Talk:History of Pomerania

Zvinbusas revisions

What exactly is the logic behind the statement that there were Balts living in Pomerania in 3rd millenium BC and that these were somehow related to Lithuanians? Halibutt 16:25, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

BTW, especially that the ancestors of modern Lithuanians arrived to where they live now ca. in 1st millenium AD, that is some 3000 to 4000 years later... Halibutt

We would all like to see the Zvinbudas sources for his so radical revisions of history. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Baltic Pomerania

Since 3,000 BC Pomerania (Lithuanian Pamarė) was inhabited by Pomeranian Balts - Pamarė archeological culture. German tribes arrived to Pomerania from Scandinavia in aproximetly 8th century BC and mixed with Pomeranian Balts.

Unsourced and doubtful section moved here - a number of different archaeological cultures can be found in Pomerania between 3000 BC and 8th century BC (3000 BC is still neolithic, 8th century is early iron age). Ethnolingustic data from this period is scarce or nonexistent, therefore making such strong claims about ethnicity of a given population is simply uscientific. Could the author provide sources for "Pamarė archeological culture"?

Tnx for the note, but please register, so we can discuss it knowning who is who. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 09:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

@Radomil

-just why do you think the Thirty Years War population drop is not worth mentioning? The drop was severe and todays settlement structure is an outcome of this.

-just why do you insist on Polish names only?

-just why do you insist on keeping headlines without any text? They were long ago proposals of an author who will never come back to this.

Please discussSkäpperöd (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Too long

This article is now 124kb long, and as such, some content needs to be split into subarticles.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm just doing an overhaul that will most probably make the article even longer. Let's wait until it's finished and then look if/where/what should be split. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

No hurry, and good job on expanding the article! Presumably the best way to split it will by by eras (History of Pomerania in the Middle Ages and so on...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Too short :)

Now the article is rather too short :) I hope that the right balance can be struck, so this (parent) article at the very least will be a GA level. Subsections should have text of their own, not just "main article" links. Oh, and the template needs to be shifted to the right, or bottom, per manual of style.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I think every former section - now subarticle - can still be expanded, that's why I split in seven parts instead of e.g. just three 50 kB parts. I tried to get below the 30kB treshold for the subarticles when splitting, which could be achieved with all but the High Middle Ages article (just too much happened then to make it shorter. My plan is to now write lead sections for the new subarticles and copy those lead sections here. That of course will take some more time. I further plan to expand the modern sections/articles and the prehistoric one as I have done recently with the medieval ones, so they won't not be too short forever.

The template of course needs to be moved beneath the text body, here and also in the subarticles. Just copied to the wrong place. The template btw is also still under construction. Give me some time, your reaction was prompted just seconds after the split, I can't do everything at once :) Skäpperöd (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Pomerania

Another idea is to abandon this article in order to avoid content forking. That way editors who want to add material would add it to the respective subarticles instead of adding it here. The lead (which is basically all that's left now) could be merged into the "History" section of the Pomerania article, and the subarticles could be linked from there. That's probably better than copying the lead sections of the split articles here and make this a collection of lead sections.

The motivation behind that proposal is to not have too many articles with similar content. All articles split of the old History of Pomerania article have their subarticles, too; also, because the subarticles emerged from a structure based on time periods they all contain content forks already - of those articles covering the history of Pomerania by administrative body (e.g. Duchy of Pomerania, Swedish Pomerania, Province of Pomerania) or by region (e.g. Western Pomerania, Pomerelia, Farther Pomerania). Therefore, in my eyes it is not desireable to create even another content fork here. Editors who want to add material on let's say an event that happened in Farther Pomerania in 1572 that was of "semi-major importance" would have to add that to Farther Pomerania and Duchy of Pomerania and Pomerania during the Late Middle Ages already, why create a fourth place to add that. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Creating subarticles is no content forking. We need an article dedicated to this subject, just as we need a shorter summary in Pomerania and more detailed subarticles. This should be an article, not a redirect.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose-this article is terribly POV-ed and needs serious re-write.--Molobo (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Lead not balanced. It informs that Germans were expelled but nothing about atrocities against Poles and Jews in WW2

We have in the lead that Germans were expelled after WW2 but nothing about extermination of Poles and Jews by German state.--Molobo (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

modified Skäpperöd (talk)

"In 1939, the German Wehrmacht invaded Poland. Atrocities were committed on both sides during and after the invasion"?

