Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:23, 22 December 2010

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Poland Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Middle Ages Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Cities This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities Hanseatic League (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hanseatic League, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Hanseatic LeagueWikipedia:WikiProject Hanseatic LeagueTemplate:WikiProject Hanseatic LeagueHanseatic League

Largest Seaport

This article says Szczecin is the largest seaport but the article on Gdansk makes the same claim. Which is correct? 63.26.192.3 (talk) 06:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)adam

Szczecinski.Studenciak.pl

I have decided to remove this link . Why?

1. This page is in Polish and doesn't contain vital nor important informations.
2. This page/magazine is not even popular.
3. There are dozens of such great, cool, super, fresh and funny pages/magazines. Many of them have some relations to Szczecin. Should we put all of them here?
4. Szczecin article shouldn't be used as internet directory.
5. Szczecin article shouldn't be used as advertising board.
6. IMO it's SPAM.

Wally77 09:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Stettin vs Szczecin

Please do not assume that MOST POLISH PEOPLE try to make Szczecin the English form. Many people tend to think that German names are some kind of taboo in Poland. That is not the truth. Most cities use their German names in German language publications. Warschau, Breslau, Danzig and Stettin are all used. The crusade against foreing names is made by a very small, but loud right wing minority. And anyway this is just one sided action on their behalf. They enforce the name Wilno, though it's an occupant's name, as Poland occupied Vilnius, but they don't want German's to call Wroclaw - Breslau. That kind of people should just be ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.150.49 (talk) 22:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The name Stettin remains the non-slavic name for this city. There is little reason to try and insist on adoption of a name that is complex to pronounce in many languages. I see nothing helpful for Central Europe, or for Stettin in the present or the future in creating confusion with a different name. In Scotland we retain Gaelic names both on signposts often along with the English equivalent. There is no requirement for one culture to dominate the other. Why would we need to go back and do this? For what end? Hills remain in their Gaelic names, and those of us who are non Gaels continue to use these out of respect, interest and conciliation with the horrors of the past when assymilation was the rage. To insist in the renaming of Stettin seems to me to be confrontational by denying ordinary folk of their past family lines and achievements. To try and do this must be an unrealistic and devisive project in modern Europe where we are trying to learn the essential nature of diversity and it's role in harmony and progress. People in Europe will prosper without barriers. Insisting on name pronouncing crteates barriers.

Gavin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavin1267 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC) _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ This page should be officially now listed by Misplaced Pages as in dispute. It is quite evident mostly Polish people are trying to enforce the Polish Slavic name of Szczecin as a distorted perverse form of English. (This must be suspected as being for political reasons). The absolute majority of native English speakers understand in every instance that the Slavic language version of the city name is not phonetic to us and so extremely difficult to pronounce in English. Why? Because the Slavic name is NOT English full stop.

For several hundreds of years we English speakers have used "Stettin" as this city name on the Oder river. Since 1945 the city was annexed by Poland but this does not apply to our English language usage for the city name.

At all times I respect Polish place names for anywhere in the World as that is their language and their right to apply it so for themselves and their diaspora. This applies to French and Spanish etc etc etc. In this regard I would kindly ask Polish people to please respect our English language and please not try to play silly political games with us with an offensive insistence that the Slavic name of Szczecin be used by us because again and again!! it is Not English.

Therefore I and my many English and American friends consider this page about Stettin to be in official dispute based on what is becoming aggressive Polish political and nationalist activity.

Sincerely

Filsdegilbert (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)John _______________________________________________________

There is no official dispute listing I'm afraid. It also does not count as a dispute on Misplaced Pages if we have one vocal editor against a solid consensus. Especially if that vocal editor is not responding to the large amount of evidence that his position is incorrect. Please click HERE and check through the links posted for you - the majority of English-language sources today use Szczecin in the English language. Companies, encyclopaedias, newspapers, news agencies, the lot. Even those not based in Poland. This is the point you are failing to address over and over and over again.

It's not a political point - we are just copying the common usage in the English-speaking world. And once more - what makes you think it is mainly Polish people enforcing this here? There seems to be no evidence of that at all - if there is, please post it here for us to see.

It will also make it easier to continue dialogue if you sign in every time you edit or make a comment, and if you sign your posts by wirting ~~~~ at the end of your post before saving it. Thanks, Knepflerle (talk) 09:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Why does the English name for the city not appear? This is the English Misplaced Pages is it not? Stettin is the English language name and should appear everywhere. Misplaced Pages has become a joke -Yet Again!! stan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.139.240 (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I have never heard any English speaker refer to Stettin as Szczecin, probably because that is somewhat difficult to spell/say as compared to the German version. Seeing as this is an English encyclopedia, I added the English spelling of the word to the spellings section... might just want to do German/English instead. Antman 23:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Please read discussions at Talk:Szczecin/Archive 1 and Talk:Szczecin/Archive 2 (keyword: Stettin). Please see "Gdansk/Vote and this page" section. And then... shhh.... Don't wake the Demons of the City Name... They should sleep... Forever. :-) --Wally77 10:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Poles on the English Misplaced Pages are eager and happy to rename the English names Oder to Odra, Danzig immediately to Gdansk, and Stettin to Szczecin. Stettin... is the ENGLISH spelling, whether that makes people mad or not, and logically, I can see why, it is VERY difficult for people who speak English to say. Last year I asked 19 people on my street if they could even pronounce Szczecin and each had a disappointing time trying, with 5 or 6 even giving up, and I still have heard no one pronounce it correctly, actually, I have heard no one even pronounce it fully at all. German and English are closely related whether you like it or not, since they are both Germanic languages, and why a difficult name like "Szczecin" would be chosen from a non-related, Slavic, language is completely strange and in fact is illogical, even though Polish nationalists on the English Misplaced Pages try to enforce Polish names for everything, including towns in Germany, to the English versions expense. People, may I ask....WHATEVER HAPPENED TO REASON? I even tried to explain how Czech Okres, German Kreis, Slovak Okruzi, Russian Krai, Serb Kraj, Pokrajina, Krajina, Ukraine, and Raion are all related, but a few users would not have it, and I have had a hard time of figuring out why.

Just to show you the Names of _______ in Germanic Languages:

Swedish:Stettin Danish:Stettin German:Stettin Dutch Low Saxon: Stettin Low German: Stettin And in truth the traditional English version is actually "Stettin"

Czech Uses Stetin and Slovak uses Stetin

Italian is Stettino

Might I remind everyone that the Stettin Article has NO REFERENCES!The city which was part of Germany even after World War I, and supposed to stay a part of Germany after World War II, and was over 85% German, and was instead annexed by the Soviet union and "rewarded to Poland". By the way, this was all a tactic to expand the Soviet union, Not to help Poland. Thus the 85% population of Germans was then forced to leave, and was conveniently exchanged with Poles. (Something that Winston Churchill strongly hated.) Infact strangely, the name he calls Stettin by is evident in this quote in about 1950:

"From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent."-Winston Churchill, describing the Iron Curtain dividing Europe due to Soviet hyperimperialization.

In fact, sadly, The official Website doesn't even use the Official German Stettin on the German version. They instead use polish in place of it, without telling anyone that no one calls it that in German... (www.szczecin.pl/inwestor/de/)

A few other quotes showing the English name, Stettin:

"It would appear that the natural frontier of Russia runs from Danzig or perhaps Stettin to Trieste." English Translation of Friedrich Nietzsche

"For my part, I have heard the composition at Stettin," - Fraulein Mosebach.

In fact, I once heard on the History Channel, someone use the name "Stettin". And gee, everyone also decides to throw out the other websites that use the only English name, in fact this site, , is the English version of the Polish site.... and a Genaeology site which is run by a Pole: Taddeusz Hubert Piłat, and this one too it Even uses the English name on the English version: Hell, heres a treaty with the correct English name: . The Dept. of Navy uses the name Stettin for the town... the Correct name. Even in my National Geographic Collegiate atlas of the world (2006!!) the name Stettin is used... The correct English Name. A Travel site...Using Correct English. . And another sites using the CORRECT English name:

Another article using the Correct Name!:

And another

Even the town in Wisconsin was named after it http://en.wikipedia.org/Stettin,_Wisconsin. Hmm maybe we should attempt to cover up its original name as well? And a ship named after it...

See these articles which also use the correct English name for the town: http://en.wikipedia.org/Stettin_%28icebreaker%29 (No one has even bothered to make a disambiguation page for this until a user recently did) [http://en.wikipedia.org/USS_Pocahontas_%28SP-3044%29

This site Gives Polish names first, and English names Second: ("Odra (Oder)";"Wisla (Vistula)";"Szczecin (Stettin)")

Britannica(])..... Gives it as "Szczecin, OR Stettin, Poland"

Hell you can even tell on some articles where someone has hurriedly attempted to add the Polish name : http://en.wikipedia.org/Carl_August_Dohrn (quote:Born at Stettin(Szczecin Carl August was the son of Heinrich Dohrn,...; someone forgot to add the parentheses..)

