Talk:Toruń/Archive 2

Old Talk
This stuff from Thorn might be merged; I really don't know enough about its accuracy or relevance to do that. --LDC

A previously ordered crusade to Christianize the still heathen Prussians by the pope in 1215 was answered by Conrad of Masovia, who in 1220 conquered some of the territory of Prussia. When the Prussians attempted to regain their land, Conrad of Masovia called the Knights. With the Golden Bull of the emperor of 1226 and of the pope of 1234 the inhabitants of Prussia were then governed by the Grand Masters of the Catholic order. In 1440 the Prussian Hanseatic cities of Elbing, Danzig and Thorn etc formed the Latvian Union in order to avoid rule by the budist knights. Previous to, during and after the Reformation the cities became and remained mostly Protestant. To accomplish this, they sought the aid of the crown of Poland, which was held by the Jagiello-Habsburg, Vasa dynasties. This enabled western Prussia to remain Protestant during the restrictive Anti-Reformation by the Spanish Habsburg emperors. Only Ermeland remained Catholic, because it was ruled by prince-bishops (Fuerst-Bischoefe), who were imperial princes (Reichsfuersten). The political classification centuries later as western, sometime called Royal Prussia (from 1466 to 1772. Rather they were dukes. Western Prussia was part of the Kingdom of Prussia in from 1772, 1992/1793-1918 and also part of the German Empire (1871-1918).It was given to Poland with a stretch of territory (later known as Polish Corridor), which then seperated Germany in two parts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee Daniel Crocker (talk • contribs) 16:16, 16 April 2002 (UTC)

Name of city
Torun's name comes from Polish Tarnów (there are many such cities in Poland, tarnina = kind of river plants), which was later Germanized into Thorn, and re-Polonized into Torun. Neither name Torun or Thorn has any etymological meaning. (reference: Professor Jan Miodek said so) 66.47.62.78 (talk) 10:40, 4 May 2002 (UTC) --- Removed reference to Dutch abbey -- first we need some proof that it is related to a town in Poland. ---rmhermen 166.90.225.112 (talk) 13:09, 9 August 2002 (UTC) --- to Rmhermen Thorn in Prussia was not founded in Poland. And the dutch abbey in Holland was Thorn a state of the HRE until it was conquered by Napoleon.[] user:H.J. 66.47.62.78 (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2002 (UTC)
 * That isn't proof that a Dutch abbey had anything to do with a town that now lies in Poland. --rmhermen 166.90.225.112 (talk) 13:24, 9 August 2002 (UTC)

Present Torun (at that time called Thorn -- At what time? -- Zoe 14:08, 9 August 2002 (UTC) --- to Zoe Thorn in Culmer Land Prussia, a part of the empire, was founded in 1231 by the Teutonic Knights. In Latin language it is written Thorun. Since the 20th century it is called Torun by Poland. user:H.J.  66.47.62.78 (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2002 (UTC)
 * Zoe, to be more precise, Polish speakers have probably called it Torun for a very long time -- the difference is that now English speakers defer to the Polish-language name because, well, it's in Poland now! JHK 15:30, 9 August 2002 (UTC)
 * But it's not clear from the context of the article at what time we're talking about. -- Zoe 16:27, 10 August 2002 (UTC)

--

"Polish Corridor annexed to Poland, Pomorze is the Polish name for Pomerania. Thorn was never situated in Pomerania, but in Prussia. "

