Talk:Tumult of Thorn (Toruń)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

Why not Tumult of Torun ?

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

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)

"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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

What? I don't understand what you're talking about here. Are you disagreeing with the guideline WP:COMMONNAME, or are you disagreeing as to whether or not it really is a guideline, followed in most cases? We have many, many articles that are titled according to the common name, as opposed to the "correct name". In such articles, our job is to explain the naming situation early in the article, but to keep the title in a form that more readers will recognize. Nobody is suggesting that we rewrite history or claim that the common name is the "correct" one. Nobody is suggesting that those cities were not Polish, simply that more English-speakers will recognize one title over the other. That's not an assertion about the correctness of any particular title, and certainly not an assertion about the history of the town in question. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Most English speakers recognize insects as "worms". Are we gonna reflect that belief or should we try to teach our dear speakers the CORRECT way things are? Space Cadet (talk) 13:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Another example - a Polish province of Royal Prussia. Most English speakers (including historians not specializing in the history of the region) identify Royal Prussia with the Kingdom of Prussia. (I even know many Polish speakers, who make the same mistake, for example one of my cousins who's got Masters in Spanish History.) Now, you say yourself that WP:COMMONNAME is only a guideline not a rule. And I don't think it really applies here. For example: the common English name for Côte d'Ivoire is "Ivory Coast", yet we consistently use the French name, here on English WIKI, although it's hard to pronounce and even harder to spell by most English speakers. And besides, isn't there another WIKI guideline about "breaking all the rules" if they don't make sense in a particular case? Regards, Space Cadet (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Your examples are weak. I've never, in 30 years on 3 continents, met anyone who thinks an insect is a "worm". I was involved in the Côte d'Ivoire discussion, and the reason the article is at Côte d'Ivoire is because that is the most common name used in English. I certainly did not say that WP:COMMONNAME is "only a guideline and not a rule", because I don't think that way. I'm also very familiar with WP:IAR; I wrote the explanatory essay that's linked at the bottom of the page. In particular, I know that if you want to go against a consensus-supported guideline like WP:COMMONNAME, then you'd better have good reasons, and articulate those reasons. In this case, I don't see how you've made a convincing case to disregard WP:COMMONNAME. What you've done is advance a couple of unrelated examples that turn out not to apply, and you've reiterated that your preferred name is "more correct", without addressing the fact that we base our naming conventions not on correctness, but on the "principle of least astonishment". You also moved the article without discussion, after a move discussion had been closed, to a title that was never agreed upon for this article, and I had to come and ask you what your justification was. I'll be copying your answer from my talk page here, because this is where it ought to be seen. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You did not respond to my point about the Royal Prussia, so I guess it was a good example, you just didn't know what to say. I've never, in 20 years on 2 continents, in English speaking world, met anyone who would say Côte d'Ivoire instead of Ivory Coast. As far as a discussion, it happened on Talk:Teutonic takeover of Danzig (Gdańsk). Is North America one of the continents you speak of, because I knew only maybe five Americans who were not referring to grubs and caterpillars as worms. Copy also your question from my Talk page, because it belongs here, too. If you think of me as some kind of one-sided nationalist, you'll be surprised to know that I also moved "History of Gdańsk" to History of Gdańsk (Danzig). And another thing: can you somehow lose the hostility towards me? It bothers me. Regards. Space Cadet (talk) 14:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for coming across as hostile. That's not my intention at all, and I certainly don't think of you as some kind of "one-sided nationalist". Nothing of the sort occurred to me at all, and I don't know what I said to give you such an impression. As far as I can tell, you're as neutral as can be, and working in perfectly good faith. I'll be more careful with my tone.

Now, regarding Côte d'Ivoire, we had a discussion at the talk page there, and it was long and involved many Wikipedians, and we looked at quite a bit of research, and we decided that "Côte d'Ivoire" really is what the country is called in the majority of English language sources. If you don't believe me, you can go there and look at the talk page archives. If you disagree with the decision, you may question it there. However, it remains a fact that we chose the title "Côte d'Ivoire" because we decided it was more common in written English sources, not because we decided it was more correct. We were following WP:COMMONNAME as well as we could. Incidentally, I have met Americans, Europeans, and Africans who call the country "Côte d'Ivoire".

Many people may call caterpillars worms (and yes, I've lived for years each in Texas, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington, talking about bugs regularly with other Americans), but the most common English name for the larval form of a butterfly remains "caterpillar". If caterpillars were more commonly referred to in sources as "worms", then we'd have to move the article. I had taken your meaning to be that people think of insects in general as "worms", which is generally not the case. I concede that grubs and caterpillars are often informally referred to as "worms", although they're also often informally referred to as "grubs" and "caterpillars".

I'm sorry I failed to reply regarding "Royal Prussia". It's just that I don't know anything about it. Is the province generally called "Royal Prussia" in English-language sources? If so, then we've got it at the right title.

