Jump to content

Talk:Pomerelia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]

Eastern Pomerania → Pomerelia

Pomerelia is the correct name for the territory per WP:NC(GN) proposals. In English, eastern Pomerania is not always the same as Pomerelia, the subject of this article. The term “eastern Pomerania” is a descriptive that is better served by using the actual name of the territory, Pomerelia. (C.f. Pomesania) This was the named used by the Duchy of Pomerelia as seen in online references below. The term “eastern Pomerania” is ambiguous and can refer to the eastern part of the Duchy of Pomerania (i.e., Farther Pomerania) whereas Pomerelia refers to the area of subject in this article as seen in these maps (from Muir):

File:Pomerania&WestPrussiaMap.jpg File:PomereliaMap.jpg

Pomerelia is marked as such on the following maps:


Pomerelia is noted in the following:

In addition to online sources, a search of print materials on academic search engines such as JSTOR or ABC-Clio Historical Abstracts shows “eastern Pomerania” usually used as a descriptive (with a lower case “e”) while Pomerelia is used on several occasions to describe both the duchy and the region and is the term used in the translation of Polish and German article titles (ABC-Clio). In many cases “eastern Pomerania” does not refer to Pomerelia but to the eastern part of the Duchy of Pomerania. Google Books searches (groan!) of Eastern Pomerania and Pomerelia reveal similar results.

As the Columbia Encyclopedia article on Pomerania notes, Pomerania “was split into two principalities. Pomerelia, as E Pomerania came to be known, became independent in 1227, was annexed to Poland in 1294, and was taken in 1308-9 by the Teutonic Knights , who incorporated it into their domain in East Prussia. The histories of Pomerania and Pomerelia after 1308 must be traced separately.”

-  AjaxSmack  18:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Discussion

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Move completed - dab needed?

[edit]

Per the comment in the Discussion section above, Eastern Pomerania should probably be a dab page now. Perhaps someone more knowledgable than I could go ahead and do that? I've taken care of the deletion and move, which is the only part that required admin tools. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -  AjaxSmack  07:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gdańsk Pomerania and Pomeralia

[edit]

Actually, these are two different things, confused now in a single article: Gdańsk Pomerania is a contemporary geographical region of Poland, while Pomeralia is a historical region. The recent rename only signifies this confusion. --Lysytalk 22:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do they have any other significant difference than the time? If they are approximately the same area, and the population basis has not significantly changed in a radical change, they should presumably be the one and same article. After all, all sorts of provonces have articles with their "history" section there. Even Greece is one article, having a today country and its history 2500 years ago. Shilkanni 01:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pomerelia is a distinct historical region and duchy, while Gdańsk Pomerania is a more recent term for a larger area encompassing Pomerelia, Culmerland, Pomesania, etc. Olessi 17:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pomerelia never existed

[edit]

This article is about eastern Pomerania. The region called itself POMERANIA and never used the name of Pomerelia. It looks like a common error, applied by the confused foreigners. The dukes called themeselves "dukes of Pomerania", the people called themeselves Pomeranians, the admonistrative region was the Pomeranian Voivodship.

