Talk:1920 East Prussian plebiscite

POV

- when did the german “control” over these territories start ? Is Olsztyn “controled” by Poland today?

- Any sources for “german para – military organisations”?

- Allied support for Germany? Didn´t the Allies just fight a war against Germany, why should they support the Germans?

- As Andreas Kossert writes in his book “Masuren” it was a polish condition that all people, who were born in the plebiscite area were entitled to vote, so the Allies did not “allow” to bring 100.000 voters to masuria, it was part of the Versailles treaty – and as far as I know this traety wasn´t very pro – german.

- the plebiscite was supervised by allied troops under control of the League of Nations, shouldn´t this be mentioned

- to be exact, the alternatives were “East Prussia” and Poland, not only “Prussia” ( and following A. Kossert this was also a polish condition )

- —Preceding unsigned comment added by HerkusMonte (talk • contribs) 09:53, February 8, 2008

Feel free to cite full references that contradict this article and correct it. See WP:CITE and WP:V for relevant policies.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Freikorps

Any Sources for Freikorps activities? Don´t mix it up with Silesia. (HerkusMonte (talk) 09:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC))

Was Freikorps limited to Silesia? Pl wiki notes (with some POV) "terrorystyczna działalność niemieckich bojówek" - terrorist activities of German miltia/paramilitary units. This page notes that many paramilitary German units were created and active, some even equipped with artillery, and since autumn 1919 Eastern Prussia received Freikorps units from Baltic States region. In many places Polish activists and meetigns were attacked, an example is given for Giżyck, 17 April 1920.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The question is, how to define a “Freikorps” – a militia, organized in a clearly military way, wearing uniforms and probably based within barracks under commandment of officers ( as it was in Upper Silesia). Attacking a meeting does not mean that this was organized in a military way ( no doubt, that it happened and that people were “discussing” quiet violent), violence is not only used by para – militaries, and wasn´t the Mazurska Straz Bezpieczestwa also a militia.

I just ask myself, if “Freikorps” is the right expression. (HerkusMonte (talk) 12:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC))

Indeed, this would benefit from further research. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Some sources for Freikorps in East Prussia in 1920: as the Freikorps had done in East Prussia in 1920; fears about the disgruntled Freikorps in East Prussia , Freikorps Rossbach, formed in East Prussia in late 1918... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

So if it´s not clear, that para – military Freikorps were active , why is this term used here?

(HerkusMonte (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC))

Merger from Westprussia plebiscite

The problem about Westprussia plebiscite is, that the area of Kwidzyn etc. is not a part of Warmia or Masuria, so it would be wrong to call it “Warmia and masuria plebiscite”. Another point is, that these areas were also seperated in the Versailles treaty ( plebiscite area Allenstein and plebiscite area Marienwerder) with different plebiscite commissions / administration and seperated results. But off course, most people saw it as one event.

Is the name used somewhere in literature? Remember we have to avoid original research (WP:NOR). As far as I know, the literature includes those area in the WaM plebiscite; we can point out in the article that it was broader (and copy your explanation above, perhaps somewhat adjusted), but nonetheless if the literature includes it, so should we.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What "most people" saw is neither here nor there. It was a separate plebiscite and should be dealt with separately. Christchurch (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, this is just my opinion, but didn´t You just mix both areas now ? The area of Marienwerder is identical to what I called Westprussian plebiscite, and the area of Allenstein is identical to what was called Warmia and Masuria plebiscite before. It´s true that the term "westprussian plebiscite" is not used in english, it´s rather the german expression ( as WaM plebiscite is Polish ). But calling it Allenstein and Marienwerder plebsicite also means to put the Marienwerder (Westprussia) results to this article.

P.S. I still believe "most people" saw ( and see ) it as one event, You are one of them.(HerkusMonte (talk) 13:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC))

And by the way

1. Marienwerder wasn´t a part of East Prussia, it was part of West Prussia, only taken under eastprussian administrative power as Regierungsbezirk Marienwerder after the plebiscite.

2. The plebiscite was´t organised according to Article 97 of the Versailles treaty, but according to Articles 94, 95 for the Allenstein region and 96, 97 for the Marienwerder region. Thats why I seperated both plebiscites.(HerkusMonte (talk) 13:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC))

OK. I have significant problem with that. All our history books, including the Foreign Office archives, call it the Allenstein and Marienwerder Plebiscite. So thats what I've called it because that is what it is known as in the English-speaking world and that is therefore how it should be presented on the English-speaking Wikipedia. I can have a go at merging what you call the West Prussia Plebiscite here if you would like me to. But maybe there should be broader agreement on that?

Butler and his collegues cite Article 97 for the constitution of the Plebiscite Commissions in Marienwerder. I shall check further. Christchurch (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes please, what I wanted to explain is, that we had a discussion about wether the district of Marienwerder is a part of the ( former version ) “Warmia and Masuria plebiscite” or a different one. From my POV Marienwerder is not a part of Warmia or Masuria, it´s a part of Westprussia, as the plebiscites areas are seperated by the versailles treaty ( Articles 94,95 for Allenstein and 96,97 for Marienwerder). You can find the Versailles treaty here [1] (a link You removed).

If the english – speaking world sees all this as one plebiscite, I don´t have a problem with that, but in this case there is no Westprussia plebiscite. You just wrote that different things shouldn´t be mixed up, just to mix it up on Your own.

To make it clear, the results given on this page are only the results of the Allenstein area, the results of the Marienwerder area are on the "Westprussia" page ( Marienwerder, Marienburg, Stuhm und Rosenberg)

And why do You clear up Your statements, which I just answered?(HerkusMonte (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC))

Some questions

Christchurch Now, after You changed all this stuff, where are the results of the Marienwerder district ?

Now added. Every single thing I have added to the page is sourced. Christchurch (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And maybe You might explain some sentences.

“The Poles were also aggravated by the Versaille Treaty stipulation ... Why were the Poles “aggravated” ? Really ? That´s the Polish POV.

Because they did not get all the things they had asked for from the Treaty. I can dig out the relevant minutes if you wish. But their own books constantly whinge about this stipulation. So its a statement of fact rather than POV. Christchurch (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

They (the Poles) claimed that German sources said....

Yes, its just a claim really. Not properly sourced so that we can access it. Christchurch (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I simply don´t understand the sense ( maybe due to my rudimentary English knowledge) To make it easier: why were people from outside ( born in the area) entitled to vote ? What´s the polish POV what´s the German POV ? Or does a true answer exist?

This was a decision of the Versaille Treaty and it related to all areas in Europe where plebiscites were held. POV doesn't enter into it, except when you're saying its wrong. For instance, British expatriates can vote in British General Elections and I should point out that in the recent Polish General Election all those Poles living in Britain were able to cast their votes here. Are you seriously suggesting people who were born and brought up in a place have no right to vote on what should happen to it? Christchurch (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I´m not suggesting anything, the problem about this is, that in a former version someone wrote that the Allies “allowed the Germans to bring over 100.000 immigrants to the plebiscite area ( as an evidence for privileging the Germans ) So from my POV it was necessary to write something about why this happened. Because I don´t know the real and true answer ( who does ) I tried to point out the different positions of German and polish historians a) it was a Polish condition, believing the Ruhrpolen would vote for Poland or b) a privilegue to the Germans by the Allies. I don´t think that this is explained or understandable in Your version.(HerkusMonte (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC))

“The plebiscite ended as expected with a majority of the voters, both German and Polish, voting for...

