Talk:Sztum

plebiscite

"in the East Prussian plebiscite on 11 July 1920, 19,984 votes were given to remain in Germany, 4,904 votes for Poland." - while this is true (though it should be sourced), without the proper context about the plebiscite and the conditions under which it took place, it can be misleading. I've tried to add that. The other way to go would simply be to remove the info. Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The plebiscite results are simple facts, the reason why the voters decided the way they did is POV and of course a matter of "national" background. The reader might read more about the different views at East Prussian plebiscite, there's no need to create a POVfork at every town in the plebiscite area. HerkusMonte (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the East Prussian plebiscite artice could use some serious NPOVing now that I look at it. And while we don't want to POV fork, we cannot just present "simple facts" (is there ever really such a thing?) torn out of context - that's actually what POV is in fact. That Saddam Hussein was elected by 99% of the voters is a "simple fact". Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You want to compare a plebiscite supervised by the League of Nations with British, French and Italian troops stationed in the area with Saddam's elections? Mmh, I don't see any comparability. However, the town's article is not the place to go into detail about the plebiscite background. HerkusMonte (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison is exaggerated to be sure, but it's a matter of degree. I agree that the town's article is not the place to go into detail. But that doesn't mean we can just present stuff without any kind of context what so ever. Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sztum. 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:

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) 03:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]