You know I would really love for ultimate neutrality to kick in but its very hard with all the manipulating around certain articles... Someone recently vandalized GDANSKs article and removed DANZIG from the double name agreement syntax.... -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 18:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• My sentiments exactly. I've only been editing Misplaced Pages for 2 months and I'm already baffled by the level of nationalistic noise on talk pages. But I guess it goes with the territory; as long as this is an open encyclopedia, it'll attract nutjobs. I would have no problem with renaming Szczecin to Stettin because, as you say (and support with abundant proof), that's the city's name in English, end of story. On English Misplaced Pages we have Florence and not Firenze, Venice and not Venezia, Naples and not Napoli, and the Italians don't seem bothered by that. But try to apply the exact same rule to Poland and you'll have them chewing at your ass before you can say "Chrząszcz brzmi w trzcinie". Until there's a clear policy that says names on English Misplaced Pages must always be listed in English first, and that anyone who breaks the rule gets banned immediately, I don't think we'll be going anywhere, at least not in articles about Poland. I say give them time, it's only been 60 years since the war, don't rub salt into open wounds... ;-) --Targeman 19:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

60 years? Mikołaj Kopernik, famous Polish astronomer, was born over 500 years ago, and some still insist on calling him something else. Did I say 500 years? Over 1000 years ago, cities on the Baltic Sea had the very same name they have today, including diącritics. Too bad nobody bothered to write them down then, but people make ameńds nowadays on English Misplaced Pages. Since 1946, Poland is the very same it was 1000 earlier. This can be easily proven, e.g. by totally neutral maps published in 1917.  :-/ -- Matthead      O       00:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Precisely. Many people don't know this, but Kopernik (note the typically Polish name) is also famous for his love letters, written in immaculate Polish to his Polish mistress, in which he compares her breasts to the fertile hills of his beloved Poland. That the letters haven't survived till our times is yet another huge German conspiracy, just like their claims that Szczecin was German for a millennium. Keep your filthy claws off God's favorite country, Krauts: its great leader will stop you dirty Teutons from invading again :P --Targeman 02:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Alright, I've protected the article. I notice no discussion of this stuff on the talk page. Good work guys. john k 02:44, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

John, I agree with the protection, and it should also happen to the articles for Gdansk, Poznan, Wroclaw and any other simalar articles where this edit war occurs. But rather than hashing it out repetitively on each Talk page, can we do so on a single page and develop a standard? Perhaps the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Cities is the best place? Bwood 03:30, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There's been much discussion of this before. We never seem to be able to work anything out. But, yes, I think that would be the best way to handle this. john k 04:50, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, I'll start a section at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Cities tomorrow. Something like "Standard treatment of name issues of Polish towns with significant German histories", perhaps. It should also apply to those towns that were occupied by Austria and Russia, as well as other places that I'm less familiar with. Bwood 06:14, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Don't deal with it separately from "Standard treatment of towns with significant Polish history" like Hrodna, Vilnius, Lviv, Kiev etc. Otherwise we will have a problem again. We will please the Poles, but upset Ukrainians, Lithuanians and Belaruses, or the other way around. Space Cadet 06:30, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Are you saying to make it more general? or less general? If more general, then something like "Standard treatment of name issues of towns with significant histories of occupation by neighboring states"? Or should it be even more general? Bwood 06:43, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Very good question. And to make it even harder: Szczecin was never under German, and Hrodna, Vlnius, Lviv, Kiev under Polish "occupation". Space Cadet 07:00, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yup, making it more general would be a good idea. We should avoid double standards. ] 07:00, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

I concur (for once) with Space Cadet and Halibutt. I'm not certain how to formulate it properly, though. Perhaps we could just have it on Central/Eastern European city names, or some such. john k 07:38, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, we could include the Hungarian/Romanian/Slovakian and Czech/German naming issues as well. ] 10:12, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Slovene/German issues would be worthwhile, as would German/Hungarian/Slovakian issues (i.e. Bratislava). john k 12:21, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, I'll throw a project name on the section, and then let's continue this discussion about scope. Give me about an hour.. Bwood 03:24, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The project is located here: WikiProject Cities/Names issues. ] 16:24, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

Unprotection

This protection (which has gone on since September 10) was only ever supposed to be temporary. ] 20:36, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

All protections are only ever supposed to be temporary. Seeing as no solutions have been reached on either this talk page, or the general policy page where naming issues like the ones that caused this page to be protected are meant to be discussed, I would suggest it continue to be protected. john k 20:55, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I strongly agree. The bellicose stimulation by edit wars are a far greater danger for Misplaced Pages and Wikipedians than the protection. Changes can of course be discussed and agreed on on this talk page regardless of if the page is protected or not.
--Ruhrjung 20:08, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC)

When is this page going to be unprotected? Because I was going to add this article to Category:Coastal cities, and I can't do that if it's tied up. - Gilgamesh 00:51, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Because of page protection can admin add City Hall picture ? Image:Szczecin_urzadmiejski.jpg

New infobox

I'm preparing a new set of infoboxes for all the Polish cities. I'd appreciate if one of the admins replaced the current table with the following:

Template:Infobox Poland

Also note that there are lots of useful PD pics in the Polish and German articles. ] 22:47, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Done! ] 07:08, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Copyright problem

The photo of Stocznia is allegedly Copyvio (see claim in Polish Misplaced Pages: pl:Dyskusja Wikipedysty:Jonasz). Nevertheless let's wait until further clarification. Przepla 21:07, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sound file

Can we get a sound file of the pronunciation? The one we've got my copy of WinAmp tells me has no duration, and it makes no sound. Teucer

No problem, I'll fix that. ] 10:02, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Well, both Foobar and Audacity show no problems with the previous file, but I re-uploaded a new version anyway. Does it work now? ] 10:08, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Yep. Thanks. Teucer

Please, whoever is fiddling with this entry, get real and refrain from saying that the then-wholly and totally German city of Stettin was "liberated" by the Red Army. The Germans DREADED the approach of the Red Army, with good reason -- both in terms of what the German Army and SS, etc., had done in the Soviet Union, and the revenge the Red Army already was exacting for those atrocities in eastern Germany.

Stettin, Germany (today: Szczecin, Poland) was no more "liberated" by the Red Army than Warsaw was "liberated" by the German Army. Both were conquered, with dire results for their inhabitants. Such were the savage and retributive dynamics of WWII in the east.

You can say Warsaw was "liberated" by the Red Army, though some might challenge that; but no German city, particularly those east of the postwar Oder-Neisse border, was "liberated." Need we mention that ALL of old Stettin's inhabitants were either killed or expelled? Is that "liberating"? Give me a break!

Sca 01:07, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User Sca's changes

Please do not start a revert war about Szczecin. The language you are using is quite POV and really against the very neutral tone of the whole article. "Repatriated" is a much better word to describe what has happened after the war to the German people living in Stettin and sure "conquered" to describe Red Army’s liberation of the city is too strong a word. I will not revert the article to its former version yet, if you don’t agree with my wording please suggest what you would consider to be appropriate but please note I do not agree with the current version.

Conquered is the neutral word here, before it was German, afterwards it was Russian, the process used force. And: conquer: to gain or acquire by force of arms. Liberate, on the other hand, implies that the city was grateful for the russian advance, which is simply not true. -- Chris 73 Talk 04:23, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure that the Russian forces were grateful that they have taken the city. Anyway "conquer: take possession of without permission or take with force, as after a conquest or invasion" - it was neither a conquest nor an invasion. What about the following "until 1945, when it has fallen to the Red Army and became a part of Poland". BTW - I don't think there is a need to say it has fallen/been captured/conquered at all, a better way to say would be "until 1945 when the Nazi Germany was defeated and it became a part of Poland".--Roo72 04:35, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gdansk/Vote and this page

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that according to Talk:Gdansk/Vote/Notice we should have the Szczecin (Stettin) in the header, don't we? Przepla 21:06, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Correct. I added the (Stettin) to the first occurrence of the name. -- Chris 73 Talk 23:06, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Looks like someone changed it again, because it's not that way right now. Szczecin (German: Stettin) seems ideal to me. Olessi 05:30, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Current border

Stettin under the Potsdam conference was supposed to remain in Germany. It is west of the Oder river. So legally is this city still part of Germany under Polish administration ? I am curious to the exact details about this if anyone can enlighten me? Thank you. Sean.