Which implies that more ethnic Poles existed, but didn´t vote for Poland (why ?) My Grandpa would have been very upset about this assumption, I´m sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HerkusMonte (talk • contribs) 14:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a simple established fact. It may be unpalatable, but it is true. The population statistics of the Polish populations eligible to vote show that in a great many areas they voted to remain in Germany. It is crucial when writing these articles to state the facts, not just those things which suit you. I am neither German nor Polish and I feel I can do that because I can cite a great many more sources than I have! Christchurch (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think, the first and most important aspect of ethnic or nationality is, the point of view of that human being himself. And if 98% of the people say they are German (or whatever) they are German ( or Eastprussians ). Nobody might tell any other human that he is from a different nationality or ethnic than this person feels or believes in. I knew a lot of Masurians (named Koslowski, Schwartinski, Kampowski ...) and they classified themselves as german. Why do You know better??

And .. did You know, that Masuria was one of the most succesfull areas for the Nazis ? Because masurians were Poles? (HerkusMonte (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC))

Name

The last time I checked, per WP:UE we use Warmia and Masuria, not Allenstein and Marienwerder. And I hope nobody is suggesting moving the Upper Silesia plebiscite to Oberschlesien plebiscite? PS. Perhaps we should have a WP:RM on that. But "Allenstein and Marienwerder plebiscite" does not seem to be popular in English literature (1 hit on Google Print). PSS. Looking at Section IX of the Versailles Treaty ([2]) perhaps a reasonable compromise would be East Prussia plebiscite? That name is much more often used (over 20 hits on Google Print). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You are quite wrong on this and you should not have moved the title of this page to a totally unknown non-English-language entity. You need to check WP:UE again. Moreover, no-one is suggesting we use Oberschlesien because that is not the phraseology used in English-language publications. Our atlases of the time whilst saying Silesia, nevertheless say Allenstein and Marienwerder. I gave three excellent references re the title as we know it, one of them an official British Government publication, as clear evidence of how these two plebiscites were known. Yes, when the Versaille Treaty was first drawn up it just said East Prussia but the Inter-Allied Commission changed that to the official title of Allenstein and Marienwerder. These articles are not vehicles for Polish propaganda. They are supposed to be articles based upon facts, not facts as you would like them to be presented. Another thing, mentioning anything other than the Plebiscite and matters related to it is inappropriate and links to Polish-language websites unacceptable. This is not a propaganda site. It is the English-language Wikipedia. Lets stick to the academic facts and our language. Christchurch (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

All three of your refs are in Google Print yet they don't seem to come out to support your hits. As I have shown, your proposal is not used in English literature; I would not object East Prussian as this one appears to be used. As for your other complains, you may want to read up on our policies, from WP:AGF to WP:RS. Polish language sources are perfectly acceptable, and if anyone here is spreading propaganda, modern or otherwise, it is not me. Good day, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the slightest bit interested in Google. I have the three books here. I had them opened on the cited pages and that is the official line. Your assertion is groundless. You have asked for a reference for the voting statistics. As I did not put them on this page (although I transferred over those for Marienwerder from the West Prussia page) I cannot say where they came from. But doubtless it won;t be hard to verify them as I have the British Foreign Office's Documents on British Foreign Policy available to me. As for giving foreign language (only) references which virtually no-one in the English-speaking world can read that is unacceptable. WP:RS clearly states sources must be accessible and that quite naturally means we must be able to read them! Now if you want me to raise an RfC I am happy to do that. Christchurch (talk) 10:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

And I am not the slightest bit interested in the books that you, dear anonymous editor, claim to have checked, when I have checked them as well and cannot verify your claim (could you provide specific quotes and page this term is used on, not ranges of pages)? Google Print is a valid reference tool and it disproves your claim. That's EOT per WP:V.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn´t it a little bit overdone to expect ( and accept ) sources on a topic that is obviously part of German – Polish history only in English language?

The results of the Allenstein area are from A. Kossert, Ostpreussen, page 222. You will find the the results of the Marienwerder area at : Paul Hoffmann; Die Volksabstimmung in Westpreussen am 11. Juli 1920, Vergleichende Darstellung der Abstimmungsergebnisse aufgrund des amtlichen Materials, Marienwerder 1920 ( The plebiscite in Westprussia on 11 July 1920, a comparison based on the official material)

The results for the whole area are also mentioned on these SWISS sources [3] and here [4].(HerkusMonte (talk) 12:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC))

All the pre-1990 English sources used German names and post-1990 sources used them for reference. Show me some post-2005 source. Space Cadet (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think those sources are valid; I don't expect they would be falsified (even in a Nazi era) - Germans won by a large margin, so why falsify the data? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Space Cadet, any sources for Your POV, that the “MAJORITY of the inhabitants were ethnically Polish” ? What´s the problem about “A lot of...having Polish roots / ancestors / origin.....”?

I don´t wan´t to start this discussion, by why had the masurians to leave masuria after 1945, being Polish?(HerkusMonte (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC))

Mostly because of mandatory membership in Nazi organizations. For sources start with the map in the article East Prussia, there is also a book: "Na tropach Smętka" by Melchior Wańkowicz, that I (conveniently) misplaced during the move in January. Space Cadet (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

So only the Nazis had to leave? Mandatory membership? Did I get this right, they were forced to be member of NSDAP?? Come on, this is ridiculous. (HerkusMonte (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC))

And which map, the only map showing nationalities refers to 14th century.(HerkusMonte (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC))

The map is my mistake. I'll try to produce something more recent, although I think the text under the map is just NPD propaganda. I saw the same map on the internet pertaining to 1914. Mandatory is ridiculous? Did you live in those days as a Pole? Poles had to constantly prove their loyalty to the regime. Not just NSDAP, but HJ, BDM and other forced activists. Only known Nazis had to leave, yes. Even some Germans were allowed to stay. Space Cadet (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Only known Nazis had to leave and (good) Germans were allowed to stay??? That´s ridiculous and You know that, but it´s senseless to discuss.

Please give a source for Your assumption about a Polish MAJORITY(HerkusMonte (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC))

In rural areas, I said. Space Cadet (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

- Chaps, listen, all of these classic endless arguments are out of place here. We are building an encyclopaedia. Conjecture, stories, propoaganda, have no part to play here. As for publications, English-language sources are preferred on the English-language Wikipedia. (For obvious reasons!). It would be a mistake to think that the English-speaking world does not have hundreds of thousands of books in print on European history by experts in their fields, and it would be a serious mistake to contradict the words of the Inter-Allied Commissioners on the spot. Don't forget that their countries had just been fighting the Germans. Christchurch (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What words of IAC? As I have shown above, the English world uses the name "East Prussia(n) plebiscite", and I'd support a move to it. The English world most certainly does not use the Allenstein and Marienwerder plebiscite name, with maybe one or two exceptions to the rule. And yes, for the record, the same applies to Warmia and Masuria plebiscite (which is why I would support a move to 'East Prussia(n) plebiscite'. I am just not sure whether it should be "East Prussia plebiscite" (27 print, [0 scholar] hits) or "East Prussian plebiscite" (24 print, 7 scholar hits). PS. For the record "West Prussia plebiscite" is unused, and "West Prussian plebiscite" produces 4 print and 1 scholar hit.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No, No,No

it´s not getting better. The Westprussian / Marienwerder plebsicite is NOT the Masuria plebiscite ( nor East Prussia/ Allenstein = Warmia ) Warmia and Masuria are parts of former East Prussia, according to the Versailles treaty, it´s the area of Allenstein( Olsztyn is the capital of Warmia !). The Westprussian plebiscite ( expression used in German ) was organized in the area of Marienwerder ( Kwidzyn, Malbork, Sztum, Susz ), which is NOT a part of Warmia or Masuria and has not been ( until 1920 ) a part of East Prussia. According to Versailles, it´s the Marienwerder area.

In Poland such a differentiation seems not to exist. The city of Kwidzyn calls it “plebiscite of the “Lower Vistula region” [[5]]

And this Polish page seems to call it Plebiscite of “Powisle” [[6]]

But these terms are obviously not in common use in Poland.

