Talk:Pomerania/Archiv 1

Pomerania in 20th century
Following was moved to discusiion:

"During the Nazi period Pomerania was a hotbed of opposition to as well as supporter of the Nazis, where the network of aristocratic estates and the loyalties they generated were ideal for conspiracy. Dietrich Bonhoeffer ran his illegal seminary at the Pomeranian village of Schlönwitz in 1938. It was therefore ironic that Pomerania should have been given to Poland to compensate her for losses of territory in the East to the Soviet Union in 1945, and the German speaking population fled or was expelled (often by violence). A popular account of this period can be found in Christian von Krockow's book The Hour of the Women. "

If we write the history of the German oppositiion againast Nazi, this piece would have been true. However, Pomerania was simple region of Germany that contributed to the overall war effort. The opposition was very weak and in the end failed. I don't think this paragraph gives somebody any idea what was 20th century in Pomerania about. 81.190.121.171 21:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Claim to Pomerania as supposedly inherited by Mieszko I

 * moved to Talk:Pomerania/archive_1

Pomeranian cultural and ethnic mix

 * moved to Talk:Pomerania/archive_2

land, area or region?
Just out of curiousity: how would the readers and contributors of this article relate to the wordings: --Ruhrjung 07:31, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Pomerania is the land on the south coasts of the Baltic Sea centered around the mouth of River Oder on the present-day border between Poland and Germany, reaching from River Reknitz in the west to River Vistula in the east.
 * Social, cultural and economic links have been disrupted. "Land" implies these links being intact. So no to this one.
 * Pomerania is the historical region on the south coasts of the Baltic Sea centered around the mouth of River Oder on the present-day border between Poland and Germany, reaching from River Reknitz in the west to River Vistula in the east.
 * This one seems to be the closest to the current situation
 * Pomerania is the geographical area on the south coasts of the Baltic Sea centered around the mouth of River Oder on the present-day border between Poland and Germany, reaching from River Reknitz in the west to River Vistula in the east.
 * This one neglects the historical background of the historical region

Pomerania is certainly NOT centered around the mouth of the Odra/Oder river. Pomerania is the land between Odra and Vistula. Pomerania also covers some lands west of Odra, called Vorpommern in Germany, and also some lans east of Vistula river, including Chelmno Land with Torun and Powisle including Kwidzyn, Malbork and Elblag. Mestwin of Gdansk 16:58, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

So? Is this another example of how Polish historians out of pure national proudness must define concepts differently than in the West? --Ruhrjung 17:36, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This article says correctly that Pomerania (in wider sense) consists of voivodships/regions of Pomerania proper (Gdansk), Kuyavia-Pomerania, (Bydgoszcz+Torun), West Pomerania and Fore Pomerania, part of German land of Mecklenburg-West Pomerania. Although the boundaries of Pomerania were changing slightly this area was called Pomerania for the last 1000 years' - Mestwin of Gdansk 23:14, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

From historical point of view neighter Chelmno Land nor Bydgoszcz could be placed in Pomerania. Historical Pomerania comprised territories north of Notec river. Later(12-14th centuries) its border was moved more north. The Pomeranian Voivodship after 1919 has nothing to do with historical Pomeranian borders. Yeti 00:27, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have rewritten the opening para, to make it read better, move the alternative names to the language section, and write a geographical definition that is hopefully accurate and neutral. Not an easy task...--Stonemad GB 14:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

'' Gdansk become the capital for the Solidarity trade union. In 1989 there were found that the border treaty with East Germany had one mistake, concerning naval border. Subsequently, new treaty was signed, but one of the 3 ways out of Szczecin harbour were seized by Germany.'' - i would hardly call the wording "seized by Germany" NPOV. PMA 11:58, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC) The waterway was used before 1989 by Poland. Afterwards it was sedded to Germany. Cautious 12:59, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Reasons for 1939 war
(User:Ruhrjung's) currently proposed wording:
 * The dispute over German rights to land transit through the Polish Corridor to the Free City of Danzig and the exclave of East Prussia, came to ignite Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland, commenced on September 1, 1939.