I'm not sure whether you're disagreeing as to what WP:COMMONNAME says, or as to whether it should apply in this case. It's true that it is a guideline, but the same principle is contained in our naming policy under the header "Use common names of persons and things". The idea is not that we try to replicate every error made in casual usage, but that we try to follow the lead of other English-language sources. Perhaps I should have been clearer: when I mention "the form that more readers will recognize," I mean to base that determination on other English-language sources. I hope I've been clearer this time.

In a way, this is all beside the point. Our policy would have us title this article according to its most common name in other English-language sources, but we don't have to do what the policy says. Per IAR, we get to form a consensus about this article. The reason I dropped by your talk page to ask why you moved this page is this: There had just been a discussion over moving the page, and it appeared that a decision had been made to move to "Tumult of Thorn". I was surprised by your move, because I hadn't seen the discussion leading up to it, nor seen a hint on this talk page as to where that discussion took place. I just thought it would be appropriate for you to comment here regarding why you changed the name, and where people could find the "vote" that you cited in your edit summary. It seems I failed to communicate that very effectively, and instead came across as somehow attacking you. Again, I apologize for that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's the question as I asked you on your talk page:

"Hi. I wonder which Gdańsk vote you're referring to in your edit summary moving Tumult of Thorn to Tumult of Thorn (Toruń). Thanks in advance for clarifying. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)"

That's really all I was trying to ask, that is, could you please explain here what you were talking about in the edit summary? That's all. I don't think it's an unreasonable request. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure: "I'll clarify with pleasure, here is a copy of the vote:

As you can see in article #5 in all places that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) or Gdańsk (Danzig). Therefore: History of Gdańsk (Danzig), Teutonic Takeover of Danzig (Gdańsk) and Tumult of Thorn (Toruń). "

Now if you notice the newest version is the most peaceful one, nobody has any objections and everyone seems to be perfectly happy. Space Cadet 22:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, except your move - which was never discussed here and which flew in the face of the discussion we did have here - has been reverted. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If someone hadn't beat me to it, I would just have undone the move "Tumult of Thorn" to "Blood Tribunal of Toruń", a name which has no support whatsoever. Matthead has experimented with several names and introduced "Toruń" ([26]). Olessi, while expressing disapproval of just that introduction on the talk page ([27]), changed it to improve grammar. When Matthead's next experiment included "Thorn" again, suddenly it was reverted supposedly because it had to have been discussed, as if the others had been (well, "Blood Tribunal of Toruń" had: as I said, it had been opposed, so actually "Thorn Blood tribunal", the first name, would be the only choice for move). Space Cadet and Tulkolahten, too, copied Piotrus's strategy. I thought a move request was reasonable there but had underestimated the low participation of a third (English) party. At least, Olessi found a perfect name adopting Molobo's "Tumult of" - "Tumult of Thorn" - which concedes as much to the Polish fraction as is reasonable (Tumult of) and at the same time enjoys most new Google book hits, ie most legitimacy - perfect. Since this is not a vote but a survey, Molobo has little right to complain about the admin decision to move it as a result of the discussion. Please discuss further moves and do not revert to an undiscussed (or opposed), ridiculous and original "Blood Tribunal of Toruń". Sciurinæ 23:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You're still not addressing my point: Why would an event that happened in Poland, to Polish citizens have a German name in the title of the article? Space Cadet 23:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Thorn people spoke German. I don't know what was the language of the tribunal - Polish or Latin.Xx236 08:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

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. [28] --Molobo 20:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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)

Witch 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)

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)

---

Descendant of Zernecke - Update

- As a descendant of Jacob Heinrich Zernecke I know for sure he did not convert to cathlicism. After being free he left Thorn and went to Danzig and he has written about the time in prison. It is true that a Jesuit priest promised his life would be saved if he would convert, but he refused and thought he would be beheaded like the others. I know the Zernecke family paid an amount of money to set him free and maybe this helped. King August gave him grace and it is said that he regretted to have signed the death penalties (he had been protestant before becoming king of Poland) but I don't know this for sure. In fact one of the others converted and was spared, but it was not Zernecke. (this was removed- posting it here) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.133.77.60 (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

"Blood bath"

Re this: [29]. The "citation" (not really) is just to a google book search [30], with the vast majority of hits being 19th century propaganda/nationalist sources (plus the way outdated 1911 EB). There's no indication that this term "bloodbath" term - which raises obvious POV flags - is commonly used in modern sources. Since it does appear to be an archaic term for the event I think it's fine if it's older "name" is included in the article somewhere, but it should not be included, bolded, in the first sentence as an alternative title, since few, if any, modern works use that phraseology.