Although the Potsdam conference set general guidelines as to the border, it was left for future border delimitation and a peace treaty. Since no peace treaty was ever signed between Poland and Germany (technically, if it wasn't for the 1945 unconditional surrender, Poland and Germany would still be at war, much like Japan and Russia), the border was based on joint Polish-Soviet-Interallied commission line drawn in 1945. It was later accepted by GDR and by FRG in 1970. Finally, in 1990 the acceptance of the border was one of the prerequisites for the unification of Germany (as stated by the 4+2 conference) and was confirmed during the OSCE summit in Paris that year. Halibutt 19:09, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Expelling the German population in 1944-1945 a "repatriation" to Germany ?

"Expulsion" or "repatriation" is a euphemism for ethnic cleansing of territory that had been German for several hundreds of years. Many now would not want to change today's borders but one has to deal honestly with historical facts. An estimated 3 Million+ German Cilvilians (!) have lost their lives during the years 1944 and following. Most of them were women and children.

In the aftermath of World War II the city became a part of Poland...

Stettin was not part of Poland before 1945. The fact that Polish dukes were involved in the war actions in the 12th/13th century concerning the town does not make it a part of Poland. At the same time, Danish dukes were involved, and the city even came under Danish influence for some decades. This also did not make the town a part of Denmark. Concerning the population, this was probably mixed in the beginning years (Wends and Germans). The fact that Wends were Slavs does not make them Polish, however. I am quite sure that my changes will soon be reverted, and I will not participate in an edit war. I just wanted to have this comment documented on the discussion page, for the sake of the historic truth. By the way, this has nothing to do with the fact that Stettin is today called Szczecin and as such is part of Poland. This, however, should not lead to a falsification of its history.

The English language word used for this disputed city is the same as in German which is 'Stettin'.

Inclusion of Stettin in Poland

I have doubts about this part of the current article:

... it was undecided if the city would be in Poland, or in the Soviet occupation zone in Germany. In the aftermath of World War II the city became, unexpectedly and contrary to the Potsdam Conference, part of Poland due to the Polish army simply taking it.

In researching a paper on the expulsion of the Germans, I found that:

1. Inclusion of Stettin in the future Poland was demanded by Stefan Jedrichowski, propaganda minister of the Soviet-sponsored Polish National Committee, in an article in Pravda on Dec. 18, 1944.

2. At Yalta, on Feb. 6, 1945, Stalin put forward the border demands published in Pravda two months earlier. The next day, Molotov did the same, specifying inclusion of Stettin in Poland.

3. Article IX of the Potsdam Accords, issued on Aug. 2, 1945, says:

"The three heads of Government agree that, pending the final determination of Poland's western frontier, the former German territories east of a line running from the Baltic Sea immediately west of Swinemünde, and thence along the Oder River to the confluence of the western Neisse River and along the western Neisse to the Czechoslovak frontier ... shall be under the administration of the Polish State and for such purposes should not be considered as part of the Soviet zone of occupation in Germany."

This last point documents the de facto determination of Poland's western border. Note that the language of Article IX referring to west of Swinemünde (now Świnoujście) corresponds to the present border west of ex-Stettin (now Szczecin), indicating that however reluctant the Western Allies may have been to accept this part of the border de jure at the time, they had as a practical matter acquiesced in the Soviet/Polish demand for Stettin, and should not have been surprised that the city was taken over by the Poles shortly thereafter.

Sca 03:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Johann Friedrich

The Johann Friedrich is not the good one. The one that the link of the article refers to is from the 19th century when he should be active during the 16th c. I don't know what is to be done in that case. Moreover I hardly found any valuable data one this man. If anyone can work on that, an article about him would solve the problem.

The article about the Dukes of Pomerania refers to Jan Fryderyk that is yet to be written.

Informations can be found in German on http://www.ruegenwalde.com/greifen/jofri/jofri.htm

Moreover, informations (in German) on all the Szczecin Dukes can be found on this adress http://www.ruegenwalde.com/greifen/ (index of the names). Arnaud Bourgeois 22:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Dukes of Szczecin

Very interesting...

Till I read this I didn't know that among Dukes of Szczecin were Casimir III of Poland (April 30, 1310 – November 5, 1370), Johann Friedrich (May 5, 1836–1917), Philip II of Macedon (382–336 BC) and Francis I, Holy Roman Emperor(8 December 1708 – 18 August 1765). And they managed to do it in this sequance :-)

Other dukes, especially Barnims, are also omitted, mixed up and/or out of order

Geopiet 16:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Is Szczecin near Bialoblott?

Hello,
This is a bit off topic, but I am wondering if anyone has ever heard of the town of Bialoblott? I have an ancestor who's immigration papers to the US from 1913 say that he was born in Bialoblott, Germany in 1894. I am wondering if this is close to Szczecin because he lists his last place of residence as Stettein, Germany (sic). I've looked everywhere I can thing of, but I can't find any info about Bialoblott so I'm wondering if this is just another town who's name changed after the war?
Thanks for any help,
Tommycw1 12:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Bialoblott is actually a Germanased version of a Polish name Białe Błota (White Muds), a city near Bydgoszcz (Bromberg). It's nowhere near Szczecin. Space Cadet 12:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Space Cadet, I started an English wikipedia article on Białe Błota_(Bydgoszcz). It is mostly from what I could translate form the German language article since I speak a little German, but I'm sure that there is much more in the Polish language article, unfortunately I don't speak polish. I invite you (AND EVERYONE OF COURSE) to contribute to this.

I do have a question for you. You said that Bialoblott is a Germanized version of Białe Błota. In the German language version it says that the German name is Weißfelde or White Fields. Do you know why there would be a Germanized version as well as a different word for the town? I also find it interesting that the German and Polish mean almost the same thing. Is it by any chance that Błota could also mean Fields?

Tommycw1 22:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Błota cannot mean fields. At least not in Polish. Let me do a more thorough research on Weißfelde and then get back to you. Space Cadet 13:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Got it! My mistake. Bialoblott is a Germanised version of Białobłoty near Grudziądz (Graudenz), before the WW I in West Prussia. Still nowhere near Stettin (Szczecin). Let me continue, though. Space Cadet 13:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'm back. Weißfelde is Białe Błota and Bialoblott is Białobłoty. Space Cadet 13:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Me again. I checked the Polish WIKI. There is 6 villages in Poland called Białe Błota and 3 called Białobłoty. All 9 were in Germany before WW I. None near Szczecin. I guess we'll never find your ancestor's birth place. Space Cadet 14:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Białe Błonia instead of Białe Błota. "Błonia" tanslates as "fields", "wet fields" to be precise, hence "błota" as "mud" perhaps... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geopiet (talk • contribs) 19:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

formerly Stettin

Ok, guys. Why is it a problem to have the formerly Stettin in the Infobox? After all there is a specific field for 'other names'?! And if its ok for Gdansk, why not here? Splette :) 19:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not OK for GDAŃSK either. Space Cadet (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, do you mind to give any reason as well? Thanks... Splette :) 19:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think former names is what the "other names" field is for. Also, this is redundant, as the historical name is already prominently mentioned and explained in the article. If the infobox was meant for historical names it would have a "historical names" field for that. Finally, it smacks on revanchism. How about having "formerly Wilno" in Vilnius infobox ? Do you think Lithuanians would appreciate that ? --Lysy 19:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Besides, "formerly something" is misleading, it suggests that the Polish name was invented in 1945 (as is the case with Königsberg/Kaliningrad), which is not true. You are oh so surprised that I don't give any reason, while you don't provide any at all. Space Cadet (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I love your attitude, Space Cadet. It is not only a former name, but a name by which the city is still known to many today (and I am not talking about just Germans here). And this is why the name should be in the box. That is exactly what the 'other names' field is for. This is exactly why there are two fields at all, official name (Szczecin) and other name. Look, in the end this is all about how to make the article most accessable to the reader. If still many people know the city by the name Stettin, then it should be in the box.

As for Vilnius, I think you can't compare the two. I might be wrong, but I believe the name 'Wilna' was only used in German and even there it isn't used much anymore. I have always known it by 'Vilnius' only and found out about its old German name much later. Beautiful city, by the way! Splette :) 19:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

WILNO was a Polish name Germanized to Wilna. As for your other arguments this is not a "collection of popular stereotypes" but an encyclopedia. The infobox does not contain a designated place for a "former name". Maybe you should create one and while you're at it create an "original name" spot for Dresden, Leipzig, Neustrelitz, Meissen, Cottbus, Lausitz, Berlin etc, etc. What don't you like about my attitude? Please answer. Be consistent and specific. Space Cadet (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Splette. What you are saying is that Stettin is not the historical name, but the modern alternative name of the town. How do you know that it is the name "by which the city is still known to many today (and I am not talking about just Germans here)" ? As for Wilno, it's actually the historical/Polish name of the town, similarly to Stettin being the historical/German name for modern Szczecin. --Lysy 19:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Space Cadet, this is not about steriotypes. The city is still known to many by the name Stettin if you like it or not. Even if the name has changed already quite a while ago. Think of Myanmar, although this is the official name of the country, it is still known to many as Burma and in fact that is also the name that was chosen for its Misplaced Pages article. What I am saying is that we should not ignore the common name Stettin.