So the question is, how to name it in English: The contemporaneous sources, such as Sarah Wambaugh here [7] call it “Allenstein and Marienwerder plebiscite” (as used by the Versailles treaty). And this – as it seems – has never changed in scientific literature.

What about calling it Allenstein / Olsztyn and Marienwerder / Kwidzyn plebiscite. The Allied commission issued special stamps with such an overprint, like the one shown here at Olsztyn.

P.S. the sources for the results are definitely not falsified by Nazis. The books of A. Kossert were first issued in 2001, he was born in 1970 and is working at the German Historical Institute at Warsaw, he´s not a Nazi or anything like that; and the Hoffmann book was published in 1920, why should he use incorrect numbers.(HerkusMonte (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC))

For the n-th time, not a single scholarly source uses "Allenstein and Marienwerder plebiscite". The only names to consider are East Prussia or East Prussian plebiscite. In the article we can discuss naming and regions, but we should not create articles on subjects that are ORish just because we think the existing literature is incorrect.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Google is a "scholarly source"? Give me strength. I have cited scholarly sources which you choose to ignore. Christchurch (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Technical note on results

They would look much better in a table. Any volunteers for conversion? See WP:TABLE for help.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

von Gayl

The article states: The German Government were permitted under the Protocol terms to attach a delegate and they sent Baron von Gayl, former Interior Minister. Yet according to Federal Ministry of the Interior (Germany) only "von Gayl" in that office was Wilhelm Freiherr von Gayl (DNVP) who held it in 1932. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have made the correction according to the letter of the book. Christchurch (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

West Prussia?

Our article states: ...a plebiscite for self-determination of Warmia (Ermland) and Masuria (Mazury, Masuren) regions, then part of East Prussia and West Prussia respectively.... Yet Masuria article states that it was part of East Prussia. West Prussia for the most part was transformed into the Polish Corridor; hence the entire argument that there was a West Prussian plebiscite is rather problematic.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I am having slight difficulty in finding out whether Marienwerder was in East or West Prussia prior to the end of World War I. (Allenstein is well inside East Prussia). The 1903 edition of the maps volume for the Encylopaedia Britannica does not show the division between the two provinces. Baedeker's Northern Germany (1904, p.164) also fails to show the division but puts Marienwerder in the district of Kulmerland and states that it was "the seat of government for the distict." It seems to be a question as to whether the Vistula was the dividing line between the two provinces, at least at that point. Christchurch (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn´t know that it´s so difficult to understand ( and would cause so much trouble ). Marienwerder etc. is a part of West Prussia . On the map and the list of cities You will find Marienwerder as well as Stuhm, Marienburg and Rosenberg quit easily just starting at the Baltic sea and going South. I hope it´s not “dubious” any more.(HerkusMonte (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC))

Thanks. See my comment further up the page. Christchurch (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

My first comment here was under the mistaken assumpion that Marienwerder = Masuria. Since now we have clarified we are talking about the town of Kwidzyn, it seems indeed to be considered part of West Prussia. This, however, doesn't change the fact that most of the plebiscite territories were from East Prussia, and it is known as such in literature (just compare how often "West Prussia(n) plebiscite" is used and how often, "East Prussia(n) plebiscite"; I have provided relevant links on this page already).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Both names (Polish and German) are used at "results", so it should have been clear which town we are talking about. The expression "Westprussian plebiscite" (Volksabstimmung in Westpreussen or in Ost- und Westpreussen) is used in German ( as Warmia and Masuria in Polish and as I mentioned before ), sorry for that. It´s obviously not the right term for English Wikipedia.(HerkusMonte (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC))

Both names are used since I added the Polish ones :) I certainly support adding the German names to the lead, just as Polish ones are used (the more the merrier). But in English language I think the best name is the East Prussian plebiscite (and of course, redirects from all other names, which I think I have created plenty of by now).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It´s really not the point to discuss, but I created the "Westprussia plebiscite" side and I used both names, christchurch copied these names to the WaM plebsicite. Don´t be silly.(HerkusMonte (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC))

To clear up some pre-Versailles confusion, Marienwerder was in "eastern Prussia" from 1466-1772 (part of the Duchy of Prussia). After the First Partition in 1772, Ermland was added to East Prussia and Marienwerder was transferred to the new West Prussia. After the Napoleonic Wars, Marienwerder became the seat of Regierungsbezirk Marienwerder, an administrative unit in West Prussia. After World War I, Regierungsbezirk Marienwerder was reduced in size through the creation of the Polish Corridor, and the territory remaining in the Free State of Prussia was split between East Prussia and the new Posen-West Prussia. The territory which was restored to East Prussia was renamed from Regierungsbezirk Marienwerder to Regierungsbezirk Westpreussen, in honor of former West Prussia. After the invasion of Poland in WWII, the Marienwerder region was moved from East Prussia to the new Reichsgau Danzig-West Prussia and restored to its original name of Regierungsbezirk Marienwerder. Olessi (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move completed. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Warmia and Masuria plebiscite → East Prussian plebiscite -—_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Nominator's support.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support Per Piotr's research and the arguement that if we are going to decide between the three, then East Prussia acctually means something to English speakers without german knowledge. Oh well, I figure I have to agree with Piotr sometime :) Narson (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support. A meaningful name, unlike the current one. Davydoff (talk) 12:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

To summarize discussion from #Name: Neither Warmia and Masuria plebiscite (0 Print, 0 Scholar) nor Allenstein and Marienwerder plebiscite (1 print, 0 Scholar) are names that are commonly used in English literature. On the other hand, "East Prussia plebiscite" yields 27 print, 0 scholar hits and "East Prussian plebiscite" 24 print, 7 scholar hits. While the name is not extremely precise (neither did the plebiscite cover the entire East Prussia, nor was it exclusive to it - it seems to have included some West Prussian regions too), it is the most popular; hence it should be used. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be at Allenstein and Marienwerder plebiscites (singular or plural)? If you remove the quotes from your Google Books search, you get far more results for variations of this name (I know not all 390 results are relevant but it's more than 27).[8]— AjaxSmack 01:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Without quotes you get a lot of false hits; although you are more than welcome to look through those 390 and count how many refer to this event.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. Out of 236 books (the 390 got truncated by Google)[9], I got the following rough counts:

1. Allenstein and Marienwerder plebiscites, Allenstein and Marienwerder plebiscite, plebiscite of/in Allenstein and Marienwerder, or variations: 15
2. Allenstein plebiscite and Marienwerder plebiscite mentioned separately in the same article: 13
3. Allenstein and Marienwerder and plebiscite in the same phrase or sentence (e.g., "Plebiscites were held in Allenstein and Marienwerder," "Allenstein and Marienwerder would be decided by a plebiscite," "the plebiscites in the Allenstein and Marienwerder districts"): 57

Most of the other books were references to the plebiscites as well but did not contain the terms in the same phrase or sentence. Browse here and at Google scholar to check them out. — AjaxSmack 05:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, your counts for "East Prussia plebiscite" and "East Prussian plebiscite" seem to be off. I get 17[10] and 14[11] respectively when clicking on your links. — AjaxSmack 05:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it appears its the same case of truncation as with your count.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don’t have a particular problem with the page being called the East Prussia Plebiscite. But I can only reiterate that when the Commissions were established the thing had taken on the name Allenstein & Marienwerder Plebiscites and this is stated quite clearly in he British Government’s official publications Documents on British Foreign Policy, where a full account of the plebiscites from beginning to end is given by the leading officials. It really matters not how many 'hits' you can get or how many populist writers choose to call it this or that. (I note that some of the books cited by Peter were in German). But one thing it was never ever called was the Warmia and Masuria Plebiscite.

Having already cited three important publications on the article page itself which all refer to it as the Allenstein and Marienwerder Plebiscites, I see that in Europe since 1914 (by F. Lee Benns of Indiana University, Appleton-Century-Cofts Inc., New York, 1949, pps: 118-9) it also refers to them under that appellation as does History of the First World War – Plebiscites:Self Determination in Action, (by S.L.Mayer, MA., editor Peter Young, MA., BPC Publishing Ltd., UK., 1971, vol.8, p.3357-8).

