Talk:Recovered Territories/Archive 3

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)
 * Actually, the population in those territories (and modern Poland) were originally Goth and Vandals. The Slavic people shifted into those territories with the Huns during the early medieval period. Today Silesia, Pomerania or Prussia are neither annexed nor recovered. They are simply territories occupied by Poland and under their administration. 41.150.25.104 (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2015 (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 Wikipedia policies on copyrights - just in case.radek (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Also please note that unnecessary quotations are discouraged on Wikipedia (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)

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

The following request appears on that page:

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).

How many Poles in Kresy before WW2?
Polish population in Kresy was much larger than 2 million, closer to 5 million:

South-East Poland* (1931 census) - 2,249,703

North-East Poland** (1931 census) - 1,657,196

Soviet Ukraine (1926 census) - 476,435

Soviet Belarus (1926 census) - 97,498

Soviet Russia (1926 census) - 197,827

Rest of the USSR (1926 census) - 10,574

Republic of Latvia*** (1930 census) - 59,374

Lithuania (1923, PEC calculation) - 202,026

Total: 4,950,633 - or around 5 million ethnic Poles living east of the Curzon Line.

PEC = Polish Electoral Committee in Lithuania.

South-East**: areas which are now part of Ukraine,

North-East**: now parts of Belarus and Lithuania,

Poles in Latvia*** lived in historical Polish Livonia.

Sources are linked or cited here: http://historum.com/european-history/96049-territorially-speaking-were-poland-s-pre-1939-post-1945-borders-better-5.html#post2332335?postcount=41

Peter558 (talk)

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)

This ethic Cleansing and in many terretorris ist was real mass murder was tghe bigest change of population in European history the Polish needed long time to settle the terretoris in fact on the country sinde they never rached the concentration of population the germans had before the war, still not today. One Just have too look at Google ( sattelite) and you will see the German Borders only from the woods and wasteland. Johann — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.39.84.178 (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh Johann, mass murders were a German domain those times. Germans were only expelled, not murdered. Stop rewriting history by Germans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.205.247.165 (talk) 18:10, 31 July 2013 (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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)
 * See below: Skäpperöd (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Table: Changes by Molobo and Volunteer Marek
Another issue is the apologetic movement of the "history" section on top. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As I pointed out before, my changes were
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * In this edit I simply removed information which was being presented twice. Absolutely no reason for this to be reverted.
 * 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.
 * Another spelling fix reverted for no reason. Apparently correct spelling is part of the same communist/nationalist plot.