Again repeated. Not acceptable as sentence-Germany classified whole nations for extermination in gas chambers, murdered millions in death camps. I am not able to find anything that could be comparered in regards to Poland that would justify such sentence. This simply is not acceptable comparision. --Molobo (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, quite unacceptable.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

modified, see also talk at subarticle Skäpperöd (talk) 08:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Your edit didn't change nothing, if not distorting further history. Higher ratio of Poles and Jews ? That is an gross understatement considered milions of Poles and Jews perished and they were target of organised genocide. So far you presented arrest of some Germans and what is known to be German provacation as argument of equal atrocities. This is completely not comperable.--Molobo (talk) 13:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I hope this rewriting will be acceptable? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunetely this article can't be considered neutral-reasons explained

It mentions in timeline population transfer of Germans after WW2 but nothing about extermination of Jews and Poles in WW2 by Germany. Sentences exist that compare Poland to Holocaust making Germany. Those issues are not indicating a neutral take on things and need to be addressed-I will add the POV template.--Molobo (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I can not find a sentence that "compares Poland to Holocaust making Germany". Be precise. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Atrocities were comitted on both sides 'after' the Invasion. Holocaust was made by Germany after the invasion. It clearly was an atrocity and clearly neither Poles or Jews made anything similiar to Germans.

--Molobo (talk) 13:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Example of POV in the article-Kashubians. Nothing about Piasnica.

Kashubians being the main(if minority in numbers) population of Pomerania faced one of their largest tragedies during WW2-the mass murder of their intellectual elites and leaders by Nazi Germany. However the article makes no mention of this at all. From Kashubian Association of North America: [1]

"The proof of this attitude was the fate of Kashubians during World War II. It was in Pomerania that the first summary executions took place, as early as the months of September and October, 1939. The purpose of these executions was to deprive the regions of its intellectual elite and moral leadership. For Kashubians and inhabitants of Pomerania, Piasnica, the forest of Szpegowsk, or Stutthof (the site of a concentration camp) continue to symbolise their martyrdom. In these and other places dozens of thousands of people were murdered.

Resistance against the invader arose very soon, despite extremely unfavourable conditions. Soon after Poland's defeat in September 1939, a clandestine military and political organisations was set up-Tajna Organizacja Wojskowa "Gryf Kaszubski". (The name later changed to "Gryf Pomorski".) The objective of this organisation was not only to regain independence, but also to reshape political relations in Pomerania so as to gain more appreciation of the role of Kashubians and other Pomeranians, and to extend the boundaries of Pomerania to include all the territories formerly inhabited by Kashubians."

Just one of many deficiencies of this article. --Molobo (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Missing informations are not a POV. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is. If I write Mr.X moved to town and weeks later mob attacked him without mentioning the fact that he raped and killed in that time, angering the town's population that would be POV.--Molobo (talk) 13:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It can be, although a question of WP:UNDUE always arises.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Missing information can only be regarded "POV" (-pushing) if this information is held back on purpose and would change the overall picture once introduced. That is not the case here. In the respective subarticle, the Pomeranian Griffin resistance group is mentioned (and was from the beginning). Skäpperöd (talk) 12:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Kashubians, they have / had been a bit in between the German and Polish nations and have at least partially been claimed by both, and at least in part also identified themselves with either one. Kashubians never had an own nation state and their existance as a nation was (is?) questioned by some, primarily to claim the area they live in for their own nation. I guess that's why they are not seperately described in most sources concerning their fate during WWII, but are considered as Poles (those who identified themselves / were identified by others with the Polish nation) or as Germans (the other way around). Skäpperöd (talk) 12:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Piasnica: One cannot include everything in a short summary, and this article is no more than that. The 25,000 dead during the shelling of Swinemünde are not mentioned either, nor are many many other events that are notable / ugly by themselves and are / should be covered elsewhere, but fail to meet the treshold for inclusion here. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Details indeed should go to relevant subarticle.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It was a bombing rather than a shelling.Xx236 (talk) 13:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Erroneous reference

34 Xx236 (talk) 14:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

fixed Skäpperöd (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Gützkow

The name Gützkow has Slavic roots. I don't know, when the German name started to dominate, but the Slavic roots should be explained somewhere.Xx236 (talk) 12:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Many, if not most of the Pomeranian names have Slavic roots. As a rule of thumb, German names were only chosen for sites that did not have a name before. If there was, this name was in continous use also when the area became German-speaking, and changed only over time due to missing spelling rules and changes in pronounciation due to German language evolution. See e.g. German placename etymology. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Problems with this POV article

As indicated earlier this article suffers from terrible POV, synthesis and Original Research. I added English term for Vistula, but the whole article needs rewrite and quote requests.--Molobo (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

While the article does seem to have a few POV issues, I wouldn't say that it is terrible. A good amount of it is still encyclopedic.