Given the discussion about whether or not the Marienwerder district fell into East or West Prussia, it seems that not to use Prussia in the title would seem more logical. Christchurch (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary. First, "East Prussia plebiscite" is much more telling to most English speaker than "Allenstein and Marienwerder" or "Warmia and Masuria". Second, as I have noted above, there claim that Marienwerder was in West Prussia is dubious (I don't think it is even referenced to anything in

our text). Finally, if we use Ajax's method of checking for similar wording, you'll note there are indeed (if few) some publications that use the term 'Warmia and Masuria plebiscite', ex: "The Plebiscite in Warmia and Masuria"; the plebiscite in Warmia and Masuria; "The plebiscite in Warmia, Masuria, and the region near the lower course of the Vistula took place on i July 1920"; "but the plebiscites in Warmia and Masuria were less successful" and so on.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, you'd argue with a brick wall. And you're just wrong. Christchurch (talk) 15:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't resort to personal attacks, even if you have run out of arguments. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry if you cannot see the difference between a personal attack and a statement of fact. You are attempting to turn not just this article but numerous articles into falsehoods and propaganda vehicles. How many times must one say it: THIS IS THE ENGLISH-LANGUAGE WIKIPEDIA. We are not interested in who had what in 1772 here. Its irrelevant. We are talking about the situation in 1919 as were the Versailles Treaty Commissioners. All these stupid arguments about who had what hundreds of years ago are ridiculous! Keep them on your Polish-language version where you'll doubtless all be happy. Christchurch (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course it was a personal attack, that is how I feel. Stop being so judgemental, you're not representing any group. And limit your name calling ("stupid"), or you'll be reported. Space Cadet (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Juliusz Bursche

Is anybody able to create something about Juliusz Bursche? There´s a large page about him on Polish Wikipedia, maybe some basic informations should also be incorporated on EnglishWP.(HerkusMonte (talk) 09:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC))

Will do so shortly.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I got the stub. I will need more time to get to translating more, however. Space Cadet (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Plebiscite results

I converted the results for the Allenstein area into a table. Can someone please check for typos. I would have liked to to the same for Marienwerder but there is something wrong with the numbers and I have not got time to look into it. Unoffensive text or character (talk) 12:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; did Herkus address the issue? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Made a table for Marienwerder as well and converted the number into percentages. Somehow, the figures do not add up to the total given below. There are minor differences which I chose to ignore for the moment.Unoffensive text or character (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

MAP

The recently added map contradicts the plebiscite results in an absurd way. While 98 % of votes were given to remain in Germany, this Polish propaganda map still claims a Polish MAJORITY in almost the whole plebiscite district. It´s nothing else but chauvinist right-wing propaganda, that shouldn´t be accepted on Wikipedia.(HerkusMonte (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

What? The map is regarding nationality not votes in the plebiscite. The plebiscite wasn't a vote about who is a Pole or who is a German.--Molobo (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I would still like to know what the source of the map data is (other than just the book Atlas Historyczny PWN, Encyklopedia Historii dla szkół ponadgimnazjalnych). I.e. - is it based on German 1916 census? Or something else? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The map is simply based on nothing but phantasy and wishful thinking. It´s remarkable that even after almost 90 years the plebiscite-results are still inacceptable in Poland.(HerkusMonte (talk) 05:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC))

P.S. Do I understand it right - "Encyklopedia Historii dla szkół ponadgimnazjalnych" - this map is used at schools ? Oh my God.

What is wrong with Polish schools teaching history of Polish people when they were under foreign takeover ? And what does it have to do with this article ?--Molobo (talk) 15:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Is there another map in this book, showing the plebiscite results? Or is the only information Polish children receive, that Masuria had a Polish Majority in the 1920s?
• The Warmian-Masurian Voivodeship has 1,427,091 inhabitants. How many of them were born there before 1945 or have ancestors born there before 1945? And how many of them have ancestors born in (today) Ukrain or Southern Poland? So what happened to your Polish Majority? And please – be honest.(HerkusMonte (talk) 04:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC))

Do you have any source for your claims? Unless you can present such sources, you cannot tag the map simply because you don't like what is shows. You need sources - preferably a different map - that could be used to claim this one may be erroneous.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

A source ? You are asking for a source ?? 98 % voted to remain in Germany, it´s an obvious ly to claim peolpe Polish who voted with 98 % to stay German! The whole discussion here is simply unbelievable.(HerkusMonte (talk) 06:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC))

Come on, HerkusMonte, Piotrus' suggestion makes sense, doesn't it? Just come up with a map showing Masuria to be German or mixed. Shouldn't be too difficult. Try "bsv Geschichtsatlas" or "Putzger Historischer Weltatlas" or "dtv Atlas Weltgeschichte". I think none of the can rightly be accused of nationalist tendencies. Unoffensive text or character (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way: How about contrasting both maps (if you can come up with one illustrating the German viewpoint)?Unoffensive text or character (talk) 08:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• I´m not going to start an editwar on this. We all know, what´s going to happen, when I would add a map like Image:Deutsche Mundarten.PNG

  

  Deutsche Mundarten

  -- Matthead  Discuß   22:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

and I think it should be acceptable to add the POV tag as somebody who isn´t familiar to the topic is able to see, that the Polish map is - discussable.

• I don´t think an article should use plenty of maps just to show the different POV´s.
• I don´t claim anything, the map claims a Polish MAJORITY in an area that just voted with 98 % to stay German.
• Just because something is written somewhere we shouldn´t stop to think on our own - and claiming a Polish Majority in Masuria in the 1920´s is quiet obviously wrong.
• Btw - since I started to work on this article I learned a lot about modern Poland and I never thought that such an uncritical POV is still that common in the year 2008. (HerkusMonte (talk) 09:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC))

This map, though it quite accurately displays the linguistic reality in East Prussia about one hundred years ago, is not acceptable for at least three reasons:

• It displays language/dialect use, not ethnicity
• It is unsourced, if I am not mistaken
• If I remember correctly, User Michael Postman was banned for his, well, extreme political views.

But I still think you should look for a suitable map, as the one you tagged is indeed a sad example of nationalist propaganda. Unoffensive text or character (talk) 10:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I´m not going to add this map to the article, it´s just what I found first. It´s fine to find someone who understands my problems with the Polish map, Thanks. (HerkusMonte (talk) 10:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC))

As Unoffensive text or character noted, it is reasonable to illustrate the article with maps showing different POVs - as long as they are properly referenced to reliable sources. The above map is indeed unfortunately unreferenced, and as such is not the best choice of what we should add to this article - although I'd like to hear from other experts (ex. Molobo) w/ regards to this issue.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking more closely at the map in question, I find another problem:

The legend says ..Yellow: territories incoroporated into Poland as a result of the plebiscite. Green: territories with a Polish majority. Grey: territories with a German majority...

