Talk:Pomerania in the Early Middle Ages

section title

Double standards in regards to naming: when Germanic states acquire territories it is "incorporation". When Poland acquires territory it is "conquest".--Molobo (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

OR-Poland destroyed ?

I found a sentence that Poland was 'destroyed'. This seems a very extreme POV. It was subject to internal rivalry in regards to throne, but not "destruction".--Molobo (talk) 01:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Not Poland was destroyed, but the Pomeranian bishopric. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The sentence clearly wrote "In the 1030s, the early Polish state was destroyed"--Molobo (talk) 13:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Boleslaw in 1000 created the first, yet short-lived bishopric in Pomerania, which was destroyed when Pomeranians revolted in 1005.

In the 1030s, the Kingdom of Poland was subject to internal rivalry for the position of its king and fragmented into several provinces, but was soon rebuilt when Casimir I the Restorer was victorious in a battle with Mazovians and Pomeranians in 1047.

How is it possible to misunderstand that sentence? 84.139.220.207 (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Several problems with this article and violations of double naming rule

The article is almost completely based on German publications, without any other viewpoints. Thus a great deal of text is focused on German history, naming and views, without introducing readers to views by other inhabitants of the region. Also there seems to be severe violations of double naming rule with German names given for periods where there was no German history at all(for example Kołobrzeg in 960AD). I will add the unbalanced template to this article due to this. Also note very dubious claims about Holy Roman Empire "subduing Poland". --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Please clarify what "views by other inhabitants of the region" did you have in mind? Also, remember that the Slavic Rani, Lutici and Pomeranians, except for the Kashubians, have merged into the German people, and the "German names" are in many cases the continued traditional Slavic names. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Please no OR. Pomerania is widely studied in Polish history(after all its one of Polish regions) and currently the article focuses almost exlusively on German studies which are known to have their own unique view(for example often dating existance of towns and cities from adoptation of new administration laws, rather than real begining).--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Where did I do OR? Who says what you said about German sources above? What about my question above? And "its one of Polish regions" is not true for all periods of history and not for all regions, in fact the area of the Duchy of Pomerania was German for most of the historical time being, so it is not surprising that German sources are used. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a lot of work on German historiography. While Pomerania was indeed part of Geramany since its creation in 1871 it also has a Polish history and thus remained focus of many Polish works and reasearches.

Here for example we have a nice statement how German historiography ignores a considerable part of the region and its aspectsThe situation looked like this: German historiography, regardless of the period, has a very germanocentric look at history. They do not write the history of Germany, but German is the deutsche Geschichte, which reaches as far as ranged German settlement. And therefore, although the historiography admited Pomeranian Slavic origins of Pomerania, the aspects were ignored. Some aspects are actually marginalized, and even omitted, for example, links with the Polish Pomerania, the history of the local population, undoubtedly Slavic, Kashubian, which was germanised--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

So no OR done, please don't accuse me of violating policies. Regarding your copied statement - whoever made that is contradicted by the German sources used for this article. Your complaint is about extensive German historiographic research with regard to the Slavic period, and as evidence you post a statement of someone who says that German historians ignore the Slavic period? Skäpperöd (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Please no OR. Your insertation of German books does not contradict what the professor Bogdan Wachrzowiak said.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

How does it not? They are all dealing with the Slavic period, in detail, aren' they? Isn't that what your complaint was about? Skäpperöd (talk) 23:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The article currently remains unbalanced due to presentation of only one historiography-which as sources show is being criticised for lacking in certain aspects of history of the region. Untill a more diverse sources are brought up the article will remain unbalanced.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Gdansk/Danzig vote

The Gdansk/Danzig vote template on this talk page very clearly states: "

1. For Gdańsk, use the name Gdańsk before 1308 and after 1945

...

1. For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) or Gdańsk (Danzig)."

Since the scope of this article is Early Middle Ages - i.e. prior to 1308 more or less - the naming convention, as agreed to in the vote, should be of the form "Gdańsk (Danzig)", "Szczecin (Stettin)", "Kolobrzeg (Kolberg)" etc., not the other way around.radek (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, the 1308 part of the vote is not applicable outside Pomerelia. No Teutonic Knights' take-over or sth similar happened in the Duchy of Pomerania. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, the 1308 part of the vote is not applicable outside PomereliaThere is nothing in the vote about that.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You participated in the vote and hence know very well that 1308 was chosen for the Teutonic take-over of Danzig. Nothing similar happened west of Pomerelia. The vote template is talking about Gdanzig only, in this respect. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The template clearly writes about all locations that share history.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Where do you see that in the Gdansk/Danzig vote? It's not there, you've invented it. Obviously, the Gdansk/Danzig vote applies to all geographical places which are currently part of Poland or which share both a German and Polish background.radek (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

