Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:21, 29 January 2011

Poland Start‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

/Archive 1 /Archive 2

Protection

Where is the reason for full protection given? When will it expire? Feketekave (talk) 09:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Log Gimmetrow 18:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

this article is written from a one sided German Perspective. It contains a subtle favour for the German interpretations and the official historical German propaganda with reference to this topic. It is not objective and teaches the reader in a dangerously misleading way. Therefore the article should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.134.199.5 (talk) 07:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me the article simply identifies the communist Polish leadership's propaganda as just that, rather than simply repeating it and calling it a day. As it is noted later in these discussion pages, a hodge-podge of different groups have occupied many of these areas for around a thousand years--this is historical fact--so to reject that only Poles had a rightful basis to settle in these areas from the very beginning (however that might be defined) is entirely appropriate if one wants to uphold an objective, healthily skeptical NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.22.145 (talk) 03:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

annexed/recovered

Well, who did the territories "originally" belong to? During the time of the Ottoman Empire (which I don't believe went up that far north, what country were those territories part of, what's their ethnicity, what language do they speak? I mention this because there's been a small edit dispute over which word is more appropriate to use, but nobody's put in a good reference for either way yet. This was in response to User:Yeafvnl and User:J.delanoy Banaticus (talk) 22:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that you should bring up the Ottoman Empire (1299-1923). It seems that Polish claims to this territory revolve around the period of the High Middle Ages (1000-1299), and the area was then a hodge-podge of Germans, Bohemians, Sorbs, Poles, Wends, and others. So during most of the existence of the Ottoman Empire, German (both as the predominant language and ethnicity), would probably be the best answer to your question. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It would actually be interesting to find an answer to the question of what were the languages spoken by the majority of the population around 1500, say. Part of the area was solidly in the hands of various German states by then, but that is a different matter. In the late middle ages, more or less the same hodge-podge that you mention populated what we nowadays think of as East Germany, i.e., the former territory of the GDR. The Wends & co. were originally the majority population of that area, and there are some Sorbs left there even now. Feketekave (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Area naming

Given the scope of the article, it should be noted what the pre-1945 areas were the post-1945 areas were formed from. I thus reverted this] edit and ask to explain the rationale first. The respective edit also introduced some factual errors: Half of Upper Silesia was excluded, East Prussia was reported as a region different from Masuria and Warmia, though it included both. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You are right. This version is the best. LUCPOL (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It is noted what the pre-1945 areas were. But the post-1945 names more sense in this context as the article obviously refers to the time period when these territories were part of Poland.radek (talk) 10:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The term "recovered" self-evidently refers to a transition. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

removed text misrepresenting ref

I've removed the following text from the article along with the Davies ref as it completely misrepresents what's actually in the ref: "Post-war propagandists told the myth of the thousand-year struggle between Teuton and Slav while the centuries of German history in the "recovered territories" remained untold. "

The relevant passage takes place after a discussion of Gunter Grass' work - so the only possible interpretation of the article text would be that by "Post-war propagandists" it is mean Gunter Grass. Yet the text is written to give the distinct impression that it was Polish propagandists who talked about this "thousand-year struggle".radek (talk) 10:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You also removed:

"and the post-war generation was instructed to assume the Polish nation had evolved on that territory since time immemorial. They were encouraged to believe the People's Republic's territory was indeed the "Polish motherland" (macierz), fixed over time even if occupied by "aliens" and regardless of multiple border and population changes in history. The official view was that the Poles had always had the inalienable and inevitable right to inhabit the "recovered" territories, even if prevented from doing so by higher powers."

The removed parts are sourced to Davies (Vol II) pp.386, 391, and 396. Please outline how this can possibly be attributed to Davies discussing Grass' novel. The title of the book is "A History of Poland". Skäpperöd (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately Davies' book isn't available online in its complete version, however he writes on page 397 "The myth of the thousand-year struggle between Teuton and Slav ...Davies, God's playground and he's using the term "post-war propagandists" right in the same place Davies. So, assuming Good faith to the original author, Davies has written exactly what we found in the deleted sentence. I restored it. HerkusMonte (talk) 13:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact that it isn't available online doesn't excuse completely misrepresenting what is being said. And there's no need to assume any kind of faith, since I can look in, you know, the actual book. If you care to obtain a copy of the book and then discuss this that's fine. But until then I request that you assume good faith in regard to my edits.