I removed this staff. The administratif changes are not always to be questioned in the encyclopedia articles. We shall simply state the status. Thorn was never part of the Polish Corridor, rather it is located between Warsaw and Gdansk, you could hardly imagine the transport route from Germany to East Prussia by Torun. Furthermore, the Region of Pomerania as of 1939 was actually the widest in the southern part, where Torun is located. Torun was really found in Prussia, on the edge of Mazovia, Prussia and Culmer Land, that part time was a part of Mazovia, part time of Pomerania. After 1308 the teutonic knights renamed their part of Pomerania into Prussia, alongside with real Prussia, that was before populated by Prussians. After the Polish reconquest in 1454, the Polish part was called King's Prussia, including Thorn as well. Kingdom of Prussia renamed the same region into Western Prussia. In 1920 Poland restored naming convention from the times before 1308 and called it Pomerania. It wouldn't have been wise decision if Poland had split the same province into the country side of Pomerania and the biggest city of Prussia, would it be? In addition there are many people there that are calling themselves Pomeranians still. However, there are not some many Prussians. 162.70.142.217 (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2002 (UTC)

Torun was the capital of Pomeranian Voivodship in years 1921-1938. Later the capital was moved to Bydgoszcz. Today Torun and Bydgoszcz are both the capitals of the Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodship. Adked of their regional identity, most of the inhabitants og both cities reply they are Pomeranians and are surprised to ask such silly questions - CC 05:28, 4 December 2003 (UTC)

Bernhard Schilling von Lignitz
I have removed Bernhard Schilling von Lignitz from the Famous people of Toru&#324; section. The article de:Bernhard Schilling von Lignitz has recently been marked for deletion on the German wikipedia. One reason is that the existence of a person with that name can't be confirmed via google (the only hits are wikipedia mirrors and one other site which doesn't seem reliable). Another reason is that the article contained the statement that the currency unit Schilling had been named after him - which is definitely false - from its very first version, which had been created by a user which used to be well known on the english wikipedia too: User:H.J.. (I think that she was banned and it is desired that her name and surname should be abbbreviated here? I am not very familiar with this whole affair.)

However, there is a web page with old prussian tales which tells one about a citizen of "Thorn" named Bernhard Schilling von der Lignitz (sic) who made coins from silver. One gets the impression that this was a fictional person. More information is welcome.

regards, High on a tree 01:41, 21 March 2005 (UTC)

Illegibility
Toru&#324; (pronounce: [:t&#596;ru&#626;], Kashubian:   is what I see on my computer screen.  That's t square ru square.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdammers (talk • contribs) 08:54, 21 June 2005 (UTC)


 * That's because you're still using Internet Exploiter. Not the best choice, if you'd ask me. Anyway, I fixed it, hopefully. Is it ok now? Halibutt 09:42, 21 June 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, thank you. I don't like IE, but sometimes I have to use what is on the computer that is available.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdammers (talk • contribs) 22:16, 21 June 2005 (UTC)

Over-editing
I think a lot of the "yellow pages" stuff that got cut is actually quite fitting. Let's put some of it back in (e.g., children's theatres). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdammers (talk • contribs) 07:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

RE: Childrens Centre's and overt free advertising
A question, why under the title of CHILDREN'S CENTRES do we have fast food places like McDonalds and KFC? Are we advertising for multinational companies now? this isn't very interesting info on TOrun, frankly.

K — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khrystene (talk • contribs) 11:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khrystene (talk • contribs) 22:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, we can always NPOV it... Boud 15:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * NPOV? Que? khrystene 22:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

quote from What Wikipedia is not
What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not:
 * 1) Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel or the price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Such details are, however, very welcome at Wikitravel, but note that due to license incompatibility you cannot copy content wholesale unless you are the copyright holder.
 * 2) Directories, directory entries, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally shouldn't list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, etc. (although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable). Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article.

This page has been turned into a telephone book, which is quite ridiculous. Most of the travel guide/resource for conducting business stuff should be shifted into wikitravel (but has to be rewritten "independently", for copyright reasons, most probably). Boud 16:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Not on that, but the spelling and names are incorrect.... [See my note below] It's damn annoying.

khrystene 22:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello
Khrystene here, I just edited some simple spelling and consistency mistakes. Living in Torun itself, hence my interest.

Email me if you have any questions.

K — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khrystene (talk • contribs) 00:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Free online Translator
In case you need to check how words are spelt or what the translations are in English/Polish:

http://www.poltran.com/

Khrystene 22:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Length of the article
Guys. This article has too much information. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. Please read WP:NOT. Karol 16:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed, it reads not like a guide on Torun, but rather a Yellow pages on the place... Perhaps just one or two link to where all the 'additional' information can be found? khrystene 20:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Also thank GOODNESS you removed the advertising for Mcdonalds etc... khrystene 22:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Poor Spelling and translation of terms
I wonder why, all the corrections to names and spelling that I made over a month ago have now reappeared?! Am I annoyed? You betcha.... khrystene 22:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * ALSO: It's usually spelt BURGOMEISTER from the German not BURGOMASTER khrystene 23:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Twin Cites V Sister Cities
Why the change from Sister to Twin? As far as I know, it's always SISTER Cites not TWIN. khrystene 23:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Twin towns sounded more familiar to me, see Town twinning. The article already had many weird expressions, but it seems you are correct and sisters was okay. --Matthead 00:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Revert war
The revert war from Nicolaus Copernicus seems to have spilled over to this article. Please put your efforts into working on a consensus wording rather than simply reverting to your preferred wording. JeremyA 23:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The consensus wording on Copernicus has to be decided there, not here. In addition to the POV claim on Copernicus which is added to several articles, instead of twice "became part of", now "forcefully annexed" and "returned" are back in. Also, the article was protected after an edit by User:Tirid Tirid which was done in a row of at least three reverts (rv to Molobo), back to the versions of a well-known Polish user. In the edits on Warmia, Tirid Tirid had deleted 4 interwiki-links . --Matthead 00:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, "forcefully annexed" and "returned" are heavily POV. Ksenon 20:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Besides, User:Tirid Tirid is suspected to be a sock puppet of User:Space Cadet, see also Request for CheckUser. Is it appropriate that an article that was last edited by such a user remains protected in that state? --Matthead 22:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

For now the only POV is that Kopernik wasn't a Polish astronomer. Don't spread it here. As to returned and annxed by force-perfectly clear and fitting descriptions. What's POV about them ? It was taken over during forced Partitions and returned to Poland ? Or not ? --Molobo 10:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thorn in Prussia references on Nicolaus Copernicus Documents
A number of portraits by the scientific community of Europe throughout the centuries reder to Latin Torun, Thorun in Borussia - Thorn in Prussia 24.23.39.36 (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Compromise?
I've read the article thouroughly, and my overall impression is that it's a mixture of more or less hidden attempts to force Polish or German nationalistic POVs on the city, trying to advocate that it's been more "German" or "Polish" throughout history. Disgusting, isn't it ? Would you both German and Polish POV pushers agree to get rid of all these ?

Starting with the "city name" section. Is the name's ethymology that important to take a whole section ? I think it's clear on first reading that the major purpose of this section is to prove that the name was more German or more Polish. Do we need it? Why don't we have such section for e.g. Berlin or Warszawa ? I'd say move it to external article on "Etymology of Toruń name". --Lysytalk 15:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyone ? --Lysytalk 20:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no problems with that suggestion. I also think the adjective "famous" before Copernicus is extraneous- his very inclusion in the article indicates he is a person of note. Olessi 20:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Good, let's try slowly then, one-edit-at-a-time, and try to remove all Polish and German POV pushing encountered. Let me start ... --Lysytalk 20:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've removed "the famous Polish astronomer", everyone knows who he was and whether Polish or not, this does not need to be stessed until settled in Nicolaus Copernicus article. --Lysytalk 20:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've commented out the etymology part. This is not a dictionary. It was too large and prominent for the article and obviously the main reason for it to be there was Polish-German POV pushing (whether the Polish or German name is closer to the original Thorun). Maybe this text can be reused in a separate article on the name's etymology. --Lysytalk 21:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've removed "forcefully". If we are aware of any defence of the town against the annexation, it could go back with a proper reference. --Lysytalk 21:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've removed "147 years after being partitioned". Toruń was not partitioned. --Lysytalk 21:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Unprotecting
I can't see a good reason to keep this protected. --Tony Sidaway 16:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The reason was an attempt to reach a consensus instead of revert war, IMHO. --Lysytalk 17:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