The problem with this fragment is that this is not true. Nazis were completely immune to nationalistic feelings as long as it fitted in their program. South Tirol is one example. Non-Nazi Germans diputed Polish rule over Pomerania, until Hitler in 1934 closed the case with the signing of Polish-German pact. In 1939 they wanted to conquer Poland, not Pomerania and Pomerania dispute was only a pretext. Please state it. Cautious 12:59, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Do you have any good source for your claim that the Wehrmacht would have invaded the rest of Poland in 1939 in case France and England had given in, like they did in Munich? I do not hold it for totally impossible, but it does not fit with anything I've seen in serious historical works. (With the qualification, that there of course existed a "point of no return" in the process, which was achieved no later than, but maybe before, the brokering of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.) --Ruhrjung 13:19, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Do you have any good source proving it wrong? But come on, wikipedia is not about "what-ifs". War was not only about Pomerania just as Hitler's claims were not only about Danzig. He wanted much more (Silesia, parts of Grand Poland). Anyway, we should not discuss it as it has no sense at all. War broke out - so we should assume that it was inevitable. That's what happened.Halibutt 14:06, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * No, I have not. Only the cautions from the Wehrmacht, and the records of Hitler's foreign politics up til then. Claiming the dispute being a pretext to invasion of Poland is in my view more of a speculation than holding on to the more factual the conflict ignited the world war (in my opinion factual), particulary if we regard that this is not the article on WWII or the september campaign.--Ruhrjung 14:22, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * RuhrJung, so do you consider the minutes posted below fake?


 * No, not at all. But we all know that Hitler said quite a few things which he couldn't (or didn't intend to) make real immediately. And the conflict over the polish corridor is much older than so. The claim I removed was that the conflict was a pretext for the september campaign, i.e. that the campaign would have been launched also if Hitler's demands were met, which I find doubtful and anti-intuitive, although not impossible. In my view does the statement from May 1939 not support the claim that the dispute should be a pretext for invasion of Poland.
 * The key phrase from the May conference is:
 * To attack Poland at the first suitable opportunity.
 * "We cannot expect a repetition of the Czech affair. There will be war.
 * If it is not certain that a German-Polish conflict will not (sic?) lead to war in the West, then the fight must be primarily against England and France.
 * ...and further down at the same nizkor page, but from a speech after the conclusion of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact:
 * It was clear to me that a conflict with Poland had to come sooner or later. I had already made this decision in Spring. But I thought I would first turn against the West in a few years, and only afterwards against the East.
 * This shows to me, that (according to Hitler's thoughts in May) if France and Britain had backed down once again, and repeated the Munich failure, it is not at all impossible that the first suitable opportunity would come first at a later time – probably after attack against France.
 * --Ruhrjung 15:18, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Weeeeeell there are minutes from 1939 (or was it 1938) meeting where Hitler stated that something to the effect that war is inevitable and this is not question of territories... http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/hitler-adolf/hitler-and-poland.html

"Danzig is not the subject of the dispute at all. It is a question of expanding our living space in the East and of securing our food supplies, of the settlement of the Baltic problem. Food supplies can be expected only from thinly populated areas. Over and above the natural fertility, thorough- going German exploitation will enormously increase the surplus" Szopen
 * Well, there were much more pretexts (like the Gliwice provocation, alleged maltreatment of German minority and so on), so perhaps we could simply agree to "the conflict ignited the world war" and go on with the article. Maybe just add a see also: History of Poland (1939-1945) line at the end of the paragraph.Halibutt 15:15, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A personal reflection
I must say that I feel some (too many) contributors here could better try to see issues from others' points of view, and make efforts to interpret other contributors as constructive instead of enemies with a hidden agenda.

The way you treat eachother (and me) is not inviting to cooperativeness.

--Ruhrjung 15:39, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ban Nico and Helga and we all would benefit in the light of 1000 year old Polish-German friendship. They start the WW2 again and again. Cautious

I agree with Cautious that Nico is the problem person here. Let's have him banned from editing (at least from editing in Poland), and we will settle all other problems peacfully Mestwin of Gdansk 17:01, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why not ban all contributors who consistently insist on the polonocentric explanation of history? Rübezahl 18:16, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Hello, Rübezahl. What views in this article are, in your opinion Polonocentric, and why? Which editors are, in your opinion, Polonocentric, and why? Mestwin of Gdansk 22:19, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh, nothing. I'm just so sick of the "holypolonocentric" lobby on this Wikipedia constantly bashing anybody who dares mention any detail of the German history of the currently Polish lands. Example for fantically holypolonocentric? Let me think... It's a tough one... Oh, yeah, I knew I had it somewhere in the back of my mind: YOU! Rübezahl 01:32, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Do not play a fool. Nobody forbide to " dares mention any detail of the German history of the currently Polish lands". The problem is when some users try to enforce nationalist verision of German history in this area, and insist on superiority of "Germandom" in Central Europe. Did someone try to remove FACTS about German history of Gdansk or Torun? Show me where. The problem is nationalistic interpretation taken from 19th century German historians (f.e. Kossina etc) for whom German nation was a entitled to subdue "barbarians" from Central and Eastern Europe for the German civilisation. Yeti 17:26, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I sense so much loooooove here. "Polocentric" explanation of history is not different from "germanocentric" view of history and, while sometimes they are counter each other, they are not wrong per se (despite what certain people try to suggest here). Western authors usually know "germanocentric" view, since German is better known and Polish was outside steel curtain - at least, that's my impression after MANY countless discussion not only on wikipedia. But there is also "holypolonocentric" and "holygermanocentric" views, which ARE wrong. Presenting events from POV of your nation is not wrong. Falsifying history is another thing. Szopen