After quoting a poem by Gunter Grass (right after he talks about Grass' "Danzig" trilogy), he writes, verbatim "Even so, old prejudices die hard. The myth of a thousand year struggle between Teuton and Slav, and the idea that it may yet bring victory to one side or another, has not been completely abandoned". So either he's referring to Grass' prejudices, or more likely, making general platitudes - i.e. there are some people who still think this way (I think I agree with him). The stuff about post-war propagandists, same paragraph but not directly related: "In reality Polish-German relations have been neither so hostile nor so simple as Second World War, and the post-war propagandists might lead one to believe" - again speaking generally and it could just as well refer to German post-war propagandists as Polish ones. Removing again.radek (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

copy vio

Putting copy vio text in quotes doesn't necessarily solve the problem. Remember that Wiki has high standards here in regard to copyright violations. Also, I said "almost verbatim" not "verbatim" which means that the use of quotations doesn't make sense here. Please reword or remove.radek (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, the copy vio extends farther than the quotes you put in.radek (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. If it is not verbatim, it is not a copyvio. If it is verbatim, quotes and attribution solve the problem (it is only two sentences which were attributed in the footnote already). If it is that close to verbatim that your removal was justified, please make the minor change that makes it exactly verbatim. If it is not that close to verbatim, your removal was not justified, and the quotation marks can go. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sentences in question: "and the post-war generation was instructed to assume the Polish nation had evolved on that territory since time immemorial. They were encouraged to believe the People's Republic's territory was indeed the "Polish motherland" (macierz), fixed over time even if occupied by "aliens" and regardless of multiple border and population changes in history. The official view was that the Poles had always had the inalienable and inevitable right to inhabit the "recovered" territories, even if prevented from doing so by higher powers." Skäpperöd (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course it does. It's perfectly possible to have copy vio when the text is not exactly verbatim but close to it. Changing a single word in a sentence is not enough, for example. Look you need to reword it or remove otherwise, the copy right black curtain will have to be placed on the article to prevent any potential legal issues. You might also want to look at the Misplaced Pages policies on copyrights - just in case.radek (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Also please note that unnecessary quotations are discouraged on Misplaced Pages (bullets 1 and 4)radek (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I have reduced the quotes. The quote is not at all "unnecessary". Noone will sue wikipedia for an attributed sentence in quotation marks. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyright policy is copyright policy. And if you're going to use a quote it should be quoted properly. Again, I urge you to reword or remove it.radek (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Lubusz Land

I've replaced the map of Neumarkt with the map of Lubusz Land. If anyone has a different oppinion about this idea please discuss. Best WishesOpole.pl (talk) 12:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was: Not Moved. No consensus that disambiguation is required. Station1 (talk) 06:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Recovered Territories → Recovered Territories (Poland) — Title should reflect that applies only to Poland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobanni (talk • contribs) 20:05, 26 August 2009

No it shouldn't, unless the title is often used to refer to some other "recovered territories" as well. This is not the case here. The disambiguation guideline advises to only use bracketed disambiguators when they are needed to distinguish the article from other similarly named articles. Jafeluv (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose unless there are other notable "Recovered Territories". See User:Jafeluv's comment above. — AjaxSmack 02:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose for the very same reasons as here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose this proposal is completely useless. Loosmark (talk) 09:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Unnessesary, IAW WP:DAB.
  — V = I * R (talk) 11:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Are there any other Recovered Territories? To the best of my knowledge, Lviv and its vicinity (or Vilnius) are not called recovered territories of Ukraine or Lithuania. So, we do not need to rename it. Tymek (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - no need.--Jacurek (talk) 22:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I truly do not understand the objection to this requested move. Throughout history lots of territories have been lost, recovered, lost, and recovered. Specifying that this article concerns Poland, and how Poland "recovered" these lost territories following World War II, seems to me a no brainer. If anything, a date should also be included with the addition of Poland so as to distinguish which time frame is being discussed. Throughout it's history Poland lost and regained territory. The suggested move simply requests to make the title more specific to who recovered the territories after the war. As for the argument..."avoid over-precision" ... it has to be countered by the main thrust of the Convention, which is... "that an article should be named as precisely as is necessary to indicate accurately its topical scope". Dr. Dan (talk) 01:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow! What a "surprise":):)--Jacurek (talk) 03:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