Now, this implies that in the green territories, there was a Polish majority in the plebiscite, which is obviously not the case. If we corrected the legend to something like "with a majority of ethnic Poles", this raises another host of questions:

• What does the Polish legend say (a literal translation would be useful)
• What is an ethnic Pole as opposed to someone who speaks Polish as his mother tongue and as opposed to someone who opted for Poland in the plebescite?
• How would the author of a Polish schoolbook find out about the ethnic (whatever that may mean) composition of a handful of Prussian "Landkreise"; i.e. Piotrus' question regarding the sources of the map. Unoffensive text or character (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The translation is quite literal. As for additional info, User:Molobo may know more (per this post). I suggest you ask him to join our discussion here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• What´s the problem with the "POV" tag? Do you think, the term "Polish" implies already, that the map can´t be neutral?
• I still don´t see, why it´s necessary to use this map. There´s already a map showing the plebsicite district. Everybody who is interested in the plebiscit surely knows, where it took place and it´s easy to find with all the different towns mentioned. A map showing the "true" ethnicity is just POV - pushing and a try to relativize the results.(HerkusMonte (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC))

The map shown above is based on

1. Heinrich Nabert: The spreading of the Germans in Europe 1844-1888 (hrsg. 1890) - by far the most exact representation map of the German linguistic area at that time (with this representation map upper and southFrankish dialects are added due to the geographical location the Central German one.)
2. New Brockhaus (1938), Bd. 3, S. 301: Dialects: Map of the German dialects (also with this representation map upper and southFrankish dialects are added due to the geographical layer the Central German one.)
3. Lingen Atlas: Dialect map, S. 158/159, Lingen publishing house (1970) language education, expenditure B VI: A work book for German instruction at the six-form high schools, S. 126. Diesterverlag (1975)
4. dtv Atlas to the German language; S. 230/231 (9th edition; 1992)
5. Fischer information Atlas Federal Republic of Germany, S. 63 (1989) the "large hand encyclopedia in color",
6. Bertelsmann publishing house (1979) with the latter representation maps is assigned upper and southFrankish dialects due to the carried out high-German sound shift to the upper German.[12]

Piotrus, I know that you won´t be convinced by any kind of argument, but the content of the polish map isn´t sourced and it´s absolutely unknown, on which basis this map was constructed. Again and again ( even if it´s boring) 98 % voted German and there´s simply not any kind of evidence for a Polish MAJORITY. Please respect, that there is a discussion and that this fact should be mentioned in the article.(HerkusMonte (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC))

Voting for a country does not determine ethnicity. Poish MAJORITY voted for Germany (or Prussia, to be exact) because of fear of oncoming Soviets and for many other reasons. Space Cadet (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

To summarize:

• 98% voted to remain in Germany, so 98 % defined themselves as Germans. That´s a sourced fact nobody (Do you ?) denies.
• The Polish map claims a Polish MAJORITY in this area. This is a claim that is denied, that´s why we have a discussion and that´s why the POV tag is suitable.
• It´s not necessary to disclaim a map only by a different map, I think the different positions are quiet clear.
• The lingual map shown above is sourced.
• Space Cadet: You´ve got a source for this claim?

(HerkusMonte (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC))

I deny, because people who voted for Prussia (not Germany as you erroneously keep insisting) did not necessarily inentified themselves as Germans, but as Prussian Poles. Space Cadet (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

98% voted to remain in Germany, so 98 % defined themselves as Germans. The vote wasn't about "Are you German" but about territorial changes. As Poland was being overrun by Bolsheviks it's no surprise people voted against such changes. Since the vote was made due to Polish presence in those areas therefore map combines both the base claim (ethnic group) and area of the voting with the results. Btw-I noticed there is little about falsfication of the votes by German state(which had overblown the support in results).--Molobo (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Reasons why Polish-speaking inhabitants of Eastern Prussia voted for Germany are numerous. Majority of Poles were/are Catholics, while in Masuria, Polish speakers are/were Protestant. Germany had been an established state for years, Poland had just been born. National awareness among these people was still not developed, and IMO this is the main reason, these people, even though speaking Polish, did not think of themselves as Poles (or Germans). Note that on voting cards, instead of Germany/Poland, there was choice between East Prussia and Poland. Tymek (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe You´re right, maybe I am, but WHY is it obviously inacceptable to add the POV tag, as a Polish MAJORITY (+50%) is - disputable.(HerkusMonte (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC))

P.S. The whole discussion is sad, simply sad.

What is so sad about a map that points out the fact that Germans weren't the only group in their Empire ? Anyway Wikipedia isn't about telling us about your feelings.--Molobo (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your appreciation (HerkusMonte (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC))

Thank you for participation. Hope you like the new map I just uploaded. Space Cadet (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

What is meant by "Polish" or "German" majority? Unoffensive text or character (talk) 07:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The area shown in Yellow (“territories incorporated to Poland as a result of the Plebiscite”) falsifies the true proportions (concerning Masuria) as only 3 small villages (Lubstynek, Czerlin, Groszki), directly at the border, voted with a majority for Poland and were incorporated after the plebiscite. The territory of these villages isn´t nearly as large as suggested by the map. If the Yellow territory is supposed to show the area of Dzialdowo, it´s wrong as this town wasn´t part of the plebiscite district. (HerkusMonte (talk) 08:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

Give me the right information or even another map and I'll correct our map. Space Cadet (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I know, it´s OR, but if you search for these villages at Google Earth (Lubstynek 53°31`25.93” N 19° 53´02.51” E, Czerlin 53°29´39.90” N 19°53´13.41” E, Groszki 53°25´23.13” N 19°58´10.50” E), it should come clear, how small these villages are. The yellow area in the map is much larger than only three villages and the area would have been called different, if there were other (larger) villages inside. The point is: the map isn´t based on verifiable facts and shouldn´t be used here.(HerkusMonte (talk) 13:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

The nearest larger town is Lubawa, less than 10 km west of Lubstynek, and this town was already outside of the plebiscite area. And Frygnowo is 15 km east of L., but was part of East Prussia. Most probably the borderline near L., shown at Google Earth, is still the same.(HerkusMonte (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

Hmmm... I'll look for other maps. But I have a question: Is it true that after the Plebiscite East Prussia didn't have access to Vistula river and all the eastern bank was Polish? Because that's not on my map either. Space Cadet (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Article 28 of the Versailles treaty [13] :

...thence up the course of the Nogat River to the point where the latter leaves the Vistula (Weichsel);thence up the principal channel of navigation of the Vistula, then the southern boundary of the Kreis of Marienwerder,...

The river (the principal channel) was the borderline between a point near Nowe in the South and the river Nogat in the North. I think it´s still a borderline (Voivodship?), take a look at Google Earth. (HerkusMonte (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

Soooo... ...Poland had the entire eastern bank and East Prussia did not have direct access to Weichsel, yes or no? Space Cadet (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

As I understand the treaty, the border is in the middle of the river (principal channel of navigation) and East Prussia had access to the eastern bank. But: Is there a larger town (harbour) in this area? (HerkusMonte (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

H. G. Wells in The Shape of Things to Come criticized the Polish Corridor as one of the future causes of World War II:

And to keep the waters of the Vistula as pure and sweet for Poland as the existence of Danzig at the estuary allowed, the peace-makers ran the Vistula boundary between Poland and east Prussia, not in the usual fashion midway along the stream, but at a little distance on the east Prussian side (Jacques Kayser, La Paix en Péril, 1931). So that the east German population, the peasant cultivator, the erstwhile fisherman, the shepherd with his flocks to water, was pulled up by a line of frontier posts and a Polish rifle within sight of the stream.

-- Matthead  Discuß   22:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll look into all that, but give me some time though. Space Cadet (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I had a very good, military map of the 1932 Poland, I just cannot find it. I also own a 1939 road map of Poland, and it looks like East Prussia had direct access to Wisla west of the town of Sztum (Stuhm), near then-Polish village of Walichnowy. Tymek (talk) 13:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the description to the map is misleading: "Polish Majority" reads as if there had been a Polish Majority in the plebiscite and you wonder why only the small yellow parts became Polish territory. The Polish original Map says "języka polskiego/nimieckiego", so something like "areas predominantly Polish speaking" could avoid any unwanted implication.

This (in Polish, here in German) is the story with the access to the Wisla, there are even pictures of the scene and a map. Cheers --ThePiedCow (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

But even this is wrong, as, at least according to the 1910 census results there was a German speaking majority in the following Landkreise: Elk (Lyck), Lec (Lötzen), Olecko (Marggrabowa), Olsztyn town (Allenstein Stadt), Ostroda (Osterode), Reszel (Rößel) and Zadzbork (Sensburg).