I agree with Szopen here. (Although I see the reasons for the West seeing Poland through German eyes lasting back to the times after the third division of Poland.) The hard question is however how to come to a point where both points of views are presented in a neutral manner in the articles. --Ruhrjung 17:15, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Pomeranian perspective
There was a nice sentence, unfortuantely erased by some sort of barbarian, I do not wnat to talk about: History of Pomerania is very often written from Polish or German point of view and very rarely from a Pomeranian point of view. - Mestwin of Gdansk 00:31, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Some editing
Concerned that the page was over the 32k limit, I moved the history section to History of Pomerania as well as the following bits:

Economy

 to be written yet 

Culture

 to be written yet 

The page, as always, still needs a lot of work. --Roisterer 02:23, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Baltic Pomerania (Pamar&#279;)
Since 3,000 BC Pomeranian Balts lived in Pomerania (Pamar&) - archeological culture of Pamar&#279;. Only in aproximetly 8th century BC German tribes came to Pomerania from Scandinavia and mixed with Pomeranian Balts. Zivinbudas 22:01, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem here is that the form Pamar&#279; is almost never used in the English language. A Google search for it in English language articles returns just one hit, and this is just the front page for a forum on Lithuanian history, so one cannot even see the actual word Pamar&#279; because the message containing it is not shown.  Just for comparison, search for Pomorze in English webpages returns 21,400 hits.
 * In short, the term is not used in English, and so it does not belong in the header. Also, please see the No original research policy which partly applies here. Balcer 22:22, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

How often are used in English "Wilno", "Kowno", "Szawle", "Poniewierz" etcr. ? There are historical reasons. It is only your demagogy. Zivinbudas 23:20, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Wilno - 34,100 English pages
 * Szawle - 158 English pages
 * Poniewiez - 80 English pages
 * Kowno - 4,720 English pages


 * BTW, I am not necessarily saying that all those cities should have the Polish name listed. But at least a reasonable argument can be made there.  In case of Pamar&#279; I can't see a reasonable argument for inclusion. Balcer 23:29, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't be funny. Those are only polish references. See Pamarys  and you will find more. Don't play naiv games. Zivinbudas 23:41, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed I got wrong numbers for that particular one, the correct number of hits on English pages is 80, and so I made this correction. Thanks for pointing out my mistake. Again, let me emphasize that I would not necessarily insist on listing the Polish name for all those cities.


 * BTW, Panevežys (that is the right spelling, I believe) article does not even mention the Polish name, so I don't understand why you are bringing it up as an example. Balcer 23:53, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Ahh, no Polish name because you have just removed it, I see. It was put there by User:DeirYassin when he created the article. I take it then that you will now stop your campaign of adding Lithuanian names to Polish cities, and immediately start a new campaign of removing Polish names from Lithuanian cities.  A clearer demonstration of your attitude to this whole naming issue would be impossible. Balcer 23:58, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Where did dissapeare Baltic Pomerania chapter from History of Pomerania?
I wrote Baltic Pomerania chapter in History of Pomerania and wrote comment in Talk:Pomerania. This chapter dissapeared from all places without any fixation. Thats polish "administrators", thats real Wikipedia! Congratulations polish-rubbish shitypedia. Zivinbudas 07:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Provide sources and it might be introduced back into the text. You might want to read Cite sources and log in. Also, you might want to check your talk page. Halibutt 08:28, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Starogard Gdański
The orphaned article Starogard Gdański is apparently related to this one. Would a knowledgeable person please link them together please? &mdash; Chameleon 28 June 2005 12:40 (UTC)

Publications
Because there is a Polish side to Pomerania, the Polish publications are redundant! I deleted it. Muggmag 11:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Vorpommern and Hinterpommern
Halibutt:
 * Vorpommern doesn't mean "Upper Pomerania" and Hinterpommern doesn't mean "Lower Pomerania". There is no analogy between Pomerania and Silesia in this respect :-) These names mean something like: "Front-Pomerania" and "Rear-Pomerania". Since they sound somewhat weird in English, there is no point in translating that.


