Jump to content

Talk:Province of Pomerania (1815–1945)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lead is too long

[edit]

This section is too long and should be only three or four paragraphs - material needs to be included in text below.--Parkwells (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. Only evidence that current topic is primary is unexplained search results from German google books. Born2cycle (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move

[edit]

Province of Pomerania → Province of Pomerania (1815–1945) — Other entities called "Province of Pomerania" or Pomerania Province, not WP:PT, one other existed much longer. WP:PT says: A topic is PT when it is more important than all the other meanings combined. Several wrong incoming links are prove that even editors are not clear about the difference between the one from 1815 vs the one from 1653. But most important are the readers. Schwyz (talk) 10:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Examples for wrong incoming links

Schwyz (talk) 10:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's please await the results of this discussion at AN/I before any further move is discussed. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skäpperöd (talk) 13:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)<mall>link added Skäpperöd (talk) 09:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Clearly the history of Pomerania as a "real" Prussian province started in 1815. But even more clearly a Province of Pomerania existed previously. Since we are writing Wikipedia and not Prussopedia, Skapperod's OR and POW above has to be discarded, and this article needs to be renamed to Province of Pomerania (1815–1945) to avoid confusion.  Dr. Loosmark  22:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - other "Provinces" are named in this way, this is just making this article's title confirm to Wikipedia standards. And while one can split hairs between a "province", a "duchy" or a "voivodeship" the honest truth is that people will likely be confused by these and hence there's a need for a proper disambiguation page for "Province of Pomerania". So this one should be dated to 1815-1945, per suggestion.radek (talk) 00:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Add: There has been no evidence presented what so ever that this is in fact the "primary topic"; just assertions and circular arguments (as pointed out by 79 above) to that effect. On the other hand there has been evidence presented (by Schwyz)which indicates that the current system of naming confuses both readers and Wikipedia editors.radek (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A clear distinction needs to be made, and the province categorized. There was not just one and only "True province of Pommerania"--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: Please review Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Schwyz/Archive and this comment for Schwyz and the IP (that is also Schwyz) commenting above, and background information on how this request was filed. Please review WP:EEML for potential biases of the comments of Radeksz (talk · contribs) and Molobo (talk · contribs) aka MyMoloboaccount (talk · contribs) towards me. Also note that Loosmark (talk · contribs) is currently topic banned from this artcle. Also take into account that the current title per this book search is the WP:PRIMARY topic, that it has been the stable title for years, and that other wikipedia articles link this title accordingly when referring to the article's subject. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What a blatant attempt by Skapperod to poison the well! Being unable to address the arguments made above, except for inappropriately claiming WP:PRIMARY, he turns to attacking those who disagree with him. None of his statement should have any impact on the how this is closed. Note for example, that even if IP was Schwyz, he didn't vote twice here or anything, and only edited after Schwyz stopped editing. Likewise, I'm not sure how my own comments can be "biased"? Biased to what? My own opinion? That's just a specious attack without any substance or logical meaning. And Loosmark's current (very unfair) topic ban has nothing to do with this article as Skapperod tries to suggest through the usage of the misleading phrasing "banned from this article".
Basically "Province of Pomerania" should follow Wikipedia usage and guidelines - I haven't seen a single reason given for why it should be an exception - the title "Province of Pomerania" should be a disambiguation page, while specific historical instances should be dated. It's how it's done with every other similar topic. It's how it should be done here.radek (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Resistance section missing some information

[edit]

The Resistance section misses the information on Polish resistance in Pomerania during WW2. I will try to expand on that soon. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Several problems with the article

[edit]

First its completely lacks information on several non-German aspects of the province. Furthermore the resistance section seems to be unbalanced towards the nationalistic DNVP party and conservatives as well as aristocrats, missing the communist resistance, Polish resistance, and resistance by POWs in the area. There is also little about slave labour that was prominent in this region. Last but not least, there are some very dubious claims in ending about Soviet atrocities that need to be checked.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


5/6/2018 The Slavic prefix 'po" means tongue- both the anatomy and a language — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40.140.201.66 (talk) 04:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"along the border of the Poznan/Pomorze region" - clarification needed

[edit]