It would be proper to make a few changes though, yes. Reed Emp (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Need to update the timeline.

It now presents a Germano-centric POV, and leaves much of the Polish history absent. For example the 1939 atrocities of German minority units and start of extermination of Poles by German state was missing as were uprisings in XIX century by Polish people against Prussians.--Molobo (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Two templates

Does the article need two similar templates?Xx236 (talk) 09:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

"further reading"

The "Further Reading" section, to the extent it's even necessary, should contain general, modern works on the overall subject of the article. It SHOULD NOT contain controversial works (being listed as a means of POV pushing), very outdated works (from before World War I), or works which deal with only a subset of the article's subject. Cleaned up accordingly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Added imbalance template

The article focuses on German history of the region, while lacking info on Polish one, it also relies heavily on German publications and especially on one authoru Bucholz. Since the region is part of Poland mostly now, and had rich Polish history it is currently very imbalanced-it also lacks Polish publications on the subject presenting only one view and focus on history.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

B-class review failed

Referencing is needed for few sentences, but primary issues are style (bullet points need conversion to prose) and POV issues raised above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

help with German needed

A piece of text in the article stated:

According to Buchholz et al. (1999), Western Pomerania and the larger part of Farther Pomerania up to Köslin were Germanized by 1300.

The actual text given is, in German:

Noch vor Ablauf des 13. Jahrhunderts war die Eindeutschung Vorpommerns im wesentlichen abgeschlossen, und die des größeren Teils der westlich des Gollens gelegenen Gebiete Hinterpommerns war fast überall weit fortgeschritten, wenn nicht bereits vollzogen.

As far as I can make out what the actual text says is that "by 1300" (that part's ok) the Germanization of Western Pomerania was almost complete (that part is ... not too bad, it leaves out the "almost"), and in Eastern Pomerania (Farther Pomerania), it was "advanced" (which is not ok - that's different than "Germanized"). Also I see no mention of Koszalin anywhere.

Any help clarifying this would be much appreciated.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Literal translation: "By the end of the 13th century, the Germanization of Western Pomerania was practically complete, and the Germanization of the larger parts of Eastern Pomerania west of the Gollen was at an advanced stage, if not already complete, almost everywhere." – Note that "im wesentlichen" is a bit stronger than "almost". It means "practically, virtually", implying that whatever amount of non-completeness remains is not practically significant. As for Koszalin/Köslin, the original mentions the Gollen or Góra Chełmska, which apparently is a hill just to the east of Koszalin/Köslin, so the paraphrase would seem to be factually correct. Note also that the description of the extent of Germanization in Eastern Pomerania is rather complicated in the original, making it in effect rather vague: There's Eastern Pomerania, then there are its western parts up to the Gollen, then among those western parts there are unspecified "larger parts", then within those larger parts there are some areas where it is already complete, and some others where it is at an advanced stage, except for some exceptions where it is not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks. I wasn't really questioning the im wesentlichen part, but rather the weit fortgeschritten part. Thanks for clarifying the Gollen thing. This kind of ambiguity is more or less reflected in other sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

verify source

This source: Nora Berend, Christianization and the Rise of Christian Monarchy: Scandinavia, Central Europe and Rus' C. 900-1200, p.293, partially available here is used to source several statements in the text. In particular:

• Starting in the 10th century, Piast Poland on several occasions acquired parts of the region from the southeast, while the Holy Roman Empire and Denmark augmented their territory from the west and north
• The Pomeranians regained independence during the Pomeranian uprising of 1005.
• Pomerania regains independence, bishopric dissolved

Page 293, which is where this info is supposed to be is not available on google books. However, the index to the work is (also here) and it seems the word "Pomerania" does not appear on page 293. Neither is it on page 292. It is referenced on page 294, but it's talking about something else. Is this a different edition or something? Can this be verified? Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I can only confirm that, and add that neither the words Piast, Poland, bishopric, independence or uprising seem to appear on that page. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• The reference for some of this should be p. 276; the fall of Kołobrzeg (in 1007) is fn. 81. JCScaliger (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)