Also, generally, it's a good idea to discuss reverts on talk first. Good practice. Volunteer Marek  00:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You should at least read what you revert instead of making such false claims as above. You removed two English-language sources, one published in 1993, the other one in 1966. These are not "19th century propaganda/nationalist sources". HerkusMonte (talk) 09:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Neither of these sources show that this is a widely used term. 1966 is not all that better than pre World War II. The vast majority of sources at the gbook links ARE 19th/early 20th century sketchy sources. The claims were not false, just a generalization. Like I said, you want to put the old name into the article somewhere fine. But it doesn't belong in the lede and it is an obvious attempt at POV pushing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not me, who want's to change something, it's you who tries to remove an information from the lead because you don't like it. It's sourced and has been mentioned in the lead already for a very long time, I don't see a reason to change it. HerkusMonte (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Revisiting this issue, the only two modern sources which use the term either use scare quotes or refer to it as the "so-called Bloodbath". Both are indicating that this was a term used in 19th century (and earlier) nationalist propaganda. As such, including this highly POV version in the lede is obviously UNDUE. It is enough that the propaganda term is mentioned somewhere in the article. Removing.VolunteerMarek 22:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention that this propaganda name was pushed by a user who's also got banned from this topic area. Red flags all over the place.VolunteerMarek 22:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The article says Blood-Bath of Thorn. Source 1 - 'blood-bath of Thorn', source 2 - the so-called blood bath of Thorn. It's not exactly the same.Xx236 (talk) 10:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The German article is de:Thorner Blutgericht. It uses one source which says that the "Blut" (English Blood) names were used in protestant propaganda and that standard German name is Thorner Tumult. I understand that British or WASP editors prefer protestant propaganda, but Wikipedia isn't WASP propaganda, is it?Xx236 (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Summarizing not also called Blood-Bath of Thorn but called by protestant propaganda Blood-Bath of Thorn. Xx236 (talk) 10:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

First of all VM removed sourced content giving an edit summary "pov name from 19th century nationalist sources". In fact the sources were published in 1966 resp. 1993. Both sources are obviously not "19th century" sources and I don't see why and what kind of nationalism these sources might push. Your personal opinion (speculation) about what the authors might have tried to express by using the term "so-called" is really irrelevant as it is (obviously) a matter of WP:OR.

Second: Even Norman Davies uses the term "bloodbath".[31] Do you want to claim Davies pushes a 19th century nationalist's POV?

Third: Do you really want to remove anything added by users who are (or were) toppic banned?

@xx236. The sources don't say so, you are just speculating that these authors are probably Protestants. We call that "original research". HerkusMonte (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The German article is de:Thorner Blutgericht. It uses one source which says that the "Blut" (English Blood) names were used in protestant propaganda and that standard German name is Thorner Tumult. The bibliography of the German book lists not only 19th century but also one Nazi time book, to be precise.

If ten victims is a Blood-Bath, so German occupation of Poland is a half-Mega Blood-Bath. The world changed 1939-1945.Xx236 (talk) 12:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

About the meaning of so-called - please compare the truth and the so-called truth and call the result Original Research.Xx236 (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

<-- Davies also uses scare quotes with the term, and discusses it explicitly in the context of an effort by "Prussians and Russians to inflame the issue of the religious 'dissidents'". Like the other two authors, he is referring to the name given to the event by archaic and outdated propaganda.

Again, I think the term should appear in the article, and it should be discussed in its proper context. But to push an obviously POV term - and "obviously" in the sense that it was explicitly constructed for propaganda purposes - into the lede is, well, POV.VolunteerMarek 06:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

In Polish history books, the event rarely finds mention

The quoted source was written in 1979, Poland has changed since that time. Please remeber that Germans exterminated Polish historians, later started the war against the SU, lost it and caused Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe, during which academic research was controlled by the Communists.Xx236 (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Bibliography from pl:Tumult toruński

• Stanisław Salmonowicz, W Staropolskim Toruniu XVI-XVIII w. Studia i szkice, Wydawnictwo TNOiK, "Dom Organizatora", Toruń 2005, rozdział I, IV i V.
• Stanisław Kujot, Sprawa Toruńska z roku 1724, Rocznik TPNP, t. 20:1894.
• Stanisław Salmonowicz, O toruńskim tumulcie z roku 1724, Odrodzenie i Reformacja w Polsce, t. 28:1983, s. 161-185.
• Historia Torunia, t. 2, cz. 3, Między barokiem i oświeceniem (1660-1793), pod red. Mariana Biskupa, Wydawnictwo Towarzystwa Naukowego w Toruniu, Toruń 1996; s. 186-205.
• one position about folk-songs.

Xx236 (talk) 12:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Protestant and Prussian bias

During ages Germans and Russians created the image of dirty and primitive Poles. Since that time Germans and Soviets murdered tens of millions, destroied tens of thousands of churches. But Poles are still the bad guys, and Western writers finnaced by Russian and Prussian rulers are authorities since Voltaire to Aragon.

I doubt that any US editor quotes here 19th century stories about primitive Black slaves, but protestant opinions about Poles are more important than historical context of religious persecutions in Europe of that time. Xx236 (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tumult of Thorn (Toruń). 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/20071213023316/http://www.torun.pl/portal/index.php?strona=zw_kosc to http://www.torun.pl/portal/index.php?strona=zw_kosc

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) 10:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)