Pomerelia (Pommerellen) did, most certainly, exist. I believe that keeping it as its own designation is justified and warranted (i.e., under its own, this existing, Wikipedia page). Pommerellen was and area that was just west of Pommeren (Pomerania Province). It included the towns of Deutsch Krone (in its south-western corner), and in a north-north-eastern arc that included Konitz, Tuchel (farther east), northward including Behrent, as well as Neustad and Putzig (Pautzig) along the narrow north-eastern horn of Putziger (Pautsiker) bay, above where the opening of the Wiechel (Vistula) River empties.
Pomerelia deserves its own page separate from the Pomeranian, Posen, and Prussia pages. This is because the history of the region shows it a unique land consideration by the Political entities since at least the border and treaty designations concerning the other three. In addition, the separate nature of Pommerellen was not lost even during the German Empire days. Pomerelia was actually a region within the greater Provinz West-Preussen (West Prussia); not Provinz Pommern (Pomerania). Although it was designated within the provincial borders of West-Prussia, it retained its own sub-classification and continued to be referenced on the maps of the age. I have a copies of an 1882 and 1883 map (x-ref: Ravenstein Atlas), and they continue to label the Pommerellen region, and go so far as to delineate a sub-boundary between it and that of the areas that belonged to old Royal Prussia (i.e., the pre-Partition of 1772 lands).
For example: the more-frequent historical boundaries did not absorb and discredit the unique standing of the Pomerelia[n] area...
Almost all countries have changing borders, it just matters how far back in history the researcher wishes to go. This is very true for the areas in question. I began writing about history from the Roman Empire up through Early Middle Ages, but it ended up being twenty paragraphs. I decided to delete them for the sake of the reader and the topic at hand (especially since there were sweeps of tribal folks from different areas and broader defined "borders" - or lack thereof - until the increase of city-states and such). So, here's a quick(er) run-down from the High Middle Ages through today. By the 1200's - give or take - a clearer delineation of [borders] began to establish itself.
(1) Pomerania (Pommern) had an eastern border that tended to stick, or find-its-way back, time and again over the past six centuries. In general, this border meandered from the towns of Piasenitz at the northern coast (west of the crown of the horn) and south beyond Lauenburg and farther to beyond Butow [u umlaut], and south-east including Neu-Stettin and points farther south. Note: this "frequent" border did not include our referenced Pomerelia, which lay directly to its east. Albeit, there were periods, both then, and pre-1200's especially, when one party or another (many times, Pomerania) would establish their borders over parts or all of Pomerelia.
(2) West-Preussen - or a state by any other name(specifically, the Province (1871-1918), The Prussian Kingdom (1772-1866), Royal Prussia (1466-1772), I will not get into Prussian in-fighting under the later period of the Teutonic Knights or even earlier as Old Prussia). As noted above, although the area of Pomerelia was designated within the Provinz West-Preussen, its separate historical, linguistic, and cultural context was recognized. This may stem from other historical situations, as follows. Before 1772, the south-western borders of Royal Prussia did not include the Pomerelia area. When East Prussia (i.e, the Kingdom of Prussia) rejoined (or annexed, depending on the reader's NPOV) West Prussia (Royal Prussia) and Pomerelia. Note: the south-western border of Provinz West-Preussen (of the post-1870 German Empire) seemed to have followed - in general - this annexation line below the designated Pomerelia. The linguistic and cultural make up of the areas taken by Prussia during the 1772 Partition seems to have, in general, fallen along cultural and religious lines. Due to the sweep of the Reformation, a couple centuries earlier, the Pomerelia area was mostly Protestant and German-speaking (versus Catholic and Polish speaking cultures farther south in the central and southern areas of provincial designation of Posen. Although I have not researched any sources to confirm this, my conjecture is that Pomerelia may have been culturally and sympathetically more aligned with their northern neighbors. Regardless, the Second Partition of 1793 continued south, taking the lands of the provincially designated Posen (which, although it had some significant pockets of German and Protestant cultures in the northern region close to Pomerelia, it was clearly - from linguistic and established-churches viewpoint - region that was predominantly Catholic and Polish throughout. As to a lesson in history repeats itself - the final Partitions (up through 1815) resulted in Germany and Austria ended up returning most of the lands taken during the 1793 Partition (including the Posen provincial areas), but Russia did not give up any lands, and Poland became a Ducal under such control -- until they won independence again. Albeit, they never fully regained their eastern lands (including their ancient homeland of the Pripet River marches).
Anyway, the point in all this rambling, is that Pomerelia was retained by Prussia, even after returning the other lands. And it eventually became incorporated into the German Empire (for was probably something like the sixth or sixtieth time, since the 7th Century, that it was associated with the folks east and north of them).
Since Pomerelia (Pommerellen) does have a historical and recognized identify separate from Pomerania (Pommern) proper, I believe keeping it here, under its own page, is a good idea. Granted, it seems very feasible that the majority of the peoples living in the region - culturally, linguistically, religiously - did indeed self-identify more Pommern (Pomerania), especially given the porous nature of the borders and immigration that took place between from the east during the 1800s. The area may not have ever been its own Province or even a self-administering region while it existed under the German Empire or the Kingdom of Prussia, but that does not negate its unique placement in the events that shaped the whole area and are still with us today.
User:Tesseract501\Tesseract501 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Duchy

[edit]