 * which Skapperod blanket reverted without explanation.
 * The table is purposefully misleading, appears to purposefully use my former account name where I in fact I had it change specifically because off Wiki harassment, and misrepresents/misapplies both edits and policy.  Volunteer Marek   20:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * !Response, indication of where policy or edits are being misrepresented or misapplied
 * This is already addressed above, I guess Skapp is repeating it to make the table look long. But yes, Kamusella is most definetly controversial and in fact probably shouldn't be used at all. If he is used then NPOV demands that we are clear about where a statement comes from, as with any controversial source. This is an abuse of WP:BLP policy to defend a POV, something which Skapp has done before on the article on Expulsion of Germans in an attempt to keep POVed text in violation of WP:FRINGE
 * The fact that the first use of the term was in 1938 is notable and yes, it appears to be sourced to a primary document for the purposes of this here that should be fine.  Volunteer Marek   20:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)|
 * False description of the edit POV-pushing by representing the areas as cradle of the nation - nowhere does it call it "cradle of the nation" it just says that it was part of the early Polish state which it was. I agree that the "integral" part is a bit subjective and I'm ok with that being removed.
 * Unnecessary battleground behavior by bringing up "nationalist propaganda". It could just as easily be pointed out the role that these territories have played and still play in extreme right wing and neo-nazi propaganda. But doing so would be irrelevant and disruptive. So are Skapperod's comments.  Volunteer Marek   20:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Kamusella is an extremely controversial author, to say the least, and even the school at which he was an a temporary professor officially distanced themselves from him and then let him go (you have to be careful if looking him up on en.wiki because I'm pretty sure he wrote his own page in violation of WP:COI. As such he is not a reliable source and this SHOULD in fact be removed.
 * Falsely presenting others' edits - note that here we actually get the full context of the "initially part of Polish state and were integral part of Poland" text objected to above. The article is not claiming this but is rather stating that this was the rationale given, with reference, making above objection completely false.
 * Both statements are true. The territories were lost as a result of German expansion (sometimes peaceful sometimes involving "aggression") which did result in Germanization and an eventual political separation of these territories from Poland. This claim: That the areas were "lost" had nothing to do with Germanisation and Drang nach Osten is just ridiculous.  Volunteer Marek   20:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not at all ridiculous:
 * medieval Pomerania was, in part and temporarily, subjected by Mieszko I and Boleslaw III. In both cases, it was the Slavic Pomeranians who regained independence, Germans settled in the region only after this independence was regained.
 * in southern East Prussia, it was the secularization of the Prussian Teutonic Order that brought its Hohenzollern hochmeister as a duke under the Polish Crown. That was in 1525, long after Germans had settled the region. The "loss" of the duchy took place in 1656, when the Hohenzollerns were forced to accept Swedish superiority during the Second Northern War, and the Polish king relinquished his claims in 1657 in turn for an alliance with the Hohenzollerns against Sweden.
 * Silesia was acquired by Prussia from Austria/Bohemia, not from Poland
 * How can one seriously attribute these "losses" to Germanization and Drang nach Osten? Skäpperöd (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Silesia was acquired by Prussia from Austria/Bohemia, not from Poland
 * How can one seriously attribute these "losses" to Germanization and Drang nach Osten? Skäpperöd (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you guys should consider a formal mediation? I've tried to follow the discussion from time to time and both sides seem to offer factual material in support of their opinion, nevertheless, either side fails to convince the other. I know that - and I think it's foolish that it's this way - that Wikipedia authorities fail to rule on content disputes, yet it might be of help to ask for mediation, to ensure some balance in the article. Otherwise this seems to lead nowhere (unless one side just gets tired and leaves :). Just my suggestion. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 22:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You are not a neutral party here Miacek, as your editing history in German-Polish related topics indicate.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't pretending to be a neutral party. However, I consider myself somewhat more neutral than your group on one hand or German guys on the other concerning this topic - just due to my background. I wouldn't be neutral on Estonia-related stuff. And I think my “editing history in German-Polish related topics” actually indicates my attempts to create neutrality where you and your associates are gaining undue influence Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This is minor and i think either is fine. "deregatory" (sic) seems to be an contrived over reaction.
 * Actually I think both phrasings are POV - the way that German population and heritage got there was through Germanization. I would welcome suggestions on a way to find a middle ground.


 * If you have questions, ask them one by one, instead of creating chaotic tables to orient editors towards your viewpoint. Also I suggest removing outying information that was concealed to avoid harassment.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually MMa is right here. The format of the table is not conducive to a fruitful discussion. For one it does not differentiate who made what edit where. It also makes it difficult to respond to various allegations and (less than)half-truths. Perhaps that was its point.  Volunteer Marek  21:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

And yes, please remove the personal info or I'm going to do it myself and ask for the whole thing to be oversighted.  Volunteer Marek  21:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Fiction
That Wikipedia allows these Polish propaganda pages is an outrage. This page should be completely removed a new non-Polish editors drafted in to cleanse the countless other propaganda pages these nationalists use to justify themselves.2A00:23C4:B63A:1800:3C2B:5C5B:AADC:8F8C (talk) 12:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Question
Skapperod repeats claims about myth about this territories. Could he finally respond to my question what sources claim they were not part of a Polish state before?. The above map published in 1917 United States,certainly shows that this was not a "propaganda myth" invented by "communist conspiracy".--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Is there a particular reason the map of the world as of year 1138 when Polish drift to the West so to say was at its height must serve as the definite blueprint for (re-)drawing the borders, completely disregarding the centuries of German settlement or changes elsewhere? As for the US support or plans, sure, they had theirs, and so did some Frenchmen. Take a look here, too. Poland having its 'natural borders' 'restored', albeit within the framework of the Russian Empire.  [[Image:FR-WW1-1915-French-plans.png|thumb|French Plans 1915]].

MIaceK (woof!) 21:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The French map is a plan(btw, its nice to know that not only Russian Empire planned such revisions in WW2), not a historic map like in the case of the USA map, which doesn't represent any "plan" at all, but is a historic illustration(or are you claiming otherwise?). Also you are incorrect-the German settlement and what it did, was very much considered by authors of border changes.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Blanket reverts and "stability"
With this revert Skapperod undid 37 edits in one big fell swoop. He claimed that this was a removal and alteration of sourced material, POV pushing. I can't speak for others' edits but my edits among those 37 were pretty much spelling and grammar changes which he just took out for no reason. Furthermore this kind of massive reverting is not the proper way to edit Wikipedia articles, even if some of those 37 articles did in fact have some POV in them. You most certainly don't revert useful edits as well, just because you don't like the person who made them.