POV pushers
Is anyone but myself interested in protecting the article against nationalistic (whichever way) POV edits ? We do not need any more edits that are only supposed to prove that the town was more Polish or more German. --Lysytalk 19:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Culmerland again
I think we have here serious disagreement Szopen 07:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It was old Polish territory
 * It was almost depopulated due to constant Prussian raids (Chroniclers said that it was because Konrad have ordered to execute Kryspin (Krystyn?), who was protecting the Culmerland and whole Masovia)
 * Prussians took the province around 1216, but Konrad was able to retake it due to help from whole Poland.
 * Prussians took the province again
 * In 1220s and 1230s The northern part of Culmerland was probably effectively depopulated and abandoned by Polish villagers. Sources mentions e.g. that in 1222 Chelmno (Culm) was empty town.
 * But this was the province inherited by Konrad from his ancestors, not territory conquered. Culm was mentioned in sources as Polish settlement in 1065 (Don't know about first metnioning Torun)
 * Prussian's invasions _could_ be probably caused by Polish christianization efforts made by Christian
 * BTW teutons received also parts of land on second bank of Vistula, in Kujawy. Were those territories also Prussian?
 * BTW again Radzyn Chelminski, which is north from Torun was conquered frmo Prussians in beginning of XI century and had Polish crew until beginning of XIII century.
 * Online version of PWN does not mention Prussians here, but they could be there - after all, they were fighting for the province since some 20 or 30 years and Konrad was losing this fight.

My changes

 * 1) I have removed the fragments dealing whether Culmerland was in Masovia, or west from it. Instead, the apragraph just stated the fact: it was in Culmerland, period.
 * 2) I have removed the info about raids of Prussians - moved to Culmerland.
 * 3) I have removed info about sacking Chelmno, Plock etc to Culmerland (for now)

Let's keep it that way. I propose that the discussion over whether Culmerland belonged to Prussians or Poles will be carried in Culmerland. I will put a request on Polish wikipedians board for someone to prepare some real sources (archeological, scientific, not just www pages), feel free to ask for the same thing on German board Szopen 15:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Was Toruń Fortress a POW camp?
Hi I am looking for some details on this, but didnt find any in the article. My query is in reference to some POWs who are reported to be in Stalag XXA during WW2- the information I from net is that this camp was in the area of Toruń- can anyone confirm that? Thanks Fluffy999 01:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * OK well im including it in the article Friesack Camp anyway. Both spellings. Please edit if you have details. Thanks Fluffy999 13:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Explain your revert
Dear User:83.8.172.225 please explain why you reverted me. I had changed three things on the page:


 * 1) I upgraded the number of Toruń inhabitans, using the official city website as my source.
 * 2) I changed the population of Toruń agglomeration from 850,000 to 400,000. I have to admit that it was my guess and was supposed to be a temporary change until I check the fact. However, 850,000 is more then the Toruń Voivodship had when it existed (which was 647,000 in 1987 according to the PWN encyclopedia). Do you include Bydgoszcz in your definition of Toruń agglometation?
 * 3) I heavily copyedited the history of Toruń after the war. It was simply not compatible with the format of an encyclopedia. There's no way to have such opinionated sentences in an encyclopedia. I left all the facts intact.

If you want to revert again part or all of my changes, please document your changes (for example give a good source on the "majority" feeling about Toruń decline).