Edward Wynot in this source writes that in inter-war Germany, Poles lived "along the border of the Poznan/Pomorze region", which is used for this article. It is unclear what area Wynot actually refers to, since "Pomorze" is not necessarily the Province of Pomerania, but more likely Pomerelia/the "Polish Corridor", and moreover, the Province of Pomerania did not have a common border with the "Poznan region" (Greater Poland) before later in 1938, which would stretch the "inter-war" period this is supposed to cover to its limits. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please no Original Research. 1938 is clearly the interwar era. Also in Poland the German originated term Pomeralia is not used but rather Gdansk Pomerania. Despite your claims Poznan area had a clear border with Pomerania" Posen-West Prussia which were territories of Poznan taken in Partitions of Poland but not returned after 1918 to Polish state.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I said "stretch the "inter-war" period this is supposed to cover to its limits" - and Posen-West Prussia was exactly what I had in mind - that was a separate province, not part of the Province of Pomerania (subject of this article) except (in part) for WWII and some months before. Where did I violate OR? Please redact. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So it is in interwar era-why the complaint then?. Your OR was that Pomerania did not have a border with Poznan area-it had. Professor Wynot clearly writes that they lived in border regions between Pomerania/Poznan and Szczecin not "only in seperate province".Have a good day.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not write that. I wrote "the Province of Pomerania did not have a common border with the "Poznan region" (Greater Poland) before later in 1938, which would stretch the "inter-war" period this is supposed to cover to its limits." Right above, and perfectly verifiable. Please redact your OR allegation. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, Wynot did - contrary to your assumption - not write "that they lived in border regions between Pomerania/Poznan and Szczecin" (your words). He wrote instead (quote): "This paper attempts to fill that apparent gap in scholarship by providing an overview of the Polish minority in inter-war Germany.(...) Whatever its actual size, the German Polish population was internally differentiated in terms of both geographical dispersal and socio-economic profile. By far most lived in areas that adjoined the Polish Republic. (...) The final group in this category lived along the border of the Poznan/Pomorze region (22,500-27,000), where, for the most part, they formed Polish islands surrounded by a German sea. The majority were peasants, with a smattering of small shopkeepers and craftsmen sprinkled among their midst and a colony of about 2,000 workers living in the port of Stettin/Szczecin." Skäpperöd (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC);quote ammended and link added at 07:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
''the Province of Pomerania did not have a common border with the "Poznan region" (Greater Poland) before later in 1938

It had-in areas of Prussian Partition that remained part of Germany after 1918.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Germany with the province of Pomerania ("Pommern") until 1938. Where is the "border of the Poznan/Pomorze region" along which the Poles lived, according to Wynot? 16:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Germany with the province of Pomerania bordering Posen region as seen clearly on the map. According to Professor Wynot the border areas of Pomerania/Poznan were the location of many from the Polish minority in the area, besides Szczecin.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where was that border between Greater Poland and the Province of Pomerania before later in 1938? Please redact your OR allegation. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where does Professor Wynot use the term Greater Poland Skapperod? He uses Poznan-and area of Poznan is clearly visible on the map.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wynot is talking about (quote) "areas that adjoined the Polish Republic". 22,500-27,000 Poles, according to Wynot, lived "along the border of the Poznan/Pomorze region". He either meant the border between "the Polish republic" and "Poznan/Pomorze region" in the sense of Posen-West Prussia (in Germany), which did not include Poznan/Posen, or he meant the German border with "the Polish Republic"'s "Poznan/Pomorze region" in the sense of Greater Poland (Poznan region) and the Polish Corridor (Pomorze region, both in Poland). Prior to later in 1938, only the latter interpretation would in part affect the Province of Pomerania, as it had a common border with the Polish Corridor, but not with Greater Poland. The first interpretation, that the numbers refer to the border region of the Province of Posen-West Prussia would not affect the Province of Pomerania at all in that time frame. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also I fail to see the point of this discussion. Professor Wynot mentions so, it is a reliable source by all means, you presented nothing but your personal opinion and so it has no influence on the article. As for me we can end this discussion here, since I fail to see any reason for it.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You provided an estimate of the Polish population in the Province of Pomerania, yet the source is ambiguous to what extend these Poles lived in the province, if at all. That needsto be clarified. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's rather quite clear. I don't see any problem whatsover.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3O request