This other justification of restoring "stability" is also comepletely phony for the following reasons:  Volunteer Marek  21:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) "Stability" is not a Wikipedia policy, Skapperod invented this, and never has been. This is for the very good reason that if it was then articles could never be improved. The invoking of "stability" here just masquerades for the real reason which appears to be IDON'TLIKEIT.
 * 2) In cases where "stability" is invoked it is usually when frequent reverting and edit warring is taking place. Those 37 edits undid by Skapp, DID NOT involve reverts or edit wars. They were simply edits whose authors though improved the article. As such the article was not "unstable" but rather in state of being "developed" (perhaps in ways that Skapperod doesn't like).
 * 3) In fact, if anything it's Skapperod's massive blind reverting which is presently de-stabilizing the article.
 * 4) It's hard to see these kinds of massive blind reverts - including of completely noncontroversial edits like spelling and grammar fixes - as anything but either a vindictive response to who made them or as an assertion of "ownership" of the article on the part of the user in a "you are not allowed to edit MY article even if these are useful changes" kind of way.

Yours and Molobo's changes are massive and controversial, the revert was neither "blanket" nor are any of the motives you speculate about true. It followed WP:PRESERVE and WP:BRD, and so should you. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we get back on topic?
I think we can all see that the above lines of "discussion" aren't going to lead anywhere of value, as they're all about editors and past edits, not about the current content of the article and how to improve it. Can we get back to discussing matters of substance? Taking the article as it currently stands, what do people think is wrong with it? --Kotniski (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I made a table above of what I think are the most important issues. It is not normal procedure to discuss the rewritten article, the changes have already been refuted and should be discussed and altered before they are re-introduced. Especially when sourced sentences are altered and the refs left in place, this needs to be restored immediately. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Many of the points in your table seem to have been addressed in my recent edits. Can you say what you think are the most urgent problems with the article as it stands following those edits? (We have to have some starting point for discussion.) Of course some text that was formerly there has been removed, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing, since the article is already too long in places, particularly the history sections. --Kotniski (talk) 11:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not concerned that much about the history section, it is there because once people wanted to have it, but I don't really think it belongs here. There was a short list of the Western and Northern Territories' regions linking their names/histories before and after the transition, and maps of the transition - I think if that is re-introduced the whole "history" section can go. The rationale for this proposal is that the history section can not possibly cover the actual history of the regions from the Middle Ages to 1945, which makes it vulnerable to unbalanced simplifications. And to have this as the first half of the article while the article should focus on the late 1940s/1950s does not make sense.
 * Oppose. While the history section should be shortened to relevant periods(something that I have started), it should not be deleted. A short overview of restored territories and their Polish history is quite in order. Nobody wants to write every detail about their existance Skapperod.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My primary concern is that the rewrite changed and deleted sourced statements (see table) which need to be restored/checked for acurately reflecting their references. Skäpperöd (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * (Apart from the broken refs, of course, for which I apologize, but I'm sure there's a bot that fixes such things with less likelihood of error than if a human does it, if we wait a few hours.)--Kotniski (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There seems to be reliance on controversial authors like Kamusella, heavy POV pushing to point the whole concept into negative light, overemphasis on German losses, while ignoring the circumstances(result of Nazi Germany actions), attempts to discredit existance of pre-1945 Polish minority and so on.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