1. Norman Davies, God's Playground: A History of Poland in Two Volumes, 2005, p.397, ISBN 0199253404, 9780199253401
2. Norman Davies, God's Playground: A History of Poland in Two Volumes, 2005, p.391, ISBN 0199253404, 9780199253401
3. Norman Davies, God's Playground: A History of Poland in Two Volumes, 2005, p.386, ISBN 0199253404, 9780199253401
4. Norman Davies, God's Playground: A History of Poland in Two Volumes, 2005, pp.386, ISBN 0199253404, 9780199253401
5. Norman Davies, God's Playground: A History of Poland in Two Volumes, 2005, pp.386, ISBN 0199253404, 9780199253401
6. Norman Davies, God's Playground: A History of Poland in Two Volumes, 2005, p.386, ISBN 0199253404, 9780199253401
7. Norman Davies, God's Playground: A History of Poland in Two Volumes, 2005, pp.386, ISBN 0199253404, 9780199253401
8. Norman Davies, God's Playground: A History of Poland in Two Volumes, 2005, pp.386, ISBN 0199253404, 9780199253401

Pending changes

This article is one of a number (about 100) selected for the early stage of the trial of the Misplaced Pages:Pending Changes system on the English language Misplaced Pages. All the articles listed at Misplaced Pages:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles. Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article.

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Penfding changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC).

Polonization of the "Recovered Territories"

I think the phrase "The result was the largest exchange of population in European history" is completely misleading. There was no exchange of Population with Germany it was mass expulsion and the largest (and most successful) ethnic cleansing program Europe has ever witnessed. There is much talk of the Square kilmometrage of the Kresy but Polish population in these areas was a minority of perhaps a total of 2 million, about the same number of non Polish eastern Europeans were removed from Poland so the myth that the Prussian lands were needed by a deplaced Polish population doesn't hold water. Bearing in mind the unfortunate victims of nazi brutality ranging from some 3 to 6 million in Poland alone we can suggest that there was not a pressing need for extra land for an already diminished population. I suggest that the phrase is transformed to reflect the truth behind the policies of Stalin ( not forgetting the Polish government in exiles leader Władysław Eugeniusz Sikorski suggestion that the Getman hourde will be pushed back westwardsof the Oder) that and the agreements made by the the Big three to 'give' this land to Polish "temporary administration" and the subsequent removal of all German culture and historical heritage along with 99% of all Germans in these lands. It was not merely a population transfer. It remains the largest forced population transfer ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.139.155.68 (talk) 04:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

So where were the expelled Poles from Lviv to go? I believe this is what was meant by "exchange": the Poles were expelled from Lviv, where Ukrainians were encouraged to settle, and the Germans were expelled from the Recovered Territories, where the displaced Poles were to settle.--192.207.162.229 (talk) 02:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

There was obviously an exchange. Former prizoners, POWs, former soldiers and forced workers returned from Germany in the same "cattle wagons" Germans travelled West.Xx236 (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"It remains the largest forced population transfer ever" - comparing to tens of millions in Soviet Union and hundreds of millions in China. Any reader can do his/her "Original research" and compare the numbers.Xx236 (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Terribly broken

This article is terribly broken and needs fixing. I am working on making it more neutral, but the amount of cherrypicked scare quotes and POV pushing will need a lot of time to repair.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

To Skapperod

Rather than trying to start a revert war and undoing the extensive work of other editors - basically reverting something like 40 other edits - under false pretenses, please raise issues and discuss them on talk.

Among those 40 or so edits that were reverted there might have been some which had some POV in it - please point them out or at least consider them by themselves. Do not revert all the other edits simply because you DON'TLIKEIT. This kind of blank reverting without discussion or comment is simply unacceptable and the accusations made in the edit summary are false, and revealing of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality.