[edit]

I filed a 3O request to clarify that matter, as the discussion above is stuck. My question is:

  • What region does Wynot (1996) refer to when he says "along the border of the Poznan/Pomorze region" in the context of "Polish minority in inter-war Germany" in "areas that adjoined the Polish Republic":
    • Does he refer to "Poznan/Pomorze region" in the sense of Posen-West Prussia, then a German province? Posen is Poznan in Polish, and Pomorze a Polish term for West Prussia.
    • Does he refer to "Poznan/Pomorze region" in the sense of Greater Poland (Poznan area) and the Polish Corridor (a Polish successor province of the bulk of former German West Prussia, for which the term Pomorze is also used in Polish).

This question is important to determine how this relates to the subjet of this article, the Province of Pomerania. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well Skapperod it's rather obvious that both the areas within the Pomerania/Pozen provnice adjoined the Polish Republic and that Pomeranian province itself was bordering Poland as you yourself admitted.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the purpose of this 3O request, would you please in concise English geographical terms state where, according to your reading of the source, the "Poznan/Pomorze region"" and the area "along the border of the Poznan/Pomorze region" is located? Skäpperöd (talk) 11:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also I have rather strong doubt that Professor Wynot mistakes Pomeranian Voivodship(known by propagandic name as Polish Corridor) as being part of Germany in interwar era.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I never said so. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Skapperod I read the source again, and you are confusing things By far most lived in areas that adjoined the Polish Republic. The largest segment (600-800,000) lived in German Upper Silesia.(4). The sentence by most does not refer to Pomeranian province specially, nor to all Poles in Germany. After neither the Poles in Berlin or Szczecin or Ruhr area lived near Polish border, but they are mentioned. So you can't argue from that standpoint. The sentence near Polish borders is not directed at all Poles in Germany(although as you admitted Pomerania had a border with Poland).--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I confuse nothing. The sentence with the "Poznan/Pomorze" area is clearly within the sentence dealing with Poles living near the German-Polish border, the next paragraph then covers the Poles living inside Germany. That is unambiguously stated in the source, I collapse a full quote below. In the meantime, would you please, for the purpose of this 3O request, state in concise English geographical terms where, according to your reading of the source, the "Poznan/Pomorze region"" and the area "along the border of the Poznan/Pomorze region" is located? Skäpperöd (talk) 12:18, 15 August 2010
Wynot (1996), excerpt

weblink

Whatever its actual size, the German Polish population was internally differentiated in terms of both geographical dispersal and socio-economic profile. By far most lived in areas that adjoined the Polish Republic. The largest segment (600-800,000) lived in German Upper Silesia.(4) Most were rural dwellers (approximately 80%), mainly smallholding peasants without any defined sense of national identity, while the remainder lived in cities as industrial workers, craftsmen or small shopkeepers; the urban residents tended to be heavily Germanized. Next in size came the Mazury-Warmia-Powisle area of East Prussia, with a Polish population estimated in the 400550,000 range.(5) This group tended to be the most diverse in Germany, including in its ranks a few large landowners and small groupings of intellectuals, craftsmen and industrial workers, although once again, most were smallholding peasants or farm workers. The Lower Silesian Poles (60,000) tended to concentrate in and around the city of Breslau/Wroclaw, where they were either industrial workers, craftsmen, farm workers or smallholders.(6) The final group in this category lived along the border of the Poznan/Pomorze region (22,500-27,000), where, for the most part, they formed Polish islands surrounded by a German sea. The majority were peasants, with a smattering of small shopkeepers and craftsmen sprinkled among their midst and a colony of about 2,000 workers living in the port of Stettin/Szczecin.(7)

Additional groups of Poles lived apart from the contiguous border regions. About 120-150,000 lived in Berlin and the states of Saxony, Thuringia and Brandenburg, where those residing in cities belonged to either the industrial worker or intellectual class while the rest were farm workers.(8) Finally, about 95-120,000 Poles lived in the western regions of the Ruhr and Westphalia, where they were mainly seasonal industrial workers ...

