Talk:Zygmunt Wojciechowski

Ministerstwo Nauki i Informatyzacji

http://www.mnii.gov.pl: Innym wybitnym historykiem był Zygmunt Wojciechowski (1900-1955), członek AU i PAN. Badał problematykę ustrojowo-prawną średniowiecznej Polski. Był współtwórcą tzw. polskiej teorii rodowej (przyjmującej, że organizacja państwa polskiego była wynikiem ewolucji ustroju rodowego) i autorem wielu znanych opracowań, jak np. „Państwo polskie w wiekach średnich. Dzieje ustroju”. Podczas okupacji niemieckiej wykładał w konspiracji. Po wojnie założył Instytut Zachodni w Poznaniu.

Encyklopedia PWN

WOJCIECHOWSKI ZYGMUNT (1900–55), ojciec Mariana, historyk, prawnik; od 1929 prof. uniw. w Poznaniu; od 1934 jeden z gł. ideologów OWP; podczas okupacji niem. wykładowca tajnego Uniw. Ziem Zach.; od 1945 czł. PAU, od 1952 PAN; założyciel (1945) i dyr. Inst. Zach. w Poznaniu, założyciel (1945) i red. nacz. „Przeglądu Zachodniego”, 1948–52 red. nacz. „Czasopisma Prawno-Historycznego”; badacz zagadnień organizacji państwa i społeczeństwa średniow. Polski; gł. prace: Polska nad Wisłą i Odrą w X w. (1939), Państwo polskie w wiekach średnich. Dzieje ustroju (1945), Zygmunt Stary... (1946), Studia historyczne (1955).

Manipulating sources?

I am checking sources provided for some statements in this article and there seems some heavy manipulation involved. Key sentences have been removed, and in other areas exchanged-for example Piast Poland for "Former German territories". I am continuing to read what was given as source here, and further corrections are necessary.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you are well aware of WP:COPYVIO, we don't copy and paste sources but we summarize them. To summarize Silesia, Pomerania etc. as the Former eastern territories of Germany is not erroneous. You might disagree on whether a summary is complete or lacks important (from your POV) information but this is not a "manipulation" of sources. Please take more care of your diction and respect WP:AGF and WP:NPA. BTW, talking about manipulation, while the source describes Wojciechowski's definition of "motherland territories" as W.'s POV, you prefer to present it as a fact, mmhh. HerkusMonte (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of COPYVIO, that whole paragraph based on Haar and Fahlbusch is taken almost verbatim from Haar and Fahlbusch - a pretty clear case of copy vio. That's putting aside the fact that I don't see why the fact that Wojciechowski initially misjudged Hitler (Chamberlein anyone?) is all that important here, except, again, as an attempt to find as many negative things as possible about the guy, simply because the research he later produced contradicts some people's pov.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

It's almost verbatim from Haar/Fahlbusch because Molobo expanded it that way. The background and sympathies of an influential scholar and nationalist politician is for sure noteworthy.

"an attempt to find as many negative things as possible about the guy, simply because the research he later produced contradicts some people's pov" - I'll come back to that view, e.g. at Theodor Schieder. HerkusMonte (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah... Wojciechowski never was a Nazi, nor did he carry out research which called for ethnic cleansing, nor was he one of the "intellectual fathers" of the final solution. Apples and oranges, and you really shouldn't make comparison like that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• A historian uses his profession to justify territorial claims against neighbouring countries and the expulsion of several million of people. The million $ question: Who was that? a)Theodor Schieder b)Zygmunt Wojciechowski.
• "nor did he carry out research which called for ethnic cleansing" I think you missed something here.
• Let me recapitulate what happened here throughout the last days: I tried to summarize Haar/Fahlbusch (respecting WP:copyvio). Molobo came up, accused me of "manipulating sources" (because they were not cited verbatim) and added material rather in a "copy and paste"-way. More or less immediately you follow up and remove the whole section for "copyvio". Without knowing about WP:EEML, one might guess that's just accidental. HerkusMonte (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

a). Now where's my million bucks?

You shouldn't have added cherry picked quotes to the article, and Molobo should have rephrased whatever he was adding. So wait, you're saying I reverted him?

At this point I can't do much more than roll my eyes when this EEML is brought up yet again for no reason.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

(because they were not cited verbatim) Nope, because you forgot to add that he became critical to Hitler or reasons for shift of his interest towards Italy. In any case there can be no comparison between racist Nazi Schieder who was involved in supporting racial war of extermination towards people classified as "untermenschen" by German state in 1939-1945 and Wojciechowski who was just interested in securing borders that would allow for continued peace in Europe.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Question to Herkus-why is the full quote not provided, and why is it in German

"Unsere Edition (...) ist einseitig, wir fügen hinzu: ganz bewußt einseitig. (...) Wir bemühen uns hier nicht um eine sogenannte objektive Geschichtsschreibung. Unsere Aufgabe bestand darin, die polnische Geschichte dieser Länder darzustellen und die polnische gegenwärtige Realität dieser Länder auf diesen historischen Hintergrund zu projizieren." A- I doubt Wojciechowski wrote in German. B-why is this quote edited to conceal several parts within it? I will request full quote along with source for this statement.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The source is Gregor Thum: "Die fremde Stadt" (in German) and Thum obviously translated the original, left out some parts and quoted only the most important. The citation above is what Thum wrote. If you've got access to the original (Ziemie Staropolskie) you might check the complete prologue. You might also ask User:Piotrus for a confirmation, I think I remember he knew Thum's book. HerkusMonte (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

left out some parts and quoted only the most important Really. So what were these "left parts"? Could tell me to provide from where he took Wojciechowski quote so that we may see the original text before Thum's translation, what these "parts" contain that was so unimportant in Thum's view?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Ziemie Staropolskie, seriously, it's not that hard to find. HerkusMonte (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