 * If the sentence reads: "In the German tradition ...", it is obvious that German names will follow, and not English ones. The same goes for Pommerellen.

The latter name is much more frequently used, so the most common distinction is between: Pomorze Zachodnie with capital in Szczecin and Pomorze Gdańskie with capital in Gdańsk.
 * In Polish Pomorze Wschodnie IS exactly the same as Pomorze Gdańskie.

UCZK 17:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Poland
Poland in the 11th century did not exist as an independent kingdom as we know them today. There were numerous small Dukedoms and statelets which were ruled over by Slavs or some who were of what we might call today Polish origin. Most of these statlets were busy fighting each other. So it could not be construed, as seems the intention here, that there was some great organized systematic kingdom as that is patently untrue. Pomerania at one time found itself with a Piast Duke (the same family which governed the Dukedom of Marzovia but who were frequently at war with the Poles base at Cracow) but the overwhelming majority of the population were not Polish. I propose to re-edit the article accordingly but would like to hear what others have to say first. Christchurch 17:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If this is true, then the same is true about Germany, isn't it? Besides, not 11th century, but you are referring probably to XII century and later? Szopen 08:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * We are not talking about Germany here. To attempt to discount the Vatican archives, for instance, and countless other non-Polish sources as unreliable is just fatuous. Christchurch 07:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Besides,what do you mean by "Poles base at Cracow"? If you say Masovian weren't Poles, the it is the same for Cracow and Poznan. Either you agree to say all Polish tribes were Polish or neither of them. And it's not "Masovian were at war with Cracov". Rather, Masovian princes at time tried to capture Cracow, because it was symbol of kingdom, and it was prestigious to rule it. Not to mention it was senioral province. Also, there are signs that all Polish provinces still considered themselves part of one state - "stroza" against Prussians (which however finalyl falied because of strifes and fighting over prestige) one of example, the legend about St.Adalbert is another one, and of course Wincenty Kadlubek chronicle clearly shows too, that in the eyes of elite those all states were together making Poland. Szopen 08:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Most western historians would deny that Poland was a unified State, like, say, England after the Norman Conquest, at that time. The Poles as a people at that time were a small population and were thinly spread over the plains and over several dukedoms; most armies of the period consisted as much of mercenaries as anything else. That there were warring Dukes of Polish ethnic origin for over 200 years there is no doubt, but we speak here of ethnicity not an internationally recognized huge nation-state. This is the problem with Polish History. People have been busy rewriting that history to make it appear that when almost every other place in Europe consisted of small states Poland was some great unified civilized power, which it simply wasn't. They got their break with the union with Lithuania and endless internal 'unifying' wars. Christchurch 07:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * ChristChurch, I am not sure what are you trying to say. No one tries to say that there was one, united state. However, there was one Poland. First, Boleslaw testimony appointed one duke as senior, who was supposedly overlord. This "fiction" was then maintained for quite a long time, surely in XI century. And then, while there was no unified Poland but many warring states, the elites still felt they are all part of Poland and there were some attempts at unifications at one time or another. And Polish armies were not from mercenaries. They were from knights and free people of the given province, if you didn't know that then you surely had not invedstigated Polish military of early medieval period.
 * Second, Pomerania was not "Attached to some dukedom". Westrn Pommerania was fief of Polish kingdom, namely the one who was currently senior, and then the ties only dissappeared and indeed it just was allied with some dukedoms. However Eastern Pomerania was at times either part of Polish kingdom, theoretically from time to time admitting overlordship of senior, and then directly incorporated into Polish kingdom (by Przemysl from Greater Poland, who was crowned in XIII century and murdered shortly after, and then IIRC ruled by Czech having title of Polish kings, and then by Lokietek). Szopen 09:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

One more thing: can we be clear on this: this is the ENGLISH-language edition of Wikipedia. It is fatuous to cite a vast list of partisan Polish references for what is a very partisan article. I accept that on a Polish-language Wikipedia such source material would be perfectly acceptable but given that Polish is spoke nowhere in the world other than Poland it seems unlikely that 99% of English-language readers who may wish to source further reading materials would be in a position to do so as things stand. Christchurch 17:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The same should be then about German, Russian etc sources, isn't it? Szopen 08:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Russian sources are not all bad and German sources (mostly written by The Church) are quite good. This is not being partisan but simply accepting facts. Christchurch 07:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Besides, if someone wants to write history of Poland without referencing Polish sources, he is very, very bad historian. Szopen 08:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

But this is the ENGLISH Wikipedia! Alas, Polish history books tend to be written with such a nationalistic element present throughout them that they are to a large extent unreliable, especially in the realm of foreign affairs. But in any case, I hope you're not proposing that all non-Poles take crash courses in the Polish language to enable them to read such books? Lastly, are you suggesting that histories written by anyone other than Poles is therefore wanting? Thats what it looks like to me. Christchurch 07:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * ChristChurch, why the double standards? German sources are good and not nationalistic element and reliable, Russian too, but Polish are bad?