Yes you do confuse what Wynot wrote. He doesn't write that ALL Poles lived in areas that adjoined the Polish Republic(which Pomerania did anyway).As to terms used by Wynot-Pomorze is a Polish not English term and describes all Pomeranian regions known in English, the differences coming from German terminology are rarely used in Polish.Anyway-this is a pointless discussion. Professor Wynot names it as so, and there is no reason to doubt him. Present sources claiming otherwise or state your intentions for this discussion, as currently I fail to graps what purpose it has-and remember Wikipedia is not a discussion forum--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please, I am trying to get a third oppinion here to sort this out. Why don't you just state your position as I requested? Nowhere did I say "that ALL Poles lived in areas that adjoined the Polish Republic", please don't suggest otherwise. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sort out what exactly Skapperod? I am quite willing to help you, but so far you haven't stated anything precise about your request? Are you searching for sources about professor Wynot? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Third Opinion Request:
Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Province of Pomerania (1815–1945) and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." This is an opinion of that nature. From the language, structure, and footnote 7 of the source article (which is available in full text through EBSCO Academic Search Complete, which is available through most public and academic libraries) it seems to me that it is reasonably clear that the area described by the source article as "along the border of the Poznan/Pomorze region" is (at least) that area of interwar Germany from the Poland-Germany border to Stettin/Szczecin, including but not limited to Posen-West Prussia, and that the area is not intended to include any part of interwar Poland. That is, it seems apparent that he intended to include at least that part of interwar Germany bounded on the east by the western border of the so-called Polish Corridor, on the north by the Baltic Sea, and on the west by the Oder River, with the southern border less precisely defined by the source author's reference to the "Lower Silesian Poles" concentrated "in and around the city of Breslau/Wroclaw".

I've only glanced at the article history, so I'm going to assume good faith and presume that no edit war is going on here, but let me gently remind both editors that that policy defines edit warring as "try[ing] to force [one's] own position by combative editing (making edits they know will be opposed) and repeated reverting" and that the three revert rule says, "Remember that an administrator may still act whenever they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring, even if the three-revert rule has not been breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times."

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time. If you allow for a follow-up question, how would you include that in the article? Are you confident enough that Wynot is referring to the Province of Pomerania and Posen-West Prussia, and that he is not referring to the province of Posen-West Prussia, which could reasonably be translated into Polish as 'Poznan-Pomorze', exclusively, to say so in the article? Skäpperöd (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure how it should or should not be included in the article, as I answered the question in the abstract. As for my certainty about my opinion, in the last sentence of the paragraph in question the source author clearly refers to Stettin/Szczecin as being included in the area in question. He also refers in footnote 7 to scholarly works about Posen-West Prussia. Those, along with his overall structure of the paragraph and the article in general, make me certain that he is not exclusively referring to Posen-West Prussia (which does not of course include Stettin/Szczecin), and there's nothing there which would suggest that he intends the area in question to only include Stettin/Szczecin and Posen-West Prussia and ignore the lands between them. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of book issued by Regional Commission on Research of Nazi(Hitlerite) Crimes (1974)

[edit]

Anyway this book issued by Commission on Research of Nazi Crimes seems a good source of information on treatment of Poles in Zachodnie Pomorze[1] I will try to find and than expand the article then. Cheers.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the inclusion of Communist era sources here, the book was published in 1974. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You already objected on RS noticeboard where it was explained to you that they can be used.Most of research on Nazi crimes in Poland comes from this era as you know quite well.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quotes from that thread (EEML comments excluded, though divided on that issue):
  • "If nothing else, we can use the material with attribution for a historiographical statement (ie a statement as to what was thought about the topic during the Communist era), to be compared to more modern (post-Communist) sources. Blueboar"
  • "They should be used with attribution, and they should likely be treated either as we would treat a political watchdog group ( because of political bias ) or as a primary source ( on opinion during the Communist era ), but still RS. Squidfryerchef"
  • "Sources published in one country relating to that country's negative relations to another country are almost always biased, whether due to censorship or just systemic bias and self-censorship. This requires careful reading between the lines, double-checking as far as practicable, attribution etc., not discarding of sources. --Hans Adler"
  • "In addition, when dealing with biased sources, we should use proper attribution, so that readers are aware that bias might exist. Finally, and perhaps most importantly we should adhere to WP:Undue which is problematic if an article or section of article is based entirely on communistic writing. Taemyr"
Skäpperöd (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes you show actually confirm that that sources from 1945-1989 can be used-so what is the complaint here?