List
I will look through the current version of the article and point out problems here.
 * " with Poles who moved voluntarily from Central Poland and the wartime Polish diaspora, and also with some Ukrainians and other minorities forcibly resettled under "Operation Vistula" - not entirely correct. Many Poles who had lived in areas taken by the Soviets were also forced to move, whether they liked it or not, just like Ukrainians and other minorities. For Poles still left in Volhynia this was a no-brainer anyway, given what happened during the war and many of them had already left anyway. But that was not true for Poles in Eastern Galicia and Lwow area. Same for Poles in present day Lithuania.  Volunteer Marek   22:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Aren't you missing the rest of the sentence, which seems to cover those Poles who were moved forcibly?--Kotniski (talk) 09:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There's more on it in the text itself but in the lede it just says "repatriates" - which most people will not what it refers to.  Volunteer Marek   05:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added "forced to move", so that should be OK now.--Kotniski (talk) 07:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Reverting Germanisation of Recovered Territories vs. Polonization of the Recovered Territories - this is a hard one since essentially they're both true, for some places more than others. How about something more neutral like "Cultural changes in the Recovered Territories"?
 * Essentially the same problem with Removal of Germans and traces of German habitation vs Removal of Germanization - perhaps it'd be best if the two sections were combined under the above suggested neutral title?
 * The main fact in that section is that many millions of Germans were constrained to leave their homeland. I can't help feeling that titles like "Cultural changes" or "Removal of Germanization" are specifically designed to miss the point.--Kotniski (talk) 09:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Like I said, this is the difficult one. But Germanization should be in there too otherwise you're leaving out important context.  Volunteer Marek   05:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * In the course of the 12th to 14th centuries, Germanic, Dutch and Flemish  settlers moved into East Central and Eastern Europe (a process known as the Ostsiedlung). - the dates are wrong. Ostiedlung in Luticia, Meissen and other present-day German territories took place 11th and 12th century (conquests started earlier). Ostiedlung in part of Pomerania which is presently part of Germany began in the 12th century but was limited even by the beginning of 14th centuries. But neither of these areas are part of the Recovered Territories. In Silesia Ostiedlung didn't really start until end of the 13th century and even by end of 14th century it had a pretty limited impact. In Pomerania which is presently part of Poland, the process began also in the 13th century though there were some predecessors. It didn't really have widespread impact until the 14th and 15th century and extensive Germanization of the area didn't become complete until the Reformation. Of course what became "Duchy of Prussia" was inhabited by Baltic and pagan Prussians for quite sometime and Germanization didn't begin until late in the 14th centuries. So it really should be changed to "from 13th to 16th centuries".
 * Easy enough to change if that's what the sources say.--Kotniski (talk) 09:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Despite the actual loss of several provinces, medieval lawyers of the Kingdom of Poland created a specific claim to all formerly Polish provinces that were not reunited with the rest of the country in 1320. - this is just weird. Who were these "medieval lawyers"? Standard practice in feudal times was not to renounce a "title" or a "claim" unless forced to do so at the point of the sword. This was just a pan-European characteristic.
 * I agree that this passage is a bit weird and off-topic - could be reduced to a single sentence.--Kotniski (talk) 09:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * was ruled by the Samborides dynasty who, unlike the Griffins, did not join the Holy Roman Empire and remained part of Polish state - this is problematic and also one of the "standard tricks" that are often pulled on these pages. The Griffins didn't "join the Holy Roman Empire" - they became it's vassals. But this is different and essentially involved a payment of tribute. Under the medieval view of the world all secular rulers were nominally subjects of the Holy Roman Emperor, just that in practice many were powerful and independent enough for this not to matter at all, while the less powerful ones had to pay tribute. This is sort of like saying that the "Plantagenets joined the Holy Roman Empire". In this context, it's just an attempt to associate Pomerania with "Germany".
 * Elaboration: this is actually a complicated question. A lot of time the matter of dispute was whether you were a "direct" vassal of the empire or an "indirect" one. For example in the early Piast period the Pomeranian duchy was an "indirect" vassal of the emperor but it was controlled by Polish kings and dukes who collected tribute and sent off a part of it to the emperor. This meant that in turn the Polish dukes or kings were "vassals of the empire in Pomerania" though not, generally (sometimes, during troubled times) "vassals of the emperor" except in the standard nominal way like the King of England was a vassal of the emperor. And of course, in practice Polish rulers would generally try to ignore their feudal obligations, "forget" or refuse the payments from Pomerania and act as if the area was under their sole control - and this led to some of the Polish-German wars of the period. From the point of view of a small duchy or province it was often better to be a direct rather than indirect vassal - basically, the emperor was further away and it removed "middlemen" be they Poles, Brandeburgians, Danes or Swedes. That's basically what happened in 1181. Better yet, was to have yourself declared a direct vassal of the Pope, cutting out the Emperor in the process, but that wasn't always in the cards.