Lysy, what I am saying is that the name 'Stettin' is both, the historical name and the name a number of English speakers know the city by (even though its not the correct name of the city, yes I know that but thats not the point here). Here is a source, its in the lead. :) Come on, are you seriously questioning that the name Stettin is still widely used? A google search for english pages gives 1,140,000 English pages for Szczecin and 1,180,000 English pages for Stettin. I still don't see why it harms the article to have the name Stettin in the box as well. Splette :) 20:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The name "Stettin" is mostly used in English in historical context. Or by tourist industry in the context of German tourism. The English name in the modern context is "Szczecin". Stettin is not the alternate modern name in English. --Lysy 20:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

True, officially it is not. Inofficially it is a common name besides the official one. Yes, I am aware that the google search is a bit biased because of historic context hits. All I wanted to show is that we cannot ignore the other name. Here is another example: Even LonelyPlanet gives the name Stettin in brackets when talking about nowadays Szczecin. Splette :) 20:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Splette, Stettin in modern context in English is incorrect usage. Therefore we should not be endorsing it. The LonelyPlanet uses the name in the context of German tourism, which I already mentioned before. --Lysy 20:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I see no evidence that the Germanised form of the Slavic name is common today as name of this Polish city, it is only used in the historical context of Germanisation of that area. Also please read on Original Research policy.--Molobo (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

March 2008

The English language name for this now Polish city is Stettin. It appears 'some' Poles do not want to accept this fact and try to insist we English speakers use the Slavic Polish name. How many times must we tell them it is NOT phonetic to the English speaking tongue to pronounce 'Szczecin'.

This has got nothing to do with Politics and Nationalism so will you please accept the fact English is part of a Germanic origin language group and No you cannot change our language history. Go ahead and keep editing the word Stettin. Just keep doing it as much as you like but the city will always be Stettin in English and even if those idiots in Berlin tell us to stop using it we will laugh at the Germans as well. *English is NOT a Slavic Language*. Do English speakers attack the Slavic Polish language? No we do not so what is happening here with the English Misplaced Pages editors playing politics? Some Poles are really quite rude attacking our language by insisting we use Slavic words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.139.240 (talk) 14:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

THE *ENGLISH* NAME FOR THIS *EUROPEAN CITY* IS =(( S-T-E-T-T-I-N ))= Now... Thats the English Language so please stop this absolute Slavic Joke of us wanting to even try and say this in your nice but so hard to pronounce Slavic language. This is getting so bloody Stupid you would think the Communists are still in W-A-R-S-A-W...... Yes!!!!!!!! Thats WARSAW the ENGLISH for your Capital City...... WONDERFUL.... Would you rather insist that we call it by its Slavic name or is that not suddenly a problem ??????? Oh Dear!!!!!! Is this a Racist Issue ??????

We are all going to be part of a Federal Europe so you are really wasting your time with this insistance that English speakers learn to speak Slavic placenames.. GROW UP - Seriously..

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Filsdegilbert (talk • contribs) 22:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

English Stettin vs Polish Szczecin

This page should be officially now listed by Misplaced Pages as in dispute. It is quite evident mostly Polish people are trying to enforce the Polish Slavic name of Szczecin as a distorted perverse form of English. (This must be suspected as being for political reasons). The absolute majority of native English speakers understand in every instance that the Slavic language version of the city name is not phonetic to us and so extremely difficult to pronounce in English. Why? Because the Slavic name is NOT English full stop.

For several hundreds of years we English speakers have used "Stettin" as this city name on the Oder river. Since 1945 the city was annexed by Poland but this does not apply to our English language usage for the city name.

At all times I respect Polish place names for anywhere in the World as that is their language and their right to apply it so for themselves and their diaspora. This applies to French and Spanish etc etc etc. In this regard I would kindly ask Polish people to please respect our English language and please not try to play silly political games with us with an offensive insistence that the Slavic name of Szczecin be used by us because again and again!! it is Not English.

Therefore I and my many English and American friends consider this page about Stettin to be in official dispute based on what is becoming aggressive Polish political and nationalist activity.

Sincerely

Filsdegilbert (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)John

Have a look at your own talk page - exhaustive evidence has been presented there that you are wrong on this matter, and you don't seem to have responded to it yet. (Incidentally, I'm English too.)--Kotniski (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

(Moving my comment so it will hopefully be seen by User:Filsdegilbert)

Please see my comments here, here and here. All that matters is how often the names are used in English, not how hard they are to pronounce. What's the special English name of Badacsonytomaj? How do you pronounce Amhuinnsuidhe, and what is the official language of the country it is in? Or Nhulunbuy? Or Zzyzx? English doesn't always follow the German example - what do we call Wilno? Exactly what the Lithuanians do, despite it coming from a Baltic language. Yes, we do use Warsaw - but it's an isolated case. The old exonyms for famous cities are a nice tradition which I imagine will persist in the most popular cases (Prague, Vienna, Florence...) but many of the others are losing ground. Going off the press searches I've done, Stettin may well go the same way as Ratisbon, Dort and Mentz. Knepflerle (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The English language name for this city remains 'Stettin'. You can continue to come up with all the excuses dear Sir that you wish to try and reason why a 'Slavic Language' name should be used as a perverse form of actual English. It simply is not proper English usage to do so as 'Slavic names' belong to a totally different language group. You know this but for some strange reason you are insisting in playing a very political card. I am just stating a language fact. You Sir are being insultingly political. You know it and I know it. This page will remain in dispute and I must stress with all sincerity this is nothing against the Polish people or their cultural language. As far as English as a language is concerned we English have the basic right to defend our language against such blatant political motivations regarding place names. The English language name for this city is Stettin. It has been this for hundreds of years. It will remain so for the English speaking people.

May I ask why are you insisting Sir such a continued provocation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filsdegilbert (talk • contribs) 22:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I linked above to a series of answers I made to your posts (here, here and here). In them, a lot of evidence is provided that most English-language sources now use Szczecin, despite its Slavic origin. Please look at them, and explain why we should not use what the majority of English-language sources use. The English language has no academy; English is defined to be what English-speakers use, and the evidence says most English speakers use Szczecin. If you claim otherwise, prove it. Knepflerle (talk) 11:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

MOST ENGLISH SPEAKERS USE THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE MATE.. ; ) wots about you ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.139.240 (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Look at the posts and links. Evidence that English speakers writing in English use Szczecin as well as Stettin. Evidence that they use Szczecin far more often nowadays than Stettin. The evidence contradicts what you believe - so which is incorrect, your view or the evidence? Knepflerle (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

- Why are you such a Political pawn trying to impose a Slavic Polish place name on the historical English language? This to me is purely political which you still try to deny. If you choose to not deny it then say so openly Sir. The historical English language name for this city is Stettin. I am totally amazed and in disbelief that you are fighting this still knowing you are pushing it as an obvious Political agenda. Under the EU legislation regarding European place names you should be ashamed of yourself. You are trying to insist that English speakers are not supposed to use the Historical English language place name for this European city.

Do not think I am going to give up on this dear Sir. You are insulting my language with an outrageous insistence based upon your political grounds that we change our language to appease your sovereignty over this city. You know this is the reason for your arrogance and as a French friend just emailed me. If the English name for Stettin was perhaps 'Stettend' we would not have this conflict with Polish nationalists such as yourself. Once again the problem is OUR name just happens to be the same as the German name. Insane when we consider you still readily accept the German name officially.

Why do you insist on insulting the English speakers right to their historical own language usage ???

I really do not understnad you Sir..

Why are you so arrogant to us?

First and foremost - editing my comments to say something I did not say as you did here is highly misleading - please do not do this again.

You keep asserting without evidence that Stettin is the English name, and ignoring the evidence that I posted to your talkpage HERE of English-language texts that use Szczecin. For your benefit, I will copy the relevant information here:

• Three major encyclopaedia's articles on the city; all begin Szczecin (German: Stettin).

• Where do Ryanair fly to?
• Where was the European Cup's combined events competition last year?
• Who's Marian Jurczyk?
• Where are these shipyards?
• Where's the end of this border?
• Where does the twice-weekly train to Warsaw go?
• Where are the Baltic Sea Corps based

So far we've got the Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encarta, Columbia Encyclopedia, Europe's larget budget airline, The Guardian, The Times, The Independent, The New York Times, The Australian and the BBC all using a term you claim English-speaking people don't use.