Strange that you cut Hans Adler's full comment which reads clearly(I also bolded important parts):

  • This makes no sense. Sources published in one country relating to that country's negative relations to another country are almost always biased, whether due to censorship or just systemic bias and self-censorship. This requires careful reading between the lines, double-checking as far as practicable, attribution etc., not discarding of sources.

And further comments

*Cautiously accept it unless proven otherwise by post-Communist sources.
That said, they should not be treated a biased by default; a lot of them were correct, and Poland, as most Soviet satellites, was more liberal then SU itself.
It is true that totalitarian countries' sources tend to lie. However, they don't always lie, which means that they can be used, with caution
would not be so quick to discount Communist era sources, and certainly not as a class. Yes, we should use caution (because of the potential for political influence and spin), but not all Communist era sources were bad

Sorry Skapperod but even your quotes confirm that nobody agreed with your idea of rejecting sources wrtitten in 1945-1989. Also please don't use "EEML did it" in face of lack of arguments, as it already has been determined as possible offensive action by admins --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I use "EEML attack"? Please redact. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By that I meant trying to discredit or ignore an opinion based solely on involvement of members of EEML-their past patricipation doesn't change their arguments or their merits in slightest way.Anyway it seems that almost all patricipants besides you agreed with use of sources published between 1945-1989. If you are so concerned-I changed my wording.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a very narrow way such sources may be used, that is correct. As to the rest of your statement: Please read the response you got here more carefully before accusing me of committing an offense: it says that you can contact an "uninvolved administrator and ask them to look into the situation" if "the opposing party's only reply is that you were part of EEML" - that is not quite the "determined as possible offensive action by admins" you made of it and does not relate to what I wrote in any way. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you yourself admit that they can be used. Thank you.Btw:I changed the name of the section per the terms I used in opening statement.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with sources in this article

[edit]

There are some problematic sources in this article:

  • Meyers Konversations Lexikon 1905
It is given for numbers of Poles and other non-Germans. At that time German Empire was actively trying to reduce their number and pursued measures to either expel or Germanise them, the relations within it are termed as "virtual apartheid" by historian Martin Kitchen. Data from that time from German Empire is unreliable regarding number of Poles. Obviously this source needs replacement.
  • A dead site that was to source some very sensationalistic data about alledged suicides was replaced by simple ^ MDR Fakt from September 22, 2003
What is this source? Is this a scholarly publication, a book by some historian? It needs clarification.
  • A claim that This was fueled by atrocities - rapes, pillage and executions committed by Red Army soldiers until the city commander had the access to the rivers blocked on May 3 is sourced by somebody called Norbert Buske. My search only found a politician with doctorate in theology by that name. Is this correct?