Regards, ProudPomeranian 06:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * User:83.8.196.153 (apparently identical with User:83.8.172.225), you chose to answer me on my Talk page. I replied you over there and now I copy the most important part of my reply here:
 * I believe your version was much further from objectivity than mine. However, I do agree that also my version is unnecessary. I would suggest removing the "feeling" fragment completely. Feel free to remove it, if you want. Just do not restore your version - it is not encyclopedic. Not at all.
 * --ProudPomeranian 17:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Here my explanations regarding population (User:83.8.191.196 - the same as most 83.8s for a few last months):


 * To be quite strict, Toruń's population at the beginning of 2006 was 198,000. Toruń means here "the city inside its administrative boundary". These are oficial statistical data (but I just haven't had enough time to dig through www.stat.gov.pl or something like that in order to paste any particular link here); information at the city's website is just somewhat out of date. There have been fluctuations in Toruń's population last years - it' pointed out and explained in a more detailed way in the Population section of the article.


 * As regards the whole agglomeration, Toruń is usually considered as a bipolar urban area with Bydgoszcz. In practice, also their land counties, smaller towns and another land counties near around are included. Thus 850,000 is somewhat like a sum of populations of those administrative units (Toruń and Bydgoszcz produce 198+364->562 themselves, additionaly: 84 in Toruń County - with Chełmża as a town, 93 in Bydgoszcz County - with Koronowo and Solec Kujawski as towns, what gives a sum of no less then 739,000). These are rough calculations, but to some extent they are also oficially supported in regional planning. Maybe there are also some official statistical data, but I just don't know.


 * History after WWII. I've just cut away the controversial fragment.


 * Pardon me if I messed up page formatting or something like this again, but while I've been doing my best to improve the article, I still cannot afford enough time to read all the guidelines abouth writing here; thus there are times when I must rely on my intuition only. 83.8.191.196 (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

A Suggestion
What it the purpose of the paragraph starting with "The mostly German populated..." and the paragraph starting with "In the second half of the 17th century..."?

Why does an article about Tourn contain such a lengthy and somewhat bigoted discussion of religious infighting?

I recommend that one of you people handling this article delete both paragraphs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjm5025 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Population
There has been reverting and reverting again in passages relating to the city's population recently. Below, I pasted a link to the website of National Electoral Commision (unfortunatelly in Polish only) which published detailed population statistics by the occasion of 2006 local elections in Poland. According to those data, which I believe there is no sensible reason to consider unreliable, Toruń' population in 2006 was 196,844.

PKW - 2006 local elections

Actually, the number of 208,000 inhabitants was probably true for the second half of 1990s. Data at official Toruń website, which I believe was a source of information for some authors of this article, have been outdated for a long time - although I don't know why. The decrease, a fact now quite widely known in Toruń, has been gradual throughout years as a part of more general urban changes in whole Toruń-Bydgoszcz metropolitan area (population of the latter city has fallen significantly as well). 83.8.183.35 (talk) 02:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Voltaire
Hello folks, I just read the following sentence: Voltaire a friend and in paid of employment of Catherine the Great. I guess it was edited by User:Molobo not too long ago. But I really have a hard time finding some kind of source for the claim, that this philosopher was paid by Catherine the Great. Can somebody help on this matter? Otherwise we'd have to remove this claim. -- Memnon335bc  00:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Michał Heller "Historia Imperium Rosyjskiego", mentioned it IIRC. Does anyone has a copy of book? I don't at the moment. I think though that it is common consensus that Voltaire get his subsidies first from Frederic, and then from Catherine. She also paid Diderot and D'Alambert. There are plenty of links in google in Polish internet, but none points to books available to me right now. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0016-111X(197803)51%3A4%3C608%3AVRWOTE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P article here contains phrase "he was paid propagandist to Russia". Szopen 07:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thorough my Polish is quite bad, I'd prefer any English, French or German book. Thx, -- Memnon335bc  13:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