 * The northern territories of Warmia and Masuria form the areas of Recovered Territories that were Polish fiefs . - not clear and possibly an attempt at equivocation. It was the northern part of Warmia and Masuria which had been Polish fiefs (for Warmia actually only a slither). But also Warmia and Masuria are "northern territories" in terms of the regions geography. The text makes it seem however like the entire areas were Polish fiefs rather than just the northernmost part of these northernly located territories. So it should be something like "the northernmost part of the area of Masuria had been a Polish fief, while most of Warmia had been part of the Polish province of Royal Prussia" or something similar. Basically the problem is that the present text tries to suggest that the ENTIRE Warmia and Masuria area had been only a Polish fief whereas this was only true of the northern part of this entire area.
 * I thought that the whole area was fiefs (i.e. was in Ducal Prussia) apart from that slither of Warmia which was in Royal Prussia, but I may be wrong.--Kotniski (talk) 09:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Masuria was mostly a fief. Warmia was mostly part of Poland.  Volunteer Marek   05:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The section on Great efforts were made to propagate the view of recovered Piast territory, which were actively supported by the Catholic Church.[18] The sciences were responsible for the development of this perception of history. In 1945 the Western Institute (Polish: Instytut Zachodni) was founded to coordinate the scientific activities. Its director, Zygmunt Wojciechowski, characterized his mission as an effort to present the Polish history of the region, and project current Polish reality of these countries upon a historical background.".[19]  Historical scientists, archaeologists, linguists, art historians and ethnologists worked in an interdisciplinary effort to legitimize the new borders.[20]  Their findings were popularised in monographs, periodicals, schoolbooks, travel guides, broadcasts and exhibitions., all cited to a single source seems problematic. The Western Institute was founded to study the history - not just Polish - of the region - and it might have originally had a propaganda purpose. However, all those "scientists, archaeologists, linguists, art historians and ethnologists" ended up producing quite high quality academic research, respected internationally and relied on in Polish, German and other academic works (Wojciechowski included). But this paragraph tries to paint it as some kind of a propaganda factory which it was not. We need 1) other sources on the institute here to balance this POV presentation and 2) to verify the source that is being used.
 * German political scientist Steffan Wolff and Karl Cordell have alledged that that along with the debunking of communist historiography, the recovered territories thesis has been discarded,[27]claiming that the territories acquired in 1945 had a wholly German character(despite existance of Polish minority), and that this view is not necessarily one that has been transmitted to the whole of Polish society. - at best this is just very badly written. What is this "recovered territories thesis" that has been "discarded"? What does it have to do with "communist historiography"? the claim that these territories "had a wholly German character" was probably true for some and not so true for others - what does the source actually say?
 * Millions of "non-Poles" (mainly Germans and Ukrainians) had to be expelled from the new Poland - uhh... maybe, just maybe it's worth mentioning that many of those Ukrainians who were expelled (from areas taken by Soviet Union) were in fact moved to the Recovered Territories (there were several waves of deportations of Ukrainians, the earlier ones expelled them to the now Soviet Ukraine, the latter ones to the RT). There's a reason why "Ukrainiec" was a slang term for people from Wroclaw/Breslau in the 1950's and 1960's. Also why are there scare quotes around "non-Poles"? The phrasing "had to be" is also an example of editorializing.
 * Yes, these are definitely examples of poor phrasing.--Kotniski (talk) 09:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * to justify the previous ethnic cleansing of the area - pretty much straight up POV pushing.
 * Agreed.--Kotniski (talk) 09:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Controversial author Tomasz Kamusella ... - Kamusella as a source has to go. Either that or we get into an extensive discussion of the wacky hijinks of the person in question. He is simply not a reliable source.

 Volunteer Marek  22:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, that's all I have time for now and that's about half an article. Many of the changes made by Kotniski are quite good and help matters but I think because this article started from such a low quality state it's hard to fix everything at once. However, reading through it one more time and encountering these numerous problems, basically every other sentence or so, I think a POV tag would be justified until some of these issues are addressed (which I will include presently). I will go through the second part of the article and highlight problems there shortly.  Volunteer Marek  23:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Note also that the above list concerns only the "errors of commission" currently present in the article, and does not address the potential "errors of omission" which is what I understand to be Mymoloboaccount's main concern.  Volunteer Marek  23:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Worth noting is that the territories had milions of Poles who were displaced persons as former German slaves, many of them settled those areas, as Germans fled.Thus the Polish presence was larger than in 1939(and how ironic that by the very hands of Nazi Germany)--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Confusion?
Gentleman, I've been recently reading this discussion. It seems to me that Skäpperöd has presented a very cogent argument about policy violations and a pretty good table outlining them. Surprisingly, its been met with a sloughing off of it, ignoring it, and even a claim that it's "confusing". What's confusing about it? What's untrue about it? Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And Marek has also produced a similar list. Some of the issues in both lists have now been addressed, but I suspect others are going to be controversial. Since we have to start somewhere, and we can't discuss everything at once, perhaps each of you could start by raising one or two specific issues regarding the article as it currently stands (including important information that it may omit), and we can try and reach a conclusion on how to deal with those? --Kotniski (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Whitespace
One nicely (or boringly) unpolitical issue is that in the history section, because there are more maps than text, I'm seeing whitespace where it shouldn't be, such as directly under section titles, which makes the whole thing very messy. Are other browsers/monitors also showing this? Does anyone want to try to fix it?--Kotniski (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Which browser are you using? For me both in Mozilla and Safari it looks fine. Overall I think the maps are a nice illustration of the areas under consideration but I can see how it could mess with the layout.  Volunteer Marek   01:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As in most cases when someone asks in what browser are problems occurring, the answer's Internet Explorer (8).--Kotniski (talk) 07:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Raising One or Two Specific Issues Regarding the "Table" and the "List"
Kotniski, let's follow up on your suggestion and get to the bottom of the aforementioned table and list. The white space issue will be more easily resolved, although personally I think it's quite a minor issue. We can start with Skäpperöd's table. What's confusing about it? Dr. Dan (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