There is as much nationalism in German and Russian sources as in Polish. Szopen 09:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That's obviously a matter of debate, but I would not expect a Bavarian history book to look at the history of Saxony in the same light as a Saxon book. Moreover, many Germans were anti-Brandenburg-Prussia. In fact, prior to the 19th century, the various German states and statelets were rather inward-looking. It is always possible, in any country, to locate overtly nationalistic history books, particularly from the 19th century onwards, with Pan-Germanism and Pan-Slavism. What I am saying is that I have had numerous Polish history-book translations placed before me from a variety of periods in history and they all seem to differ from everyone elses versions of events. Christchurch 11:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It is completely clear that Pomerania was not a Polish province in the Middle Ages, or in the 30 years between the year 1000 and 1030, when it was more a military occupation. The article is realy giving a wrong picture. Their was a Slav population and Slav Dukes which voluntarily joined the German Holy Roman Empire. They did so because the Polish kings attacked the Dukedom so often that they decided it was better to be part of the Empire. The population was slowly Germanised. That is the reason why typical Prussian-Pomeranian names have Slav forms. Sometimes the Danes and Swedes had an influnce on this coastline, something which is also forgotten by both Poles and Germans in this discussion.

Historically the only people in Poland who have a valid claim the area are the Kashubians. The transformation of this 99.9% German area had nothing to do with any historical Polish claim, which is a pure invention. Only a historical claim on Silesia and West Prussia exists; the historical claim on East Prussia and Danzig is very weak. The Posen area was never seen as pure German by the Prussian kings. Until 1918 it had the Polish coat of Arms incorporated into its city coat of armes. And it had some autonomy until 1880 when Pan-German nationalists started to have an impact. Anyway, that was not the opinon of all Germans. Silesia was a mainly socialist German province. That fact did not help them at the end of the Second World War. Thia is just a remark on the comment at the top which claims that Pomerania was mainly nationalistic and conservative and that it was a kind of just punishment to expel and kill them. Silesia was socialist (even Communist in Breslau) and was a cradle of German resistance in WWII and they too where expelled and killed. It seems the Soviets and Polish communists did not bother to ask them about their political views, before they killed so many of them. J.J.85.105.124.6

Terminology and definitions
Can anyone clear up a few uncertainties for me? Does the term Western Pomerania in English refer to Pomerania west of the Oder, or to the Pomeranian part of the current German laender of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania (nearly but not quite the same) or to the current Polish province/voivodeship West Pomerania?--Stonemad GB 15:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Eastern Pomerania and Brandenburg claim
Note that Eastern Pomerania was (formally) Polish vassal, and by last will of Mscislaw inherited by Przemyslaw in 1294, who ruled this part as Polish king. Pomerania was then ruled by another Polish king, Czech Wenceslaus, and then By Lokietek. Brandeburgians tried to CONQUER this land basing on some falsified documents (actually, the deal was that Wenceslaus would get some lands from them, and in return he would give them Pomerania, but since he never got the promised lands, then the Brandenburgians also had no basis for their claims).

Later, in 1466 Royal Prussia was direct part of Polish kingdom, not personal union (see the very long discussions on Royal Prussia and elsewhere). It was of course accepted by eveyrone except pope, who had nothing to say anyway, and emperor, who's authority was not recognised by Poland either. In 1525 on REQUEST of smaller Prussian cities and Prussian (Polish) nobility, direct unification was carried on (againt oppositiion of some from the elites and some larger cities). So saying "it was not accepted" and "Prussians were against it" is simply ridiculous and is kind of falsification of the history. Szopen 09:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

According to point 5, may I please add (german: Danzig) in this article at least once? Thanks -- Splette  Talk 13:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you really find it to be a historic context ? --Lysytalk 17:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Terminology of the Pomeranian regions
Please could someone wise have a look at the regions listed in the Pomerania article. The main problem I encounter on different occasions is that the German terminology (which is used in English works about historical and, sometimes, also modern Pomerania) differs from the Polish terminology (which is increasingly used in English works since 1945, in part due to translation of Polish works). The main difference between German and Polish terminology is the use of "Western", "Farther" and "Eastern". While the German terminology uses "Pommern" (=Pomerania) primarily for the western and central and "Pomerelia" for the eastern part, Polish terminology does the opposite in using "Pomorze" (=Pomerania) for the eastern and "Zachodnie P." (=Western P.) for the central and western parts. This leads to the odd and confusing situation that the central part (historical Farther Pomerania) is "Eastern Pomerania" in English use derived from German and "Western Pomerania" in English use derived from Polish.

