Talk:Kashubians

Untitled
I think there is some mess in this definition.

"Kashubians (also "Kassubians") came into the region between the Oder and Vistula rivers over a thousand years ago."

Kashubians came into land today called Pomerania at least 1500 years ago.

"For much of the period following they were subjects of the Holy Roman Empire and/or Prussia."

It is only partly true and refers to Kashubians living on teritories of former Duchy of Pomerania (germanised between XIII and XX centuries). Those living in Eastern Pomerania (or Pomerelia in german)were never subjects of the Holy Roman Empire. And Prussia only between 1772 and 1919.

"At first they lived in that part of the land later called Pomerania, named after the Pomeranen, who also moved there. Over time they spread and the majority of them came to live east of Gdansk".

What can I say? At the begining (till XIII century) borders of Pomerania were rivers Oder (west) and Vistula (east). It was not a state but a region inhabited by slavic tribes commonly known as Pomeranians (from slavic Pomor'e). What Germans regard as Pomerania are terytories of former Duchy of Pomerania which was created (XII century) from the west part of Pomerania and some terytories of Welts (Lutici). Eastern part of that region was joined to Poland. That eastern Pomerania from XV century was also known as Royal Prussia. Kashubians have been living there from 1500 years and are direct descendants of local tribes of Pomeranians. Pietia

Sorry about Dabrowski. You are right. He was descendant of Kashubian family, however was born in southern Poland.Yeti 23:30, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oh, no. Untill 20th century all Kashubian nobles considered themselve Polish or Germans. They were bilingual (sometime tri- or even more lingual - for example: Kashubian, Polish, German, Low German. There was nothing like Kashubian national identification. According to your logic, there were no Kashubians before 20th century.

Interwiki problem
In other languages there are two different articles: Kashubia (country) and Kashubians (people). In English Kashubia is redirected to Kashubians. This causes problem with interwiki links. I suggest to split it to two articles. Thanks. --rzelnik 14:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Cashoubs
Searched unsuccessfully for above name thoughout Wikipedia. This is the english name equivalent given for country on other non-wiki net sites for Kashubia, and Cashoubians is given for language. Net also lists Cashoubes (-e-) as the french name. Not suggesting these names be used but there should be a cross reference to find this site. I agree with the above statement from Rzelnik about separate entries for country and people. Tiddy 05:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

-

sorry to put this here, don't know where else to mention it: CAPITAL OF KASHUBIA/KASZUBY

IMPORTANT -the capital city of Kaszuby is NOT Gdansk. Unfortunately, I'm not 100% sure what is, so can't correct the article. Can someone check this out? Ask a kaszubian! I'll ask someone from my family, they may know what is currently considered as the capital.

---I, along with several others consider Leszno as the "Capital". In Canada, Wilno Ontario is the Cultural Capital of Canadian Kaszuby.

Hi, The capital of Kashubia is Gdańsk. Traditional one was always Kartuzy. However concious, political decision had been made by Kashubian elites to opt for Gdańsk, because of its strategic place within Kashubia and economic importance for the region. — Preceding Dolmaczera comment added by Dolmaczera (talk • contribs) 17:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC) 

Pronunciation
Could someone in the know put an English pronunciation of 'Kashubian' in? Specifically, I don't know which syllable the stress goes on. HenryFlower 11:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Dialect/language
While I'm here, I have another question. The article says, Many Polish linguists used to consider Kashubian to be a Polish dialect, though others believe it is a separate Slavic language. The first sentence implies that it is no longer the case that many Polish linguists consider it to be a dialect. Is that correct, or should 'used to' be removed? HenryFlower 11:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

