create inconsistencies. "Toruń" was the name of the Polish (now and then) city and that's the name we should use. "Tumult", of course, is a more accurate term. Space Cadet 22:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Space Cadet. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 13:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been renamed from Blood Tribunal of Toruń to Tumult of Thorn as the result of a move request. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^^^ What was that? ^^^ I thought the survey is ongoing? - anyway:

Support (ideally with plural) per WP:SOAP:
- The list of book titles speaks a clear language.
- Supporters generally back up their statements with references and all that I checked were correct.
- Opponents seldom back up their statements with references and the first that I checked did not proof its point (15:51).
- The discussion about the move (13:39) appears to be disengenuous: Apparently M did talk about the move, while P did not, and made the edit summary look as if he did.
These facts lead me to conclude that the opponents are following WP:BATTLE rather than WP:NOPOV. — Sebastian 18:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC) (I am open to changing or amending this vote or statement. If you feel facts changed sufficiently after I posted this, please let me know, as I may not be watching this page.)[reply]

That was the end of the debate and this was the outcome. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link to "That" appears to be the same as the link to "this". Do I understand correctly that the survey is closed? If that is so, please mark it so. (You know, the usual way of putting it in a box with a note on top.) — Sebastian 20:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a lazy chap and limit myself to {{moved}} or {{notmoved}}. I have added the chrome, but this is not necessary, and I will not be making a habit of it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion

Yet another name? Contemporary reports from the 1720s indeed use the proposed form, as well as Thorn, not Toruń, which was virually unknown in 18th century publications. Other languages like Dutch and French ("la sanglante tragedie de Thorn", "Thorn affligée: ou, relation de ce qui s'est passe dans cette ville") use also Thorn. As Execution (disambiguation) may be misunderstood, "Executions at Thorn" would make clear that capital punishment for several people is meant. -- Matthead ^discuß! O 21:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per Partitions of Poland city was captured by Prussians after the 1724 thus there can be applied Gdansk/Danzig vote! ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 13:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Double naming is already included within the article. As for the title, I don't think I would support including both Thorn and Toruń in it unless there is a solid precedent for it. The phrasing for the title should simply reflect how the event is most frequently referred to in English.

A problem is that the event is not frequently referred to in English, and when it has been, a uniform name has not been decided upon. "Blood trial" has not been in usage.[11][12] As per Piotrus' suggestion, "Thorn trial" has not been in use,[13] although "Torun trial" has been.[14] Another alternative is "Massacre of Thorn". Olessi 15:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I do object to Molobo's suggestion of "Tumult of Torun", however, as it is simply not a phrasing used in English" [15] "The "Torun tumult" was caused by a street fight between the Jesuit College and the Protestant Grammar School and was a bloody finale to a long-lasting " Is the above sentence in some non-English language? Can Olessi tell us what kind of language is the one above? I always thought I knew English and German, now it seems I know also some other language, if the one above is not English and I can understand it. --Molobo 15:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The name Thorn is just a germanised corruption of the original name of the city Torun, as per Wiki policies regarding naming the proper name of the city has to be used. We don't have Warschau Uprising for example--Molobo 16:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I trust you support the retitling of articles to Fall of Istanbul, Bombing of Kaliningrad in World War II, and Warszawa Uprising then? Olessi 18:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a disgracefull comparision. Constantinople and Königsberg(build on Teutonic mass murdered Prussian people homes) cities have been renamed by conquerers, while Warsaw was not changed from Warschau by Polish conquerers as the above comparision seems to suggest in the above. It's sad to see how German propaganda lives on to modern days--Molobo 19:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps my desired comparison was not clear enough. I was referring to the fact that the historical fall in 1453 of the city now known as Istanbul is usually referred to as the "Fall of Constantinople" in English, not the "Fall of Istanbul". I was likewise referring to the fact that the WWII-era bombing of the city now known as Kaliningrad is primarily known in English as the "bombing of Königsberg", not the "bombing of Kaliningrad". Since you say that the "proper name" of cities should be used, I was pointing out that the WWII-era uprising in the Polish capital is known in English as the "Warsaw Uprising", not as the "Warszawa Uprising" (its "proper" name). To make this relevant to the requested move at hand, the deaths of ten individuals in a city now known as Toruń is still primarily referred in English sources using a historical name, Thorn. Olessi 00:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The historical name of the city is Toruń. All English publications show so. To present english publications that discuss German terminology as using english terminology is manipulation.--Molobo 10:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manipulation, indeed. Molobo, stop! -- Matthead ^discuß! O 15:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"All English publications show so." Indeed.[16][17] Olessi 01:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not Tumult of Torun ?