I have tried to reduce this conflict by creating an Eastern Pomerania dab pg and a Western Pomerania (disambiguation). Western Pomerania is occupied already with the "Vorpommern" article (also "Hither Pom.", which in Polish terms would be the West of Western Pomerania). The further historical naming of the regions is not problematic, we got


 * for the West: Western Pomerania = Vorpommern = Hither Pomerania and Swedish Pomerania
 * for the central part: Farther Pomerania = Further Pomerania = Hinterpommern, Eastern/Western Pomerania in use for this region is covered by the above mentioned dab pages
 * for western and central parts as a whole: Duchy of Pomerania and Province of Pomerania
 * for the eastern parts: Pomerelia, Monastic state of the Teutonic Knights, Royal Prussia, West Prussia, Polish Corridor, historical Pomeranian voivodship articles

Problematic I found the naming of the current regions:


 * for the West: Western Pomerania = Vorpommern = Hither Pomerania
 * for the central part: ???? How is the former Farther/Eastern Pomerania within the West Pomeranian Voivodship called currently in English? I introduced the Polish term that translates Western Pomerania into the article. We cannot use the English translation because Western Pomerania is already in use for Vorpommern (historical and modern Western Pomerania).
 * for the eastern parts: Gdansk Pomerania (???? is that right for the modern region?), modern Pomeranian voivodship and Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodship articles

I introduced this terminology into the article some time ago and is was not disputed, yet I am not sure if it is that no better way is present to address the modern regions correctly or if it is just missing interest. I would appreciate expert comments. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The central part of Polish Pomerania (lands around Koszalin and Slupsk) is called in Polish Pomorze Srodkowe, which translates into Middle Pomerania. Google gives us scores of hits. Tymek (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * We certainly have to tread carefully to avoid misleading. I would avoid the terms "Western Pomerania" and "Middle/Central Pomerania" in a modern context, unless we explicitly explain what meaning is intended. Better I think to use the names of the administrative regions - Vorpommern, West Pomeranian Voivodeship, Pomeranian Voivodeship - where possible, or else vaguer terms like "the Gdańsk region", "the central part of Polish Pomerania" etc. We might also reconsider whether to move Western Pomerania to Vorpommern, as was once proposed before.--Kotniski (talk) 07:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would also support to move current Western Pomerania to Vorpommern and Western Pomerania (disambiguation) to Western Pomerania to keep the disambiguous West/East stuff at dab pages and have the regions named in a definite, unique, non-disambiguous way. Yet, there have been some move debates already at the Western Pomerania article's talk page that resulted in a consensus to keep it there. The dilemma here is how to correctly apply the "Use English" and "Use non-disambiguous titles" guidelines.

Another point I am not sure of is whether the current administrative divisions comply with the different regions. If we name the regions (from West to East) "Vorpommern", "West Pomeranian Voivodship" and "Pomeranian Voivodship", we encounter the following problems: Also, "Middle Pomerania" (brought up by Tymek above) would be partitioned between West-P. and Pomeranian Voivodship. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Vorpommern: is a region, but not an administrative unit.
 * West Pomeranian Voivodship: comprises non-Pomeranian territory in the South.
 * Pomeranian Voivodspip: does not comprise all of "Gdansk Pomerania" (?), because the southernmost parts around Schwetz (Swiecie ?) are in the Kuyavian Voivodship.
 * The present German Land is Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. It existed briefly in the late 1940s, and was revived in 1994.
 * Before the German conquest of the area, Polish names are as reasonable as any, but should we use Pomerania?
 * The intermediate times shoud use the traditional English names for the subdivisions actually existing on the ground: Hither Pomerania, (? Middle Pomerania), Further Pomerania. This is what English calls them; we should not use Vorpommern where English does not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

As a Canadian Kaszub, I always heard (and still hear) Kaszuby as the name of the Pomerelian region (Rekowski, Aloysius J. 1997. The Saga of the Kashub People in Poland, Canada, U.S.A.). Can someone clarify the difference of the terms, and since I'm the clueless one, is it notable enough to place in this article? -- Z blewski  |talk   22:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Kashubia/Cassubia/Kaszuby/Kaschubei is a notable term, yet the geographical extension is even less defined than the Pomerelian. Afaik, the terms Pomerelia and Kashubia are not synonyms - while Pomerelia is usually defined as the area between Vistula and the (former) Duchy/Province of Pomerania, Kashubia is more like "where the Kashubs (used to) dwell" and thus "somewhere inside" Pomerelia.