Jansbork (Johannisburg), Nibork (Neidenburg), Osztyn country (Allenstein Land) and Szczytno (Ortelsburg) had Polish speaking majorities.

So, the map is at least dubious.Unoffensive text or character (talk) 08:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Polish scholars for one dispute German census results for that region and time.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 10:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The map shows area of Polish majority and doesn't represent numeric majority. As German colonizers and descendants of teutonic invaders lived mostly in concentrated areas then the map is ok. If one small area has 10000 people of some nationality it still will be smaller in graphic representation then large area settled by 5000 people.--Molobo (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

So what, Piotrus? A census is at least something. The map in question is obviously completely unsourced. Unoffensive text or character (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If scholars disagree on those numbers we should have either two maps next to each other, which would present a good picture of the dispute, or no map at all. (Kossert in his book Masuren, Ostpreussens vergessener Süden also mentions that data by both Polish/Germans were mostly collected with political bias. So at least the map should note on whose data it was created.)

I´d prefer no map at all, as it doesn´t help to clarify this disputed matter. --ThePiedCow (talk) 12:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The map is sourced to a reliable Polish publication. As stated above, I'd support adding a map showing German data and POV.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course we could use the 1910 data for a second map. But actual German scholarship (like Kossert) refuses to commit to one side as there is no unbiased data.

From what year is the Polish source? --ThePiedCow (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The source is Atlas Historyczny PWN, Encyklopedia Historii dla szkół ponadgimnazjalnych, but no year of publishing is given. As schoolbooks are regularly revised I wouldn´t say the map is sourced, like citing Britannica without naming the edition. So map should be taken out until there´s a consensus. --ThePiedCow (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I've asked the uploaded to give more information. Since gimnasiums were introduced in Poland only a few years ago, it is safe to assume the atlas is pretty modern.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thx for reply, but wouldn´t it be accurate to insert the map again after progressing from assumption to knowledge? I went here and wasn´t able to find Atlas Historyczny PWN, Encyklopedia Historii dla szkół ponadgimnazjalnych, no matter what year. Cheers --ThePiedCow (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The title is too generic, as there are dozens of atlases with similar name. We can only hope the creator will answer, or one of us will be able to look through the atlases and find a map which can be seen is the source. I would suggest you support my proposals for creating tags for unsourced maps - I have suggest it few times in the past, but there was never much support for this idea. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Since one year has passed and the map is still not sourced properly, I remove it. --ThePiedCow (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This map is better then no map, and there was no consensus to remove. The map has a source: Atlas Historyczny wyd.PPWK/Nowa Era (ISBN 83-7409-138-X), Encyklopedia Historii dla szkół ponadgimnazjalnych. PS. With ISBN added, the existence of the source can be easily confirmed: [14]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, by August 2008 the ISBN was added, I hadn´t checked. So it is properly sourced. --ThePiedCow (talk) 12:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the subject, but maybe this page helps to clarify things. The census of 1900 for the disputed administrative districts:

• Osterrode 10% Poles
• Neidenburg 37% Poles
• Allenstein 47% Poles
• Ortelsburg 31% Poles
• Rössel 14% Poles
• Sensburg 30% Poles
• Johannisburg 20% Poles
• Lyck 18% Poles
• Lötzen 14% Poles
• Oletzko 19% Poles

Of course this census only shows the situation 20 years before the plebiscite. Karasek (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy

• As Karasek showed just above the map is not supported by census results.
• The version using a "factual accuracy" tag was stabile for about one year, it's just showing that the map's claims are controvercial. I Don't see a reason why this compromise should be removed, HerkusMonte (talk) 10:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• How reliable is [15]? The map is sourced to a reliable book (modern Polish schoolbook). I don't see a reason to spamtag the map. A compromise would be to note that the map is based on Polish sources, and add a countermap based on reliable German sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 10:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

We have to remember that the Germans made a distinction between Poles, Masurians, and Kaschubians, while Polish scholars see all Masurians and Kashubians as speakers of dialects of the Polish language. Therefore, if we look at the list provided by Piotrus [16], we clearly see the reasoning of the disputed map in the article. Look at the 1900 German census:

• Kreis Johannisburg - 20,8% of Polish speakers plus 49,4% Masurian speakers, which together gives us 70,2%.
• Kreis Ortelsburg - 43.4% Masurian speakers plus 31,1% Polish speakers - total 74,5%.
• Kreis Lyck - 35,1% Masurian speakers plus 18,1% Polish speakers - total 53,2%.
• Kreis Neidenburg - 31,7% Masurians plus 37,6% Polish speakers - total 69,3%.
• Kreis Sensburg - 30,3% Masurians, 20,2% Poles - total 50,5%.
• Kreis Lotzen - 24,3% Masurians, 13,8% Poles - total 38,1%.
• Kreis Oletzko - 19% Masurians plus 14,5% Poles - total 33,5%,
• Kreis Osterode - 10,9% Masurians plus 33% Poles - total 43,9%.
• also, we have to add Kreis Allenstein (47,1% Poles, no Masurians).

We can be sure that German Imperial authorities did all they could to cut down the number of Poles. Still, the 1900 German census shows us that Polish speakers (or speakers of Polish dialects) were in the majority in several counties of East Prussia. Tymek (talk) 01:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The map contradicts the contemporary Polish(!) statistic as shown here :"Rocznik statystyki Rzczypospolitej Polskiej/Annuaire statistique de la République Polonaise 1 (1920/22), part 2, Warszawa 1923, p. 358." [17] German translation here. I reinserted the "dispute" tag. HerkusMonte (talk) 07:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much HerkusMonte for providing this source. I wonder why none of the vehement supporters of this map is answering ...
It would be a real pity if the disputed map is really used in contemporary schoolbooks, as has been stated above. Tymek is certainly right in saying that the Imperial German authorities tried to artificially diminish the number of Polish-speakers by introducing a new category "Masurian-speakers". If fact, Masurian is simply a Polish dialect. However, as one can see from the statistical data cited by Tymek several people chose to declare themselves as "Masurians-speakes" because they would not regard themselves as Poles. Polish historiography has for a long time lamented bitterly the indifference of Masurian people against Polish patriotic propaganda. But Masurians simply did not regard themselves as Poles. They always regarded themselves as Prussians and did not want to join a Polish state. I myself have Masurians ancestors, my mother is born in the village of Lyck (Ełk), all her family descended from there and she has a Polish family name. I can tell you: people there simply did not regard themselves as Poles. They felt threatened by Polish nationalistic pretensions and wanted to stay within East Prussia. Public opinion was totally different from that in the Greater Poland (Poznań) area where people really felt as Poles.
This map is really an embarrassment and people who support it are either not well-informed or try to promote a view of the history of their country which certainly does not reflect what is understood as "the neutral standpoint". In their efforts they are really doing their country a disservice. The Poles in Prussia very well resisted the tendency of Germanization in the late 19th century when they really regarded themselves as Poles. Prussia and Imperial Germany was not Nazi Germany. There was a wealth of Polish interest groups, local associations, banks, Polish nobility, deputies in the Reichstag who all tried to promote Polish interests. In the Province of Posen the percentage of Polish-speakers increased significantly during the years 1870-1910 under German rule despite all failed bureaucratic Germanization attempts. Germanization was only successful in areas where people did not have the feeling of belonging to another nationality. --87.123.90.229 (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The map is well sourced to a reliable source (unlike some other images that I can think of). Removing the map simply because somebody doesn't like it is, well, WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, which is disruptive. Alternative maps CAN and in fact HAVE BEEN added. But there's no reason to remove this one unless someone can show that it somehow misrepresents the source (but remember WP:AGF). The fact that you, or someone else, thinks "that's WRONGGGGGGGG!" is irrelevant. It's well sourced. Removing it, or needlessly tagging it, is same as removing well sourced text. Putting it back in now.VolunteerMarek 21:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Re the continuing reverting [18] and the claim that the map "contradicts the official Polish "Rocznik statystyki Rzczypospolitej Polskiej" - this is just not true. Quite simply the two maps show different things. One shows the % of Polish speakers in a particular region - it is well sourced to a reliable source. And the other shows % of VOTERS who spoke a particular language. If every single person in the region voted then the maps would indeed contradict each other. But hell, even in modern elections turnout isn't 100% (the article claims 87% in this plebiscite but this information is unsourced - even if...)