-- Typically Kashubian are not recognized as inepedant nation and therefore Kashubian language as separate language. Sometimes dialects are more different then separate languages. They are some Slovak dialects containing a lot of absolutly not slav words, so I am sure nobody who hear these dialects first time can understand nothing.I am Slovak and I hear term Kashubian first time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.5.210.202 (talk) 10:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I am a Kashubian. In the last census of 2011, as in the previous one in 2002, I have opted for not only speaking Kashubian but also being of Kashubian nationality. When it comes to Kashubian language it is just as it is with the answer to 'who writes history? - the victorius. For Polish establishment Kashubian was always a dialect of the Polish language. For decades this was the official wish of the communist government, therefore very few scholars said otherwise. Today, the present work on Kashubian mostly is being based on the work from that era - meaning - based on not always what the actual scholar thought. However, since 2005 Kashubian language is protected by Polish and EU law and its code is csb. Nevertheless, it doeas not stop some in persisting on saying that it is a dialect. The fact is though that since the last war more and more of a Polish words enteres Kashubian vocabulary. Kashubian words were substituted by Polish as a result of overwhelming effects of ever-present Polish culture and language. Therefore, for someone today it may sound as Polish dialect. Luckily, since 1990 Kashubian is being taught in schools and hopefully Kashubian vocab is fighting back. It is a shame that nobody asks Kashubians. For us it always was, is and will be our language. Dolmaczera 17:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually when I ask Kashubians, whether they consider themselves the separate nation, they answer angrily that they are Poles. They think about the Kashubian culture rather as a folklore, and, to my slight surprise, about emphasizing their different identity as something artificial. You feel differently, but the census shows that the majority probably do not agree with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.77.53.133 (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Religion
The box states "Catholicism" under Religion. The text specifies that most Kashubians are Lutherans. Which is it? 88.152.198.21 11:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC) I'm of Kasubic(not sure if i spelt that corretcly) descent and my family is Mennonite. I know alot of people who are catholic and lutheran and some Mennos, Im' one of those canadian kasubians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.151.222 (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW. I'm actually a kaszub myself. Günter Grass is simply just a german, or to be more precise a prusak. His representation of the kaszubs in the Blech Trommel is bleach itself. I did therefore remove the reference. As to the matter of Catholicism - yes nearly about 100% of kashubs are Roman Catholic. Actually among the kaszub's anybody who was protestant was actually identified as a german.

Flag
Could someone explain the status of this? We don't normally have flags for articles on ethnic groups. Is this an official flag of some sort?`Relata refero (talk) 13:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Names
Removed German names, I fail to see any reason to have them here. Double naming doesn't apply to Kashubian languag and the Kashubians have their own language.--Molobo (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Shared history, maybe? Skäpperöd (talk)

Death toll of German massacre of Kashubs in Piaśnica
I added Kashub sources regarding the death toll of German mass murder in Piaśnica. Also the Senat source makes no claim about political stance of those murdered.--Molobo (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Added more on history.--Molobo (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and deleted the parts you did not like. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason for German names here. Double naming does not apply to Kashubians who have their own language. Please explain why you deleted several information about discrimination in German controlled Gdańsk ?--Molobo (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Kashubia is a region that was in between Germany and Poland ever since, sometimes in one state, sometimes in the other. What more shared history do you need? Also, if you go in and delete sourced information, it is only my courtesy that I tried to keep your edits in place when restoring. I however did not re-introduce "several information", which in fact was primarily a pejorative term you are talking about, maybe you explain its encyclopedic value? Skäpperöd (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Germany exists from 1871 so I don't think it is needed to include much of it into the article. Also this article is about Kashubs and double naming does not apply, using your logic all Polish names should have German counterparts as Poland was wholly occupied by Germany in 1939-1945 which obviously shows that only specific important shared history is needed to have double names. Also you deleted sourced information about discrimination of Kashubians in Wolne Miasto Gdańsk(Free City of Danzig) and provided no information why. I shall restore that info.--Molobo (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Added on uprising against Prussians in 1846
I added on uprising against Prussians in 1846 and tag request for one claim.--Molobo (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Scholary source provided for 12, 000 mass murdered Kashubs by German state in Piaśnica during WW2
IPN Bulletin 5(40) 2004 May.--Molobo (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Added more on history
Under German occupation in 1939-1945. --Molobo (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit!!!!!!! THIS IS NOT THE TRUE KASHUBAN STORY THERE ARE MORE THAN A MILLION ERRORS IN HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.100.170.123 (talk) 08:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