Re [1]: This change of the section title to include the term "duchy" for the 11th-/12th-century independent Pomerelian entities is inadequate. Loew PO: Danzig. Biographie einer Stadt, Munich 2011, p. 32:

"Sambor [...] styled himself 'princeps Pomoranorum,' [...], but not 'dux,' which was the privilege of the Piasts." p. 33: "After Sambor's death [...] his brother Mestwin [...] strove after gaining ever greater independence from Poland. He confidently styled himself 'princeps in Danzk' and expanded southwards. His oldest son Swantopolk (Swietopelk), ruling from 1217 onwards, exploited Poland's fragmentation to acquire independence for his realm; already since 1227 he styled himself 'dux,' 'Duke of Pomerelia.'"

Thus, "duchy" can not refer to the period prior to 1227. "Principality" would be a proper term refering to Sambor's and Mestwin I's realms, but probably not for the time before, which means that the proper section title is something like "Independent entities and Piast Polish province." Skäpperöd (talk) 12:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that the term "princeps" or the Polish "ksiaze" has several translations in English - it can mean "prince", "duke" or, as here, "regent" or "castellan". Basically it's roughly equivalent to the English "lord". The difficulty is that most sources refer to these guys as "Dukes" (even though they were not allowed to hold the title "dux") and their realms as "duchies". Volunteer Marek  16:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mieszko I and the stronghold in Gdanzig

[edit]

Re [2] and [3]: This is an outdated theory, and the attribution to Loew (as above), p. 32, is false.

Loew on p. 32 he says:

"By the end of the 10th century, the settlement [i.e. Danzig] belonged to Boleslaw Chobry, as is apparent from the vita St. Adalberti. Already from the mysterious Dagome iudex regest from Mieszko I, the first non-legendary Polish regent, one can infer that a frontier of his realm stretched from the Baltic coast to Old Prussia, meaning that the Polish state included the area of the Vistula estuary. Probably, Pomerelia with Danzig was annexed to that nascent state between 970 and 980. But already during the first years of the new millenium, the pagan Slavic tribes in an uprising got rid of the Polish-Christian suzerainity."

That is by no way a sufficient reference for the sentence According to Peter Loew, between 970 and 980 duke Mieszko established the first settlement of Gdańsk at the mouth of the Vistula. To the contrary, on p. 27 Loew says:

"While researchers until recently understood that this fort [i.e. Danzig stronghold] was built at the end of the 10th century and served as a seat of governors in the service of the Polish Piast dynasty, recent dendrochronological surveys have shown that the earlies strata [i.e. archaeological levels] of the rampart and buildings date to around 1060." On the same page, Loew says that the "earliest archaeological traces of settlement" are from an excavation in the basement of the Main Town's townhall, "where after 930, a few wooden houses were constructed."

This is in line with the recent results published by the archaeologists, which Loew used as a source. Presenting their results on the EuroDendro 2004, Tomasz Wazny (then Institute for the Study, Conservation and Restoration of Cultural Heritage, Nicholaus Copernicus University, Torun), Henryk Paner, Andrzej Golebiewski and Bogdan Koscinski (all Archaeological Museum in Gdansk) say that

"Post-WW II archaeological excavations (...) allowed locating the early medieval town with its 17 settlement levels. The wooden constructions were dated to the period between 980 and 1308, based on the stratification of the area, analyses of pottery, coins, and other historical findings. The chronology of early medieval Gdansk has been mapped onto the historic events of the period from the 10th to the 13th century. (...) Over the past several years, growing doubts connected among others with new findings regarding pottery and coins from the 10th and 11th centuries, brought about the undertaking of verification excavations in 2003, involving both the wooden constructions already examined and documented in the 50’s and thus far unexamined city embankments. Tree-ring analyses have significantly altered the dominant views on the city’s development. Of greatest importance are the dating of the oldest construction levels, shifting the city’s beginnings to the 50’s and 60’s of the 11th century. (...) The town turned out to be younger by 70 to 80 years, which gives rise to new questions – first of all what the mention of 997 really refers to and where St. Adalbert really stopped on his mission to Prussia."