Tumult is an english word, and the events are described as such.--Molobo 09:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tumult 2. a general outbreak, riot, uprising, or other disorder: The tumult moved toward the embassy. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

Because your suggested phrasing has not been used in English,[18][19], and when "tumult" has been used, it is in the phrasing "Tumult of Thorn". Olessi 15:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Because your suggested phrasing has not been used in English" [20] "The "Torun tumult" was caused by a street fight between the Jesuit College and the Protestant Grammar School and was a bloody finale to a long-lasting " Is the above sentence in some non-English language ? --Molobo 15:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One link does not signify the ideal title, especially when Thorn has been used more frequently. Olessi 15:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed the title doesn't exist. When I learned mathematics one was not a zero, and besides it was just beginning of my search. Are you still denying that the phrase exists in English language ? --Molobo 16:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Besides "more frequently" doesn't mean correctly. Toruń was in Poland then, so let's call the city by it's contemporary name. "Frequency" of use of the other name comes from the Cold War period tendency to avoid Polish names when referring to western and northern Polish territories. Modern books and web pages still use pre 1989 sources, therefore the "frequency". We should follow the pioneers of the correct way of naming, not blindly go with ignorant majority. We're writing an encyclopedia here, people! Space Cadet 16:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Molobo suggested that the phrase "Tumult of Torun" should be the title; I pointed out that the phrase is not in English usage, and thus should not be considered for the article's title. Molobo then responded with one book by Alicja Deck-Partyka (2006) using the phrase "Torun tumult". In comparison, "Tumult of Thorn" has been used by Norman Davies (2005)[21] (a specialist of Polish history) and Karin Friedrich (a specialist on Royal Prussia) (2000)[22] . Other texts using it include The New Cambridge History (1957)[23] , The Making of Modern Europe (2003)[24], and Poland's Last King and English Culture (1998)[25].

Regardless of the political relationship of the city in 1724, articles should be titled according to how they are most commonly referred to in English. From WP:NCCN, "Wikipedia is not a place to advocate a title change in order to reflect recent scholarship. The articles themselves reflect recent scholarship but the titles should represent common usage." I have not seen any evidence yet that "Torun" is the preferred spelling in English publications regarding the historical event, let alone "Tumult of Torun". On the contrary, recent publications in English have continued to use the historical terminology. Olessi 18:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The historical terminology is Torun tumult. The English publications only show how the event was called in German publications not in english ones. The city is Torun and its absurd to name it in Lithuanian, Russian, Chinese or German language--Molobo 18:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles in the English WP about historical events should be titled according to how they are most commonly referred to in the English language, regardless of how the places involved may happen to be referred to in the present day. The historical terminology may be a translation of the phrase "Torun tumult" in Polish, but it is not in English. Olessi 00:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time to close