How about...
we continue to focus on the issues under discussion. It seems like we were getting somewhere. Let's keep it that way and ignore the usual derailing.  Volunteer Marek  01:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to point out the POV problems that are present in a small subsection of the article
This is the text:

''The history of the Eastern Pomeranian areas around Gdańsk and Lauenburg-Bütow (Lębork and Bytów), which are also within the Recovered Territories, differed somewhat from the history of the bulk of Pomerania. They are situated in the former region of Pomerelia, which was ruled by the Samborides dynasty who, unlike the Griffins, did not join the Holy Roman Empire and remained part of Polish state, loosening in the course of the 13th century. After the death of the last Samboride in 1294, the Polish kings Przemysł II of Poland and Wenceslaus II and Władysław I for a short period ruled Pomerelia in conflict with Brandenburg, who also claimed the region. The Teutonic takeover of Gdańsk (Danzig) followed in 1308, and after that Danzig and Lauenburg-Bütow became part of the monastic state of the Teutonic Knights until the Second Peace of Thorn (1466), when Royal Prussia became subject to the Polish Crown (though with substantial autonomy). Lauenburg-Bütow was handed over to the Griffin dukes and was a Polish fief for most of the time until the First Partition of Poland (1772). Danzig became a part of West Prussia in the Second Partition (1793), and was made the Free City of Danzig after World War I.''

Let's take it sentence by sentence.

The history of the Eastern Pomeranian areas around Gdańsk and Lauenburg-Bütow (Lębork and Bytów), which are also within the Recovered Territories, differed somewhat from the history of the bulk of Pomerania.

-what is this "bulk of Pomerania" that the text is referring to? This so called "Pomeralia"? Mmmm.... sure, but the history of Szczecin Pomerania is also different from that of Rugen Pomerania or whatever you wanna call it. This gets to the basic difference in what is called "Pomerania" in (some) German historiography vs. what is generally called Pomerania - the coast of the Baltic.

-unlike the Griffins, did not join the Holy Roman Empire  - already addressed above.

-Note how the text manages to skip from the "troubles" of the 14th century right to the partitions of Poland in the 18th century basically ignoring four hundred years.