If we follow that logic, all articles about any single place in Poland (and other areas) would consequently use the German name between 1308 and 1945. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. Replace that "or" with an "and".radek (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing in the vote implying that Skapperod.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes but nobody is suggesting that all articles about any single place in Poland (and other areas) consequently use the German name between 1308 and 1945. So?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course, noone is suggesting that, despite "shared history". The 1308-1945 period applying to Gdanzig does not necessarily apply to every single location "currently part of Poland", as Radeksz suggested. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The template is clear that it concerns all locations with shared history Skapperod.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Where (in connection with 1308)? Skäpperöd (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Right here [1]. Please read the actual vote in case you haven't done so already. In fact the proposal explicitly uses the example of "Szczecin (Stettin)" and states that this applies to before 1945 as well as after. Clearly Szczecin is not in this "Pomerelia". In fact "Pomerelia" does not appear anywhere in the vote page. So again, this is simply your "creative" interpretation of the vote - which is in fact contrary to the vote itself.radek (talk) 22:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You are reading selectively, there is no reference at all to that 1308 date, and it reads "Stettin (now Szczecin, Poland) or Szczecin (Stettin)", not just "Szczecin (Stettin)" as you imply. Full quote: "The naming of many places in the region that share a history between Germany and Poland are also a source of edit wars. For these places, the first reference of one name should also include a reference to other commonly used names, e.g. Stettin (now Szczecin, Poland) or Szczecin (Stettin)." Skäpperöd (talk) 22:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Well since there is no shared German history in that period yet, it means no German name.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Shared history is not necessarily simultaneously. Also, it's not like all of that area was paying tribute to a Polish duke all of that time. The first secure Pomeranian duke, and with him the Pomeranians, enter written history when mentioned making gifts/paying tribute to Henry III, Holy Roman Emperor. Skäpperöd (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, that's exactly what it says. It shows that Szczecin or Stettin is in fact covered by the vote. It also says "This applies to both before and after 1945."radek (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, but it does not say that that "Szczecin (Stettin)" must be used prior to 1308, as you called for. This is what this thread is about, not that double naming should be used per se for Pomeranian places now in Poland. Skäpperöd (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually it does: "The name used in Wikipedia to refer to the city before 1308 is Gdansk, also subject to the results of votes #7: Biographies and #8: Cross-naming below." with the cross naming referred to above. So that means that pre 1308 same rules apply to non-Gdansk places with shared Polish-German history as they do to Gdansk itself.radek (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it is the other way around: Vote Nr.1 (about the Gdanzig before 1308) is subject to vote Nr. 7 and Nr.8, as the quote you provided clearly states. Skäpperöd (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

What? I think the statement is pretty clear on that the same rules apply to cross naming as they do to Gdansk itself. Also, can you point out where you got this "pomerelia" business from?radek (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It clearly says: "[Vote result #1], also subject to the results of votes #7 [...] and #8". It does not say that the results of #7 and #8 are subject to #1. Skäpperöd (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

So? It obviously means that the same rules apply to non-Gdansk places as they do to Gdansk. The wording "before 1945" supports that as well. The example of "Szczecin (Stettin)" also supports that (why else have it then?). This is how the Gdansk/Danzig vote always has been applied before you came up with the "Pomerelia" (which doesn't appear anywhere in the vote page) and your novel interpretation.radek (talk) 02:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to remind all editors involved that the Gdansk/Danzig vote is a compromise, and like all compromises it just can't make EVERYONE happy. But it does the job of preventing multiple edit wars and time wasting disputes over naming. It's somewhat of a fragile compromise - and failing to observe it, or wikilawyering around it makes it even more fragile. So I want to ask everyone not to upset this compromise and observe the vote, otherwise the compromise will become a dead letter and there is the possibility that this could lead to all sorts of unnecessary edit wars and drama.radek (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I second that. Skäpperöd (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Imbalance

The article is based primarily on German based sources, it would be useful to include other publications. For example this The Scandinavian settlements were larger than the early Slavic ones, their craftsmen had a considerably higher productivity, and in contrast to the early Slavs, the Scandinavians were capable of seafaring Seems a largly pov claim based on a German publication. It would be useful to know what non-German historiography has to say about that. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree it would be nice to know, would you be kind enough to tell us? Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Where is this info in the source

"The small tribes dwelling west of the Oder river were known collectively as "Veleti" (Wilzi), since the late 10th century as "Lutici" (Lutici), the tribes further east as "Pomeranians"." - the page given in Piskorski is 30 but I don't see it there. I'm not seeing it on pages 28, 29 or 31 for that matter.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

B-class review failed

This article is pretty close, but 1) few (very few, but still) paras are unreferenced. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)