History
In 1263 Franciscan monks settled in Thorn/Torun and they were followed in 1239 by the Dominicans. This has the earmarks of a typo because the year 1239 preceded 1263 by 24 years. Musicwriter 00:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thorn or Toruń
It seems to me that the most neutral way is to name the city "Thorn" for periods of time when it belonged to the Ordensland, Kingdom of Prussia or Germany and "Toruń" for the time when the city was Polish. Space Cadet 23:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Barring evidence that English sources prefer any certain term regarding a time period, that makes sense to me. Olessi 18:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The evidence that English sources prefer Thorn for pre-1919 is evident. Similar story as Danzig and other places for which the terms of the Danzig vote should be applied accordingly. From the beginning in 1231 until 1919 or so the town was named Thorn, in varying spellings. Like many other cities with a majority of German-speaking inhabitants, the city did not change its name when political affiliation changed - why should they, unless forced to do so? For example Norman Davies uses Thorn in God's Playground and Europe: A History, like second Treaty of Thorn, signed on 19 October 1466, while Torun is used in a reference to a 1951 Polish book. Stephen Turnbull (historian) uses Second treaty of Thorn (Torun). Like Blood-bath of Thorn, the articles about the Peace of Thorn (1411) and Peace of Thorn (1466) need also be moved to a version with Thorn. The Polish Toruń is rarely used in English anyway. The remaining question is whether "First/Second", "of 14xx", or "(14xx)" is best.


 * +1466 +"of Thorn" 610
 * +1466 +"of Torun" 133
 * +1466 +"of Toruń" 5

-- Matthead discuß!    O       00:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * +1411 +"of Thorn" 205
 * +1411 +"of Torun" 17
 * +1411 +"of Toruń" 1

This argumentation is very weak. 1231 was not the beginning of Toruń. A settlement of that name existed before the arrival of the Teutonic Knights. The knights built a castle called Vogelsang across the river from the settlement, and later gave that settlement a status of a city, but they did not found Toruń. The sources you mention are not encyclopedic. Before 1989 majority of English language sources, encyclopedic or not, preferred use of German names for most locations in western and northern Poland, whether referring to historical or modern times. This former trend haunts us to this day because sources use sources, that used sources... and so on, way back to before 1989. Encyclopedic sources, like Britannica, use Polish names almost exclusively, even for the periods of time when those cities belonged to Germany. However it would be a most neutral idea to "to name the city Thorn for periods of time when it belonged to the Ordensland, Kingdom of Prussia or Germany and Toruń for the time when the city was Polish." Space Cadet 21:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC) P.S. The idea to use a number of Google hits as an argument in a WIKI discussion has been ridiculed here too many times for me to even address it.
 * Yes, I already have noticed that Poles try to make "Poles first!" claims. And there are some English language publications which disseminate Polish POV since they embraced it over a century ago in their rants against the German Empire. Yet, even scholars who care a lot for Poles, like Davies, do call a spade a spade, and a Thorn a Thorn. Regarding ridiculed Google hits: the numbers I gave are from Google Books. Good luck with ridiculing them. -- Matthead discuß!    O

07:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not ridiculing anything but you're not quoting encyclopedias, so there. Besides the "sources quoting sources" rule applies. As far as "Poles first" nobody's trying to claim that Allenstein, Heilsberg or Braunsberg were founded by Poles, but Konrad didn't settle the Knights on empty ground, you know. Think a little bit. Davies did not write an encyclopedia, but a popular book and he did use sources that used sources. Space Cadet 16:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Space Cadet, I think Davies is a respected scholar and a primary source on how historic events are called in modern English. And about the topic who founded Toruń: On the City´s [website] it says in Polish "Krzyżacy - założyciele Torunia" and in English "The Teutonic Knights - the founders of Toruń.... and in that way Toruń was founded by the Teutonic Order and managed by the Knights until 1454...". Do you really think, they missed something about their own history? Can you come up with an encyclopedia that proves Toruń´s website wrong? Would be interesting if there was a source with the name of the place before the Order came there. --134.93.60.170 23:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I already said many times that I know it was The Teutonic Knights who made Toruń a city. But the settlement on the other side of the river existed before The Teutonic Knights and was already called Toruń. I'll see what I can do about the sources. Space Cadet 23:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn´t question that you knew Toruń became a city under the Knights. My point is: If there was some original paper from before 1230 that mentioned the name Toruń nobody would seriously doubt it. The whole fuzz about the name´s etymology makes only sense, if a proven pre-Order name doesn´t exist. So I´m afraid it´s just a matter of interpretation. The result is predictable, patriotic Poles will say ...all kinds of Germans will say... and surprisingly (at least for me) the City´s website goes with the "German" point of view.
 * But maybe you can also surprise me. So long. --134.93.60.170 22:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I've seen one Cracow website saying that the city was part of Gemany before 1918... Space Cadet 00:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Now, the Polish WIKI says that the settlement's first recorded name was "Tarnowo" (place where tarnina grows). It got germanized into: Torun (1231), Thorun (1233), Thoron (1241), and Thorum (1248). I guess the first one got polonized into Toruń. Tarnina, of course, is Prunus spinosa, very characteristic for the region. Space Cadet 00:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

1795-1798
In reference to South Prussia and New East Prussia, this FAQ says "The Kreis of Lipno and the Western portion of Mlawa and Plock areas were part of South Prussia in 1793-1795, Capital was Thorn 1795-1798, Plock 1798-1806." This suggests to me that Toruń was the capital of South Prussia from 1795-98 and then was joined to West Prussia and replaced as capital by Płock. That seems odd, as Płock was in New East Prussia. Has anyone else heard of this or can provide clarification? Olessi (talk) 05:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Etymology?
That section is nonsense and needs to be deleted. -- Matthead Discuß   03:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it just needs to be sourced.radek (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

A Suggestion 2
Torun is also a traditional female name in Scandinavia, not so common but people mostly in Norway, Iceland and Faroe Islands have this name. I think this would be appropriate to be mentioned somwhere in the beginning of the article. It is one of the female forms of Tor (Thor in english), god of thunder in nordic mythology. Two other common forms of the name is Tore (male name) and Tora (female name). /O.Edler, Uppsala, 14 Jan 2010. (It might be appropriate to rearrange this note to the end or so if the article is edited and mention this). 130.243.220.158 (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Name
Please comply with the Gdansk-vote: "The first reference of one name for Gdansk/Danzig in an article should also include a reference to the other name, e.g. Danzig (now Gdansk, Poland) or Gdansk (Danzig). All later occurrences of the name follow the rules for the periods as voted above." and "For locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name should also include a reference to other commonly used names, e.g. Stettin (now Szczecin, Poland) or Szczecin (Stettin)." --IIIraute (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Those wacky population tables
Re:. There appears to be a similar problem to the one found in the Chojnice article. How do you get a 48% vote for the Polish party when according to that table Poles were only 13% of the population. Lots of Poland-voting Germans? Volunteer Marek 21:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC) The German census is well known to be falsified. In case of Torun and Bydgoszcz-they both had very large amount of Germans as they housed significant amount of soldiers and both military and civilian administration sent from German Empire which was counted as local population to falsify statistics.I can add this with sources later if needed.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Problems
In addition to the comments about the sketchiness of some of these population numbers, this edit is problematic as well. First it is based on primary sources from 1768, or the 19th century, in contravention of Wikipedia policy on WP:RS. Second this kind of bean counting of "Protestants" "Catholics" and "Jews" violates WP:UNDUE and seems to be designed to prove some kind of WP:POINT. Finally, there's absolutely no reason to have a "Literature" section for works in non-English, especially one that includes one work from the 18th century and another work which was edited by a Nazi historian, Erich Weise. What's even more problematic is that the involvement of Weise in that work is (purposefully?) obscured. These edits violate Wikipedia policies and have negative value added. Volunteer Marek 16:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Toruń2017.jpg