Similarily, Henryk Paner, director of the Archaeological Museum in Gdansk, published part of the results in his essay The spatial development of Gdansk to the beginning of the 14th century. The origins of the Old and Main Town, in Przemysław Urbańczyk (ed.): Polish lands at the turn of the first and the second millennia, Warsaw 2004, pp. 15-32. On p. 21 Paner says:

"It is thus possible to claim, in the light of the newest study results, that the dates obtained by means of the dendrochronological method from the constructions of the houses discovered below the Town Hall of the Main Town, which date to the 930s, are the earliest credible dates for the beginnings of the early medieval settlement in the area of Gdansk. A dozen years later, a settlement appeared in the area of St Nicholas' church, and around the middle of the 11th century began the construction of the stronghold in the area of the Rycerska, Dylinki, Czopowa Streets, which obviously excludes any earlier assumptions on the construction of these fortifications at the time of the first Polish monarch Mieszko I." The earliest dates retrieved from the remains of the rampart and the residential buildings in the stronghold are "between 1054 and 1063" (same page).

Thus, the sentence about Mieszko I founding Gdanzig needs to be removed. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is between the construction of the stronghold and the beginning of the settlements itself. What the above research suggests - and I would really like to see the actual paper rather than just an abstract - is that the stronghold was constructed later. But as the quotes you provide yourself show, the settlement itself seems to date to the 10th century. Hence, there is not necessarily any contradiction here, and if we have a source which states that Mieszko founded the town (there are actually A LOT of sources in that regard) then we should keep that, though we can qualify the part about him building a stronghold. But throwing out some sources based on the fact that other research suggests that the stronghold was build later constitutes engaging in original research and involves drawing an unwarranted synthesis.  Volunteer Marek  22:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The expert sources here are unambiguous. I provided the abstract of one of the initial presentations of the leading experts on this subject during an expert conference (EuroDendro), I provided further the publication of the most significant results by one of these experts in the respective archaeological anthology, and a monograph by a historian who is an expert for Gdansk who included these results. I provided proof that the attribution of the old theories to the latter by you was false. So I really don't see how that could in any way construed as violating OR/SYNTH (not my research). Skäpperöd (talk) 09:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One more time, the difference is between the beginnings of the stronghold and the settlement. The sources you provided are unambiguous, but they do not contradict the claim that an early settlement could've been founded by Mieszko, which is what earlier sources claim. What they do challenge is the construction of a stronghold in the 10th century.
Like happens often, I am not challenging the source you've provided - though I would like to see the actual paper not the abstract. But I do disagree with the conclusions you are drawing from these sources, which is a violation of OR and SYNTH.  Volunteer Marek  16:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two names and the establihment issue

[edit]

After some absence I am back again and I am glad to see Skäpperöd, whom I asked for help personally. His help is vital in order to balance my Polish sources that focus mostly on the Polish history of the region. The first thing I would like to alter is the name of the diocese. The other name provided in the text - Leslau - was used from 1939–45 and certainly was not in use in the time of "Pomerelia as part of Poland and semi-independent entity" where we have it in the text. Therefore the second name is not needed here. It might even be considered offensive due to its usage during the German occupation of Poland.

The second thing that bothers me a little are the names of two dukes: Sobieslaw and Swietopelk. I think that we should stick to the names that are used in titles of the articles concerning those two fellows. Using double naming or the name not adapted by Wiki as the main one, should either be somehow substantiated or ommited, because it might cause unnecessary confusion.

When it comes to the date of establishment of Gdańsk one things should be taken into consideration. Both opinions are only theories. One is newer and should be taken more seriously but the older one, in my opinion, should be mentioned as well. The reason for that simply is - we don't know if in some years there won't be a third and another theory. Secondly giving the reader two possibilities makes them better informed which is one of the Wikis main goals.

I would propose a version "According to the old theory the first settlement of Gdańsk in the mouth of Vistula was established by duke Mieszko between 970 and 980. Large gród was built from scratch, most likely for both military and commercial reasons. However recent studies suggest that history of a settlement on this site goes back as far as 930s. A dozen years later, a settlement appeared in the area of St Nicholas' church, and around the middle of the 11th century began the construction of the stronghold."