English usage changes over time, and the use of Stettin in modern English writing is fast dying out in favour of Szczecin. This is the fact that we should convey in the article - the version you propose is contrary to most other contemporary encyclopaedias and texts English people read. To say that the current English name for this city is Stettin and only Stettin in is provably false on both counts. Historical use of Stettin in English is equally undeniable, but we reflect the change in usage.

Remember, the English language has no academy to determine its usage - English language is what English speakers use and nothing else. In this case what they now use is Szczecin. The EU has no jurisdiction over the English language either - look for legislation if you wish, but you will waste your time. The only expression of any preference on this matter is in the EC style guide here; for Poland, preferential names are only given for NUTS1 and NUTS2 level regions, on pages 111 and 112.

Before slinging around accusations of "Polish nationalist", "arrogant" and so on, please read WP:NPA - your editing privileges may be restricted if this continues. It might well be worth your reading WP:UE and WP:NC(GN) too, to give you a background on how Misplaced Pages decides matters such as this. I don't understand what you said about your French friend emailing you, but believe me the fact this is also the German name makes little difference to me. Knepflerle (talk) 10:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguous paragraph about resettlement

After WWII, Germans were forced to leave, and replaced with Poles. But from where? Our paragraph says from Poznan, but also says with Poles from the Ukraine. Am I mis-reading? This needs, at a minimum, clearer writing:

In 1945 the Polish community in Stettin consisted of a few of citizens from the pre-war population as well as forced laborers from the General government. Stettin was resettled with Poles, most of whom came from around Poznań, where their homes had been destroyed during the German occupation and during fighting on the Eastern Front. The city's population was expelled and then resettled with Poles from Polish areas annexed by the Soviet Union. This settlement process was coordinated by the city of Poznan, and Stettin's name was changed to a Polish name of Szczecin. There is significant Ukrainian minority, which was forced by communist government, after Operation Vistula in 1947 to leave East of Poland.

Were Poles from the Ukraine moved to Poznan or Stettin? Jd2718 (talk) 02:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It was probably both. Additionally what I think the paragraph above wants to say is that some Poles who before the war lived around Poznan moved to Szczecin. So actually all three. But I agree that this is not at all clear.radek (talk) 02:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

broken link

What is linked in the references section as

• Szczecin City Hall, Municipal Government Office, A little bit about the history of the City, Szczecin 2002.

does lead nowhere. I would also appreciate another source backing up the website in the 1080 Piast conquest. The (right now non-existant) website's data about the other Piast period following 1121 was evidently wrong. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Added more on history

Added more on history-deportations of Jews, persecution of Polish minority before the war, corrected the description of the monument.--Molobo (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The source you used for the wartime Polish minority in Stettin is unreliable, since it is published in 1961 Poland. The changes you made regarding the Middle Ages falsified the information. Eg Pomerania and Poland did not "join", that was warfare, and in contrast to your alteration, Stettin was independent long before 1947 (and that was sourced!). Skäpperöd (talk) 06:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I know RS quite well and I assure you that there is nothing there about books published in 1961 Poland.--Molobo (talk) 11:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Then you overread "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.". Skäpperöd (talk) 12:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Nothing about Poland of 1961 just like I said. Do you have any sources disputing the reliability of profesor Bogusław Drewniak; a Polish historian and archivis of Gdańsk University and Poznań University, publisher of such books as

1. Robotnicy sezonowi na Pomorzu Zachodnim 1890-1918 (Poznań 1959),
2. Polonia szczecińska 1890-1939 (współautorstwo Anna Poniatowska) (Poznań 1961),
3. Początki ruchu hitlerowskiego na Pomorzu Zachodnim 1923-1934 (Poznań 1962),
4. Emigracja z Pomorza Zachodniego 1816-1914 (Poznań 1966),
5. Dzieje Koszalina. Red. Bogusław Drewniak i Henryk Lesiński (Poznań 1967),
6. Kultura w cieniu swastyki (Poznań 1969),
7. Teatr i film Trzeciej Rzeszy w systemie hitlerowskiej propagandy (Gdańsk 1972),
8. Das Theater im NS-Staat. Szenarium deutscher Zeitgeschichte 1933-1945 (Düsseldorf 1983),

Member of Polish Pen-Club, member of Fried of the Forschungsstelle fuer die Geschichte des Nationalsozialismus in Hamburg, awarded by Polish Ministry of Education, receiver f medal of Polonia Restituta, promotor of doctor honoris cause for German President Richard von Weizsäcker at University of Gdańsk ? --Molobo (talk) 12:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Update

I updated the article.Main points-slave labour in 1939-1945, Polish minority, repressions against non-Germans, history. References from 1961 restored since no objection was voiced above, but most of the update was based on modern work from 1992, so users concerned about pre-1989 sources should be glad.--Molobo (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• the original Szczecin was sometimes called "Old Szczecin" (Template:Lang-pl). The exonym Szczecin did not even exist back then.

Can't prove a negativeradek (talk) 00:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• While most of the names were Germanised, after 1945 the Slavic-sounding original names of locations in Pomerania were restored alongside with the name of Szczecin - utter nonsense. The original names were to a high degree Slavic (not -sounding), but were not restored. A Polish version of the names was given.
• From 1113 till 1123 Bolesław III Wrymouth managed to regain control of Western Pomerania up to the island of Rugia No. The emperor granted him the areas up to Rugia as a fief without being in control of them, this would only have had an effect when Bogislaw had actually conquered these areas.
• The restoration of Polish rule brought many changes to Szczecin... No restoration. It was the first conquest.
• Those gains were hindered by German aggression and expansion, resulting in weakening of connections of Szczecin with Poland, under the leadership of the German Knight Albrecht, who was a sworn enemy of Slavic presence in the region. Organizing a expedition by German knights and Denmark he plundered the area in the so called Wendish Crusade, burned down settlements and murdered local population before moving on to besiege Szczecin itself. We already have the impact of the Wendish crusade in the article. This addition is nothing but POV, omitting the Polish participation and making it look like a personal racist/nationalist war led by an otherwise unknown knight. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

If that knight is unknown then you should probably nominate his wiki page for deletion radek (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Albert the Bear is not "German Knight Albrecht". If Molobo really meant him, it just shows that he did not use his source right. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

And how do you know this? "Albrecht the Bear" redirects to "Albert the Bear". Sources talk about Albrecht/Albert in this context repeatedly. He was a German Knight. He was an constant enemy of Slavic presence in the area. He tried to besiege Szczecin. etc. etc. etc. If you think the source was misused then prove it but I doubt it's possible given the info above. Anyways, I've even provided English language sources for the info.radek (talk) 07:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

How come it's so easy to guess who has added these statements? -- Matthead  Discuß   23:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The info is sourced.radek (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Then provide the quotes and I provide mainstream sources. The information is obviously false. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the source IS mainstream, and trying to insinuate that it's not ain't gonna change that.radek (talk) 23:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it says a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa Tadeusz Białecki, "Historia Szczecina" Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1992 Wrocław. Pages 9,20-55, 92-95, 258-260, 300-306, which is rather unspecific, about 40 pages. Google books offers snippet views, from three issues to choose from, but none returns a hits for the island of "Rugia" (ref g): . Radek, could you please add specific links to snippet views? Thanks. And, BTW: the island's name is Rügen. -- Matthead  Discuß   23:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

As opposed to the 14+ refs to Buchholz?radek (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

For Buchholz, each specific page is given in a separate reference, unlike the single one-for-all-just-dig-thru-dozens-pages ref for Bialecki. As stated above, Rugia/Rügen is referenced with it, but Google does not find it in the book, which might be due to Polish grammar (or crappy OCR, or other limits). That's why I'm asking you to point us to it. -- Matthead  Discuß   10:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Removal of sourced text

In reference to: "Bolesław III Wrymouth managed to regain control of Western Pomerania up to the island of Rugia" which is being replaced with "was subjugated by Bolesław III". First, the obvious contention is over whether the region was "regained" or "subjugated". The Malcolm Barber reference is there for the "re-" part since that is what was being called into question. Second, the Bielecki source is there for Rugia, an please note that "up to the island of" could mean "not including Rugia but territory close to it". Either way removal of sourced material - or more specifically, hiding the removal of sourced material by rewriting it in POV way unsupported by sources - is not kosher.radek (talk) 07:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