So Thum doesn't even give any page number for the supposed statement he cut in several places? Btw: I think you haven't realised that this a series of volumes--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not using Wojciechowski but Thum as a source and Thum is correctly cited. For your convenience, the exact reference is: Sosnowski, Kiryl; Suchicki, Mieczyslaw; "Dolny Slask", part I page 10 (Prologue by Wojciechowski). HerkusMonte (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

You can see Thum on Amazon preview [1]. The quote's translation was somewhat mangled (probably double so, Polish->German and German->English), but what it appears to be is a note to the reader that these particular works are polemic, much like any decent newspaper labels it's Opinion Page with the label "Opinion". He's just being up front about the POV that these particular works were written from.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC) I will try to find the original book and see what the missing sentences are.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

With regard to this [2] all I can say is that Thum is a (purposefully or not) a pretty bad translator. But I guess it's a reliable source so that's fine - though perhaps it should be noted that this is a translation from Polish by a German writer.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a mangled and cut version. The full quote is completely different and gives much more info and context. I have it and will translate.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Remember to avoid OR. Thum is a reliable scholar and his book is a reliable source. If you have a different RS claiming Thum misquoted or mistranslated Wojciechowski you might add that source. HerkusMonte (talk) 06:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I have the full quote, with parts that were cut by Thum in sentences. Also remember that translations aren't classified as OR.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 08:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK fail?

Not enough expansion? Could be restored if somebody where to add a paragraph or two ([3]). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I will add more than that when I get time during the week. I have a complete overview of his theories till 1939.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

?

[4] Herkus, you just removed a large chunk of sourced text with a claim that it was "unencyclopedic". The text was fine, though I'm guessing it's the section heading that set you off. But that's no excuse. There was nothing "unencyclopedic" about the text itself, it was sourced, and is obviously very relevant here. This kind of action - the blanket reversal of someone else's expansion of an article for IDONTLIKEIT reasons - does border on the disruptive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

MMA, is there an online version of the GW article? All I can find is the "readers' comments" section.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC) You need to search archives of GW, its pay on demand now. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

OOPS, sorry, I meant the section headlines, my mistake. HerkusMonte (talk) 05:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Cool.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Quote

I added the full quote of foreword of Wojciechowski. Remember that translations are not OR. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

And what exactly is relevant in this quote? Seems to be a case of WP:QUOTEFARM. HerkusMonte (talk) 05:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You introduced the tweaked quote without context. Either remove the manipulated and cut sentence without context or restore the full quote that isn't manipulated.A summary is also preferable--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The quote is based on Gregor Thum's book, which is available online. The requests are fringe because it is easily verifiable. Wojciechowski "stresses the Polish aspects of the area's history", I don't see any "manipulation" or even a divergent context. Thum is a reliable scholar and his choice of the relevant quote is persuasive. If you think a further quote is needed, please explain why. HerkusMonte (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

"The requests are fringe"-what that does even mean? As to Thum quote it's obvious that he manipulated and cut the sentence of Wojciechowski-whole segments within are cut off (even in fragments presented) and no context provided. The full quote has completely different meaning and contains vital context that explains that due to German control of this lands they now need to focus on Polish history because it was neglected. Right now we have a silly taken out of context and cut sentence that tries to imply Wojciechowski simply claims he will be not objective, without explaining why. Either the quote will be restored or summary provided instead of this. The current state is POV and unacceptable.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any "completely different meaning", Thum's quote illustrates W's self-conception and how he defined the role of historiography. Nothing more, nothing less. HerkusMonte (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thum's quote cuts all the context from Wojciechowski's statement and only shows a short sentence(and even there cuts away much of the material) that he is not objective.Nowhere in Thum's quote is there full context of this statment(the need to write about Polish history after centuries of German domination which resulted in distorted abundance of German history but lack of writing about Polish one) For full understanding we need to provide either the full quote or summary.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

If you know a reliable scholar or source, criticizing Thum like that, you might add something about it. Currently it's only what you think about Thum. HerkusMonte (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

We are not discussing Thum but the quote and way it is presented in the article. You are confusing two different issues.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

was a Polish historian and nationalist politician

He was a politician till 1939. Xx236 (talk) 08:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC) is recognised today as exceptional historian, and one of people who formed Polish intellectual elites - the quoted source is an article by a Polish journalist. Google doesn't give any detailed reliable informations about Wojciechowski. Xx236 (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC) http://www.niklot.szczecin.pl/publicystyka/111-maciej-motas-ziemie-zachodnie-i-zygmunt-wojciechowski.html is written by a nationalist.Xx236 (talk) 13:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zygmunt Wojciechowski. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20110728152339/http://free.art.pl/podkowa.magazyn/nr52/podziemie.htm to http://free.art.pl/podkowa.magazyn/nr52/podziemie.htm

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)