This would cover both theories with visable preference of the newer one. Opole.pl (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would work. Cleaning up the grammar a bit, how about "According to traditional historiography the first settlement at Gdańsk, at the mouth of the Vistula, was established by Duke Mieszko of Poland sometime between 970 and 980. A large gród (stronghold) was constructed for both military and commercial purposes. However, more recent research suggests that the original settlement itself goes back as far as the 930s, although the stronghold was not build until the 11th century."
I'm not sure if we need to mention the expansion around St. Nicholas' church around the mid 10th century.
I also removed the Nazi name "Leslau" for Wloclawek.
 Volunteer Marek  22:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would ommit "of Poland" because two lines earlier it is stated that Mieszko was "the first historical Polish ruler". I would also mention that in the older theory the gród was built from scratch. According to some theories, Piasts first conquered their provinces and then controlled them with system of fortified gróds, erected specially for that purpose and settled by their loyal subjects. This information, stated in the source, clearly refers to that point of view. Opole.pl (talk) 09:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine.  Volunteer Marek  13:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Opole, Leslau is not a "Nazi name," just the German name of Wloclawek, see google book search for "leslau" prior to 1939; and abundantly used in current literature on the respective diocese, see here for google books hits "diözese+leslau".

As to Gdansk, "recent studies suggest" is not strong enough. Dendrodates, if the sample is good, are reliable, absolute dates, unlike dating by 14C with its wide margins of error or stratigraphical dating with even more uncertainties. As the quotes above illustrate, what we have here is not a new theory, but the unambiguous rejection of an older theory, which had been based on not-so-reliable data, by new hard data. It's also not one faction of scientists against another - Paner was a protagonist of the Mieszko-theory as late as 1998, relying on the then dominant view, but he has adapted his interpretations to the new data once it became available as have his colleagues.

Another point is the expression "settlement itself goes back as far as the 930s" - that has to be qualified along the lines you (Opole) suggested, as the site of the 930s houses was later discontinued, and the nucleus of the early (pre-1308) town was further north.

I think the "old" (late 20th cty) theories about the origins of Gdansk should be mentioned rather in the Gdansk article, I am not sure whether they need to be mentioned here - if they are, it must be made clear that they have been superseded. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to Leslau I took that info from that version of the Wlocławek article 1. The fact is that it was not in use in 12th century and because it concerns period before 1308 it is also excluded from even the widest (in my opinion wrong) interpretation of the Gdańsk vote double naming policy. Furthermore there is not one book in English from before the war that would use that name 2

About the "nazi origin", we need to remember that German equivalents for place names in central (Congress) Poland were used as "official" only during the period 1939 - 1945. Therefore their usage, especially in articles not concerning the war, maybe considered offensive for instance for those who had to live under German occupation with their town name changed. I dont think it is apropriate to use them even for the war period (for instance should we say that polish resistance operated in Warszawa/Warsaw or Warschau? Or that German division number... was stationed in Cracow/Kraków or Krakau?) Needless to say that it is English Wiki.

As to the theory issue, we need to remember that the newest one is based on the material avaliable. There is no possibility to dig up all the Gdańsk Old Town and therefore we can never be sure. There is the St. Adalbert issue - if he was not in Gdańsk - where was he ("He boarded his ship in Gyddanyzc accompanied to the port by troops of Polish duke Bolesław the Brave who controlled this territory as far as the present city of Szczecin.")? The older theory was for a very long time widely accepted and those who are familiar with it might feel a bit confused after reading an article that does not mention it at all. The accent should be put on the newest one - based on the material and studies avaliable - but the older one should have its place as well. It is the capital town of Pomerelia, the main Polish harbour for centuries and one of the main reasons of conflict in the region. In my opinion that justifies mentioning few words about its origins.