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC) Sources from HK mostly are based on account of politician Buske who was 9 years at the time.They also give a much lower number than 1000--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Der Spiegel: "Über 1000 Menschen in dem vorpommerschen Städtchen töteten sich selbst samt ihren Familien" [2] (more than 1,000 people in this Hither-Pomeranian small town committed suicide along with their relatives). The number of 1,000 is given here. Also, I have no idea why the age of Mr. Buske in 1945 is relevant at all. Buske is a Pastor, the book was published by the State office for Civic education of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (see Federal Agency for Civic Education) and contains a collection of eyewitness reports and is definitely reliable. HerkusMonte (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Buske is not only a pastor, he is also a (studied) expert for Pomeranian history and member/head of respective sholary associations. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So this publication is a political one as you claimed originalybook was published by the State office for political education of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern by a pastor and not a scholarly work. Hardly a reliable source. Also
  • 500 Bestattungen von Selbstmördern werden so für den Mai 1945 aufgelistet.
  • Der Autorin und Historikerin Erla Vensky gelang es schon damals zum Entsetzen der Genossen, die Verzweiflung der Demminer in die geklitterte „Geschichte der örtlichen Arbeiterbewegung“ zu schmuggeln: „Über 700 Einwohner nehmen sich, von Panik ergriffen, das Leben.“.
So clearly the numbers lower than this are given in sources you brought up-please correct this, and also note that a number seem to be victims of Nazi shooting.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This German Wiki page names a subgroup of the highly controversial BdV as rewarding him with a prize [3]-he is named as theologician and politician. Is he a member of BdV?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The number of 700 suicides is mentioned in an East German (pre 1989) book about the "labour movement in the district of Demmin" (the whole thing was a taboo in communist Germany), recent research brought up higher numbers. HerkusMonte (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So there are a lower numbers. The Focus mentions nothing about pre-1989 book.Please correct the numbers.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to your assumption, the Focus does mention the pre-1989 publication in question, and that the line about the suicides was "smuggled" in there. It also analyzed the official East German attitude regarding the suicides and how they were tabooized before the peaceful revolution in 1989. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your misinterpretation is probably a result of your limited knowledge of German. No, I'm not going to promote the communist version of these events. HerkusMonte (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? We can always ask a third opinion about the sentence and if it mentions pre-1989 research.Which btw was better in East Germany regarding Nazi events than in West Germany-for instance East Germany knew of Nazi past of Hans Kruger or Oberlander which West Germany ignored. But i digress. There are smaller numbers and they should be stated. Certainly a pastor who received prize from BdV sub-group isn't the best source we can come up with.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Translation request of German source-it seems the alledged "mass suicides" were actually people in part murdered by Nazis?

[edit]

While I am not a fluent German speaker I can read a bit of German-can somebody translate(I would like confirmation that I am correct): Der Amokschütze ist offenbar Studienrat Gerhard Moldenhauer. Der NSDAP-Mitläufer hatte einer Nachbarin erklärt: „Ich habe eben meine Frau und meine Kinder erschossen, nun will ich noch ein paar Russen umlegen.“It's from one of the sources brought by Herkus, Thank you in advance. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In short (not a literal translation): Moldenhauer, a teacher and Nazi-follower, ran amok and killed his wife and his children. Afterwards he said he is going to kill some Russians and shot one Red Army soldier. This happened around 11a.m. of 30 April, the atrocities started in the late evening and on 1 May. HerkusMonte (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that shooting women and children by Nazis is an atrocity as well.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a Suicide pact. HerkusMonte (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no information about such thing in the text, please no Original Research. There are numerous issues not adressed in the section about supposed suicided and the source you brought up clearly speaks that part of the dead were victims of Nazi shooting.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You want to distinguish members of the Nazi party and non-members? People killed by their relatives were Nazi-victims, if their relatives were partymembers. This would make Magda Goebbels a Nazi-victim (following the Downfall (film) version of her death), no, I don't think I share that view. HerkusMonte (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in the text indicating that Nazi victims in this case were willing to be shot. Please no Original Research--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please no unfounded OR allegations. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Source please that it was a suicide pact.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Attribution"

[edit]