Like I said, you want to remove it or "dispute it" show that either that 1) the source is not reliable or 2) the map misrepresents the source. Otherwise quit making stuff up.VolunteerMarek 08:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

And seriously, that map doesn't really look all that different from this map [19], the only difference being that the latter one has the range 40%-60% of Poles so it doesn't show whether that percentage was > or < 50%. This one does. Note that some of the 40%-60% areas on the latter map, like Kwidzyn area are actually marked as "German majority" on the first map. It's hard to avoid the impression that this map is being opposed simply because it illustrates the situation SO WELL.VolunteerMarek 08:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Please take a closer look to the statistics, the section is called French: "Nombre des habitants parlant ..polonais/allemand" (Number of inhabitants speaking Polish/German). No the chart does not show only the number of voters, it's clearly showing the number of inhabitants in one section and the election results in a different section. Please try to stick to the facts. HerkusMonte (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The map shows areas inhabited by Poles, not their numbers(as explained numerous times 1000 people living in one large area will cover more territory than 2000 people living in one town) , plus it shows real situation and not the one portrayed by falsified census of 1910.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

We're not talking about a "falsified census of 1910", we're using official Polish statistics of 1920. HerkusMonte (talk) 10:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The demographic data is based from 1910 falsified census-its written clearly in the text. Furthermore it is irrelevant to the map which isn't a table with numeric data but a map of language areas, these are two different things. Thirdly the map is properly sourced, and thus will stay with proper description, as there is no reason for its removal.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not at all "clearly in the text" that the Polish Bureau of Statistics used the German census of 1910, that's just what you guess and that's what we call OR. Even if you were right: The Polish government had no problem to use this data, why should we?

At least: You really should decide whether you want to claim the source doesn't mention the Polish-speaking population at all [[20] (I checked Polish "Rocznik statystyki Rzczypospolitej Polskiej"-it gives results of the plebiscite, and has nothing about existance of Polish language areas which the map shows] or whether it shows the Prussian census results of 1910. Both claims are contradictory. HerkusMonte (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The source doesn't say anything about areas inhabited by Poles, which the properly sourced map shows.Numerical composition and territory inhabited are two different things.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It makes no sense to discuss if you insist to ignore that the chart has a section called "Nombre des habitants parlant ..polonais/allemand" (Number of inhabitants speaking Polish/German) in the plebiscite regions (specified per district). HerkusMonte (talk) 12:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

We have a map and not a chart.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

<-- Herkus, since I can speak Polish I can see very well that the phrase ""Nombre des habitants parlant ..polonais/allemand"" (in Polish "Ogolem mowilo jezykiem" refers to the number of voters. Specifically it says: "Results of the plebiscite: those who spoke Polish" etc.. The source is using past-tense because it refers to the voters, not inhabitants (the only other possibility is that it IS in fact referring to the 1910 census). There's no contradiction between the results of the plebiscite given by the Rocznik and the map that is being disputed. Taken together these just show that Poles had a lower voter turnout than Germans, which is what you'd expect. No controversy here.VolunteerMarek 17:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually let me back up on that and correct myself. In this case I'm wrong (it is population, not voters) and MyMoloboaccount is correct (it's from 1910). If you add up the "by language" columns you get the same numbers as in the third column (population in 1910). So yes, it appears to be from the 1910 census. The fifth column gives population in 1919 but doesn't break it down by language. The sixth column gives number of voters, but also doesn't break it down by language.VolunteerMarek 17:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

the map

HerkusMonte again removed the map because it doesn't suit his POV. there was no consensus for the provokative removal. Loosmark (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Map should stay in my opinion.--Jacurek (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• The map pushes a certain kind of POV as a fluffy reader might think, it illustrates the results of the plebiscite
• This is an article about the plebiscite, the map mixes the plebiscite with a claimed lingual/ethnic composition
• The map contradicts the official Polish (!) statistics of the 1920s Rocznik statystyki 1920/22
• The area and the results of the plebiscite are shown on the second map
• Three maps to show the area are just unnessecary and don't improve the article. HerkusMonte (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The map does not contradict the official Polish statistic as you claim, those statistic show the results of the plebiscite, lingial/ethnic composition is something else. It is entirely possible that some Mazurians voted for Germany because we must not forget that at the time Poland was at war with the Soviet Russia and that was exploited by the German propaganda. Probably something on the lines of vote for Germany and you'll be safe from the Bolsheviks. In short I think the map adds extra information to the article and should be kept. Loosmark (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• The map is clearly labeled. A fluffy reader might think the image showing "Handover of the Plebiscite area by the Allied commission" represent an invasion force from Mars. Would that be a reason for removing it? No.
• The plebiscite, or more accurately, where this territory wound up, and the ethnic composition are obviously related.
• The map does not contradict the official Polish statistics. This has already been explained numerous times.
• Yes, but that means that this different map shows a different thing. So?
• Whether three maps are too many or too few is pov here. Particularly since each map shows something different. Not a good reason.radek (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is about the plebiscite which has very clear results, over 90% of the Prussian Population, many of them with a Polish background, voted against incorporation into Poland, and against the nationalistic Polish propaganda they were subjected to. Trying to add an ugly amateurish map which shows "Areas with a Polish majority" of "ethnic backgrounds" is totally undue, deceiving and disruptive. Stop repeating the same lame attempts of excuses for the 90+% rejection of an annexion into Poland. -- Matthead  Discuß   01:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Care to cut down your usual anti-Polish drivel and explain us why is the map amaterish, ugly, undue, deceiving and disruptive? Loosmark (talk) 01:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you'll find File:Mapa narodowosciowa 1910.jpg of interest. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, now we have a fourth map (which I like more than the selfmade disputed one), I think any reader will realise now, where the plebiscite took place
• The Polish statistics are not only about the plebiscite results, they have a clear lingual section (Nombre des habitants parlant polonais/allemand) and this section clearly contradicts the claims of the disputed map (e.g. Olsztyn town 29,344 German / 2,348 Polish while the map claims a Polish majority there, please compare the districts) and it has NOT been explained numerous times
• The article is about the plebiscite and the maps should show the area and/or the plebiscite results. The "true" ethnical composition might be of interest at Masurians, not here.
• My suggestion: the fourth map should stay, the disputed one should be removed. HerkusMonte (talk) 06:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The map contradicts the official Polish (!) statistics of the 1920s Rocznik statystyki 1920/22 This source shows results of the plebiscite, it doesn't say anything about ethnic composition of the area. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC) PS:Do note that while it gives results of the falsified census of 1910 it gives only numeric numbers, and the map is about areas(i.e 1000 people inhabiting a large area will have larger portion of the map than 2000 in one town).--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

You obviously didn't check the source, the chart clearly has a section called "number if inhabitants speaking Polish /German. Please stick to facts. HerkusMonte (talk) 10:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I checked the source, it shows numbers from falsified census of 1910 not areas. Map shows areas not numbers and from 1920 not 1910.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Article needs to be rewritten, currently it is in terrible shape

This article needs to be rewritten,

* It is based practically on one source
* It contains numerous cherry picked quotes that push one sided POV criticising Polish side, while neglecting German one
* It is missing information about attacks against Poles by German side during the plebiscite
* It is missing information about murders on supporters of Poland vote during the plebiscite
* It is missing information about falsification of the plebiscite

I added thus the relevant tags. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

What I see is a number of sources, and I do not see any pro-German POV here, sorry Molobo. BTW, I am Polish. Tymek (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Article lacks chronological order

This needs to be corrected.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't. Separate subtopics should be dealt with separately. Within the sub-section we use a chronological order, off course. You also "forgot" to include the German side into your chronology. HerkusMonte (talk) 12:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It does. Events that led to plebiscite need to be put before the plebiscite and 1919 is before 1920.It's not about "Polish side" or "German side", its about simple chronology and logic of events.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, it was you who moved only the "Polish" version to the top and left the "German" version under a topic named "Propaganda". The article should be structured like "Historical Background - Regions - Polish and German activities - Results. HerkusMonte (talk) 12:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, the Paris Conference took place before any regions of the plebiscite were determined so it and associated events need to be presented before. Regions of the plebiscite belong to plebiscite area as subsection.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Baza artykułów...