"In 1858 Kashubians emigrated to Upper Canada"
The link at "Upper Canada" send the reader to an article about the historical use of "Upper Canada", which ended with the Act pf Union in 1840. I think its use in this article is anachronistic and unhelpful. Could we say "eastern Ontario" (which is what the article on Renfrew County calls the area) instead? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Kashubians. 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/20090122132637/http://www.kki.net.pl/~museum/rozdz2,6.htm to http://www.kki.net.pl/~museum/rozdz2,6.htm

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kashubians. 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/20110823105119/http://nowa.magazynswiat.pl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=686&Itemid=90 to http://nowa.magazynswiat.pl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=686&Itemid=90
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402111033/http://www.senat.gov.pl/k5/dok/diar/70/7004.htm to http://www.senat.gov.pl/k5/dok/diar/70/7004.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130512204841/http://www6.gencat.net/llengcat/noves/hm04primavera-estiu/docs/moskal.pdf to http://www6.gencat.net/llengcat/noves/hm04primavera-estiu/docs/moskal.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030218064812/http://republika.pl/modraglina/kaszlink.html to http://www.republika.pl/modraglina/kaszlink.html
 * Added tag to http://www.thedailyobserver.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1551339

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kashubians. 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://www.webcitation.org/6FmIYgLPq?url=http://www.gwarypolskie.uw.edu.pl/index.php?option=com_content to http://www.gwarypolskie.uw.edu.pl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=429&Itemid=35

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

More than one Cassubian version of the names should be given
It's Kaszëbë & Kaszëbi in the north, Kaszubë & Kaszubi in the south of the region, isn't it? 37.190.146.24 (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Historical population: Dubious edit, please advise
Someone please look at this dubious edit by User:Domen von Wielkopolska on 31 July 2018. He changed historical population numbers for Kashubians that look well sourced, giving only this reasoning: "that 165 thousand instead of 65 thousand is obviously a typo because the total population was 701 thousand in year 1817." without explaining how he arrived at his new numbers. 2.247.242.145 (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I arrived at them by comparing the total population (701 thousand) with the ethnic breakdown (633 + 165 + 3 = 801, or 100 thousand more). The population of Provinz Pommern is given as 700,765 for year 1817. With 165,000 Kashubians it would be 800,765. And even 65,000 seems like a high estimate, considering that Jan Mordawski in "Atlas Dziejów Pomorza", published in 2017, estimates that there were only 25,000 Kashubians in Pommern at that time.
 * Do you have any better explanation on why is there such a big difference between these numbers?
 * Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The edit looks a bit WP:SNEAKY for the following reason: That very short table for Pomerania has its own inline citation (Hassel, Georg (1823). "Statistischer Umriß...", Weimar). You changed the numbers but not the citation which amounts to claiming: "I have that book here but it says something different, after all." Now you mention a second source. In that case you sould have added that new source to the article, together with a statement like "Hassel claims the following numbers for 1817: [...] while Mordawski says..."
 * I'm confused, because you yourself added the table with numbers from Hassel's book in the first place, didn't you? Do you mean Hassel made a typographical error? Do his numbers not add up properly? You're kinda sworn to WP:text-source integrity when citing, even to a bad source. If your source has false data, then don't use it or remove it. But just editing a number to what seems logical to you by reasoning is dishonest to your source, even if your end result is closer to the truth. 2.247.241.244 (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do think he made a typographical error, because the numbers do not add up properly (if you add up numbers for ethnic groups, you get 801 thousand people, while the total population of the province is given as 701 thousand - so exactly 100 thousand difference). But feel free to change it back to 165,000 if you want, and if you think that there is no typographical error after all. Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 13:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You can use the source only with the numbers that it states, not with your own ones. It would then be honest/fair to your readers to annotate them with a notice like "Hassel's numbers obviously don't add up here.". But that would of course devalue the assumed reliability of the source to any reader. So it's better to take out his conflicting numbers until you can find a better source.
 * The 1817 table should be removed until then. (Will do myself, sometime soon.)
 * I must say, as a German I am appalled that the Prussian bureaucracy made such blatant errors back then. ;) 2.247.241.235 (talk) 04:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)