Talk:Province of Pomerania (1815–1945)

Image copyright problem with File:Bonhoeffer.jpg

The image File:Bonhoeffer.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Replaced File:Bonhoeffer.jpg. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Lead is too long

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)

Requested move

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)

Examples for wrong incoming links

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Ruhnken&diff=prev&oldid=378688916
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Friedrich_Daniel_Ernst_Schleiermacher&diff=prev&oldid=378688385
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C5%9Awinouj%C5%9Bcie&diff=prev&oldid=378689141
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Farther_Pomerania&diff=prev&oldid=378690419

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

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)

• Oppose move. This is the primary meaning, the two others, Province of Pomerania (1653–1815) are Swedish Pomerania are subdivisions of this. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment The two others ceased to exist in 1815, so they can by no means be subdivisions of the Prussian one created in 1815. 79.193.140.137 (talk) 13:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Correct, I understand Petri Krohn meant subordinate in the sense of "primary meaning". Skäpperöd (talk) 13:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Comment Then it would be a circular argument. 79.193.147.103 (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose for several reasons:
  • Procedural objection. I doubt that this request is valid, as it was filed amidst this AN/I debate in the course of which the page was moved twice and the user who filed this RM retired.
  • Objection per WP:PRIMARY: "Province of Pomerania" is the primary topic, disambiguation for other articles should be done per hatnote. The articles about the similar-named Polish provinces use "voivodeship" rather than "province", and the predecessor (between 1653 and 1815) was something "in-between" a province, a duchy and a prince-bishopric - it started as a partition of a duchy which included the Cammin prince-bishopric, ruled in personal union by the Brandenburg margraves, then in the course of the evolution of Brandenburg-Prussia became more and more a province that incorporated part of Swedish Pomerania in 1720, which itself was only a de facto province before 1806, when it was re-organized, and nominally a (part of a) duchy. The history of Pomerania as a "real" Prussian province started 1815 (Stein and Hardenberg), when the provincial structure of Prussia was re-defined after Napoleon's defeat.

Skäpperöd (talk) 13:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Resistance section missing some information

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)

Several problems with the article

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. [...] 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)

''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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

I object to the inclusion of Communist era sources here, the book was published in 1974. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Where did I use "EEML attack"? Please redact. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

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)