A number of recently added claims are based on a source called "Baza artykułów". Maybe I missed something but I couldn't find a properly cited source named that way. HerkusMonte (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Poles editing contentious articles

Wikipedia needs to adopt a policy whereby the gang of Polish nationalists may not contribute to the hundreds of entirely biased articles they currently have up on Wiki citing, usually, Polish books! These people have a clear agenda and therefore they are the wrong people to allow anywhere near these articles. Otherwise the situation whereby Wikipedia is dismissed as a credible source by academia will continue. 81.131.211.18 (talk) 08:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Most articles on Polish history in the English wikipedia are simply unreadable because they have been vandalized by Polish narrow-minded nationalists (many of them blocked in the meantime). Everywhere in these articles you find their additions and lamentations: Poles have always been betrayed, traditional historiography is biased against Poland and has to be rewritten, etc. etc. - the old well-conserved anti-German, anti-Russian and (more cautiously) antisemitic attitudes. These people appear to believe that they serve their country by their edits, but just the opposite is true. One gets a not too positive impression about the state of mind of modern Polish society. --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 15:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm very late to the party, 5 years later, but glad that I'm not the only person noticing the sheer scale of far-right edit wars & rewriting of Wiki articles. Much like back when a gang of nationalist Croatian editors were exposed. 5 years later however I feel like I can read this comment & still see the exact same thing happening. Polish nationalists rewriting Wiki articles is still a problem, I have instead seen people exposing them or reverting their bad edits get sanctioned against - one reason I have not done anything to do with Wiki in a while (beyond commenting).

2A02:1210:1CA7:D700:A159:42EA:362B:5952 (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on East Prussian plebiscite 1920. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070617024837/http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/text/versaillestreaty/all440.html to http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/text/versaillestreaty/all440.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Minakowsky

Minakowsky is presented as source in a repetitive dominant position. I miss German reports and considerations. They are probably biased but so are the Polish considerations too, in particular those published in the twenties. After ninety years, we are able to draw balanced conclusions but only if we use the views en presentations of both sides and if possible of the Mazurians themselves. Next to this I miss a description of the problems to travel to the plebiscite area for those Mazurians living in the rest of Germany. Their entrance to East-Prussia was obstructed by Polish milicia, because Poland did not accept the allied decision to allow participation in the voting to all those having a birth place in the area (and these were numerous as emigration had been massive beween 1870 and 1920, and the recent war had brought many temporarily to western provinces). In reaction German national societies organized the Heimatdienst as a ferry service crossing the Baltic Sea and surpassing Polish blockade. Eventually, they could be deducted from the presented numbers. 84.86.5.217 (talk)User talk 84.86.5.217 13.18 11 januari 2018

This article is in a terrible state of scientific verifiability. On closer inspection it turns out that a lot of the sources of the section Plebiscite areas are mainly based on a Polish master's thesis (Minakowsky). In this turn, as evidence of alleged German terror and attacks on the Polish side mainly from a Polish book from 1958(!) (Z. Lietz, Plebiscyt na Powiślu, Warmii i Mazurach w 1920 r., Warszawa 1958, so in early communist historiography, in which the Polish side was all about proving that the "Recovered Territories" where already Polish anyway) were quoted. Certainly not a reliable source. All other "sources" come from Polish propaganda newspapers of the 1920s. I have not found any serious evidence in any other scientific paper on this subject. This whole section should either be given real evidence or completely deleted. Miniplenty (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on East Prussian plebiscite 1920. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070609160009/http://quellen.herder-institut.de/M01/quellen/plebiszite.pdf to http://quellen.herder-institut.de/M01/quellen/plebiszite.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090620052547/http://www.poland.pl/archives/interwar/article,,id,284106.htm to http://www.poland.pl/archives/interwar/article,,id,284106.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130722212004/http://www.herder-institut.de//uploads/tx_himmat/003_2_003_Plebiszite.pdf to http://www.herder-institut.de//uploads/tx_himmat/003_2_003_Plebiszite.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.kurekmazurski.pl/?art=6852
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071106034615/http://dziedzictwo.polska.pl/katalog/slide,Mapa_powiatow_malborskiego_i_kwidzynskiego_z_naniesionymi_przedstawieniami_wynikow_plebiscytu_sporzadzona_11_VII_1920_roku,pid,265405,gid,265311,cid,1138.htm?sh=1 to http://dziedzictwo.polska.pl/katalog/slide,Mapa_powiatow_malborskiego_i_kwidzynskiego_z_naniesionymi_przedstawieniami_wynikow_plebiscytu_sporzadzona_11_VII_1920_roku,pid,265405,gid,265311,cid,1138.htm?sh=1
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://info-poland.buffalo.edu/classroom/LFigs/Fig8.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080203174401/http://www.historycy.pl/Strony/Artykuly/2003%2003%2004/Znaczki%20pocztowe.html to http://www.historycy.pl/Strony/Artykuly/2003%2003%2004/Znaczki%20pocztowe.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Are Mazurians Poles and if so according to which definition?

I regret that Volunteer Marek doesn't want to accept that religious affiliations were decisive in the develoment of national consciousness. Catholicism fostered a Polish stance, not particularly among German speakers but certainly among those which spoke (a) Polish (dialect). Why did Marek remove my objective and informative contribution, proved by the statistics of the plebiscite. Why the report of a well informed and critical English observer was skipped. Has this lemma to be a Polish nationally correct text? Next to this, why he and others only cite 'Polish official statistics' and neglect 'German official statitics' at the same time. Both nations misused the same numbers by giving them a nationally favorable interpretation. However, the numbers themselves could not be changed and a critical observer will not be deceited. He/she can only go in geographical details by studying critically the German statistics. Again: Mazurians were, being Lutheranians, deeply connected to the Prussian dynasty. Notwithstanding the germanization imposed by the authorities of the German Empire after 1870, Mazurians did not want to reverse this process by which they became politically German citizens. I don't deny that some exceptions existed but it would be incorrect to point at those as Polish national heroes bravely resisting German terror. Far more than nine out of ten Mazurians resisted becoming Polish in 1921. In 1945 and after, when they were hold back in their homelands, they could freely become Polish nationals but they declined this honour and emigrated to Germany after some ten years. They and their offspring, some 200.000, are living in present day Germany ..... You may compare this with the Alsatians which became Frenchmen although they were without any doubt originally Germans before the 19th century. They accepted fully to be frenchified.

84.86.5.217 (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)84.86.5.217 (talk)User talk 84.86.5.217 11 february 2018 17.38

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 1920 Allenstein Königsberg ID - ALLIED VISA.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

No archiving?

Several subsections on this page date as far back as 2008. There is scarecly any page on Wikipedia where talk pages don't have sections get archived & removed when in a situation such as these right here. What is the cause for lack of archiving?

2A02:1210:1CA7:D700:A159:42EA:362B:5952 (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)