Geography
In the Geography section it says that Pomerania went down to the Warta and Noteć rivers. That clearly wasn't the case for most of history - what period does that refer to? And generally speaking I don't think we can possibly state that Pomerania is "the area between this river and that river". Its borders (insofar as it has had any) have changed so much over the centuries that the issue of what precise area it refers to has to be addressed far more extensively than that.--Kotniski (talk) 11:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The Warta (Warthe) and Noteć (Netze) rivers were the southern "border" during the early High Middle Ages, since about 1250 the frontier went further north. Until 1250 Zantoch burgh was the main Warthe crossing, disputed between the dukes of Pomerania and Greater Poland. The area north was mostly wilderness. Barnim I started to settle Germans there in order to assure his claims, but Brandenburg in the 1250s had the upper hand and set up her Neumark there. The Pomeranian diocese (Diocese of Kammin) stretched down to the Warthe, in part resembling the old Pomeranian-claimed area - I don't recall right now this being changed after Brandenburg took over. The Warthe was definitely not the border of any political Pomeranian entity after the 1250s. Personally, I would not think the Warthe and Netze to appropriately describe the southern frontier for these reasons, but I am not aware of how this is handled in Poland, who as you know from the Recovered Territories article wanted to resurrect medieaval names and frontiers after her 1945 take-over of the region.


 * In contrast, I am fine with Recknitz as the western frontier. This line was stable since 1325, and was only slightly moved to the west by the post-war administrative changes in Germany. Also, the Vistula river as the eastern border of Pomerelia is well established and was pretty stable throughout history, and as we do include Pomerelia within Pomerania, the Recknitz and Vistula as marking the west to east extension is fine. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 11:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the information. I don't think the Warta and Noteć are regarded as any kind of boundaries in modern Poland either. I'll make a slight adjustment to the Geography section.--Kotniski (talk) 12:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The article's timeline is missing some information
As in with other articles no information about German atrocities against Poles and Jews during WW2 while what strikes me as unusual that a considerable amount of space is however dedicated to population transfer of Germans. Doesn't seem balanced.--Molobo (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Timeline here or in History of Pomerania article ?
I'd prefer having the timeline in only one article, not in both. I would propose to either have the timeline only in this article's history section, or keep the narrative and have the timeline in the History of Pomerania article (where a twin of the timeline is placed right now). Skäpperöd (talk)
 * Please address why atrocities against Poles and Jews are missing in the timelines while population transfer of Germans is detailed. I believe this to be unbalanced and POV-ed.--Molobo (talk) 12:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * They are missing because noone added them. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Since your articles are usually detailed and full of history as well as sources-may I ask why decided not to add them ? --Molobo (talk) 13:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed the timeline in the HoP article, that way we have a short narrative and timeline here, and a more detailed narrative in the HoP article. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ... and moved the timeline again to the HoP article because it got too long for this one when I further expanded it. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Slovincians
Should be added.Xx236 (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

English term for Wisła is Vistula
Please use English terminology on English Wiki.--Molobo (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weichsel and Vistula stage are both used in English, but I am fine with Vistula. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

--89.240.13.175 (talk) 03:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)NONSENCE!!! Vystula is the old Prussian name for Vystule

Please follow double naming rules
Double names are only used in cases of shared history. Modern cities, lists of cities in modern Poland/Germany are not included into this category. --Molobo (talk) 14:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We are talking about a historical region, the historical importance of cities and the historical naming of regions. Double naming required, not only because of Gdanzig vote, but also for clarity. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Minor corrections
Added minor corrections, removed German names of Polish modern cities list and locations where shared history does not apply and added requests for confirmation in certain dubious claims.--Molobo (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Do not "correct" sourced statements, follow Gdanzig vote as outlined above, do not request confirmation for something as obvious as that Pomerania was strongly affected by 20th century border and population shifts. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What sourced statements do you mean. The Gdańsk vote is clear that we use Gdańsk before 1308. Also was it comperably stronger then those in the past ? Unless a source is given then please do not push Original Research into the article.--Molobo (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia can't be used as source of information in Wikipedia articles as was done here.
Especially if an editor is sourcing himself as source as here:  I shall remove this.--Molobo (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The map the link points to is clearly indicated as a snippet from another map described "Made from the public domain map "Central Europe about 1648" from the Historical Atlas by William R. Shepherd, at the Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection at the University of Texas. Further information from Overy, Richard, 2006, The Times Complete history of the world Times Books ISBN 0007181299, and from this map" - so source is not wikipedia, but Shepherd. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