-Note the over extensive emphasis on "the Land of Lauenburg and Butow" (I think there's a more historical name for the region) which was, all things considering, a minor slither of territory, but because it was under German Prussian rule for a longer period it receives the majority of attention here. Honestly, this is not an article on Laueneberg and Butow so who cares?  Volunteer Marek  02:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you're basically right about this section of text. However some of the other historical sections give too much emphasis on the periods of Polish possession. (Like this one does too, I suppose, putting a lot of emphasis on the possession by Polish kings - one of whom wasn't Polish - in a period of just 14 years.) I'm sure there's some way of tidying up all this historical information - this article isn't going to have the history of all these regions as a main topic, it should be very briefly summarizing them, giving links to the main articles on the various regions (or their history, if separate), and pointing out in particular - but without superfluous detail - the periods of Polish rule that formed the basis for the "Recovered" designation.--Kotniski (talk) 07:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the two of us have respectively had goes at rewriting this section; what do people think of it now? (I retitled it to "Gdańsk, Lębork and Bytów", since from the point of view of this article we're coming at it from the angle of the history of this part of the "Recovered Territories", i.e. the Polish names seem most appropriate in the most general heading, though someone might have a better idea.)--Kotniski (talk) 09:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it's much better now. Now for the rest of the problems...  Volunteer Marek   05:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Emphasis in "Pomerania"
In the Pomerania section it says "Following centuries would see Germanisation of the area and discrimination of Slavic population. Despite this, a Polish minority existed till XX century and was active in several organisations upkeeping the Polish cultural and national existance before the Second World War." Ignoring the obvious grammatical errors, do we have sources for the "discrimination"? And were these organizations really of such great importance that they need to be mentioned here, in this very short summary? --Kotniski (talk) 11:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * For discrimination and Germanisation-yes we have the source:Tadeusz Białecki, "Historia Szczecina" Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1992 Wrocław. page 95
 * Out of curiosity what are the grammatical errors?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I request full quotes and context of those quotes here. Jan Maria Piskorski (1999): Pommern im Wandel der Zeiten, pp. 90, 91, says that there were no ethnic conflicts during the assimilation of the Slavs into the German Pomeranian society: The second problem is that the "despite this..." sentence suggests that there was a large Polish minority in the duchy/province of Pomerania all the time "till XX century" when in fact the (very small) Polish minority was a result of modern era, economically motivated immigration. Even the highest estimates which include the Polish minority of the part of Posen-West Prussia attached to Pomerania in 1938 place the Polish minority in the province at below 30,000, other estimates put their number well below 10,000, compared to an overall population of roughly 1.7 to 1.8 million. For "upkeeping" of "Polish cultural and national existance before the Second World War", cf. Buchholz et al (1999: 444), with regard to the Reichstag elections of 1932: "For the Polish list, 532 votes were issued, that is 0.04% of the 1066884 total valid votes." ("Für die polnische Liste wurden 1932 in Pommern 532 Stimmen abgegeben, das sind bei 1o66884 abgegebenen gültigen Stimmen o,o4 Prozent.")
 * p. 90: "Neither in the 13th nor in the 14th century, any records can be found about ethnic conflicts in the Pomeranian sources." ("Weder im 13., noch im 14. Jahrhundert finden sich in pommerschen Quellen Berichte über ethnische Konflikte") ;
 * p. 91: "From ethnic conflicts, nothing is heard even during social unrest in the Pomeranian towns, although, presumably, there was no lack of Slavs in the suburbs of e.g. Stettin. Obviously, ethnic contrasts receded in the face of social conflicts." ("Über ethnische Konflikte hört man nicht einmal während sozialer Unruhen in den pommerschen Städten, obwohl es vermutlich noch im 14. Jahrhundert in den Vorstädten z. B. Stettins an Slawen nicht fehlte. Offensichtlich traten ethnische Gegensätze gegenüber sozialen Konflikten zurück")

Misleading sentences like the one discussed here are one of the reasons I think it is better for the history section to go, per WP:SYNTH. Retrospective teleology is one of the main fallacies of nationalist era historiography and should not have a place here. The article should stay focussed on the scholary assessment of the "recovered territories." Skäpperöd (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I already provided the Bialecki quote for you over at Szczecin, so why are you asking for it again? There's also other sources out there which go into more detail. Note also, as has already been pointed out before, that "no ethnic conflicts" is not the same as "no ethnic discrimination". There most certainly was extensive discrimination against the Slav population in both the presently-German territories of Polabia and Saxony, as well as in Late Middle Ages Pomerania (and later). But these didn't erupt into full blown ethnic conflicts, partly because a lot of other stuff was going on at the time, and partly because without backing from Poland after 13-14th century, there was little chance for success.  Volunteer Marek   17:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A history section that explains why the territories are recovered and what is their connection to Poland is in order, although it shouldn't be bloated. As to the quotes-they have already been provided. Regarding political votes-yes political parties representing Poles suffered in increasing violence during Nazi era and radicalisation of German society, but political votes don't tell us about existance of national minorites which can cast their votes on other parties-political votes are thus not identical to ethnic numbers. In any case a paragraph about pre-war Polish minorities to note that Poles lived in these territories is in order.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The quote provided here does not even explain half of the first sentence, and nothing of the second one. Even if Bialecki is taken for granted, the quote does not source any discrimination of Slavs by anyone except for some merchants from Stettin, and it is even arguable that in the 14th century the discrimination of Slavs by some guilds was not so much an ethnic, but a social distinction, since the dukes kept the (non-assimilated) Slavs under an unfavourable law making them the lowest social class. (redacted sig) 15:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear IP - first of all you might want to register. Second of all, I advise you to read WP:Synth and WP:ORwhich is what you are doing here. As you yourself admitted discrimination happened, and you confirmed this in your very comment. As to your reaction and thoughts-they can't be used as source.Cheers.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, is this one author's report of discrimination sometime in the 14th century really so relevant to Pomerania post-1945 that it needs to form part of this short summary paragraph?--Kotniski (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We do not need to report all information,I agree with that. What I am talking a brief summary on how these territories were lost,their list and previous connection to Poland and situation of native population is fine with me.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Soviet confiscations for war reparations
I believe mention should be made of the wholesale Soviet confiscations for war reparations prior to the Polish takeover in mid 1945. This removal of machinery and livestock lowered the economic potential of this region and caused friction between the Poles and Soviets. My source is the Schieder commission report. The Polish and German editors should have no problem agreeing on this this point. I did a paper on the Polish economy back in 1971 and found the article lacking in this regard. The Medieval history of the region was of little or no concern to the Polish leadership in 1945, running power stations and putting Kilbasa on Polish plates was the top priority.--Woogie10w (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * To the extent that some editors like to replace "by the Soviets" by "by the Poles" despite all the sources to the contrary (echos of MRP?) this is a legitimate concern, though I don't see as much of that kind of thing here as opposed to some other articles. Still the subject should probably be brought up and discussed in the text.  Volunteer Marek   00:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me --Woogie10w (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