Furthermore this idea that 'stability' justifies reverting two weeks worth of edits by various editors is ridiculous. "Stability" is not nor has ever been a Misplaced Pages policy. Indeed, if it was, then no articles would ever get improvement. Therefore, please do not cite it as a justification for mass blanket revert as if it was a policy. Volunteer Marek  18:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Removal and alteration of sourced material and POV pushing on such a large scale is completely inappropriate. This article is not for pushing or legitimizing nationalist/communist propaganda. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Instead of blanket reverting, please at least try to back up your accusations and at least make some kind of an effort to discuss issues. Point out the problems. This article isn't for pushing any kind of nationalistic propaganda, neither is it for pushing communist or far right propaganda. Volunteer Marek  18:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I pointed out the problems with your and Molobo's controversial edit(s). Giving the impression that the Piast myth is an actual legitimation of the nationalist / communist idea of "recovered territory" is POV pushing. Removing and altering sourced statements saying the opposite is fraud. Not even the communists upheld the "recovery" idea during all their rule. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with you Marek-the current version pushed by Skapperod is extremely biased and filled with POV, as well as including controversial claims and authors. Also Skapperod should read on OR-I am not aware of any historian that denies that these territories were part of a Polish state before their Germanization. To claim they never were part of Poland before seems to be very fringe view if it is found anywhere at all.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Re Skapp. I pointed out the problems with your and Molobo's controversial edit(s) - no you didn't. Where? Link? Diff? All you did was make baseless accusations. Volunteer Marek  21:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Since Skapperod's unwilling to back up his accusations, let me go through my edits one by one:

1. In this edit - I removed first sentence which was unsourced POV pushing and OR (in "all rural districts"? somebody made that up). I also took out the "by free will" which is also false, since many people were forcibly deported.
2. In this edit I corrected a spelling error. Why is that being reverted? Did you actually look at the edits before you blind reverted them, rather than just at who made them? This is the essence of disruptive editing and battleground behavior - reverting another user's edits without merit.
3. In this edit I simply removed information which was being presented twice. Absolutely no reason for this to be reverted.
4. This edit was a simple grammar fix. Again reverted by Skapperod for no reason what so ever, unless of course proper English grammar is some kind of evil Polish nationalist/communist plot.
5. Another spelling fix reverted for no reason. Apparently correct spelling is part of the same communist/nationalist plot.

So why did you revert these edit? Are you seriously going to sit there and pretend they are "POV pushing" or "alteration of sourced text" or "legitimizing nationalist/communist propaganda"? It's hard to come to any conclusion other than that you're simply reverting these edits because it is me who made them. That's unhealthy. And against Misplaced Pages rules. Volunteer Marek  21:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The edits picked above are not the edits in question, which are of course:

which deleted sources, changed sourced sentences to say the opposite, and are full of POV-pushing in the vein explained by me above, i.e. not pushing the POV of any scholar but pushing the POV of the communist/nationalist propaganda, giving it the appearance of being sourced when the sourced statements had in fact been altered to say the opposite, and deleting sourced statements saying otherwise. That is not acceptable. Neither is it acceptable to reintroduce the changes ignoring that the BURDEN is on the one who restores. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Please present any whatsoever source claiming these territories were never part of Poland or its fiefs before-this is highly unusual claim, that I have yet to see in mainstream publications.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean they are not the edits in question? They are edits of mine which you blind reverted along with an edit summary rv to last stable version (Severo, 13 Jan): removal and alteration of sourced material, POV pushing. Volunteer Marek  18:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't deflect from these edits of yours . When I reverted this , which is essentially what you restored twice, I reverted back to a version before the vast editing began on 26 January, because this version was more or less stable for months. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

You mean my edits where I undo your whole sale blind revert of 40+ edits? The whole sale blind revert where you undid my grammar and spelling corrections? And as I said before "stability" is not a Misplaced Pages policy or guideline, and overall it's a pretty silly reason for making whole sale reverts. An article could be "stable" and could be full of POV crap and OR at the same time. Or can I just go around and revert every single of your edits under the justification that you are upsetting "stability"? Volunteer Marek  19:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• Start-Class Poland articles
• High-importance Poland articles
• WikiProject Poland articles