For a "re-"gain, the area had to be conquered before. We have sources written around 2000 that say this was not the case. Either you start a paragraph explaining why Bialecki in 1992 thought it was a "re"-gain, or leave the re-part out. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You're conducting OR here. And it's not just Bialecki which says it was "regained" "Polish control was REestablieshed" etc. This was your original objection and since you weren't satisfied with one reliable source I provided, another, English language, available online one which says the same thing. Hence your removal of it is completely unjustified. I would appreciate it if you restored the wording here yourself.radek (talk) 07:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Barber says "regaining lost ground in Pomerania", which is true. Barber does NOT say regaining Stettin. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Direct, verbatim, quote from the source "By 1121 he had REestablished Polish power on the Baltic coast with the capture of Stettin (Szczecin)". So yes, he does say that.radek (talk) 08:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

And continues to say that the Oder line was gained eight years later, so obviously his sparse informations regarding the town are flawed and should not be considered a RS for the hist of Szczecin. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The "Rugia" part is also dubious. I am glad we finally have consensus that Rügen was not subjugated in this campaign. Neither was the principality, which was somewhat larger than the island, and neither were the Liutician areas southeast of this principality (these followed ~1123, and were subjugated not by Boleslaw, but by Wartislaw). Additionally, the borders of these feudal/tribal units are anything but fixed and well-known. So why do you insist on having the island mentioned, which really is a bad indicator since it is far off to the West. This article should be about the town. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a specific source which says that Wrymouth failed to reconquer Rugia? If not, and since we do have a source that he did conquer an area "up to", and since we don't know what the sources mean exactly, using an ambiguous "up to" (which could include or exclude) seems like the best way to go.radek (talk) 07:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

All mainstream sources on Pomeranian history agree that the conquest of the Stettin burgh in 1121/22 was the final campaign of Boleslaw in Pomerania. For a start read Buchholz et al and Piskorski et al. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If reliable sources disagree then they should all be presented. If you have a source which says that Szczecin was as far as Boleslaw recovered then include something to the effect of "according to... Szczecin was as far as Boleslaw recovered, while according to ... he recovered up to Rugia".radek (talk) 08:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I rephrased but still think Bialecki and Barber, who only mentioned the events in a side-note in a book not focussed on Pomerania and obviously did not get his facts right, are given undue weight here. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

And your "rephrasing" amounts to another revert since it doesn't include the "re-" part which, as you well know, what all the fuss is about here. Furthermore, the reason why Albert the Bear is notable here is because of his anti-Slavism. While the Bishops might have been interested in Christianizing the denizens of Szczecin in the mistaken belief that they were still pagan, good ol' Albert was making a land grab. That's why the wording is in there as is.radek (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The above applies with double emphasis for completely unjustified and unexplained removal of The restoration of Polish rule brought many changes to Szczecin as it was now integrated into more developed institutions of a developed feudal state, and organised religion of Catholic Church was brought from the territories of Poland which is also double sourced. Why is this being removed? No justification has been given.radek (talk) 07:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This sentence was not removed, but merged into the existing ones about the conversion, of course except for the "re"-part and the weasel-stuff. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is that this "merge" is essentially a removal hidden as something else. Obviously the controversy is about the "re-" part. Since the sources support and even use the "re-" language themselves, "merging it" and then removing it is just a sneaky way of removing it.radek (talk) 07:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Please AGF. We cannot state "re" as a fact if it is not a fact. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The "fact" is that is is straight up in the source. Whether you or I consider it a 'fact' is immaterial.radek (talk) 08:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read above. If one source says so, and others don't, it can't be stated as a fact. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

And please note that it is more than one source which says it. You have not provided a source for the "fact" that the "re-" does not belong in there.radek (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Wendish Crusade vs. Siege of Szczecin by Albert the Bear

While, roughly speaking, Albert the Bear's move to besiege Szczecin was part of the Wendish Crusade, this is an article on the city of Szczecin, not on the Wendish Crusade. This is particularly true since the city was Christian and hence the German (please provide sources for the fact that there were Poles or Danes involved in this particular siege) attack on the city was not part of the crusade proper but rather an opportunistic land grab - as in the sources provided. The Davies source is on the Wendish crusade, not on the siege of Szczecin. There may be a way to reconcile the two versions (while being careful about undue weight) but as is, the previous version reflects the topic of the article and the material in the sources better.radek (talk) 07:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wendish Crusade was not led by Albrecht the Bear, as stated in the previous version, and the "German aggression" part was just ridiculous POV-pushing. Agree that it can be condensed to the part that really affected Stettin, but disagree with pushing a wrong and one-sided version of the Wendish Crusade here. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wendish Crusade was not led by Albrecht the Bear EXACTLY!! So why are you bringing the Wendish Crusade into this? The siege of Szczecin however - as documented by, once again, multiple sources including English language, online ones which I took the effort to provide after your initial spurious objections to Polish ones - WAS led by Albert the Bear. Nobody's pushing a one sided version of the Wendish Crusade, here or at the article that is actually the appropriate place for your edits. I am just representing what the sources say in regard to the siege of Szczecin. Again, your removal of sourced text, masked as "rewrites" and "mergers" are not justified here.radek (talk) 07:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You certainly refer to this (unsourced) sentence of Molobo which you keep re-instating: "Those gains were hindered by German aggression and expansion, resulting in weakening of connections of Szczecin with Poland, under the leadership of the German Margrave Albrecht the Bear, who was a sworn enemy of Slavic presence in the region.". This is POV-pushing and falsification. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not what the discussion is about (least of all Molobo). Albert the Bear did lead the expedition to besiege Szczecin. Other aspects of Wendish Crusade are irrelevant. Note also that the source does say that the pretext for Albert's expedition was "illusory".radek (talk) 08:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Even the source you gave indicates that A the Bear was not the only leader, and yes, it is about the sentence and the language it uses, and yes, this was introduced by Molobo. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

See my reply above. And I don't care who inserted it. Discuss text, not editors.radek (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Please also note that nowhere in the original version does it say that Albert the Bear led the Wendish Crusade. It said he moved to besiege Szczecin. Which he did. Per sources.radek (talk) 08:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

See above. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Which didn't address it.radek (talk) 08:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources

I removed Knell because it was essentially a primary source - the Gall Anonim chronicle - with annotations. Even then, not sure it supports the contentions. I am also requesting the supporting quotes for the other sources, translated from German, as they are not available online. Finally, one of those refs actually seems to support Berber and Bialecki, at least from the wording, rather than contradicting it. I've also removed the POV presentation of the sources which tried to denigrate one set and promote the other.radek (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Clearly a misunderstanding

First, let's be clear here that a good amount of contention is about whether the relevant area was "regained" or more generally "re-something" by Boleslaw or "subjugated" (if a history lesson is need this refers back to Chrobry and Mieszko). The sources clearly use words like "regained", "restablished" etc. Apparently this rubs some editors the wrong way, but the sources are the sources per verifiability. And established editors know this. Hence, edits like these: , just cannot be taken as good faith edits, after sources have been provided, after the issue was made clear, after even more sources were provided. This is just obstructionism. Second, the request for quotes was not for German language quotes - can Skapperod please provide translations of the relevant text? The sources I provided are all online and available for look up by anyone where as the ones provided by Skapperod are not. Given that at least a portion of the quoted text actually contradicts the way it was presented and the foote loose way that sketchy sources have been used in the past on related articles, for example, here , I think it's ok to ask for specifics.

"The sources clearly use words like "regained", "restablished" etc." This is not true for all sources, and the sources that use "re"-gained are contradicted by others, not only in respect to the "re", as is stated in the following sentence (in the article). If you insist, we can state what sources use "re" and what sources don't, but we can't use "re" without qualification as Radeksz does. Barber's book has a much broader scope than Szczecin, and if he doesn't get any fact straight in the short mention of the town it is questionable if he should be used as a source here at all. Bialecki seems to tend to make the Polish realm larger than it actually was, since he includes Rugia (Rügen) in it. Now Rügen was not subdued before 1168, and we are talking about the 1120s. And it was the Danish army and not the Piasts who subdued it in 1168.