So your "source" is cutted piece of map with a name ? It speaks nothing of historical use then, and your claim is Original Research and Synthesis.In other words you found a name, and use it as evidence of your theory that it is a historical name. This is not how Wiki work, you will need a source that says so, and you can't propose your own theories without proper sources.--Molobo (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It is used that way in a historical map, that is in fact what historical use is. I added a historical enc britannica article, that should be sufficient. Frankly, I do not see what quarrel you have with the historical ambiguity of Western and Eastern Pomerania. As long as the regions were German, English terminology followed the German one, since WWII when historical German Eastern Pomerania became modern Polish Western Pomerania there is a trend to adapt to the Polish one, too. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

(untiteled section)
89.240.13.175 (talk) 03:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Pamare is the Lithuanian land meaning the land at the sea (Pa-Mare, and not pomerat (in polish it means to die) and not primorje (which would be the translation of Pamare to polish)), like Pa-Rusne (Prussia, at the Rusne, not russia or rus) or Pa-Lenke (at the poland). Plenty Lithanian water names (Udra/Oder, Varta, Persante, Vystule) and cities names (lots of Gards (not Burgs or Grads, but Lithuanian Gards), Pilis, Plotai, Gaudanskas/Gdansk/Dancing...I can translate what they mean) are still remained89.240.13.175 (talk) 03:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC) it's sad that after wwII this Lithuanian land was given to another occupant - poland, and not to slaughtered ethnic Lithuanians (the same is true and with other Lithuanian lands - PaLenke, Parusne/Prussia and Jotva). One occupant was replaced by another one. I don't know about your Lithuanian, but your Polish is not accurate. Pomerat is not "to die," that's "umrzec." The word "primorje" is not Polish at all. "przy morze" would be Polish for "by the sea", while "po morze" would be "along the sea." At any rate, the modern English "Pomerania" clearly comes from an adoptation of the Latin, so just blame the Romans, OK? Now, if someone could just tell me why "Warszawa" has become "Warsaw", I'd feel better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.108.108.226 (talk) 22:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Statino (Schetino) city in Lithuanian language means builders' city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.13.175 (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The following may be enlightening: - Proto-Indo-European language, cum hoc ergo propter hoc, false cognate, pseudoscientific language comparison. Knepflerle (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Look Balts'd lived in that area long before Slavs ,so referring us to similarity of IE languages is misleading.Baltic theory must be mentioned in the interests of free research ,not the one who works to establish claims 12:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Edelward (talk) 12:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Edelward (talk) 12:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Add Baltic in Ethymology.
The ethymology quite possibly comes from Baltic languages. For example Lithuanian :
 * Pa*-"by/next to/along". and *marios*- *sea*

Edelward (talk) 11:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Edelward (talk) 12:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Edelward (talk) 12:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Are there any sources that see the origins of the name "Pomerania" in another language but the medieval local Slavic one? Skäpperöd (talk) 12:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Pomesanians(engl naming) or Pomedians- a clan of West-Baltic Prussians have their ethymology originated from meaning *fringe of the forest* (living on fringe of the forest).Generally,the names of the Prussian tribes all reflected the theme of landscape. Most of the names were based on water, an understandable convention in a land dotted with thousands of lakes, streams, and swamps.Baltic had such naming tendency.Edelward (talk) 12:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)So look at this from East to West situated three tribes Pogesanians then Pomesanians then Pomeranians.First two tribes were Baltic Prussian clans then right to the West situated debated here Pomeranians. Any slight doubt they were Baltic? 13:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)13:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Edelward (talk) 13:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You need sources. "Sounds like" is not a valid argument on en.wikipedia. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not 'Sounds like',the words I had not used -it is reasoning that Baltic tribe Pomedanians (,Georg Gerullis determined that its name was actually derived from the Old Prussian word 'pomedian', meaning :on fringe of the forest) lived as neighbours to tribe of Pommeranians (which means: living next to sea),that both those tribes names have beed constructed in the same way from proto-Baltic. That you rely on the invalid ,unscientific source,which does not know that know trivial fact that Scandinavians and Balts also have words 'po-på-pa' ,but only uses the most naive knowledge that Slavic have that word. Plus the link to that is broken now so your information is invalid anywhereEdelward (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Edelward (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

populations
Tatars and Mongols! What on earth is this non-sense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.82.24.119 (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)