history section
I've reinstated the history section - moved by Skapperod - to the beginning of the main text. It makes no sense... no logical sense from the point of view of article readability, to have a section which is "background" come at the end of the text rather than the beginning. It's like putting the "Introduction" at the end of a book. The only way it makes sense I guess is if someone is trying to hide and demphasize information they cannot legitimately delete (at least it wasn't hatted after being moved).

Also the section basically defines WHAT these territories were which is crucial.

Also also looking at the article again let me restate that Kamusella as a source should be removed, but also de Zayas, in light of his accepting awards from sketchy "institutes".  Volunteer Marek  22:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree it makes more sense for the history-to-1945 section to come first, after the lead - that way the article retains chronological order (really, the whole article is history).--Kotniski (talk) 10:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

this part
Wolff and Cordell say that that along with the debunking of communist historiography, the recovered territories thesis has been discarded

Ok, what the hey is the "recovered territories thesis"? The article doesn't talk about a "recovered territories thesis" anywhere else, it doesn't define it nor is the subject of the article the "recovered territories thesis". Now, the source being provided might actually discuss something like that so it makes sense FOR THE SOURCE to refer to it, but this Wikipedia article is not the source itself so it makes no sense to use this kind of terminology torn out and awkwardly glued into this article.

This is also a problem with a too-close paraphrasing of a source which may or may not be problematic from a copy vio point of view. But just because you "faithfully" reproduce a snippet from a source does not mean you've observed NOR, NPOV and also good writing style.  Volunteer Marek  23:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this is the mythical source I wanted to see that claims a global conspiracy where the territories in question never were part of Poland before-as mainstream history shows-but this was invented by communist propaganda which manipulated historians and history books all over the world? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Other "recovered' territories.
As this article is focused on relations between Poland and Germany, I don't know if it would be appropriate to make reference to similar disputes, such as Serbia's with regard to Kosovo, and the background to the Cambodian–Thai border dispute. Perhaps it would suffice to add See also revanchism and irredentism. -- Pawyilee (talk) 08:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Pomerania: figure caption
If in the figure caption "(orange area)" is placed behind "Province of Pomerania", then the misunderstanding may occur that the orange area itself does represent the complete territory of the province,  what, however, is not the case. I think, therefore, it is better to place "(orange area)" behind "annexed fraction" so as to counteract any misunderstanding from the very begimning. - - Kaiser von Europa (talk) 17:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'm sure there's a better way of phrasing this whole caption, though - just can't think of it at the moment.--Kotniski (talk) 09:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What about something like : "The Province's of Pomerania annexed part (orange) in the Recovered Territories (green)."? - - Kaiser von Europa (talk) 11:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

B-class review
This article still needs more cites for a B-class. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 18:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Not in the source
Re. The edit summary says keep text sourced to scholarly article. Yes, there is a inline citation to a scholarly article placed at the end of the text. But there is nothing in that scholarly article which supports the text being inserted. There is nothing in it about how "Joseph Stalin at the 1943 Tehran Conference rejected Polish rule over Ukrainians and Belorussians. ". Indeed, the article is mostly about how the Allies came to accept the Piast concept, not Stalin. And phrasing it in the way that is being inserted is obviously POV and contradicts how Stalin's position is usually represented in scholarly sources (which is probably why it's actually NOT in this source either).  Volunteer Marek  01:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Germanisation of placenames in the late thirties
In 1938, the Nazi government changed thousands of toponyms (especially names of cities and villages) of Polish origin to the newly invented German place-names; about 50% of the existing names were changed in that year alone.

The source given is just Bernd Martin, p.55. As Martin wrote more than just one book or paper, the note should either be amended (anybody here who knows the exact source?) or deleted, as the Germanisation of placenames is more or less common knowledge anyway.Unoffensive text or character (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)