The grain of truth in Bialecki's claim is that (a) Boleslaw or at least his army campaigned west of the Oder, yet without gaining territory (this was done by Wartislaw in the following years); and (b) that Rügen was given to duke Boleslaw as a fief along with Pomerania by emperor Lothair, yet this was a purely theoretical act because neither Boleslaw nor Lothair actually held Rügen. Lothair had some claims on Rügen from the period before the 983 uprising, and if Boleslaw had managed to conquer Rügen, he would according to the 1135 events have gained it for the emperor and hold it as a fief. But nothing like that happened, and both Lothair and Boleslaw deceased in the following three years. And the Szczecin article is really not the place to discuss that. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

How do the other sources contradict Barber and Bialecki? Do they explicitly state that this was the first time that the city/area came under Polish rule, or is this just your interpretation? This is why I'm asking for actual quotes. In English please, as this is the English wikipedia, not the German one. And btw, Barber gets his "facts" straight, they just happen to be facts you don't like. Bialecki also says "up to Rugia", not "including Rugia", which is discussed above already.radek (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The other sources contradict it just the way it is outlined in the article. I gave the quote in the language the authors use not because I mistake this for the German wikipedia, but for verification purposes. Please finally assume AGF. The disputed phrase "up to Rugia" (Bialecki) can be interpreted as including the island, including the principality, or including lands near the island, or near the principality. It is thus a pretty bad way to put, and either interpretation is contentious. Thus, I propose per WP:UNDUE to drop this altogether as an issue out of the scope of the article on the town. The 16 years of Polish overlordship (1122-1138) are given far too much weight already. I therefore further propose to have the sentence read sth like " 1121–1122, Bolesław III Wrymouth, Duke of Poland, gained control of the stronghold, according to Barber and Bialecki for the second time.". And cut everything else concerning the "re"-question. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I would still like to request for you to provide English language translation of the relevant text. I am making this request precisely because I am assuming good faith - it's not that I think you're misrepresenting the sources but that you are probably misunderstanding them or taking them out of context. I disagree with your contention of undue. A very notable portion of Krzywousty's rule was the establishment of bishoprics to the region and the introduction of Christianity, among other important historical precedents.radek (talk) 17:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course the conversion was an important event, and it is mentioned as that, and there is no dispute about that. The dispute is whether the conquest was the first or the second one, and about whether Rügen was subdued. I really think it is bad style to ignore my offer for a compromise that was at talk for days, and to just revert me again just when I introduced it to end this mess here. And no, you just can't introduce "re"-gained again as an undisputed fact and even source it not only to the source you googled but to the other sources that do not say "re". E.g.

• Paul W. Knoll, Frank Schaer, annotated Gesta Principum Polonorum, Central European University Press, 2003, ISBN 9639241407:
  • Quote: "It is assumed that Mieszko I some time before 967 defeated the Wolinians, but could not conquer the estituary of the Oder River; no campaign of Boleslaw I to that region is known."
• Jan M Piskorski, Pommern im Wandel der Zeit, 1999, pp.31,36,43 ISBN 839061848:
  • Quote p.31 (yrs 967-after 1000 AD): " gelang es den polnischen Herrschern sicherlich nicht, Wollin und die Odermündung zu unterwerfen." "[[the Polish rulers sure did not manage to subdue Wollin and the Oder estituary."
  • Quote p.36: "Von 1119 bis 1122 eroberte er schließlich das pommersche Odergebiet mit Stettin, " "From 1119 to 1122 he finally subdued the Pomeranian Oder region with Stettin, "
  • Quote p.43: " während Rügen 1168 erobert und in den dänischen Staat einverleibt wurde." " while Rügen was subdued in 1168 and merged into the Danish state."

Additionally, I again urge you to not further disputes about issues only remotely related to the subject of the article, it is messy enough as it is. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, in this case we have two different sets of sources; ones which claim that the area was not controlled by Poland before and those which do claim that it was. In such cases the standard practice on Misplaced Pages is to elaborate and discuss the diverging information found in sources (I wish to quickly note here that all sources which are on the "NOT" side are German, while we have both English and Polish (and I didn't bother to include EVERY Polish source because they are so numerous) sources on the "YES" side). Your previous text was a good start at compromise - though unsatisfactory since German sources appear in the minority here - but then you went ahead and thought it desirable to further redact it; it went from "some sources say this and some sources say that" back to just the German version. I think it would be fine to note in the article that German sources dispute whether the area was previously controlled by Poland. Additionally, I think you are occasionally conflating two meanings of the "re-" in "regained". Sometimes you reject its usage based on the fact that some areas wasn't "regained" by Krzywousty - although it had been gained by Chrobry - because he hadn't conquered it twice. But the context is clear from the text and this seems like a very shallow basis for objection. So let's be clear, "regained" here means not that Krzywousty took control of an area twice in a few years but rather that he took control of an area previously taken over by other Polish kings/dukes some hundred years prior. I also take your urging, and urge you likewise.radek (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Barber, The two cities, does not say that Wrymouth "regained" Szczecin, neither does he mention gains west of the Oder:

• Quote (1) p.330: "Wrymouth took up the plans of regaining lost ground in Pomerania." Barber does not say that Szczecin was part of this lost ground, he is just referring to earlier gains.
• Quote (2) p.330: "By 1121 he had reestablished Polish power on the Baltic coast with the capture of Stettin." So he is only saying that the capture of Stettin contributed to the reestablishment of Polish power on the Baltic coast, not that Stettin was previously captured.
• Quote (3) p.330: "Eight years later he had regained the line of the Oder." Given the beforementioned, Barber can not refer to the Oder at Stettin, so this sentence too can not be interpreted as a re-gain of Stettin.

No mention of Rügen is made. So all sources except Bialecki do not say Stettin was "re"-gained, and all sources except Bialecki do not say "up to Rügen". I thus ask for a verification of the respective parts in Bialecki's book. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"Repatriants"

Not all post-1945 Polish settlers were "reaptriants" from the Kresy. Most (above half) of the settlers moving into the Oder-Neisse territory were Central Poles, for proportion and sources see Recovered_Territories#Resettlement. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Rm statement

Rm as a WP:SYNTHESIS: "Despite the fact that the city was no longer a part of Poland and had underwent a process of Germanisation, a Polish population still lived in the city and numbered 3,000 people, including a few wealthy industrialists and merchants, before WW I." - It is just ridiculous to claim that the pre-WWI Polish diaspora and the Polish conquest of the medieval Pomeranian stronghold (1122-1138) are in any way related. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

But it is also ridiculous to claim that medieval Pomerania was German and that no subsequent Germanization took place. How about just cutting off the first part of the sentence: Despite the fact that the city had underwent a process of Germanisation, a Polish population still lived in the city and numbered 3,000 people, including a few wealthy industrialists and merchants, before WW I..radek (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding "medieval Pomerania was German": Depends on what period of the Middle Ages you are referring to. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding "no subsequent Germanization took place" - who claims that? Of course Germanisation took place in the High Middle Ages. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your proposed wording: That does not at all rm the WP:synthesis. The Polish diaspora in 1914 has nothing to do with the medieval Germanisation, and did not "still" live there. Considerable Polish immigration to Pomerania started in the late 19th century. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm referring to most of the Middle Ages and even then the process of Germanization wasn't total. The near-complete Germanization of the area occured under Prussia which is what the sentence was referring to. I also don't see how the sentence, as I proposed, refers to medieval Germanization - hence there there is no synth here. I agree that if it did refer to Middle Ages then skipped to 1914 then that would be synth. But it's not.radek (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

"Germanization of the area occured under Prussia" - you will not find a source for that. During the 13th century, the area had already turned German with few exceptions (Buchholz et al (1999), pp.61-63) The Slavs who found themselves within the limits of the newly localized town of Stettin in 1243 (which included the Slavic Kessin neighborhood) were largely resettled to two suburbia, which already during the 14th century lost their Slavic character (ibid, pp.84,85). Also, you will not find a source for a Polish population in the Middle Ages, who could "still" live in the city by 1914. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Verification needed: Section "Name and ethymology"

• "While most of the names had been Germanised, after 1945 the Slavic-sounding original names of locations in Pomerania were restored" is sourced to Puszcza Bukowa, Leksykon nazw by Wojciech Lipniacki "According to R. Holsten, until 1225 there were no German name places. Only after that year, German settlers began to translate and change these names. The quote given does not confirm that the "original" names were "restored" in Pomerania.
• "Among others, Szczecin's name was restored from Stettin." is sourced to Bialecki (without pg number). It needs to be verified that Bialecki argued that "Szczecin" was used before "Stettin" and after 1945 "restored".