This discussion is now slated for closure over at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Backlog; there's clearly no support for the present title, but opinion seems to be divided between two favourites, "Executions at Thorn" and "Tumult of Thorn". So perhaps if the participants here would like to decide on which of these two choices would be the best? --bainer (talk) 14:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think second fraction supports "Executions at Toruń" or "Tumult of Toruń" not Thorn, this happened in 1724 in kingdom of Poland. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 14:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where and when something took place is irrelevant for the titling of the article. What is important is how it is most commonly referred to in English. "Tumult of Thorn" is the phrasing used by several English language publications from the last ten years, including a well-regarded book by Norman Davies. "Executions at Thorn" and "Execution at Thorn" are traditional phrasings for the event, but is mostly restricted to pre-1900. "Blood-bath of Thorn" has also been used, but again is more restricted to pre-1950. Regardless, practically all English publications, including recent ones, have included Thorn in the phrasing, not Toruń. Titling the article under "Toruń", the current name of the city, seems like original research to me when English publications, regardless of publication date, do not use such terminology for the historical event. Olessi 19:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sound argumentation. "Tumult of Thorn" should be its name. Sciurinæ 12:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look I'm not into creating "History as seen by Poles" here, but we should also avoid "History as seen by Anglo-Saxons" as well. Popularity of the German name should not divert us from the fact, that Toruń was a Polish city at the time, the whole thing happened in Poland to Polish citizens and the CORRECT name therefore is "Toruń". Space Cadet 16:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in the English language Wikipedia, we are talking precisely about "history as seen by English speakers." We've never had a guideline called WP:CORRECTNAME, but we have got WP:COMMONNAME. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that guiideline correct in this case? You didn't address my points. Space Cadet 22:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I did address your points. You said that the "CORRECT" name is "Toruń", and I pointed out that our policy does not call for us to use "correct" names that are not commonly used in English language sources. You're suggesting that we ignore a long-standing guideline with consensus support across thousands of articles, and you say that we're not providing "History as seen by Anglo-Saxons," when we are in fact presenting "history as seen by speakers of English". How am I being non-responsive? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, instead of an encyclopedia, you'll have a "list of stereotypes popular in the Anglo-Saxon world"! According to those stereotypes, cities like Thorn, Allenstein, Marienburg, Heilsberg and Danzig were never Polish before 1945! So, go ahead, be responsive, as you supposedly already are and change the history of those cities in their respective articles to support "a long-standing guideline with consensus support across thousands of articles". I'll stand and watch. Space Cadet 16:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voltaire

Really, putting a comment on Poles by Voltaire is not neutral, at least without context. He desired to murder for Catherine, and called for extermination of Polish people. [26] --Molobo 20:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you think that Poles "neglect the fine arts and lock up women". Well, I don't. Sciurinæ 20:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do I but Voltaire did. His statements must be put in context of his desire to murder for Catherine in order to serve her and calls to exterminate opponents of Russia--Molobo 20:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

which hunt?

What is the connection between the Blood Tribunal and the witch hunt article? If you mean religious persecutions say it.

BTW the article says:"Britain - There continued to be occasional prosecutions under the Witchcraft Act in the 19th and 20th century". Xx236 14:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Polish history books, the events are rarely mentioned, or marginalized

Many protestant sources marginalize the riots (See the article:The Blood Tribunal of Toruń refers to the execution). Xx236 15:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 ===Survey===
+<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #edeaff; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
+:''The following discussion is preserved as an [[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|archive]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.'' <!-- from Template:Archive top-->
 :''Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with'' <code><nowiki>*'''Support'''</nowiki></code> ''or'' <code><nowiki>*'''Oppose'''</nowiki></code>'', then sign your comment with'' <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>''. Since [[Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion|polling is not a substitute for discussion]], please explain your reasons, taking into account [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions|Wikipedia's naming conventions]].''
@@ Line 47: / Line 50: @@
 ::: The link to "That" appears to be the same as the link to "this". Do I understand correctly that the survey is closed? If that is so, please mark it so. (You know, the usual way of putting it in a box with a note on top.) &mdash; [[User:SebastianHelm|Sebastian]] 20:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
+::::I'm a lazy chap and limit myself to {{tl|moved}} or {{tl|notmoved}}. I have added the chrome, but this is not necessary, and I will not be making a habit of it. [[User:Angusmclellan|Angus McLellan]]  [[User talk:Angusmclellan|(Talk)]] 21:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
+:''The above discussion is preserved as an [[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|archive]].  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from Template:Archive bottom --></div>
 ===Discussion===