To be clear I am not in favour of deleting anything you wrote on that subject - just adding some more "stuff". I waited with chainges in this part for you, so you could also propose your version of the sentence.Opole.pl (talk) 11:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to opinions and theories there is one presnted by Peter Oliver Loew about Pomerelia separating from Poland in the first years of the 11th century. That theory is not widely accepted, what is more all historical maps and all publications known to me, about that region and period, state that Pomerelia was 100% part of Poland at least till the pagan revolt in 1030s. It's propably just some simplification of that author. Similarly N. Davis sometimes simplifies when he writes that since 960s till 1308 ("Eastern Pomerania known in German as Pomerellen, centered on Gdańsk (Danzig), remained a Polish principality untill its conquest by the Teutonic Order in 1308." God's Playground, p. 69) But from other sources we know that this matter looked a bit more complex. I would treat the opinion of Loew as a subsidiary one and mention this in the text. Opole.pl (talk) 12:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re "Leslau" - that many cities in Poland have two names is nothing contentious per se - Germans and Poles lived along very well for long periods of time, it was just that for some periods of time that nationalists made everything difficult. The books search result provided by you did for some reason return no result, but that seems to be a problem of Google's algorythms, as there are English books using Leslau, even exclusively, which are on google books. I don't know why your search produced no hits, if you try with "leslau+bishop" you get plenty of results. E.g.
Re Loew - he is definitely an authority when it comes to Gdanzig [4], but we can of course have different opinions as long as we attribute them. The problem with the secession of Pomerelia in the early 11th century is that there is no definite date known from the sources available, so it's all evaluation of circumstantial evidence.
Re Mieszko - if you insist on inclusion here, what about "According to an older theory, Miesko I founded Gdansk to control the mouth of the Vistula, however, a settlement existed there already since the 930s and the stronghold was built only around 1060," refs as given in the above dedicated section? Skäpperöd (talk) 12:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to the separation date we should stick with the "mainstream" theories and mention Loew, but as a opinion of the minority. If you look on every historical map of Poland showing the realm of Bolesław I and Mieszko II Pomerelia is always within the Polish boundries. Most of the times the region of Pomesania (adjecent to Pomerelia from the east), conqured by Bolesław, is shown as part of Poland as well. The opinion about the separation in 1060s is repeated also by B. Śliwiński in his Wielka Historia Polski p.89-90. He also connects it with the unsuccesful campaign in Bohemia. Opole.pl (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I harmonised Dukes/Princes names in the way their articles are titled on Wiki. As to place names I added Polish equivalents for those place names that did not have them and I deleted German names in estern Pomerania in the period before 1308. As the article tries to cover all the history of the region German names will appear in paragraphs concerning Teutonic Orders Rule and Prussian/German rule. There are also different rules for the period 1466-1772/93 which we should abide. Opole.pl (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Semi-" independent in 11th/12th centuries

[edit]

Why was the "semi-" introduced? When Pomerelia was not a Piast province, it was independent, not semi-independent. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because that period covers both instances when the area was under strong Piast control and temporary periods when those ties were loosened. Officially through out these centuries, it was controlled by Poland, and this is described as such in sources. It was not an "independent duchy" for most of this period. Volunteer Marek  16:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I believe that the contention that Boleslaw the Generous lost control in 1060's has also been challenged more recently - direct control was not lost until the end of the 11th century and re-established soon after by Boleslaw the Wrymouth. Basically the whole title in your version is POV. Volunteer Marek  16:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

[edit]

Hello. I propose to merge this article and Gdańsk Pomerania, into one article under the name "Pomerelia" since both articles are about the same region (they even mention the same names in), just under 2 different article names.Artemis Andromeda (talk) 10:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Unless I donn understand something, it is weird how the two articles developed independently for 15 years. Lembit Staan (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

[edit]

plwiki says that "Pomorze Wschodnie" corresponds to the German term "Pommerellen", favoring the merge. Lembit Staan (talk)

BTW I see territorial mismatches there. Please see the description of the territories:

I hope the merge will be carried out in a non-mechanical, "smart" way, resolving possible disagreements using reliable sources. Lembit Staan (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Według Wielkiej Encyklopedii Powszechnej PWN, t. 9, Warszawa 1967, s. 267, Pomorze Gdańskie to obszar „na zachód od Wisły”.

Pomerelian Face Urn culture

[edit]

Redirects to "Pomeranian culture" as a synonym. But the latter article says "The Pomeranian culture developed in Western Pomerania". How to resolve this apparent disagreement? Lembit Staan (talk) 17:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda

[edit]

Yet another fanatical Polish propaganda page with hopelessly twisted facts. The crucial thing is Polish-language sources should be excluded from the English-language Facebook, obviously. There are plenty of English-language sources available on this province. 2A00:23C4:B617:7D01:10C1:A3F8:39BB:A773 (talk) 13:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please highlight and list the "propaganda" content. Merangs (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pomerelia&oldid=1240164656"