Skäpperöd (talk) 09:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Albert the Bear

It's on page 53 - "Albrecht Niedżwiedż-zaciekły wróg Słowiańszczyzny" - "Albert the Bear, a dedicated enemy of Slavs in the region".radek (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Vague statement

"Polish rule integrated and organised religion of the Catholic Church was brought from the territories of Poland" needs to be specified. How was it inegrated in what framework? If the Catholic regligion statement refers to the mission of Otto, it is redundant with the sentence before. If it is something else, it should be stated what. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Germanization of the name

It needs to be verified that "As the city was subjected to German colonization, Germanisation of the early name occurred" (sourced to Bialecki, no pg given). It seems odd if the city is called Stetin in documents already before the town was German. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Because it was always German perhaps? Also if the original name Stettin is , if we are to believe the Polish contingent , of Slavic origin, then why the name change? It is all about hiding the terrible ethnic cleansing after the war (Gutstadt is renamed Dobré, Weißstein becomes Biały Kamień literal translations for towns that were never Polish) and the erasing of all German history east of the Oder. The disgraceful rewriting of history in Poland beggars belief and is a disgrace to Poland . We can't turn back the clock and no one is trying to oust the Poles but I think " The lady doth protest too much" godstar

lede too long, cluttered

The history related part of the lede is of disproportionate size relative to the lede as a whole. I've looked through some random articles on cities and see none that spend this much time on the place's history in the lede:

• Toulouse has a single history related sentence.
• Vilnius has nothing history related in the lede, though it's lede is only two sentences.
• Dallas just has the date of the founding.
• Cambridge (a very historical town) has nothing on history in its lede either.
• Dresden has like two sentences in a paragraph.
• Lviv has a whole paragraph, which is probably too much and which is still less than this article.
• Prague has two short history related sentences in the lede.
• Barcelona has a short paragraph in an otherwise pretty long lede.
• Likewise for Milan.
• Kolkata has a single short sentence.
• San Antonio less than a sentence.
• Suva has two sentences.
• Yaoundé has nothing history related in the lede.
• Lagos also nothing.
• Mexico city has a short paragraph.
• Buenos Aires has a single short sentence which could maybe, perhaps, sort of be interpreted to be history related.
• Zurich has two sentences.

Etc. Etc. Etc.

On the other hand, here we have two very long paragraphs in the lede, which just repeat information found in the History section below. It's undue for the lede and there seems to be no legit reason for this length.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I restored the lead. Neither the article nor the lead were too long. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not a discussion or an argument. It's an assertion. How am I supposed to reply to a "no it wasn't" statement? With a "uh huh it was?" Please don't blanket revert me. I would also appreciate it if you ceased what looks like a wiki-stalking of my edits. Whenever I edit an article, you pop up and revert or start a unproductive dispute. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

As I've said before: No other cities' articles get written this way. I've shown evidence. Additionally, the Misplaced Pages guidelines to writing a lede state:

If the article is long enough for the lead section to contain several paragraphs, then the first paragraph should be short and to the point, with a clear explanation of what the subject of the page is. The following paragraphs should give a summary of the article. They should provide an overview of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable, including its more important controversies, if there are any.

The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than two or three paragraphs. The following specific rules have been proposed:

... 15,000–30,000 characters --> Two or three paragraphs

So

• following paragraphs should give a summary of the article. - NOT an extensive summary of just one section of the article, largely duplicating information which is found right next in the article.
• As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than two or three paragraphs - here we have four paragraphs, the longest two of which are all about one section of the article. Cut'em down to one short paragraph.
• 15,000–30,000 characters Two or three paragraphs - currently the article is at 22k characters (a good portion of which don't belong in the article itself but in sub articles, the way I moved them before the revert). Even without that consideration the lede is still one or two paragraphs too long. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Since no specific objection has been made, aside from some kind of personal IDON'TLIKEIT, I've restored my changes. Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I have made a specific objection. The article is not too long, neither is the lead too lengthy. There are plenty of FAs about places which have a comparable number of sentences about history in their lead sections: Ashton-under-Lyne, Bath, Belgrade, Boston, Carabane, Chadderton, Cheadle Hulme, East End of London, Little Thetford, Neilston, Sale, Shaw etc. And please cut the totally displaced wikistalking allegations. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually it looks like even those articles' lede-history sections are shorter than here. Assuming that it took some looking, these are probably upper bounds. Regardless, this is a OTHERSTUFF argument - I know I made a comparison as well, but I also cited relevant guidelines about lede length. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

list of notable people way to long - needs own sub article

I think it's pretty obvious that the list of notable people is way too long in proportion to the article. There's 61 folks listed. Sixty-freakin'-one. Nota bene, I followed the example of Strasbourg in how it should be done. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

If the article really gets too long, one could think about a subarticle, but the article is not too long atm. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the section is too long relative to the rest of the article, and it is likely to be of secondary interest to most readers. This means it makes perfect sense to split it off. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

etymology section

Is also overtly long relative to the rest of the article. While some readers may have a basic interest in where the name comes from, there's really no need to have such a long section here - a link to a sub article, along with a short sentence or two, would be sufficient. The length of this section appears to be due to some editors' obsession with naming that most other people and editors simply don't share. Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

When the article really gets too long, one could think about a subarticle, but the article is not too long atm. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the section is too long relative to the rest of the article, and it is likely to be of secondary interest to most readers. This means it makes perfect sense to split it off. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

undue

This whole section is essentially one big exercise in WP:UNDUE. The section is supposed to cover the post war history of the city but it's entire focus is on immediate post war years, 1945 and 46. In fact the section is so long now that expanding the other 63 years of the town's post war history would make it, and the article as a whole completely unwiedly. This stuff needs to be either split off or simplified without going into all the details. Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The developments of the post-war years laid the basis for today's Szczecin's ethnic composition, cultural traditions, reconstructed sights, street names, urban design, memorials, etc pp. Despite the collapse of communism in 1989, its impact on today's Szczecin's layout is still omnipresent. For example: of course people know by now that Szczecin's brick gothic and Renaissance sights have nothing to do with the Piasts, and I guess the majority of Poles were smart enough to know that all the time, yet the post-war Piast and Griffin myths are responsible for the state these sights are in today, with all later alterations removed, selective reconstruction and all that. These sights represent Szczecin today, attract tourists and serve for identification of the population with their town. Or take the current stret names in Szczecin: If you exit the autobahn from Germany and go for the center, you drive through Miesko I alley, Piast alley, Kościuszki plaza, Boleslaw Wrymouth alley, enter Victory plaza at the crossroad with the Alley of the Polish Army and drive Independence avenue to the Place of the Polish Soldier. You can walk along the Oder on the Piast boulevard and the Boleslaw Chrobry boulevard. It is therefore not undue to include a paragraph about how Communist ideologies changed the town's layout.

The paragraph about the Brichah route is neither undue. Thousands of Jews were smuggled to the American zone that way, with eventual consequences for the treatment of DPs by the allies and, if one keeps in mind that the eventual destination of many of the DPs was not Germany, but Palestine, the influx of further Jews from Poland contributed to the creation of the state of Israel. Szczecin as the primary gateway from Poland to the West thus played an important role in post-war Jewish history, which warrants a paragraph.

Skäpperöd (talk) 10:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with VM that this section is undue and should be trimmed, especially since the attempt of genocide by Germany against Jews, Poles and others classified by German state as "untermenschen" is very small in comparision.We also need more on eradication of initial cultural Polish/Slavic identity by Germanisation and discrimination of original inhabitants.As to the rest:its natural that cities and countries remark their previous history and important events-I see no reason to dwell on this in the article. If that is seem as something strange in German/German friendly histography than perhaps it deserves to be put in article on that, rather being pushed here. In any case it is undue and not worthy of inclusion-we can of course add a sentence that some historians are critical of Poland remembaring its Polish past.

you drive through Miesko I all

I believe you mean Mieszko I not "Miesko"-the polish ruler whose monuments are in several cities. I would really welcome that if you are interested in writing about Polish history and cities of Poland, you would get the spelling right-I had to correct your spelling error in the article previously.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

To propose an "initial cultural Polish/Slavic identity" in medieval Stettin is an overtly nationalist and factually wrong thesis. And no, it is not "natural" that a regime invents a past for a city and then goes on "remembaring" that "Polish past" by conserving Brick Gothic and Renaissance buildings that fit in that invented scheme while in reality they have nothing to do with it, reconstructing them so they'd "fit" even better, and levelling the rest, it is neither "natural" that the main places and streets are named according to the Piast myth or after events connected to Polish military etc, that was motivated by post-war ideology.

To claim that this is just "German/German friendly histography" (sic!) "critical of Poland remembaring its Polish past" (sic!) is in itself ridiculuous, since the "German/German friendly"-label you use for the historians has a completely displaced nationalist connotation, and since the historians evidently do not criticize the remembrance of a Polish past at all, but the invention of a Polish past and the "remembrance" of that myth. Who are the historians whose research you discard and whom you declare "German/German friendly" and "critical of Poland remembaring its Polish past" anyway? For one, the proposedly "German" historian is Musekamp, employed by the Polish-German Viadrina university, expert for Szczecin, German, English and Polish publications, awarded a price by the Polish foreign minister; and what you call the "German friendly" historian must be Wawrzyniak, expert for communism and WWII in Poland. In other words, high quality academic sources without national biases. Your intention to introduce the nationalist-communist myth into this article as a fact, remove the paragraph about the historical context of the creation of this myth and defame the historians cited as nationally biased is dangerous for wikipedia. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Poland articles
• Top-importance Poland articles
• WikiProject Poland articles
• B-Class Middle Ages articles
• Low-importance Middle Ages articles
• B-Class history articles
• All WikiProject Middle Ages pages
• B-Class WikiProject Cities articles
• All WikiProject Cities pages