I am going to revert this edit [4] unless a sensible rationale is given. We don't have "According to Buchholz..." "in Bucholz's view..." etc. peppered through out the article so I don't see why we need this kind of extensive attribution. Or, I guess, we could go the other way and for consistency's sake add those "According to Buchholz..."s in there. Either way we need to avoid a double standard where everything sources to Polish sources is "attributed" (making it look like a "claim") but everything from German sources is presented as "fact". Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution (in-text) is needed in this particular case, I will go through the respective sentences one by one:
(1) Grzęda
  • original sentence: "Grzęda (1994) says that in 1910, according to German data, 10.500 Poles lived in the Stettin (Szczecin) area, and that in his view the number was most likely reduced."
  • attribution removed: "In 1910, according to German data, 10.500 Poles lived in the Stettin (Szczecin) area; the number was most likely reduced"
By removing the attrribution to Grzęda,
(a) Grzęda's suspicion (reduction of numbers) is represented as fact;
(b) the number seems to be attributed to unspecified "German sources", whatever that is, when in fact it is referenced to Grzęda;
(c) there are other sources (Fenske, Buchholz) citing a different number for 1910, that number is 7912. I will add the sources accordingly, of course with in-text attribution.
(2) Wynot
  • original sentence: "Wynot (1996) says that during the interwar era, between 22,500 and 27,000 Poles lived "along the border of the Poznan/Pomorze region", [...]."
This range is Wynot's assessment, and it does not only refer to the province of Pomerania (one could even read it as not referring to the province at all, see section above). That's why it is important to quote and attribute his statement here.
(3) Kozłowski & Krzywicki
This needs to be attributed because of the publishing date (1988). The reader needs at least a hint that this was published under a Communist regime. I am not comfortable with the inclusion of these sources at all, and would prefer numbers from non-Communist sources, however I am willing to leave this number in with an appropriate attribution.
Regarding your perception that the attribution had anything to do with nationality, you are plain wrong and offending. Of the three attributed works, only two are in Polish, one is in English. I have no desire to research the nationality or ethnicity of its authors. I perceive it as an attack on my integrity that you allege that I restored the attribution out of nationality-related motives, and strongly repudiate this allegetion. I also think that in the light of the EEML tag team findings about you and Molobo, it was unwise of you to restore Molobo's deletion of the attribution in the first place. I will therefore count Molobo's deletion and your revert as one edit with respect to BRD. I further maintain that you indicated in your e/s that your revert was preliminary, pending a rationale, which I have now provided. I will thus restore the attribution. If you still disagree with the attribution, you should ask for a 3O.
Skäpperöd (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, of course in each of these cases the statement is based on a particular researcher's "opinion" or "view". Same is true for Bucholtz and other German sources. The only reasonable argument above I see is (c) for Grzeda (since apparently other sources give different numbers). The other rationales are just fallacies of equivocation, which pretend that because something is someone's "view" it is not a "fact" or vice versa (plus the worn out argument about 1988 that nobody agrees with). So keep it for Grzeda, but it's not necessary for the others.
Since all these sources are clearly Polish, I think my perception that this attribution has something to do with nationality is quite justified (if you think that that it's "offending" that's your business, though I don't see how. I can as well choose to find a lot of stuff to be offending but so what?).
Furthermore your inability to have a discussion without bringing up the EEML is very worrisome and clearly not conducive to achieving an amicable resolution of these kinds of disagreements. Since you've brought it up every single time we've talked in the past, oh, I don't know, year or so, often in completely irrelevant contexts, it's hard to see that as anything but a bad faithed effort to poison the well. There was nothing wrong, or in fact "unwise", in my removal of the unneeded "attributions".
Along the same lines, you can "count" my edits however you wish ([5]?). I guess I could also decide to "count" each one of your reverts as being actually "four reverts" for some reason and try to report you to 3RR but that would be equally meaningless. It seems like you're trying to pretend that there's some kind of sanction or restriction here, but, as you well know, there isn't. And you don't get to invent one out of the blue just to suit your purpose. So I have no interest in how you're "counting" my edits, just like I have no interest in your (mis)understanding of what BRD is; you seem to think that it's some kind of a policy (actually, an essay) which implies some kind of a 1RR per year restriction on everyone else, while you're free to revert as much as you like (actually, it says something else).
But whatever, I'm not interested in having these silly fights even when I'm right, so I'll leave it alone (at least for now). There you go, you "win". Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article presents false information and chronology:the province of Pomerania was abolished in 1934 not 1945

[edit]

In 1934 the Province of Pomerania was changed into Gau Pommern.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources are needed for full picture

[edit]

...of the territory in question, right now the article is based almost completely on single source and German publications. Polish historians like Labuda should be added for complete picture, as of now information about Polish population and Germanization is scarce.

Landtag of the Province

[edit]

Where did the Landtag of Pommern meet? In which building/castle? --148.87.19.214 (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can we agree that the issues stated in the top box as of today have been solved?

[edit]

If so, the box can be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Media lib (talk • contribs) 12:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do believe these problems have been solved. RobertWood0 (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Province_of_Pomerania_(1815–1945)&oldid=1258762717"